Coprosma repens A. Rich.

Title: Coprosma repens A. Rich.

Scientific Name:

Coprosma repens A.Rich.

Common Names:

mirror bush

Habitat: Native to NZ occurring in sandy heaths, on rocky foreshores (Blood 1997), offshore islands on steep & unstable slopes, shallow rocky soil & high cliffs (Atkinson 1972) & to 2000m in the southern alps (Cheeseman 1925). In Australia, mostly coastal but also occurs in non-coastal communities (Muyt 2001). Invades dry coastal vegetation, dunes, coastal islands, headlands, heathland & heathy woodland, dry sclerophyll forest & woodland, damp & wet sclerophyll forest, freshwater wetland, rock outcrop vegetation, warm temperate rainforest (Carr et al 1992, Blood 2001), littoral rainforest (ESC 2002) shrubland & hinterland forest (Walsh & Entwisle 1999). Common on deep sandy soils but also shallow rocky ground, heavier clays & poorly drained soils (Muyt 2001).

Distribution:

Original source via GBIF

Invasiveness Assessment

ESTABLISHMENT

1. Germination requirements? Germination increases after a period of stratification (Mackay et al 2002). ‘Propagate from seed in spring and semi ripe cuttings in summer (Burnie et al 1998)’. Natural seasonal disturbances appear to be required for germination.

2. Establishment requirements? Found in both shade and full sun (Muyt 2001). Seedling survival is best in protected areas under other shrubs and where leaf litter accumulations are deeper (Blood 2001). Able to establish under a moderate canopy/ litter cover.

3. How much disturbance is required? Can establish in healthy natural ecosystems, such as heathland communities (Carr et al 1992).

GROWTH / COMPETITIVE

4. Life form? Prostrate shrub to small tree to 8m high (Campbell & Atkinson 2002, Harden 1991).

5. Allelopathic properties? No allelopathic properties found described.

6. Tolerates herb pressure? Tolerant of heavy clipping or pruning (PFAF 2001) and re-shoots vigorously from the base if top growth is damaged or removed (Muyt 2001). Described as one of the plants usually avoided by deer (SM growers 2001). Likely to be consumed but not preferred, and recovers quickly.

7. Normal growth rate? Fast growing (Blood 2001).

8. Stress tolerance to frost, drought, w/logg, sal. etc? ‘Tolerates sea and salt spray, strong wind, salt, exposed positions, drought, frost, fire and most soil types (Blood 2001)’. Tolerant of water logging, as occurs in permanent wetlands (Carr et al 1992).

REPRODUCTION

9. Reproductive system? ‘In exposed areas can become prostrate. In these situations and coastal dunes plants develop the ability to layer themselves, the branches touching the ground and rooting to form new plants (Blood 2001)’. Can reproduce via seed and vegetatively by layering (Campbell & Atkinson 2002).

10. Number of propagules produced? Fruiting is prolific on larger plants (Muyt 2001). ‘Many small seeds are produced in bright red berries (DPIWE 2001)’. As a shrub/ tree to 8m (Blood 2001), it is assumed able to produce 2000+ seeds.

11. Propagule longevity? Not found described.

12. Reproductive period? As a long lived shrub/ tree (Blood 2001), with widespread medium to large populations (Carr et al 1992) capable of forming dense colonies (DPIWE 2001), it is likely to produce propagules for 10 + years or form self-sustaining monocultures.

13. Time to reproductive maturity? Not found described.

DISPERSAL

14. Number of mechanisms? Seeds dispersed by birds (Fergusen and Drake 1999, Muyt 2001).

15. How far do they disperse? Eaten and dispersed by starlings (Fergusen and Drake 1999) which are documented as dispersing seeds up to 40km (Spennemann & Allen 2000).

Impact Assessment

RECREATION

1. Restrict human access? Densely growing shrub to small tree, serious weed in coastal areas that can completely smother all other vegetation (Blood 2001), and is capable of forming dense colonies (DPIWE 2001). Likely to restrict access to some degree, but no specific reference was found.

2. Reduce tourism? Densely growing shrub to small tree, serious weed in coastal areas that can completely smother all other vegetation (Blood 2001), occurring in widespread medium to large populations (Carr et al 1992). Not described as impacting on recreational use, but likely to have a minor negative affect on the aesthetics of an area.

3. Injurious to people? Not described as possessing any properties injurious to people.

4. Damage to cultural sites? Has been observed germinating and establishing in brickwork (B. Mitchard pers. com.). Could have a structural impact but this is not confirmed.

ABIOTIC

5. Impact flow? Not described as establishing in flowing water or riparian environments (Carr et al 1992), so is unlikely to impact on water flow.

6. Impact water quality? Documented as growing within permanent wetlands (Carr et al 1992), but this is likely to be around the margins. It is unlikely this species would impact on water quality.

7. Increase soil erosion? Described as a plant suitable for sand bank restoration and slope stabilisation (NZERN 2001). Potential to decrease the probability of soil erosion.

8. Reduce biomass? ‘…impedes the growth and regeneration of indigenous overstorey species Muyt 2001)’. It could slightly decrease the long term biomass of a community by suppressing larger woody species.

9. Change fire regime? Described as a plant that is ‘hard to burn’ (NSW RFS) and therefore because it invades ecosystems such as heathland, (Carr et al 1992) which are adapted to fire (Groves 1994), it could reduce fire intensity, and maybe also frequency in these ecosystems. However, the level of impact is not clear.

COMMUNITY HABITAT

10(a) Impact on composition of high value EVC? EVC= Coast Banksia Woodland (BCS= E); CMA= West Gippsland; Bioreg= Strzelecki Ranges; CLIMATE potential=VH. ‘Canopy of mature plant will completely smother all other vegetation (Blood 2001)’. ‘…capable of forming dense colonies in native bushland, displacing native flora and fauna (DPIWE 2001)’. Potential to form monoculture; displacing all species within a strata/layer.

10(b) Impact on medium value EVC? EVC= Coastal Headland Scrub (BCS= D); CMA= West Gippsland; Bioreg= Gippsland Plain; CLIMATE potential=VH. ‘Canopy of mature plant will completely smother all other vegetation (Blood 2001)’. ‘…capable of forming dense colonies in native bushland, displacing native flora and fauna (DPIWE 2001)’. Potential to form monoculture; displacing all species within a strata/layer.

10(c) Impact on low value EVC? EVC= Heathy Woodland (BCS= LC); CMA= Corangamite; Bioreg= Otway Plain; CLIMATE potential=VH ‘Canopy of mature plant will completely smother all other vegetation (Blood 2001)’. ‘…capable of forming dense colonies in native bushland, displacing native flora and fauna (DPIWE 2001)’. Potential to form monoculture; displacing all species within a strata/layer.

11. Impact on structure? ‘Canopy of mature plant will completely smother all other vegetation (Blood 2001)’. Capable of forming dense colonies in native bushland (DPIWE 2001) and impedes the growth and regeneration of indigenous overstorey species (Muyt 2001). In certain communities such as heathland, could have major effect on all layers forming monoculture.

12. Effect on threatened flora? Described as a ‘significant weed’ in Coastal Moonah Woodland that is listed as a threatened community under the FFG Act 1988 (Turner & Tonkinson 2003). However, its impact on specific threatened species was not found described.

FAUNA

13. Effect on threatened fauna? Described as a ‘significant weed’ in Coastal Moonah Woodland, listed as a threatened community under the FFG Act 1988 (Turner & Tonkinson 2003). ‘…capable of forming dense colonies in native bushland, displacing native flora and fauna (DPIWE 2001)’. Potential to also impact on threatened fauna, though not specifically documented.

14. Effect on non-threatened fauna? ‘…capable of forming dense colonies in native bushland, displacing native flora and fauna (DPIWE 2001)’. Reduction in habitat for fauna leading to a reduction in numbers of individuals.

15. Benefits fauna? Consumed by birds, including the Silver gull (Carr et al 1993), and possibly possums (Muyt 2001). In New Zealand described as a food source for lizards (Whittaker 1987). Likely to provide some assistance as a food source to desirable species.

16. Injurious to fauna? Not found documented as possessing any properties injurious to fauna.

PEST ANIMAL

17. Food source to pests? Seed possibly dispersed by foxes (Muyt 2001). Potential to provide food to one serious pest.

18. Provides harbor? As a densely growing shrub/tree (Blood 2001), capable of forming dense colonies (DPIWE 2001) it has the capacity to provide harbour to serious pests such as rabbits or foxes, however, nothing was specifically described.

AGRICULTURE

19. Impact yield? Not described as a weed of agriculture.

20. Impact quality? Not described as a weed of agriculture.

21. Affect land values? Not described as a weed of agriculture.

22. Change land use? Not described as a weed of agriculture.

23. Increase harvest costs? Not described as a weed of agriculture.

24. Disease host/vector? Not described as a weed of agriculture.

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:

tn_comprosma_berries.jpg
looking via ala.JPG
Capture.JPG

referenced by (2)

wra1009: Common Name - M (via mirror bush)wra1008: Common Names - L (via looking glass bush)

Article: wra2569 (permalink)
Categories: :wra:c, :wra:inv1, :wra:invmh, :wra:inv2, :wra:inv3, :wra:invh, :wra:inv4, :wra:invl, :wra:inv5, :wra:inv6, :wra:inv7, :wra:inv8, :wra:inv9, :wra:inv10, :wra:inv11, :wra:invm, :wra:inv12, :wra:inv13, :wra:inv14, :wra:inv15, :wra:imp1, :wra:impm, :wra:imp2, :wra:impml, :wra:imp3, :wra:impl, :wra:imp4, :wra:imp5, :wra:imp6, :wra:imp7, :wra:imp8, :wra:impmh, :wra:imp9, :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: 26 October 2009; 10:38:06 AM AEDT

Author Name: Michelle Heitch
Author ID: heitchm