Harrisia Cactus (Harrisia martinii)
Present distribution
|  This weed is not known to be naturalised in Victoria | ||||
| Habitat: Native to South America. Reported in grasslands including inundated savanna, as well as in forestry situations and in riparian forest. | |||||
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: Forest private plantation; forest public plantation; pasture dryland; pasture irrigation 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; dry foothills forest; moist foothills forest; montane dry woodland; sub-alpine woodland; grassland; plains grassy woodland; valley grassy forest; herb-rich woodland; sub-alpine grassy woodland; montane grassy woodland; riverine grassy woodland; riparian forest; rainshadow woodland; mallee; mallee heath; boinka-raak; mallee woodland; wimmera / mallee woodland Colours indicate possibility of Harrisia martinii infesting these areas. In the non-coloured areas the plant is unlikely to establish as the climate, soil or landuse is not presently suitable. | 
|
Impact
QUESTION | COMMENTS | RATING | CONFIDENCE |
| Social |  | | |
| 1. Restrict human access? | Produces large spines, and is described as forming dense an impenetrable mass (Mann 1967). | mh | mh |
| 2. Reduce tourism? | Has some aesthetic impacts, and restricts movement however doesn't occur in areas frequented by tourists. | ml | m |
| 3. Injurious to people? | Large spines (Mann 1967). | h | mh |
| 4. Damage to cultural sites? | Would create a moderate visual effect. | ml | m |
| Abiotic | | | |
| 5. Impact flow? | A terrestrial plant. | l | m |
| 6. Impact water quality? | A terrestrial plant. | l | m |
| 7. Increase soil erosion? | Has large root system, the clearing of shrub for access to eradicate more likely to cause erosion (Johnston 1978 and Mann 1967). | l | m |
| 8. Reduce biomass? | Changes open grassy woodland or shrubland to thick dense pile of cactus branches definitely a visual increase in biomass (Mann 1967). | l | mh |
| 9. Change fire regime? | Doesn't burn easily itself being a succulent, however it apparently doesn’t restrict the growth of grass the main fuel load of the invaded habitat (Johnston 1978). | l | m |
| Community Habitat | | | |
| 10. Impact on composition (a) high value EVC | EVC= Montane Grassy Woodland (V); CMA= East Gippsland; Bioreg= East Gippsland Uplands; M CLIMATE potential. Highly competitive species in shrub layer and ground layer, Major displacement of dominant sp. within a layer. | mh | mh |
| (b) medium value EVC | EVC= Sub-alpine Woodland (D); CMA= East Gippsland; Bioreg= Monaro Tablelands; M CLIMATE potential. Highly competitive species in shrub layer and ground layer, Major displacement of dominant sp. within a layer. | mh | mh |
| (c) low value EVC | EVC= Grassy Dry Forest (V); CMA= East Gippsland; Bioreg= East Gippsland Uplands; M CLIMATE potential. Highly competitive species in shrub layer and ground layer, Major displacement of dominant sp. within a layer. | mh | mh |
| 11. Impact on structure? | Creates a dense mass, may compete with grass and herb layer but if over-storey isn't allowed to regenerate it is exposed to frost conditions. | l | m |
| 12. Effect on threatened flora? | No data available | mh | l |
| Fauna | | | |
| 13. Effect on threatened fauna? | No data available | mh | l |
| 14. Effect on non-threatened fauna? | Spines may form a hazard to some species, it may also compete with preferred food sources. | ml | m |
| 15. Benefits fauna? | If spines can be avoided can be a food source may also harbour small species that can move through the mass while avoiding the spines. | m | m |
| 16. Injurious to fauna? | Large spines (Mann 1967). | h | mh |
| Pest Animal | | | |
| 17. Food source to pests? | Fruits eaten by pigs (Mann 1967). | ml | mh |
| 18. Provides harbour? | If spines can be avoided could provide cover for small species like rabbits. | m | l |
| Agriculture | | | |
| 19. Impact yield? | Reduces grazing area for sheep and cattle as is preferentially not grazed and competes with preferred forage (Mann 1967). | mh | m |
| 20. Impact quality? | No specific data | m | l |
| 21. Affect land value? | Was hard to remove before biocontrol now restricted from forming the dense masses (Moran & Zimmermann 1991). | l | mh |
| 22. Change land use? | Mainly occurring in marginal land concern over it turning grazing lard more marginal (Mann 1967). | mh | mh |
| 23. Increase harvest costs? | Can restrict movement increase mustering time. | mh | m |
| 24. Disease host/vector? | None reported | l | m |
Invasive
QUESTION | COMMENTS | RATING | CONFIDENCE |
| Establishment | | | |
| 1. Germination requirements? | Germination in Queensland is seasonal occurring mostly in the wet summer months (Mann 1967). | mh | mh |
| 2. Establishment requirements? | Seeds require light to germinate however the plant is readily established amongst timber (Mann 1967). | mh | mh |
| 3. How much disturbance is required? | highly invasive throughout Brigalow and softwood scrubs (Open woodland and grassland) (Mann 1967). | mh | mh |
| Growth/Competitive | | | |
| 4. Life form? | A sprawling cactus species (Mann 1967). | ml | mh |
| 5. Allelopathic properties? | None described | l | mh |
| 6. Tolerates herb pressure? | Has spines so is avoided by grazing species, however attack by a biocontrol agent Hypogeococcus festerianus noticeably arrested flowing and fruiting of the plant (Moran & Zimmermann 1991). | ml | h |
| 7. Normal growth rate? | No specific quantitative data however the spread of single plants is described as frighting in its rapidity (Mann 1967). | h | mh |
| 8. Stress tolerance to frost, drought, w/logg, sal. etc? | An invasive cactus of marginal land in Queensland (Drought Tolerant) (Mann 1967). Flood waters have been reported to disperse fragments (Tolerant of waterlogging is only for short periods) The closely related Eriocereus tortuosa has been found to be tolerant of fire, if killed resprouts from underground tubers which H. martinii also has (Johnston 1978). The closely related Eriocereus tortuosa is also susceptible to frost damage (Johnston 1978). | h | mh |
| Reproduction | | | |
| 9. Reproductive system | Produces seeds and broken portion will set root as well as if a branch touches the ground (Mann 1967). | h | mh |
| 10. Number of propagules produced? | A single fruit may contain 400-1000 seeds an established plant is likely to produce more than one fruit (Mann 1967). | h | mh |
| 11. Propagule longevity? | If stored under dry conditions seeds remain viable for 5-7 years (Mann 1967). | l | mh |
| 12. Reproductive period? | Can form monocultures with tubers being recorded at densities of 50000 per acre (Mann 1967). | h | mh |
| 13. Time to reproductive maturity? | Can spread vegetatively within first season (Mann 1967). | h | mh |
| Dispersal | | | |
| 14. Number of mechanisms? | Seeds spread internally by birds and animals, vegetative propagules may be spread by water (Mann 1967). | h | mh |
| 15. How far do they disperse? | Birds could disperse some seeds > 1 km. Flood waters could easily disperse vegetative propagules >1km. | h | mh |
References
Johnston T.N. (1978) The Growth and Control of Harrisia cacturs on a State Forest in southern Inland Queensland. Department of Forsetry Queensland.
Mann. J. (1967) The Harrisia Cactus. Department of Lands.
Moran. V.C. & Zimmermann. H.G. (1991) Biological control of cactus weeds of minor importance in South Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 37. 37-55
Global present distribution data references
Australian National Herbarium (ANH) 2006, Australia’s Virtual Herbarium, Australian National Herbarium, Centre for Plant Diversity and Research, viewed, 26 August 2006 http://www.anbg.gov.au/avh/
Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) 2006, Global Biodiversity Information Facility, Data portal, viewed 26 Aug 2006, http://www.gbif.org/
Henderson.L. (1995) Plant Invaders of Southern Afirca: Plant Protcection Research Institute Handbook No 5. Agricultural Research Council.
Klein. H. (1999) Biological control of three cactaceous weeds, Pereskia aculeata Miller, Harrisia martinii (Labouret) Britton and Cereus jamacaru De Candolle in South Africa. African Entomology Memoir No.1. Olcker. T. & Hill. M.P. (eds). 3-14.
Missouri Botanical Gardens (MBG) 2006, w3TROPICOS, Missouri Botanical Gardens Database, viewed Aug 21 2006, http://mobot.mobot.org/W3T/Search/vast.html
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.
© State of Victoria (Agriculture Victoria) 1996 - .
This work, Victorian Resources Online, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence. You are free to re-use the work under that licence, on the condition that you credit the State of Victoria (Agriculture Victoria) as author, indicate if changes were made and comply with the other licence terms.
The licence does not apply to ‘branding’ or some ‘images or photographs’ that may be owned by third parties. We ask you to seek prior approval to use images using the VRO feedback form. Access to higher quality images can also be provided on request.
This page was last updated on .