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. |
Question | Comments | Rating | Confidence |
Recreation | |||
1. Restrict human access? | Shrub which can grow up to 60 cm tall (Weber 2003). Can grow up to one metre wide and dense (PFAF n.d.). Unlikely that the weed would restrict human access. | L | MH |
2. Reduce tourism? | Bright yellow flowers up to 8 cm in diameter (Weber 2003). ‘.its large golden flowers with pink anthers are very conspicuous’ (Webb et al 1988). Tourists may be aware of weed but not bothered or activity inhibited. | ML | H |
3. Injurious to people? | Plant not known to be injurious or toxic. | L | MH |
4. Damage to cultural sites? | ‘.. its large golden flowers with pink anthers are very conspicuous’ (Webb et al 1988). Would have a moderate visual effect. | ML | H |
Abiotic | |||
5. Impact flow? | Terrestrial species (Weber 2003). | L | MH |
6. Impact water quality? | Terrestrial species (Weber 2003). | L | MH |
7. Increase soil erosion? | Root system is fast spreading and stoloniferous. Unlikely that the plant would contribute to large scale soil erosion. | L | MH |
8. Reduce biomass? | ‘It impedes the growth and regeneration of native shrubs and trees by competing for nutrients and space’ (Weber 2003). Can be found in grassland, forest edges, disturbed sites (Weber 2003). In some situations, biomass may slightly decrease if plant out competes other trees and shrubs | MH | MH |
9. Change fire regime? | Evergreen plant. Weed would have a small or negligible effect on fire risk. | L | MH |
Community Habitat | |||
10. Impact on composition (a) high value EVC | EVC=Plains Grassy Woodland (E); CMA=Corangamite; Bioreg=Volcanic Plains; CLIMATE potential=VH. ‘It impedes the growth and regeneration of native shrubs and trees by competing for nutrients and space’ (Weber 2003). ‘.. forms dense colonies due to the extensively creeping rhizomes’ (Weber 2003). Displaces all species within a layer. | H | MH |
(b) medium value EVC | Grassy Dry Forest (D); CMA=Corangamite; Bioreg=Volcanic Plains; CLIMATE potential=VH. ‘It impedes the growth and regeneration of native shrubs and trees by competing for nutrients and space’ (Weber 2003). ‘.. forms dense colonies due to the extensively creeping rhizomes’ (Weber 2003). Displaces all species within a layer. | H | MH |
(c) low value EVC | EVC= Coastal Tussock Grassland (LC); CMA=Port Phillip; Bioreg=Gippsland Plain; CLIMATE potential=VH. ‘It impedes the growth and regeneration of native shrubs and trees by competing for nutrients and space’ (Weber 2003). ‘.. forms dense colonies due to the extensively creeping rhizomes’ (Weber 2003). Displaces all species within a layer. | H | MH |
11. Impact on structure? | ‘It impedes the growth and regeneration of native shrubs and trees by competing for nutrients and space’ (Weber 2003). ‘.. forms dense colonies due to the extensively creeping rhizomes’ (Weber 2003). Major effect on all layers. | H | MH |
12. Effect on threatened flora? | This species is not documented as posing an additional risk to threatened flora. | MH | L |
Fauna | |||
13. Effect on threatened fauna? | This species is not documented as posing an additional risk to threatened fauna. | MH | L |
14. Effect on non-threatened fauna? | Weed not documented to have an effect on non-threatened fauna species. | L | MH |
15. Benefits fauna? | Weed not known to provide support to desirable species. | H | MH |
16. Injurious to fauna? | Weed is not toxic and has no spines or burrs. | L | MH |
Pest Animal | |||
17. Food source to pests? | Not known as a food source to pests. | L | MH |
18. Provides harbour? | Not known to provide harbour to pest animals. | L | MH |
Agriculture | |||
19. Impact yield? | Not listed as a weed of agriculture. | L | MH |
20. Impact quality? | Not listed as a weed of agriculture. | L | MH |
21. Affect land value? | Weed not known to affect land value. | L | MH |
22. Change land use? | Weed not known to cause a change in priority of land use. | L | MH |
23. Increase harvest costs? | Not listed as a weed of agriculture. | L | MH |
24. Disease host/vector? | Not known as an alternative host or vector for diseases of agriculture. | L | MH |