Himalayan Cotoneaster (Cotoneaster simonsii)

Present distribution

Scientific name:	Cotoneaster simonsii Baker.
Common name(s):	Himalayan Cotoneaster, Khasia Berry

Map showing the present distribution of this weed.

Habitat:

Native to the Himalayas, this species is reported to invade, scrubland, plantation forest and forest margins (Webb et al 1988 and Weber 2003).

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; horticulture; pasture dryland

Broad vegetation types
Lowland forest; box ironbark forest; inland slopes woodland; dry foothills forest; moist foothills forest; montane dry woodland; montane moist forest; sub-alpine woodland; grassland; plains grassy woodland; valley grassy forest; herb-rich woodland; sub-alpine grassy woodland; montane grassy woodland; riverine grassy woodland; rainshadow woodland; wimmera / mallee woodland

Colours indicate possibility of Cotoneaster simonsii infesting these areas.

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 himalayan cotoneaster

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

Impact

QUESTION	COMMENTS	RATING	CONFIDENCE
Social
1. Restrict human access?	Can form dense thickets (Weber 2003). Would require works to create access.	h	mh
2. Reduce tourism?	Ornamental species may alter the aesthetics.	ml	l
3. Injurious to people?	Cotoneaster berries are poisonous if consumed in large quantities (Shepherd 2004). In 1983-84 1.29% of the reports involving plants made to the Poisons centres in Australia involved a Cotoneaster species (Covacevich, Davie & Pearn 1987). Has thorns (Palme, Bilia & Morelli 1996).	ml	m
4. Damage to cultural sites?	Ornamental species may alter the aesthetics.	ml	l
Abiotic
5. Impact flow?	Terrestrial species	l	m
6. Impact water quality?	Terrestrial species	l	m
7. Increase soil erosion?	Cotoneaster species have been used for soil conservation in their native range (Singh, Bhagwati & Nawa 1992).	l	m
8. Reduce biomass?	Unknown; reported to form dense thickets, which could be an increase in biomass of the woodland that it has invaded, however can prevent the native shrubs and trees from regenerating (Weber 2003). Therefore in the short term biomass may increase, while in the long term a woodland or forest may become a shrubland.	m	mh
9. Change fire regime?	Unknown, however a change in biomass could alter the fire intensity.	ml	l
Community Habitat
10. Impact on composition (a) high value EVC	EVC= Grassy Forest (E); CMA= Corangamite; Bioreg= Otway Plain; VH CLIMATE potential. Can shade out other species and prevent native shrubs and trees regenerating. However reported mostly in forest margins and disturbed areas (Weber 2003).	mh	mh
(b) medium value EVC	EVC= Grassy Dry Forest (D); CMA= Corangamite; Bioreg= Otway Ranges; VH CLIMATE potential. Can shade out other species and prevent native shrubs and trees regenerating. However reported mostly in forest margins and disturbed areas (Weber 2003).	mh	mh
(c) low value EVC	EVC= Shrubby Dry Forest (LC); CMA= Corangamite; Bioreg= Otway Ranges; VH CLIMATE potential. Can shade out other species and prevent native shrubs and trees regenerating. However reported mostly in forest margins and disturbed areas (Weber 2003).	mh	mh
11. Impact on structure?	Can shade out other species and prevent native shrubs and trees regenerating.(Weber 2003).	mh	mh
12. Effect on threatened flora?	Unknown, reported to reduce the species richness of native bushland (Weber 2003).	mh	l
Fauna
13. Effect on threatened fauna?	Unknown	mh	l
14. Effect on non-threatened fauna?	Alteration of habitat, reducing flora richness and creating dense thickets (Weber 2003). Therefore diversity in available food and shelter could be reduced.	mh	mh
15. Benefits fauna?	Additional food source through berries for bird species (PFAF 2002). Dense shrubby vegetation, used for nesting sites by bird species (Lu, Zhang & Ren 2003).	m	m
16. Injurious to fauna?	Does have toxic properties, toxic to people (Richardson, Richardson & Shepherd 2006). However no detrimental effects to fauna reported, birds eat and disperse the berries (Weber 2003).	l	mh
Pest Animal
17. Food source to pests?	Red berries attractive to frugivorous bird species (PFAF 2002). Visited by bees (PFAF 2002).	ml	m
18. Provides harbour?	Cotoneaster species are used as nesting sites by turtle-doves and Blackbirds (Lu, Zhang & Ren 2003 and Lu 2005). Creates thickets (Weber 2003). Thickets may provide shelter for foxes and rabbits	m	m
Agriculture
19. Impact yield?	Can from dense understorey in plantation forests (Webb et al 1988). Therefore may compete with and reduce the growth rate of the plantation tree.	l	m
20. Impact quality?	Can from dense understorey in plantation forests (Webb et al 1988). May therefore restrict maintenance operations.	l	m
21. Affect land value?	Unknown, no such evidence reported.	l	m
22. Change land use?	Unknown, no such evidence reported.	l	m
23. Increase harvest costs?	Can from dense understorey in plantation forests (Webb et al 1988). May therefore restrict access.	m	m
24. Disease host/vector?	Cotoneaster species can be infected by fireblight. Cotoneaster simonsii is susceptible to honey fungus (PFAF 2002).	m	m

Invasive

QUESTION	COMMENTS	RATING	CONFIDENCE
Establishment
1. Germination requirements?	For propagation of cotoneaster species, seed is recommended to be sown in autumn, or stratified over winter and then sown under glass in spring (Griffths 1992). Therefore there is a seasonal component to the germination of cotoneaster species.	mh	m
2. Establishment requirements?	Tolerant of some shading (PFAF 2002).	mh	m
3. How much disturbance is required?	Reported most invasive in plantation forests (Webb et al 1988).	ml	mh
Growth/Competitive
4. Life form?	Shrub (Webb et al 1988).	l	mh
5. Allelopathic properties?	No reported for this species, however C. salicifolius has been reported to allelopathic potential (Morita, Ito & Harada 2005).	m	l
6. Tolerates herb pressure?	Not reported grazed, Other Cotoneaster species are tolerant of pruning (PFAF 2002).	mh	m
7. Normal growth rate?	Reported to be fast growing (PFAF 2002).	ml	m
8. Stress tolerance to frost, drought, w/logg, sal. etc?	Tolerant of temperatures to -20⁰C (frost) (PFAF 2002). Drought tolerant (Bodkin 1986). Susceptible of waterlogging (PFAF 2002).	m	m
Reproduction
9. Reproductive system	Reproduces sexually, producing seed (Weber 2003). Cotoneaster species are capable of layering, where branches that are in constant contact with the ground can set root (Bossard, Randell & Hoshovsky 2000 and PFAF 2002).	h	m
10. Number of propagules produced?	Cotoneaster species produces abundant fruit, C. simonsii fruit can contain 2-5 seeds (Weber 2003).	h	mh
11. Propagule longevity?	Due to the seeds germinating after a 14 month stratification study on C. horizontalis, seed viability was at 38% (Blomme & Degeyter 1985). Unknown however how long a seed can remain viable.	m	l
12. Reproductive period?	Unknown however the plant is a shrub; Other Cotoneaster species have been reported to have lived longer then 25 years (Dave’s Garden 2006). With a presumed capacity to produce fruit 10+ years.	h	ml
13. Time to reproductive maturity?	Unknown	m	l
Dispersal
14. Number of mechanisms?	Produces red berries, which are then dispersed by birds and animals (Bossard, Randell & Hoshovsky 2000 and Williams et al 2000).	h	h
15. How far do they disperse?	Birds and animals can disperse fruit seeds distances greater than 1km (Spennemann & Allen 2000).	h	mh

References

Blomme R. & Degeyter L., 1985, Seed treatments and germination determinations for seeds of Cotoneaster horizontalis. Verbondsnieuws voor de Belgische Sierteelt. 29: 17-23

Bodkin F., 1986, Encyclopaedia Botanica : the essential reference guide to native and exotic plants in Australia. Angus & Robertson.

Bossard C.C., Randell J.M. & Hoshovsky M.C., 2000, Invasive plants of California’s wildlands. University of California Press.

Covacevich J., Davie P. & Pearn J., 1987, Toxic plants & animals. A guide for Australia. Queensland Museum. Brisbane

Dave’s Garden: Dave’s Garden “For Gardeners… By Gardeners”. viewed 18 Dec 2006, http://davesgarden.com/

Griffths M., 1992, The new Royal Horticultural Society dictionary of gardening. Macmillan. London

Lu X., 2005, Reproductive ecology of blackbirds (Turdus merula maximus) in a high-altitude location, Tibet. Journal of ornithology. 146: 72-78

Lu X., Zhang L.Y., & Ren C., 2003, Breeding ecology of the rufous turtle dove (Streptopelia orientalis) in mountain scrub vegetation, Lhasa (Tibet). Game & Wildlife Science. 20: 225-240

Morita S., Ito M. & Harada J., 2005, Screening of an allelopathic potential in arbour species. Weed Biology and Management. 5: 26-30

Palme E., Bilia A.R. & Morelli I., 1996, Flavonols and isoflavones from Cotoneaster simonsii. Pytochemistry. 42: 903-905

PFAF: Plants for a Future. Edible, medicinal and useful plants for a healthier world. viewed 5 Apr 2002, http://pfaf.org/

Shepherd R.C.H., 2004, Pretty but poisonous. Plants poisonous to people, an Illustrated Guide for Australia. R.G. and F.J. Richardson. Meredith

Singh R.P., Bhagwati P. & Nawa B., 1992, Cotoneaster microphylla Wall. – suitable for soil conservation in temperate regions of Himalayas. Indian Forester. 118: 672-675

Spennemann. D.H.R. & Allen. L.R., 2000, Feral olives (Oliea europaea) as future woody weeds in Australia: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 40: 889-901.

Webb C.J., Sykes W.R. & Garnock-Jones P.J., 1988, Flora of New Zealand, Vol 4, Botany Division, Department of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand.

Weber, E. 2003, Invasive plant species of the world: a reference guide to environmental weeds, CABI Publishing, Wallingford.

Williams P.A., Karl .B.J., Banister P. & Lee W.G, 2000, Small mammals as potential seed dispersers in New Zealand. Austral Ecology. 25: 523-532

Global present distribution data references

Australian National Herbarium (ANH) 2006, Australia’s Virtual Herbarium, Australian National Herbarium, Centre for Plant Diversity and Research, viewed 4 Dec 2006, http://www.anbg.gov.au/avh/

Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) 2006, Global biodiversity information facility: Prototype data portal, viewed 1 Dec 2006, http://www.gbif.org/

Missouri Botanical Gardens (MBG) 2006, w³TROPICOS, Missouri Botanical Gardens Database, viewed 5 Apr 2002, 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.

Page top