Impact Assessment - Cherry laurel (Prunus laurocerasus) in Victoria
Back | Table | Feedback
Assessment of plant invasiveness is done by evaluating biological and ecological characteristics such as germination requirements, growth rate, competitive ability, reproduction methods and dispersal mechanisms. Assessment of plant impacts, however, is determined by the extent to which a plant affects a land manager’s environmental, economic and social resources.
The relative importance of these resources varies depending upon the value people place on them and, as such, the assessment process is subjective. For example, a farmer is likely to place a higher emphasis on the impact of a plant on production (economic resource) than its impact on areas of natural vegetation occurring on the farm. Conversely, a Landcare or Friends group would value environmental or social resources more than economic resources.
Recognising that the value of resources vary between different land tenures, plant impact assessments allow a prioritisation of resources by land managers. Assessments can apply at a local, regional or state level, and the relative values of each resource identified may differ at each level.
The impact assessment method used in the Victorian Pest Plant Prioritisation Process uses three broad resource categories: social, environmental and agricultural, each with a number of related attributes. For example, social resources include such attributes as how the plant affects human access for recreation, or if it creates a health risk due to toxicity or by producing allergens.
| Each resource attribute, or criterion, is assessed relative to a list of intensity ratings. Depending upon information found in relation to each criterion, a rating of Low, Medium Low, Medium High or High is assigned. Descriptions of the impact criteria and intensity ratings used in this process can be viewed here. |
The following table provides information on the impact of Cherry laurel.
A more detailed description of the methodology of the Victorian Weed Risk Assessment (WRA) method can be viewed below:
Victorian Weed Risk Assessment (WRA) method (PDF - 630 KB)
Victorian Weed Risk Assessment (WRA) method (DOC - 1 MB)
To view the information PDF requires the use of a PDF reader. This can be installed for free from the Adobe website (external link).
Common Name: Cherry laurel
Scientific name: Prunus laurocerasus
| Question | Comments | Rating | Confidence |
| Recreation | |||
| 1. Restrict human access? | The species has been used ornamentally as a hedging plant and has also been reported to be able to form large thickets in invaded areas (Blood 2001; Webb, Sykes & Garnock-Jones 1988). Therefore this species is considered to have the potential to have high nuisance value to both people and vehicles. | MH | MH |
| 2. Reduce tourism? | Unknown. | M | L |
| 3. Injurious to people? | There is some conflicting information on the species toxicity, there are reports that the fruit is always toxic and others where it is reported to be edible when ripe, this is probably due to the difference between the wild form and the domesticated varieties (Blood 2007; Çalisir & Aydin 2004; PFAF 2007). If the fruit is bitter it is toxic and if they are eaten can be fatal. | H | MH |
| 4. Damage to cultural sites? | Unknown. | M | L |
| Abiotic | |||
| 5. Impact flow? | The species can occur in riparian vegetation, there is no evidence however of it occurring in flowing water and obstructing flow. | L | M |
| 6. Impact water quality? | The species can occur in riparian vegetation, there is no evidence however of it occurring in water and affecting water quality. | L | M |
| 7. Increase soil erosion? | The species has a shallow root system (Aussie Gardening 2007).Therefore areas invaded by the species are viewed to have a moderate probability of large scale soil erosion. | ML | ML |
| 8. Reduce biomass? | The species is reported to be able to form pure stands and generally reduce species richness (Weber 2003). It is unknown however how this affects biomass. | M | L |
| 9. Change fire regime? | Unknown. | M | L |
| Community Habitat | |||
| 10. Impact on composition (a) high value EVC | EVC= Riparian Forest (V); CMA= Corangamite ; Bioreg= Otway Plain ; CLIMATE potential=VH. Reported to be able to form pure stands and generally reduce species richness (Weber 2003). Therefore the species is able to form monocultures within the middle strata and impact upon species in the lower strata. | H | MH |
| (b) medium value EVC | EVC= Lowland Forest (D); CMA= Corangamite ; Bioreg= Otway Plain ; CLIMATE potential=VH. Reported to be able to form pure stands and generally reduce species richness (Weber 2003). Therefore the species is able to form monocultures within the middle strata and impact upon species in the lower strata. | H | MH |
| (c) low value EVC | EVC= Wet Forest (LC); CMA= Corangamite ; Bioreg= Otway Ranges; CLIMATE potential=VH. Reported to be able to form pure stands and generally reduce species richness (Weber 2003). Therefore the species is able to form monocultures within the middle strata and impact upon species in the lower strata. | H | MH |
| 11. Impact on structure? | Reported to be able to form pure stands and generally reduce species richness (Weber 2003). Therefore the species impacts upon more than 60% of the floral strata, as it is able to form monocultures within the middle strata, inhibit the growth of species in the lower strata and prevent the regeneration of canopy species. | MH | MH |
| 12. Effect on threatened flora? | Unknown; the species however generally reduces the species richness of the flora at invaded sites (Weber 2003). | MH | L |
| Fauna | |||
| 13. Effect on threatened fauna? | Unknown. | MH | L |
| 14. Effect on non-threatened fauna? | Unknown; however the increased food the species provides through the fruit load could support increased populations of aggressive bird species such as currowongs, which could then impact on smaller species. | M | L |
| 15. Benefits fauna? | Produces a fruit crop which may be of some assistance to bird species (Blood 2001). Shrub species may provide some assistance in terms of shelter. | M | M |
| 16. Injurious to fauna? | It may be toxic to some species (Blood 2001). It in unknown if they would then consume material of the species and be caused harm. | M | L |
| Pest Animal | |||
| 17. Food source to pests? | Blackbirds are reported to eat the fruit (Blood 2001). | ML | MH |
| 18. Provides harbor? | Can form thickets (Weber 2003). The species could therefore provide some harbour to pest species. | M | M |
| Agriculture | |||
| 19. Impact yield? | Suspected in cases of stock poisoning and if chickens eat material of the plant their eggs are reportedly inedible (Everist 1974). Can kill stock, however this is uncommon as it is reportedly unpalatable to stock and not sort out by them (Connor 1977). Can cause stock death, however, this occurs rarely therefore, it is considered to have only a minor impact on yield. | ML | MH |
| 20. Impact quality? | Considered an environmental weed not an agricultural weed, it is therefore unlikely to have a significant impact. | L | M |
| 21. Affect land value? | Considered an environmental weed not an agricultural weed, it is therefore unlikely to have a significant impact. | L | M |
| 22. Change land use? | Considered an environmental weed not an agricultural weed, it is therefore unlikely to have a significant impact. | L | M |
| 23. Increase harvest costs? | Considered an environmental weed not an agricultural weed, it is therefore unlikely to have a significant impact. | L | M |
| 24. Disease host/vector? | Host of Mediterranean fruit fly (Blood 2001). | M | MH |
This table can also be viewed as a PDF document (printer friendly).
Impact Assessment Record - Cherry laurel (PDF - 73KB)
Impact Assessment Record - Cherry laurel (DOC - 44KB)
To view the information PDF requires the use of a PDF reader. This can be installed for free from the Adobe website (external link).
Feedback
Do you have additional information about this plant that will improve the quality of the assessment?
If so, we would value your contribution. Click on the link to go to the feedback form.
/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/cherry_laurel_docs/$FILE/impact_cherryl_laurel.pdf
/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/cherry_laurel_docs/$FILE/impact_cherry_laurel.doc
© State of Victoria (Agriculture Victoria) 1996 - .
This work, Victorian Resources Online, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence. You are free to re-use the work under that licence, on the condition that you credit the State of Victoria (Agriculture Victoria) as author, indicate if changes were made and comply with the other licence terms.
The licence does not apply to ‘branding’ or some ‘images or photographs’ that may be owned by third parties. We ask you to seek prior approval to use images using the VRO feedback form. Access to higher quality images can also be provided on request.
This page was last updated on .