Acer pseudoplatanus L.

Title: Acer pseudoplatanus L.

Scientific Name: Acer pseudoplatanus L.

Common Name: Sycamore maple

Source & more images (via ALA)

Habitat: A deciduous tree native to Europe Acer pseudoplatanus is reported to grow in damp to wet sclerophyll forest, riparian vegetation moist and fertile woodlands, wetland woods, roadsides and secondary and regenerating forest (Blood 2001; Carr, Yugovic & Robinson 1992; Kelly & Iremonger 1997 Muyt 2001; Webb et al 1988). The species is tolerant of shade, frost and salt spray but susceptible to drought (Blood 2001; Lemoine, Peltier & Marigo 2001).

Distribution:

Original source via CABI

Invasiveness Assessment

ESTABLISHMENT

1. Germination requirements? Germination is reported to occur in spring (Muyt 2001).

2. Establishment requirements? Tolerant of some shade is naturally a gap coloniser, preferring moist soil (Weber 2003). Seeds can germinate under dense shade (Blood 2001).

3. How much disturbance is required? Invasive in woodland, forest and riparian vegetation (Muyt 2001).

GROWTH / COMPETITIVE

4. Life form? Other; Deciduous tree (Muyt 2001).

5. Allelopathic properties? The decomposing leaves of Acer species are reported to have inhibitory properties while decomposing and then stimulatory compounds when decomposed (Rice 1984).

6. Tolerates herb pressure? Seedlings are sensitive to grazing (Blood 2001). Can coppice if damaged (Muyt 2001). 86% of young trees in a plantation in Europe were reported to be damaged by voles, which strip the bark form the lower stem and can kill the tree (Evans et al 2006). Once more than 30cm tall seedlings are reported capable of surviving severe browsing events (Harmer 2001). As a mature tree the species is reported to sustain herbivory from aphids and other insects with some effect on the plants reproductive capacity (Leather 2000).

7. Normal growth rate? Reported to be one of the fastest growing hardwood trees of Europe (Cronk & Fuller 1995)

8. Stress tolerance to frost, drought, w/logg, sal. etc? Tolerant of frost (Blood 2001). Reported as having some tolerance to salinity (Paludan-Müller et al 2002). Can coppice if damaged (Muyt 2001). This may suggest an ability to recover after fire. Reported to occur in areas of waterlogged soil (Iszkulo et al 2005; Kelly & Iremonger 1997). Trees reported to have sustained damage after a sever drought (Morecroft & Roberts 1999). Is highly vulnerable to cavitations under drought conditions (Lemoine, Peltier & Marigo 2001).

REPRODUCTION

9. Reproductive system? Reproduces sexually, pollinated by insects, then produces seed (Blood 2001).

10. Number of propagules produced? Produces up to 10,000 seeds annually (Weber 2003).

11. Propagule longevity? In Europe it is reported that no persistent seedbank develops as mass germination takes place in spring. It is not known whether a seedbank could accumulate in Australia (Muyt 2001).

12. Reproductive period? In Europe the species is reported to live for 400 years (Muyt 2001).

13. Time to reproductive maturity? Usually reaches maturity within 5 and 10 years (Muyt 2001). The juvenile period is 20-25 years (Weber 2003). While there is conflicting data on time taken to reach maturity the minimum still appears to be five years or more.

DISPERSAL

14. Number of mechanisms? Seed dispersal is via wind and water (Muyt 2001).

15. How far do they disperse? With water as a dispersal agent, seeds are capable of being dispersed distances greater than 1km (Vogt, Rasran & Jensen 2004).

Impact Assessment

RECREATION

1. Restrict human access? Sycamore maple is a tree species reported to occur in riparian habitats, which can form dense infestations (Weber 2003). Therefore it could form a major impediment in accessing waterways.

2. Reduce tourism? Unknown; The species is cultivated as an ornamental tree and can form dense infestations (Weber 2003). Therefore having the potential to affect aesthetics or restrict some activities; however there is no evidence of the species impacting upon recreation and tourism.

3. Injurious to people? People have been reported to have allergic reactions to the species’ pollen (Shah & Lin 2004).

4. Damage to cultural sites? Unknown; The species is cultivated as an ornamental tree and has an extensive root system (Muyt 2001). Therefore having the potential to affect aesthetics or damage infrastructure with its roots; there is no evidence however of this occurring.

ABIOTIC

5. Impact flow? The species is reported to invade riparian habitats (Muyt 2001). There is no evidence however of the species restricting flow.

6. Impact water quality? The species is a deciduous tree that is reported to occur in riparian habitats (Muyt 2001). As a deciduous species alteration of seasonal light levels and changes to nutrient cycling could impact water quality, the impact this species has on water quality has not been reported however.

7. Increase soil erosion? A large tree reported to have an extensive root system (Muyt 2001).Therefore there would be a low probability of the species being associated with large scale soil movement.

8. Reduce biomass? Sycamore maple can be a large tree, growing to 35m and forming dense infestations. It may displace certain species from the undergrowth by decreasing light levels and litter accumulation reducing diversity (Blood 2001; Weber 2003). It is not reported however to eliminate the undergrowth and therefore invasion by sycamore maple is likely to result in a direct replacement of biomass or possibly a net increase.

9. Change fire regime? Reported to be extremely flammable during summer in Spain, but has a low Calorific power (Núñez-Regueira, Añón & Castiñeiras 1997). Unknown however how this will impact on the fire regime of Australian vegetation.

COMMUNITY HABITAT

10(a) Impact on composition of high value EVC? EVC= Swampy Riparian Woodland (E); CMA= Corangamite; Bioreg= Otway Plain; VH CLIMATE potential. A tree species which is reported to form dense infestations, altering light levels displacing the majority of species and impeding regeneration (Weber 2003). Being a deciduous species its litter is reported to cause displacement of ground flora as it accumulates (Blood 2001). Therefore Sycamore maple is able to cause displacement within various layers.

10(b) Impact on medium value EVC? EVC= Sedgy Riparian Woodland (D); CMA= Corangamite; Bioreg= Otway Plain; VH CLIMATE potential. A tree species which is reported to form dense infestations, altering light levels displacing the majority of species and impeding regeneration (Weber 2003). Being a deciduous species its litter is reported to cause displacement of ground flora as it accumulates (Blood 2001). Therefore Sycamore maple is able to cause displacement within various layers.

10(c) Impact on low value EVC? EVC= Riparian Forest (LC); CMA= Corangamite; Bioreg= Otway Ranges; VH CLIMATE potential. A tree species which is reported to form dense infestations, altering light levels displacing the majority of species and impeding regeneration (Weber 2003). Being a deciduous species its litter is reported to cause displacement of ground flora as it accumulates (Blood 2001). Therefore Sycamore maple is able to cause displacement within various layers.

11. Impact on structure? A tree species which is reported to form dense infestations, altering light levels displacing the majority of species and impeding regeneration (Weber 2003). Being a deciduous species its litter is reported to cause displacement of ground flora as it accumulates (Blood 2001). Therefore Sycamore maple is able to cause displacement within all layers.

12. Effect on threatened flora? Unknown; there is no evidence of this reported.

FAUNA

13. Effect on threatened fauna? Unknown; there is no evidence of this reported.

14. Effect on non-threatened fauna? Significant alteration of habitat in terms of flora composition could have a significant impact on food supply for fauna species. The degree to which this species would impact on Australian fauna has not been quantified however.

15. Benefits fauna? Has nectar bearing flowers (Blood 2001). The species could therefore provide some assistance in terms of food for insects or birds.

16. Injurious to fauna? There is no evidence reported to support this.

PEST ANIMAL

17. Food source to pests? The flowers are reported to be attractive to bees (Blood 2001).

18. Provides harbor? A tree species of up to 35m which is reported to form dense infestations (Blood 2001; Weber 2003). It could therefore be capable of providing shelter to pest fauna; no specific species have been reported however.

AGRICULTURE

19. Impact yield? Reported to naturalise in regenerating forest (Webb, Sykes & Garnock-Jones 1988). It is not reported however to impact on forestry operations and in Europe is itself a plantation timber (Brunet 2007). Therefore it is not reported as a pest of agriculture.

20. Impact quality? Reported to naturalise in regenerating forest (Webb, Sykes & Garnock-Jones 1988). It is not reported however to impact on forestry operations and in Europe is itself a plantation timber (Brunet 2007). Therefore it is not reported as a pest of agriculture.

21. Affect land values? Reported to naturalise in regenerating forest (Webb, Sykes & Garnock-Jones 1988). It is not reported however to impact on forestry operations and in Europe is itself a plantation timber (Brunet 2007). Therefore it is not reported as a pest of agriculture.

22. Change land use? Reported to naturalise in regenerating forest (Webb, Sykes & Garnock-Jones 1988). It is not reported however to impact on forestry operations and in Europe is itself a plantation timber (Brunet 2007). Therefore it is not reported as a pest of agriculture.

23. Increase harvest costs? Reported to naturalise in regenerating forest (Webb, Sykes & Garnock-Jones 1988). It is not reported however to impact on forestry operations and in Europe is itself a plantation timber (Brunet 2007). Therefore it is not reported as a pest of agriculture.

24. Disease host/vector? There is no evidence of this.

Feedback

Do you have additional information about this plant that will improve the quality of the assessment? If so, we would value your contribution.

Assessment ratings originally made by the Victorian Department of Primary Industries.

The entry of this assessment was made possible through the generous support of The Weed's Network.

Attachments:

raw.jpg
distribution_map (7).png

referenced by (1)

wra1033: Common Name - S (via Sycamore maple)

Article: wra4354 (permalink)
Categories: :wra:a, :wra:inv1, :wra:invmh, :wra:inv2, :wra:inv3, :wra:inv4, :wra:invl, :wra:inv5, :wra:inv6, :wra:inv7, :wra:invh, :wra:inv8, :wra:inv9, :wra:invml, :wra:inv10, :wra:inv11, :wra:invm, :wra:inv12, :wra:inv13, :wra:inv14, :wra:inv15, :wra:imp1, :wra:imph, :wra:imp2, :wra:impm, :wra:imp3, :wra:impml, :wra:imp4, :wra:imp5, :wra:impl, :wra:imp6, :wra:imp7, :wra:imp8, :wra:imp9, :wra:imp10a, :wra:impmh, :wra:imp10b, :wra:imp10c, :wra:imp11, :wra:imp12, :wra:imp13, :wra:imp14, :wra:imp15, :wra:imp16, :wra:imp17, :wra:imp18, :wra:imp19, :wra:imp20, :wra:imp21, :wra:imp22, :wra:imp23, :wra:imp24
Date: 10 November 2009; 4:18:37 PM AEDT

Author Name: Jessica Mackay
Author ID: mackayj