Scientific name: Psoralea pinnatavro.agriculture.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/0d08cd...Scientific name: Psoralea pinnata L. Common name: Blue psoralea (blue butterfly bush) QUESTION

Impact Assessment Record

Scientific name: Psoralea pinnata L. Common name: Blue psoralea (blue butterfly bush)

QUESTION COMMENTS RATING CONFIDENCE

Social

1. Restrict human access? A small tree growing to 4m, reported to occur in riparian areas and able to forms dense thickets (Weber 2003). As the plant can grow to 1.5m in one year and has a lasting seed bank, the species may need to be controlled to maintain access which would require significant works (Eliovson 1960; Muyt 2001).

H MH

2. Reduce tourism? An ornamental tree species which can form dense thickets the species may have some effect on aesthetics (Weber 2003). Unknown if the species potential to restrict access has had any impact on recreational activities.

M L

3. Injurious to people? There is no reported evidence of this. L M

4. Damage to cultural sites?

An ornamental tree species which can form dense thickets the species may have some effect on aesthetics (Weber 2003). ML M

Abiotic

5. Impact flow? The species is reported to occur in swamps and riparian vegetation (Hussey et al 1997; Muyt 2001). There is no evidence reported of the species impacting water flow. L M

6. Impact water quality? The species is reported to occur in swamps and riparian vegetation (Hussey et al 1997; Muyt 2001). There is no evidence reported of the species impacting water quality. L M

7. Increase soil erosion? The species root system is described as being woody and branching but mostly shallow (Muyt 2001). Having a shallow root system would limit the species ability to prevent large scale erosion occurring. ML MH

8. Reduce biomass? Described as a fast growing species which can crowd out other shrub species and shade out species of lower strata (Muyt 2001). Invasion by this species is overall likely to cause direct replacement. ML MH

9. Change fire regime? Blood (2001) reports that fire stimulates mass germination of this fast growing species, this could increase fire frequency. The flammability of this species is not reported and therefore its affect on fire intensity can’t be speculated.

M L

Community Habitat

10. Impact on composition (a) high value EVC

EVC= Wet Heathland (V); CMA= Glenelg Hopkins; Bioreg= Greater Grampians; VH CLIMATE potential. P.pinnata is a small tree species, which can form dense thickets, shading out species of the lower strata, crowd out shrub species and impede the regeneration of overstorey species (Muyt 2001; Weber 2003). It can also fix nitrogen which can change the soil fertility and affect indigenous species persistence in the long term (Muyt 2001). Therefore the species is capable of causing major displacement within layers.

MH MH

(b) medium value EVC

EVC= Damp Heathland (D); CMA= Glenelg Hopkins; Bioreg= Glenelg Plain; VH CLIMATE potential. P.pinnata is a small tree species, which can form dense thickets, shading out species of the lower strata, crowd MH MH




out shrub species and impede the regeneration of overstorey species (Muyt 2001; Weber 2003). It can also fix nitrogen which can change the soil fertility and affect indigenous species persistence in the long term (Muyt 2001). Therefore the species is capable of causing major displacement within layers.

(c) low value EVC

EVC= Wet Heathland (LC); CMA= Glenelg Hopkins; Bioreg= Glenelg Plain; VH CLIMATE potential. P.pinnata is a small tree species, which can form dense thickets, shading out species of the lower strata, crowd out shrub species and impede the regeneration of overstorey species (Muyt 2001; Weber 2003). It can also fix nitrogen which can change the soil fertility and affect indigenous species persistence in the long term (Muyt 2001). Therefore the species is capable of causing major displacement within layers.

MH MH

11. Impact on structure? P.pinnata is a small tree species, which can form dense thickets, shading out species of the lower strata, crowd out shrub species and impede the regeneration of overstorey species (Muyt 2001; Weber 2003). It can also fix nitrogen which can change the soil fertility and affect indigenous species persistence in the long term (Muyt 2001). Therefore the species has potential to have a major impact on the middle to lower strata through direct competition and a minor impact through impeding regeneration and alteration of soil chemistry.

MH MH

12. Effect on threatened flora?

Listed as threatening competitor to Villarsia calthifolia a rare species in Western Australia (Gilfillan & Barrett 2004). There is no data reported however of this species impacting a species threatened in Victoria. MH L

Fauna

13. Effect on threatened fauna?

There is no data of this occurring. MH L

14. Effect on non-threatened fauna?

Is managed as a threat to the Southern Emu-wren Stipiturus malachurus (Maguire & Mulder 2004). MH H

15. Benefits fauna? Observed as a food source of the New Holland Honeyeater phylidonyris novaehollandiae (Lepschi 1997). Is reported to be used by the Southern Emu-wren Stipiturus malachurus (Maguire 2005). MH H

16. Injurious to fauna? There is no evidence of this occurring. L M

Pest Animal

17. Food source to pests? Introduced as a nectar source for bees (Blood 2001). ML MH

18. Provides harbor? Reported to forms thickets (Weber 2003). There is potential therefore for the species to harbour species such as rabbits and foxes. There is no evidence of this occurring however. MH M




Agriculture

19. Impact yield? Reported to be becoming a problem in forestry (Blood 2001). The species impact is unknown however. M L

20. Impact quality? Reported to be becoming a problem in forestry (Blood 2001). The species impact is unknown however. M L

21. Affect land value? Reported to be becoming a problem in forestry (Blood 2001). The species impact is unknown however. M L

22. Change land use? Reported to be becoming a problem in forestry (Blood 2001). The species impact is unknown however. M L

23. Increase harvest costs? Reported to be becoming a problem in forestry (Blood 2001). The species impact is unknown however. M L

24. Disease host/vector? Phakopsora pachyrhizae has been identified on the plant and other Phakopsora species are reported to infect a range of legume species (Mennicken & Oberwinkler 2004). Therefore this species my be an alternate host for rusts that effect legume crops, at this stage however there is no direct evidence.

M L

Invasiveness Assessment Record

Scientific name: Psoralea pinnata L. Common Name: Blue psoralea (blue butterfly bush)


Establishment

1. Germination requirements?

Germination is reported to occur in Autumn, especially after fire or another disturbance. The seeds are not dependent on fire for germination however (Blood 2001). MH MH

2. Establishment requirements?

Tolerant of partial shade, invades forest (Blood 2001). MH MH

3. How much disturbance is required?

Highly invasive in heathland (Muyt 2001). H MH

Growth/Competitive

4. Life form? In the Fabaceae family and can fix nitrogen (Blood 2001). Therefore a legume. MH MH

5. Allelopathic properties?

No allelopathic properties are reported for this species. L M

6. Tolerates herb pressure?

Tolerant of grazing, used as a fodder source (Blood 2001). Resprouts after being cut at the base (Blood 2001). MH MH

7. Normal growth rate? Very fast growing (Blood 2001). Can grow rapidly to 1.5m in a year (Eliovson 1960). H H

8. Stress tolerance to frost, drought, w/logg, sal. etc?

Tolerant of frost, to temperatures of -4ºC (Blood 2001). Tolerant of fire; fire stimulates germination and mature plants can reprout (Blood 2001). Tolerant of dry conditions (Blood 2001). No reported tolerance of drought however. Tolerant of waterlogging; occurs in swamps (Blood 2001). Tolerant of salt laden winds (Muyt 2001).

MH MH

Reproduction

9. Reproductive system Reproduces by seed (Blood 2001). ML MH

10. Number of propagules produced?

Can produce thousands of seeds annually (Muyt 2001). H MH

11. Propagule longevity? Seeds remain viable for at least 8 years (Muyt 2001). ML MH

12. Reproductive period? Can live for 15 years (Muyt 2001). Being able to start flowering in its second year as reported by Blood (2001) would give a potential reproductive period of more than 10 years. H MH


Scientific name: Psoralea pinnata L. Common Name: Blue psoralea (blue butterfly bush)


13. Time to reproductive maturity?

Can start flowering after 1 year (Eliovson 1960). MH H

Dispersal

14. Number of mechanisms?

Dispersed by water and possibly by birds (Blood 2001). Human aided dispersal includes accidentally through machinery and contaminated soil and deliberately; still occasionally available in trade (Blood 2001; Muyt 2001).

H MH

15. How far do they disperse?

Dispersal by water and possibly by birds would enable propagules to move more than 1km. Dispersal of more than 1km along a roadside most probably through contaminated machinery has been observed (Mitchard pers com 2007).

H ML

Potential distribution of Psoralea pinnata in Victoria

Scientific name: Psoralea pinnata L.

Common name(s): Blue psoralea (blue butterfly bush)

Status:

Habitat: Psoralea pinnata is reported to be highly invasive in heathland, woodland, drier forests, swampy and riparian areas (Muyt 2001). It is also reported to invade dry coastal vegetation, pasture, forestry plantations, roadsides and waste places (Blood 2001; Carr, Yugovic & Robinson 1992; Webb et al

1988). In the species native range it is reported to grow in damp places, often in depressions with an open aspect at higher altitudes (Batten & Bokelmann 1966). 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; swamp scrub; box ironbark forest; inland slopes woodland; sedge rich 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; riparian forest; rainshadow woodland; mallee; mallee heath; boinka-raak; mallee woodland; wimmera / mallee woodland

Colours indicate possibility of Psoralea pinnata infesting these areas.

Red = Very high Yellow = High

Orange = Medium Green = Likely

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

Present distribution of Psoralea pinnata in Victoria

Scientific name: Psoralea pinnata L.

Common name(s): Blue psoralea (blue butterfly bush)

Status:

Habitat: Psoralea pinnata is reported to be highly invasive in heathland, woodland, drier forests, swampy and riparian areas (Muyt 2001). It is also reported to invade dry coastal vegetation, pasture, forestry plantations, roadsides and waste places (Blood 2001; Carr, Yugovic & Robinson 1992; Webb et al

1988). In the species native range it is reported to grow in damp places, often in depressions with an open aspect at higher altitudes (Batten & Bokelmann 1966).

###

#

#

###

###

## #

#

##

#

# #

#

#

#

###

##

#

#

##

#

#

####

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

References - Psoralea pinnata L.

Batten A. & Bokelmann H., 1966, Wild flowers of the Eastern Cape Province. Books of Africa.

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

Carr G.W., Yugovic J.V. & Robinson K.E., 1992, Environmental weed invasions in Victoria: conservation and management implications, Department of Conservation and Environment, Clifton Hill.

Eliovson S., 1960, South African Wild Flowers for the Garden. How to grow them, identify them and use them for effect. Bulbs, Annuals, Perennials, Shrubs, Trees, Succulents.

Howard Timmins, Cape Town.

Gilfillan S. & Barrett S., 2004, Mountain Villarsia (Villarsia calthifolia). Interim recovery plan, 2004-2009. Interim Recovery Plan No. 169. Department of Conservation and Land Management. Albany.

Hussey B.M.J., Keighery G.J., Cousens R.D., Dodd J. & Lloyd S.G., 1997, Western Weeds. A guide to the weeds of Western Australia. The Plant Protection Society of Western Australia Inc. Victoria Park.

Lepschi B.J., 1997, Food of some birds in Southern Australia: Additions to Barker & Vestjens, Part 2. EMU. 97: 84-87.

Maguire G.S., 2005, Behavioural Ecology of the Southern Emu-wren (Stripiturus malachurus). PhD thesis, Department of Zoology, The University of Melbourne.

Maguire G.S. & Mulder R.A., 2004, Breeding biology and demography of the southern emu-wren (Stipiturus malachurus). Australian Journal of Zoology. 52: 583-604.

Mennicken M. & Oberwinkler F., 2004, A contribution to the rust flora (Uredinales) of southern Africa, with an emphasis on South Africa. Mycotaxon. 90: 1-28.

Muyt A., 2001, Bush invaders of South-East Australia: a guide to the identification and control of environmental weeds found in South-East Australia. R.G. and F.J. Richardson. Meredith.

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.

Global present distribution references.

Australian National Herbarium (ANH) 2007, Australia’s Virtual Herbarium, Australian National Herbarium, Centre for Plant Diversity and Research, viewed 7 Jun 2007 , http://www.anbg.gov.au/avh/

Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) 2006, Flora information system [CD-ROM], Biodiversity and Natural Resources Section, Viridans Pty Ltd, Bentleigh.

EIS: Environmental Information System 2006. Parks Victoria.

Gill N. & Blake G., (RD&M) 2002, Coastal weeds in the south eastern region of Tasmania. Report prepared for Integrated South East Coastal Management Strategy.

Hawley G.L. & Darnes J.F., 2004, Mycorrhizal status of indigenous tree species in a forest biome of the Eastern Cape, South Africa. South African Journal of Science. 100: 633-637.

IPMS: Integrated Pest Management System 2006. Department of Primary Industries.

Maguire G.S. & Mulder R.A., 2004, Breeding biology and demography of the Southern Emu-wren (Stipiturus malachurus). Australian Journal of Zoology. 52: 583-604.

RD&M (Reserve Design & Management), 2002, Greens Beach/Kelso Coastal Reserve Management and Restoration Plan. Report prepared for the Greens Beach/Kelso Coastal Management and Restoration Project Steering Committee.

Webb C.J., 1980, Checklist of dicotyledons naturalises in New Zealand 5. Leguminosae. New Zealand Journal of Botany. 18: 463-472.


Scientific name: Rhamnus alaternus L. Common name: Italian Buckthorn


Social

1. Restrict human access? Rhamnus alaternus is a fast growing shrub, able to grow to 6m and form dense stands. Used as a hedge it could therefore pose a major physical barrier (Blood 2001; Muyt 2001; Weber 2003). The plants ability to sucker could also impose on tracks and is reportedly difficult to control requiring significant works with follow up (Blood 2001; Weber 2003).

H MH

2. Reduce tourism? Unknown. M L

3. Injurious to people? R. alaternus’ branches have traditionally been used in Spain to make a decoction for high blood pressure (Akerreta et al 2007). There is no evidence however of the plant causing injury. L M


Unknown. M L

Abiotic

5. Impact flow? The species can occur in riparian vegetation, there is no evidence however of it occurring in flowing water and obstructing flow. L M

6. Impact water quality? The species can occur in riparian vegetation, there is no evidence however of it occurring in water and affecting water quality. L M

7. Increase soil erosion? As reported by Blood (2001) the species is fast growing, has a strong root system and readily suckers therefore providing good vegetation cover for the soil surface and support to the soil structure, reducing the risk of erosion. ML M

8. Reduce biomass? The species is reported to displace the existing vegetation creating a dense species poor stand (Weber 2003). The species ability to prevent regeneration of trees and shrubs as reported by Muyt (2001) may stop the biomass accumulating beyond a certain point, overall however invasion by R. alaternus is considered to cause direct replacement of biomass.

ML MH

9. Change fire regime? Unknown. M L

Community Habitat


EVC= Escarpment Shrubland (E); CMA= Glenelg Hopkins; Bioreg= Glenelg Plain; VH CLIMATE potential. The species vigorous growth shades out ground flora altering the floral composition and can prevent regeneration of shrubs and trees and lead to species poor stands (Muyt 2001; Weber 2003). The species therefore may cause major displacement of species within a layer.

MH MH





EVC= Hills Herb-rich Woodland (D); CMA= Glenelg Hopkins; Bioreg= Goldfields; VH CLIMATE potential. The species vigorous growth shades out ground flora altering the floral composition and can prevent regeneration of shrubs and trees and lead to species poor stands (Muyt 2001; Weber 2003). The species therefore may cause major displacement of species within a layer.

MH MH

(c) low value EVC

EVC= Rocky Outcrop Herbland (LC); CMA= Glenelg Hopkins; Bioreg= Greater Grampians; VH CLIMATE potential. The species vigorous growth shades out ground flora altering the floral composition and can prevent regeneration of shrubs and trees and lead to species poor stands (Muyt 2001; Weber 2003). The species therefore may cause major displacement of species within a layer.

MH MH

11. Impact on structure? The species vigorous growth shades out ground flora altering the floral composition and can prevent regeneration of shrubs and trees and lead to species poor stands (Muyt 2001; Weber 2003). The species therefore may eventually have a major effect on all layers.

H MH


Not specifically reported, however its general impact of floral composition could impact threatened species. MH L

Fauna


Not specifically mentioned, however the alteration of vegetation composition could impact threatened fauna by altering habitat structure and food supply. MH L


Not specifically mentioned, however the alteration of vegetation composition could impact fauna by altering habitat structure and food supply. It is unknown however to what extent this would impact fauna. M L

15. Benefits fauna? Fruit is eaten by birds and possible by possums (Muyt 2001). MH MH

16. Injurious to fauna? There is no evidence of this. L M

Pest Animal

17. Food source to pests? Berries possibly eaten by foxes (Muyt 2001). MH MH

18. Provides harbour? Used as an ornamental hedge the species is capable of forming dense stands (Blood 2001). Muyt (2001) reports that the species may be a food source for foxes, therefore the dense vegetation it forms may also provide shelter.

MH M

Agriculture

19. Impact yield? Reported to invade plantations (Webb, Sykes & Garnock-Jones 1988). It is unknown however if the species reduces yield by any significant amount. M L




20. Impact quality? Reported to invade plantations (Webb, Sykes & Garnock-Jones 1988). It is unknown however if the species impacts the quality of the produce by any significant amount. M L

21. Affect land value? Unknown M L

22. Change land use? Reported to invade plantations (Webb, Sykes & Garnock-Jones 1988). It is unknown however if invasion by the species results in any change to land use. M L

23. Increase harvest costs? Reported to invade plantations (Webb, Sykes & Garnock-Jones 1988). It is unknown however if invasion by the species results in any change to cost of production. M L

24. Disease host/vector? While considered rare the species can be a host of Alfalfa mosaic virus, a disease that effects lucerne (Cardin 2006; Garran & Gibbs 1982). Is reported as a host of Pseudomonas savastanoi a bacterium that causes olive knot disease (Temsah, Hanna & Saad 2007).

M H


Scientific name: Rhamnus alaternus L. Common Name: Italian Buckthorn


Establishment


Germination is reported to occur largely in spring and autumn if there is sufficient moisture (Blood 2001). Therefore the species is capable of germinating under natural seasonal conditions. MH MH


Capable of establishing under low light conditions within existing vegetation (Blood 2001). MH MH


While the species is reported to prefer disturbed soil, it is capable of establishing within vegetation and is invasive in heathland (Blood 2001; Muyt 2001) H MH

Growth/Competitive

4. Life form? Geophyte; has lignotuber, from which it can regrow (Blood 2001). ML MH


The plants leaves and fruits contain emodin at levels of 0.04% ± 0.05% d. wt, and 0.0017% ± 0.0006% d. wt, respectively. At levels of 10-100 mg l-1 emodin can inhibit root and shoot growth of sunflower and corn (Izhaki 2002). Weber (2003) reports the levels of shade the species creates is thought to be the main agent in suppressing other species, however no studies on this species allelopathic ability have been reported. It is unknown to what level of impact any allelopathic properties Rhamnus alaternus might exhibit will have on other species.

M M


The species’ leaves are reported to contain emodin which has been hypothesised as a deterrent against phytophagous insects (Izhaki 2002). The species is palatable to sheep and goats (Le Houérou 1980). A large amount of material is reported dumped due to the species fast growing nature and ability to sucker (Blood 2001). Therefore the species is considered capable of recovering from moderate grazing. However Aronne & Wilcock (1995) report that the fruit is formed on the one year old branches. Browsing may therefore have some impact on sexual reproduction but it would probably not eliminate it all together.

MH MH

7. Normal growth rate? Fast growing once established (Blood 2001). R.alaternus was shown to have an average relative growth rate after the first 6 months of growth in comparison with 9 other woody species native to the Mediterranean and almost double the average of the evergreen species (Ruiz-Robelto & Villar 2005). Therefore it is presumed to have equal growth to other competitive shrub species.

MH MH


Frost; tolerant -15ºC (Blood 2001). Tolerates drought (Blood 2001). Tolerates salt spray (Blood 2001). Can survive intense fire (Blood 2001). Tolerance to waterlogging is not reported, however the species preference for drier habitats may indicate a

MH MH


Scientific name: Rhamnus alaternus L. Common Name: Italian Buckthorn


susceptibility (Polunin & Smythies 1973).

Reproduction

9. Reproductive system Can reproduce sexually producing seed and vegetatively through root suckers (Weber 2003). H MH


Each fruit has between two and five seeds and while reportedly very variable fruit production per plant has been estimated at approximately 11,000 (Bas, Gómez & Pons 2005). H H

11. Propagule longevity? Unknown. M L

12. Reproductive period? Reported to be very long lived (Blood 2001). Therefore presumed to have a reproductive period greater than 10 years. H MH


Unknown. M L

Dispersal


The fruits have been reported to be eaten by starlings and blackbirds in New Zealand (Cole & Albrecht 1999 Produces fruits dispersed by birds, and possibly foxes and possums (Muyt 2001). Is also dispersed by ants in Europe (Aronne & Wilcock 1994; Gómez, Pons & Bas 2003).

H H


The fruits have been reported to be eaten by starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) in New Zealand (Cole & Albrecht 1999). The starling has been reported to have a seed dispersal range of 40km (Spennemann & Allen 2000). The fruits of the species have been reported to contain emodin, which has been reported to potentially do two things, deter a bird from consuming too much and therefore reducing the possibility of seeds being excreted beneath the parent plant and shorten the bird’s digestion increasing the seeds viability but reducing the distance of dispersal (Izhaki 2002). The dispersal range of the species may therefore be less than the 40km but still likely more than 1km.

H H

Potential distribution of Rhamnus alaternus in Victoria

Scientific name: Rhamnus alaternus L.

Common name(s): Italian Buckthorn

Status:

Habitat:

Tolerant of drought frost and salt spray, Rhamnus alaternus is reported to invade dune systems, escarpments and other dry coastal vegetation, lowland grassland, woodland, dry sclerophyll forest, heath, riparian vegetation, rock outcrop vegetation and plantations (Blood 2001; Carr, Yugovic & Robinson 1992; Muyt 2001; Webb, Sykes & Garnock-Jones 1988). 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


Coastal scrubs and grassland; coastal grassy woodland; heathy woodland; lowland forest; heath; box ironbark forest; inland slopes woodland; dry 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 Rhamnus alaternus infesting these areas.




Present distribution of Rhamnus alaternus in Victoria

Scientific name: Rhamnus alaternus L.

Common name(s): Italian Buckthorn

Status:

Habitat:

Tolerant of drought frost and salt spray, Rhamnus alaternus is reported to invade dune systems, escarpments and other dry coastal vegetation, lowland grassland, woodland, dry sclerophyll forest, heath, riparian vegetation, rock outcrop vegetation and plantations (Blood 2001; Carr, Yugovic & Robinson 1992; Muyt 2001; Webb, Sykes & Garnock-Jones 1988).

##

#

###########

###

##

###

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#######

## ##

## #

##

#

#

##

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

References - Rhamnus alaternus L.

Akerreta S., Cavero R.Y., López V. & Calvo M.I., 2007, Analyzing factors that influence the folk use and phytonomy of 18 medicinal plants in Navarra. Journal of Ethnobiology

and Ethnomedicine. 3:16. doi: 10.1186/1746-4269-3-16.

Aronne G. & Wilcock C.C., 1994, First evidence of myrmecochory in fleshy-fruited shrubs of the Mediterranean region. New Phytologist. 127: 781-788.

Aronne G. & Wilcock C.C., 1995, Reproductive liability in pre-dispersal biology of Rhamnus alaternus L. (Rhamnaceae). Protoplasma. 187: 49-59.

Bas J.M., Gómez C. & Pons P., 2005, Fruit production and predispersal seed fall and predation in Rhamnus alaternus (Rhamnaceae). Acta Oecologica. 27: 115-123.


Cardin L., 2006, First report of alfalfa mosaic virus on Rhamnus alaternus in France. Plant Disease. 90: 1115.


Cole V. & Albrecht J., 1999, Modelling the spread of invasive species – Parameter estimation using cellular automata in GIS. Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on

Dynamic and Multi- Dimensional GIS, Beijing, National Geomatics Center of China.

Garran J. & Gibbs A., 1982, Studies on Alfalfa Mosaic and alfalfa aphids. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research. 33: 657-664.

Gómez C., Pons P. & Bas J.M., 2003, Effects of the Argentine ant linepithema humile on seed dispersal and seedling emergence of Rhamnus alaternus. Ecography. 26: 532-538.

Izhaki I., 2002, Research review; Emodin – a secondary metabolite with multiple ecological functions in higher plants. New Phytologist. 155: 205-217.

Le Houérou H.N., 1980, Browse in Northern Africa. in Le Houérou H.N., 1980, Browse in Africa: The current state of knowledge. Papers presented at the International Symposium

on Browse in Africa Addis Ababa, April 8–12, 1980and other submissions. International Livestock Center for Africa.


Polunin O. & Smythies B.E., 1973, Flowers of South-West Europe; a field guide. Oxford University Press. London.

Ruiz-Robelto J. & Villar R., 2005, Relative growth rate and miomass allocation in ten woody species with different leaf longevity using phylogenetic independent contrasts (PICs). Plant Biology. 7: 484-494.

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

Temsah M., Hanna L. & Saad A.T., 2007, Anatomical observations of Pseudomonas savastanoi on Rhamnus alaternus. Forest Pathology. 37: 64-72.




Australian National Herbarium (ANH) 2007, Australia’s Virtual Herbarium, Australian National Herbarium, Centre for Plant Diversity and Research, viewed 30 Jul 2007, http://www.anbg.gov.au/avh/



Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) 2007, Global biodiversity information facility, viewed 30 Jul 2007, http://www.gbif.org/

Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) 2007, Global biodiversity information facility: Prototype data portal, viewed 30 Jul 2007,, http://www.gbif.net/

Missouri Botanical Gardens (MBG) 2007, w3TROPICOS, Missouri Botanical Gardens Database, viewed 30 Jul 2007, http://mobot.mobot.org/W3T/Search/vast.html


Scientific name: Schinus molle L. Common name: Peppercorn Tree


Social

1. Restrict human access? It is described as freely coppicing and as forming extensive species poor stands (Weber 2003), and although not specifically documented, it has some potential to restrict human access. M M

2. Reduce tourism? No information was found to suggest it reduces tourism, but as a large tree to 10m tall (Blood 2001) it is likely to be obvious to the ‘average’ visitor and may affect the aesthetics of an area. ML MH

3. Injurious to people? Fruit are allergenic, especially toxic to children, causing vomiting, gastro-enteritis, irritation of mucous membranes, allergic dermatitis, hay fever, asthma and breathing difficulties (Shepherd 2004). Major component in allergies, hay fever and asthma.

MH MH


Older trees grow top heavy, can blow down in storms and are consequently no longer planted on public streets in Riverside, California for fear of law suits (Howard & Minnich 1989). Has potential to cause damage to property, though this appears not directly as a result of its growth habit. Its gum is also documented as causing damage to car duco (Landcare 2007).

M M

Abiotic

5. Impact flow? Terrestrial species, not likely to impact water flow. L M

6. Impact water quality? Terrestrial species, not likely to impact water quality. L M

7. Increase soil erosion? ‘Since the soil under the canopy can remain bare and lacks an herbaceous ground flora, erosion can be accelerated in stands growing on slopes or near streams (Weber 2003)’. Moderate probability of large scale soil movement. ML MH

8. Reduce biomass? Grows as a ‘tree in a shrubland’ (Howard & Minnich 1989). Could increase the biomass of a community. L MH

9. Change fire regime? It is described growing as a ‘tree in a shrubland’ capable of shading out all native vegetation (Weber 2003) and there is suggestion that it could turn scrublands into savannahs (Howard & Minnich 1989). It is also described as fire retardant (Zanthorrea 2007) so there is potential for it to decrease fire intensity in some communities and also have a moderate affect on fire frequency.

MH M

Community Habitat


EVC= Riparian scrub (BCS= E); CMA= Wimmera; Bioreg= Wimmera; CLIMATE potential=VH. ‘It is freely coppicing and forms extensive species poor stands that shade out all native vegetation (Weber 2003)’. Grows as a ‘tree in a shrubland’ (Howard & Minnich 1989). Major displacement of dominant species.

MH MH


EVC= Low Chenopod shrubland (BCS= D); CMA= Mallee; Bioreg= Murray Scroll Belt; CLIMATE potential=VH. ‘It is freely coppicing and forms extensive species poor stands that shade out all native vegetation MH MH




(Weber 2003)’. Grows as a ‘tree in a shrubland’ (Howard & Minnich 1989). Major displacement of dominant species.

(c) low value EVC

EVC= Shrubby Riverine Woodland (BCS= LC); CMA= Mallee; Bioreg= Murray Mallee; CLIMATE potential=VH. ‘It is freely coppicing and forms extensive species poor stands that shade out all native vegetation (Weber 2003)’. Grows as a ‘tree in a shrubland’ (Howard & Minnich 1989). Major displacement of dominant species.

MH MH

11. Impact on structure? ‘S. molle potentially alters structure and composition in grasslands, woodlands and coastal scrub areas (Morisawa 2000)’. Forms extensive species poor stands that shade out all native vegetation (Weber 2003). Not described as forming monocultures.

MH MH


Forms extensive species poor stands that shade out all native vegetation (Weber 2003). ‘S. molle potentially alters structure and composition in grasslands, woodlands and coastal scrub areas (Morisawa 2000)’. Likely to impact on threatened flora species but not specifically documented.

MH L

Fauna


Forms extensive species poor stands that shade out all native vegetation (Weber 2003). Likely to alter habitat by eliminating native vegetation but its specific impact on fauna was not found documented. MH L


Forms extensive species poor stands that shade out all native vegetation (Weber 2003)’. Likely to alter habitat by eliminating native vegetation but its specific impact on fauna was not found documented. M L

15. Benefits fauna? In degraded locations mature trees may provide food and shelter to native animals including birds, bats and possums (Muyt 2001). Leaves consumed by the native Emperor Gum moth (French 1945). Berries fed on by the threatened Spotted Bower bird (Walker & Christian 2003). Provides some assistance in food and shelter to desirable species.

MH MH

16. Injurious to fauna? Fruit and leaves cause poisoning or death in poultry, pigs and possibly calves (Blood 2001). It could be toxic to some fauna but no information was found documented. M M

Pest Animal

17. Food source to pests? ‘Seed is possibly dispersed by foxes (Muyt 2001)’. Fruits are eaten in large quantities by the ‘Patagonian Fox’ in South America (Silva et al 2005). Because it fruits year round it has the potential to provide food throughout the year to one serious pest.

MH M

18. Provides harbor? Not described as providing harbour for any serious pest animals, e.g. foxes or rabbits, and as a tree (Howard & Minnich 1989) is unlikely to, but most likely to provide harbour for minor pest species such as exotic birds. ML MH

Agriculture

19. Impact yield? A pest in orange groves and other sites of irrigation (Howard & Minnich 1989) but not documented as impacting on yield. L M




20. Impact quality? There is no information to suggest it impacts on agricultural quality. L M

21. Affect land value? There is no information to suggest it affects land value. L M

22. Change land use? There is no information to suggest it would cause a change in land use. L M

23. Increase harvest costs? Described as a pest in orange groves and sites of irrigation (Howard & Minnich 1989) but it is not clear from the information available whether it may increase harvest costs, for example due to increased irrigation requirements. M L

24. Disease host/vector? ‘Host of fruit fly (Blood 2001)’. Host of a major agricultural pest. H MH


Scientific name: Schinus molle L. Common Name: Peppercorn Tree


Establishment


‘Although S. molle seed has no innate dormancy, cold temperatures in winter and drought in summer enforce dormancy for most of the year. (Howard & Minnich 1989)’. Seeds are described as taking 20-30 days to germinate under cooler temperatures and although less time, e.g. 10 days, in warmer temperatures, require sustained surface soil moisture to germinate without desiccation which is unusual. S. molle is described as having a ‘low germinative capacity’ (Howard & Minnich 1989) and appears to require reasonably unseasonal events for germination.

ML MH


Described as growing in forests (Weber 2003, Carr et al 1992) and ‘…survives nearly everywhere it is planted (Howard & Minnich 1989)’. However, germination and seedling surviving are described as ‘the major bottleneck to establishment’. Appears to be some conflicting information regarding its establishment requirements.

M MH


Although often associated with disturbed and degraded environments (Muyt 2001), it appears also able to establish in minor disturbed natural ecosystems. For example, ‘S. molle becomes established on the periphery of densely vegetated riparian habitats (Howard & Minnich 1989)’ and Carr et al (1992) documents it occurring in lowland grassland, grassy woodland, dry sclerophyll forest/ woodland & rock outcrop vegetation.

MH H

Growth/Competitive

4. Life form? Tree (Howard & Minnich 1989). L H


Leaves and fruit strongly inhibitory to seed germination and seedling growth of cucumber and wheat (Anaya & Gomez-Pompa 1971). Allelopathic properties seriously affecting some plants. MH MH


‘Not normally grazed by animals (Blood 2001)’. Anacardaceae in general are known for their toxic compounds and S. molle in particular is infrequently eaten by goats or insects (Fuentes et al 1983). However it is described as being consumed by sheep (Salem et al 2005), the Emperor Gum moth (French 1945) and sometimes (seedlings) rabbits (Fuentes et al 1983). Likely to be consumed but not preferred.

MH H

7. Normal growth rate? Available information on growth rate is somewhat contradictory, with growth and spread appearing to vary in different locations. Seedling growth is described as both rapid (Howard & Minnich 1989) and as very slow, until the root system is firmly established. (Blood 2001). However it is also generally described as being ‘fast growing (Weber 2003, Blood 2001)’. Overall it is likely to have a moderately rapid growth rate.

MH MH


Mature trees very resistant to fire and drought (Blood 2001). Limited by extreme frost, but some tolerance likely as grows in the Andes to 3300m (Howard & Minnich 1989). Occurs on coastal dunes and beaches (Weber 2003). Tolerant of poor soils and poor drainage (PIER 2001), occurring in seasonally wet areas. Once established seedling mortality is described as rare (Howard & Minnich 1989). Highly resistant to drought and fire, some tolerance to frost, waterlogging and salinity.

H MH


Scientific name: Schinus molle L. Common Name: Peppercorn Tree


Reproduction

9. Reproductive system Reproduces both sexually and vegetatively via ‘Seed and suckers (Blood 2001)’. H MH


Large tree with ‘huge quantities of seed set (Blood 2001)’ and fruits continuously throughout the year (Howard & Minnich 1989). Images indicate an individual would produce many more than 2000 seeds (Blood 2001, Muyt 2001).

H H

11. Propagule longevity? Seeds remain viable for less than 3 years (Cal-IPC2003). ‘Seeds ripening during summer heat and drought can

remain viable until the rainy season (Howard & Minnich 1989)’, also indicates short viability. L H

12. Reproductive period? Howard & Minnich (1989) describes ‘large old trees’ as setting huge quantities of fruit. Presumed to produce propagules for > 10 years. H H


Takes more than 2 years to reach reproductive maturity (Cal-IPC 2003). ML M

Dispersal


‘Seed is dispersed by birds, mammals and water (Howard & Minnich 1989)’. H H


‘Seeds are widely dispersed by birds (Howard & Minnich 1989)’. Potential for seeds to disperse greater than 1km. H H

Potential distribution of Schinus molle L. in Victoria

Scientific name: Schinus molle L.

Common name(s): Pepper Tree, Peppercorn Tree

Status:

Habitat: Native to tropical southern America (Weber 2003). Naturalised in Mediterranean and semi-arid regions around the world (Howard & Minnich 1989). Described as invading riverbanks, forests, shrubland, coastal dunes, beaches (Weber 2003) lowland grassland, grassy woodland, dry sclerophyll forest & woodland, riparian vegetation, rock outcrops (Carr et al 1992), forested wetland, canyons, savannah (Calflora 2007), abandoned farms, coastal vegetation, chenopod shrubland (Blood 2001), seasonal water courses and rocky escarpments, predominantly where rainfall is less than 600mm (Muyt 2001). Densest stands develop on moist sites. Occurs in the South American Andes to an altitude of 3300m (Howard & Minnich 1989).

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

Land Use:


Coastal scrubs and grassland; coastal grassy woodland; heathy woodland; lowland forest; heath; swamp scrub; box ironbark forest; inland slopes woodland; sedge rich woodland; dry foothills forest; montane dry woodland; grassland; plains grassy woodland; valley grassy forest; herb-rich woodland; riverine grassy woodland; riparian forest; rainshadow woodland; mallee; mallee heath; boinka-raak; mallee woodland; wimmera / mallee woodland

Colours indicate possibility of Schinus molle infesting these areas.




Present distribution of Schinus molle L. in Victoria

Scientific name: Schinus molle L. Common name(s): Pepper Tree, Peppercorn Tree Status:

Habitat: Native to tropical southern America (Weber 2003). Naturalised in Mediterranean and semi-arid regions around the world (Howard & Minnich 1989). Described as invading riverbanks, forests, shrubland, coastal dunes, beaches (Weber 2003) lowland grassland, grassy woodland, dry sclerophyll forest & woodland, riparian vegetation, rock outcrops (Carr et al 1992), forested wetland, canyons, savannah (Calflora 2007), abandoned farms, coastal vegetation, chenopod shrubland (Blood 2001), seasonal water courses and rocky escarpments, predominantly where rainfall is less than 600mm (Muyt 2001). Densest stands develop on moist sites. Occurs in the South American Andes to an altitude of 3300m (Howard & Minnich 1989).

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

######

#### #

#

###########

#

#

#

### ##

##

#######

###############

#

########################################## ################################################################################################################ ############################

#########

#

##

###

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

##

####

####

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

##

#

####

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

## # #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

### ##

##

#######

###############

#

#

#

## ##

##

#

#####

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

##

#

##

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

# # #

# #

# #

#

#

#

##

#################

#

#####

##

#

#

#

#

#

###################

###############

######

##########

###

########

##

#

#

#

##

#

#####

#

## #

#

#

# #

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

###

# #

#

#

#

##

## # #

### # #

###

# # #

### # ##

# # # ## # #

# ## # #

## #

##

References - Schinus molle L.

Anaya AL & Gomez-Pompa A 1971, ‘Inhibition on growth produced by the piru (Schinus molle L.)’, Revista de la Sociedad Mexicana de Historia Nacional, No. 32, pp. 99-109.

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

Calflora: Information on California plants for education, research and conservation. [web application]. 2007. Berkeley, California: The Calflora Database [a non-profit organization] viewed: 27/9/2007, http://www.calflora.org/

California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) 2003, ‘California Invasive Plant Inventory Assessment form’, http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/inventory/PAF/Schinus%20molle.pdf, viewed: September 2007.


French C 1945, ‘Records of native species attacking introduced plants’, Victorian Naturalist, Vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 58-60.

Fuentes ER, Jaksic FM & Simonetti JA 1983, ‘European rabbits versus native rodents in Central Chile: effects on shrub seedlings’, Oecologia, vol. 58, pp. 411-414.

Howard LF & Minnich RA 1989, ‘The Introduction and naturalisation of Schinus molle (Peppertree) in Riverside, California’, Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 18, pp. 77-95.

Landcare Echuca (Landcare) 2007, Weeds of Northern Victoria and southern NSW, viewed: 28/8/2007, http://www.landcareechuca.com.au/weeds.html

Morisawa TL 2000, Weed alert Schinus polygamus (Cav.) Cabrera, Peruvian peppertree, http://conserveonline.org/docs/2001/06/schpol01.pdf

Muyt A 2001, Bush invaders of South-East Australia: a guide to the identification and control of environmental weeds found in South-East Australia. R.G. and F.J. Richardson. Meredith.

Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk (PIER) 2005, Schinus molle, Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk, Hawaiian Ecosystems at Risk Project, viewed 10 Jan 2006, http://www.hear.org/pier/species/schinus_molle.htm

Salem AZM, Salem MZM, El-Adawy MM & Robinson PH 2007, ‘Nutritive evaluations of some browse tree foliages during the dry season: Secondary compounds, feed intake and in vivo digestibility in sheep and goats’, Animal Feed Science and Technology, vol. 127, issues 3-4, pp. 251-267.

Shepherd RCH 2004, Pretty but Poisonous, R.G. and F.J. Richardson, Melbourne.

Silva SI, Bozinovic F & Jaksic FM 2005, ‘Frugivory and seed dispersal by foxes in relation to mammalian prey abundance in a semiarid thornscrub’, Austral Ecology, vol. 30, pp. 739-746.

Walker I & Christian D 2003, Flora & Fauna Guarantee Action Statement: Spotted Bowerbird, Chlamydera maculata, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria.

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

Zanthorrea Nursery 2007, Fire retardant Plants, Zanthorrea Nursery, Maida Vale, Western Australia, viewed: 28/9/2007, http://www.zanthorrea.com.au/gardening_info/Fire_Retardant.pdf


Australian National Herbarium (ANH) 2007, Australia’s Virtual Herbarium, Australian National Herbarium, Centre for Plant Diversity and Research, viewed 27 SEP 2007, http://www.anbg.gov.au/avh/

Calflora: Information on California plants for education, research and conservation. [web application]. 2007. Berkeley, California: The Calflora Database [a non-profit organization] viewed 27 SEP 2007, http://www.calflora.org/ .



Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) 2007, Global biodiversity information facility, viewed 27 SEP 2007, http://www.gbif.org/

Missouri Botanical Gardens (MBG) 2007, w3TROPICOS, Missouri Botanical Gardens Database, viewed 01 OCT 2007, http://mobot.mobot.org/W3T/Search/vast.html


Scientific name: Senecio angulatus L. f. Common name: Cape ivy (mile a minute, climbing groundsel)


Social

1. Restrict human access? Can from thickets of more than 20 metres in diameter (Blood 2001). As it is a vine however its growth would largely be over existing vegetation and not likely to close a vehicles track, it may impede access along a walking track.

MH M

2. Reduce tourism? Unremarkable ornamental species could alter aesthetics (Blood 2001). ML MH

3. Injurious to people? Does contain toxic compounds, however not reported as toxic to people. L M


Unremarkable ornamental species could alter aesthetics (Blood 2001). ML L

Abiotic

5. Impact flow? The similar Delaria oderata can impact upon flood mitigation strategies (Bossard, Randell & Hoshovsky 2000). M L

6. Impact water quality? No reported evidence that this species impacts on water quality factors such as dissolved oxygen or temperature. However the plant contains Pyrrolizidine alkaloids that are toxic to fish and may be released into the water (Bossard, Randell & Hoshovsky 2000; Porter & Geissman 1962)

M L

7. Increase soil erosion? Unknown specifically for this species, however a similar species Delaria oderata can contribute to soil erosion on hillsides (Bossard, Randell & Hoshovsky 2000). M L

8. Reduce biomass? It is able to cover and smother vegetation in the lower strata (<6m) (Newton 1996). This would reduce the living biomass. MH MH

9. Change fire regime? Has supposed fire retardant properties (Blood 2001). Could therefore reduce the fire intensity. ML MH

Community Habitat


EVC= Valley Grassy Forest (V); CMA= Glenelg Hopkins; Bioreg= Greater Grampians; VH CLIMATE potential. Forming thickets of more than 20m in diameter, it is able to cover the lower strata with copious growth and smothering and therefore displacing species (Blood 2001; Newton 1996).

H MH


EVC= Grassy Dry Forest (D); CMA= Glenelg Hopkins; Bioreg= Greater Grampians; VH CLIMATE potential. Forming thickets of more than 20m in diameter, it is able to cover the lower strata with copious growth and smothering and therefore displacing species (Blood 2001; Newton 1996).

H MH




(c) low value EVC

EVC= Lowland Forest (LC); CMA= Glenelg Hopkins; Bioreg= Greater Grampians; VH CLIMATE potential. Forming thickets of more than 20m in diameter, it is able to cover the lower strata with copious growth and smothering and therefore displacing species (Blood 2001; Newton 1996).

H MH

11. Impact on structure? Forming thickets of more than 20m in diameter, it is able to cover the lower strata with copious growth and smothering and therefore displacing species (Blood 2001; Newton 1996). MH MH


Its ability to smother native vegetation is of concern in areas where it is invading small and threatened areas of undisturbed native vegetation (Newton 1996). MH MH

Fauna


Unknown. MH L


Unknown to what extent this species has, it may cause significant alteration of habitat; reducing plant species richness and diversity and therefore diversity of food and shelter available. M L

15. Benefits fauna? Nothing reported. Insects may visit flowers, dense foliage may provide some shelter. M L

16. Injurious to fauna? Like other Senecio species its foliage contains a Pyrrolizidine alkaloid which can be toxic if eaten (Jessop & Toelken 1986; Porter & Geissman 1962). Unknown toxicity. M M

Pest Animal

17. Food source to pests? Visited by bees (Butz Huryn & Moller 1995). ML H

18. Provides harbor? Dense foliage could provide shelter. M M

Agriculture

19. Impact yield? Has been linked to stock poisoning (Jessop & Toelken 1986). There have been very few reports however. ML M

20. Impact quality? Unknown if the Pyrrolizidine alkaloid it contains effects the quality of the output. M L

21. Affect land value? There is no evidence of this. L M

22. Change land use? There is no evidence of this. L M




23. Increase harvest costs? Stock may need managed so as to avoid exposure and it may have some impact in forestry. M L

24. Disease host/vector? No evidence of this reported. L M


Scientific name: Senecio angulatus L. f. Common Name : Cape ivy (mile a minute, climbing groundsel)


Establishment


Seeds don’t need any specific treatment other than sufficient light and moisture, seedlings however are rarely seen. Vegetative reproduction also doesn’t appear to have any restrictions (Blood 2001).

H MH


Prefers bare ground fro germination, however it is not reported to require it and it is tolerant of semi shade (Blood 2001).

MH MH


Establishes in minor disturbed natural ecosystems: sclerophyll forest and woodland: wetlands (Carr, Yugovic and Robinson 1992).

MH MH

Growth/Competitive

4. Life form? Vine (Carr, Yugovic and Robinson 1992). ML MH


No allelopathic properties described. However the species does contain Pyrrolizidine alkaloids and can smother the plant species it grows over (Muyt 2001; Porter & Geissman 1962).

M L


Contains pyrrolizidine alkaloids that make it unsuitable forage for most fauna and if slashed to ground level plants can regrow (Jessop & Toelken 1986; Porter & Geissman 1962; Weber 2003)

H MH

7. Normal growth rate? Reported to be a fast growing vine (Weber 2003). Therefore presumed to be at least competitive.

MH MH


Reported in saline wetlands, therefore tolerate of salinity and waterlogging (Blood 2001). Drought tolerant (Blood 2001). Has supposed fire retardant properties (Blood 2001). Frost; Unknown.

H MH

Reproduction

9. Reproductive system Produces seed and can also reproduce vegetatively from stem fragments (Weber 2003). H MH


Unknown however the similar species Delaria oderata can have an annual seed production of 40,000 (Muyt 2001).

M L

11. Propagule longevity? Seeds are long lived (Blood 2001). Not reported for just how long.

M M

12. Reproductive period? Can smother other species and form thickets up to 20m in diameter (Blood 2001; Muyt 2001). While it is not stated to form a self perpetuating monoculture it is believed one of these thickets would be very close to one.

H M


Scientific name: Senecio angulatus L. f. Common Name : Cape ivy (mile a minute, climbing groundsel)



Fast growing, could produce vegetative propgules within the first season (Blood 2001).

H MH

Dispersal


The fruits as small (2-2.5mm) hairy achenes and dispersed by wind (Weber 2003). H MH


Wind dispersed seed can travel distances of more than 1km. H M

Potential distribution of Senecio angulatus in Victoria

Scientific name: Senecio angulatus L. f

Common name(s): Cape ivy (mile a minute, climbing groundsel)

Status:

Habitat: This species is reported to invade grassland, scrub, coastal vegetation, grassy woodland, dry forests, saline and brackish wetlands roadsides and waste places (Blood 2001; Carr, Yugovic and Robinson 1992; Weber 2003) 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


Coastal scrubs and grassland; coastal grassy woodland; lowland forest; swamp scrub; box ironbark forest; inland slopes woodland; sedge rich woodland; dry foothills forest; grassland; plains grassy woodland; valley grassy forest; herb-rich woodland; riverine grassy woodland; riparian forest; rainshadow woodland; mallee woodland; wimmera / mallee woodland

Colours indicate possibility of Senecio angulatus infesting these areas.




#

##

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

Present distribution of Senecio angulatus in Victoria

Scientific name: Senecio angulatus L. f

Common name(s): Cape ivy (mile a minute, climbing groundsel)

Status:

Habitat: This species is reported to invade grassland, scrub, coastal vegetation, grassy woodland, dry forests, saline and brackish wetlands roadsides and waste places (Blood 2001; Carr, Yugovic and Robinson 1992; Weber 2003)

References - Senecio angulatus L. f.


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

Butz Huryn V.M. & Moller H., 1995, An Assessment of the contribution of honey bees (Apis mellifera) to weed reproduction in New Zealand protected natural areas. New Zealand Journal of Ecology. 19: 111-122.

Carr G.W., Yugovic J.V. and Robinson K.E., 1992, Environmental weed invasions in Victoria: conservation and management implications, Department of Conservation and Environment, Clifton Hill.

Jessop J.P & Toelken H.R. (Eds.), 1986, Flora of South Australia. Part III Polemoniaceae-Compositae. South Australian Government Printing Division, Adelaide.


Newton P.M., 1996, Effective control of creeping groundsel (Senecio angulatus). Eleventh Australian Weeds Conference Proceedings. R.C.H. Shepherd (Ed). Weed Science Society of Victoria Inc.

Porter L.A. & Geissman T.A., 1962, Angularine, a New Pyrrolizidine Alkaloid from Senecio angulatus L. The Journal of Organic Chemistry. 27: 4132



Australian National Herbarium (ANH) 2007, Australia’s Virtual Herbarium, Australian National Herbarium, Centre for Plant Diversity and Research, viewed 18 Jan 2007 , http://www.anbg.gov.au/avh/



Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) 2007, Global biodiversity information facility: Prototype data portal, viewed 18 Jan 2007, http://www.gbif.org/


Missouri Botanical Gardens (MBG) 2007, w3TROPICOS, Missouri Botanical Gardens Database, viewed 18 Jan 2007, http://mobot.mobot.org/W3T/Search/vast.html


Scientific name: Solanum mauritianum Scop. Common name: Wild tobacco tree


Social

1. Restrict human access? Can form thickets, reaching over 6m (Walsh 1956). From an image in Walsh (1956) access for people or machinery would be with difficulty. MH MH

2. Reduce tourism? There is no evidence that this species impacts upon recreational areas. It has however been grown as an ornamental but is often dumped as it can become shabby and unappealing, therefore it may alter the aesthetics of such areas (Blood 2001).

ML M

3. Injurious to people? The immature (green) fruit and leaves are poisonous (Blood 2001; Shepherd 2004). There have been fatal cases of poisoning after ingestion of the fruit (Van Dyck 1979). The plant can also produce fruit all year (Drew & Hooper 1983). Hairs can also be an irritant (Dept. of Conservation 2005)..

H H


It has been grown as an ornamental but is often dumped as it can become shabby and unappealing, therefore it may alter the aesthetics of such areas (Blood 2001). ML M

Abiotic

5. Impact flow? Terrestrial species, there is no evidence to suggest that it impacts on water flow. L M

6. Impact water quality? Terrestrial species, there is no evidence to suggest that it impacts on water quality. L M

7. Increase soil erosion? It is reported as a fast growing pioneer species, therefore it could quickly invade bare ground and therefore reduce the probability of erosion occurring (Blood 2001). ML MH

8. Reduce biomass? Short lived pioneer species (Blood 2001). Where it invades open areas this would be an increase in biomass and it does allow shade tolerant species to establish and succession to occur (Harden, Fox & Fox 2004). ML MH

9. Change fire regime? Unknown relationship with fire regime. Fast growing species which is killed by fire but germination is stimulated. Can alter biomass and therefore elevated fuels, unknown flammability. M L

Community Habitat


EVC= Coastal Tussock Grassland (V); CMA= Corangamite; Bioreg= Warrnambool Plain; VH CLIMATE potential. Fast growing pioneer species (Blood 2001). Becomes most dominant after a disturbance (Olckers & Zimmermann 1991). Dominance by this species could impact the mid to lower strata and potentially the reestablishment of the higher strata as it has been reported to out compete seedlings in a plantation situation (Jarvel & Pallett 2002; Olckers & Zimmermann 1991). In rainforest it has allowed for succession, as it does allow shade tolerant species to establish while preventing the

ML MH




establishment of other weed species including lantana (Harden, Fox & Fox 2004; Van Dyck 1979). Overall This species itself causes minor displacement.


EVC= Grassy Dry Forest (D); CMA= Corangamite; Bioreg= Central Victorian Uplands; VH CLIMATE potential. Fast growing pioneer species (Blood 2001). Becomes most dominant after a disturbance (Olckers & Zimmermann 1991). Dominance by this species could impact the mid to lower strata and potentially the reestablishment of the higher strata as it has been reported to out compete seedlings in a plantation situation (Jarvel & Pallett 2002; Olckers & Zimmermann 1991). In rainforest it has allowed for succession, as it does allow shade tolerant species to establish while preventing the establishment of other weed species including lantana (Harden, Fox & Fox 2004; Van Dyck 1979). Overall This species itself causes minor displacement.

ML MH

(c) low value EVC

EVC= Wet Forest (LC); CMA= Corangamite; Bioreg= Otway Plain; VH CLIMATE potential. Fast growing pioneer species (Blood 2001). Becomes most dominant after a disturbance (Olckers & Zimmermann 1991). Dominance by this species could impact the mid to lower strata and potentially the reestablishment of the higher strata as it has been reported to out compete seedlings in a plantation situation (Jarvel & Pallett 2002; Olckers & Zimmermann 1991). In rainforest it has allowed for succession, as it does allow shade tolerant species to establish while preventing the establishment of other weed species including lantana (Harden, Fox & Fox 2004; Van Dyck 1979). Overall This species itself causes minor displacement.

ML MH

11. Impact on structure? Fast growing pioneer species (Blood 2001). Becomes most dominant after a disturbance (Olckers & Zimmermann 1991). Dominance by this species could impact the mid to lower strata and potentially the reestablishment of the higher strata as it has been reported to out compete seedlings in a plantation situation (Jarvel & Pallett 2002; Olckers & Zimmermann 1991). In rainforest it has allowed for succession, as it does allow shade tolerant species to establish while preventing the establishment of other weed species including lantana (Harden, Fox & Fox 2004; Van Dyck 1979). Overall This species itself would have a minor impact however depending on the vegetation invaded this could be on greater than 60% of the layers.

MH MH


There is no evidence of this. MH L

Fauna


There is no evidence of this. It is used as a food source especially in winter by Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) which is listed as a vulnerable species under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation

Act 1999 (Parry-Jones & Augee 2001).

MH L





It has been reported to have negative impacts on ground-dwelling invertebrates (Florentine & Westbrooke 2003). MH MH

15. Benefits fauna? Fruits eaten by bird species It is used as a food source especially in winter by Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) which is listed as a vulnerable species under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation

Act 1999 (Parry-Jones & Augee 2001). The major host for an endemic fruit fly

ML H

16. Injurious to fauna? Toxic to pigs and cattle (Blood 2001). Its leaves and fruits have however been reported to be eaten by a number of native species, including possums, pademelons and flying-foxes (Parry-Jones & Augee 2001; Van Dyck 1979; Wahingu, Catterall & Olsen 1999). Its not known if it toxic to native species and if it is if any consume it.

M M

Pest Animal

17. Food source to pests? It is a host for a number of fruit fly species, but it is not reported as a significant host of those targeted for control (Copeland & Wharton 2006; Drew 1987; Drew & Hooper 1983; Raghu et al 2004). ML MH

18. Provides harbour? It is a host for larvae of a number of fruit fly species and can also shelter adults over winter, but it is not reported as a significant host of those targeted for control (Copeland & Wharton 2006; Drew 1987; Drew & Hooper 1983; Raghu et al 2004).

ML MH

Agriculture

19. Impact yield? Competes with young trees in forestry plantations and can reduce growth rate (Jarvel & Pallett 2002; Olckers & Zimmermann 1991). It has been linked to fatal cases of poisoning in pigs and cattle (Van Dyck 1979). Invasion by this species can also reduce the production area, reducing carrying capacity. Unknown to what extent this species impacts on the quantity of outputs.

M M

20. Impact quality? Competes with seedlings and can cause stem deformation (Olckers & Zimmermann 1991). It is unknown to what extent this impacts on the final output. M M

21. Affect land value? Unknown. M L

22. Change land use? It has been recommended to alter permanent grazing to more intense rotational management. ML H

23. Increase harvest costs? Management time may be increased in both forestry and grazing systems. M MH

24. Disease host/vector? It is a host to a number of fruit fly species but it is not reported as a host of any significance of the Queensland or Mediterranean Fruit flies which are the targeted species in Victoria (Copeland & Wharton 2006; Drew 1987; Drew & Hooper 1983; Raghu et al 2004).

M MH




Host species for the ginger strain Pseudomonas solanacerarum biotype 4 (Pegg & Moffett 1971). As there are a number of solanum species as commercial crops as well as native solanum any bio-control agent would have to be shown not to become a pest of these plants.


Scientific name: Solanum mauritianum Scop. Common Name: Wild tobacco tree


Establishment


Seeds from ripened fruits have an initial dormancy period, while seed from green fruits however will germinate within 50 days at a range of temperatures (Florentine, Craig & Westbrooke 2003). The plant can produce fruit through out the year (Drew & Hooper 1983). While most of this data comes from tropical climates, there appears not to be any specific requirements for germination of S. mauritianum.

H MH


There is conflicting reports on this point, Chandler (1981) states that seedlings are completely intolerant of shade. Its ability to invade intact vegetation including riparian vegetation and forest however would suggest tolerance of at least moderate shade (Blood 2001; Raghu et al 2004).

MH MH


Able to invade intact native veg including grassland, and grassy woodland (blood) MH MH

Growth/Competitive

4. Life form? Large shrub to tree (Carr) other L MH


Has been shown to have allelopathic properties under experimental conditions, inhibiting germination in some species and reducing growth in others. It is not known to what extent it impact upon other species in natural habitats (Florentine & Westbrooke 2003).

M H


Toxic avoided by stock, under permanent grazing it can establish, under more intense rotational grazing establishment can be prevented. Pademelons can limit seedlings and prevent the plant reaching maturity Mature plants have been killed by mountain possums, however they also removed the bark (Van Dyck 1979). A number of biocontrol agents have been releases in Sth Africa, no such projects reported in Australia.

MH MH

7. Normal growth rate? Grows rapidly in the first year reaching maturity (Blood 2001). H MH


Fire kills mature plants but stimulates germination of seedlings, plants may also coppice from underground stems (Blood 2001; Symon 1981) Tolerant of moderate frost (to -5) (Blood 2001) Tolerant of moderate drought once established (Blood 2001) Able to grow in coastal areas therefore may have a tolerance to salinity. Unknown tolerance to waterlogging.

MH MH


Scientific name: Solanum mauritianum Scop. Common Name: Wild tobacco tree


Reproduction

9. Reproductive system It can coppice and regrow from the stump or underground stems if damaged however its primary mode of reproduction and dispersal is through seed containing fruits (Blood 2001). ML MH


Up to 20,000 seeds per tree (Florentine & Westbrooke 2003). Each fruit contains 150-250 seeds, each plant produces more than 8-14 fruit therefore a plant is capable of producing more than 2000 seeds per year (Symon 1981).

H H

11. Propagule longevity? Seed viability has been reported as greater than 39 years (Enright & Cameron 1988). If left on the soil surface viability may be reduced by 90% within 2 years, however when buried to 15cm viability only reduced by 4% (Campbell & Van Staden 1994).

H H

12. Reproductive period? Short lived shrub, 10-15. Can reach maturity within first year therefore capable of more than 10 years reproduction (Blood 2001) H MH


Fast growing species, Can reach maturity within one year (Blood 2001). H MH

Dispersal


Spread by water birds and internally by animals (Blood 2001). H MH


Satin Bowerbird has been observed eating the fruits of this species and the Satin bowerbird has been reported to be capable of dispersing olive seeds 1km by regurgitation (Spennemann & Allen 2000; Stansbury & Vivian-Smith 2003). As This species seeds are much smaller than olives (<2mm) dispersal by be through excretion and therefore potentially further as well as other larger bird species as well as the Grey-headed flying-fox have been observed consuming this species fruit (Blood 2001; Parry-Jones & Augee 2001; Stansbury & Vivian-Smith 2003).

H H

Potential distribution of Solanum mauritianum in Victoria

Scientific name: Solanum Mauritianum Scop.

Common name(s): Wild tobacco tree

Status:

Habitat: This species may invade Coastal vegetation, grassland, grassy woodland, damp to wet sclerophyll forest, riparian vegetation, rainforest margins, plantation forests, pasture and disturbed areas including roadsides and urban open space (Blood 2001; Carr, Yugovic and Robinson 1992; Henderson 1995; Raghu et al 2004). In South Africa where it is a major weed of plantation forests, it is most common below 1300m (Jarvel & Pallett 2002). Its ability to invade pasture is limited to areas of permanent grazing, as short intense grazing as in a rotational system will help to prevent seedling establishment (Chadhokar 1978; Walsh 1956). The species is also a threat to permanent horticulture such as orchards as it is a known host of a number of fruit fly species (Drew 1987; Raghu et al 2004). This species has even been reported as an epiphyte in the canopy of a nikau palm in New Zealand (Enright & Cameron 1988).

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 Coastal scrubs and grassland; coastal grassy woodland; lowland forest; box ironbark forest; inland slopes woodland; sedge rich woodland; dry foothills forest; moist foothills forest; montane dry woodland; montane moist forest; grassland; plains grassy woodland; valley grassy forest; herb-rich woodland; montane grassy woodland; riverine grassy woodland; riparian forest; rainshadow woodland; mallee woodland; wimmera / mallee woodland

Colours indicate possibility of Solanum mauritianum infesting these areas.




Present distribution of Solanum mauritianum in Victoria

Scientific name: Solanum Mauritianum Scop.

Common name(s): Wild tobacco tree

Status:

Habitat: This species may invade Coastal vegetation, grassland, grassy woodland, damp to wet sclerophyll forest, riparian vegetation, rainforest margins, plantation forests, pasture and disturbed areas including roadsides and urban open space (Blood 2001; Carr, Yugovic and Robinson 1992; Henderson 1995; Raghu et al 2004). In South Africa where it is a major weed of plantation forests, it is most common below 1300m (Jarvel & Pallett 2002). Its ability to invade pasture is limited to areas of permanent grazing, as short intense grazing as in a rotational system will help to prevent seedling establishment (Chadhokar 1978; Walsh 1956). The species is also a threat to permanent horticulture such as orchards as it is a known host of a number of fruit fly species (Drew 1987; Raghu et al 2004). This species has even been reported as an epiphyte in the canopy of a nikau palm in New Zealand (Enright & Cameron 1988).

#

# # ### ###

#

#

###

#

#

##

###

#

###

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

##

#

#

####

#

#

###

#

##

##

#

#

References - Solanum mauritianum Scop.


Campbell P.L. & Van Staden J., 1994, The viability and germination characteristics of exhumed Solanum mauritianum seeds buried for different periods of time. Plant

Growth Regulation. 14: 97-108.

Carr G.W., Yugovic J.V. and Robinson K.E., 1992, Environmental weed invasions in Victoria: conservation and management implications, Department of Conservation and Environment, Clifton Hill.

Chadhokar P.A., 1978 , Weed problems of grazing lands and control of some problem weeds in the Markham Valley of Papua New Guinea. PANS. 24: 63-66.

Chandler G., 1981, Physiological aspects of Rainforest regeneration. 1. Effects of light and nitrogen source on growth and ammonium assimilating enzymes of Solanum

mauritianum and Syzygium floribundum. The New Phytologist. 87: 301-313.

Copeland R.S. & Wharton R.A., 2006, Year-Round Production of Pest Ceratitis Species (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Fruit of the Invasive Species Solanum mauritianum in Kenya. Ecology and Population Biology. 99: 530-535.

Department of Conservation, 2005, Plant me instead, Department of Conservation. Wellington, New Zealand.

Drew R.A.I., 1987, Reduction in Fruit Fly (Tephritidae : Dacinae) Populations in their Endemic Rainforest Habitat by Frugivorous Vertebrates. Australian Journal of

Zoology. 35: 283-288.

Drew R.A.I. & Hooper G.H.S., 1983, Population Studies of Fruit Flies (Diptera : Tephritidae) in South-East Queensland. Oecologia. 56: 153-159.

Enright N.J. & Cameron E.K., 1988, The soil seed bank of a Kauri (Agathis australis) forest remnant near Auckland, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Botany. 26: 223-236.

Florentine S.K., Craig M. & Westbrooke M.E., 2003, Flowering, fruiting, germination and seed dispersal of the newly emerging weed Solanum mauritianum Scop. (Solanaceae) in the wet tropics of north Queensland. Plant Protection Quarterly. 18: 116-120.

Florentine S.K. & Westbrooke M.E., 2003, Allelopathic potential of the newly emerging weed Solanum mauritianum Scop. (Solanaceae) in the wet tropics of north-east Queensland. Plant Protection Quarterly. 18: 23-25.

Harden G.J., Fox M.D. & Fox B.J., 2004, Monitoring and assessment of restoration of a rainforest remnant at Wingham Brush, NSW. Austral Ecology. 29: 489-507.

Henderson L., 1995, Plant Invaders of Southern Afirca: Plant Protcection Research Institute Handbook No 5. Agricultural Research Council.

Jarvel L. & Pallett R., 2002, Weed composition in relation to site in re-established pine compartments on the Mpumalanga Escarpment, South Africa. South African

Forestry Journal. 196: 15-20.

Olckers T. & Zimmermann H.G., 1991, Biological control of silverleaf nightshade, Solanum elaeagnifolium, and bugweed, Solanum mauritianum, (Solanaceae) in South Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 37: 137-155.

Parry-Jones K.A. & Augee M.L., 2001, Factors affecting the occupation of a colony site in Sydney, New South Wales by the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus

poliocephalus (Pteropodidae). Austral Ecology. 26: 47-55.

Pegg K.G. & Moffett M.L., 1971, Host range of the ginger strain of Pseudomonas solanacearum in Queensland. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and

Animal Husbandry. 11: 697-698.

Raghu S., Drew R.A.I. & Clarke A.R., 2004, Influence of Host Plant Structure and Microclimate on the Abundance and Behavior of a Tephritid Fly. Journal of Insect

Behavior. 17: 179-190.

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

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.

Stansbury C.D. & Vivian-Smith G., 2003, Interactions between Frugivorous birds and weeds in Queensland as determined from a survey of birders. Plant Protection

Quarterly. 18: 157-165.

Symon D.E., 1981, A Revision of the Genus Solanum in Australia. Journal of Adelaide Botanic Gardens. 4: 1-367.

Van Dyck S., 1979, Destruction of Wild Tobacco Trees (Solanum Mauritianum Scopoli) by Mountain Possums (Trichosurus Caninus Ogilby). Memoirs of the

Queensland Museum. 19: 367-371.

Wahingu G.M., Catterall C.P. & Olsen M.F., 1999, Selective herbivory by red-necked pademelon Thylogale thetis at rainforest margins: factors affecting predation rates. Australian Journal of Ecology. 24: 577-586.

Walsh S.H., 1956, Control of Wild Tobacco Tree on the Atherton Tableland. Queensland Agricultural Journal. 82: 331-339


Australian National Herbarium (ANH) 2007, Australia’s Virtual Herbarium, Australian National Herbarium, Centre for Plant Diversity and Research, viewed 7 Feb 2007 , http://www.anbg.gov.au/avh/

Calflora: Information on California plants for education, research and conservation. [web application]. 2007. Berkeley, California: The Calflora Database [a non-profit organization] viewed 7 Feb 2007, http://www.calflora.org/ .

Campbell P.L. & Van Staden J., 1994, The viability and germination characteristics of exhumed Solanum mauritianum seeds buried for different periods of time. Plant

Growth Regulation. 14: 97-108.

Denny R.P. & Goodall J.M., 1992, Herbicide treatments applied to stems and stumps of bugweed, Solanum mauritianum. South African Forestry Journal. 161: 41-43


Enright N.J. & Cameron E.K., 1988, The soil seed bank of a Kauri (Agathis australis) forest remnant near Auckland, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Botany. 26: 223-236.

Florentine S.K., Craig M. & Westbrooke M.E., 2003, Flowering, fruiting, germination and seed dispersal of the newly emerging weed Solanum mauritianum Scop. (Solanaceae) in the wet tropics of north Queensland. Plant Protection Quarterly. 18: 116-120.

Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) 2007, Global biodiversity information facility: Prototype data portal, viewed 7 Feb 2007, http://www.gbif.org/

Harden G.J., Fox M.D. & Fox B.J., 2004, Monitoring and assessment of restoration of a rainforest remnant at Wingham Brush, NSW. Austral Ecology. 29: 489-507.

Henderson L., 1995, Plant Invaders of Southern Afirca: Plant Protcection Research Institute Handbook No 5. Agricultural Research Council.


Parry-Jones K.A. & Augee M.L., 2001, Factors affecting the occupation of a colony site in Sydney, New South Wales by the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus

poliocephalus (Pteropodidae). Austral Ecology. 26: 47-55.

Raghu S., Drew R.A.I. & Clarke A.R., 2004, Influence of Host Plant Structure and Microclimate on the Abundance and Behavior of a Tephritid Fly. Journal of Insect

Behaviour. 17: 179-190.

Roy B., Popay I., Champion P., James T. & Rahman A., 1998, An Illustrated Guide to Common Weeds of New Zealand. New Zealand Plant Protection Scoiety.

Toh I., Gillespie M. & Lamb D., 1999, The role of isolated trees in facilitating tree seedling recruitment at a degraded Sub-Tropical Rainforest site. Restoration Ecology. 7: 288-297.

Van Dyck S., 1979, Destruction of Wild Tobacco Trees (Solanum Mauritianum Scopoli) by Mountain Possums (Trichosurus Caninus Ogilby). Memoirs of the

Queensland Museum. 19: 367-371.

Viljoen P. & Groenewald W., 1995, The uses of grasses as a weed management technique in a degraded riparian site. South African Forestry Journal. 173: 49-52.

Wahingu G.M., Catterall C.P. & Olsen M.F., 1999, Selective herbivory by red-necked pademelon Thylogale thetis at rainforest margins: factors affecting predation rates. Australian Journal of Ecology. 24: 577-586.

Wahingu G.M., Catterall C.P. & Olsen M.F., 2002, Seedling predation and growth at a rainforest-pasture ecotone, and the value of shoots as seedlings analogues. Forest

Ecology and Management. 162: 251-260.

Zancola B.J., Wild C. & Hero J.M., 2000, Inhibition of Ageratina riparia (Asteraceae) by native Australian flora and fauna. Austral Ecology. 25: 563-569.


Scientific name: Solanum pseudocapsicum L Common name: Madeira winter cherry


Social

1. Restrict human access? A herbaceous to somewhat woody perennial of 50- 200 cm height with a spread of 1 m (Weber, 2003; Shepherd, 2004). Can invade damp sclerophyll forest, riparian vegetation and warm temperate rainforests (Carr et al, 1992), forests and forest edges (Weber, 2003). Plant exudes an unpleasant odour (Weber, 2003). Stems are wiry and much branched (Roy et al, 1998). This plant is unlikely to restrict human access however can be a nuisance.

ML MH

2. Reduce tourism? The plant produces bright attractive red berries that might be perceived as being aesthetically pleasing conversely the odour produced from plant might have negative impact on visitors. ML MH

3. Injurious to people? The majority of the compounds identified in the plant are known to be poisonous hence making both berries and leaves toxic to humans and animals (Aliero et al, 2006b). The berries if ingested have been reported to be fatal to humans and animals (Aliero et al, 2006b).

H H


The plant does not cause any structural damage however dense fruiting populations may have a moderate visual effect. ML MH

Abiotic

5. Impact flow? Although the plant is known to invade riparian environments it is not known to invade the water body or streambeds. L MH

6. Impact water quality? No noticeable effect on water quality. L MH

7. Increase soil erosion? The plant has the capacity to invade and transform areas by displacing existing natives and leaving area open to soil erosion. ML MH

8. Reduce biomass? There is no evidence from the literature studied that the plant alters the biomass of the community. ML MH

9. Change fire regime? There is no direct information on fire response of this plant. Therefore on the basis that the plant does not significantly alter the biomass of a community it can be concluded that it has a small or negligible effect on fire risk.

L L

Community Habitat


EVC= Grassy Forest (E); CMA= Corangamite; Bioregion= Otway Ranges; VH CLIMATE potential. Prefers well composted, moist, well drained soils in a protected position (Shepherd, 2004). Can invade damp sclerophyll forest, riparian vegetation and warm temperate rainforests (Carr et al, 1992), forests and forest edges (Weber, 2003). A herbaceous to somewhat woody perennial of 50- 200 cm height with a spread of 1 m (Weber, 2003, Shepherd, 2004). Small to medium shrub (Carr et al, 1992). The DSE (2004) defines describes small shrubs of grassy forests to comprise of 5% to the lifeforms within this EVC. Furthermore infestations of this species can

MH MH




displace and shade out species of the lower stratum subsequently modifying ecosystem structure.


EVC= Riparian Forest (D); CMA= Glenelg Hopkins; Bioregion= Greater Grampians; VH CLIMATE potential. The DSE (2004) describes small shrubs to comprise of 1% to the lifeforms within the Riparian Forest EVC. The species prefers well composted, moist, well drained soils in a protected position (Shepherd, 2004). The species is intolerable to drought indicating that it is dependant on reliable and sufficient water input. Riparian Forests are regularly inundated and permanently moist (DSE, 2004) making them suitable environmental for optimal growth of this species enabling it to establish and displace existing species.

MH MH

(c) low value EVC

EVC= Damp Forests (LC); CMA= West Gippsland; Bioregion= Highlands Southern Fall; VH CLIMATE potential. The species prefers well composted, moist, well drained soils in a protected position (Shepherd, 2004). The species is intolerable to drought indicating that it is dependant on reliable and sufficient water input. Riparian Forests are regularly inundated and permanently moist (DSE, 2004) making them suitable environmental for optimal growth of this species enabling it to establish and displace existing species.

MH MH

11. Impact on structure? The species grows to the height of 2m hence affecting only up to the lower end of the mid stratum and the lower stratum. Images of infestations viewed online (North West Weeds, 2007) indicate that the species becomes abundant and forms dense patches that crowd out native plants and prevents shrub regeneration (Weber, 2003). Hence the species has the capacity to produce dense cover over other species in the lower stratum therefore it will still have some impact on structure on both under and mid story.

ML ML


The impact on threatened flora is indeterminable. MH L

Fauna


The impact on threatened fauna is indeterminable. MH L


Plant is usually ignored by livestock (Roy et al, 1998). Therefore can assume that it is not an attractive food for native fauna. ML L

15. Benefits fauna? Seeds are dispersed by ingestion of birds. It has been recorded that currawongs eat the berries (Buchanan, 1989). In winter the leaves remain green and very attractive (Aliero et al, 2006) to animals making it a possible food source despite being poisonous however probably not a reliable one. Therefore it may be that the dense populations of this plant may provide an additional food source.

MH H

16. Injurious to fauna? The plant has been recorded to contain poisonous solanocapsine and alkaloids that are reported to be fatal to man and animals (Aliero et al, 2006b). It is avoided by livestock and native animals might do the same. Birds must have a degree of tolerance because they are the main seed dispersal vector. The plant is toxic in the flowering and fruiting stages for guinea pigs and rabbits and toxic to horses as well (Eckell, 1946).

H H




Pest Animal

17. Food source to pests? A study conducted by Santos et al (2003) investigated the diet of the maned wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus) in South America and found that S. pseudocapsicum made up a small percentage of this animals diet. This may suggest that foxes (Vulpes vulpes) may also eat fruit but again would comprise a minor component of diet. Furthermore it is noted in the literature (Buchanan, 1989) that the berries of this plant are readily ingested by Pied currawongs in suburban Sydney. Considering that this native species feeds on the berries it is highly likely that exotic species would do the same.

ML H

18. Provides harbor? This species has the capacity to produce dense crowded populations hence it has the potential to provide temporary harbour for foxes and rabbits however due to its wiry structure at medium height may not be suitable for permanent harbour for pest animals.

MH MH

Agriculture

19. Impact yield? This is a weed that can invade rough pastures additionally it is a plant that is ignored by livestock. It has a large seed set and can produce large dense populations. It might reduce the production or vigour of other crops or plants by competing with them for water and nutrients. Despite the preceding statement there is no evidence that this species is a serious weed of agriculture.

ML L

20. Impact quality? There is no evidence that it is a weed as agriculture. ML L

21. Affect land value? The literature is noted that it is found in rough pastures this suggests poor quality land value to begin with so may not alter the land value significantly. There is insufficient information to suggest the plants impact on land value would be greater than 10%.

M L

22. Change land use? The plant is not considered a serious weed of agriculture therefore it would not cause serious alteration of land use. L L

23. Increase harvest costs? The plant is not a weed of agriculture. It is not likely to increase agricultural costs by increasing harvesting time or is not a potential contaminant in agricultural produce. L L

24. Disease host/vector? The plant is susceptible to a powdery mildew (Erysiphe sp) that occurred in greenhouse-grown tomato crops in southern England (Fletcher and Smewin, 1988). The plant has also been noted to harbour the new Psyllid-Yellows disease prevalent in potato and other solanaceous plants (Binkley, 1929). This disease can be transmitted from diseased tomato to healthy potato plants. The plant is also a possible host for the tomato moth Scrobipalpula absoluta (Galarza, 1984) and for the tomato leaf curl virus tested under glasshouse experiments (DPIF, 2006).

H H


Scientific name: Solanum pseudocapsicum L. Common Name: Madeira winter cherry


Establishment


Flowers in October to May (spring to autumn) (Webb et al, 1988, Blood, 2001). Prefers well composted, moist, well drained soils in a protected position (Shepherd, 2004). It is noted in horticulture information that the plant is susceptible to frost and requires moderately warm temperatures and sufficient moisture to germinate (The Garden Helper, 1997). Therefore the most suitable time for germination would be after winter frosts through to spring.

MH M


Naturalized in disturbed wet areas mostly coastal in Eastern Australia (Spencer, 2002) and is able to establishes in shady places (Roy et al, 1998 ). In a study by Aliero et al (2006a) found that this species required little amount of nitrogen and that watering regimes significantly influenced growth performance. The species is intolerable to drought indicating that it is dependant on reliable and sufficient water input. It does not require specific nutrients although it is responsive to some nutrient input and is able to establish under limited light.

MH MH


Can invade damp sclerophyll forest, riparian vegetation and warm temperate rainforests (Carr et al, 1992), forests and forest edges (Weber, 2003). Establishes in hedges, plantations, remnant forest and shady places (Roy et al, 1998) In New Zealand the plant has been documented to be occasional to locally plentiful in damaged forests (Connor, 1977). A weed of disturbed areas, rough pasture and along bushland edges (Shepherd, 2004). The plant is able to establish in a range of highly disturbed areas and in relatively intact areas also.

MH MH

Growth/Competitive

4. Life form? A herbaceous to somewhat woody perennial of 50- 200 cm height with a spread of 1 m (Weber, 2003, Shepherd, 2004). Small to medium shrub (Carr et al, 1992). A shrub that may reach 1m and can grow up to 2m (Hussey et al 1997, Blood, 2001 ).

L MH


Fruit has been well studies for its compounds but no studies have been undertaken on its allelopathic qualities. L M


Plant is usually ignored by livestock (Roy et al, 1998). The poisons contained in berry are fatal to human and animal (Aliero et al, 2006b) H MH

7. Normal growth rate? A herbaceous woody perennial, however no information was found on growth in relation to similar life form. M L


The plant is intolerant to drought condition and requires small amounts of fertilizer for successful propagation (Aliero et al, 2006a). The species has been noted to occur in some frost free localities near Auckland (Roy et al, 1998) It is susceptible to drought and frost and may be some what tolerant to salinity by colonising in coastal areas in eastern Australia.

L MH

Reproduction

9. Reproductive system Reproduces by seed (Blood, 2001). No evidence of whether it’s self or cross fertilisation. L L


Scientific name: Solanum pseudocapsicum L. Common Name: Madeira winter cherry



The number of seeds per berry ranges from 50 to 100 while the berries could be as many as 100 per plant (Aliero et al, 2006a). Therefore the plant has the capacity to produce above 2000 seeds per flowering event. H H

11. Propagule longevity? No information was found on propagule longevity. M L

12. Reproductive period? No information was found on the length of the reproductive periods of the plant. M L


2 to 5 years to reproductive maturity (Whyvale Garden Centres). ML ML

Dispersal


Birds, internal, water (Carr et al, 1992) and dumped garden waste (Blood, 2001). Berries are eaten by birds which are the main means of seed dispersal (Webb et al, 1988). H MH


Very likely that at least one propagule will be dispersed greater than one kilometre. H L

Potential distribution of Solanum pseudocapsicum in Victoria

Scientific name: Solanum pseudocapsicum L

Common name(s): Madeira Winter Cherry, Jerusalem cherry

Status:

Habitat: The plant has been documented to invade damp sclerophyll forest, riparian vegetation and warm temperate forests (Carr et al, 1992). The species is most invasive in moister conditions (Aliero et al, 2006a) but may have the capacity to establish in drier woodland environments. . It has also been found to occur around forest edges (Weber, 2003). It is also known to establish in hedges, plantations and remanent forests (Roy et al, 1998). 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;


Coastal scrubs and grassland; coastal grassy woodland; heathy woodland; lowland forest; heath; swamp scrub; box ironbark forest; inland slopes woodland; sedge rich 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; riparian forest; rainshadow woodland; mallee; mallee heath; boinka-raak; mallee woodland; wimmera / mallee woodland

Colours indicate possibility of Solanum pseudocapsicum infesting these areas.




Present distribution of Solanum pseudocapsicum in Victoria

Scientific name: Solanum pseudocapsicum L

Common name(s): Madeira Winter Cherry

Status:

Habitat: The plant has been documented to invade damp sclerophyll forest, riparian vegetation and warm temperate forests (Carr et al, 1992). The species favours moister conditions (Aliero et al, 2006a). It has also been found to occur around forest edges (Weber, 2003). It is also known to establish in hedges, plantations and remanent forests (Roy et al, 1998).

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

###

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

###

#

#

#

## #

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

###

#

###

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

# ###

##

#####

#

##

#

#

#

###

##

#####

#

#

###

###

#

#######

####

##

#

###

#####

###

####

####

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

##

###

#

#

#

###

##

#

#

# ##

#

#

#

#

##

# # #

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

####

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

## #

#

#

References - Solanum pseudocapsicum.

Aliero, A., Adebola, P.O., Grienson, D.S and Afolayan, A.J. 2006a. Response of Solanum pseudocapsicum to Watering periods and Nitrogen Application. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences. 9. pp 1068-1072.

Aliero, A.A., Grierson, D.S and Afolayan, A.J. 2006b. Chemical Composition of the Essential Oil from Solanum pseudocapsicum. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences. 9. pp. 1175- 1177

Binkley, A.M. 1929. Transmission studies with the new Psyllid- Yellows Disease of solanaceous Plants. Science New York. 70:1825, p. 615


Buchanan, R.A. Pied currawongs (Strpera graculina): their diet and role in weed dispersal in suburdan Sydney, New South Wales. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South

Wales. 1989. 111.1-4, 241-255

Connor H.E., 1977, The Poisonous Plants in New Zealand. E.C. Keating, Government Printer. Wellington\

Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2004. EVC/Bioregion Benchmark for Vegetation Quality Assesment: Otway Ranges Bioregion:EVC 128: Grassy Forest, viewed 11th October 2007, http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/conserv/EVC-PDF/OtR_0128.pdf Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, 2006. Queensland Government. Tomato leaf curl virus. Online resource, viewed 17th September,

http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/health/4250.html

Eckell, O.A. Poisonous plants in the Argentine. Cynodon hirsutus, Solanum pseudocapsicum and others. An. Fac. Med. Vet..University La Plata. 9. p. 11-52

Pletcher, J.T and Smewin, B.J. 1988. Tomato powdery mildew. Plant Pathology. 37. 594-598.

Galarza, J. 1984. Laboratory assessment of some solanaceous plants. Possible food-plants of the tomate moth Scrobipalpula absoluta (Meyr.) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). IDIA. 421/424, p. 30-32.

Hussey B.M.J., Keighery G.J., Cousens R.D., Dodd J. & Lloyd S.G., 1997, Western Weeds. A guide to the weeds of Western Australia. The Plant Protection Society of Western Australia Inc. Victoria Park.

North West Weeds, 2007. Online resource, viewed 13th September,

http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au

Roy B., Popay I., Champion P., James T. & Rahman A., 1998. An Illustrated Guide to Common Weeds of New Zealand. New Zealand Plant Protection Scoiety.

Santos, E.F., Setz, E.Z.F & Gobbi, N. 2003. Diet of the maned wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus) and its role in seed dispersal on a cattle ranch in Brazil. Journal of Zoology, London. 260. p. 203-208.

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

Spencer R. (ed), 2002, Horticultural Flora of South-Eastern Australia Volume 4. Flowering Plants Dicotyledons Part 3. UNSW Press.

The Garden Helper, online resource, viewed 11th September, 2007,

http://thegardenhelper.com/Jerusalemcherry.htm



Wyevale Garden Centres, online resource, viewed 11th September 2007,

http://wyevale.shootgardening.co.uk/sitePlant.php?plantid=4668&name=solanum-pseudocapsicum


Australian National Herbarium (ANH) 2007, Australia’s Virtual Herbarium, Australian National Herbarium, Centre for Plant Diversity and Research, viewed 10th Sept 2007, http://www.anbg.gov.au/avh/

Calflora: Information on California plants for education, research and conservation. [web application]. 2007. Berkeley, California: The Calflora Database [a non-profit organization] viewed 10th Sept 2007, http://www.calflora.org/ .

Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) 2007, Global biodiversity information facility, viewed 10th Sept 2007, http://www.gbif.org/

Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) 2007, Global biodiversity information facility: Prototype data portal, viewed 10th Sept 2007,, http://www.gbif.net/


Missouri Botanical Gardens (MBG) 2007, w3TROPICOS, Missouri Botanical Gardens Database, viewed 10th Sept-2007, http://mobot.mobot.org/W3T/Search/vast.html

National Biodiversity Network 2004, NBN Gateway, National Biodiversity Network, UK viewed 10th-Sept-2007, http://www.searchnbn.net/index_homepage/index.jsp

Documents

Scientific name: Psoralea pinnatavro.agriculture.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/0d08cd...Scientific name: Psoralea pinnata L. Common name: Blue psoralea (blue butterfly bush) QUESTION