Apple Cactus (Cereus peruvianus)

Present distribution

Scientific name:	Cereus peruvianus
Common name(s):	Apple Cactus

This weed is not known to be naturalised in Victoria

Habitat:

Native to South America. In it’s native range it has been stated to occur on rocky outcrops, reported as a pest of pastures in Hawaii, and in Brigalow and Belah woodland in Queensland.

Potential distribution

Potential distribution produced from CLIMATE modelling refined by applying suitable landuse and vegetation type overlays with CMA boundaries

Map Overlays Used

Land Use:
Pasture dryland

Broad vegetation types
Coastal scrubs and grassland; coastal grassy woodland; heathy woodland; lowland forest; heath; box ironbark forest; inland slopes and plains; sedge rich woodland; grassland; plains grassy woodland; rainshadow woodland; mallee; boinka-raak; mallee woodland; Wimmera / mallee woodland

In the non-coloured areas the plant is unlikely to establish as the climate, soil or landuse is not presently suitable.

Map showing the potential distribution of apple cactus

Red= Very high	Orange = Medium
Yellow = High	Green = Likely

Impact

QUESTION	COMMENTS	RATING	CONFIDENCE
Social
1. Restrict human access?	Has been recommended for use as a living hedge (Mishra, Dash & Sahu 2000). Once established in a thicket, the thorns, the height of the plant and its sheer bulk would require machinery for any large-scale movement.	mh	m
2. Reduce tourism?	Not specified, may cause arid areas to appear more like their American counterparts.	ml	l
3. Injurious to people?	Does have spines (Cullmann, Goetz & Groner 1987), fruit edible (Ninio etal 2003).	mh	mh
4. Damage to cultural sites?	No structural damage reported, may be a negative for aesthetics	ml	l
Abiotic
5. Impact flow?	Terrestrial species	l	m
6. Impact water quality?	Terrestrial species	l	m
7. Increase soil erosion?	I has been reported a spiny cactus species can prevent up to 50% of the herbage cover immediately surrounding it being removed by grazing pressure (Mueller, Shoop & Laycock 1994), therefore limiting over grazing, therefore maintaining ground cover and reducing soil exposure.	l	m
8. Reduce biomass?	A competitive species of up to 7m tall (Benson 1982), when invading a grassland, a significant increase in biomass, also may maintain a level of ground cover by preventing over grazing (Mueller, Shoop & Laycock 1994).	l	mh
9. Change fire regime?	Due to high water content cacti species do not easily burn themselves, however if the presence of C.peruvianus does maintain a higher grass biomass by restricting grazing (Mueller, Shoop & Laycock 1994), this would increase the fuel load of the area.	m	ml
Community Habitat
10. Impact on composition (a) high value EVC	EVC= Riverine Chenopod Woodland (E); CMA= Mallee; Bioreg= Wimmera; VH CLIMATE potential. Creates and then dominates the shrub layer when invading grassland, may impact on the grass/herb layer by altering grazing and burning patterns. Major displacement of dominant sp. within a layer.	h	m
(b) medium value EVC	EVC= Riverine Grassy Woodland (D); CMA= Mallee; Bioreg= Lowan Mallee; VH CLIMATE potential. Creates and then dominates the shrub layer when invading grassland, may impact on the grass/herb layer by altering grazing and burning patterns. Major displacement of dominant sp. within a layer.	h	m
(c) low value EVC	EVC= Heathy Mallee (LC); CMA= Mallee; Bioreg= Lowan Mallee; VH CLIMATE potential. Creates and then dominates the shrub layer when invading grassland, may impact on the grass/herb layer by altering grazing and burning patterns. Major displacement of dominant sp. within a layer.	h	m
11. Impact on structure?	Creates and then dominates the shrub layer when invading grassland, may impact on the grass/herb layer by altering grazing and burning patterns.	ml	m
12. Effect on threatened flora?	No specific data. May protect species sensitive to grazing.	mh	l
Fauna
13. Effect on threatened fauna?	No specific data.	mh	l
14. Effect on non-threatened fauna?	Does have spines (Cullmann, Goetz & Groner 1987).	ml	m
15. Benefits fauna?	Fruits and flesh edible if spines can be avoided (Cullmann, Goetz & Groner 1987, Goldman etal 2005 and Ninio etal 2003), unsure of use by Australian species.	m	m
16. Injurious to fauna?	Does have spines (Cullmann, Goetz & Groner 1987).	mh	m
Pest Animal
17. Food source to pests?	Fruit and flesh edible if spines can be avoided, no specific data on this species, deer and goats have been reported consuming other cacti species (Arnold & Drawe 1979 and Ramirez, Haenlein & Nunez-Gonzalez 2001).	ml	m
18. Provides harbour?	A large arborecesent cacti could provide more structural complexity in a grassland habitat.	m	m
Agriculture
19. Impact yield?	Can invade pasture, and other cactus species have been noted for restricting grazing in their immediate vicinity (Mueller, Shoop & Laycock 1994). Produces a fruit crop itself (Goldman etal 2005).	ml	m
20. Impact quality?	No specific data, other cactus species have been used, as an additional food source may be beneficial (Mueller, Shoop & Laycock 1994).	l	m
21. Affect land value?	If control measures are viewed as necessary may have some negative influence.	m	l
22. Change land use?	Cacti are most commonly present in rangeland situations, unless completely preventing grazing of an area would not significantly alter rangeland practise.	l	ml
23. Increase harvest costs?	If restrict movement through an area may increase mustering time.	mh	m
24. Disease host/vector?	No specific data	l	m

Invasive

QUESTION	COMMENTS	RATING	CONFIDENCE
Establishment
1. Germination requirements?	Seeds germinate well at 15-25 degrees, recorded from cultivation of the species optimum germination within temp variables and suitably irrigated (Zimmer 1996). Grows quickly from vegetative material (Cullmann, Goetz & Groner 1987).	mh	m
2. Establishment requirements?	Recorded established in woodland (Forster & Schmeider 2000).	mh	mh
3. How much disturbance is required?	Can establish in undisturbed woodland and pastures (Forster & Schmeider 2000).	mh	mh
Growth/Competitive
4. Life form?	Clumping cactus (other)	l	m
5. Allelopathic properties?	None described, can however produce alkaloids (Rocha etal 2005).	l	m
6. Tolerates herb pressure?	Can be a pest in pastures (Benson 1982) Can regrow vegetatively from broken segments (Cullmann, Goetz & Groner 1987), therefore light to medium grazing may help its spread. Does have thorns probably not preferred.	m	m
7. Normal growth rate?	Biomass production similar to that of Opuntia ficus-indica and faster than a number of other cactus species (Mishra, Dash & Sahu 2000 and Nerd, Raveh & Mizahi 1993).	mh	mh
8. Stress tolerance to frost, drought, w/logg, sal. etc?	Frost has been reported causing 50% necrosis of the plant but not fatal (Nerd, Raveh & Mizahi 1993). Stunted growth reported when exposed to saline water (Nerd, Raveh & Mizahi 1993). Cactus species tolerant of drought.	mh	mh
Reproduction
9. Reproductive system	Self-incompatible but can also reproduce vegetatively (Ninio etal 2003).	h	mh
10. Number of propagules produced?	Able to produce a commercial quantity of fruit of which the pulp contains numerous fruit (Ninio etal 2003).	h	mh
11. Propagule longevity?	Not reported.	m	l
12. Reproductive period?	Not specifically stated however it has been grow under orchard conditions for 6 years and was still increasing fruit yields (Nerd, Raveh & Mizahi 1993).	mh	m
13. Time to reproductive maturity?	Grows quicker when struck vegetatively than from seed (Nerd, Raveh & Mizahi 1993), could spread further vegetatively within one season.	h	m
Dispersal
14. Number of mechanisms?	Produces red fruits that are eaten by animals (Forster & Schmeider 2000 and Ninio etal 2003).	mh	mh
15. How far do they disperse?	If eaten by a large animal seed may be transported 1km+	h	m

References

Arnold. L.A. Jr. & Drawe. D.L. (1979) Seasonal food habits of white-tailed deer in the south Texas plains. Journal of Range Management. 32: 175-178.

Benson. L. (1982) The Cacti of the United States and Canada. Stanford University press, Stanford, California.

Cullmann. W., Goetz. E. & Groner. G. (1987) The Encyclopedia of Cacti. Timber Press. Portland, Oregon.

Forster. P.I. & Schmeider. M. (2000) Cereus uruguayanus (Cactaceae) and its naturalised occurrence in Queensland, Australia. Austrobaileya. 5: 671-677.

Goldman. G., Vinokur. Y., Horev. B., Lurie. S., Rodov. V., Liguori. G., Mecarelli. F. & Tonutti. P. (2005) Fresh-cut products from cactus species. Acta Horticulturae. 682: 1961-1966.

Mishra. P.J., Dash. S.K. & Sahu. D. (2000) Establishment pattern of live hedge species in North-Eastern Ghat of Orissa. Indian Journal of Soil Conservation. 28: 86-87.

Mueller. D.M., Shoop. M.C. & Laycock. W.A. (1994) Mechanical harvesting of plains pricklypear for controll and feeding. Journal of range management. 47: 251-254.

Nerd. A. Raveh. E. & Mizahi. Y. (1993) Adaptation of Five Columnar Cactus Species to Various Conditions in the Negev Desert of Israel. Economic Botany. 47: 304-311

Ninio. R., Lawinsohn. E., Mizrahi. Y. & Sitrit. Y. (2003) Quality attributes of stored koubo (Cereus peruvianus (L.) Miller) fruit. Postharvest Biology and Technology. 30: 273-280.

Ramirez. R.G., Haenlein. G.F.W. & Nunez-Gonzalez. M.A. (2001) seasonal variation of macro and trace mineral contents in 14 browse species that grow in northeastern Mexico. Small Ruminant Research. 39: 153-159.

Rocha. L. K. da, Oliveira. A.J.B. de, Mangolin. C.A. & Machado. M. de F. P. da. S. (2005) Effect of different culture medium components on production of alkaloid in callus tissues of Cereus peruvianus (Cactaceae). Acta Scientiarum. 27: 37-41.

Silva. W.R. & Sazima. M. (1995) Hawkmoth pollination in Cereus peruvianus, a columnar cactus from southeastern Brazil. Flora. 190: 339-343.

Zimmer. K. (1966) Investigation on the influence of temperature on the germination of cactus seeds. IV. The germination of Cereus peruvianus and Oreocereus trollii. Gartenbauwiss. 31: 437-45.

Global present distribution data references

Australian National Herbarium (ANH) 2006, Australia’s Virtual Herbarium, Australian National Herbarium, Centre for Plant Diversity and Research, viewed 25 Aug 2006 , http://www.anbg.gov.au/avh/

Benson. L. (1982) The Cacti of the United States and Canada. Stanford University press, Stanford, California.

Forster. P.I. & Schmeider. M. (2000) Cereus uruguayanus (Cactaceae) and its naturalised occurrence in Queensland, Australia. Austrobaileya. 5: 671-677.

Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) 2006, Global biodiversity information facility: Prototype data portal, viewed 25 Aug 2006, http://www.gbif.org/

Missouri Botanical Gardens (MBG) 2006, w3TROPICOS, Missouri Botanical Gardens Database, viewed 25 Aug 2006, http://mobot.mobot.org/W3T/Search/vast.html

Silva. W.R. & Sazima. M. (1995) Hawkmoth pollination in Cereus peruvianus, a columnar cactus from southeastern Brazil. Flora. 190: 339-343.

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