Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk (PIER)


Ficus microcarpa


RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS: High risk, score: 10


Australian/New Zealand Weed Risk Assessment adapted for Hawai‘i.

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 microcarpa; Chinese banyan

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

y

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

4.05

Toxic to animals

y=1, n=0

n

4.06

Host for recognized pests and pathogens

y=1, n=0

n

4.07

Causes allergies or is otherwise toxic to humans

y=1, n=0

n

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

n

4.11

Climbing or smothering growth habit

y=1, n=0

n

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

y

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

3

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

y

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:

10

Supporting data:

Source

Notes

1.01

no evidence

1.02

Wagner, W.L., D.R. Herbst and S.H. Sohmer. 1990. Manual of the flowing plants of Hawai‘i. Revised edition. University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu. 1853pp.

p.926 "In Hawaii cultivated and now naturalized primarily in urban areas and highly disturbed, low elevation habitats, at least on Oahu, Maui, and Hawaii, but probably on all of the major islands."

1.03

no evidence

2.01

USDA, Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry (2001) Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk (PIER) webpage <http://www.hear.org/pier/phkar.htm>

<http://www.hear.org/pier3/fimic.htm>
Native range: Ceylon to India, southern China, Ryukyu Islands, Australia and New Caledonia.
Presence: Pacific islands: Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan**, Pagan*, Alamagan*, Tinian*, Rota*), Federated States of Micronesia (Chuuk (Weno, Dublon, Fefan, Suizo-to), Yap, Kosrae), French Polynesia (Society Islands), Guam**, Hawai‘i, Marshall Islands (Kwajalein (cult.), Majuro (cult.)), New Caledonia (native), Palau (Babeldaob, Ngarakabesang, Angaur, Urukthapel?*), Tonga (Tongatapu).
Pacific rim: Australia (native), China (native), New Zealand.
Indian Ocean islands: Christmas Island

2.02

2.03

(1)USDA, Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry (2001) Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk (PIER) webpage <http://www.hear.org/pier/phkar.htm> (2)http://mobot.mobot.org/cgi-bin/search_vast (3)Stanley and Ross. Flora of South-eastern Queensland Vol 1. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane.

(1)Native range: Ceylon to India, southern China, Ryukyu Islands, Australia and New Caledonia. (2)voucher specimens range from 0-1000 m elevation [borderline] (3)In native habitat (Australia) "coastal rainforest, often near strand"

2.04

Wagner, W.L., D.R. Herbst and S.H. Sohmer. 1990. Manual of the flowing plants of Hawai‘i. Revised edition. University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu. 1853pp.

p.926 "In Hawaii cultivated and now naturalized primarily in urban areas and highly disturbed, low elevation habitats, at least on Oahu, Maui, and Hawaii, but probably on all of the major islands."

2.05

(1)USDA, Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry (2001) Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk (PIER) webpage <http://www.hear.org/pier/phkar.htm> (2)http://homepage.smc.edu/hodson_kent/fnlplni.htm

<http://www.hear.org/pier3/fimic.htm>
Native range: Ceylon to India, southern China, Ryukyu Islands, Australia and New Caledonia.
Presence: Pacific islands: Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan**, Pagan*, Alamagan*, Tinian*, Rota*), Federated States of Micronesia (Chuuk (Weno, Dublon, Fefan, Suizo-to), Yap, Kosrae), French Polynesia (Society Islands), Guam**, Hawai‘i, Marshall Islands (Kwajalein (cult.), Majuro (cult.)), New Caledonia (native), Palau (Babeldaob, Ngarakabesang, Angaur, Urukthapel?*), Tonga (Tongatapu).
Pacific rim: Australia (native), China (native), New Zealand.
Indian Ocean islands: Christmas Island
(2)Cultivated in California

3.01

(1)Wagner, W.L., D.R. Herbst and S.H. Sohmer. 1990. Manual of the flowing plants of Hawai‘i. Revised edition. University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu. 1853pp.(2)naturalized in Florida

(1)p.926 "In Hawaii cultivated and now naturalized primarily in urban areas and highly disturbed, low elevation habitats, at least on Oahu, Maui, and Hawaii, but probably on all of the major islands." (2)http://www.fleppc.org/01list.htm

3.02

no evidence

3.03

no evidence

3.04

(1)Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. FLEPPC 2001 List of Florida's Most Invasive Species. Internet: http://www.fleppc.org/01list.htm (2)http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/fic_mic.htm (3)http://www.hear.org/starr/hiplants/reports/html/ficus_microcarpa.htm

(1) 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. ) (2)This evergreen tree produces a very dense shade excluding all other species. It does not invade undisturbed forest but once established it will displace all other trees in its shade...This species grows in all but the wettest and driest habitats on all of the major islands, most commonly on cliffs and rocky outcrops. (3)Typically, this species invades disturbed urban sites to degraded secondary forests in areas nearby initial plantings. It has recently been observed growing on native wiliwili (Erythrina sandwicense) in lowland dry forests of Maui. [extent of problem not clear]

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. 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

USDA, Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry (2001) Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk (PIER) webpage <http://www.hear.org/pier/phkar.htm>

<http://www.hear.org/pier3/fimic.htm> Description: "Variable in habit, often epiphytic, subscandent shrubs when young, in maturity spreading evergreen trees with large branches and numerous aerial roots hanging from the trunk and branches, these sometimes reaching the soil to form pillar-like roots. Leaves variable, coriaceous, oblong, elliptic to broadly elliptic or obovate, usually 5-8 cm long, 3-5 cm wide, glabrous, margins entire, petioles 0.6-2 cm long. Synconia sessile, arising among or just below the leaves, depressed-globose, 6-10 mm in diameter, subtended by 3 broadly ovate, more or less persistent bracts."

4.02

no evidence

4.03

no evidence

4.04

no evidence

4.05

no evidence

4.06

no evidence

4.07

no evidence

4.08

no evidence

4.09

(1)Dehgan, B. (1998) Landscape Plants for Subtropical Climates. University Press of Florida., Gainesville, FL. 638pp. (2)http://www.fukubonsai.com/Nature7g.html

(1)p.464 "Grows in full sun to partial shade on various well-drained soil" (2)Chinese Banyan is shade tolerant so it will survive in the shade

4.1

Dehgan, B. (1998) Landscape Plants for Subtropical Climates. University Press of Florida., Gainesville, FL. 638pp.

p.464 "Grows in full sun to partial shade on various well-drained soil"

4.11

tree

4.12

no evidence

5.01

terrestrial

5.02

tree; Moraceae

5.03

no evidence

5.04

tree

6.01

no evidence

6.02

Kaufmann, S.; McKey, D. B.; Hossaert-McKey, M.; Horvitz, C. C. (1991) Adaptations for a two-phase seed dispersal system involving vertebrates and ants in a hemiepiphytic fig (Ficus microcarpa : Moraceae). American Journal of Botany, 1991, Vol.78, No.7, pp.971-977, 20 ref.

AB: "Germination percentage was not significantly affected by gut passage or exocarp removal. "

6.03

prevented by specificity of pollinator

6.04

Anstett, M. C. (2001) Unbeatable strategy, constraint and coevolution, or how to resolve evolutionary conflicts: the case of the fig/wasp mutualism. Oikos, 2001, Vol.95, No.3, pp.476-484, 43 ref.

AB:"Monoecious fig species and their specific pollinators are in conflict on the use of fig ovaries, which can either produce one seed or host one pollinator larva. Here, new data showing that, probably because of space constraints during the development of both seeds and wasps (Eupristina verticillata ), ovaries vary in their quality as a substrate for pollinator development depending on their location within the fig (Ficus microcarpa ) inflorescence."

6.05

Anstett, M. C. (2001) Unbeatable strategy, constraint and coevolution, or how to resolve evolutionary conflicts: the case of the fig/wasp mutualism. Oikos, 2001, Vol.95, No.3, pp.476-484, 43 ref.

AB:"Monoecious fig species and their specific pollinators are in conflict on the use of fig ovaries, which can either produce one seed or host one pollinator larva. Here, new data showing that, probably because of space constraints during the development of both seeds and wasps (Eupristina verticillata ), ovaries vary in their quality as a substrate for pollinator development depending on their location within the fig (Ficus microcarpa ) inflorescence."

6.06

aerial roots but no evidence of natural spread by fragmentation

6.07

R. Criley, UH Department of Horticulture, personal communication

no evidence

7.01

no evidence

7.02

Wagner, W.L., D.R. Herbst and S.H. Sohmer. 1990. Manual of the flowing plants of Hawai‘i. Revised edition. University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu. 1853pp.

p.926 "In Hawaii cultivated and now naturalized primarily in urban areas and highly disturbed, low elevation habitats, at least on Oahu, Maui, and Hawaii, but probably on all of the major islands."

7.03

no evidence

7.04

no evidence

7.05

no evidence

7.06

(1) Hasui, É.; Höfling, E. (1998) Food preference of the frugivorous birds in a fragment of secondary semideciduous forest, São Paulo, Brazil.[FT: Preferência alimentar das aves frugívoras de um fragmento de floresta estacional semidecídua secundária, São Paulo, Brasil. Iheringia, Série Zoologia, 1998, No.84, pp.43-64, 60 ref.
(2) Athreya, V. R. (1997) Temporal patterns of visitation among avian frugivores at fruiting strangler figs in a tropical evergreen forest in the Western Ghats, Southern India. Current Science, 1997, Vol.72, No.6, pp.405-408, 15 ref.

(1) AB: In a survey carried out from August 1991 to July 1993, in a 102110 m2 fragment of semideciduous forest at the Cidade Universitária Armando de Salles Oliveira, São Paulo, 69 species of ornithochoric [bird dispersed] plants were found of which 46 were eaten by birds, according to field observations and faecal analyses. Visits were more frequent to Ficus microcarpa , Alchornea sidifolia , Schinus terebinthifolius , Guettarda viburnoides and Prunus sellowii . Fruit selection by birds was not related to the degree of importance of these plant species in the community, but to feeding preference of the birds, which was influenced by the time of fruiting and also by structural and morphological features of the fruit, such as horizontal distribution and stratification, morphological type, colour and size of the fruit and the seed. The pattern of fruit selection varied according to the species of fruit-eating birds, so that the main potential fruit eating dispersers for each plant could be identified.

7.07

Kaufmann, S.; McKey, D. B.; Hossaert-McKey, M.; Horvitz, C. C. 1991. Adaptations for a two-phase seed dispersal system involving vertebrates and ants in a hemiepiphytic fig (Ficus microcarpa : Moraceae). American Journal of Botany,78:971-977.

secondary dispersal by ants

7.08

Kaufmann, S.; McKey, D. B.; Hossaert-McKey, M.; Horvitz, C. C. (1991) Adaptations for a two-phase seed dispersal system involving vertebrates and ants in a hemiepiphytic fig (Ficus microcarpa : Moraceae). American Journal of Botany, 1991, Vol.78, No.7, pp.971-977, 20 ref.

AB: "Germination percentage was not significantly affected by gut passage or exocarp removal. "

8.01

Corlett, R. T.; Boudville, V.; Seet, K. (1990) Seed and wasp production in five fig species (Ficus, Moraceae). Malayan Nature Journal, 1990, Vol.44, No.2, pp.97-102, 15 ref.

p.100. Table1. "13.5-89.2 seeds/syncogium" and More than one-third of the ripe syconia from the monoecious F. microcarpa contained no seeds. [average about 50 seeds per syngonium, trees easily produce 60 syngonia per m2]

8.02

very small seeds

8.03

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/BODY_WG209

Basal bark application of 10% Garlon 4 is effective.

8.04

http://azcentral.plantadviser.com/plants/ficumicr.htm

It can be sheared to produce a formal appearance.

8.05

no evidence


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


[ Return to PIER homepage ] [Risk assessment page]


This page updated 4 March 2005