Prunus laurocerasus L.

Title: Prunus laurocerasus L.

Scientific Name:

Prunus laurocerasus L.

Common Names:

cherry laurel

Image via GBIF

Habitat:

Native to Western Asia and Europe, the species is reported to invade damp to wet sclerophyll forest, riparian vegetation, cool montane forest as well as plantations, roadsides and other waste areas (Blood 2001; Carr, Yugovic & Robinson 1992; Webb, Sykes & Garnock-Jones 1988). The species is not tolerant of maritime exposure (PFAF 2007).

Distribution:

Distribution map via GBIF

Invasiveness Assessment

ESTABLISHMENT

1. Germination requirements? Seed germinates in spring after a period of cold stratification (Blood 2001).

2. Establishment requirements? Seed can germinate in dense shade (Blood 2001). As the species is also reported to invade disturbed sites such as roadsides and waste areas, it is thought that the species can establish with out additional factors (Webb, Sykes & Garnock-Jones 1988).

3. How much disturbance is required? The species can “invade relatively undisturbed vegetation” including wet sclerophyll forest and riparian vegetation (Blood 2001).

GROWTH / COMPETITIVE

4. Life form? Other. Tree or shrub (Blood 2001).

5. Allelopathic properties? Unknown.

6. Tolerates herb pressure? Reported to be unpalatable and toxic to stock species and not preferred by them (Connor 1977). The species has very few insect pests in Britain where it was introduced in 1576 (Leather 1985). There has been an anecdotal report that cultivated plants of this species have been completely stripped by deer (Dave’s Garden 2007).

7. Normal growth rate? “Reported to have a moderate growth rate (PFAF 2007). As a seedling the species’ growth rate has been found to be only marginally faster than Llex aquifolium (Cornelissen, Carnelli & Callachan 1999). The species is therefore considered to have a growth rate equal to that of the tree/shrub species.

8. Stress tolerance to frost, drought, w/logg, sal. etc? Can be killed by fire and can resprout after fire (Blood 2001). Susceptible to drought (Nardini, Tyree & Salleo 2001). There is some conflicting evidence on frost tolerance; Blood (2001) reports the species to be frost tender, while PFAF (2007) report it to be hardy to zone 7. Reported to not be tolerant of maritime exposure (PFAF 2007). This may indicate a susceptibility to salinity.

REPRODUCTION

9. Reproductive system? Primarily reproduces by seed; however it is reported to be capable of vegetative reproduction as lower branches can tip root if in contact with the soil (Blood 2001).

10. Number of propagules produced? Each fruit only contains one seed (Weber 2003). Blood (2001) reports that the species produces numerous flowers, it is unknown however what a plants potential yield is.

11. Propagule longevity? Unknown.

12. Reproductive period? Reported to be long-lived (Blood 2001). Reported to be able to form pure stands (Weber 2003).
It is therefore thought likely that the species has a reproductive period greater than ten years or that is can form self-persisting monocultures.

13. Time to reproductive maturity? Unknown; being a shrub/tree it is likely to take 2-3 years to mature.

DISPERSAL

14. Number of mechanisms? Spread internally by birds and animals (Blood 2001).

15. How far do they disperse? The fruit is eaten by blackbirds, however as their gape size is smaller than the species seed it is likely only to carry to cover and have an approximate dispersal distance of 100 m (Blood 2001; Debussche & Isenmann 1989; Spennemann & Allen 2000). The dispersal distance for this species has not been reported, however as the plant produces medium sized fruits (10-12 mm) it may be dispersed by species such as currawongs and foxes which can disperse seeds more than 1 km (Spennemann & Allen 2000).

Impact Assessment

RECREATION

1. Restrict human access? The species has been used ornamentally as a hedging plant and has also been reported to be able to form large thickets in invaded areas (Blood 2001; Webb, Sykes & Garnock-Jones 1988). Therefore this species is considered to have the potential to have high nuisance value to both people and vehicles.

2. Reduce tourism? Unknown.

3. Injurious to people? There is some conflicting information on the species toxicity, there are reports that the fruit is always toxic and others where it is reported to be edible when ripe, this is probably due to the difference between the wild form and the domesticated varieties (Blood 2007; Çalisir & Aydin 2004; PFAF 2007). If the fruit is bitter it is toxic and if they are eaten can be fatal.

4. Damage to cultural sites? Unknown.

ABIOTIC

5. Impact flow? The species can occur in riparian vegetation, there is no evidence however of it occurring in flowing water and obstructing flow.

6. Impact water quality? The species can occur in riparian vegetation, there is no evidence however of it occurring in water and affecting water quality.

7. Increase soil erosion? The species has a shallow root system (Aussie Gardening 2007).Therefore areas invaded by the species are viewed to have a moderate probability of large scale soil erosion.

8. Reduce biomass? The species is reported to be able to form pure stands and generally reduce species richness (Weber 2003). It is unknown however how this affects biomass.

9. Change fire regime? Unknown.

COMMUNITY HABITAT

10(a) Impact on composition of high value EVC? EVC= Riparian Forest (V); CMA= Corangamite ; Bioreg= Otway Plain ; CLIMATE potential=VH. Reported to be able to form pure stands and generally reduce species richness (Weber 2003). Therefore the species is able to form monocultures within the middle strata and impact upon species in the lower strata.

10(b) Impact on medium value EVC? EVC= Lowland Forest (D); CMA= Corangamite ; Bioreg= Otway Plain ; CLIMATE potential=VH. Reported to be able to form pure stands and generally reduce species richness (Weber 2003). Therefore the species is able to form monocultures within the middle strata and impact upon species in the lower strata.

10(c) Impact on low value EVC? EVC= Wet Forest (LC); CMA= Corangamite ; Bioreg= Otway Ranges; CLIMATE potential=VH. Reported to be able to form pure stands and generally reduce species richness (Weber 2003). Therefore the species is able to form monocultures within the middle strata and impact upon species in the lower strata.

11. Impact on structure? Reported to be able to form pure stands and generally reduce species richness (Weber 2003). Therefore the species impacts upon more than 60% of the floral strata, as it is able to form monocultures within the middle strata, inhibit the growth of species in the lower strata and prevent the regeneration of canopy species.

12. Effect on threatened flora? Unknown; the species however generally reduces the species richness of the flora at invaded sites (Weber 2003).

FAUNA

13. Effect on threatened fauna? Unknown.

14. Effect on non-threatened fauna? Unknown; however the increased food the species provides through the fruit load could support increased populations of aggressive bird species such as currowongs, which could then impact on smaller species.

15. Benefits fauna? Produces a fruit crop which may be of some assistance to bird species (Blood 2001). Shrub species may provide some assistance in terms of shelter.

16. Injurious to fauna? It may be toxic to some species (Blood 2001). It in unknown if they would then consume material of the species and be caused harm.

PEST ANIMAL

17. Food source to pests? Blackbirds are reported to eat the fruit (Blood 2001).

18. Provides harbor? Can form thickets (Weber 2003). The species could therefore provide some harbour to pest species.

AGRICULTURE

19. Impact yield? Suspected in cases of stock poisoning and if chickens eat material of the plant their eggs are reportedly inedible (Everist 1974). Can kill stock, however this is uncommon as it is reportedly unpalatable to stock and not sort out by them (Connor 1977). Can cause stock death, however, this occurs rarely therefore, it is considered to have only a minor impact on yield.

20. Impact quality? Considered an environmental weed not an agricultural weed, it is therefore unlikely to have a significant impact.

21. Affect land values? Considered an environmental weed not an agricultural weed, it is therefore unlikely to have a significant impact.

22. Change land use? Considered an environmental weed not an agricultural weed, it is therefore unlikely to have a significant impact.

23. Increase harvest costs? Considered an environmental weed not an agricultural weed, it is therefore unlikely to have a significant impact.

24. Disease host/vector? Host of Mediterranean fruit fly (Blood 2001).

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.

Feedback

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

Attachments:

https___inaturalist-open-data.s3.amazonaws.com_photos_252022390_original.jpeg
Capture.JPG

referenced by (1)

wra997: Common Name - C (via cherry laurel)

Article: wra8842 (permalink)
Categories: :wra:p, :wra:invmh, :wra:inv1, :wra:invh, :wra:inv2, :wra:inv3, :wra:inv4, :wra:invl, :wra:invm, :wra:inv5, :wra:inv6, :wra:inv7, :wra:inv8, :wra:inv9, :wra:inv10, :wra:inv11, :wra:inv12, :wra:inv13, :wra:inv14, :wra:inv15, :wra:imp1, :wra:impmh, :wra:impm, :wra:imp2, :wra:imph, :wra:imp3, :wra:imp4, :wra:imp5, :wra:impl, :wra:imp6, :wra:imp7, :wra:impml, :wra:imp8, :wra:imp9, :wra:imp10a, :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: 12 March 2023; 6:30:51 PM AEDT

Author Name: David Low
Author ID: adminDavid