Impact Assessment - Madeira Winter-cherry (Solanum pseudocapsicum) 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 Madeira winter-cherry.
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: Madeira winter-cherry
Scientific name: Solanum pseudocapsicum
| Question | Comments | Rating | Confidence |
| Recreation | |||
| 1. Restrict human access? | A herbaceous to somewhat woody perennial of 50 - 200 cm height with a spread of 1 m (Weber, 2003; Shepherd, 2004). Can invade damp sclerophyll forest, riparian vegetation and warm temperate rainforests (Carr et al, 1992), forests and forest edges (Weber, 2003). Plant exudes an unpleasant odour (Weber, 2003). Stems are wiry and much branched (Roy et al, 1998). This plant is unlikely to restrict human access however can be a nuisance. | ML | MH |
| 2. Reduce tourism? | The plant produces bright attractive red berries that might be perceived as being aesthetically pleasing conversely the odour produced from plant might have negative impact on visitors. | ML | MH |
| 3. Injurious to people? | The majority of the compounds identified in the plant are known to be poisonous hence making both berries and leaves toxic to humans and animals (Aliero et al, 2006b). The berries if ingested have been reported to be fatal to humans and animals (Aliero et al, 2006b). | H | H |
| 4. Damage to cultural sites? | The plant does not cause any structural damage however dense fruiting populations may have a moderate visual effect. | ML | MH |
| Abiotic | |||
| 5. Impact flow? | Although the plant is known to invade riparian environments it is not known to invade the water body or streambeds. | L | MH |
| 6. Impact water quality? | No noticeable effect on water quality. | L | MH |
| 7. Increase soil erosion? | The plant has the capacity to invade and transform areas by displacing existing natives and leaving area open to soil erosion. | ML | MH |
| 8. Reduce biomass? | There is no evidence from the literature studied that the plant alters the biomass of the community. | ML | MH |
| 9. Change fire regime? | There is no direct information on fire response of this plant. Therefore on the basis that the plant does not significantly alter the biomass of a community it can be concluded that it has a small or negligible effect on fire risk. | L | L |
| Community Habitat | |||
| 10. Impact on composition (a) high value EVC | EVC= Grassy Forest (E); CMA= Corangamite; Bioregion= Otway Ranges; VH CLIMATE potential. Prefers well composted, moist, well drained soils in a protected position (Shepherd, 2004). Can invade damp sclerophyll forest, riparian vegetation and warm temperate rainforests (Carr et al, 1992), forests and forest edges (Weber, 2003). A herbaceous to somewhat woody perennial of 50 - 200 cm height with a spread of 1 m (Weber, 2003, Shepherd, 2004). Small to medium shrub (Carr et al, 1992). The DSE (2004) describes climbers and scramblers of damp heathland to comprise 5% of the lifeforms within this EVC. Furthermore infestations of this species can displace and shade out species of the lower stratum subsequently modifying ecosystem structure. | MH | MH |
| (b) medium value EVC | EVC= Riparian Forest (D); CMA= Glenelg Hopkins; Bioregion= Greater Grampians; VH CLIMATE potential. The DSE (2004) describes small shrubs to comprise 1% to the lifeforms within the Riparian Forest EVC. The species prefers well composted, moist, well drained soils in a protected position (Shepherd, 2004). The species is intolerable to drought indicating that it is dependant on reliable and sufficient water input. Riparian Forests are regularly inundated and permanently moist (DSE, 2004) making them suitable environmental for optimal growth of this species enabling it to establish and displace existing species. | MH | MH |
| (c) low value EVC | EVC= Damp Forests (LC); CMA= West Gippsland; Bioregion= Highlands Southern Fall; VH CLIMATE potential. The species prefers well composted, moist, well drained soils in a protected position (Shepherd, 2004). The species is intolerable to drought indicating that it is dependant on reliable and sufficient water input. Riparian Forests are regularly inundated and permanently moist (DSE, 2004) making them suitable environmental for optimal growth of this species enabling it to establish and displace existing species. | MH | MH |
| 11. Impact on structure? | The species grows to the height of 2 m hence affecting only up to the lower end of the mid stratum and the lower stratum. Images of infestations viewed online (North West Weeds, 2007) indicate that the species becomes abundant and forms dense patches that crowd out native plants and prevents shrub regeneration (Weber, 2003). Hence the species has the capacity to produce dense cover over other species in the lower stratum therefore it will still have some impact on structure on both under and mid story. | ML | ML |
| 12. Effect on threatened flora? | The impact on threatened flora is indeterminable. | MH | L |
| Fauna | |||
| 13. Effect on threatened fauna? | The increased food privet species provide through the fruit load supports increased populations of aggressive bird species such as currowongs (Blood 2001; Swarbrick, Timmins & Bullen 1999). This then has the potential to impact on other bird species populations, it has not however been reported to specifically impact upon a threatened species. | MH | L |
| 14. Effect on non-threatened fauna? | Plant is usually ignored by livestock (Roy et al, 1998). Therefore can assume that it is not an attractive food for native fauna. | ML | L |
| 15. Benefits fauna? | Seeds are dispersed by ingestion of birds. It has been recorded that currowongs eat the berries (Buchanan, 1989). In winter the leaves remain green and very attractive (Aliero et al, 2006) to animals making it a possible food source despite being poisonous however probably not a reliable one. Therefore it may be that the dense populations of this plant may provide an additional food source. | MH | H |
| 16. Injurious to fauna? | The plant has been recorded to contain poisonous solanocapsine and alkaloids that are reported to be fatal to man and animals (Aliero et al, 2006b). It is avoided by livestock and native animals might do the same. Birds must have a degree of tolerance because they are the main seed dispersal vector. The plant is toxic in the flowering and fruiting stages for guinea pigs and rabbits and toxic to horses as well (Eckell, 1946). | H | H |
| Pest Animal | |||
| 17. Food source to pests? | A study conducted by Santos et al (2003) investigated the diet of the maned wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus) in South America and found that S. pseudocapsicum made up a small percentage of this animals diet. This may suggest that foxes (Vulpes vulpes) may also eat fruit but again would comprise a minor component of diet Furthermore it is noted in the literature (Buchanan, 1989) that the berries of this plant are readily ingested by Pied currowongs in suburban Sydney. Considering that this native species feeds on the berries it is highly likely that exotic species would do the same. | ML | H |
| 18. Provides harbor? | This species has the capacity to produce dense crowded populations hence it has the potential to provide temporary harbour for foxes and rabbits however due to its wiry structure at medium height may not be suitable for permanent harbour for pest animals. | MH | MH |
| Agriculture | |||
| 19. Impact yield? | This is a weed that can invade rough pastures additionally it is a plant that is ignored by livestock. It has a large seed set and can produce large dense populations. It might reduce the production or vigour of other crops or plants by competing with them for water and nutrients. Despite the preceding statement there is no evidence that this species is a serious weed of agriculture | ML | L |
| 20. Impact quality? | There is no evidence that it is a weed of agriculture. | ML | L |
| 21. Affect land value? | The literature is noted that it is found in rough pastures this suggests poor quality land value to begin with so may not alter the land value significantly. There is insufficient information to suggest the plants impact on land value would be greater than 10%. | M | L |
| 22. Change land use? | The plant is not considered a serious weed of agriculture therefore it would not cause serious alteration of land use. | L | L |
| 23. Increase harvest costs? | The plant is not a weed of agriculture. It is not likely to increase agricultural costs by increasing harvesting time or is not a potential contaminant in agricultural produce. | L | L |
| 24. Disease host/vector? | The plant is susceptible to a powdery mildew (Erysiphe sp) that occurred in greenhouse-grown tomato crops in southern England (Fletcher and Smewin, 1988). The plant has also been noted to harbour the new Psyllid-Yellows disease prevalent in potato and other solanaceous plants (Binkley, 1929). This disease can be transmitted from diseased tomato to healthy potato plants. The plant is also a possible host for the tomato moth Scrobipalpula absoluta (Galarza, 1984) and for the tomato leaf curl virus tested under glasshouse experiments (DPIF, 2006). | H | H |
Impact Assessment Record - Madeira winter-cherry (PDF - 60KB)
Impact Assessment Record - Madeira winter-cherry (DOC - 63KB)
This table can also be viewed as a PDF document (printer friendly). 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 .