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? | Can interfere with boats, effecting navigation and recreation, and can cause people to drown (Henderson & Cilliers 2002; Sheppard, Shaw & Sforza 2006). Therefore high nuisance factor. | MH | MH |
2. Reduce tourism? | Can limit recreational water activities even make areas unusable (Bossard, Randell & Hoshovsky 2000). | H | MH |
3. Injurious to people? | Can cause drowning (Henderson & Cilliers 2002). This would be largely restricted to warmer months. | MH | M |
4. Damage to cultural sites? | Can interfere with infrastructure, including, irrigation works, hydro-electric outputs and water supplies (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). | MH | MH |
Abiotic | |||
5. Impact flow? | The plant can form free floating mats, be attached and submerged or emergent and is reported to severely impede water flow (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). | H | MH |
6. Impact water quality? | Reduces light and water flow (Weber 2003). Therefore has the potential to alter temperature and dissolved oxygen. Unknown to what extent. | M | M |
7. Increase soil erosion? | Can cause flooding (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). Therefore creating the potential for erosion to occur in the floodplain. | MH | MH |
8. Reduce biomass? | Can block smaller streams with a tangled mass of vegetation (Bossard, Randell & Hoshovsky 2000). Therefore can increase biomass, however, as the plant dies back during winter in colder climates, the biomass levels may fluctuate and not become a permanent carbon sink (Bossard, Randell & Hoshovsky 2000). | ML | MH |
9. Change fire regime? | Aquatic species; therefore would have not significant impact of fire. | L | H |
Community Habitat | |||
10. Impact on composition (a) high value EVC | EVC= Lignum Wetland (V); CMA= North Central; Bioreg= Victorian Riverina; VH CLIMATE potential. Can for dense stands to the exclusion of native aquatics and even shade out algae (Bossard, Randell & Hoshovsky 2000; Weber 2003). | H | MH |
(b) medium value EVC | EVC= Swampy Riparian Woodland (D); CMA= East Gippsland; Bioreg= Highlands-Southern Fall; VH CLIMATE potential. Can move into marshy areas adjacent to aquatic populations (Bossard, Randell & Hoshovsky 2000). Unknown to what extent the species impacts on vegetation in these areas, presumed some minor displacement. | ML | M |
(c) low value EVC | EVC= Riverine Swamp Forest (LC); CMA= North Central; Bioreg= Victorian Riverina; VH CLIMATE potential. Can move into marshy areas adjacent to aquatic populations (Bossard, Randell & Hoshovsky 2000). Unknown to what extent the species impacts on vegetation in these areas, presumed some minor displacement. | ML | M |
11. Impact on structure? | Can for dense stands to the exclusion of native aquatics and even shade out algae (Bossard, Randell & Hoshovsky 2000; Weber 2003). | H | MH |
12. Effect on threatened flora? | No specific evidence reported, presumed from major displacement of all native species reported in Weber (2003), there would be displacement of threatened species. | MH | MH |
Fauna | |||
13. Effect on threatened fauna? | No specific evidence reported. | MH | L |
14. Effect on non-threatened fauna? | Through exclusion of other aquatic plants and algae, invasion by M. aquaticm can alter ecosystem dynamics by altering the base of the food web (Bossard, Randell & Hoshovsky 2000). | H | MH |
15. Benefits fauna? | Can provide shelter for crayfish (Peterson, Fitzpatrick & VanderKooy 1996). | MH | MH |
16. Injurious to fauna? | Can cause animals to drown (Henderson & Cilliers 2002). | H | MH |
Pest Animal | |||
17. Food source to pests? | No species in Australia are reported to eat significant amounts of it. | L | M |
18. Provides harbour? | Provides habitat for mosquitos (Bossard, Randell & Hoshovsky 2000). | ML | MH |
Agriculture | |||
19. Impact yield? | Can invade rice fields and impact yield (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). Unknown to what extent yield is affected. Can result in the drowning of livestock (Hill 2003). | M | MH |
20. Impact quality? | No evidence of this | L | M |
21. Affect land value? | No evidence of this | L | M |
22. Change land use? | May result in some change in management practises. | ML | M |
23. Increase harvest costs? | Can foul pumps and irrigation equipment therefore increasing maintenance time (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). | M | MH |
24. Disease host/vector? | Can be infected by powdery mildew (Micropshaera alphitoidies) (Boesewinkel 1986). It is unknown however to what impact this could have on any commercial crops. | M | L |