Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk (PIER)

Datura spp.

See:  Datura ferox
         Datura inoxia
         Datura metel

RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS: Reject, Score: 21

Note:  Risk assessment prepared for Australia

Information on Risk Assessments

        Datura spp
A. Biogeography/     thornapples
  historical     P&C
1 Domestication/ 1.01 Is the species highly domesticated? N
  cultivation 1.02 Has the species become naturalised where grown? Y
    1.03 Does the species have weedy races? N
2 Climate and 2.01 Species suited to Australian climates (0-low; 1-intermediate; 2-high) 1
  Distribution 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 Y
    2.05 Does the species have a history of repeated introductions outside its natural range? Y
3 Weed 3.01 Naturalised beyond native range Y
  Elsewhere 3.02 Garden/amenity/disturbance weed Y
  (interacts with 2.01 3.03 Weed of agriculture Y
  to give a weighted 3.04 Environmental weed  
  score) 3.05 Congeneric weed Y
B. Biology/Ecology    
4 Undesirable 4.01 Produces spines, thorns or burrs Y
  traits 4.02 Allelopathic  
    4.03 Parasitic N
    4.04 Unpalatable to grazing animals Y
    4.05 Toxic to animals Y
    4.06 Host for recognised pests and pathogens  
    4.07 Causes allergies or is otherwise toxic to humans Y
    4.08 Creates a fire hazard in natural ecosystems N
    4.09 Is a shade tolerant plant at some stage of its life cycle  
    4.10 Grows on infertile soils Y
    4.11 Climbing or smothering growth habit N
    4.12 Forms dense thickets N
5 Plant 5.01 Aquatic N
  type 5.02 Grass N
    5.03 Nitrogen fixing woody plant N
    5.04 Geophyte N
6 Reproduction 6.01 Evidence of substantial reproductive failure in native habitat N
    6.02 Produces viable seed. Y
    6.03 Hybridises naturally  
    6.04 Self-compatible or apomictic  
    6.05 Requires specialist pollinators  
    6.06 Reproduction by vegetative fragmentation N
    6.07 Minimum generative time (years) 1
7 Dispersal mechanisms 7.01 Propagules likely to be dispersed unintentionally (plants growing in areas with much vehicle movement) Y
    7.02 Propagules dispersed intentionally by people  
    7.03 Propagules likely to disperse as a produce contaminant Y
    7.04 Propagules adapted to wind dispersal  
    7.05 Propagules water dispersed Y
    7.06 Propagules bird dispersed  
    7.07 Propagules dispersed by other animals (externally) Y
    7.08 Propagules survive passage through the gut  
8 Persistence 8.01 Prolific seed production (>2000/m2) Y
  attributes 8.02 Evidence that a persistent propagule bank is formed (>1 yr) Y
    8.03 Well controlled by herbicides Y
    8.04 Tolerates, or benefits from, mutilation or cultivation  
    8.05 Effective natural enemies present in Australia N
      Outcome: Reject
      Score: 21
  Statistical summary   Biogeography 8.5
  of scoring   Score partition:                       Undesirable attributes 5
      Biology/ecology 7
      Biogeography 7
      Questions answered:                       Undesirable attributes 9
      Biology/ecology 16
      Total 32
      Agricultural 16
      Sector affected:                                   Environmental 14
      Nusiance 2.5
   A= agricultural, E = environmental, N = nuisance, C=combined  

Risk assessment prepared by Rod Randall

Dr. Sally Stewart-Wade,  School of Resource Management, Institute of Land and Food Resources,  The University of Melbourne, has suggested the following changes to this risk analysis:

6.05  Requires specialist pollinators  N
6.06  Reproduction by vegetative fragmentation  Y

Need more info? Have questions? Comments? Information to contribute? Contact PIER!

[ Return to PIER homepage ]

This page new 14 June 2003.