Acacia catechu (L. f.) Willd.

Title: Acacia catechu (L. f.) Willd.

Scientific Name: Acacia catechu(L. f.) Willd.

Common Name: cutch tree

Source & more images (via ALA)

Habitat: Subtropical or tropical open woodlands and shrubby grasslands. Usually occurs on shallow to medium depth sandy loams. Occurs as a weedy shrub on overgrazed grasslands in India and Burma (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). Occurs naturally in mixed deciduous forests and savannas of lower mountains and hills. Especially common in drier regions on sandy soils and riverbanks and watersheds. Altitude 0-1500m; Mean annual temperature 32-39 deg. C; Mean annual rainfall 500-2000mm (World Agroforestry Centre 2005)

Distribution:

Original source CABI

Invasiveness Assessment

ESTABLISHMENT

1. Germination requirements? Seeds germinate with rains at any time of year(CABI 2005). Opportunistic germinator.

2. Establishment requirements? Requires light to establish and grow, very sensitive to shade (CABI 2005).

3. How much disturbance is required? Common on riverbanks and watersheds (CABI 2005). Likes openwoodlands and grasslands with a tendency to invade degraded areas such as overgrazed grassland. Can establish in relatively intact ecosystems (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003)

GROWTH / COMPETITIVE

4. Life form? Leguminous, perennial non-climbing tree (CABI 2005).

5. Allelopathic properties? None described in CABI (2005).

6. Tolerates herb pressure? A common fodder species browsed by wild and domesticated animals in its native range. Over thirty beetle species have been identified with eight linked to defoliation of trees (CABI 2005). Weed still persists.

7. Normal growth rate? Relatively ‘slow-growing’ tree in natural environments (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003).

8. Stress tolerance to frost, drought, w/logg, sal. etc? Can tolerate frost (to -1°C), saline soil tolerant, tolerant of fire and drought. Seeds susceptible to waterlogging (CABI 2005).

REPRODUCTION

9. Reproductive system? Reproduces by seed only. No information on whether self and /or cross- pollination occurs so scores as ML (CABI 2005).

10. Number of propagules produced? Seedpods contain between four and seven seeds. Mature trees produce ‘large numbers’ of seeds. Assume greater than 2000 propagules produced per flowering event (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003).

11. Propagule longevity? Exact length not known but ‘probable that some seeds remain viable for about 20 years’ (CRC for Australian Weed management 2003).

12. Reproductive period? Not specified although in areas where grown for forestry rotated every 20 years. Trees live up to 60 years. Score High as likely that produces viable propagules for greater than 10years and records of the tree forming monocultures in some areas in Asia (CABI 2005).

13. Time to reproductive maturity? Life cycle under Australian conditions is unknown and time to reproductive maturity is unclear (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). Therefore score as medium.

DISPERSAL

14. Number of mechanisms? Transported by cattle, water, humans, machinery movement (CABI 2005).

15. How far do they disperse? Can be transported long distances by cattle therefore likely that some propagules will spread greater than 1km (CRC for Australian Weed management 2003).

Impact Assessment

RECREATION

1. Restrict human access? Trees range from 3 to 15 metres with average height when fully grown between 10 to 15 metres (CABI 2005). Treeshave a light feathery crown. Forms ‘dense impenetrable stands and the sharp thorns .. can impede the movement and mustering of stock’. When fully grown, stems up to 30cm diameter (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003). As common on riverbanks and watersheds, plant would be a major impediment to access waterways.

2. Reduce tourism? As the weed can be found on riverbanks and watersheds, it is possible that some recreational uses may be affected eg. swimming, fishing, boating (World Agroforestry Centre 2005).

3. Injurious to people? The branchlets have ‘twin hooked prickles’. These prickles are present throughout the year (CABI 2005).

4. Damage to cultural sites? Not likely that the plant would do any structural damage but due to size and potential to spread (CABI 2005), would have moderate visual effect.

ABIOTIC

5. Impact flow? Terrestrial species (CABI 2005).

6. Impact water quality? Terrestrial species (CABI 2005).

7. Increase soil erosion? ‘..apart from checking soil erosion. On steep slopes, its roots bind the soil and prevent landslides or excessive erosion’. Tree has a strong primary root (up to 2 metres deep) which is long and wiry with lateral short, fibrous roots (CABI 2005). Does not replace ground cover so unlikely to leave ground exposed. Low probability of large scale soil movement.

8. Reduce biomass? As the plant likes open woodlands and grasslands with a tendency to invade degraded areas (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003), biomass may increase.

9. Change fire regime? Deciduous tree. Although ‘the wood is excellent firewood’, and would burn well once ignited there is nothing to indicate that the tree would change the frequency or intensity of fires (CABI 2005). In Australia, the known distribution of Acacia catechu is sparse so wouldn’t contribute to either intensity or frequency.

COMMUNITY HABITAT

10(a) Impact on composition of high value EVC? Potential distribution of Acacia catechu excludes Victoria. No impact on EVCs in Victoria.

10(b) Impact on medium value EVC? Potential distribution of Acacia catechu excludes Victoria. No impact on EVCs in Victoria.

10(c) Impact on low value EVC? Potential distribution of Acacia catechu excludes Victoria. No impact on EVCs in Victoria.

11. Impact on structure? Found with other dry deciduous species, and grasses. Can occur in both open grasslands and also within dry forests(CABI 2005). ‘Occurs as a weedy shrub on overgrazed grasslands’ (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). Therefore, it may exclude understorey species eg grasses. Will affect only one of the stratum.

12. Effect on threatened flora? The potential for Acacia catechu to establish and naturalise in Victoria is highly unlikely due to ecoclimatic limitations. No impact on threatened flora in Victoria.

FAUNA

13. Effect on threatened fauna? The potential for Acacia catechu to establish and naturalise in Victoria is highly unlikely due to ecoclimatic limitations. No impact on threatened fauna in Victoria.

14. Effect on non-threatened fauna? ‘The sharp thorns .. can impede the movement and mustering of stock’ (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003). In agricultural situations the plant may be a problem but in natural situations may not hinder or affect fauna eg access to water, but may have a minor effect.

15. Benefits fauna? In India it is known to be ‘an excellent source of food for wildlife’ (CABI 2005). May provide an alternate food source for native fauna.

16. Injurious to fauna? ‘The bark is toxic and contains an alkaloid’ (CABI 2005). However, it is a common fodder species within its nativerange for both wild and domesticated animals so toxicity likely to have little effect. Forms ‘dense impenetrable standsand the sharp thorns .. can impede the movement and mustering of stock’ (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003).

PEST ANIMAL

17. Food source to pests? ‘Is a useful fodder species.. browsed by cattle, rhinoceros, deer and elephants’. Rodents are also reported to damage the tree’ (CABI 2005). May supply food for one or more minor pest spp.

18. Provides harbor? No evidence in CABI (2005) that the weed provides harbour for pest spp.

AGRICULTURE

19. Impact yield? Dense patches ‘impede stock movement and access to other pasture plants’ (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). Could impact stock access to water with potential to have minor impact on quantity of produce.

20. Impact quality? Not known to effect quality of produce.

21. Affect land values? No documented evidence that weed would affect land value.

22. Change land use? No evidence to suggest that the weed would cause a change in priority of land use.

23. Increase harvest costs? No evidence to suggest that the weed would increase the cost of harvest.

24. Disease host/vector? Not a known host or vector for diseases 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:

149776.jpg
distribution_map.png

referenced by (1)

wra997: Common Name - C (via cutch tree)

Article: wra4767 (permalink)
Categories: :wra:a, :wra:inv1, :wra:invh, :wra:inv2, :wra:invml, :wra:inv3, :wra:invmh, :wra:inv4, :wra:inv5, :wra:invl, :wra:inv6, :wra:inv7, :wra:inv8, :wra:inv9, :wra:inv10, :wra:inv11, :wra:inv12, :wra:inv13, :wra:invm, :wra:inv14, :wra:inv15, :wra:imp1, :wra:imph, :wra:imp2, :wra:impmh, :wra:imp3, :wra:imp4, :wra:impml, :wra:imp5, :wra:impl, :wra:imp6, :wra:imp7, :wra:imp8, :wra:imp9, :wra:impm, :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: 18 November 2009; 10:20:06 AM AEDT

Author Name: Niharika Anand
Author ID: anandn