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? | No information about the morphology of this plant was found. | M | L |
2. Reduce tourism? | No information about the morphology of this plant was found. | M | L |
3. Injurious to people? | For all Onopordum, stems spinose-winged, or absent…involucral bracts spine-tipped (Tutin, 1980). Spines on the infloresence (and probably the stems) may cause some damage at most times of the year. | MH | MH |
4. Damage to cultural sites? | No information about the morphology of this plant was found. | M | L |
Abiotic | |||
5. Impact flow? | Most species grow in rocky or stony ground, roadsides, waste places and similar dry, open habitats (Tutin, 1980). Terrestrial species. | L | MH |
6. Impact water quality? | Most species grow in rocky or stony ground, roadsides, waste places and similar dry, open habitats (Tutin, 1980). Terrestrial species. | L | MH |
7. Increase soil erosion? | Biennial species (Tutin, 1980) that may leave large bare patches after it dies off, however the extent of infestations is unknown. | M | L |
8. Reduce biomass? | No information about the morphology of this plant was found. | M | L |
9. Change fire regime? | No information about the morphology of this plant was found. | M | L |
Community Habitat | |||
10. Impact on composition (a) high value EVC | No information about the morphology and invasiveness of this plant was found. | M | L |
(b) medium value EVC | No information about the morphology and invasiveness of this plant was found. | M | L |
(c) low value EVC | No information about the morphology and invasiveness of this plant was found. | M | L |
11. Impact on structure? | No information about the morphology and invasiveness of this plant was found. | M | L |
12. Effect on threatened flora? | No information found. | MH | L |
Fauna | |||
13. Effect on threatened fauna? | No information found. | MH | L |
14. Effect on non-threatened fauna? | No information about the morphology and invasiveness of this plant was found. | M | L |
15. Benefits fauna? | No information about the morphology and invasiveness of this plant was found. | M | L |
16. Injurious to fauna? | For all Onopordum, stems spinose-winged, or absent…involucral bracts spine-tipped (Tutin, 1980). Spines on the infloresence (and probably the stems) may cause some damage at most times of the year. | MH | MH |
Pest Animal | |||
17. Food source to pests? | For all Onopordum, stems spinose-winged, or absent…involucral bracts spine-tipped (Tutin, 1980). Spines on the infloresence (and probably the stems) would deter herbivory by vertebrate species. | L | MH |
18. Provides harbor? | No information about the morphology of this plant was found. | M | L |
Agriculture | |||
19. Impact yield? | No information about the morphology and invasiveness of this plant was found. | M | L |
20. Impact quality? | No information about the morphology and invasiveness of this plant was found. | M | L |
21. Affect land value? | No information about the morphology and invasiveness of this plant was found. | M | L |
22. Change land use? | No information about the morphology and invasiveness of this plant was found. | M | L |
23. Increase harvest costs? | No information about the morphology and invasiveness of this plant was found. | M | L |
24. Disease host/vector? | No information about disease host/vector of this plant was found, however there was very little information available about this species. | M | L |