Impact Assessment - Harlequin flower (Sparaxis bulbifera) 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 Harlequin flower.
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: Harlequin flower
Scientific name: Sparaxis bulbifera
| Question | Comments | Rating | Confidence |
| Recreation | |||
| 1. Restrict human access? | Minimal impact on human access. Plants 15 – 45 cm high (Manning, et al. ’02) | L | M |
| 2. Reduce tourism? | Weeds not obvious to the ‘average’ visitor; unless during flowering when ‘average’ visitor may think “pretty floral carpet”. | ML | M |
| 3. Injurious to people? | No effects, no prickles, no injuries. No recorded injuries to people (PFF ‘02). | L | ML |
| 4. Damage to cultural sites? | Little, or no, damage on aesthetics, or structure of site. No recorded data re site damage. | L | L |
| Abiotic | |||
| 5. Impact flow? | Terrestrial species, therefore no affect on water flow. | L | M |
| 6. Impact water quality? | Terrestrial species, therefore no affect on water quality. | L | M |
| 7. Increase soil erosion? | Terrestrial species, therefore no affect on soil movement. | L | M |
| 8. Reduce biomass? | No evidence to suggest that carbon levels altered by the presence of S. bulbifera. | L | M |
| 9. Change fire regime? | Small, or negligible, effect on fire regime. No evidence to suggest that fire regime altered by the presence of S. bulbifera. | L | M |
| Community Habitat | |||
| 10. Impact on composition (a) high value EVC | EVC = Aquatic Herbland (BCS = E); CMA = Glenelg-Hopkins; Bioreg = Dundas Tablelands; Very High CLIMATE potential. Where invasive, the plant forms extensive populations, especially after disturbance, and impedes the growth and regeneration of native plants. (Weber, ’03) | MH | MH |
| (b) medium value EVC | EVC = Spray-zone Coastal Shrubland (BCS = R); CMA = Glenelg-Hopkins; Bioreg = Bridgewater; Very High CLIMATE potential. Where invasive, the plant forms extensive populations, especially after disturbance, and impedes the growth and regeneration of native plants. (Weber, ’03) | MH | MH |
| (c) low value EVC | EVC = Heathy Dry Forest (BCS = LC); CMA = Glenelg-Hopkins; Bioreg = Dundas Tablelands; Very High CLIMATE potential. Where invasive, the plant forms extensive populations, especially after disturbance, and impedes the growth and regeneration of native plants. (Weber, ’03) | MH | MH |
| 11. Impact on structure? | Major effects on > 60% of the floral strata. Where invasive, the plant forms extensive populations, especially after disturbance, and impedes the growth and regeneration of native plants. (Weber, ’03) | MH | MH |
| 12. Effect on threatened flora? | Reduction in habitat for local flora. Literature not found evidence to show that it has led to local extinctions. Where invasive, the plant forms extensive populations, especially after disturbance, and impedes the growth and regeneration of native plants. (Weber, ’03) | MH | MH |
| Fauna | |||
| 13. Effect on threatened fauna? | Reduction in habitat / food for local fauna. Literature not found evidence to show that it has led to local extinctions. Where invasive, the plant forms extensive populations, especially after disturbance, and impedes the growth and regeneration of native plants. (Weber, ’03) | MH | MH |
| 14. Effect on non-threatened fauna? | Reduction in habitat / food for local fauna. Literature not found evidence to show that it has led to local extinctions. Where invasive, the plant forms extensive populations, especially after disturbance, and impedes the growth and regeneration of native plants. (Weber, ’03) | MH | MH |
| 15. Benefits fauna? | Provides some assistance in food source (non-preferred) to fauna. Visited by hopliine beetles (Lepithrix ornatella), short-proboscid flies (Mesomyia sp.), and pollen collecting bees (Goldblatt, et al. 2000) for nectar. Plants rarely eaten by animals, encouraged by light to moderate grazing. (Blood, ‘01) | MH | H |
| 16. Injurious to fauna? | No effect. | L | M |
| Pest Animal | |||
| 17. Food source to pests? | Provides minimal food for pest animals. | L | M |
| 18. Provides harbor? | No harbour for pest spp. Life form not conducive to providing harbour to fauna. | L | M |
| Agriculture | |||
| 19. Impact yield? | Major impact on quantity of produce (~ 20% reduction). Not recorded as a weed of agriculture, but as it has significant potential to invade grasslands (Blood, ’02; Goldblatt, ’92; Manning, et al. ’02; Weber, ’03) it is likely to have some effect on quantity of produce. | MH | M |
| 20. Impact quality? | Major impact on quality of produce (~ 20% reduction). Not recorded as a weed of agriculture, but as it has significant potential to invade grasslands (Blood, ’02; Goldblatt, ’92; Manning, et al. ’02; Weber, ’03) it is likely to have some effect on quality of produce. | MH | M |
| 21. Affect land value? | Major decrease in land value (>10% reduction), as increase in weed control costs, and/or change in land use. Not recorded as a weed of agriculture, but as it has significant potential to invade grasslands (Blood, ’02; Goldblatt, ’92; Manning, et al. ’02; Weber, ’03) it is likely to have some effect on quality of produce. | MH | M |
| 22. Change land use? | Downgrading of the priority land use, to one with less agricultural return, plus increase in weed control costs. Not recorded as a weed of agriculture, but as it has significant potential to invade grasslands (Blood, ’02; Goldblatt, ’92; Manning, et al. ’02; Weber, ’03) it is likely to have some effect on quality of produce. | MH | M |
| 23. Increase harvest costs? | Major increase in time, or labour, in harvesting to limit contamination. Not recorded as a weed of agriculture, but as it has significant potential to invade grasslands (Blood, ’02; Goldblatt, ’92; Manning, et al. ’02; Weber, ’03) it is likely to have some effect on quality of produce. | H | M |
| 24. Disease host/vector? | Little, or no, host. | L | M |
This table can also be viewed as a PDF document (printer friendly).
Impact Assessment Record - Harlequin flower (PDF - 53KB)
Impact Assessment Record - Harlequin flower (DOC - 61KB)
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.
© 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 .