Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk (PIER)
Hibiscus insularis
RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS: Low risk, score: -3
|
Australian/New Zealand Weed Risk Assessment adapted for Hawai‘i. Information on Risk Assessments Original risk assessment |
| Hibiscus insularis (Philip Island hibiscus) | Answer | Score | |
| 1.01 | Is the species highly domesticated? | n | 0 |
| 1.02 | Has the species become naturalized where grown? | n | |
| 1.03 | Does the species have weedy races? | 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” | 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) | ||
| 2.04 | Native or naturalized in regions with tropical or subtropical climates | y | 1 |
| 2.05 | Does the species have a history of repeated introductions outside its natural range? y=-2 | n | |
| 3.01 | Naturalized beyond native range y = 1*multiplier (see Append 2), n= question 2.05 | n | 0 |
| 3.02 | Garden/amenity/disturbance weed y = 1*multiplier (see Append 2) | n | 0 |
| 3.03 | Agricultural/forestry/horticultural weed y = 2*multiplier (see Append 2) | n | 0 |
| 3.04 | Environmental weed y = 2*multiplier (see Append 2) | n | 0 |
| 3.05 | Congeneric weed y = 1*multiplier (see Append 2) | y | 2 |
| 4.01 | Produces spines, thorns or burrs | n | 0 |
| 4.02 | Allelopathic | n | 0 |
| 4.03 | Parasitic | n | 0 |
| 4.04 | Unpalatable to grazing animals | n | -1 |
| 4.05 | Toxic to animals | n | 0 |
| 4.06 | Host for recognized pests and pathogens | ||
| 4.07 | Causes allergies or is otherwise toxic to humans | n | 0 |
| 4.08 | Creates a fire hazard in natural ecosystems | n | 0 |
| 4.09 | Is a shade tolerant plant at some stage of its life cycle | n | 0 |
| 4.1 | Tolerates a wide range of soil conditions (or limestone conditions if not a volcanic island) | ||
| 4.11 | Climbing or smothering growth habit | n | 0 |
| 4.12 | Forms dense thickets | n | 0 |
| 5.01 | Aquatic | n | 0 |
| 5.02 | Grass | n | 0 |
| 5.03 | Nitrogen fixing woody plant | n | 0 |
| 5.04 | Geophyte (herbaceous with underground storage organs -- bulbs, corms, or tubers) | n | 0 |
| 6.01 | Evidence of substantial reproductive failure in native habitat | n | 0 |
| 6.02 | Produces viable seed. | y | 1 |
| 6.03 | Hybridizes naturally | ||
| 6.04 | Self-compatible or apomictic | ||
| 6.05 | Requires specialist pollinators | n | 0 |
| 6.06 | Reproduction by vegetative fragmentation | n | -1 |
| 6.07 | Minimum generative time (years) 1 year = 1, 2 or 3 years = 0, 4+ years = -1 | 3 | 0 |
| 7.01 | Propagules likely to be dispersed unintentionally (plants growing in heavily trafficked areas) | n | -1 |
| 7.02 | Propagules dispersed intentionally by people | y | 1 |
| 7.03 | Propagules likely to disperse as a produce contaminant | n | -1 |
| 7.04 | Propagules adapted to wind dispersal | n | -1 |
| 7.05 | Propagules water dispersed | n | -1 |
| 7.06 | Propagules bird dispersed | n | -1 |
| 7.07 | Propagules dispersed by other animals (externally) | n | -1 |
| 7.08 | Propagules survive passage through the gut | ||
| 8.01 | Prolific seed production (>1000/m2) | n | -1 |
| 8.02 | Evidence that a persistent propagule bank is formed (>1 yr) | ||
| 8.03 | Well controlled by herbicides | ||
| 8.04 | Tolerates, or benefits from, mutilation, cultivation, or fire | y | 1 |
| 8.05 | Effective natural enemies present locally (e.g. introduced biocontrol agents) | ||
| Total score: | -3 |
Supporting data:
| Notes | Reference | |
| 1.01 | An endangered speceis from Philip I (Norfolk I group) Island. Rare in the field, becoming well known in cultivation. | Wrigley, J W. and Fagg, M. 2003. Austraian Native Plants. New Holland Publishers. Pvt. Ltd. Sydney. |
| 1.02 | No evidence | |
| 1.03 | No evidence | |
| 2.01 | Native/Endemic to Philip Island - south of Norfolk Island (Australia). |
(1)http://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/mount_annan_botanic_garden /garden_features/blooming_calendar/annan_blooming_template31 (2)http://hortiplex.gardenweb.com/plants/p1/gw1093606.html |
| 2.02 | Native/Endemic to Philip Island - south of Norfolk Island (Australia). |
(1)http://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/mount_annan_botanic_garden /garden_features/blooming_calendar/annan_blooming_template31 (2)http://hortiplex.gardenweb.com/plants/p1/gw1093606.html |
| 2.03 | This species appears to be rare in cultivation - No evidence regarding environmental versatility. | |
| 2.04 | Native/Endemic to Philip Island - south of Norfolk Island (Australia). |
(1)http://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/mount_annan_botanic_garden /garden_features/blooming_calendar/annan_blooming_template31 (2)http://hortiplex.gardenweb.com/plants/p1/gw1093606.html |
| 2.05 | No evidence | |
| 3.01 | No evidence | |
| 3.02 | No evidence. An endangered species. | Wrigley, J W. and Fagg, M. 2003. Austraian Native Plants. New Holland Publishers. Pvt. Ltd. Sydney. |
| 3.03 | No evidence. An endangered species. | Wrigley, J W. and Fagg, M. 2003. Austraian Native Plants. New Holland Publishers. Pvt. Ltd. Sydney. |
| 3.04 | No evidence. An endangered species. | Wrigley, J W. and Fagg, M. 2003. Austraian Native Plants. New Holland Publishers. Pvt. Ltd. Sydney. |
| 3.05 |
(1)Abelmoschus moschatus (herb, shrub) Synonyms: Hibiscus abelmoschus L. Abelmoschus moschatus is a weedy, herbaceous plant that is native to India, parts of China and tropical Asia, and some Pacific islands. It is cultivated in India for the musk-like oil contained in its seeds, which is valued for perfume manufacture. Considered a weed in open and disturbed areas. It has been found to be a suitable host plant for the insect Dysdercus cingulatus, which is a serious pest of cotton crops. Common Names: `aute toga, algalia, almizcle vegetal, almizcle vegetal, ambretta semi, aukiki, bisameibisch, fau ingo, fau tagaloa, fautia, fou ingo, gombo musqué, gongul, kamang, kamwayang, karereon, metei, musk, musk mallow, o'e'e, okeoke, okra, vakeke, wakeke, wakewake, wakiwaki. (2)Hibiscus trionum is a weed in gardens and croplands. |
(1)http://www.issg.org/database/species/search.asp? sts=sss&st=sss&fr=1&sn=Hibiscus&rn=&hci=-1&ei=-1&x=25&y=8 (2)Lorenzi, J Harri and Jeffery S. Larry. Weeds of the United States and their Control. Nostrand Reinhold Company. New York. Page 208 |
| 4.01 | No evidence |
http://www.issg.org/database/species/search.asp?sts=sss &st=sss&fr=1&sn=Hibiscus&rn=&hci=-1&ei=-1&x=25&y=8 |
| 4.02 | No evidence | |
| 4.03 | No evidence | |
| 4.04 | This species, along with the rest of the island's vegetation, was under threat due to grazing by pigs, goats and rabbits. The removal of these feral animals has led to the regeneration of the population with seedlings surviving next to the original plants. |
http://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/mount_annan_botanic_garden/ garden_features/blooming_calendar/annan_blooming_template31 |
| 4.05 | No evidence | |
| 4.06 | Don’t know. - "I’ve not seen a Phillip Island Hibiscus suffer from pests or diseases - so far." | http://web.mac.com/bellis_brisbane/iWeb/Bellis/blog/35451A25-D4E9-44AB-8C8D-E15FF6157038.html |
| 4.07 | No evidence |