Roundleaf Cotoneaster (Cotoneaster rotundifolius)

Present distribution

Scientific name:	Cotoneaster rotundifolius Wall. ex Lindl.
Common name(s):	Round leaf Cotoneaster

This weed is not known to be naturalised in Victoria

Habitat:

In NSW this species is reported naturalised on the central coast, the north and the central tablelands (ed Spencer 2002). In its native range of the Himalayas it is reported on grassy slopes. Rocks and mountain summits between 1200 and 4000m (Wu et al 1994).

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
Inland slopes woodland; montane dry woodland; montane moist forest; sub-alpine woodland; grassland; plains grassy woodland; sub-alpine grassy woodland; montane grassy woodland

Colours indicate possibility of Cotoneaster rotundifolius 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 roundleaf cotoneaster

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

Impact

QUESTION	COMMENTS	RATING	CONFIDENCE
Social
1. Restrict human access?	Cotoneaster species can form dense vegetation (Bossard, Randell & Hoshovsky 2000). Would require works to create access.	h	m
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).	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?	Cotoneaster species can form dense vegetation, which could be an increase in biomass of the woodland that they have invaded (Bossard, Randell & Hoshovsky 2000).	l	m
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= Montane Grassy Woodland (V); CMA= East Gippsland; Bioreg= Monaro Tablelands; VH CLIMATE potential. A shrubby species, unknown to what extent this species will displace native vegetation.	m	l
(b) medium value EVC	EVC= Sub-alpine Woodland (R); CMA= East Gippsland; Bioreg= Monaro Tablelands; VH CLIMATE potential. A shrubby species, unknown to what extent this species will displace native vegetation.	m	l
(c) low value EVC	EVC= Montane Dry Woodland (LC); CMA= East Gippsland; Bioreg= Monaro Tablelands; VH CLIMATE potential. A shrubby species, unknown to what extent this species will displace native vegetation.	m	l
11. Impact on structure?	A shrubby species, unknown to what extent this species will displace native vegetation.	m	l
12. Effect on threatened flora?	Unknown.	mh	l
Fauna
13. Effect on threatened fauna?	Unknown	mh	l
14. Effect on non-threatened fauna?	Alteration of habitat, Cotoneaster species can create dense vegetation and potential have altering flora composition (Bossard, Randell & Hoshovsky 2000). Therefore diversity in available food and shelter could be reduced.	ml	m
15. Benefits fauna?	Additional food source through berries for bird species (Wu et al 1994). Dense shrubby vegetation, used for nesting sites by bird species (Lu 2005).	m	m
16. Injurious to fauna?	Does have toxic properties, toxic to people (Shepherd 2004). However no detrimental effects to fauna reported, birds eat and disperse the berries (Bossard, Randell & Hoshovsky 2000).	l	m
Pest Animal
17. Food source to pests?	Cotoneasters red berries attractive to frugivorous bird species (Bossard, Randell & Hoshovsky 2000).	ml	m
18. Provides harbor?	Other cotoneaster species are used as nesting sites by blackbirds (Lu 2005).	ml	m
Agriculture
19. Impact yield?	Has been known to invade grassy areas (Wu et al 1994). Would then reduce production area.	l	mh
20. Impact quality?	Unknown, however not reported to impact on agriculture.	l	m
21. Affect land value?	Unknown, however not reported to impact on agriculture.	l	m
22. Change land use?	Unknown, however not reported to impact on agriculture.	l	m
23. Increase harvest costs?	Unknown, however not reported to impact on agriculture.	l	m
24. Disease host/vector?	Other Cotoneaster species are susceptible to fireblight and honey fungus, unknown for this species.	m	l

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?	Unknown, other cotoneaster species can establish under shade, however it can reduce the plants fruiting capacity.	m	l
3. How much disturbance is required?	Native to the Himalayas (Wu et al 1994). Therefore has potential to invade alpine areas.	h	m
Growth/Competitive
4. Life form?	Shrub (Wu et al 1994).	l	mh
5. Allelopathic properties?	Not 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	ml
7. Normal growth rate?	Unknown	m	l
8. Stress tolerance to frost, drought, w/logg, sal. etc?	Native to mountain summits up to 4000m (Frost tolerant) (Wu et al 1994). Other cotoneaster species native to the Himalayas are susceptible of waterlogging (PFAF 2002).	ml	m
Reproduction
9. Reproductive system	Reproduces sexually, producing seed (Wu et al 1994). Cotoneaster species are capable of layering, where branches that are in constant contact with the ground can set root (Bossard, Randell & Hoshovsky 2000).	h	m
10. Number of propagules produced?	Cotoneaster species produces abundant fruit, C rotundifolius fruit can contain 2-3 seeds (ed. Spencer 2002 and Wu et al 1994).	h	m
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 large 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?	Cotoneaster species produces red berries, which are then dispersed by birds and animals (Blood 2001).	h	m
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

Blood K., 2001, Environmental Weeds. A field guide for SE Australia. CH Jerram & Associates – Science publishers. Mt Waverly.

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

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

PFAF: Plants for a Future. Edible, medicinal and useful plants for a healthier world. viewed 8 Dec 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

Spencer R. (ed), 2002, Horticultural Flora of South-Eastern Australia. Flowering Plants Dicotyledons Part 2. UNSW Press.

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.

Wu Z., Raven P.H et al (eds), 1994, Flora of China. 9: 104.

Global present distribution data references

Australian National Herbarium (ANH) 2006, Australia’s Virtual Herbarium, Australian National Herbarium, Centre for Plant Diversity and Research, viewed 18 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 1 Dec 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.

Page top