Festuca gautieri (Hackel) K. Richter

Title: Festuca gautieri (Hackel) K. Richter

Scientific Name:

Festuca gautieri (Hackel) K. Richter

Common Name:

bearskin fescue

bearskin fescue

Habitat: Native habitat; rocks and scrub sub-alpine regions NE Spain and SW France. Occurs in both moist (mesic) and dry (xeric) environments with preference for dry situations. Requires an open, sunny, cool location. Not known to be naturalised in Australia yet, but promoted as an attractive ornamental grass. Known on limestone quarry in Northwest Yorks (Britain).

Distribution:

Original source via GBIF

Invasiveness Assessment

ESTABLISHMENT

1. Germination requirements? No published data on germination requirements. Seed can be purchased (B & T World Seeds), ∴viable seed produced. One seed supplier suggesting chilling seed to promote germination (Garden Makers). Most likely germination occurs due to normal seasonal rainfall and temperatures.

2. Establishment requirements? Optimal condition is open sunny situation (PEN). Established plants can tolerate some shading.

3. How much disturbance is required? Naturalised in England in a quarry and on a roadside (Fletcher & Stace 2000). Within its native range it occurs in rocky, open montane vegetation subject to annual snowfall and high rainfall (Camarero & Gutirrez 2002). In
Australia, it may establish in similar situations subject to minor natural disturbance.

GROWTH / COMPETITIVE

4. Life form? Grass (Garcia-Gonzalez 1982).

5. Allelopathic properties? None described.

6. Tolerates herb pressure? Noted by Randall as unpalatable (Spafford Jacob et.al. 2004). Persists under grazing (Domenech et al. 2005). Forms low-growing, dense tussocks with needle-like leaves (Annies annuals). Sharp foliage may discourage browsing and it is likely that this species is favoured by heavy grazing.

7. Normal growth rate? No data.

8. Stress tolerance to frost, drought, w/logg, sal. etc? Grows in Pyrenees at altitudes of 1500 to 2000 metres. Tolerates snow (to 2 m depth). More commonly found in xeric (dry) rather than mesic (moist) grasslands (Sebastia 2003). In cultivation is recommended as a drought tolerant plant in cooler climates. Salt and fire tolerance, waterlogging not documented. Highly tolerant of frost and some drought tolerance.

REPRODUCTION

9. Reproductive system? Considered for seed production in revegetation study (Malaval 2006). “Mat-forming vegetative shoots” (Stace et al. 2008). Sexual and vegetative.

10. Number of propagules produced? Considered for seed production in revegetation study (Malaval 2006). Suggests a large number of seeds are
produced, but not specified.

11. Propagule longevity? Seeds remain viable for a few weeks only (Beckmann, 1990).

12. Reproductive period? Aggressive coloniser often forming monotypic stands (WSDE, 2004).

13. Time to reproductive maturity? Start producing seeds after 2 to 3 years in reasonably good conditions (Beckmann, 1990).

DISPERSAL

14. Number of mechanisms? Light seeds well adapted to wind dispersal (ARMCANZ, 2000). Dispersed by water (especially floodwaters). May be dispersed by animals and birds (Parsons & Cuthbertson, 2001).

15. How far do they disperse? Thought to spread long distances in floodwaters and as also spread by birds (Parsons & Cuthbertson, 2001) it is very likely that some propagules will disperse greater than 1 km.

Impact Assessment

RECREATION

1. Restrict human access? Low-growing perennial grass (50 cm) (Tutin 1980). Minimal or negligible impact (ie. can go anywhere)

2. Reduce tourism? This grass has a dense habit and fine, curved, narrow leaves, and is aptly named as it resembles the tight, dense fur of bears (Spafford Jacob et.al. 2004). As such, it would be quite noticeable in contrast to other grasses including native species. Its presence would not affect recreational activities, but would detract from the visual aesthetic of native grasslands or open woodlands. Minor effects to aesthetics and recreational uses (ie. aware but not bothered or activity inhibited).

3. Injurious to people? No harmful characteristics described. The leaf-blade apex is pungent [terminates in a rigid sharp point] (Clayton et. al. 2002). No effect, no prickles, no injuries.

4. Damage to cultural sites? This grass has a dense habit and fine, curved, narrow leaves, and is aptly named as it resembles the tight, dense fur of bears (Spafford Jacob et.al. 2004). As such, it would be quite noticeable in contrast to other grasses including native species. Due to the strong visual contrast between this species and native grasses there is a potential for moderate visual impact in native or indigenous cultural sites. Moderate visual effect.

ABIOTIC

5. Impact flow? Terrestrial sp. (Tutin 1980). Little or negligible affect on water flow.

6. Impact water quality? Terrestrial sp. (Tutin 1980). No noticeable effect on dissolved 02 or light levels.

7. Increase soil erosion? A dense, compact groundcover species (Spafford Jacob et.al. 2004). Perennial grass (Clayton et al. 2002). Festuca spp. generally promoted as suitable for erosion control. Not likely to contribute to soil erosion. Decreases the probability of soil erosion.

8. Reduce biomass? Dense, clump forming species (Tutin 1980) that is able to dominate sites in alpine vegetation (Labroue & Carles 1977) and grasslands (Sebastia 2003) in its native range. Evidence suggests that it may be capable of directly replacing biomass in ground layer vegetation.
Direct replacement of biomass by invader.

9. Change fire regime? No information.

COMMUNITY HABITAT

10(a) Impact on composition of high value EVC? EVC = Creekline Grassy Woodland (E); CMA = Wimmera; Bioregion = Goldfields; VH CLIMATE potential. Dense, clump forming species (Tutin 1980) that is able to dominate sites in alpine vegetation (Labroue & Carles 1977) and grasslands (Sebastia 2003) in its native range. Occurs in open spaces (PEN). Monoculture within a specific layer; displaces all spp. within a strata/layer.

10(b) Impact on medium value EVC? EVC = Coastal Headland Scrub (D); CMA = Corangamite; Bioregion = Otway Ranges; VH CLIMATE potential. Dense, clump forming species (Tutin 1980) that is able to dominate sites in alpine vegetation (Labroue & Carles 1977) and grasslands (Sebastia 2003) in its native range. Occurs in open spaces (PEN). Monoculture within a specific layer; displaces all spp. within a strata/layer.

10(c) Impact on low value EVC? EVC = Riparian Forest (LC); CMA = Goulburn Broken; Bioregion = Highlands-Northern Fall; VH CLIMATE potential. Dense, clump forming species (Tutin 1980) that is able to dominate sites in alpine vegetation (Labroue & Carles 1977) and grasslands (Sebastia 2003) in its native range. Occurs in open spaces (PEN). Monoculture within a specific layer; displaces all spp. within a strata/layer.

11. Impact on structure? Dense, clump forming species (Tutin 1980) that is able to dominate sites in alpine vegetation (Labroue & Carles 1977) and grasslands (Sebastia 2003) in its native range. Occurs in open spaces (PEN). Likely to be most problematic in grasslands rather than more complex vegetation types. May have a major effect on the floral strata in grassland situations. Major effects on all layers. Forms monoculture; no other strata/layers present.

12. Effect on threatened flora? No documented effect.

FAUNA

13. Effect on threatened fauna? No documented effect.

14. Effect on non-threatened fauna? Considered a major pasture vegetation type, but found to have the lowest potential disgestability in a study of important pasture types in Spain (Garcia-Gonzalez et al. 2005). However, noted by Randall as unpalatable (Spafford Jacob et.al. 2004). Persists under grazing (Domenech et al. 2005). Forms low-growing, dense tussocks with needle-like leaves (Annies annuals). Able to dominate grasslands in its native range (Sebastia 2003). Sharp foliage may discourage browsing with the potential for displacement of palatable species through preferential grazing. Minor effect through reduction in food source for fauna.

15. Benefits fauna? Considered a major pasture vegetation type, but found to have the lowest potential disgestability in a study of important pasture types in Spain (Garcia-Gonzalez et al. 2005). However, noted by Randall as unpalatable (Spafford Jacob et.al. 2004). Persists under grazing (Domenech et al. 2005). Forms low-growing, dense tussocks with needle-like leaves (Annies annuals). Able to dominate grasslands in its native range (Sebastia 2003). Sharp foliage may discourage browsing with the potential for displacement of palatable species through preferential grazing. Likely to provide very little support to desirable species.

16. Injurious to fauna? No harmful characteristics described. The leaf-blade apex is pungent [terminates in a rigid sharp point] (Clayton et. al. 2002), but is not noted to cause injury.

PEST ANIMAL

17. Food source to pests? Considered a major pasture vegetation type, but found to have the lowest potential disgestability in a study of important pasture types in Spain (Garcia-Gonzalez et al. 2005). However, noted by Randall as unpalatable (Spafford Jacob et.al. 2004). Persists under grazing (Domenech et al. 2005). Forms low-growing, dense tussocks with needle-like leaves (Annies annuals). Able to dominate grasslands in its native range (Sebastia 2003). Sharp foliage may discourage browsing with the potential for displacement of palatable species through preferential grazing (Spafford Jacob et.al. 2004). Likely to provide very little support to pest species.

18. Provides harbor? Dense, clump forming ground cover (Spafford Jacob et.al. 2004). May provide limited cover for minor pest species (e.g. rodents).

AGRICULTURE

19. Impact yield? Considered a major pasture vegetation type, but found to have the lowest potential disgestability in a study of important pasture types in Spain (Garcia-Gonzalez et al. 2005). However, noted by Randall as unpalatable (Spafford Jacob et.al. 2004). Persists under grazing (Domenech et al. 2005). Forms low-growing, dense tussocks with needle-like leaves (Annies annuals). Able to dominate grasslands in its native range (Sebastia 2003). Sharp foliage may discourage browsing with the potential for displacement of palatable species through preferential grazing. May reduce carrying capacity of land but this is not quantified.

20. Impact quality? Not harmful. Not documented as contaminant in wool, produce, etc.

21. Affect land values? No data.

22. Change land use? No data.

23. Increase harvest costs? A potential threat to grazing situations, probably not cropping. Not likely to affect harvest cost.

24. Disease host/vector? None described, however this species has very little information.

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 an anonymous donor.

Attachments:

Festuca gautieri Present.doc
Festuca gautieri Potential.doc
bear-skin-fescue.jpg
Festuca gautieri References.doc
dot_black.gif
Capture.JPG

referenced by (1)

wra825: Common Name - B (via bearskin fescue)

Article: wra1411 (permalink)
Categories: :wra:f, :wra:inv1, :wra:invmh, :wra:inv2, :wra:invml, :wra:inv3, :wra:inv4, :wra:inv5, :wra:invl, :wra:inv6, :wra:invh, :wra:inv7, :wra:invm, :wra:inv8, :wra:inv9, :wra:inv10, :wra:inv11, :wra:inv12, :wra:inv13, :wra:inv14, :wra:inv15, :wra:imp1, :wra:impl, :wra:imp2, :wra:imp3, :wra:imp4, :wra:impml, :wra:imp5, :wra:imp6, :wra:imp7, :wra:imp8, :wra:imp9, :wra:impm, :wra:imp10a, :wra:imph, :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: 30 September 2009; 3:46:06 PM AEST

Author Name: David Low
Author ID: adminDavid