Your gateway to a wide range of natural resources information and associated maps

Victorian Resources Online

Impact Assessment - Velvet cotoneaster (Cotoneaster pannosus) 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 Velvet cotoneaster.

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: Velvet cotoneaster
Scientific name: Cotoneaster pannosus

Question
Comments
Rating
Confidence
Recreation
1. Restrict human access?As large shrub species that can grow to 3 m, and is reported to branch profusely at ground level, this species could pose an imposition (Blood 2001; Weber 2003). As the species is not described to form thickets however it is thought to only have high nuisance value.
MH
MH
2. Reduce tourism?Ornamental species may alter the aesthetics.
ML
L
3. Injurious to people?The berries are toxic but not fatal (Shepard 2004).
ML
MH
4. Damage to cultural sites?Ornamental species may alter the aesthetics.
Has aggressive root system, may therefore cause structural damage (Bossard, Randell & Hoshovsky 2000).
M
L
Abiotic
5. Impact flow?The species can occur in riparian vegetation, there is no evidence however of it occurring in flowing water and obstructing flow.
L
M
6. Impact water quality?The species can occur in riparian vegetation, there is no evidence however of it occurring in water and affecting water quality.
L
M
7. Increase soil erosion?Reported to have an aggressive root system (Bossard, Randell & Hoshovsky 2000). Therefore the species is considered to be able to reduce the potential of large scale soil movement.
L
MH
8. Reduce biomass?The species is reported to displace other vegetation by shading out, however it is also reported to branch profusely near the ground (Weber 2003). Therefore presumably any net loss of vegetation biomass from the lower strata the species would compensate for.
ML
MH
9. Change fire regime?Unknown.
M
L
Community Habitat
10. Impact on composition
(a) high value EVC
EVC= Grassy Woodland (E); CMA= Corangamite; Bioreg= Otway Ranges; VH CLIMATE potential.
A large shrub species it is reported to eventually be able to displace the native vegetation from large areas (Weber 2003). Therefore the species is considered capable of cause displacement of some dominant species.
MH
MH
(b) medium value EVCEVC= Herb-rich Foothill Forest (D); CMA Corangamite; Bioreg Otway Ranges; VH CLIMATE potential.
A large shrub species it is reported to eventually be able to displace the native vegetation from large areas (Weber 2003). Therefore the species is considered capable of cause displacement of some dominant species.
MH
MH
(c) low value EVCEVC= Riparian Forest (LC); CMA Corangamite; Bioreg Otway Ranges; VH CLIMATE potential.
A large shrub species it is reported to eventually be able to displace the native vegetation from large areas (Weber 2003). Therefore the species is considered capable of cause displacement of some dominant species.
MH
MH
11. Impact on structure?A large shrub species it is reported to eventually be able to displace the native vegetation from large areas (Weber 2003). As a shrub species it would have the most impact on the middle and lower strata, therefore the species is considered capable of impacting on greater than 60% of the flora strata.
MH
MH
12. Effect on threatened flora?Unknown.
MH
L
Fauna
13. Effect on threatened fauna?Unknown.
MH
L
14. Effect on non-threatened fauna?Displacement of the native vegetation and alteration of the vegetation structure could impact upon habitat suitability and food availability. Like other berry producing shrubs such as privets the fruit this species could support larger populations of aggressive bird species which could then have flow on impacts on other species (Swarbrick, Timmins & Bullen 1999).

The exact extent this species can impact on fauna populations is unknown.
M
L
15. Benefits fauna?May provide some assistance; food the berries could be eaten by native bird species and shelter as it is a large shrub
MH
M
16. Injurious to fauna?There is no evidence of this reported.
L
M
Pest Animal
17. Food source to pests?Blackbirds eat the fruit (Rozefelds et al 1999).
ML
H
18. Provides harbour?As large shrub species, it has the potential to be a nest site for pest bird species, such as blackbirds.
ML
M
Agriculture
19. Impact yield?Only reported as an environmental weed.
L
M
20. Impact quality?Only reported as an environmental weed.
L
M
21. Affect land value?Only reported as an environmental weed.
L
M
22. Change land use?Only reported as an environmental weed.
L
M
23. Increase harvest costs?Only reported as an environmental weed.
L
M
24. Disease host/vector?May be a host of fireblight (Spencer 2002).
M
MH

Impact Assessment Record - Velvet cotoneaster (PDF - 91KB)
Impact Assessment Record - Velvet cotoneaster (DOC - 55KB)
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.
Page top