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? | Height is from 3 to 30 centimetres (Tutin et al 1968). Plant grows flat along the ground (FNIAR 2001). Plant would have negligible impact on human access. | L | H |
2. Reduce tourism? | In Guernsey ‘the bright yellow flowers of [H. humifusum] light up [the] banks and cliffs in June and July (La Societe Guernesiase 2005). Weed may have minor effect on aesthetics. | ML | MH |
3. Injurious to people? | No documented evidence that the plant be toxic or injurious to humans. | L | L |
4. Damage to cultural sites? | Low lying plant. Little or negligible effect on aesthetics and structure of cultural site. | L | MH |
Abiotic | |||
5. Impact flow? | Terrestrial species. | L | MH |
6. Impact water quality? | Terrestrial species. | L | MH |
7. Increase soil erosion? | No evidence to suggest that weed would increase soil erosion. | L | MH |
8. Reduce biomass? | Found on hedgebanks and in coastal grassland. In Guernsey it is ‘common inland and on the cliffs, alongside the paths and on bareish rocky slopes in more accessible areas’ (La Societe Guernesiaise 2005). In some situations biomass may increase. However, insufficient information to determine whether or not weed replaces other plants. Score as medium. | M | L |
9. Change fire regime? | Glabrous perennial herb (Tutin et al 1968). Weed would have small or negligible effect on fire risk. | L | H |
Community Habitat | |||
10. Impact on composition (a) high value EVC | EVC= Coastal headland scrub (V); CMA=Corangamite; Bioreg=Warrnambool Plain; CLIMATE potential=VH. Found on hedgebanks and in coastal grassland. In Guernsey it is ‘common inland and on the cliffs, alongside the paths and on bareish rocky slopes in more accessible areas’ (La Societe Guernesiaise 2005). Very little displacement of any indigenous species. | L | MH |
(b) medium value EVC | EVC= Clay heathland (D); CMA=West Gippsland; Bioreg=Gippsland Plain; CLIMATE potential=VH. Found on hedgebanks and in coastal grassland. In Guernsey it is ‘common inland and on the cliffs, alongside the paths and on bareish rocky slopes in more accessible areas’ (La Societe Guernesiaise 2005). Very little displacement of any indigenous species. | L | MH |
(c) low value EVC | EVC= Heathy woodland (LC); CMA=West Gippsland; Bioreg=Highland Southern Fall; CLIMATE potential=VH. Found on hedgebanks and in coastal grassland. In Guernsey it is ‘common inland and on the cliffs, alongside the paths and on bareish rocky slopes in more accessible areas’ (La Societe Guernesiaise 2005). Very little displacement of any indigenous species. | L | MH |
11. Impact on structure? | Found on hedgebanks and in coastal grassland. In Guernsey it is ‘common inland and on the cliffs, alongside the paths and on bareish rocky slopes in more accessible areas’ (La Societe Guernesiaise 2005). Low lying plant which would have a minor or negligible effect on <20% of the lower strata. | L | 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? | Insufficient information to determine whether or not the weed effects non-threatened fauna species. Score medium. | M | L |
15. Benefits fauna? | Insufficient information to determine whether or not the weed provides benefits or facilitates the establishment of indigenous fauna. Score medium. | M | L |
16. Injurious to fauna? | Weed not documented to be toxic or have spines, burrs which affect indigenous fauna but insufficient information to draw conclusions. Score medium. | M | L |
Pest Animal | |||
17. Food source to pests? | Insufficient information to determine whether weed provides a food source to assist in success of pest animals. Score as medium. | M | L |
18. Provides harbor? | Insufficient information to determine whether weed provides harbour for serious pest species. Score as medium. | M | L |
Agriculture | |||
19. Impact yield? | Not documented as a weed of agriculture. | L | MH |
20. Impact quality? | Not a weed of cropping. | 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 a weed of cropping. | L | MH |
24. Disease host/vector? | Weed not known as an alternative host or vector of disease. | L | MH |