Research directed by C. Daehler (UH Botany) with funding from the Kaulunani Urban Forestry Program and US Forest Service

Information on Risk Assessments
Original risk assessment

Ficus macrophylla; Moreton bay fig

Answer

1.01

Is the species highly domesticated?

y=-3, n=0

n

1.02

Has the species become naturalized where grown?

y=-1, n=-1

y

1.03

Does the species have weedy races?

y=-1, n=-1

n

2.01

Species suited to tropical or subtropical climate(s) (0-low; 1-intermediate; 2-high) – If island is primarily wet habitat, then substitute “wet tropical” for “tropical or subtropical”

See Append 2

2

2.02

Quality of climate match data (0-low; 1-intermediate; 2-high) see appendix 2

2

2.03

Broad climate suitability (environmental versatility)

y=1, n=0

n

2.04

Native or naturalized in regions with tropical or subtropical climates

y=1, n=0

y

2.05

Does the species have a history of repeated introductions outside its natural range? y=-2

?=-1, n=0

y

3.01

Naturalized beyond native range y = 1*multiplier (see Append 2), n= question 2.05

y

3.02

Garden/amenity/disturbance weed y = 1*multiplier (see Append 2)

n=0

n

3.03

Agricultural/forestry/horticultural weed y = 2*multiplier (see Append 2)

n=0

n

3.04

Environmental weed y = 2*multiplier (see Append 2)

n=0

n

3.05

Congeneric weed y = 1*multiplier (see Append 2)

n=0

y

4.01

Produces spines, thorns or burrs

y=1, n=0

n

4.02

Allelopathic

y=1, n=0

n

4.03

Parasitic

y=1, n=0

n

4.04

Unpalatable to grazing animals

y=1, n=-1

n

4.05

Toxic to animals

y=1, n=0

n

4.06

Host for recognized pests and pathogens

y=1, n=0

y

4.07

Causes allergies or is otherwise toxic to humans

y=1, n=0

4.08

Creates a fire hazard in natural ecosystems

y=1, n=0

n

4.09

Is a shade tolerant plant at some stage of its life cycle

y=1, n=0

y

4.1

Tolerates a wide range of soil conditions (or limestone conditions if not a volcanic island)

y=1, n=0

y

4.11

Climbing or smothering growth habit

y=1, n=0

y

4.12

Forms dense thickets

y=1, n=0

n

5.01

Aquatic

y=5, n=0

n

5.02

Grass

y=1, n=0

n

5.03

Nitrogen fixing woody plant

y=1, n=0

n

5.04

Geophyte (herbaceous with underground storage organs -- bulbs, corms, or tubers)

y=1, n=0

n

6.01

Evidence of substantial reproductive failure in native habitat

y=1, n=0

n

6.02

Produces viable seed.

y=1, n=-1

y

6.03

Hybridizes naturally

y=1, n=-1

n

6.04

Self-compatible or apomictic

y=1, n=-1

n

6.05

Requires specialist pollinators

y=-1, n=0

y

6.06

Reproduction by vegetative fragmentation

y=1, n=-1

n

6.07

Minimum generative time (years) 1 year = 1, 2 or 3 years = 0, 4+ years = -1

See left

4

7.01

Propagules likely to be dispersed unintentionally (plants growing in heavily trafficked areas)

y=1, n=-1

n

7.02

Propagules dispersed intentionally by people

y=1, n=-1

y

7.03

Propagules likely to disperse as a produce contaminant

y=1, n=-1

n

7.04

Propagules adapted to wind dispersal

y=1, n=-1

n

7.05

Propagules water dispersed

y=1, n=-1

n

7.06

Propagules bird dispersed

y=1, n=-1

y

7.07

Propagules dispersed by other animals (externally)

y=1, n=-1

n

7.08

Propagules survive passage through the gut

y=1, n=-1

y

8.01

Prolific seed production (>1000/m2)

y=1, n=-1

y

8.02

Evidence that a persistent propagule bank is formed (>1 yr)

y=1, n=-1

8.03

Well controlled by herbicides

y=-1, n=1

y

8.04

Tolerates, or benefits from, mutilation, cultivation, or fire

y=1, n=-1

y

8.05

Effective natural enemies present locally (e.g. introduced biocontrol agents)

y=-1, n=1

Total score:

3

Source

Notes

1.01

no evidence

1.02

(1) Gardner, R. O.; Early, J. W. (1996) The naturalisation of banyan figs (Ficus spp., Moraceae) and their pollinating wasps (Hymenoptera: Agaonidae) in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Botany, 1996, Vol.34, No.1, pp.103-110, 29 ref.
(2) http://www.hear.org/starr/hiplants/reports/html/ficus_macrophylla.htm

AB: The Australian banyan-type fig trees Ficus macrophylla and F. rubiginosa are commonly cultivated in northern New Zealand. Both have now acquired their pollinating wasps, apparently by long-distance dispersal. Pleistodontes imperialis , the wasp specific to F. rubiginosa , arrived within the last 20 years or so, and naturalized plants are found near parent trees. P. froggatti , the wasp specific to F. macrophylla , is newly recorded here for New Zealand, and naturalization of this fig species seems inevitable. The size and vigour of both fig species and their lack of natural enemies (notably an immunity to possum browsing) indicate that they may be able to invade forest and other native plant communities.
[no evidence of established naturalized population]
(2) The pollinator wasp for F. macrophylla, Pleistodontes froggatti Mayr., was purposefully introduced to Hawai'i in 1921 (Wagner et al. 1999). The wasp successfully established and reproduction of F. macrophylla has been documented on Maui and Hawai

1.03

no evidence

2.01

CAB International, (2000) Forestry Compendium Global Module. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.

List of countries with natural populations
Oceania: [Australia] New South Wales, Queensland

2.02

2.03

(1)http://www.hear.org/starr/hiplants/reports/html/ficus_macrophylla.htm (2)http://www.brisrain.webcentral.com.au/database/Ficus_macrophylla.htm

(1)Native range: F. macrophylla is native to tropical Queensland and northern New South Wales in Australia (Riffle 1998). In this area of Eastern Australia, typical average temperatures range from 68-86 F (20-30 C) in January and from 50-68 F (10-20 C) in July (Hammond 1986). Average annual rainfall in this region ranges from 20-80 in (50-200 cm) (Hammond 1986). Global distribution: F. macrophylla is widely cultivated. It is grown in the United States in at least Hawai'i, California, and Florida. Apparently, Californians historically had a great interest in introducing and growing Australian plants for landscaping and therefore, F. macrophylla has been grown in California for much longer than in Florida (Riffle 1998). It is a drought tolerant banyan that is hardier to cold than most banyans and can withstand temperatures 28 F (-7 C) or above, though younger trees are more susceptible to cold (Riffle 1998). Trees grown in the continental United States do not grow as large as trees in their native habitat. It i

2.04

http://www.hear.org/starr/hiplants/reports/html/ficus_macrophylla.htm

Native range: F. macrophylla is native to tropical Queensland and northern New South Wales in Australia (Riffle 1998). In this area of Eastern Australia, typical average temperatures range from 68-86 F (20-30 C) in January and from 50-68 F (10-20 C) in July (Hammond 1986). Average annual rainfall in this region ranges from 20-80 in (50-200 cm) (Hammond 1986).

2.05

(1) Mohammad Ishtiaq; Jahagir Khan; Abdur-Rab (1995) Performance of different species of rubber plant stem cuttings under agroclimatic conditions of Peshawar. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, 1995, Vol.11, No.4, pp.455-457, 5 ref.
(2)Thomas, M. B.; Teoh, S. L. (1983) Culture of container-grown Ficus macrophylla I. Influence of nutrition on foliage growth. Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture Annual Journal, 1983, No.11, pp.67-76, 12 ref.
(3) http://www.hear.org/starr/hiplants/reports/html/ficus_macrophylla.htm

(1) Pakistan, (2) New Zealand, (3) California, Florida, Hawaii

3.01

(1) Gardner, R. O.; Early, J. W. (1996) The naturalisation of banyan figs (Ficus spp., Moraceae) and their pollinating wasps (Hymenoptera: Agaonidae) in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Botany, 1996, Vol.34, No.1, pp.103-110, 29 ref.
(2) http://www.hear.org/starr/hiplants/reports/html/ficus_macrophylla.htm

AB: The Australian banyan-type fig trees Ficus macrophylla and F. rubiginosa are commonly cultivated in northern New Zealand. Both have now acquired their pollinating wasps, apparently by long-distance dispersal. Pleistodontes imperialis , the wasp specific to F. rubiginosa , arrived within the last 20 years or so, and naturalized plants are found near parent trees. P. froggatti , the wasp specific to F. macrophylla , is newly recorded here for New Zealand, and naturalization of this fig species seems inevitable. The size and vigour of both fig species and their lack of natural enemies (notably an immunity to possum browsing) indicate that they may be able to invade forest and other native plant communities.
[no evidence of established naturalized population]
(2) The pollinator wasp for F. macrophylla, Pleistodontes froggatti Mayr., was purposefully introduced to Hawai'i in 1921 (Wagner et al. 1999). The wasp successfully established and reproduction of F. macrophylla has been documented on Maui and Hawai

3.02

no evidence

3.03

no evidence

3.04

no evidence

3.05

(1) Weeds in New Zealand (http://www.boprc.govt.nz/www/green/weedindx.htm) contact: norb@kcbbs.gen.nz
(2)Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. FLEPPC 1999 List of Florida's Most Invasive Species. Internet: http://www.fau.edu/envsci/99list.htm

(1) F. pumila and F. rubiginosa are prohibited from propagation, sale and distribution in New Zealand.
(2) F. microcarpa was listed in Category I—(Species that are invading and disrupting native plant communities in Florida. This definition does not rely on the economic severity or geographic range of the problem, but on the documented ecological damage caused. ) F. altissma was listed in Category II—Species that have shown a potential to disrupt native plant communities. These species may become ranked as Category I, but have not yet demonstrated disruption of natural Florida communities.

4.01

http://www.hear.org/starr/hiplants/reports/html/ficus_macrophylla.htm

no description of these traits

4.02

no evidence

4.03

no evidence

4.04

http://www.census.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/90a12181d877a6a6ca
2568b5007b861c/4c690e6136b8b1ebca2569de00267e5f!OpenDocument

Ficus macrophylla, Desf.: "Moreton Bay Fig." - This is an excellent fodder plant, cattle and horses eating the leaves, young twigs, and figs with great zest.

4.05

http://www.census.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/90a12181d877a6a6ca
2568b5007b861c/4c690e6136b8b1ebca2569de00267e5f!OpenDocument

Ficus macrophylla, Desf.: "Moreton Bay Fig." - This is an excellent fodder plant, cattle and horses eating the leaves, young twigs, and figs with great zest.

4.06

(1) Penrose, L. J.; Nikandrow, A. (1971) Ficus macrophylla, a new host for Aphelenchoides fragariae (Ritzema Bos) Christie. Search, 1971, Vol.2, No.5, p.170
(2) http://www.hear.org/starr/hiplants/reports/html/ficus_macrophylla.htm
(3) http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/all/FindRecOneFungusFrame.cfm

(1) AB: Ficus macrophylla var. Moreton Bay Fig, in a commercial glasshouse in Australia, was infected with Aphelenchoides fragiae. This is the first record of A. fragariae on this host and, in Australia, on any Ficus sp.
[a generalist foliar nematode known to infect 250 host species]
(2) "Pests and Diseases: Brickell and Zuk (1997) report the following pests and diseases of Ficus spp.: mealybugs, scale insects, spider mites, root knot nematodes, and thrips occur under most environmental conditions, fungal and bacterial leaf spots, crown gall, twig dieback, and Southern blight.
(3) Cerotelium fici: USSR [a specialist rust fungus found only in Moraceae, which includ Ficus carica]
Nectria haematococca: New Zealand [generalist]
Osmoporus proteus: New Zealand - [generalist saprophyte]
Phyllosticta fici: Portugal - [a specialist pathogen found only on Ficus, with a pathotype on Ficus carica]
Pleospora herbarum f. foliicola: [generalist]
Sphaerella ficus: Portugal - [only found on F. macrophyl

4.07

(1)http://bodd.cf.ac.uk/index.html (2)http://www.brisrain.webcentral.com.au/database/Ficus_macrophylla.htm

(1)Ficus macrophylla
Australian Tanyan, Moreton Bay Fig
This plant is irritant; a patch test was positive in 8 of 38 persons (Fregert and Hjorth 1969). [fairly low rate of irriation]
(2)Aborigines ate the sweet fruit.

4.08

http://www.hear.org/starr/hiplants/reports/html/ficus_macrophylla.htm

"prefer mesic to moist habitat"

4.09

Thomas, M. B.; Teoh, S. L. (1983) Culture of container-grown Ficus macrophylla. II. Influence of shading and N fertilization. Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture Annual Journal, 1983, No.11, pp.77-82, 13 ref.

AB: Plants in a peat:sand (1:1, v/v) medium received 3 N levels (225, 300 or 375 g/m3) and 3 shade levels (20, 60 or 80%). Plant height, internode length, stem diameter, leaf area and foliar dry weight were all greatest with 20% shading and 300-375 g N/m3. Leaf colour and visual ratings of foliage were enhanced by 60-80% shade but chlorophyll content remained greatest with 20% shade. [survive 80% shade]

4.1

(1)http://www.hear.org/starr/hiplants/reports/html/ficus_macrophylla.htm (2)http://www.fleppc.org/pdf/ficus%20microcarpa.pdf

(1)"Although F. macrophylla can be terrestrial, in most of the observations it seems to be epiphytic, at least when young. Eventually roots reach the ground, and the host tree will be smothered or broken by the sheer weight. "
(2)able to survive in little or no soil when young

4.11

http://www.hear.org/starr/hiplants/reports/html/ficus_macrophylla.htm

"Seeds often germinate in trees and grow as epiphytes, eventually replacing the host tree." "Although F. macrophylla can be terrestrial, in most of the observations it seems to be epiphytic, at least when young. Eventually roots reach the ground, and the host tree will be smothered or broken by the sheer weight. "

4.12

http://www.hear.org/starr/hiplants/reports/html/ficus_macrophylla.htm

"Although F. macrophylla can be terrestrial, in most of the observations it seems to be epiphytic, at least when young. Eventually roots reach the ground, and the host tree will be smothered or broken by the sheer weight. "

5.01

epiphytic to trrestrial

5.02

tree; Moraceae

5.03

no evidence

5.04

tree

6.01

no evidence

6.02

(1) Doyle, G. (2000) Strangler figs in a stand of dry rainforest in the lower Hunter Valley, NSW. Australian Geographer, 2000, Vol.31, No.2, pp.251-264, 20 ref.
(2) http://www.hear.org/starr/hiplants/reports/html/ficus_macrophylla.htm

(1) AB: " It appears that desiccation of the germination substrate could be the major cause of the high rate of juvenile hemi-epiphytic Ficus mortality. "
(2) Propagation: In Hawai'i, seeds are viable. Most figs can be grown from air layers or cuttings.

6.03

Pollinated only by species specific fig wasp; unlilkely to hybridize

6.04

Pollinated only by species specific fig wasp; unlilkely to be self compatible

6.05

http://www.hear.org/starr/hiplants/reports/html/ficus_macrophylla.htm

Pollination: The fruit (syconium or fig) and reproduction systems of species in the genus Ficus are unique. Each species of Ficus has an associated species of agaonid wasp (Hymenoptera: Chalcoidea: Agaonidae). Ficus species can only be pollinated by their associated agaonid wasps and in turn, the wasps can only lay eggs within their associated Ficus fruit. The pollinator wasp for F. macrophylla is Pleistodontes frogatti.

6.06

no evidence

6.07

http://www.brisrain.webcentral.com.au/stages.html

Late Secondary Phase Species: Moderate to fast growth. Fruit less frequently than earlier phase species. [minimum for a large, later successional stage tree]

7.01

no evidence

7.02

Thomas, M. B.; Teoh, S. L. (1983) Culture of container-grown Ficus macrophylla I. Influence of nutrition on foliage growth. Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture Annual Journal, 1983, No.11, pp.67-76, 12 ref.

an oranamental

7.03

no evidence

7.04

unlikely with such large fruit

7.05

no evidence

7.06

(1)http://www.hear.org/starr/hiplants/reports/html/ficus_macrophylla.htm (2)http://www.fleppc.org/pdf/ficus%20microcarpa.pdf

Various birds observed by the authors foraging and roosting in other Ficus trees on Maui include mynah birds (Acridotheres tristis tristis), blue faced doves (Geopelia striata), lace necked doves (Streptopelia chinensis), Japanese white-eye (Zosterops japonicus), and house sparrows (Passer domesticus), though there are probably more. Other animals, such as bats, pigs, rodents, parrots, and monkeys may be capable of spreading fruit. 'This species has many invasive characteristics including prolific fruit production, small seeds that are bird dispersed, ability to invade both disturbed and native forests, and difficulty in control due to epiphytic growth and steep terrain.' (2)Seeds dispersed primarily by birds and other vertebrates, with evidence of further dispersal by ants (Kaufmann et al. 1991).

7.07

no evidence

7.08

bird dispersal

8.01

Ficus synconium contain numberous minute fruits; pollinator is present

8.02

(1) Doyle, G. (2000) Strangler figs in a stand of dry rainforest in the lower Hunter Valley, NSW. Australian Geographer, 2000, Vol.31, No.2, pp.251-264, 20 ref.

AB: " It appears that desiccation of the germination substrate could be the major cause of the high rate of juvenile hemi-epiphytic Ficus mortality. " [probably no seedbank]

8.03

http://www.hear.org/starr/hiplants/reports/html/ficus_macrophylla.htm

Chemical control: "Fig trees are particularly sensitive to triclopyr herbicides as a basal or cut-stump treatment. Trees found growing on concrete or rock structures should be treated with herbicide while young to avoid costly structural damage. Use extreme caution when applying herbicide to figs growing as epiphytes to ensure that the poison does not contact the host tree. When exotic figs germinate high in the branches of large trees in natural forest communities, it may be extraordinarily difficult to get close enough to the fig to treat it." (Hammer 1996).

8.04

Mohammad Ishtiaq; Jahagir Khan; Abdur-Rab (1995) Performance of different species of rubber plant stem cuttings under agroclimatic conditions of Peshawar. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, 1995, Vol.11, No.4, pp.455-457, 5 ref.

AB: In an experiment conducted at Peshawar in 1993, the performance of stem cuttings of Ficus pumila , F. macrophylla , F. retusa and F. elastica was studied in a growing medium comprising a 1:1:1 mixture of sand, clay and FYM. The evaluation was based on plant survival, plant height, number of leaves/cutting, number of roots/cutting and root length. Among the species used, F. pumila and F. macrophylla gave better results than F. retusa , whereas F. elastica completely failed in the trial. Greatest plant survival (53%) was observed for F. pumila followed by F. retusa (45%). Greatest plant height (63 cm) and number of leaves/cutting (58) were also recorded for F. pumila , followed by F. macrophylla (24 cm and 16 cm, respectively). F. macrophylla gave the highest number of roots/cutting (10) and greatest root length (98 cm) followed by F. pumila (9 and 97 cm, respectively).

8.05

http://www.hear.org/starr/hiplants/reports/html/ficus_macrophylla.htm

Biological control: Nadel et al. (1991) report several pests that could be looked at for biological control potential including various ants which were seen carrying off pollinator wasps from Ficus fruits, Hymenoptera and mites that may be parasites of the pollinator wasps, and staphylinids which were seen entering Ficus fruits and eating the pollinator wasps.