Present distribution
| Map showing the present distribution of this weed. | ||||
Habitat: Native to the Mediterranean region (Walsh & Entwisle 1999). In Victoria invades ‘damp shady places extending from disturbed sites (roadsides etc) into native bushland (Walsh & Entwisle 1999)’, & damp and wet sclerophyll forest (Carr et al 1992)’. In Tasmania, ‘quite common in wet gullies (Uni Tas 2007)’. In New Zealand, waste places, stream & ditch edges, coastal sites, & under trees, usually in wet areas (Roy et al 2004, Webb et al 1988), also ‘herbfield’ and ‘open’ communities (Landcare NZ 2005). In the UK forms large roadside colonies (RHS 2008) & described as ‘often seen on dry roadside hedge banks (Nth Ire EHS 2008)’. Occurs in the European Alps (SDJC 2006). |
Map Overlays Used Land Use: Forestry; horticulture perennial. Broad vegetation types Lowland forest; forby forest; damp forest; riparian; wet forest; rainforest; high altitude shrubland/woodland; alpine treeless; alluvial plains woodland; riverine woodland/forest. Colours indicate possibility of Petasites fragrans infesting these areas. In the non-coloured areas the plant is unlikely to establish as the climate, soil or landuse is not presently suitable. |
|
QUESTION | COMMENTS | RATING | CONFIDENCE |
Social | |||
1. Restrict human access? | Rhizomatous herb to 40cm high (Walsh & Entwisle 1994). Unlikely to restrict human access. | L | MH |
2. Reduce tourism? | ‘‘…a large leaved rampant perennial…It is very invasive, often forming large wayside colonies to the exclusion of all other vegetation (RHS 2008)’. Potential to have minor negative affects on aesthetics of an area. | ML | M |
3. Injurious to people? | Though information specifically for P. fragrans was not found, several species of Petasites are described as possessing toxic Sesquiterpenes (Nice et al 2008), and Pyrrolizidine alkaloids that are toxic and carcinogenic to both humans and animals (Uni Adelaide 2007) and known to cause liver injury. ‘Petasites root’ is also described as ‘an antispasmodic agent’ and used in herbal drug preparations (Nice et al 2008). Potentially very toxic, for example, if consumed without correct preparations or in large amounts. | MH | M |
4. Damage to cultural sites? | Rhizomatous herb to 40cm high (Walsh & Entwisle 1994). Unlikely to cause damage to cultural sites. | L | MH |
Abiotic | |||
5. Impact flow? | Described growing on stream sides and in wet areas (Roy et al 2004) but not documented within water ways. Unlikely to impact water flow. | L | MH |
6. Impact water quality? | Described growing on stream sides and in wet areas (Roy et al 2004) but not documented within water ways. Unlikely to impact water quality. | L | MH |
7. Increase soil erosion? | There was no information found to indicate it increases soil erosion and being rhizomatous, (Walsh & Entwisle 1994) it has potential to reduce erosion in some situations. | L | M |
8. Reduce biomass? | Forms large colonies (RHS 2008), and in habitats such as on roadsides and stream banks, (Roy et al 2004) has potential to increase biomass. | L | M |
9. Change fire regime? | Not documented to cause a change in fire regime, and because it appears to occur largely in areas that are not impacted significantly by fire or fires are infrequent, e.g. damp and wet sclerophyll forest, damp, wet areas, stream sides, roadsides (Roy et al 2004, Walsh & Entwisle 1999, Carr et al 1992), it is unlikely to cause a notable change of fire regime in these habitats. | L | M |
Community Habitat | |||
10. Impact on composition (a) high value EVC | ‘It is very invasive, often forming large wayside colonies to the exclusion of all other vegetation (RHS 2008)’. ‘These large green, leathery leaves block light from reaching the ground beneath them, effectively suppressing any potentially competitive plant growth (Western Isles 2006). ‘It is most often seen on dry roadside hedge banks where it can obliterate all other vegetation (Nth Ire EHS 2008)’. Invades damp and wet sclerophyll forest (Carr et al 1992) and ‘bushland (Walsh & Entwisle 1999)’. Can form monoculture in understorey. EVC = Damp Forest (E); CMA = West Gippsland; Bioregion = Strzelecki Ranges; VH CLIMATE potential. | H | M |
(b) medium value EVC | ‘It is very invasive, often forming large wayside colonies to the exclusion of all other vegetation (RHS 2008)’. ‘These large green, leathery leaves block light from reaching the ground beneath them, effectively suppressing any potentially competitive plant growth (Western Isles 2006). ‘It is most often seen on dry roadside hedge banks where it can obliterate all other vegetation (Nth Ire EHS 2008)’. Invades damp and wet sclerophyll forest (Carr et al 1992) and ‘bushland (Walsh & Entwisle 1999)’. Can form monoculture in understorey. EVC = Sedgy Riparian Woodland (D); CMA = Corangamite; Bioregion = Central Victorian Uplands; VH CLIMATE potential. | H | M |
(c) low value EVC | ‘It is very invasive, often forming large wayside colonies to the exclusion of all other vegetation (RHS 2008)’. ‘These large green, leathery leaves block light from reaching the ground beneath them, effectively suppressing any potentially competitive plant growth (Western Isles 2006). ‘It is most often seen on dry roadside hedge banks where it can obliterate all other vegetation (Nth Ire EHS 2008)’. Invades damp and wet sclerophyll forest (Carr et al 1992) and ‘bushland (Walsh & Entwisle 1999)’. Can form monoculture in understorey. EVC = Wet Forest (LC); CMA = West Gippsland; Bioregion = Wilsons Promontory; VH CLIMATE potential. | H | M |
11. Impact on structure? | ‘It is very invasive, often forming large wayside colonies to the exclusion of all other vegetation (RHS 2008)’. These large green, leathery leaves block light from reaching the ground beneath them, effectively suppressing any potentially competitive plant growth (Western Isles 2006). ‘It is most often seen on dry roadside hedge banks where it can obliterate all other vegetation (Nth Ire EHS 2008)’. Can form monoculture in understorey. - major effect on <60% of the floral strata. | MH | M |
12. Effect on threatened flora? | ‘It is very invasive, often forming large wayside colonies to the exclusion of all other vegetation (RHS 2008)’. Likely to also affect threatened flora but no additional impact on threatened flora was described. | MH | L |
Fauna | |||
13. Effect on threatened fauna? | It is very invasive, often forming large wayside colonies to the exclusion of all other vegetation (RHS 2008)’. Documented to invade bushland (Walsh & Entwisle 1999). There is potential for it to reduce habitat for threatened fauna by eliminating native flora species but no information was specifically documented. | MH | L |
14. Effect on non-threatened fauna? | It is very invasive, often forming large wayside colonies to the exclusion of all other vegetation (RHS 2008)’. Documented to invade bushland (Walsh & Entwisle 1999). There is potential for it to reduce habitat for non-threatened fauna by eliminating native vegetation but the level of impact is unknown. | M | L |
15. Benefits fauna? | Not described to benefit fauna. There were no records found of it being consumed by animals, and being a low growing plant (Walsh & Entwisle 1999), it is unlikely to provide much harbour. Provides very little support to desirable species. | H | M |
16. Injurious to fauna? | Several species of Petasites are described as possessing Pyrrolizidine alkaloids, properties that can be toxic and carcinogenic to both humans and animals (Uni Adelaide 2007). The impact on native fauna if it was consumed is unknown. Not found described to be consumed by herbivores but may be eaten accidentally or in times of food shortage. | M | L |
Pest Animal | |||
17. Food source to pests? | Not found documented as a food source to pests (or any other animals). Likely to provide minimal food source to pest animals. | L | M |
18. Provides harbour? | As a low growing herb to 40cm (Walsh & Entwisle 1999), it would not provide harbour to serious pest species, but with its ability to form large colonies (RHS 2008) and occur on roadsides, wasteland, & along streams (Roy et al 2004, Walsh & Entwisle 1999) it may provide some harbour for minor pest species such as introduced rodents. | ML | MH |
Agriculture | |||
19. Impact yield? | Not described as a weed of agriculture (Randall 2007, Walsh & Entwisle 1999, Roy et al 2004, Webb et al 1988). | L | MH |
20. Impact quality? | Not described as a weed of agriculture (Randall 2007, Walsh & Entwisle 1999, Roy et al 2004, Webb et al 1988). | L | MH |
21. Affect land value? | Not described as a weed of agriculture (Randall 2007, Walsh & Entwisle 1999, Roy et al 2004, Webb et al 1988). | L | MH |
22. Change land use? | Not described as a weed of agriculture (Randall 2007, Walsh & Entwisle 1999, Roy et al 2004, Webb et al 1988). | L | MH |
23. Increase harvest costs? | Not described as a weed of agriculture (Randall 2007, Walsh & Entwisle 1999, Roy et al 2004, Webb et al 1988). | L | MH |
24. Disease host/vector? | Not described as a weed of agriculture (Randall 2007, Walsh & Entwisle 1999, Roy et al 2004, Webb et al 1988). | L | MH |
QUESTION | COMMENTS | RATING | CONFIDENCE |
Establishment | |||
1. Germination requirements? | Though seed reproduction is mentioned (Bodkin 1990, Western Isles 2006) it is also described as only reproducing vegetatively (Carr et al 1992) because of the presence of all male flowers (Walsh & Entwisle 1999, Webb et al 1988, ukwildflowers.com 2006) and as being dispersed vegetatively via rhizomes (Carr et al 1992). Leaves die down and regrow from rhizomes in Spring (RHS 2008) suggesting vegetative propagules require natural seasonal disturbances such as warmer temperatures to strike root. | MH | ML |
2. Establishment requirements? | Described growing ‘under trees (Roy et al 2004)’ and in ‘damp shady places (Walsh & Entwisle 1999)’. Invades damp and wet sclerophyll forest (Carr et al 1992). Likely to establish under a moderate canopy. | MH | MH |
3. How much disturbance is required? | Damp shady places extending from disturbed sites (roadsides etc) into native bushland (Walsh & Entwisle 1999). Considered established in natural and semi-natural habitats in Ireland (Stokes et al 2004). Invades damp and wet sclerophyll forest (Carr et al 1992). Appears able to establish in minor disturbed natural ecosystems. | MH | MH |
Growth/Competitive | |||
4. Life form? | Rhizomatous herb to 40cm high (Walsh & Entwisle 1994). Geophyte (Landcare NZ 2005). Lifeform: geophyte | ML | MH |
5. Allelopathic properties? | Nothing found described but literature on this species is limited. | M | L |
6. Tolerates herb pressure? | Its consumption by animals was not found documented, however, it is unknown if this is due to lack of available information or because it is not utilised as a food source. | M | L |
7. Normal growth rate? | ‘…a large leaved rampant perennial, spreading by means of underground stems by up to 1m per year (RHS 2008)’. Rapid growth | H | M |
8. Stress tolerance to frost, drought, w/logg, sal. etc? | Frost: Tolerant to frost -‘Another plant that does not mind this cold weather is the Winter Heliotrope (Petasites fragrans). It naturally grows happily in European mountain ranges like the Alps (SDJC 2006)’, and documented to tolerate temperatures down to -5oC (Brickell 1996). Water logging: Displays some tolerance to water logging - Grows ‘along streams…usually in wet areas (Roy et al 2004)’ and invades damp and wet sclerophyll forest (Carr et al 1992). Drought: Susceptible to drought - ‘drought tender (Bodkin 1990)’. Its underground rhizomes (Walsh & Entwisle 1999) might give it some protection against fire, though mostly not described in fire prone communities. Tolerance to salinity not documented. | M | M |
Reproduction | |||
9. Reproductive system | While in Victoria it is described to reproduce vegetatively (Carr et al 1992) with only male flowers present (Walsh & Entwisle 1999) and male flowers are also only found in Britain & New Zealand (ukwildflowers.com 2006, Webb et al 1988), it is documented to be capable of sexual reproduction, producing seeds (Bodkin 1990) - ‘Winter Heliotrope has a very deeply growing rhizome and also propagates by seed, which makes it difficult to control the plant's spread (Western Isles 2006)’. | H | M |
10. Number of propagules produced? | Not found described. | M | L |
11. Propagule longevity? | Not found described. | M | L |
12. Reproductive period? | ‘It is very invasive, often forming large wayside colonies to the exclusion of all other vegetation (RHS 2008)’. Foms self-sustaining monocultures. | H | M |
13. Time to reproductive maturity? | ‘…a large leaved rampant perennial, spreading by means of underground stems by up to 1m per year (RHS 2008)’. Though not specifically described it is likely that if up to 1m of rhizome can be produced in a year, pieces of rhizome that broke off within that year could become separate individuals. | H | M |
Dispersal | |||
14. Number of mechanisms? | Vegetative dispersal (Carr et al 1992). Occurs on roadsides (Walsh & Entwisle 1999, Richardson et al 2006) and along streams (Roy et al 2004). ‘Spreading by rhizomes and? wind-dispersed seed (Swarbrick, J.T. & Skarratt, D.B. 1994)’. Rhizomes are likely to be dispersed in soil by machinery, e.g. road graders, or by water, and seeds are potentially wind dispersed. | MH | M |
15. How far do they disperse? | Dispersal of its rhizomes (Swarbrick, J.T. & Skarratt, D.B. 1994) potentially by vehicles or roadside machinery, could be greater than 1 km. | H | M |