Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk (PIER)
RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS: Reject, Score: 14
Note: Risk assessment prepared for Australia
Information on Risk Assessments
| Amaranthus dubius | |||
| A. | southern pigweed | ||
| RR | |||
| 1 | 1.01 | Is the species highly domesticated? | Y |
| 1.02 | Has the species become naturalised where grown? | Y | |
| 1.03 | Does the species have weedy races? | ||
| 2 | 2.01 | Species suited to Australian climates (0-low; 1-intermediate; 2-high) | 2 |
| 2.02 | Quality of climate match data (0-low; 1-intermediate; 2-high) | 1 | |
| 2.03 | Broad climate suitability (environmental versatility) | N | |
| 2.04 | Native or naturalised in regions with extended dry periods | N | |
| 2.05 | Does the species have a history of repeated introductions outside its natural range? | Y | |
| 3 | 3.01 | Naturalised beyond native range | Y |
| 3.02 | Garden/amenity/disturbance weed | Y | |
| 3.03 | Weed of agriculture | Y | |
| 3.04 | Environmental weed | ||
| 3.05 | Congeneric weed | Y | |
| B. | |||
| 4 | 4.01 | Produces spines, thorns or burrs | N |
| 4.02 | Allelopathic | Y | |
| 4.03 | Parasitic | N | |
| 4.04 | Unpalatable to grazing animals | N | |
| 4.05 | Toxic to animals | ||
| 4.06 | Host for recognised pests and pathogens | Y | |
| 4.07 | Causes allergies or is otherwise toxic to humans | ||
| 4.08 | Creates a fire hazard in natural ecosystems | ||
| 4.09 | Is a shade tolerant plant at some stage of its life cycle | ||
| 4.10 | Grows on infertile soils | ||
| 4.11 | Climbing or smothering growth habit | N | |
| 4.12 | Forms dense thickets | N | |
| 5 | 5.01 | Aquatic | N |
| 5.02 | Grass | N | |
| 5.03 | Nitrogen fixing woody plant | N | |
| 5.04 | Geophyte | N | |
| 6 | 6.01 | Evidence of substantial reproductive failure in native habitat | N |
| 6.02 | Produces viable seed. | Y | |
| 6.03 | Hybridises naturally | Y | |
| 6.04 | Self-compatible or apomictic | ||
| 6.05 | Requires specialist pollinators | N | |
| 6.06 | Reproduction by vegetative fragmentation | N | |
| 6.07 | Minimum generative time (years) | 1 | |
| 7 | 7.01 | Propagules likely to be dispersed unintentionally (plants growing in areas with much vehicle movement) | Y |
| 7.02 | Propagules dispersed intentionally by people | Y | |
| 7.03 | Propagules likely to disperse as a produce contaminant | Y | |
| 7.04 | Propagules adapted to wind dispersal | N | |
| 7.05 | Propagules water dispersed | ||
| 7.06 | Propagules bird dispersed | ||
| 7.07 | Propagules dispersed by other animals (externally) | Y | |
| 7.08 | Propagules survive passage through the gut | ||
| 8 | 8.01 | Prolific seed production (>2000/m2) | Y |
| 8.02 | Evidence that a persistent propagule bank is formed (>1 yr) | N | |
| 8.03 | Well controlled by herbicides | ||
| 8.04 | Tolerates, or benefits from, mutilation or cultivation | N | |
| 8.05 | Effective natural enemies present in Australia | N | |
| Outcome: | Reject | ||
| Score: | 14 | ||
| Biogeography | 8 | ||
| Score partition: Undesirable attributes | 1 | ||
| Biology/ecology | 5 | ||
| Biogeography | 8 | ||
| Questions answered: Undesirable attributes | 7 | ||
| Biology/ecology | 19 | ||
| Total | 34 | ||
| Agricultural | 12 | ||
| Sector affected: Environmental | 8 | ||
| Nusiance | 2 | ||
| A= agricultural, E = environmental, N = nuisance, C=combined | |||
Risk assessment prepared by Rod Randall
Need more info? Have questions? Comments? Information to contribute? Contact PIER!
This page new 12 June 2003.