Present distribution
| Map Overlays Used Land Use: Broadacre cropping; forest private plantation; forest public plantation; horticulture; pasture dryland; pasture irrigation 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; grassland; plains grassy woodland; valley grassy forest; herb-rich woodland; riverine grassy woodland; rainshadow woodland Colours indicate possibility of Echium candicans infesting these areas. In the non-coloured areas the plant is unlikely to establish as the climate, soil or landuse is not presently suitable. |
|
QUESTION | COMMENTS | RATING | CONFIDENCE |
| Social | |||
| 1. Restrict human access? | Leaves and inflorescences have bristles which can be irritating (Bennett 2003). | ml | mh |
| 2. Reduce tourism? | Planted as an ornamental, with potentially 6-7m flower spikes (Bennett 2003). Would alter the aesthetics however not reported impacting on tourism. | ml | l |
| 3. Injurious to people? | Bristles can be irritating (Bennett 2003). | ml | mh |
| 4. Damage to cultural sites? | No reported impacts, however is planted as an ornamental and could alter the aesthetics. | ml | m |
| Abiotic | |||
| 5. Impact flow? | Terrestrial species | l | m |
| 6. Impact water quality? | Terrestrial species | l | m |
| 7. Increase soil erosion? | Unknown. | m | l |
| 8. Reduce biomass? | As it is monocarpic doesn’t have the capacity for carbon sequestration. | ml | mh |
| 9. Change fire regime? | No impacts on fire regime reported. | l | l |
| Community Habitat | |||
| 10. Impact on composition (a) high value EVC | EVC= Grassy Woodland (E); CMA= Corangamite; Bioreg= Central Victorian Uplands; VH CLIMATE potential. Very similar to E. pininana, which has been reported to form dense stands (Robinson 1992) Therefore could potentially dominate the lower stratum. | mh | m |
| (b) medium value EVC | EVC= Herb-rich Foothill Forest (D); CMA= Corangamite; Bioreg= Central Victorian Uplands; VH CLIMATE potential. Very similar to E. pininana, which has been reported to form dense stands (Robinson 1992) Therefore could potentially dominate the lower stratum. | mh | m |
| (c) low value EVC | EVC= Lowland Forest (D); CMA= Corangamite; Bioreg= Central Victorian Uplands; VH CLIMATE potential. Very similar to E. pininana, which has been reported to form dense stands (Robinson 1992) Therefore could potentially dominate the lower stratum. | mh | m |
| 11. Impact on structure? | Very similar to E. pininana, which has been reported to form dense stands (Robinson 1992) Therefore could potentially dominate the lower stratum. | ml | m |
| 12. Effect on threatened flora? | No impacts reported. | mh | l |
| Fauna | |||
| 13. Effect on threatened fauna? | No impacts reported. | mh | l |
| 14. Effect on non-threatened fauna? | May displace more preferred food species, and irritating bristle may limit its use for habitat (Bennett 2003). Poisonous (Dave’s Garden 2006) | ml | m |
| 15. Benefits fauna? | Produced a lot of nectar for bees and other pollinators (Valido, Dupont & Olesen 2004). | mh | mh |
| 16. Injurious to fauna? | Has irritating bristles and other Echium species reported to be toxic (Bennett 2003). | m | m |
| Pest Animal | |||
| 17. Food source to pests? | Nectar source for bees (Dave’s Garden 2006). | ml | ml |
| 18. Provides harbour? | Not reported to be used as shelter. | l | m |
| Agriculture | |||
| 19. Impact yield? | Other species in the genus problem agricultural weeds, however E. candicans has not reported as weed of agriculture. May reduce production area. | m | l |
| 20. Impact quality? | Other species in the genus problem agricultural weeds, however E. candicans has not reported as weed of agriculture. | m | l |
| 21. Affect land value? | Other species in the genus problem agricultural weeds, however E. candicans has not reported as weed of agriculture. | m | l |
| 22. Change land use? | Other species in the genus problem agricultural weeds, however E. candicans has not reported as weed of agriculture. | m | l |
| 23. Increase harvest costs? | Other species in the genus problem agricultural weeds, however E. candicans has not reported as weed of agriculture. | m | l |
| 24. Disease host/vector? | Is susceptible to fungal disease (Bennett 2003). Unknown if these are in common with any agricultural crop, none reported. | l | m |
QUESTION | COMMENTS | RATING | CONFIDENCE |
| Establishment | |||
| 1. Germination requirements? | Very little described, except for intentional propagation, where under greenhouse conditions if kept moist seeds will germinate within one to two weeks (Bennett 2003). These conditions may be a synthesis of rainfall and temperatures of the spring summer period. | mh | m |
| 2. Establishment requirements? | Native to open forest (Bennett 2003). Can therefore establish under moderate cover. | mh | mh |
| 3. How much disturbance is required? | Native to open forest (Bennett 2003). Has also been reported invading grassland habitat in California (Calflora 2006). | mh | mh |
| Growth/Competitive | |||
| 4. Life form? | Monocarpic shrub (Bennett 2003). | l | mh |
| 5. Allelopathic properties? | Echium species have been reported to have phenols in the leaves and phenols can inhibit the germination of some species (Marrero-Gomez et al 2000). | m | m |
| 6. Tolerates herb pressure? | Poisonous and leaves covered with bristles (Bennett 2003 and Dave’s Garden 2006). Would probably therefore be avoided. | mh | m |
| 7. Normal growth rate? | Reported as fast growing, able to grow to 2m in two years (Dave’s Garden 2006) | mh | ml |
| 8. Stress tolerance to frost, drought, w/logg, sal. etc? | Reported to be able to withstand temperatures to -60C (Dave’s Garden 2006). Therefore tolerant of frost. Drought tolerant (Dave’s Garden 2006). | ml | m |
| Reproduction | |||
| 9. Reproductive system | Sexual, (Bennett 2003). | ml | mh |
| 10. Number of propagules produced? | Inflorescences can be 3.5m tall, containing thousands of flowers all able to produce 4 nutlets (Bennett 2003). | h | mh |
| 11. Propagule longevity? | Unknown. | m | l |
| 12. Reproductive period? | Monocarpic (Bennett 2003). | l | mh |
| 13. Time to reproductive maturity? | Will flower within three years (Bennett 2003). | ml | mh |
| Dispersal | |||
| 14. Number of mechanisms? | Seeds have poorly developed wings (Lems 1960). Therefore has some capacity to be wind dispersed. | mh | mh |
| 15. How far do they disperse? | Wind dispersed but seeds not specially adapted for it (Lems 1960). | ml | m |