FINAL Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens LIVING COLLECTIONS ...€¦ · world network of botanic...

INSPIRE: n. the arousing of feelings, ideas and impulses that lead to a creative activity. v. to uplift the mind of spirit. PLACE: n. the connection between nature and culturewhich gives meaning to our everyday life. v. to position or arrange. NOTHOFAGUS GUNNII: n. Deciduous beech, the only native deciduous tree endemic to the island of Tasmania, Australia.

FINAL

Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens

LIVING COLLECTIONS PLAN

Inspiring Place

ROYAL TASMANIAN BOTANICAL GARDENS LIVING COLLECTIONS PLAN

prepared for the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens

Inspiring Place Pty Ltd

Environmental Planning, Landscape Architecture,

Tourism & Recreation

208 Collins St Hobart TAS 7000

T: 03 6231-1818 F: 03 6231 1819 E: [email protected]

ACN 58 684 792 133

in collaboration with

The Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collections Working Group

Alan Matchett

Director Dunedin Botanic Gardens

Date Version

21.12.07 Preliminary Draft

14.03.08 Draft for Internal Review

19.05.08 Draft for Steering Committee and Board Review Prior to Public Consultation

July 2008 Draft for Steering Committee and Board Review Prior to Public Consultation V2

11.07.08 Draft for Steering Committee and Board Review Prior to Public Consultation V3

04.08.08 Draft for Steering Committee and Board Review Prior to Public Consultation V4.2 (w/minor edits)

10.12.08 Draft for Public Consultation

18.05.09 Final Report 07-15/07-UUU

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1

1.1 An Overview of the RTBG ........................................................................... 1 1.2 The Living Collections Plan ......................................................................... 4

1.2.1 Management Context .................................................................. 4 1.2.2 Purpose of the Living Collections Plan ........................................ 6 1.2.3 Preparation of the Living Collections Plan................................... 7

2. The Development of the Living Collections at the RTBG ..................................... 9

2.1 Early Development – Settlement to c1900 .................................................. 9 2.2 c1900 to c2000 ............................................................................................ 11 2.3 The Start of the New Millennium.................................................................. 15 2.4 Common Threads Over Time ...................................................................... 16

3. The Living Collections Today.................................................................................. 19

3.1 Categories of Collections............................................................................. 19 3.2 Overview of the Collections ......................................................................... 20

3.2.1 Tasmanian Collections ................................................................ 21 3.2.2 Conservation and Research Collections ..................................... 23 3.2.3 Southern Hemisphere Collections ............................................... 26 3.2.4 Cultural and Ornamental Collections ........................................... 27

4. The Value of the Living Collections ........................................................................ 33

4.1 The Contribution of the Living Collections to the Values of the RTBG ..................................................................................................... 33 4.2 The Value of Individual Collections.............................................................. 35

4.2.1 Method of Assessing Individual Collections ................................ 35 4.2.2 The Results - The Values of Individual Living Collections ............................................................................................. 37

5 Issues Arising for the Management of the Living Collections .............................. 41

5.1 Issues in Relation to the Vision, Mission, Goals and Policy Framework of the SMP .......................................................................... 42

Issue 1 Focus of the Collections........................................................... 42 Issue 2 Lack of Clear Policies – Establishing New Collections ............................................................................................. 42 Issue 3 Lack of Clear Policies – De-Accession .................................... 43 Issue 4 Lack of Botanical Integrity ........................................................ 43 Issue 5 Lack of Space........................................................................... 44

5.2 Issues Identified by the Evaluation of the Collections ................................. 45 Issue 6 Strengthening the Defining Attributes ...................................... 45 Issue 7 Limited Return from Collections ............................................... 46 Issue 8 Limited Interpretation ............................................................... 48

5.3 Issues Identified with the Establishment and Care of the Living Collections ................................................................................... 48

ii Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

Issue 9 Quarantine................................................................................ 48 Issue 10 Pests and Disease.................................................................. 49 Issue 11 Weeds .................................................................................... 51 Issue 12 Site Suitability and Horticulture .............................................. 51 Issue 13 Capacity to Manage ............................................................... 53 Issue 14 Big Picture Commitments and Issues (Climate Change) .................................................................... 55

6. Policies for Living Collections, Biodiversity and Conservation .......................... 57

7. Directions Forward ................................................................................................... 73

7.1 Sphere of Involvement ................................................................................. 72 7.2 Evolution of the Living Collections ............................................................... 74

7.2.1 Physical Layout - Precincts.......................................................... 74 7.2.2 Changes to Collections ............................................................... 81

Attachment A The Management Framework for the RTBG ...................................... A1

A.1 RTBG Vision ................................................................................................ A1 A.2 RTBG Mission.............................................................................................. A3 A.3 RTBG Management Goals and Strategies .................................................. A4 A.4 The Policy Framework ................................................................................. A6 A.5 Interpretation Themes.................................................................................. A8

Attachment B The Master Plan .................................................................................... B1

1 . I N T R O D U C T I O N

1 . 1 A N O V E R V I E W O F T H E R T B G

The Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens (Map 1.1) in Hobart (hereafter

referred to as the RTBG or the Gardens) has a long-standing position in the

world network of botanic gardens – botanic gardens being institutions “holding

documented collections of living plants for the purposes of scientific research,

conservation, display and education”1

Established by Governor Sorell in 1818, just two years after the Sydney

Botanical Gardens were founded, the RTBG is one of six Royal Botanical

Gardens in the world – the others being at Sydney and Melbourne in Australia,

Kew and Edinburgh in the United Kingdom and Hamilton in Ontario, Canada.

The RTBG is located on the Queens Domain, in an expansive cultural precinct

that includes, amongst other places, Government House, the historic

Beaumaris Zoo site and Soldiers Memorial Avenue all of which are set within a

larger landscape of remnant native grasslands and woody grasslands.

The RTBG itself is approximately 14.5 hectares in size including the Gardens

proper and land under the control and management of the RTBG along the

Derwent River foreshore, including Pavilion Point, though this is isolated from

the main Gardens by the Domain Highway.

The site shares a temperate climate with the rest of Tasmania. Mean

temperatures range from 11.7ºC at night to 21.5 ºC during the day in summer

and 4.4ºC to 11.5 ºC in winter. Severe frosts are infrequent due to the

proximity to the Derwent River. The long-term annual average rainfall at the

site is 567.9mm (data collected at the Gardens since 1841) but in the past 10

years has been lower at 463.6mm. Importantly, however, precipitation

exceeds evapo-transpiration over the year. The site is protected to some

extent from westerly and southwesterly winds but is exposed to strong winds

from the north and northwest that, at times, have resulted in loss of limbs

and occasionally whole trees. Sea breezes from the southeast occur in

summer and have a moderating effect on temperatures.

1 Waylen, K. 2006. Botanic Gardens: Using Biodiversity to Improve Human Well-Being Botanic Gardens Conservation International, Richmond, United Kingdom. Pg. 6

Map 1.1. Location of the RTBG.

Chapter 1 Introduction 3

The shape of the site can be described as an elongated triangle, orientated on

a north and south axis. The Gardens have an easterly aspect, a close

proximity to the Derwent River and a sweeping outlook to the Meehan Ranges

arising from its moderately sloping topography (1:5 to 1:20) that runs from sea

level to an elevation of 30m.

The underlying geology is primarily Jurassic dolerite except at the eastern

boundary where a layer of sandstone extends into the site. Naturally the soil is

light clay over heavy black clay but much of the soil within the Gardens has

been modified or improved including the importation of sandy loam soils to

some areas.

The Gardens have three primary visitor entries: the historic Main Entry via

Lower Domain Road, the Lower Entry off the Domain Highway and the

Northern Entrance from Lower Domain Road at the far end of the property.

There are also several lesser-used service entrances.

Survey data indicates that over 400,000 people visited the gardens in 2005-

2006 and that of these roughly three-quarters were Tasmanian residents. The

total visitation places the RTBG amongst the most visited recreational and

tourism attractions in the State.

The RTBG is a State Government statutory body, governed under the Royal

Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Act 2002 (hereafter, the RTBG Act) and is

administered by the Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and Arts

(DEPHA). A seven member RTBG Board is appointed by the Minister to

manage the RTBG under the RTBG Act, with the Board appointing a Director

to manage day-to-day operations within the Gardens.

4 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

The Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens are of exceptional national, state

and local significance – being:

“...an integral part of the nation’s history, reflecting the

transition of the country from a subsistence outpost to a

community of people making a valuable contribution to

global conservation through the collection, propagation,

display and conservation of Tasmania’s native flora. In the

process of its evolution, the RTBG has become a garden of

exceptional beauty that holds a significant place in the

hearts and minds of its many users and attracts visitors

from around the world. The Gardens retains significant

reminders of its various stages of development including

built elements, living collections and individual plants dating

from the period of its colonial establishment and later

Victorian era gardenesque landscaping.

The Gardens have exceptional international significance

as a leader in the conservation of Tasmania’s flora. Many

of the species under their care and/or research only occur

in Tasmania (i.e. are endemic to the State) and as such are

of importance for the conservation of the world’s

biodiversity.”

from the Overall Statement of Significance - the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Strategic Master Plan 2008-20282.

1 . 2 T H E L I V I N G C O L L E C T I O N S P L A N

1.2.1 Management Context

Given the importance of the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens to the

community, the nation’s heritage and world botanical knowledge and capital, a

considered and comprehensive approach to management is being taken – one

that is grounded in a governance framework that aims to deliver outcomes that

will sustain the site’s significant values into the long-term future (Figure 1.1).

Amongst the elements, comprising the strategic framework for the Gardens is

this current document, the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living

Collections Plan (hereafter, the Living Collections Plan or the LCP).

2 Inspiring Place 2008. Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Strategic Master Plan 2008-2028 unpublished report to the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens.

Nat

iona

l and

In

tern

atio

nal a

gree

men

tse.

g.

• In

tern

atio

nal A

gend

afo

r Bot

anic

Gar

dens

in

Con

serv

atio

n • T

he G

loba

l Stra

tegy

for

Pla

nt C

onse

rvat

ion

• 20

10 T

arge

ts fo

r Bot

anic

G

arde

ns

• C

limat

e C

hang

e co

mm

itmen

ts

Stra

tegi

c M

aste

r Pla

n(2

0 ye

ar m

anag

emen

tfra

mew

ork)

RTB

G A

ct 2

002

• A

sset

Man

agem

ent P

lan

• Vis

itor a

nd C

omm

unity

Sur

vey

• Th

emat

ic In

terp

reta

tion

Pla

n•

Con

serv

atio

n M

anag

emen

t P

lan

• Li

ving

Col

lect

ions

Pla

n

Stra

tegi

c (O

pera

tiona

l)P

lan

(5 y

ear o

pera

tiona

l fra

mew

ork)

Sta

te, L

ocal

and

Nat

iona

l Le

gisl

atio

n

Indi

vidu

al B

usin

ess

Uni

t Pla

ns

Org

anis

atio

nal c

itize

nshi

pan

d co

mm

unity

par

tner

ship

s

DTA

E d

epar

tmen

tal

oblig

atio

ns a

nd D

TAE

Cor

pora

te P

lan

2006

- 20

09

Rec

ogni

sed

prof

essi

onal

po

licie

s an

d gu

idel

ines

, e.

g.• I

CO

MO

S B

urra

Cha

rter

• Aus

tralia

n N

atur

al

Her

itage

Cha

rter

RTB

G B

usin

ess

and

Ope

ratio

nal P

lan

2007

- 20

08

Sta

tuto

ry

Non

-sta

tuto

ry

polic

y

Ope

ratio

nal

Figu

re 1

.1 R

TBG

Gov

erna

nce

Fram

ewor

k


The LCP recognises that the living collections of the RTBG are its raison

d’etre. The LCP has, therefore, been conceived within the context of the

vision, mission, goals, strategies and interpretation plan of the RTBG

(Attachment 1) which emphasise, amongst other things, the;

focus of the collections on Tasmania’s flora and associated

flora from the southern hemisphere;

role of the Gardens as an organisation that contributes to

the conservation of the world’s flora and importantly to

Tasmania’s flora; and

the long-standing contribution that the Gardens make to the

community, its economy and its sense of place.

It is critical, therefore, that the collections are managed and maintained at the

highest standards if the vision for the Gardens is to be achieved and its

significant values are to be protected.

1.2.2 Purpose of the Living Collections Plan

The purpose of the LCP is, then, to provide the basis for management of the

existing and future collections over the next 20 years (concurrent with and

responding to the strategic framework set out in the Strategic Master Plan)

including the policies and principles for management in support of the

procedures to be applied in the day-to-day activities of Gardens staff.

By way of background to the establishment of living collections policies and

procedures, the LCP provides:

background to the development of the living collections

(Section 2);

a discussion of the status and condition of the collections

today (Section 3) and their value (Section 4); and

an overview of the current concerns for the management of

the living collections (Section 5);

before setting out

a policy framework for overcoming these concerns and for

on-going management of the collections (Section 6) and

Chapter 1 Introduction 7

a series of recommendations to guide the evolution of the

living collections over the next 20 years in line with the

Strategic Master Plan (Section 7).

For the purposes of the LCP, a living collection is defined as a managed group

of plants/and or propagules that describes a particular collecting focus. It need

not be physically grouped in one location, and a single accession may be part

of multiple collections. Nor does a collection need to be in-ground as it can be

comprised of stored propagation materials (i.e. a seed collection) or potted

collections held in a nursery and/or other dedicated sites.

In addition, a collection may meet one or more of the general objectives of

conservation, research, education, ornamental display or maintenance of

heritage values.

1.2.3 Preparation of the Living Collections Plan

The Preparation of the Living Collections Plan has included a review of

documents of relevance including the Situational Analysis of the Cultural

Landscape of the Tasmanian Botanical Gardens 20063 which incorporates

some guidance on the status of the various areas of the Gardens and

directions for their management and great detail about individual beds, mature

trees and built structures. Some of the issues raised therein are incorporated

at a broad level in the following discussion.

The Living Collections Plan has also been informed by a history of the

Gardens prepared as part of the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens

Conservation Management Plan and by the writing of the Royal Tasmanian

Botanical Gardens Strategic Master Plan.

The bulk of the information herein, represents new work conducted as part of

the preparation of the current Living Collections Plan. This new work has been

a collaboration between:

the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collections

Working Group, with detailed input from Mark Fountain,

Botanical and Public Programs and Manager Natalie

Tapson, Horticultural Botanist:

Alan Matchett, Director of the Dunedin Botanic Gardens;

and

Inspiring Place Pty Ltd.

3 Macfadyen, A. and Papworth, N. (2006) Situational Analysis of the Cultural Landscape of the Tasmanian Botanical Gardens, Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens.

2 . T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F T H E L I V I N G C O L L E C T I O N S A T T H E R T B G

The following section provides a chronological history of the development of

living collections within the Gardens. A more comprehensive history of the

Gardens as a whole is found in the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens

Conservation Management Plan4.

2 . 1 E A R L Y D E V E L O P M E N T – S E T T L E M E N T T O C 1 9 0 0

The Government Gardens were established by Lieutenant-Governor William

Sorell in 1818. The initial purpose of the Gardens was to supply the

Governor’s table and for the acclimatization of fruit and vegetables. There are

few records from the period, giving little indication of what was grown, but it

appears the gardens were poorly maintained.

In 1827 Lieutenant-Governor George Arthur expressed the wish for a botanical

garden on the Domain with the addition of local native plants to the collection.

The appointment of Superintendent William Davidson in December 1828 saw

the realization of this wish, with 150 native species collected from

Mt Wellington within four months of his engagement. A report in the local

newspaper, The Courier, from February 1834 stated that 141 plants of over 60

species of native flora collected from Mt Wellington and the banks of the Huon

River were sent by Davidson to the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

Davidson had already expanded the collection on his arrival, bringing around

200 vines, various fruit trees, ornamentals and seed from England as well as a

supply of tools. He oversaw the construction of the Arthur Wall in 1829 but the

heating system that it incorporated was unnecessary because unlike England,

fruit in Tasmania did not require additional heat to ripen. He did, however,

utilize 50 ft of the wall to support the RTBG’s first glasshouse, a lean-to

construction that housed 200 pineapples. This new direction appears to have

been short-lived and by 1838, four years after Davidson’s untimely dismissal,

the collection was again recorded as being in a poor state.

The management of the Government Gardens fell to the Botanical and

Horticultural Society of Van Diemen’s Land (after various amalgamations and

re-namings later to become the Royal Society of Tasmania) in 1844 under

Lieutenant-Governor John Eardley-Wilmot. The appointment of

Superintendent Francis Newman in 1845 led to the addition of 60 new genera 4 Godden, Mackay and Logan 2008. Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Conservation Management Plan unpublished report to the RTBG.


comprised of over 250 species to the living collection. The function as an

acclimatization garden continued through the 19th century, with Newman

bringing 28 varieties of apple from England and the development of an

experimental orchard during his tenure.

It is unclear what happened to Davidson’s original native collection but

Newman prepared beds for 50 local native species and a New Zealand

collection in the northern section of the Gardens. It was during Newman’s time

that the Royal Society sought more scientific rigour in the collection with the

establishment of a garden based on plant systematics. This came to fruition

with the construction of a circular garden with plants scientifically grouped and

labeled5. A pinetum was also planted during Newman’s time. This collection

was built on by his successor Francis Abbot Jr with further conifer plantings on

the steep banks above the Lily Pond in 1862 and the lining of the carriageway

to the new entrance in the 1870s.

The first scientific journal published in Tasmania was the Tasmanian Journal

and when this ceased publication in 1849, papers were published directly by

the Royal Society. The Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of

Tasmania provide a sound record of the living collection until 1885 when the

administration of the Gardens passed from the Royal Society to the state

government under the Tasmanian Museum and Botanical Gardens Act 1885.

The Catalogue of Plants in the Royal Society’s Gardens published in 1857 and

1865 list all taxa (species, varieties, cultivars) grown at the Gardens in that

year. The 1857 list divides the collection into Trees and Shrubs (496 taxa),

Climbers (71), Coniferae (135), Roses (70), Herbaceous Plants (200), Bulbs

and Tuberous Rooted Plants (162), Annuals (177), Succulents (19), Fruit

Trees (Apples (103), Cyder Apples (8), Pears (54), Vines (29), Oranges (8),

Apricots (6), Plums (25), Nectarines (1), Cherries (12), Mulberries (2), Medlar

(1), Figs (6), Gooseberries (10), Currants (1), Raspberry (1), Agricultural

Grasses etc.(26).

As well as the catalogues, the List of Plants Introduced into the Gardens of the

Royal Society of Tasmania was published from at least 1859 until 1884. The

lists, however, give no idea of where specimens were planted, making it

difficult to gauge whether the trees listed are those surviving today. Francis

Abbott Jr (Superintendent from 1859-1903) is largely responsible for the

detailed information available in the Papers and Proceedings of the Royal

Society of Tasmania. As well as the lists he provided seasonal information on

5 The garden was likely based on a model from JC Loudon’s Encyclopedia of Gardening of which the RTBG has an 1855 copy with the words Royal Society of Tasmania written in the front cover.

Chapter 2 The Development of the Living Collections 11

the leafing, flowering and fruiting of selected species and information on the

distribution of plants to public places in Tasmania and overseas6.

Abbott was also largely responsible for the increase in the diversity of exotic

trees in the immediate area of the Gardens including the expansion of conifers

onto the Domain. In an 1887 report he suggested improvements to the natural

features of the Domain with the addition of exotics and the gradual thinning of

natives to create a park-like appearance, as funding became available. He

suggested, given water shortages, care was needed in the selection of trees

with deciduous trees only planted in the lower Domain. He proposed a

pinetum be planted on the Domain due to insufficient space for such a

collection in the Gardens themselves. Today the obvious remnants of Abbott’s

vision are the conifer plantings on the hillside opposite the Garden’s main

entrance and the 1887 avenue of Atlantic cedars on Davies Avenue.

2 . 2 C 1 9 0 0 T O C 2 0 0 0

A proposed Garden guide by Superintendent John Wardman circa 1914 and

an associated map (see Figure 2.1) prepared by students from the University

of Tasmania give us a good idea of both the location and types of collections

during that period. Wardman’s guide mentions a number of key plants and

collections that are still visible in the Gardens including:

the conifers bracketing the main entrance including the

Sequoia gigantea (now Sequoiadendron giganteum) and

Cedrus deodara as well as the Spanish fir (Abies pinsapo)

inside the gate and the Canary Island Date Palm on the

opposite side;

the wisteria opposite the Friends Cottage;

the Schinus in front of the Visitor Centre and the cork oak

(Quercus suber) below it;

the Magnolia and New Zealand Collections;

the palm collection including the existing specimen of

Phoenix canariensis, Canary Island Date Palm;

6 Abbott kept meticulous records of who received plants including names and numbers, dates, destinations and the cost to Royal Society members. As a result of Abbot’s lists, we know that much of the extant Victorian planted heritage in churches, schools and parks in Tasmania originated at the Gardens.

Map

2.1

War

dman

’s M

ap


the Lily Pond and its collection of water lilies (Nymphaea)

and the Bunya Pine (Araucaria bidwillii), the Norfolk Island

Pine (Araucaria heterophylla) and Hoop Pine (Araucaria

cunninghamii) below the pond;

the oak and elm collections of which few original plants

remain; and

elements of the conifer collection in the Pinetum along the

upper part of the Gardens including: Cedrus atlantica, Pinus

nigra var austrica, Pinus sabiniana, Pinus radiata, Pinus

jeffreyi, Pinus sylvestris and Abies nordmanniana.

Ira Thornicroft took over as Superintendent in 1936 when the Gardens were,

yet again, in a poor state. He had the rubbish tip on the large lawn above the

current Gazebo cleared and planted as a rose garden (replanted in the 1970s

and finally removed 2002), the pond cleaned out and the surrounding beds

replanted. Thornicroft designed the present Conservatory which opened in

August 1939. The display of flowers, palms and ferns was supplemented with

model gardens of different countries that were prepared by the largely female

staff during the war years. Thornicroft made several trips to collect native flora

from Mt Field in the1940s, the plants to be housed in a newly built bush house.

In 1964 the RTBG absorbed 2.2ha of land to the east of the Eardley-Wilmot

Wall (the Eastern Section) from Government House. This area has gone on to

hold a range of unrelated collections (including the conifer cultivars). The

current Fern House was also built in 1964.

By 1968 the Gardens had once again gone through a period of upheaval, the

nursery was non-functional and the Conservatory closed. A new propagator,

Tony May (who became Superintendent in 1976), was employed mid-year and

by Christmas the Conservatory was again opened, displaying coleus and

impatiens, followed by tuberous begonias which had not been displayed since

the 1950s. In the same year (1968) the new tropical house was completed

(although not officially opened until 1971 and closed in 1995) where Pete’s

Patch now stands and work started on propagating that collection. The Floral

Clock was also built in 1968 and the AMP Arch installed to commemorate the

Gardens 150th anniversary.

The French Memorial Fountain was built in 1972 in the Eastern Section. The

original intent of Stephen Walker, the designer of the French Memorial

Fountain, was for the French Fountain beds to display Tasmanian plants

collected by the early French explorers of the 18th and 19th centuries. This was


finally achieved in 2004 when much of the conifer planting was removed and

the area landscaped with appropriate Tasmanian natives.

In the following years, the Rills (1972), the Protea and Erica collections(1984)

and the Japanese Garden (1987) were all built in the Eastern Section. The

Japanese Garden was constructed as part of a sister city project with Yaizu in

Japan. It was designed by Japanese landscape architect Kanjiro Harada, and

in return an Australian garden was designed by RTBG landscaper Joseph

Vitesnik for the Hotel Seagreen in Yaizu.

The construction of the Easy Access Garden with its raised beds started

during the Year of the Disabled in 1981 and was completed in 1985. The Herb

Garden was built in 1983. The terraced beds near the Anniversary Arch

housing part of the Rhododendron and Camellia collection and the Gondwana

collection were constructed in 1984. The Cactus House was opened in 1984

and the collection refurbished in 2004, with the donation of the Oglesby

collection of cacti and succulents.

The 1990s saw the resurgence of the Tasmanian native collections and a

growing commitment to local and world flora conservation. The Epacridaceae

collection was reinstated in 1994 (the existence of an earlier 20th century

collection was unknown at the time). Conservation became a focus at this

time with the RTBG involved in roadside rescues in collaboration with the then

Department of Transport and the establishment of ex-situ collections of

threatened native species. The refurbishing of the Fern House with a

provenanced collection of Tasmanian species was begun in 2002.

The Chinese collection was established in 1996 from seed wild-collected in

Yunnan Province by then Acting Director, Jim Cane.

The 1990s also saw the impact of the root rot disease Armillaria luteobubalina

on the living collection. Two large and a number of smaller excavations took

place to remove infected plants and soil – the main lawn (1000 m3), the lawn

directly above the Gazebo (1200 m3) and the bed below the cork oak and the

American bed at the eastern end of the Floral Clock Lawn (100 m3). In all

almost 200 plants, including around 70 mature trees were removed in the

period 1996-98. Despite the loss of plants, a positive effect has been the

opening up of new vistas and remodeling of the topography of the main lawn

was undertaken to flatten part of it for events. The action to control the

disease and protect the rest of the living collection has been successful with

only one small area still infected and the status of the disease being

continually monitored.


In 1996, Pete’s Veggie Patch was established on the site of the demolished

Tropical House. Originally a small patch of unimproved ground, it was used as

a focus for the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s gardening show which

quickly developed a large following. Raised beds and paving work were

carried out by TAFE students. The site has since become an important

attraction within the Gardens for visitors.

In 1998, the RTBG received a donation of southern hemisphere conifers from

researchers at the University of Tasmania. This collection is comprised of

about 60 of the 160 extant southern hemisphere conifers, and approximately

half the collection is listed as threatened under the IUCN Red List. It has been

maintained as a potted collection due to lack of in-ground space and excess

material has been donated to the Tasmanian Arboretum. The Southern

Hemisphere potted collection has been built up with donations of associated

Gondwana flora since that time in the hope of eventually establishing an in-

ground collection.

2 . 3 T H E S T A R T O F T H E N E W M I L L E N N I U M

A cottage garden was planted around the Friends Cottage (originally the

Gatekeepers Cottage) in 2000. As the cottage was built in 1845 the Catalogue

of Plants in the Royal Society’s Gardens 1857 was used as a basis for

selection of plants for the display. The Salvia bed below the Restaurant deck

was also landscaped and planted in 2000. The Herbaceous Border was

renamed the Friends Mixed Border in 2006 after the display was extended and

refurbished, and with archways and trellises for climbing roses and clematis

added.

The Subantarctic Plant House, displaying the flora of Macquarie and Heard

Islands was officially opened in 2000. This collection is housed in a prototype

cold house, the only one of its kind in the world, displaying the flora of

Australia’s subantarctic islands. The collection serves the dual functions of

public display and providing material for research. The Tasmanian Seed

Conservation Centre (TSCC) opened in August 2005. This purpose built

facility was constructed as part of the Millennium Seed Bank Project in

partnership with the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. The TSCC has a target to

store seed of 60% of Tasmania’s threatened species by 2010 and will provide

the RTBG with a strong research focus which will likely result in positive

conservation outcomes.


2 . 4 C O M M O N T H R E A D S O V E R T I M E

A review of the history of the living collections shows that there are a number

of important threads that have run through the collections from the very early

beginnings of the Gardens to the present. For instance, the Gardens was

largely set up to provide produce for the Governor’s table and today Pete’s

Veggie Patch and the herb garden are amongst the most popular displays with

visitors.

The importance of having a Tasmanian native element in the Gardens has

also been a consistent theme from the time of Governor Arthur, although there

was little evidence of his early directives or that of his successors when the

present Tasmanian Collection was established in 1990.

Newman established the first pinetum and Abbott built on this. The conifers

remain a significant element of the Gardens today in their own right as a

taxonomic collection and individually, in many cases, as part of the significant

tree collection.

The first New Zealand collection originated in Newman’s time and by the time

Wardman produced his guide in 1914, it was well established and admired.

The areas of the Gardens developed early in its history also demonstrate

elements of a gardenesque planting style with sweeping lawns, flowing paths

and garden edges. Trees were planted as specimens to display their full form

that continues into the present including a range of plants with exotic forms

such as those of the Auracareacea, cordilines, etc.

More current RTBG living collections reflect rising and strengthening social

and environmental consciousness since the late 1960s onwards. The Easy

Access Gardens is an early example of horticultural therapy and later the

Chinese collection responded to the need for greater botanical integrity in the

development of collections. Most recently environmental emphases have

brought a focus on the conservation of flora and water and a growing

awareness of the protection of regional vegetation.

Whilst these threads can be construed as showing some positive continuity of

outcome over time, the history of the collections and the specimens within

them can also be shown to illustrate the ad hoc manner in which the Gardens

have developed. For instance, many specimens and collections have been

planted in the Gardens because they were available or donated to the

Gardens, others reflect the personal preferences of staff, still others result from


public or other unwise pressures to display the widest range of geographic and

taxonomic interests, all within the finite space available within the Gardens.

The discussions in the following sections reflect both these positive and

negative threads of continuity and suggest policies and directions that build on

the good whilst addressing the bad and indifferent.

3 . T H E L I V I N G C O L L E C T I O N S T O D A Y

3 . 1 C A T E G O R I E S O F C O L L E C T I O N S

Today there are over 40 discrete living collections at the RTBG (Table 3.1)

including in-ground, potted nursery and seed bank collections comprised of

over 6000 species, varieties and cultivars7. The collections can be broadly

divided into four major categories of collections:

Tasmanian Collections

Conservation and Research Collections

Southern Hemisphere Collections: and

Cultural and Ornamental Collections.

Within these categories, collections can be sub-grouped based on their

principle focus, that is, whether they have a:

geographical basis – a collection of plants based on a

defined geographical area or biome;

taxonomic basis - a collection of plants that demonstrates

principles of plant classification;

demonstration purpose - a collection that displays

specialised areas of botanical or horticultural interest or

horticultural techniques;

heritage basis - a collection that exhibits a linkage with

historic periods, cultural events, people or horticultural

practices or periods; or

horticultural basis - a collection that is based on horticultural

selections of species or display principles.

7 Note, the RTBG has Memoranda of Understanding with the Emu Valley Rhododendron Garden and the Tasmanian Arboretum regarding the exchange of living materials. In the case of the latter, the RTBG maintain holding collections of some of plants at the Arboretum. These collections have not been considered, herein, but should be managed and/or developed in the future in line with the policies of the LCP and the strategic framework of the SMP.


Category Focus Collection

Tasmanian Geographical Focus

Taxonomic Focus

Demonstration Focus

Heritage Focus

Horticultural Focus

Subantarctic

Greater Hobart

East Coast

Tasmanian

Foreshore

Remnant Grassland

Epacridaceae

Tasmanian Ferns

WSUD Garden

French Memorial

Visitor Centre Beds

Conservation and Research

Geographical Focus

Tasmanian Seed Conservation Centre

Conservation Collections (Potted)

Southern Hemisphere Geographical Focus

Taxonomic Focus

Horticultural Focus

New Zealand

Gondwana Terraces

Southern Hemisphere (Potted)

Southern Hemisphere Conifers (Potted)

Protea

Cultural and Ornamental

Horticultural Focus

Taxonomic Focus

Demonstration Focus

Bedding plants - including Floral Clock

Conservatory

Deciduous Trees – (incl. Oak Woodland)

Conifer Cultivars

Mixed Border (Friends Border, Rills, Lily Pond, Iris)

Rhododendrons & Camellias

Fuchsia House

Palm Collection

Asian Woodland

Salvia Collection

Magnoliaceae

Grey Foliage plants

Eucalypt Lawn

Conifer Species

Herb Garden

Pete's Patch/Economic

Easy Access Garden

Cacti & Succulents

Cultural and Ornamental (cont.)

Heritage Focus

Geographical Focus

Heritage Apples

Significant Trees

Cottage Garden

Japanese Garden

Chinese

Australian

Table 3.1 The Collections of the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens

Chapter 3 The Living Collections Today 21

3 . 2 O V E R V I E W O F T H E C O L L E C T I O N S

The following provides a précis of the background to and content of the

principle collections within each of the four collection categories.

3.2.1 Tasmanian Collections

As noted, the inclusion of Tasmanian native species in the Gardens was

encouraged by Lieutenant Governor Arthur as early 1827 and in recent years

there has been a growing understanding of the need to display Tasmanian

flora. Starting with no more than a dozen native plants scattered around the

grounds in the 1980s, the Gardens today holds eleven identified collections

displaying Tasmanian native species.

Geographic Focus

Principle amongst the geographically focused collections are the Subantarctic

Collection and the Tasmanian Native Garden (1991) being significant

drawcards for visitors to the Gardens, the former unique in the world.

The Subantarctic Plant House, opened in 2000, displays the flora of Macquarie

and Heard Islands and is the only facility of its type in the world. The collection

consists of 25 of the 41 vascular plant species considered to be native to

Macquarie Island8 as well as 5 of the 11species occurring on Heard Island.

Because of its uniqueness, the collection has been extensively used for

research. There is a large interpretation sign before the entry to the House

and panels within the House discussing the vegetation zones on Macquarie

Island, and a brochure is also available.

The Tasmanian Native Garden was established from wild-sourced Tasmanian

species laid out in habitat types ranging from coastal to alpine. While the

original design is still largely followed, the plants in the alpine/sub-alpine

portion of the garden failed to thrive and have been replanted with wet forest

species. All told, the Tasmanian Native Garden holds about one fifth of

Tasmania’s vascular flora (~300 species). Interpretation within the Tasmanian

Native Garden focuses on the authors of the four Tasmanian ‘floras’ that have

been written since settlement. Ronald Campbell Gunn, an important colonial

Tasmanian plant collector is also featured on a panel and in a Plant Explorers

brochure developed by the Gardens.

The Greater Hobart collection was planted in 1999 and consists of native

species that grow in and around Hobart and its environs from Snug to New

Norfolk and Richmond to South Arm. Most of the collection has been

8 Macquarie Island is a Tasmanian state reserve and Tasmania’s second World Heritage Area.


propagated by the RTBG from wild-sourced material. It contains around 80

species, some of which overlap with those in the Tasmanian section. This is

the only native in-ground collection that has any interpretation of threatened

species with about half a dozen species having small signs. The origin of the

collection is also briefly interpreted.

The East Coast collection is wild-sourced. Established in 2002. the collection

contains species from the east coast of Tasmania and Flinders Island. It also

includes about 80 species, again with some overlap with the Tasmanian and

Greater Hobart collections. There is no interpretation.

The Foreshore was rehabilitated with locally collected native species in 2002

using a grant from the Australian Government Envirofund. The rehabilitation

involved the mass planting of a small number of species found growing on the

Derwent foreshore9. There are two small remnant pieces of partially degraded

vegetation between the new plantings.

The remnant of grassland at the northern tip of the Gardens is a de facto

collection remaining largely undeveloped since the earliest fencing of the site

apart from some very limited over-planting of exotic trees. Nonetheless, the

area has been disturbed leading to some weed infestation. Recent change to

the mowing regime has, however, encouraged local grassland species to

increase in number. This area is not well understood and needs to be properly

surveyed to determine which species occur there.

Taxonomic Focus

The Fern House (built in 1964) was replanted in 2002 with wild collected

Tasmanian fern species. About 40% (~40) of Tasmania’s fern species are

represented. There is no interpretation.

The Epacridaceae collection, established in separate beds from the

Tasmanian section in 1994, is heavily infected with Phytophthora. The

disease has had a greater impact on this collection than any other and it is

accepted that a cyclic replacement is needed for plants affected by the

disease. The planting is broadly based on species from dolerite, sandstone

and granite soil types, grouped together and generalists planted throughout.

About 40% of Tasmania’s Epacridaceae species (~40) are represented. There

is no interpretation of the collection.

9 In this light, the Foreshore could be considered a horticultural planting.


Heritage Focus

The French Fountain was redeveloped in 2004 using nursery-sourced stock to

present the plant species collected in Tasmania by the French explorers of the

early 19th century using Labillardiere’s notes and plant lists. There is a

recently designed interpretation panel to this effect (as well as a second older

panel).

Demonstration Focus

The WSUD Garden was largely planted with nursery-bought plants in 2005

and contains species which cope with periodic inundation. A fact sheet

available on the WSUD Garden is available.

Horticultural Focus

The Visitor Centre beds are largely planted with nursery-bought Tasmanian

species. These beds, planted in 1999, were initially intended to be comprised

of horticultural selections of Tasmanian species but this has only been carried

out to a limited extent in two beds.

3.2.2 Conservation and Research Collections

The Conservation and Research Collections are made up of two

geographically focused collections: the Tasmanian Seed Conservation Centre

and the group of potted conservation collections.

Both collections are held in collaboration with a diverse group of organisations.

For instance, the RTBG has been listed as a participants in 9 of the 12

recovery plans prepared by the Threatened Species Section of DEPHA since

199610.

Both collections play an integrated role in this and other flora conservation

programs.

Tasmanian Seed Conservation Centre

The Tasmanian Seed Conservation Centre (TSCC) is a joint effort of the Royal

Botanic Gardens Kew, the Biodiversity Conservation Branch (BCB) of DPEHA,

the Tasmanian Herbarium (Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery) and the

RTBG.

The TSCC currently forms part of a global program known as the Millennium

Seed Bank Project, coordinated and funded in part by the Royal Botanical

10 Albeit, most recovery plans have not been implemented.


Gardens Kew Millennium Seed Bank, and instigated in 2004 with funding until

2010. The aim of the project is to:

Collect and conserve seed from some 24,000 species,

principally from drylands, by 2010; and

Develop relationships worldwide to facilitate research,

training and capacity-building in order to support and

advance the seed conservation effort11.

At a local level, the Seed Bank project aims to provide a means of conserving

the biodiversity of Tasmania’s flora via:

Ex-situ support for plant conservation programs;

Seed material to assist in the scientific study of our native

plants; and

Long–term preservation of plant biodiversity loss caused by

environmental degradation12.

The Centre is managed by a coordinator, with seed collection undertaken by

staff from the Resource Management and Conservation Unit (DEPHA), plus

staff from the RTBG and volunteers. Volunteers also support staff in the

laboratory.

Seed from viable in-situ specimens is collected, cleaned, dried and sealed in

packages for storage at -20°C. Half of the seed is stored at the RTBG

laboratory, the other half is sent to the Royal Botanical Gardens Kew for

inclusion in the Millennium Seed Bank, providing a backup in the event that

one collection is damaged or destroyed. Seeds are to be stored for 200 years

or more.

The seed bank has set a date of 2010 to meet Target 8 of the Botanic

Gardens Conservation International’s Global Strategy for Plant Conservation.

Target 8 : “60% of the threatened plant species in accessible ex-situ

collections, preferably in the country of origin, and 10 per cent of them

included in recovery and restoration programs.”

At the time of this writing, the TSCC had already collected 486 Tasmanian

native taxa since its inception in August 2005 and holds seed of 92 species

listed as threatened (21% of the total). Seed of some threatened species is

notoriously difficult to collect due to a number of factors. These include the 11 MSB project aim sourced from the ‘Seed Safe – helping to Secure a Biodiverse Future’ brochure, produced by the RTBG. 12 The aim of the Tasmanian Seed Conservation Centre has been sourced from the RTBG website.


degree of rarity – some species have very small populations or are poor seed

producers in the first place (e.g. Tetratheca gunnii) or often it is simply the

logistics of getting to remote places when the seed is ripe.

To overcome these limiting factors, the RTBG has produced potted specimens

of selected species to act as seed orchards (see Potted Conservation

Collection).

Ultimately, the seed bank will be the RTBG’s most effective conservation

instrument, although funding for the activities of the Centre is only secured up

until 2010 after which time alternative sources of funding may need to be

found.

The TSCC has only been interpreted by the RTBG through a single brochure

that gives a background to the collection. The TSCC will shortly release a

data base of its seed germination information via a website.

Potted Conservation Collections

The Potted Conservation Collection has been established in collaboration with

the Threatened Species Section of DEPHA and others and acts both as an

insurance against the loss of species in the wild and, in some cases, provides

material for translocation back into the wild13.

The RTBG currently maintains six threatened species in potted collections. All

of the species are at the highest level of risks on state (endangered under the

Threatened Species Protection Act 1995) and/or federal (critically endangered

under the environmental Protection Biodiversity and Conservation Act 1999)

registers.

Most of the potted collection has been propagated from cuttings and each is

maintained on a cyclic program of re-propagation to ensure there is viable

material for re-propagation. The maintenance of such collections requires a

considerable degree of effort in terms of propagation and maintenance of the

pots, as well as using up space on the Nursery benches.

An example of one species in the collection is the Davies Wax Flower,

Phebalium daviesii, which was listed as extinct until about 40 plants were re-

discovered growing near St Helens in 1990. The RTBG establishad an ex-situ

collection in 1995 and now holds 26 genotypes. The wild population has since

suffered losses and less than 20 genotypes now exist in the wild.

13 For instance, plants from the RTBG’s collection of Shy Susan (Tetratheca gunnii) have been returned to the wild in collaboration with the Threatened Species Section of DEPHA.


The seed dormancy of members of the plant family Rutaceae, to which Davies

Wax Flower belongs, is often problematic, meaning that the original collection

had to be established from cuttings. The advent of the Tasmanian Seed

Conservation Centre and its associated research into the germination of

Tasmanian native species could result in positive conservation outcomes for

species such as this.

At the time of writing, eight threatened species were being maintained in pots

for the purpose of creating seed orchards (see above). Six in the Nursery and

two by volunteers from the Understorey Network.

King’s Lomatia, Lomatia tasmanica, by comparison, is a sterile clone that does

not produce seed and it has proven particularly difficult to propagate using

traditional vegetative means. The RTBG, therefore, uses its collection of this

species to collaborate with the Plant Science Department of the University of

Tasmania to secure its future through tissue culture propagation.

3.2.3 Southern Hemisphere Collections

The Southern Hemisphere Collections are made up of the Southern

Hemisphere conifers (potted), the New Zealand collection and in-ground and

potted Gondwanan plants.

Whilst the New Zealand collection has a considerable historic background14

and is a major component of the Southern Hemisphere collections, the

emphasis on Southern Hemisphere and Gondwana species collections more

generally is a more recent development in the Gardens.

For instance, a conscious effort was made to build up a Southern Hemisphere

Conifer Collection in the late 1990s with donations from researchers at the

University of Tasmania. The collection is largely in pots and, therefore,

nursery based due to a lack of in-ground space15.

In recent years, the Gardens has received further donations of other conifers

and associated Gondwana species, the potted Southern Hemisphere conifer

collection now comprising over 60 species of the 160 species which are

restricted to the Southern Hemisphere. Half of these are listed as rare and

threatened under the IUCN red list and many are extremely rare in cultivation.

New Caledonia, the hot spot for southern conifers has 43 species, and the

RTBG holds roughly 50% of these.

14 First displayed under Newman the mid 19th century, and extolled in the early 20th century in a proposed Gardens’ walk by Superintendent John Wardman) (see Section 2.1). 15 A proposal to house the collection at the nearby Beaumaris Zoo site in 2003 which would have overcome this lack of space was not accepted (see Section 4 Issues for further discussions about the lack of space for expansion of collections within the Gardens). Note also, that a replicate set of these plants is held by the Tasmanian Arboretum.


The in-ground Gondwana collection has utilised the Gondwana Terraces

(north of the Anniversary Arch and below the Lily Pond). In recent years,

selections in this area have been supplemented by plantings of provenanced

Nothofagus species but much of the earlier planting in the terrace has been

poorly maintained and is in a substandard condition. Gondwanan species are

also held in pots augmenting the Southern Hemisphere conifer collection.

3.2.4 Cultural and Ornamental Collections

The diversity of the Cultural and Ornamental Collections reflects the varied

historical development of the Gardens and the eclectic botanical interests of its

employees and include groupings across all foci of collecting.

Geographical Focus

The major geographically focused collections are the Japanese Garden and

the Chinese Collection.

Although the Japanese Garden has some elements of a traditional Japanese

garden such as water features, bridges and a small-scale model of Mt Fuji, it

has never been maintained using conventional Japanese horticultural

techniques.

The Chinese plant section is a fully provenanced collection. To ensure the

focus is on the plant collection, the setting incorporates traditional garden

elements (stone lions, paving and balustrades) but has not been specifically

designed to represent a Chinese style of gardening.

Taxonomic Focus

C O N I F E R C O L L E C T I O N

The cultivation of conifers has been a strong focus throughout the history of

the RTBG. The early lithograph from Dumont D’Urville’s 1839-40 voyage seen

on the cover of this report, for instance, shows a Norfolk Island Pine in the

foreground and by the 1857 catalogue there were 135 conifer species listed as

growing in the Gardens16.

Today the Conifer Collection is a composite of the Conifer Cultivars Collection

and Southern Hemisphere Conifer collections and conifer species that do not

fall into either of these collections. In toto the Conifer Collection includes 230

species of conifer including 60 of the 69 extant genera of conifers in the world

and 60 of the 160 conifer species restricted to the Southern Hemisphere.

16 The 1857 catalogue was compiled by Newman courtesy of the Royal Society and is likely to be quite accurate.


There are also 230 horticultural selections of conifers in the Conifer Cultivar

Collection.

Amongst the species represented, some are extremely rare in cultivation. The

RTBG specimens of Chilgoza Pine and Pinus gerardiana are purported to be 3

of only 6 growing in Australia17. As noted, half of the species held in the potted

Southern Hemisphere Collection are listed as rare or threatened on the IUCN

red list and are extremely rare in cultivation.

The importance of the Conifer Collection is further highlighted by the inclusion

of 35 trees in the Significant Trees Collection (see below).

The extent and diversity of the collections and the rarity of some of the species

within it, then, makes the Conifer Collection one of the most significant

collections of conifers in the southern hemisphere18.

In addition to its botanical and conservation values, the Conifer Collection

contributes to the strong Gardenesque character of parts of the Gardens.

Indeed, conifers, particularly the Norfolk Island Pine, figure prominently in the

record of images of the Gardens as a strong and defining element of the place.

The conifer collection more generally forms a visual break between the

Gardens and the more natural areas of the Domain.

Historically, the RTBG also has a prominent history in the worldwide

distribution of the Norfolk Island Pine, much of the world’s early stock in

cultivation having been sourced from propagules from the Gardens in the

19th century.

Within Australia, Tasmania is the state climatically best suited for conifer

cultivation but in terms of longevity of species, the RTBG collection is relatively

young with the oldest specimens being less than 200 years old. For example

the Big Tree, Sequoiadendron giganteum, is estimated to have a lifespan of up

to 4000 years and the tallest recorded stands at 83.8m. In comparison, the

RTBG’s largest specimen, planted in the 1880s, is 36m. Sequoiadendron

giganteum was a popular planting in Australian parks in the1860s and 1870s

but many specimens interstate are now suffering crown dieback probably from

adverse environmental conditions.

The lifespan of mature specimens in the Conifer Species collection is difficult

to predict, in part due to the lack of prior experience in the cultivation of these

17 Note, these trees do not seem to produce viable seed and if it was decided the trees should be replaced at the end of their lives, the lack of viable seed could be problematical. 18 In reality, there are few conifer collections in the Southern Hemisphere including a few in New Zealand, some relatively small collections in South Africa, Argentina and Uruguay. So there is little competition to this claim.


species under local Tasmanian conditions. Four of the larger specimens have

required cabling, and limb drop has been a problem in some species during

strong winds or after hot weather.

Despite the world importance of the Conifer Collection there is no in-ground

interpretation to this effect.

Demonstration

The demonstration collections include Pete’s Patch and the Easy Access

Garden.

Pete’s Patch has been the centerpiece used by ABC Television’s Gardening

Australia presenter, Peter Cundall, to demonstrate the workings of a backyard

organic vegetable garden. The program has been a drawcard for visitors with

many specifically asking where Pete’s Patch is on arrival. Peter’s recent

retirement from the show will likely result in a shift in priorities for the ABC and

how it makes use of the RTBG as a backdrop to its various set pieces.

The Community Garden program is based in the Easy Access Garden with its

raised beds, but the program utilizes a number of other collections including

the Herb Garden. Whilst use of the Easy Access Gardens is high, it is seldom

used for the purposes which it was originally intended (i.e. for gardening by

disabled people in wheelchairs).

Heritage Focus

The principle collection with a heritage focus is the Significant Tree Collection.

Other groups with a similar focus include the Cottage Garden and the Heritage

Apples Collections.

S I G N I F I C A N T T R E E S C O L L E C T I O N

The RTBG currently has 63 living entries on the National Trust of Tasmania’s

Register of Significant Trees. This includes 61 individual trees and 2

collections (the Oaks and Palms) totalling 105 specimens in all19.

The National Trust’s Register records trees of special significance within the

state. To qualify for inclusion, trees must fall into one of at least 10 categories.

This includes trees of outstanding aesthetic significance, trees that

commemorate particular individuals or events, trees that are rare in cultivation

and trees that are old or of venerable age. Category 6 refers to tree(s) that

19 Like the Conifer Collection, individual trees may be included in more than one collection. For instance, the conifers listed as significant trees are also included in the Conifer Collection, the oaks as part of the Deciduous Tree Collection, the palms and part of the Palm Collection, etc.


are an important part of an historic site or garden, or a park or town, and in

theory all the ~2500 plants in the Gardens over 3m tall fall into this category.

Nonetheless, those on the Register warrant special mention, particularly for

their contribution to the historic Gardensque qualities of the RTBG landscape.

Placement on the Register does not impose any legal requirement to preserve

the tree but the RTBG is listed on the Tasmanian Heritage Register (Identifier

No. 2927). The Tasmanian Heritage Register does impose statutory

requirements with regard to historic plantings. Practice Notes 13 –The

Approval Process for Historic Plantings states that approval must be sought for

substantial works that may shorten the life of a tree or for removals. Practice

Note 14 – The Long Term Maintenance of Historic Plantings discusses factors

to be assessed when making replacement plantings.

The diversity of the Significant Tree Collection is evident in the range of

specimens on the Register. These range from the 3m tall Anchor Plant,

Colletia paradoxa, which has been listed due to its rarity in cultivation, to the

Big Tree, Sequoiadendron giganteum which has been listed for its size, age

and aesthetic beauty.

The Significant Tree Collection has been valued using the Thyer Tree

Valuation Method, based on factors such as the age, size and condition of the

tree and the significance of the tree in the landscape. The 105 specimens that

make up the collection were valued at over $4,800,00020. Individual valuations

range from around $4000 for the Anchor Plant to $152,000 for the Big Tree.

Each tree in the Significant Tree Collection has a special label identifying that

it is on the Register. A brochure for a Significant Trees Walk is also available.

Horticultural Focus

Collections with a horticultural focus typically hold a high amenity value and

include the Conservatory and Bedding plants and the recently refurbished

Friends Mixed Border. The Rhododendron and Camellia Collection provides

mass colour in late winter and spring, and like a number of other collections is

dispersed across the Gardens, rather than restricted to a single area. The

Salvia Collection flowers from spring through to autumn and is optimally

placed to be seen at its best advantage from the Restaurant above..

20 Note, the Thyer valuation method was extrapolated across the whole of the tree collection in the Gardens of 1400 specimens, with the total worth of the tree collection being $27.5 million dollars. A calculation of tree losses between 1996 and 2006 (about 200 trees including the Armillaria eradication) indicated that trees to the value of $3.8 million were lost from the collection at the time. More recently the blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) removed from the lower Gardens was valued at $105,000.


The Deciduous Tree Collection is likewise dispersed throughout the Gardens.

The Oak Woodland is a major focus, particularly in autumn.

4 . T H E V A L U E O F T H E L I V I N G C O L L E C T I O N S

4 . 1 T H E C O N T R I B U T I O N O F T H E L I V I N G C O L L E C T I O N S T O

T H E V A L U E S O F T H E R T B G

At the broadest over-arching level, the living collections form the raison d’etre

for the Gardens. The values of the Gardens in toto, including the living

collections, have been described in detail in the Royal Tasmanian Botanical

Gardens Strategic Master Plan 2008-202821 (SMP) and include:

remnant natural biological values;

cultural values including Aboriginal heritage values, historic

heritage values, landscape values and sense of place

values;

recreation, tourism and education values; and

conservation and research values.

The living collections as a whole, contribute to each of these values in a

variety of ways. For instance, the Gardens include areas of remnant native

vegetation (albeit extremely limited in extent) and elsewhere holds plants that

were once used by Aboriginal people for a variety of purposes. These areas

and plants are, therefore, important to the contemporary Aboriginal community

for the linkages they provide to their rich culture.

The living collections also contribute to the heritage values of the RTBG as

artifacts of the historic development of the site from its earliest beginnings as a

subsistence colony to its contemporary role in global conservation and the

exchange of scientific knowledge.

At a regional level, the living collections are readily identifiable in the

landscape of the City as an “oasis of green” in the local population’s

perception of the image of their city and a “lush” relief from the dry continent

for interstate and international visitors. At a detailed level, the living collections

are the basis for the beauty of the Gardens. The Gardens also give visual

delight to all who come and form a refuge where some seek peace with

themselves and the world. The vegetation of the Gardens also frames views

from the RTBG to the wider landscape, creating scenes of great beauty.

21 Inspiring Place 2008. ibid.


Importantly, the living collections contribute to the uniqueness of living in

Hobart and Tasmania: to its sense of place. That is, the living collections can

help people define the uniqueness of this place, which in turn contributes to

their self-definition as Hobartians, Tasmanians or citizens of the world.

The living collections as a whole also have considerable value for their

recreation, tourism and educational values that act as a backdrop of great

beauty or as point of difference to encourage visitation. The living collections

also provide open learning opportunities and act as a focus for specific

educational programs.

The conservation and research value of the living collections is evidenced by

the high degree of technical achievement in the establishment of over 6000

species, varieties and cultivars of plants, held in 45 identifiable collections

amongst which are:

collections of international significance including the

Tasmanian Seed Conservation Centre, the Conifer

Collection and the potted Southern Hemisphere Collection;

collections of 12 species of exceptional significance for their

rarity as recognised by the Threatened Species Protection

Act 1995 and the Environmental Protection and

Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999;

individual specimens of over 100 of the 400 threatened

species listed under the Threatened Species Protection Act

1995 and others of internationally rare and/or endangered

species:

~30 species listed as threatened under the IUCN Red List;

and

105 trees listed on the National Trust Register of Significant

Trees.

Chapter 4 The Value of the Living Collections 35

4 . 2 T H E V A L U E O F I N D I V I D U A L C O L L E C T I O N S

Whilst an understanding of the value of the living collections as a whole is

illuminating, a more detailed consideration of the individual collections is

required if the Gardens is to achieve its greatest value.

4.2.1 Method of Assessing Individual Collections

As noted, there are 45 individual living collections within the Gardens each

with varying degrees of importance to its value.

To understand the value of the 45 collections in the Gardens, a unique method

of assessing them was developed as part of the planning for the master

planning project22 and refined during the preparation of the RTBG Living

Collections Plan.

This section describes the methods used in determining the value of the

individual Living Collections.

Note that the assessment reflects the views of the RTBG Living Collections

Working Group of the value of the collections at February 2008 and does not

take into account any latent potential. Some of the collections with low scores

have the potential for development against one or more of the attributes and in

some cases minimal change could add significant value to a collection. On the

other hand, a low score may indicate that a collection is not relevant to the

future directions of the RTBG.

Attribute Classes

Living collections have a range of attributes that can be used to distinguish

one collection from another. These attributes can be clustered into three

principle attribute classes:

Defining attributes or those that define what it means to be

the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens [consultant’s

emphasis] (i.e. the relevance to the region’s flora and those

collections with historical significance to the Gardens) or

those attributes that more generally define a botanic garden

including plants having conservation or botanical attributes

of interest.

22 See Strategic Master Plan Request for Tender – Stage 2 Version 5, 05.10.05.


Use attributes or those that relate to the ways that a

collection is interpreted and used by both the public and the

RTBG itself. These are seen to include interpretive,

educational, tourism, commercial and spiritual

considerations.

Managerial attributes or those that relate to the amenity

aspects of a collection and the suitability of local conditions

for the collection. These are seen to include horticultural

and site suitability considerations.

Attribute Rating Criteria

Each of the three attribute classes was then further distinguished by a range of

specific considerations against which they were assessed for their value.

Table 4.1 shows each of the attribute classes, their distinguishing attributes

and the assessment criteria for each of these.

Scoring Against Attributes

Each attribute was then scored on a scale from 1 to 5 against the criteria with

a score of 1 representing collections that did not meet or poorly met the listed

criteria for that attribute and 5 for those that met the criteria well. The scores

were then weighted by multiplying the Defining Attributes x 3, Use Attributes x

1.5 and managerial Attributes x 1.

The weighting gives:

an emphasis to the defining values as these represent the

principle reason for the continued existence of the Gardens

(as opposed to say, converting the area to a park);

a lesser emphasis to the use benefits, in part to balance the

effect of the total tally of benefits, given the number of

attributes grouped in this class; and

a base rating to the managerial attributes as these are a

fundamental to any botanic garden.


Class of Attributes

Attribute Assessment Criteria

Defining

Regional

collections with valid connections to our region;

collections that are Tasmanian in origin (including Macquarie island);

collections that are Australian in origin;

collections that have a southern hemisphere distribution; and

collections with Gondwana origins.

Conservation

viable potted and seed ex-situ collections;

collections of Tasmanian species that are listed on the IUCN Red List and/or under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1955 and/or the Federal Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999;

ex-situ potted and seed collections with a representative number of genotypes from within or between population/s; and

collections of listed species in DPWI Threatened Species Recovery Plans.

Botanical

collections with scientific integrity;

collections of known wild provenance;

collections with detailed field collection records;

collections with herbarium voucher specimens; and

collections based on taxonomic principles with a comprehensive representation of taxa.

Historical

collections originating from or representing the heritage fabric of the Gardens or elements of Tasmania’s botanical history;

the mature canopy of trees originating from Victorian plantings;

the Gardenesque Victorian elements in the landscape such as the palms;

plantings based on records of early plant lists from the RTBG; and

collections relating to Tasmania’s botanical history.

Use

Interpretive

collections currently covered by interpretive media other than plant labels;

collections with in-ground interpretive signage;

collections with associated pamphlets;

collections interpreted in RTBG displays; and

collections interpreted on the RTBG web site.

Educational

collections currently used for education purposes;

collections used for the schools program;

collections used for the community garden program; and

collections used for Green Thumbs and Explore programs.

Tourism

collections that specifically draw tourists to the RTBG;

collections that are unique to the RTBG such as the Subantarctic Plant House and Tasmanian collections;

collections of high ornamental value such as the Conservatory; and

collections centred on events such as the Tulip Festival.

Commercial

income generating collections;

collections used as sites to for income generating activities such as weddings, naming ceremonies and memorials and other functions; and

collections providing material for income generating activities such as plant sales.

Spiritual

collections that have spiritual associations (Note: this attribute was not assessed due to the difficulty and costs of gaining information about reliable indicators).

Managerial

Horticultural

collections with high amenity value;

collections with strong visual appeal;

collections displaying a range of horticultural selections; and

collections that display current trends in horticulture.


Class of Attributes

Attribute Assessment Criteria

Site Suitability23

local environmental and artificial factors which influence the cultivation of collections;

soil type and drainage;

water availability and type of irrigation;

slope and aspect;

local climate;

adjacent plants; and

adjoining infrastructure.

Table 4.1 Attribute Classes, Attributes and Assessment Criteria

4.2.2 The Results - The Values of Individual Living Collections

Table 4.2 shows the findings of the assessment process. Within the table

attributes have been rated 1-5 and sub-totals have been provided for each

attribute class and then a total score for each collection.

In terms of the attributes that were assessed, the table indicates that amongst:

all classes:

the Sub-Antarctic collection (68.5), the Tasmanian

Native Garden (67.5), the Tasmanian Seed

Conservation Centre (66), the Potted Conservation

Collection (62.5) and the Conifer Species Collection

(62) have the highest overall ratings followed by the

plants of the Conservatory (57), Greater Hobart

(55.5) and the Tasmanian Ferns (55);

the Tasmanian Seed Conservation Centre) (48) and

the Potted Conservation Collections (48) , have the

highest ratings in terms of defining the Gardens

followed in order by more moderately rated

collections including the Tasmanian Native Garden,

the Greater Hobart Garden and the East Coast

Garden (39) and the Sub-Antarctic, Tasmanian

Ferns, Epacridacea and the Potted Southern

Hemisphere Collections (36);

23 Poor site suitability is, in part, evidenced by negative factors such as the cost of maintaining a collection including the labour, energy or watering intensity required for its maintenance.


Use Classes

the plantings of the Conservatory (30) have the

highest rating for its use attributes followed by

Pete’s Patch and the Japanese Gardens (27); and

Managerial Classes

the Conservatory and the Mixed Border (9) have the

highest rating for their managerial attributes

followed by a large cluster of collections rated 8.

Looking at the attributes individually, the horticultural and site suitability

attributes rate highest (122 and 128 respectively), reflecting the skill of the

RTBG staff in establishing and maintaining the Gardens.

The table reveals that the RTBG’s regional (112) and botanical values (104)

along with its educational values (87) and tourism values (84) achieved more

modest ratings.

Collection

Reg

ion

al

Co

nse

rvat

ion

Bo

tan

ical

His

tori

cal

Su

b-T

ota

l (w

eig

hte

d b

y 3,

hig

hes

t p

oss

ible

sc

ore

60)

Inte

rpre

tati

on

Ed

uca

tio

nal

Tou

rism

Rec

reat

ion

al

Co

mm

erci

al

Sp

irit

ual

Su

b-T

ota

l (w

eig

hte

d b

y 1.

5, h

igh

est

po

ssib

le

sco

re 3

7.5)

Ho

rtic

ult

ura

l

Sit

e S

uit

abili

ty

Man

agem

ent

Su

b-T

ota

l (u

nw

eig

hte

d,

hig

hes

t p

oss

ible

sco

re

10)

Ove

rall

Sco

res

(ou

t o

f 10

7.5)

TASMANIAN

Geographical FocusSubantarctic 5 1 5 1 36 5 5 5 1 1 25.5 4 3 7 68.5Tasmanian Native Garden 5 1 5 2 39 3 5 5 1 1 22.5 3 3 6 67.5Greater Hobart 5 2 5 1 39 3 1 1 1 1 10.5 3 3 6 55.5East Coast 5 2 5 1 39 1 1 1 1 1 7.5 3 3 6 52.5Foreshore 5 2 3 1 33 1 1 1 1 1 7.5 1 4 5 45.5Remnant Grassland 3 2 3 1 27 1 1 1 1 1 7.5 1 4 5 39.5Taxonomic FocusTasmanian Ferns 5 1 5 1 36 1 3 2 1 1 12 4 3 7 55Epacridaceae 5 1 5 1 36 1 1 1 1 1 7.5 2 1 3 46.5Demonstration FocusWSUD Garden 5 1 1 1 24 3 2 1 1 1 12 2 1 3 39Heritage FocusFrench Memorial 4 1 3 3 33 3 1 1 2 1 12 3 3 6 51Horticultural FocusVisitor Centre Beds 5 1 3 1 30 1 1 1 1 1 7.5 3 3 6 43.5CONSERVATION & RESEARCHGeographical FocusTasmanian Seed Conservation Centre 5 5 5 1 48 2 3 1 1 1 12 1 5 6 66Conservation Collections (Potted) 5 5 5 1 48 1 2 2 1 1 10.5 1 3 4 62.5SOUTHERN HEMISPHEREGeographical Focus

Southern Hemisphere (Potted) 4 3 4 1 36 1 1 1 1 1 7.5 2 1 3 46.5

New Zealand 4 1 1 4 30 1 2 1 1 1 9 2 3 5 44

Gondwana Terraces 4 1 3 1 27 1 1 1 1 1 7.5 3 3 6 40.5

Taxonomic FocusSouthern Hemisphere Conifers (Potted) 4 3 3 1 33 1 1 1 1 1 7.5 2 1 3 43.5Horticultural FocusProtea 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 7.5 1 3 4 23.5CULTURAL & ORNAMENTALGeographical FocusJapanese Garden 1 1 1 1 12 2 3 5 4 4 27 4 3 7 46Chinese 1 1 4 1 21 2 2 3 2 1 15 4 4 8 44Australian 4 1 1 1 21 1 1 1 1 1 7.5 1 2 3 31.5Taxonomic FocusConifer Species 1 1 4 5 33 1 4 3 3 3 21 4 4 8 62Eucalypt Lawn 5 1 1 1 24 1 1 1 3 1 10.5 3 3 6 40.5Demonstration FocusPete's Patch/Economic 1 1 1 1 12 3 5 5 2 3 27 4 4 8 47Easy Access Garden 1 1 1 1 12 1 5 1 4 5 24 2 2 4 40Herb Garden 1 1 1 1 12 3 3 3 2 1 18 3 4 7 37

Cacti & Succulents 1 1 3 1 18 2 5 1 1 1 15 3 1 4 37

Heritage FocusSignificant Trees 1 1 1 3 18 3 3 2 3 1 18 4 4 8 44Cottage Garden 1 1 1 5 24 2 1 1 1 1 9 4 4 8 41Heritage Apples 3 1 1 1 18 1 2 1 1 1 9 2 2 4 31Horticultural FocusConservatory 1 1 1 3 18 2 3 5 5 5 30 5 4 9 57Bedding plants - including Floral Clock 1 1 1 4 21 1 1 5 1 5 19.5 5 3 8 48.5Deciduous Trees – (elms and oaks) 1 1 1 2 15 1 3 4 3 3 21 3 3 6 42Palm collection 1 1 2 4 24 1 1 1 2 1 9 3 4 7 40Fuchsia House 1 1 3 2 21 1 1 3 1 1 10.5 3 4 7 38.5Mixed Border (Friends Border,Rills, Lily Pond, Iris)

1 1 1 1 12 3 2 3 2 1 16.5 5 4 9 37.5

Salvia Collection 1 1 3 1 18 1 2 2 1 1 10.5 4 4 8 36.5Magnoliaceae 1 1 2 1 15 1 1 1 1 3 10.5 3 3 6 31.5Rhododendrons & Camellias 1 1 2 1 15 1 1 2 1 1 9 3 2 5 29Grey Foliage plants 1 1 1 1 12 1 2 1 1 1 9 4 4 8 29Asian Woodland 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 7.5 3 3 6 25.5Conifer Cultivars 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 7.5 2 3 5 24.5Sub-Total 112 58 104 68 68 87 84 66 65 122 128Possible Total 210 210 210 210 60 210 210 210 210 210 37.5 210 210 10 107.5

Table 4.2 Assessment of the Living Collections

Use Attributes Managerial AttributesDefinining Attributes

5 I S S U E S A R I S I N G F O R T H E M A N A G E M E N T O F T H E L I V I N G C O L L E C T I O N S

Previous sections highlighted:

the importance of the living collections as the core business

of the RTBG, around which most all other roles and

functions, including interpretation, education and marketing

are based; and

the diversity of the collections, ranging from those of

historical significance, to contemporary collections

emphasising Tasmanian species, cool climate Southern

Hemisphere species and species of conservation

significance; and

the values which arise from the living collections and the

strengths of particular collections across a range of

attributes.

Prior discussion also indicated the lack of a clear direction for the development

of the collections in the absence of an agreed strategic framework for the

Gardens.

This section, then, addresses how the management of the collections into the

future will achieve the vision, mission, goals, policy framework and interpretive

themes of the Gardens (the strategic framework) as set out in the Royal

Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Strategic Master Plan 2008-2028.

Three clusters of issues will need to be addressed including those:

arising from the adoption of the vision, mission, goals,

policy framework and interpretive themes adopted by the

Strategic Master Plan (Section 5.1);

identified by the analysis of the collections against their

various attributes (Section 5.2); and

concerning matters of day to day operations and the

management of flora and plant collections (Section 5.3).


5 . 1 I S S U E S I N R E L A T I O N T O T H E V I S I O N , M I S S I O N ,

G O A L S A N D P O L I C Y F R A M E W O R K O F T H E S M P

The living collections are the principle means through which the vision,

mission, goals and interpretive themes of the Strategic Master Plan will be

expressed (see Attachment A). The issues arising from the adoption of this

strategic direction include:

Issue 1 Focus of the Collections

Analysis of the collections indicates there is a disconnection between many of

the existing collections and the mission, objectives, goals and interpretation

themes that are stated in the SMP.

There is a need, then, to focus collections on Tasmanian species, related cool

climate species from the Southern Hemisphere and/or species of conservation

significance whilst continuing to manage some areas of the Gardens for their

heritage values (including setting).

The assessment of the living collections (described in Section 4.2) shows the

strengths and weaknesses of each collection in relation this new strategic

focus (see Section 5.2). By contrast the assessment also shows the great

benefits to be gained by bringing the collections into alignment with the

strategic direction of the SMP. For instance, the Sub-Antarctic collection and

the Tasmanian Native Garden rate highly as regional and botanical collections

and in turn draw high ratings against their interpretation, education and tourism

attributes indicating the degree to which the Gardens has capitalised on the

unique attributes of these collections.

Issue 2 Lack of Clear Policies – Establishing New Collections

There is a lack of a clear policy position relating to the establishment of new

collections and/or the renewal or removal of existing collections. As noted

above, collections have been largely developed in an ad hoc or opportunistic

manner. The development of clearer policies herein (Section 6) will provide

greater direction and certainty to decision makers about where and how to

develop the collections more in line with the strategic directions of the SMP

(Section 7).

Chapter 5 Management Issues 43

Issue 3 Lack of Clear Policies – De-Accession

The lack of clear policies has also resulted in uncertainty about the de-

accession of plants and collections.

At the broad level, it is recognised that whole collections and/or individual

plants may have little value to the vision, mission, goals or interpretive themes

and take up valuable space that might be put to better use.

At the specific level, there is a great deal of uncertainty about how to manage

mature tree senescence. This is particularly important given there is a large

number of mature trees in the Significant Trees and Conifer collections that

are within the same age cohort and have heritage significance. Furthermore,

many of these could reach the end of their life span within a similar time frame,

and leave large open spaces, changing the historical landscape of the Garden,

and potentially having an impact on the perceptions of visitors and the

reputation of the RTBG24.

It is important, therefore, to have guidance as to which species, or plantings

should replace these trees when the decision is made that they should be

removed and more broadly how irrelevant collections might be removed or

renewed to bring greater benefit to the Gardens .

Issue 4 Lack of Botanical Integrity

As mentioned, the often serendipitous manner in which specimens have been

chosen or collections developed means that few of the existing collections are

of a known provenance. Known provenance is scientifically and historically

important and critical to gardens that seek to meet high conservation

standards such as the RTBG. Consideration will need to be given, then, to

developing collections or replacing collections with materials that are

accurately sourced.

In saying this, it is important to note that there are difficulties surrounding the

importation of living materials that will make achievement of this aim more

problematic in the future than it might once have been (see Section 5.3,

Quarantine).

24 N.B. The time frame in which various tree species will senesce is uncertain, as there is not enough available data about the lifespan of trees in cultivation relative to those in their natural setting. In some cases, the time periods could be 50+ years or more.


Issue 5 Lack of Space

As mentioned the Gardens has a finite area in which to express its vision. At

present there is little space that can be readily be used to develop new

collections or to expand collections that meet the strategic framework for the

Gardens.

For instance, the Southern Hemisphere Collection has been held in pots since

1998. Ideally the collection would be planted as a whole in a single location.

However, if there is no opportunity to secure ground to plant the whole

collection, it may be necessary to split the collection into related parts and

plant them in several locations or to consider using the individual species as

replacement plantings for mature conifers as they die.

The Tasmanian category of collections is a good example where the lack of

space limits the capacity of these collections to grow. For instance, in an ideal

situation, the Gardens would hold a representative sample of all of the

eucalypts found in Tasmania (30 species), instead only seven are held as in

ground specimens.

Presently, the Tasmanian category collections range in area from 100m2 for

the Water Sensitive Urban Design Garden (WSUD) to 750m2 for the

Tasmanian Native Garden and with the other collections in this category

occupy only 2.5% of the Gardens proper.

Efforts to find space are hampered by existing collections about which there is

no clear policy or rationale for removal (see above) and/or the extent of area

occupied by collections of known significance. It will be important, therefore,

to identify those areas within the Gardens where new collections might be

developed, where existing collections might be renewed and/or where

collections might be wholly removed to better address the strategic directions

of the SMP.


5 . 2 I S S U E S I D E N T I F I E D B Y T H E E V A L U A T I O N O F T H E

C O L L E C T I O N S

At the broad level, the analysis of the collections shows the relatively low total

scores achieved by any one collection, the highest rating collections amassing

only slightly more than half of the available score – this suggests room for

across the board improvement in even the most highly valued of the

collections.

More specifically there is a need to:

strengthen the defining attributes in each of the collections if

the Gardens is to clearly differentiate itself from other

botanic gardens (Issue 6);

gain greater return from the collections in terms of their use

benefits (Issue 7); and

better interpret the collections as the principle means of

deriving greater benefit from them (Issue 8).

Issue 6 Strengthening the Defining Attributes – Making the Most of the Points of Difference

In looking at the attribute classes, the analysis revealed relatively low scores

for the definitional attributes against their total possible scores with none of the

attribute sets reaching 50% of their possible score. These low results indicate

great scope to do better in matching the collections to the strategic direction

for the Gardens.

In particular, the collections scored:

only moderately well against the regional and botanical

attributes suggesting the need to strengthen the

representation of Tasmanian species and associated cool

climate Southern Hemisphere plants in the Gardens and the

botanical integrity of collections, particularly in the Cultural

and Ornamental collections category;

very low against the conservation attribute (the lowest score

of any attribute) indicating the degree to which much

greater conservation value needs to be injected into the

collections as whole if the Gardens is to meet its mission;

and


the relatively low score against the heritage attribute overall

and the concentration of higher scores against a few key

collections which indicates that the heritage values of the

Gardens are located in specific collections and areas rather

than being a feature of the Gardens as a whole.

Issue 7 Limited Return from Collections

The relatively low scores across all of the use attributes suggest that the

Gardens is not getting enough ‘return’ on its investment. At a broad level, the

Tasmanian, Conservation and Research and Southern Hemisphere categories

of collections scored lowly against use attributes. In particular, there are no

use benefits derived from these collections suggesting a potentially untapped

resource for garnering additional value from the Gardens.

The scores also show that there is no direct correlation between high scores

for definitional attributes and high returns in terms of use. For instance, there

is a strong disconnection between the high definitional scores of the

Conservation and Research Collections and their low scores against their use

attributes. The same is true for the Tasmanian Ferns and the Epacridaceae.

Together, this suggests that many ‘point of difference’ collections are not being

‘used’ in any significant way resulting in a loss of benefits to the Gardens. By

comparison great benefits are derived from the Sub-Antarctic and Tasmanian

collections, albeit these could generate greater value if approached differently.

Alternatively, strong scores against use attributes do not necessarily correlate

with strong definitional values. Here, the Cultural and Ornamental category of

collections is a good example, scoring much more highly against use attributes

than definitional ones. This situation is particularly evident in cultural and

ornamental collections with a demonstration focus (such as the Cacti and

Succulent collection and the Easy Access Garden). These collections bring a

range of benefits across a number of attributes but have almost no relationship

to the key defining attributes of the Gardens. This suggests that these

collections could be adapted to better represent the mission of the Gardens if

this did not result in a loss of return or reduced in scale to allow other more

appropriate development to occur.

The scores also show some interesting results including:

the low ranking of the recreational attributes of the Gardens

which suggests that the recreational benefits are not

derived so much from the collections themselves but from

the spatial qualities they produce as a setting for recreation;


the correlation between the collections that produced low or

moderate scores and those that the staff of the RTBG

thought could be most readily replaced including the

collections of conifer cultivars (low), the Asian woodlands

(moderate) and the Protea and Erica collections (low)

(albeit staff recognised that these collections could be

redeveloped to achieve higher definitional values and

therefore higher scores);

the disjunction between the high score for the definitional

attributes of the WSUD garden and against its low

horticultural score which suggests the need to improve its

appearance if the community is to be encouraged to take up

WSUD techniques;

the disparity between the exceptional historic value of the

Gardens and the limited number of collections that

contribute to this value albeit the significant heritage trees

that have a high historic significance are widely spread

through more collections than the table would lead one to

believe – this ranking also possibly suggests that the

historic values of the Gardens are more in the built fabric,

the arrangement and design of the place or the combination

of effects that these contribute to the setting;

the limited commercial return from the economic garden

and veggie patch – this is surprising considering the

popularity of Pete’s Patch and the wide potential for

merchandising that it presents;

the moderate (New Zealand and Gondwana collections) or

low (Proteas and Ericas) rating of collections which are of a

southern hemisphere origin or affinity and have the potential

to more strongly contribute to a collection featuring such

plants; and

the limited use benefits derived from the foreshore and the

remnant bushland at the north of the Gardens.

Importantly, the findings suggest that without reinvigoration of the collections,

there is the potential that the Gardens will appear out of date to or out of touch

with the daily lives of visitors.


Issue 8 Limited Interpretation

The analysis of the collections herein highlights the current limited use of

interpretation to tell the stories of the Gardens. The low scores for the

collections interpretation attributes suggests the under-realised potential of

interpretation to benefit the Gardens and its many visitors.

The low scores against interpretation when seen in conjunction with the only

moderate score against tourism values also suggests considerable

opportunities to improve the experience of the Gardens for tourists in

particular.

The lack of interpretation of the collections is compounded by the fragmented

way in which it is presented, mostly in the passive form.

These issues have long been recognised by the Gardens and are reflected in

the fact that the preparation of the RTBG Interpretation Plan 2008-2013 and

the RTBG Conservation Management Plan 2008-2013 were prerequisite plans

accompanying the preparation of the SMP.

5 . 3 I S S U E S I D E N T I F I E D W I T H T H E E S T A B L I S H M E N T A N D

C A R E O F T H E L I V I N G C O L L E C T I O N S

The work on the Living Collections Plan identified a further suite of

management concerns that relate to the establishment and care of the living

collections.

Issue 9 Obtaining Plants and Plant Materials

The establishment of new collections is potentially affected by issues

surrounding quarantine requirements regarding the importation of plants25 to

the State, and the lack of an adequately isolated quarantine facility at the

RTBG for plants that do come in. Quarantine requirements particularly affect

the procurement of some cool climate species that have slow growth rates

(plants are required to exhibit a certain level of vegetative growth for

quarantine assessment before they are released).

The issues around quarantine require long-term planning in the development

of collections and have implications for the types of collections that can be

established.

Obtaining plants and plant materials from the wild is also difficult. Expeditions

to gather materials are expensive and costly of staff time. Beyond cost and

25 Note that quarantine does not apply to the importation of seed or in vitro materials.


time interstate and/or international collecting trips are made more problematic

by the quarantine issues raised above.

Issue 10 Pests and Disease

The RTBG living collection is impacted on by the presence of both disease

pathogens and pest organisms. The issues arising point to the need for clear

procedures to limit prevent, mitigate and/or eliminate their presence in the

Gardens.

P A T H O G E N S

Issues associated with pathogens in the Gardens are considered to be

relatively well documented, with the soil borne diseases Phytophthora and

Armillaria comprising the most significant risks.

In recent years, major disease problems have been caused by the root rot

pathogens Armillaria luteobubalina and Phytophthora cinnamomi and by

Conifer (Cypress) Canker (Seiridium unicorne). Armillaria and Phytophthora

are both opportunistic diseases becoming significantly more prevalent and

active when other contributing factors allow for their establishment, including

excavation works and general soil disturbance.

Almost 200 plants and 2500m3 of soil containing infected material were

removed from 1996-1998 in an effort to control Armillaria. The disease has

largely been controlled except for one small area that has had recurrent

outbreaks and now contains an infected olive tree. This tree and its

surrounding root mass and soil has been programmed for removal and annual

monitoring for the disease continues each autumn. Elsewhere, Armillaria likely

remains present in a dormant state in some limited areas of the Gardens.

Phytophthora cinnamomi was introduced to or invaded the Gardens either

through cultivation or through the importation of garden materials and has

been present for some time. The distribution of Phytophthora has been

mapped in the Gardens and it still continues to kill plants by root rot in infected

areas. Apart from phosphonate application, there is no treatment, so this

disease is contained (i.e. not extended to uninfected areas) by following

designated hygiene procedures.

Although Phytophthora presently poses more of a problem for the Gardens

than Armillaria, a cure for either of the diseases is unlikely and the control

measures now in place are the best means of preventing further infection.


Conifer (Cypress) Canker (Seiridium unicorne) is also present and has been

identified and documented as a significant disease in the garden. It is a

disfiguring disease affecting plants within the family Cupressaceae (e.g. the

family of conifers with shortened and compressed needles). Monitoring the

disease, removing infected material where appropriate and taking action to

reduce the spread of the disease has some effectiveness in limiting the impact

of this disease.

A range of other plant diseases of localised distribution are also encountered

from time to time as many of these lie dormant until conditions become

favourable for their establishment. Amongst these are Sclerotinia spp. and

Botrytis spp., both soil-dwelling fungi that have long-lived spore forms. These

disease outbreaks are precipitated by high humidity and plant density,

aggravated in some of the older beds by the fact that they have been in

continuous display use for over 30 years. The probability that the soil is

heavily and permanently contaminated is high. Recent changes should

improve the situation – the older beds have been de-commissioned and new

ones developed.

Sclerotinia (white rot) is a particular problem for summer annuals affecting

pithy-stemmed annuals including marigolds, dahlias, salvias, petunias,

lobelias, ageratum, zinnias and rudbeckia. Efforts to control the disease have

been to use more resistant species, crop rotation and a routine spray program

but the reality is the disease will continue to appear because the soil is, to all

intents, permanently infected.

More recently, impatiens have been affected by a fungal disease (Impatiens

Downy Mildew) originating in plugs supplied by an interstate company. Again,

being a fungal disease, the bed that the infected plants grew in will now be

contaminated by fungal spores and impatiens will no longer be able to be

planted in the ground, only in the Conservatory.

Other diseases have been known to enter the Gardens via insect vectors,

pruning tools, garden machinery and/or imported garden and construction

materials (particularly sandy loam soils).

The Nursery has sporadic outbreaks of fungal diseases such as powdery

mildew and fusarium wilt and these are treated as they arise. One disease

which poses a significant problem for the nursery-based Conservatory displays

is Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus. The virus infects over 900 species, many of

which are used as display plants by the RTBG. The vector for spread in

Tasmania is onion thrip. Control of the thrip and the disposal of infected

material are the two main mechanisms for stopping the spread of the virus.


Control in the Gardens is, in part, contingent on control in the Government

House gardens where the thrip is also present.

P E S T S

The in-ground collection and the nursery suffer attack from the obvious range

of pests such as aphids, thrips, white fly and various beetles and their larvae.

These are controlled on a needs be basis as they arise.

Two pests that have had a more significant effect on the collections are green

spruce aphid and possums.

Green spruce aphid destroyed much of the lower foliage on the blue spruce

(Picea pungens) in the Gardens in 2003 but since that time early diagnosis

and appropriate treatment have resulted in control.

Throughout the Gardens, these and other pests, are being addressed through

Integrated Pest Management practices and constantly improving on-ground

horticulture.

Although subject to control measures, possums remain a periodic problem to a

whole range of tree species from natives to exotics. They tend to attack new

growth or trees under stress. Partial defoliation and disfiguration can result.

Issue 11 Weeds

Weeds pose problems to the living collection both in terms of routine

maintenance and the potential for the plants themselves to become weeds.

The reality is that many of the plants that have been and still are displayed in

botanic gardens throughout Australia can be considered environmental weeds.

The Council of Heads of Botanic Gardens (CHABG) initiated an Australian

Botanic Gardens Weeds Network in 2005. CHABG has formulated a policy,

adopted by the RTBG, and procedures to ensure a uniform Australia-wide

response to the weed problem by botanic gardens. Software for a Weed Risk

Assessment and Weed Management Procedure (WRAP’M) has been

developed as part of the process and this is now available to all members of

the network.

Issue 12 Site Suitability and Horticulture

The assessment of the collections found an overall high value attributed to the

core operations of the Gardens suggesting that staff are generally highly

skilled at the care of plants and their selection for the conditions of the site.


Nonetheless, there are inherent issues arising from the nature of the site (i.e.

the effect of location and climate on the types of plants that can be grown) and

the condition of the site and its infrastructure.

Some the more important issues in regards to the latter include:

watering – many staff hours are consumed by the need for

manual application of water, particularly in summer, due to

the absence of irrigation system or the decrepit state of the

system where it does exist;

existing and potential impact of soil compaction resulting

from trampling during events (e.g. some areas previously

utilised for events and theatre productions have been

impacted in this way); and

poor drainage and waterlogging in some sections of the

gardens, resulting from leaking water features and

irrigation elements combined with complex topography.

There are also operational issues that arise from the nature of particular

collections. For instance, the Bedding Plants collection provides a great deal

of interest and appeal to the public as evidenced by the high scores against

the tourism and commercial attributes in the analysis of the collections.

However, the Bedding Plants require many hours by horticultural teams to

maintain them to a high standard. As well as the tasks of weeding and

cultivating these beds there is the issue of pest and disease management of

the selected species (see above). Depending on the species involved, the

time spent dealing with pest and disease outbreaks can be high.

Maintenance of mature plantings is also a major issue in the Gardens given

the age of some, their resultant scale and the degree of shade they cast. The

age of some trees means they need a regular regimen of pruning and other

care to maintain their structure, stability and health. In some locations, trees

have reached a size where their canopies are intertwined with other

specimens leading to crowding and loss of symmetry. The density of some

crowns creates deep shade and prevents rainfall from reaching the ground

limiting opportunities for growth in the understorey.


Issue 13 Capacity to Manage

F U N D I N G A N D S T A F F

Funding and staff numbers are the two principle constraints on the capacity to

effectively manage and expand the Gardens.

Funding for effective management includes funding to:

maintain existing collections;

improve or rationalise existing plantings (which could

potentially enable mre to be done with less staff);

plan for and develop new collections or initiatives; and

participate as a partner in various agreements or programs

aimed at biodiversity conservation.

At the broadest level, the limited monies available to the Gardens severely

restricts the potential to engage new staff and/or to plan, manage and make

change within the Gardens.

More specifically, popular collections, such as the Japanese Garden and the

Sub-Antarctic collection are labour-intensive and expensive to maintain. Other

collections or areas (say for instance the Rills) are well past their useful life

and require significant maintenance to achieve a reasonable level of

presentation.

New collections have, nonetheless, been introduced with an inevitable

increase on staff workloads to maintain collections and displays to a high

standard. If staff numbers do not increase proportionally to the workload then

this will have an obvious impact on the overall maintenance of collections

wherein some collections and parts of collections will be given higher priority to

maintain at a high standard and the areas of lower priority will receive less

attention.

Even high value collections can be affected by a lack of funding. Notably the

funding for the Tasmanian Seed Conservation Centre is only guaranteed to

2010. The inability to sustain this facility would be a serious blow to the

credibility of the RTBG as a conservation organisation. Even if operational

funding for the TSCC were guaranteed there are also opportunities being

missed because of a lack of funds to purchase equipment that would enable

broader programs to be develop.


Time spent on the physical maintenance of living plant collections often leaves

very little time to research and develop the contents of the collections. Many

horticulturists are passionate about what they do and have ideas about how

they would like to expand a collection through the sourcing of new plant

material. However, due to the demands of the work required on the existing

collections there is little time to do this within work hours and consequently

some of the collections are relatively limited.

Even more basic than the lack of time available to do research is the backlog

of day to day activities such as mapping, database entry, label and tag making

that arise due to demands on staff to do other tasks (volunteers have helped

with labeling in a minor way.

N U R S E R Y A N D O P E R A T I O N A L A R E A S

Further issue affecting the capacity to manage the living collections are the

constraints on the functionality of the Nursery and its operational areas.

At the spatial level, the Nursery needs to be reorganised to better meet the

dual use of the area for ornamental and conservation purposes.

At an operational level, vehicle access to the Gardens is through the Nursery

across roads and pavements near where potting mix preparation takes place.

This presents a serious threat to the hygiene of mixes and for the potential

spread of disease into the Gardens.

Water management in the Nursery is another problem. Contaminants from

fertilizer and pest and weed control run directly into ground water and, and as

a result, there is no ability for water recycling.

There is also a lack of space generally in terms of glasshouses, shade and

open areas in the Nursery and within all of these areas more benching is

needed to keep plants off the ground to reduce pest, disease and weed

problems.

The glasshouses pose another suite of problems including the need for active

ventilation to create air movement and reduce the outbreak of disease and the

requirement for mesh covers over openings to keep out insect pests.

Storage and handling of materials is also problematic in the tight space

available for the Nursery. For these reasons the northern storage area has

been increasingly used for bulk materials storage. This requires frequent

vehicle use to move materials through and around the Gardens. Alternatives

considered include the positioning of a small material (mulches) holding area


at the eastern extremity of the Gardens and/or the possibility of holding some

essential garden materials in the Nursery holding bays. Either option would

reduce traveling and traffic through the Gardens and coupled with continued

attention as to how and when materials are moved would reduce impacts on

the visitor safety and experience.

The nursery may also need to be reorganised to allow visitor access in

response to the interpretive directions that have been established in the RTBG

Interpretation Plan 2008-2013.

Issue 14 Big Picture Commitments and Issues (Climate Change)

The RTBG has significant nature conservation responsibilities in relation to the

Tasmanian Nature Conservation Strategy and the National Strategy for the

Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity 1996. At an international level,

the RTBG is a member of the Botanic Gardens Conservation International (the

BGCI26), and supports the aims of the Botanic Gardens Conservation Strategy

1989 (as endorsed by IUCN, WWF, FAO, UNEP, and UNESCO), the

International Agenda for Botanic Gardens in Conservation 2000, and the

Global Strategy for Plant Conservation and Climate Change. The RTBG is

also a member of the Australian Network for Plant Conservation.

An outcome of the 2nd World Botanic Gardens Congress in Barcelona, Spain

2004 was the development of a series of 20 targets (the 2010 Targets). The

2010 Targets are intended to aid in the achievement of the objectives within

International Agenda for Botanic Gardens in Conservation, and to act as a

contribution to the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation. As a signatory to

the BGCI, the RTBG is making considerable progress in its contribution to the

achievement of Target 8 of the 2010 Targets regarding conservation of

threatened plants27, through the work of the Tasmanian Seed Conservation

Centre and other collections involving the propagation of threatened and rare

Tasmanian native species.

Nonetheless there is significant room for improvement in the collections to

assist in meeting the objectives of the various agreements that have been

made and specifically to the meeting of the BGCI targets.

26 The BGCI is a global cooperative botanic gardens organisation. 27 Target 8 – 60% of threatened plant species in accessible ex situ collections, preferably in the country of origin, and 10% of these species included in recovery and restoration programs (see http://www.bgci.org/index.php?id=74).


C L I M A T E C H A N G E

Climate presents a range of potential issues for the management of the

collections at the RTBG. On the ground within the Gardens are the potential

effects of:

reduced or increased rainfall and temperatures;

rising sea level;

greater frequency of extreme weather events.

Each of these impacts will affect which plants can be grown in the Gardens,

their requirements for on-going maintenance and their longevity. For instance

reduced rainfall could lead to the need for increased irrigation and wind

protection to reduce the effects of drying. Ultimately changes in climate may

limit the opportunities to grow some plants at the RTBG, forcing the creation of

off-site annexes in more conducive locations if affected plants are to remain in

the overall collection and in particular, if threatened Tasmanian flora is to be

protected (see below).

Climate change is also likely lead to an increase in the numbers of species

that are rare and threatened. Therefore, at a global level, botanic gardens,

including the RTBG, will have an increasingly important place in the ex situ

conservation of species through the growing of plants and/or in the conduct of

related research. This role has been recognised by the BGCI and in the

National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy adopted by CHABG that have

established a suite of goals and committed to actions to prevent species loss.

These in turn will require the RTBG to play an expanding role, through its living

collections and the TSCC, if it is to meaningfully contribute to nature

conservation and commitment as a member of the BGCI and CHABG28.

28 Note that such an expanding role is limited by available funding and further threatened by the lack of guaranteed funding for the TSCC beyond 2010.

6 . P O L I C I E S F O R L I V I N G C O L L E C T I O N S

The discussion of issues in Section 5 pointed to the need for defined policies

and procedures in relation to the living collections.

Policies provide principles, standards and guidelines and direct the creation of

procedures that apply to the living collections. Policies have no statutory

weight, but supply criteria and guidance in setting a course of action.

Procedures on the other hand are tools for the implementation of policies.

Procedures are developed by the staff of the RTBG and detail the content or

step by step processes that are undertaken in relation to the tasks of

managing and maintaining the Gardens.

The focus of this section, then, is on policies that will guide managers in their

decision making about the living collections over the coming 20 years. In

particular, the policies have been developed for:

the living collections; and

biodiversity and conservation.

By necessity these policies are broad in scope and it is recognised that more

specific sub-policies might need to be developed in relation to certain issues

as part of procedural development. For instance, through its commitment to

CHABG, the RTBG has adopted its policy on weed management that would be

an ideal ‘front end’ to weed management procedures for the Gardens.

Nonetheless, the proposed policies give clear direction for decision making in

critical areas surrounding;

the establishment, renewal and de-accession of collections

and operational and procedural guidance on how this can

be achieved; and

issues of biodiversity and conservation and how these

activities are prioritised.


Purposefully left blank.

Po

licie

s

Gu

idel

ines

1.1

Liv

ing

Co

llect

ion

s P

olic

y

Man

agem

ent

of

Co

llect

ion

s

Livi

ng C

olle

ctio

ns w

ill b

e de

velo

ped

and

man

aged

in a

ccor

danc

e th

e R

TB

G v

isio

n,

mis

sion

, goa

ls, p

olic

ies

and

inte

rpre

tatio

n th

emes

and

the

polic

ies

and

obje

ctiv

es o

f th

e Li

ving

Col

lect

ions

Pla

n.

Livi

ng C

olle

ctio

ns W

orki

ng G

roup

A L

ivin

g C

olle

ctio

ns W

orki

ng G

roup

will

be

esta

blis

hed

cons

istin

g of

:

• H

ortic

ultu

ral B

otan

ist

• N

urse

ry M

anag

er

• H

ortic

ultu

ral T

eam

Lea

ders

(2)

• T

eam

Lea

der

(Arb

oris

t)

• M

anag

er, H

ortic

ultu

ral A

sset

s

• H

ortic

ultu

ral C

o-or

dina

tor

• (I

nter

pret

atio

n of

ficer

/ E

duca

tion

offic

er w

hen

requ

ired)

The

pur

pose

of t

he L

ivin

g C

olle

ctio

ns W

orki

ng G

roup

is to

impl

emen

t the

Liv

ing

Col

lect

ions

Pla

n in

clud

ing:

• co

ntin

uous

rev

iew

of t

he c

olle

ctio

ns to

ens

ure

thei

r co

nten

t ref

lect

s th

e st

rate

gic

fram

ewor

k of

the

RT

BG

;

• pa

rtic

ipat

e in

the

prep

arat

ion

of 5

yea

r st

rate

gic

plan

s an

d an

nual

bus

ines

s op

erat

ions

pla

ns

• fo

rmal

ly a

sses

s th

e st

atus

of t

he c

olle

ctio

n in

clud

ing

cons

ider

atio

n of

acq

uisi

tions

and

de-

acce

ssio

ns fo

rwar

ded

to it

by

the

Man

ager

of H

ortic

ultu

ral A

sset

s fo

r re

view

by

the

Dire

ctor

;

• es

tabl

ish

appr

opria

te p

roce

dure

s (m

aint

enan

ce p

lans

) fo

r th

e m

anag

emen

t of t

he c

olle

ctio

ns;

• an

nual

rev

iew

of t

he c

olle

ctio

ns to

that

the

desi

red

man

agem

ent s

tand

ards

are

bei

ng a

chie

ved

and

that

the

appr

opria

te

proc

edur

es a

re b

eing

app

lied

to e

ach

colle

ctio

n; a

nd

• re

view

the

Livi

ng C

olle

ctio

ns P

lan

as s

et o

ut b

elow

.

Res

pons

ibili

ty

Fin

al a

utho

rity

for

all d

ecis

ions

reg

ardi

ng c

orre

ctiv

e, r

enew

al a

nd/o

r de

velo

pmen

t ini

tiativ

es a

nd a

ctio

ns in

rel

atio

n to

the

colle

ctio

ns a

nd

spec

imen

s re

sts

with

the

Dire

ctor

or

othe

r de

lega

ted

auth

ority

.

Rec

ords

A c

ompr

ehen

sive

pla

nt d

ata

base

will

be

mai

ntai

ned

that

rec

ords

all

exis

ting

plan

ts, p

lant

acq

uisi

tions

and

de-

acce

ssio

ns a

s se

t out

in th

e P

lant

Rec

ords

Pro

cedu

res.

Op

erat

ion

al P

roce

du

res

The

RT

BG

will

est

ablis

h a

com

preh

ensi

ve s

uite

of O

pera

tiona

l P

roce

dure

s (M

aint

enan

ce P

lans

) fo

r th

e Li

ving

Col

lect

ions

to g

uide

the

day-

to-d

ay

man

agem

ent o

f the

Liv

ing

Col

lect

ions

in

its p

ursu

it of

the

high

est s

tand

ards

of

hort

icul

tura

l pra

ctic

e.

Sco

pe

The

Ope

ratio

nal P

roce

dure

s fo

r th

e Li

ving

Col

lect

ions

will

set

out

the

scop

e of

act

iviti

es r

equi

red

to d

evel

op a

nd m

anag

e th

e co

llect

ions

an

d to

ach

ieve

a h

igh

leve

l of h

ortic

ultu

ral m

aint

enan

ce w

ithin

the

colle

ctio

ns.

Exp

ecta

tions

for

task

s w

ill b

e cl

early

sta

ted

in a

use

r-fr

iend

ly

form

at.

Exi

stin

g P

roce

dure

s

Exi

stin

g pr

oced

ures

and

pro

toco

ls o

f rel

evan

ce to

the

Livi

ng C

olle

ctio

ns w

ill b

e re

view

ed to

ens

ure

thei

r co

mpa

tibili

ty w

ith th

e vi

sion

, m

issi

on a

nd o

bjec

tives

of t

he G

arde

ns a

nd th

e va

rious

pol

icie

s he

rein

.

Whe

re n

eces

sary

exi

stin

g pr

oced

ures

will

be

ratio

nalis

ed to

rei

nfor

ce r

elat

ions

hips

bet

wee

n ac

tiviti

es w

here

they

occ

ur a

nd/o

r to

red

uce

dupl

icat

ion

betw

een

vario

us p

roce

dure

s.

New

Pro

cedu

res

New

pro

cedu

res

will

be

deve

lope

d as

req

uire

d to

ach

ieve

the

visi

on, m

issi

on a

nd o

bjec

tives

of t

he G

arde

ns o

r in

res

pons

e to

the

vario

us

polic

ies

here

in.

Res

pons

ibili

ty

Hor

ticul

tura

l or

bota

nica

l sta

ff w

ith a

ppro

pria

te e

xper

tise

will

pre

pare

pro

cedu

res

for

final

rev

iew

and

app

rova

l of t

he L

ivin

g C

olle

ctio

ns

Wor

king

Gro

up.

Co

llect

ion

s E

stab

lish

men

t o

r R

enew

al

All

new

col

lect

ions

will

sup

port

the

Roy

al

Tas

man

ian

Bot

anic

al G

arde

ns L

ivin

g C

olle

ctio

ns P

lan,

the

RT

BG

vis

ion,

m

issi

on, g

oals

, pol

icie

s an

d in

terp

reta

tion

them

es.

Pro

posa

ls a

nd A

sses

smen

t – In

divi

dual

Spe

cies

Pro

posa

ls fo

r ac

quis

ition

of i

ndiv

idua

l pla

nts/

spec

ies

will

be

will

be

forw

arde

d by

hor

ticul

tura

l or

bota

nica

l sta

ff to

the

Man

ager

of

Hor

ticul

tura

l Ass

ets

for

appr

oval

usi

ng th

e pr

oced

ures

set

out

in th

e P

roce

dure

s fo

r E

valu

atio

n an

d A

cqui

sitio

n/D

e-A

cces

sion

.

Pro

posa

ls a

nd A

sses

smen

t – C

olle

ctio

ns E

stab

lishm

ent o

r R

enew

al

Pro

posa

ls fo

r ne

w c

olle

ctio

ns o

r fo

r th

e su

bsta

ntiv

e re

new

al o

f exi

stin

g co

llect

ions

will

be

forw

arde

d by

hor

ticul

tura

l or

bota

nica

l sta

ff to

the

Man

ager

of H

ortic

ultu

ral A

sset

s. P

ropo

sals

will

incl

ude

a pr

elim

inar

y ev

alua

tion

as s

et o

ut in

the

Pro

cedu

res

for

Eva

luat

ion

for

Acq

uisi

tion/

De-

Acc

essi

on.

The

Man

ager

of H

ortic

ultu

ral A

sset

s w

ill p

repa

re a

n Is

sues

Brie

f (as

set

out

in th

e Is

sues

Brie

f Pro

cedu

res)

for

the

appr

oval

of t

he L

ivin

g C

olle

ctio

ns W

orki

ng G

roup

.

The

Liv

ing

Col

lect

ions

Wor

king

Gro

up w

ill e

valu

ate

the

Issu

es B

rief a

gain

st th

e fo

llow

ing

crite

ria fo

r S

peci

es S

elec

tion,

Sou

rce

and

Pro

vena

nce

and

othe

r m

atte

rs a

s it

deem

s im

port

ant.

The

app

rova

l of t

he D

irect

or o

r a

dele

gate

d au

thor

ity is

req

uire

d on

com

plet

ion

of th

e ev

alua

tion

by th

e Li

ving

Col

lect

ions

Wor

king

Gro

up.

Spe

cies

Sel

ectio

n

With

in a

ll co

llect

ions

prio

rity

will

be

give

n to

:

• t

he d

evel

opm

ent a

nd e

nric

hmen

t of a

ll as

pect

s of

the

Tas

man

ian

Flo

ra in

exi

stin

g co

llect

ions

and

in th

e de

velo

pmen

t of n

ew c

olle

ctio

ns;

and

• th

e de

velo

pmen

t and

enr

ichm

ent o

f exi

stin

g co

llect

ions

and

in th

e de

velo

pmen

t of n

ew c

olle

ctio

ns o

f coo

l clim

ate

Sou

ther

n H

emis

pher

e pl

ants

.

The

exc

eptio

ns to

the

abov

e pr

iorit

ies

are

the

acqu

isiti

on o

f spe

cies

whi

ch a

re r

equi

red

to s

uppo

rt th

e m

aint

enan

ce o

f

• id

entif

ied

herit

age

colle

ctio

ns a

nd th

eir

valu

es; a

nd

• or

nam

enta

l col

lect

ions

(al

beit

whe

re p

ossi

ble

thes

e w

ill fa

vour

Tas

man

ian

or o

ther

coo

l clim

ate

Sou

ther

n H

emis

pher

e sp

ecie

s w

here

pos

sibl

e).

In s

elec

ting

Tas

man

ian

spec

ies

pref

eren

ce w

ill b

e gi

ven

to e

ndem

ic s

peci

es o

r su

b-sp

ecie

s ov

er th

ose

with

wid

er A

ustr

alia

n di

strib

utio

n.

In s

elec

ting

from

the

spec

ies

avai

labl

e in

the

abov

e ra

nges

:

• p

refe

renc

e w

ill b

e gi

ven

to s

peci

es th

at a

re th

reat

ened

per

the

Bio

dive

rsity

and

Con

serv

atio

n P

olic

y;

• p

refe

renc

e w

ill b

e gi

ven

to s

peci

es o

ver

hybr

ids

or c

ultiv

ars

(see

bel

ow).

In

sel

ectin

g fr

om th

e sp

ecie

s av

aila

ble

in th

e ab

ove

rang

es c

onsi

dera

tion

will

be

give

n to

the:

• sp

ecie

s’ M

anag

eria

l and

Use

Attr

ibut

es; a

nd

• us

e of

hor

ticul

tura

l sel

ectio

ns o

f Tas

man

ian

spec

ies.

Spe

cies

that

:

• co

ntra

vene

the

CIT

ES

(C

ontr

ol o

f Tra

de in

End

ange

red

Spe

cies

) po

licy

on p

lant

col

lect

ing

and

trad

ing

• ar

e pr

ohib

ited

impo

rts

• ar

e de

clar

ed n

oxio

us w

eeds

• ar

e lik

ely

or k

now

n en

viro

nmen

tal o

r ag

ricul

tura

l wee

ds

• ar

e kn

own

to h

ave

or h

ave

the

pote

ntia

l to

faci

litat

e th

e tr

ansm

issi

on o

f dis

ease

to c

omm

erci

al c

rops

or

othe

r sp

ecie

s of

val

ue h

eld

by th

e G

arde

ns

• ar

e kn

own

to b

e or

like

ly to

be

sour

ces

of in

trog

ress

ion

prob

lem

s (g

enet

ic c

onta

min

atio

n); a

nd/o

r

• ar

e kn

own

to c

ause

or

are

likel

y to

cau

se p

ublic

hea

lth p

robl

ems

will

not

be

acqu

ired

unle

ss r

eque

sted

and

aut

horis

ed b

y a

rele

vant

aut

horit

y fo

r sp

ecifi

c ap

prov

ed p

urpo

ses.

Sou

rce

All

plan

t mat

eria

ls w

ill b

e le

gally

sou

rced

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith a

ll re

leva

nt la

ws

regu

latin

g co

llect

ion,

impo

rtat

ion,

pro

paga

tion,

pat

ent a

nd

owne

rshi

p

Pla

nt m

ater

ial t

hat m

eets

the

need

s of

the

RT

BG

will

be

acce

pted

from

(in

ord

er o

f pre

fere

nce)

:

• di

rect

col

lect

ion

from

the

wild

by

RT

BG

sta

ff

• ot

her

bota

nic

gard

ens

or r

ecog

nise

d co

llect

ors

• pu

rcha

se fr

om a

rep

utab

le n

urse

ry o

r co

llect

or

• do

natio

ns fr

om r

eput

able

sou

rces

• co

llect

ions

from

old

gar

dens

, nur

serie

s et

c

Rep

lace

men

t of p

lant

s de

emed

to h

ave

‘her

itage

’ val

ue w

ill c

onsi

der

use

of s

tock

pro

paga

ted

from

the

orig

inal

sou

rce

or fr

om

auth

entic

ated

sou

rces

.

P

rove

nanc

e

Onl

y th

ose

plan

ts o

f kno

wn

prov

enan

ce (

i.e. s

tock

with

full

prov

enan

ce d

etai

ls, v

erifi

catio

n of

aut

hent

icity

and

her

bariu

m v

ouch

ers)

will

be

used

.

In s

elec

ting

from

pla

nts

of k

now

n pr

oven

ance

, pre

fere

nce

will

be

give

n to

(in

ord

er o

f pre

fere

nce)

:

• pl

ants

sou

rced

from

the

wild

;

• pl

ants

of k

now

n pr

oven

ance

obt

aine

d fr

om a

noth

er b

otan

ic g

arde

n or

acc

redi

ted

colle

ctor

, eith

er a

s se

ed o

r of

fspr

ing

of p

lant

s co

llect

ed in

the

wild

, or

grow

n fr

om s

elec

tions

with

out d

emon

stra

ted

dang

er o

f hyb

ridis

atio

n

• cu

ltiva

rs o

r hy

brid

s of

wild

orig

in; a

nd

• cu

ltiva

rs o

r hy

brid

s th

at c

an b

e lin

ked

dire

ctly

to th

eir

orig

inat

or o

r so

urce

, and

whi

ch r

efle

ct th

e de

velo

pmen

t of p

lant

bre

edin

g or

se

lect

ion.

Sup

port

ing

Doc

umen

tatio

n

Con

side

ratio

n w

ill n

eed

to b

e gi

ven

to th

e de

sign

layo

ut o

f all

new

col

lect

ions

incl

udin

g ca

re in

the:

• or

gani

satio

n of

spa

ces

and

plan

tings

, allo

win

g fo

r in

nova

tive

or c

reat

ive

hort

icul

tura

l dis

play

s w

here

app

ropr

iate

;

• cr

eatio

n of

pat

h ne

twor

ks to

allo

w fo

r m

aint

enan

ce a

nd u

nive

rsal

acc

ess

(as

far

as p

ossi

ble)

; and

• se

lect

ion

of p

lant

s an

d th

eir

rela

tions

hips

to o

ne a

noth

er to

acc

ount

for

thei

r lin

e, fo

rm, c

olou

r an

d te

xtur

e.

All

new

col

lect

ions

will

req

uire

a h

ortic

ultu

ral m

anag

emen

t pla

n.

Rec

ords

All

de-a

cces

sion

s w

ill b

e re

cord

ed u

sing

the

met

hods

des

crib

ed in

the

RT

BG

’s P

lant

Rec

ords

Pro

cedu

res.

De-

Acc

essi

on

s an

d D

isp

osa

l of

Pla

nt

Mat

eria

l - G

ener

al

Pla

nt c

olle

ctio

ns, o

r su

bsta

ntiv

e pa

rts

ther

eof,

may

from

tim

e to

tim

e be

re

mov

ed fr

om th

e G

arde

ns (

de-

acce

ssio

n) in

res

pons

e to

the

Roy

al

Tas

man

ian

Bot

anic

al G

arde

ns L

ivin

g C

olle

ctio

ns P

lan

or th

e R

TB

G v

isio

n,

mis

sion

, goa

ls, p

olic

ies

and

inte

rpre

tatio

n th

emes

.

Ass

essm

ent a

nd A

utho

rity

Pro

posa

ls fo

r de

-acc

essi

on o

f a c

olle

ctio

n, o

r su

bsta

ntiv

e pa

rt th

ereo

f, w

ill b

e fo

rwar

ded

by h

ortic

ultu

ral o

r bo

tani

cal s

taff

to th

e M

anag

er o

f H

ortic

ultu

ral A

sset

s. P

ropo

sals

will

incl

ude

a pr

elim

inar

y ev

alua

tion

as s

et o

ut in

the

Pro

cedu

res

for

Eva

luat

ion

for

Acq

uisi

tion/

De-

Acc

essi

on.

The

Man

ager

of H

ortic

ultu

ral A

sset

s w

ill p

repa

re a

n Is

sues

Brie

f (as

set

out

in th

e Is

sues

Brie

f Pro

cedu

res)

for

the

appr

oval

of t

he L

ivin

g C

olle

ctio

ns W

orki

ng G

roup

.

Prio

r to

de-

acce

ssio

n th

e co

llect

ion

will

be

eval

uate

d by

the

Livi

ng C

olle

ctio

ns W

orki

ng G

roup

aga

inst

the

follo

win

g cr

iteria

for

Spe

cies

S

elec

tion,

Sou

rce

and

Pro

vena

nce

as a

bove

.

Rat

iona

le fo

r D

e-A

cces

sion

P

riorit

y fo

r de

-acc

essi

on w

ill b

e gi

ven

to c

olle

ctio

ns, o

r su

bsta

ntiv

e po

rtio

ns th

ereo

f, th

at d

o no

t mee

t the

req

uire

men

ts fo

r C

olle

ctio

n E

stab

lishm

ent o

r R

enew

al a

s ab

ove.

Pre

fere

nce

will

be

give

n to

the

de-a

cces

sion

of p

lant

s or

col

lect

ions

that

:

• cr

eate

pub

lic s

afet

y co

ncer

ns

• ex

hibi

t dis

ease

or

decl

ine

• w

hose

Man

ager

ial A

ttrib

utes

are

low

(i.e

. not

sui

ted

to th

e si

te, r

equi

re e

xces

sive

mai

nten

ance

not

just

ified

by

the

bene

fits

of

rete

ntio

n in

the

colle

ctio

n an

d/or

det

ract

from

the

visu

al v

alue

s of

the

site

)

• ar

e re

dund

ant (

i.e. o

ccur

in o

ther

loca

tions

with

in th

e G

arde

ns o

r ar

e si

gnifi

cant

ly r

epre

sent

ed in

oth

er r

egio

nal c

olle

ctio

ns, w

here

th

ere

is s

uret

y of

res

erva

tion)

.

Con

side

ratio

n w

ill b

e gi

ven

to th

e re

mov

al o

f spe

cies

that

are

com

mon

in g

ener

al c

ultiv

atio

n in

the

com

mun

ity.

Con

side

ratio

n w

ill b

e gi

ven

to th

e de

-acc

essi

on o

f pla

nts

or c

olle

ctio

ns in

loca

tions

req

uire

d by

the

RT

BG

for

othe

r pu

rpos

es.

Ass

essm

ent f

or D

e-A

cces

sion

Prio

r to

de-

acce

ssio

n, th

e af

fect

ed p

lant

, pla

nts

or c

olle

ctio

ns w

ill b

e ev

alua

ted

by th

e Li

ving

Col

lect

ions

Wor

king

Gro

up fo

r:

• th

eir

impo

rtan

ce to

val

ues

of th

e G

arde

ns (

i.e. D

efin

ition

al, U

se a

nd/o

r M

anag

eria

l Attr

ibut

es);

• th

e po

tent

ial f

or im

pact

s to

aris

e w

ithin

the

Gar

dens

from

thei

r re

mov

al (

i.e. e

nviro

nmen

tal o

r so

cial

impa

cts)

; and

• th

e po

tent

ial f

or im

pact

s to

aris

e th

roug

h th

eir

disp

osal

(by

wha

teve

r m

eans

)

Dis

posa

l

Dis

posa

l will

be

unde

rtak

en in

acc

orda

nce

with

reg

iona

l, na

tiona

l and

inte

rnat

iona

l leg

al r

equi

rem

ents

.

Dis

posa

l may

incl

ude:

exc

hang

e, d

istr

ibut

ion

to o

ther

inst

itutio

ns, p

lant

sal

es o

r de

stru

ctio

n

Dis

posa

l of p

lant

mat

eria

l will

follo

w th

e R

TB

G’s

Dis

posa

l Pro

cedu

res

Rec

ords

All

de-a

cces

sion

s w

ill b

e re

cord

ed u

sing

the

met

hods

des

crib

ed in

the

RT

BG

’s P

lant

Rec

ords

Pro

cedu

res.

De-

Acc

essi

on

s an

d D

isp

osa

l of

Pla

nt

Mat

eria

l – M

atu

re T

rees

Mat

ure

tree

s m

ay fr

om ti

me

to ti

me

be

rem

oved

from

the

Gar

dens

(de

-

Ass

essm

ent a

nd A

utho

rity

Pro

posa

ls fo

r de

-acc

essi

on o

f mat

ure

tree

s w

ill b

e fo

rwar

ded

by h

ortic

ultu

ral o

r bo

tani

cal s

taff

to th

e M

anag

er o

f Hor

ticul

tura

l Ass

ets

and

the

Tea

m L

eade

r A

rbor

icul

ture

. Pro

posa

ls w

ill in

clud

e a

prel

imin

ary

eval

uatio

n as

set

out

in th

e P

roce

dure

s fo

r E

valu

atio

n fo

r A

cqui

sitio

n/D

e-A

cces

sion

.

acce

ssio

n) in

res

pons

e to

the

Roy

al

Tas

man

ian

Bot

anic

al G

arde

ns L

ivin

g C

olle

ctio

ns P

lan,

the

RT

BG

vis

ion,

m

issi

on, g

oals

, pol

icie

s an

d in

terp

reta

tion

them

es.

The

Man

ager

of H

ortic

ultu

ral A

sset

s w

ill p

repa

re a

n Is

sues

Brie

f in

cons

ulta

tion

with

the

Tea

m L

eade

r A

rbor

icul

ture

(as

set

out

in th

e Is

sues

B

rief P

roce

dure

s) fo

r th

e ap

prov

al o

f the

Liv

ing

Col

lect

ions

Wor

king

Gro

up.

Prio

r to

de-

acce

ssio

n al

l pla

nts

will

be

eval

uate

d by

the

Livi

ng C

olle

ctio

ns W

orki

ng G

roup

aga

inst

the

follo

win

g cr

iteria

for

Spe

cies

S

elec

tion,

Sou

rce

and

Pro

vena

nce

as p

er th

e gu

idel

ines

for

acqu

isiti

on.

Dec

isio

ns b

y th

e Li

ving

Col

lect

ions

Wor

king

Gro

up r

egar

ding

mat

ure

tree

s in

the

Sig

nific

ant T

ree

Col

lect

ion

and/

or

thos

e w

ith e

xcep

tiona

l H

erita

ge V

alue

(as

eva

luat

ed a

gain

st th

e cr

iteria

for

asse

ssm

ent o

f Her

itage

Val

ues

set o

ut in

the

RT

BG

Con

serv

atio

n M

anag

emen

t Pla

n)

will

acc

esse

d in

con

sulta

tion

with

the

Tas

man

ian

Her

itage

Cou

ncil.

De-

acce

ssio

n of

tree

s w

ith H

erita

ge V

alue

sha

ll be

con

sist

ent w

ith th

e st

atut

ory

requ

irem

ents

of t

he H

isto

ric C

ultu

ral H

erita

ge A

ct 1

995.

The

fina

l aut

horit

y fo

r th

e de

-acc

essi

on o

f tre

es is

with

the

Dire

ctor

of t

he R

TB

G.

Rat

iona

le fo

r R

emov

al

Prio

rity

for

de-a

cces

sion

of m

atur

e tr

ees

will

be

give

n to

spe

cim

ens

that

do

not m

eet t

he r

equi

rem

ents

for

Pla

nt A

cqui

sitio

n as

abo

ve.

Prio

rity

will

be

give

n to

the

de-a

cces

sion

of m

atur

e tr

ees

that

inco

nsis

tent

with

the

Str

ateg

ic M

aste

r P

lan.

Con

side

ratio

n w

ill b

e gi

ven

to th

e de

-acc

essi

on o

f pla

nts

or c

olle

ctio

ns in

loca

tions

req

uire

d by

the

RT

BG

for

othe

r pu

rpos

es.

Tre

es m

ay a

lso

be r

emov

ed th

at:

• d

o no

mee

t pub

lic s

afet

y re

quire

men

ts;

• a

re d

isea

sed

or in

fect

ed b

y pe

sts

to th

e po

int w

here

they

can

not b

e re

habi

litat

ed to

goo

d he

alth

;

• h

ave

reac

hed

mat

urity

and

sta

rted

to s

enes

ce;

• h

ave

low

Man

ager

ial A

ttrib

utes

(i.e

. not

sui

ted

to th

e si

te, r

equi

re e

xces

sive

mai

nten

ance

not

just

ified

by

the

bene

fits

of r

eten

tion

in th

e co

llect

ion

and/

or d

etra

ct fr

om th

e vi

sual

val

ues

of th

e si

te)

and/

or

• a

re r

edun

dant

(i.e

. occ

ur in

oth

er lo

catio

ns w

ithin

the

Gar

dens

or

are

sign

ifica

ntly

rep

rese

nted

in o

ther

reg

iona

l col

lect

ions

, whe

re th

ere

is

sure

ty o

f res

erva

tion)

.

Ass

essm

ent f

or D

e-A

cces

sion

Prio

r to

de-

acce

ssio

n, th

e af

fect

ed tr

ee w

ill b

e ev

alua

ted

by th

e Li

ving

Col

lect

ions

Wor

king

Gro

up fo

r:

• th

e po

ssib

ility

of c

onse

rvin

g th

e tr

ee in

clud

ing

revi

ew o

f the

mec

hani

sms

requ

ired

for

rete

ntio

n an

d th

e im

plic

atio

ns o

f suc

h on

op

erat

ions

and

ava

ilabl

e fu

ndin

g;

• it

s im

port

ance

to v

alue

s of

the

Gar

dens

(i.e

. Def

initi

onal

, Use

and

/or

Man

ager

ial V

alue

s);

• th

e po

tent

ial f

or im

pact

s to

aris

e w

ithin

the

Gar

dens

from

thei

r re

mov

al (

i.e. e

nviro

nmen

tal o

r so

cial

impa

cts)

; and

• th

e po

tent

ial f

or im

pact

s to

aris

e th

roug

h th

eir

disp

osal

(by

wha

teve

r m

eans

).

Rep

lace

men

t

Whe

re a

tree

is d

eem

ed to

be

of e

xcep

tiona

l Her

itage

Val

ue o

r E

xcep

tiona

l Hor

ticul

tura

l Val

ue, c

onsi

dera

tion

will

be

give

n to

its

repl

acem

ent w

ith a

pla

nt o

f sim

ilar

spec

ies

prov

ided

that

rel

evan

t Dis

ease

Con

trol

Pol

icie

s an

d P

roce

dure

s w

ill n

ot b

e co

ntra

vene

d.

Whe

re th

e se

lect

ion

of s

peci

es in

not

con

stric

ted

by o

ne o

f the

abo

ve v

alue

s, th

e gu

idel

ines

for

spec

ies

acqu

isiti

on (

abov

e) w

ill a

pply

.

Com

mun

icat

ions

Pla

n

Whe

re a

tree

is to

be

rem

oved

that

has

hig

h-to

exc

eptio

nal H

erita

ge V

alue

or

high

to e

xcep

tiona

l oth

er v

alue

s, a

com

mun

icat

ions

str

ateg

y w

ill b

e de

velo

ped

in c

onsi

dera

tion

of p

oten

tial p

ublic

rel

atio

ns c

once

rns.

Rec

ords

All

de-a

cces

sion

s w

ill b

e re

cord

ed u

sing

the

met

hods

des

crib

ed in

the

RT

BG

’s P

lant

Rec

ords

Pro

cedu

res.

Rev

iew

of

the

Liv

ing

Co

llect

ion

s P

lan

The

Liv

ing

Col

lect

ions

Pla

n w

ill b

e ev

alua

ted

and

revi

ewed

on

a re

gula

r an

d on

-goi

ng b

asis

to e

nsur

e th

at it

sup

port

s th

e vi

sion

, mis

sion

and

obj

ectiv

es o

f the

G

arde

ns a

nd th

e di

rect

ions

est

ablis

hed

in

the

Str

ateg

ic M

aste

r P

lan.

Ann

ual R

evie

w

An

annu

al r

evie

w w

ill b

e un

dert

aken

by

the

Livi

ng C

olle

ctio

ns P

lan

to e

nsur

e th

e re

com

men

datio

ns o

f the

Liv

ing

Col

lect

ions

Pla

n ar

e ap

prop

riate

ly in

corp

orat

ed in

to th

e A

nnua

l Bus

ines

s O

pera

tiona

l Pla

n.

5-Y

ear

Rev

iew

A 5

-yea

r re

view

on

the

stat

us o

f the

livi

ng c

olle

ctio

ns w

ill b

e un

dert

aken

eve

ry 5

yea

rs to

ens

ure

that

the

Livi

ng C

olle

ctio

ns P

lan

is

appr

opria

tely

alig

ned

with

the

5 ye

ar S

trat

egic

Ope

ratio

nal P

lan.

20-Y

ear

Rev

iew

A c

ompr

ehen

sive

rev

iew

of t

he L

ivin

g C

olle

ctio

ns P

lan

will

be

unde

rtak

en e

very

20

year

s. T

he p

urpo

se o

f the

20

year

rev

iew

will

be

to

alig

n w

ith L

ivin

g C

olle

ctio

ns P

lan

with

the

Str

ateg

ic M

aste

r P

lan

and

will

incl

ude

a co

mpr

ehen

sive

rev

iew

of t

he c

olle

ctio

n ba

sed

on it

s va

lues

;

Res

pons

ibili

ty

Rev

iew

s w

ill b

e un

dert

aken

by

the

Livi

ng C

olle

ctio

ns W

orki

ng G

roup

.

Sup

port

for

the

Maj

or R

evie

w p

roce

ss m

ay b

e so

ught

from

out

side

con

sulta

nts

with

exp

erie

nce

rele

vant

to th

e ta

sk.

1.2.

Bio

div

ersi

ty a

nd

Co

nse

rvat

ion

P

olic

y

Co

nse

rvat

ion

Co

llect

ion

s

The

RT

BG

will

add

ress

its

role

as

a co

nser

vatio

n or

gani

satio

n th

roug

h th

e es

tabl

ishm

ent a

nd m

aint

enan

ce o

f ex

situ

co

llect

ions

of s

peci

es o

f con

serv

atio

n si

gnifi

canc

e.

Def

initi

on o

f Spe

cies

of C

onse

rvat

ion

Sig

nific

ance

Spe

cies

of c

onse

rvat

ion

sign

ifica

nce

are

thos

e sp

ecie

s lis

ted

as:

• en

dang

ered

, vul

nera

ble

or r

are

unde

r th

e T

asm

ania

n T

hrea

tene

d S

peci

es P

rote

ctio

n A

ct 1

995;

and

/or

• vu

lner

able

, end

ange

red,

crit

ical

ly e

ndan

gere

d, e

xtin

ct in

the

wild

or

extin

ct b

y th

e E

nviro

nmen

t Pro

tect

ion

and

Bio

dive

rsity

C

onse

rvat

ion

Act

199

9 or

by

the

Inte

rnat

iona

l Uni

on fo

r th

e C

onse

rvat

ion

of N

atur

e R

ed L

ist (

IUC

N).

Prio

rity

for

Con

serv

atio

n C

olle

ctio

ns:

Prio

rity

for

the

colle

ctio

n of

spe

cies

of c

onse

rvat

ion

sign

ifica

nce

will

be

give

n to

thos

e sp

ecie

s th

at:

• ar

e lis

ted

as m

ost a

t ris

k;

• fo

r T

asm

ania

n sp

ecie

s ov

er th

ose

from

oth

er c

ool c

limat

e S

outh

ern

Hem

isph

ere

loca

tions

; and

• oc

cur

regi

onal

ly (

part

icul

arly

thos

e th

reat

ened

spe

cies

from

the

Que

ens

Dom

ain)

.

Con

side

ratio

n w

ill b

e gi

ven

to s

peci

es o

f con

serv

atio

n si

gnifi

canc

e fr

om N

orth

ern

Hem

isph

ere

or o

ther

Sou

ther

n H

emis

pher

e cl

imat

es.

Nur

sery

Col

lect

ions

Per

man

ent n

urse

ry c

olle

ctio

ns o

f thr

eate

ned

plan

ts m

ay b

e m

aint

aine

d w

here

they

mee

t the

prio

ritie

s fo

r sp

ecie

s of

con

serv

atio

n si

gnifi

canc

e as

set

out

abo

ve.

Nur

sery

col

lect

ions

may

incl

ude

mat

eria

ls r

equi

red

for

germ

inat

ion,

trad

ition

al v

eget

ativ

e an

d tis

sue

cultu

re p

ropa

gatio

n an

d de

velo

pmen

t.

Exp

erim

enta

l Col

lect

ions

The

RT

BG

may

mai

ntai

n ex

perim

enta

l col

lect

ions

com

patib

le w

ith it

s po

licy

on C

onse

rvat

ion

Res

earc

h (b

elow

).

Tem

pora

ry C

olle

ctio

ns

The

RT

BG

will

, fro

m ti

me

to ti

me,

hol

d te

mpo

rary

col

lect

ions

of t

hrea

tene

d pl

ants

on

beha

lf of

oth

er p

artn

er o

rgan

isat

ions

(se

e P

artn

ersh

ips

belo

w)

whe

re th

ey a

re c

ompa

tible

with

the

visi

on, m

issi

on a

nd o

bjec

tives

of t

he G

arde

ns.

Par

ticul

ar a

ttent

ion

shou

ld b

e gi

ven

to: t

he r

isks

of i

ntro

duci

ng d

isea

se o

r pa

thog

ens,

ava

ilabi

lity

of s

pace

and

/ or

the

avai

labi

lity

of s

taff.

Pro

cedu

res

Con

serv

atio

n C

olle

ctio

ns w

ill b

e es

tabl

ishe

d an

d m

anag

ed in

acc

orda

nce

with

RT

BG

Ope

ratio

nal P

roce

dure

s fo

r th

e Li

ving

Col

lect

ions

and

pa

rtic

ular

ly in

line

with

the

Con

serv

atio

n C

olle

ctio

ns P

roce

dure

s.

Whe

re a

ppro

pria

te p

roce

dure

s do

no

exis

t, th

ey w

ill b

e de

velo

ped.

Pla

nt C

onse

rvat

ion

Wor

king

Gro

up

A P

lant

Con

serv

atio

n W

orki

ng G

roup

will

be

esta

blis

hed

cons

istin

g of

:

• R

TB

G H

ortic

ultu

ral B

otan

ist

• R

TB

G N

urse

ry M

anag

er

• T

SC

C C

oord

inat

or

• R

TB

G H

ortic

ultu

ralis

t res

pons

ible

for

the

Tas

man

ian

Col

lect

ion

• R

TB

G M

anag

er H

ortic

ultu

ral A

sset

s

• R

TB

G T

eam

Lea

der

Arb

oric

ultu

re

The

Pla

nt C

onse

rvat

ion

Wor

king

Gro

up w

ill r

espo

nsib

le fo

r th

e as

sess

men

t of p

ropo

sals

, dev

elop

men

t and

man

agem

ent o

f the

C

onse

rvat

ion

Col

lect

ions

as

per

the

man

agem

ent o

f Liv

ing

Col

lect

ions

gen

eral

ly.

Rem

nan

t V

eget

atio

n

The

RT

BG

will

man

age

rem

nant

nat

ive

vege

tatio

n w

ithin

its

boun

darie

s se

ekin

g to

ens

ure

the

pres

erva

tion

of it

s na

tive

ecos

yste

m v

alue

s an

d its

sel

f-m

anag

ing

capa

citie

s.

For

esho

re

The

fore

shor

e ar

ea is

to b

e m

anag

ed a

s a

ecol

ogic

al r

esto

ratio

n pr

ojec

t with

the

purp

oses

of r

e-es

tabl

ishi

ng s

elf-

man

agin

g na

tura

l pr

oces

ses

and

nativ

e ec

osys

tem

val

ues.

The

fore

shor

e ar

ea w

ill b

e m

anag

ed b

y th

e R

TB

G a

nd w

here

req

uire

d in

con

junc

tion

with

the

Hob

art C

ity C

ounc

il as

set

out

in it

s M

anag

emen

t Par

tner

ship

s P

olic

y.

Nor

ther

n E

xtre

mity

The

nor

ther

n ex

trem

ity o

f the

Gar

dens

may

be

cons

ider

ed fo

r de

-acc

essi

on a

s pa

rt o

f bou

ndar

y ne

gotia

tions

or

part

ners

hip

arra

ngem

ents

w

ith th

e H

obar

t City

Cou

ncil,

pro

vide

d its

mai

nten

ance

as

a na

tura

l sys

tem

is to

be

pres

erve

d.

Que

ens

Dom

ain

The

RT

BG

will

wor

k in

par

tner

ship

with

the

Hob

art C

ity C

ounc

il to

mai

ntai

n th

e na

tura

l val

ues

of th

e Q

ueen

s D

omai

n as

set

out

in it

s M

anag

emen

t Par

tner

ship

s P

olic

y.

Tas

man

ian

See

d C

on

serv

atio

n C

entr

e

The

RT

BG

will

be

a ke

y pa

rtne

r in

the

oper

atio

n of

the

Tas

man

ian

See

d C

onse

rvat

ion

Cen

tre

(the

TS

CC

)

Pur

pose

The

pur

pose

of t

he T

SC

C is

to e

nsur

e th

e lo

ng-t

erm

sec

urity

and

con

serv

atio

n of

Tas

man

ia’s

uni

que

nativ

e flo

ra, a

s a

cont

ribut

ion

to th

e co

nser

vatio

n of

glo

bal b

iodi

vers

ity.

Rol

e of

the

RT

BG

The

RT

BG

will

:

• co

oper

ate

in g

erm

inat

ion

rese

arch

and

oth

er s

eed

stor

age

rela

ted

rese

arch

;

• pr

ovid

e su

ppor

t for

the

day-

to d

ay a

ctiv

ities

of t

he s

eed

cons

erva

tion

cent

re; a

nd in

par

ticul

ar le

nd it

s ex

pert

ise

in th

e ho

rtic

ultu

re o

f th

reat

ened

spe

cies

; and

• co

oper

ate

in th

e co

llect

ion

of s

eed

from

the

field

.

Per

iod

of In

volv

emen

t

The

RT

BG

will

see

k to

ens

ure

that

the

Tas

man

ian

See

d C

onse

rvat

ion

Cen

tre

cont

inue

s its

ope

ratio

ns b

eyon

d its

cur

rent

form

al p

roje

ct

time

fram

e of

201

0, th

roug

h in

-kin

d su

ppor

t of t

he c

entr

e an

d en

cour

agem

ent o

f sup

port

from

exi

stin

g an

d po

tent

ial p

roje

ct p

artn

ers

incl

udin

g G

over

nmen

t.

Co

nse

rvat

ion

Res

earc

h

The

RT

BG

will

par

ticip

ate

in r

esea

rch

rela

ted

to th

reat

ened

pla

nts.

Prio

ritie

s

Prio

rity

will

be

give

n to

the

cond

uct o

f res

earc

h re

gard

ing

spec

ies

of c

onse

rvat

ion

sign

ifica

nce

that

:

• in

tegr

ates

with

the

activ

ities

of t

he T

SC

C in

clud

ing

the

germ

inat

ion

and

prop

agat

ion

rese

arch

and

oth

er s

eed

stor

age/

man

agem

ent r

esea

rch;

• is

link

ed to

a r

ecov

ery

plan

as

mad

e or

ado

pted

und

er th

e T

asm

ania

n T

hrea

tene

d S

peci

es P

rote

ctio

n A

ct 1

995

and

also

the

Com

mon

wea

lth E

nviro

nmen

t Pro

tect

ion

and

Bio

dive

rsity

Con

serv

atio

n A

ct 1

999;

• fa

cilit

ates

the

rees

tabl

ishm

ent o

f thr

eate

ned

plan

ts in

the

wild

or

in r

esto

ratio

n pr

ojec

ts th

at s

eek

to p

rese

rve

the

elem

ents

of

nativ

e pl

ant c

omm

uniti

es r

athe

r th

an in

divi

dual

pla

nt s

peci

men

s; a

nd

• fa

cilit

ates

the

reco

very

of t

hrea

tene

d sp

ecie

s kn

own

from

the

Que

ens

Dom

ain.

Con

side

ratio

n w

ill b

e gi

ven

to th

e fa

cilit

atio

n of

thre

aten

ed r

esea

rch

by o

ther

s on

spe

cies

oth

er th

an th

ose

liste

d ab

ove

with

a p

refe

renc

e fo

r w

ork

rela

ted

to c

ool c

limat

e S

outh

ern

Hem

isph

ere

and

Sub

-Ant

arct

ic s

peci

es.

Dis

sem

inat

ion

of In

form

atio

n

The

RT

BG

will

con

trib

ute

to th

e as

sem

bly

and

diss

emin

atio

n of

info

rmat

ion

(e.g

. bio

logy

, pro

paga

tion,

nat

ive

habi

tat r

equi

rem

ents

) in

su

ppor

t of:

• its

inte

rnat

iona

l obl

igat

ions

to B

otan

ic G

arde

ns C

onse

rvat

ion

Inte

rnat

iona

l (B

GC

I) a

nd B

otan

ic G

arde

ns A

ustr

alia

and

New

Z

eala

nd (

BG

AN

Z);

• th

e T

asm

ania

n S

eed

Con

serv

atio

n C

entr

e;

• th

e de

velo

pmen

t of r

ecov

ery

plan

s un

der

the

Tas

man

ian

Thr

eate

ned

Spe

cies

Pro

tect

ion

Act

199

5 an

d al

so th

e C

omm

onw

ealth

E

nviro

nmen

t Pro

tect

ion

and

Bio

dive

rsity

Con

serv

atio

n A

ct 1

999;

• la

nd m

anag

ers

with

res

pons

ibili

ty fo

r th

e in

situ

con

serv

atio

n of

nat

ive

habi

tat a

nd s

peci

es; a

nd

• po

st-g

radu

ate

acad

emic

res

earc

h in

are

as th

at a

re li

nked

to th

e vi

sion

, mis

sion

and

obj

ectiv

es fo

r th

e R

TB

G.

Co

nse

rvat

ion

Par

tner

ship

s

The

RT

BG

will

dev

elop

and

par

ticip

ate

in

cons

erva

tion

activ

ities

sha

ring

its

know

ledg

e an

d sk

ills

rela

ting

to p

lant

co

nser

vatio

n w

ith lo

cal,

stat

e, n

atio

nal

and

inte

rnat

iona

l aut

horit

ies

and

appr

oved

con

serv

atio

n gr

oups

as

outli

ned

in P

olic

y 3:

Par

tner

ship

s.

Exi

stin

g P

artn

ersh

ips

The

RT

BG

will

con

tinue

to w

ork

in p

artn

ersh

ip w

ith e

xist

ing

cons

erva

tion

part

ners

on

proj

ects

that

alig

n w

ith th

e vi

sion

, mis

sion

and

ob

ject

ives

of t

he R

TB

G a

nd o

ther

asp

ects

of t

his

polic

y on

Bio

dive

rsity

and

Con

serv

atio

n.

Fut

ure

Par

tner

ship

s

Fut

ure

part

ners

hips

may

be

deve

lope

d w

ith o

ther

org

anis

atio

ns o

n a

proj

ect b

y pr

ojec

t bas

is, w

ith c

onsi

dera

tion

to th

e co

mpa

tibili

ty o

f the

pr

opos

ed p

roje

ct w

ith th

e R

TB

G’s

vis

ion,

mis

sion

and

obj

ectiv

es.

A M

OU

will

be

esta

blis

hed

with

the

Tas

man

ian

Her

bariu

m d

efin

ing

area

s of

mut

ual i

nter

est,

pote

ntia

l sup

port

an

the

part

nerin

g of

ap

prop

riate

pro

ject

s.

7 . D I R E C T I O N S F O R W A R D

A master plan (Attachment B) has been prepared indicating the recommended

physical developments for the RTBG. The master plan represents how the

Gardens might look in 20 years if all of the recommendations herein are

implemented. The master plan also recognises that many of these proposed

changes will fundamentally establish the look, feel and experience of the

Gardens over a much longer time period.

The key physical elements illustrated on the master plan are:

the identification of areas that bound the Gardens in which

the RTBG has an interest in cooperating with the relevant

owners to achieve mutual benefits;

the evolution of the living collections, and the

implementation of the Living Collections Plan, in particular

changes and additions to the existing physical layout of

collections;

improvements to the visitor facilities and services that will

enhance accessibility, the quality of the visitor experience

and interpretation of the RTBG; and

consolidation of administrative, operational and other site

functions of the RTBG, to provide more efficient and

effective management in the long term.

Of particular importance to the Living Collections Plan are the first two of the

above elements, the areas adjacent to the RTBG within which living collections

might be developed (Section 7.1) and the evolution of the living collections to

better meet the strategic aims of the Gardens (Section 7.2).


7 . 1 S P H E R E O F I N V O L V E M E N T : E X P A N S I O N O F T H E

R T B G ’ S R O L E

The issues surrounding a lack of space within the Gardens to expand

collections or activities were discussed in Section 5. The master plan

addresses opportunities for the Gardens to grow its ‘sphere of involvement in

the management of nearby areas whereon its collections might be extended

and/or its core activities better supported. The recommendations of the

master plan are supported by the various policies developed as part of the

SMP process (Attachment 1).

The principle areas where the Gardens sphere of involvement could expand in

cooperation with the Hobart City Council (Figure 7.1) are:

the Beaumaris Zoo – the zoo has previously been identified

as an area where collections with Southern Hemisphere

and Gondwanan associations could be developed;

the ‘golf course’ – this area is well located and

topographically suited to car parking provided that the

natural and cultural values of the site are appropriately

considered including through improved access and

interpretation; and

Grasslands Gully – this area presents significant potential to

present the grassy woodland and related riparian flora of

the Greater Hobart region29.

29 Note, there are a few conifers that may need to be retained if they are found to contribute to the significance of the Conifer Collection. Nonetheless, if found to have significance, the policies herein allow for their ultimate removal providing they can be replaced elsewhere in the Gardens or a nearby site.


7 . 2 E V O L U T I O N O F T H E L I V I N G C O L L E C T I O N S

The analysis of the living collections (Section5) indicates the potential to

develop new collections, renew existing, under-performing ones or to remove

irrelevant collections to allow for other uses.

The analysis of the collections and consideration of the strategic framework

suggests the identification of clear precincts within which to develop specific

types of collections and changes to the collections themselves to enhance

their value to the Gardens and its vision, mission, goals and interpretation

themes.

7.2.1 Physical Layout - Precincts

In line with the extension of the Gardens beyond its boundaries is the

opportunity to identify specific precincts in the Gardens within which to develop

particular types of collections. The principle opportunities in this regard are

shown on Figure 7.2-7.5 and include:

T A S M A N I A N A N D S O U T H E R N H E M I S P H E R E C O L L E C T I O N S

P R E C I N C T S

The identification of existing areas of the Gardens for Tasmanian and

Southern Hemisphere plant collections reflecting the diversity of vegetation

types in the State and the extent of its related cool climate Southern

Hemisphere genera (Figure 7.2) including:

the development of a Tasmanian forest eucalypt and

related vegetation at the northern end of the Gardens with

associated other Tasmanian collections developed

underneath;

the development of an area to illustrate Tasmania’s drier

and salt tolerant vegetation including heathland and

woodland species;

the development of a Tasmanian wet forests area including

an extended Tasmanian fern collection;

the redevelopment and expansion of the New Zealand

Collection; and

the expansion of the Gondwana collection (as far as can be

done within the limited confines of its existing location).


The master plan also identifies improvements to access across the Lower

Domain Highway that would facilitate better use of the foreshore through:

the relocation of the Sub-Antarctic collection and the

addition of alpine and sub-alpine collections within a

purpose built visitor attraction at Pavilion Point30;

the development of a saltmarsh collection on the foreshore

using a system of ‘floating beds’ as display areas (soil-filled

structural geo-fabric suspended from floating or pile

supported walkways could provide a suitable media/setting

for growing such plants, similar to the way in which a

sphagnum mat supports plant growth in a bog – use of such

a system overcome the need for the filling of the river); and

the development of the foreshore as a ‘collection’ of typical

Tasmanian foreshore species (as opposed to simply

rehabilitating the area, this may involve introduction of

coastal species from elsewhere in the State).

C U L T U R A L A N D O R N A M E N T A L C O L L E C T I O N S P R E C I N C T

At the same time various areas of the Gardens are to be managed for their

cultural and ornamental collections and heritage values (Figure 7.3) including:

the Significant Tree Collection (note this collection is spread

throughout the Gardens);

Conifer Collection at the main entry and along the boundary

with Lower Domain Road;

the Palm Collection;

the Deciduous Tree Collection;

the Japanese Garden;

the various other collections spread through the centre of

the Gardens (i.e. Cottage Garden, Conservatory, Bedding

Plants, Lily Pond, etc.); and

the upper and lower lawns.

30 Subject to a business case being prepared that supports such a venture.


E D U C A T I O N A N D E C O N O M I C C O L L E C T I O N S P R E C I N C T S

Figure 7.4 identifies the areas identified for further development of educational

and economic collections (i.e. collections with a demonstration focus). The

proposed area correlates strongly with the existing Easy Access Garden, the

WSUD garden, the Education Pod and Pete’s Patch. These collections have

strong affinities with the interpretation themes around sustainability and the

early history of the Gardens as set out in the RTBG Interpretation Plan 2008-

2013. Economic collections also have a strong heritage link to Government

House and the use of adjacent areas there (historically and into the present

day).

The map shows the proposed area for the Education and Economic

Collections Precincts. These areas are proposed to include:

purpose built facilities will be constructed in support of these

collections including classrooms, purpose built beds,

glasshouses, etc. targeted to use by visiting groups;

a children’s garden, specifically targeted to educational

messages;

perennial and annual vegetable plots (Pete’s Patch) and

other crop and vegetable plots (with an emphasis on food

plants, the home vegetable garden, heirloom and heritage

species);

the Herb Garden;

the heritage apple collection and possibly other orchard

species (fruit and nut);

collections focused on sustainability (i.e. WSUD);

areas to demonstrate sustainable horticultural practices (i.e.

composting, integrated pest management, etc.); and

some limited area for ‘community gardens’ (or some variant

thereof).

Location of the education and economic collections in this area has strong

heritage links to Government House and the use of adjacent areas there

(historically and in the present day).


O P E R A T I O N S P R E C I N C T S

Figure 7.5 shows the operational areas of the Gardens being retained in their

current locations until such time as space becomes available elsewhere. In

the interim, rationalisation of the use of the Nursery area, the moving of potted

to collections to in ground locations, the amalgamation of administrative

functions and the removal of car parking from the area would result in better

utilisation of the available space.

Figure 7.5 also shows the retention of the northern storage area for the bulk

storage of garden and building materials. Whilst the northern storage area

remains some distance from the nursery, there were no suitable options

available for relocating these activities elsewhere in the grounds. Nor is there

scope to shift the depot to the Nursery where similarly there are spatial

constraints and the additional potential impacts of noise from the depot

operations on residential areas on the Government House estate.

Figure 7.5 shows the introduction of an Eastern Storage area at the far

extremity of the main east-west path. There is scope in this area for the

development of a small, discrete area for the storage of topsoil, mulches and

other soft materials. Access to the area would be limited to the smaller of the

RTBG’s vehicles (golf carts). Development in this area could be visually

sensitive if, in the future, access is developed along this path to the foreshore.

In response, screening vegetation should be retained and/or intensified to

ensure the visitor experience is not impacted on.

Some benefit will accrue to operations if Lower Domain Road is closed to

through traffic, as the road could be used as an alternative route for service

vehicles between the depot, the Nursery or other parts of the Gardens (see

Figure 7.7 below). Native vegetation to the north of the depot provides some

visual screening from the highway and the Eastern Shore31.

31 Albeit this would be retained whether the land was managed by Council or the RTBG.


7.2.2 Changes to Collections

The need to manage and maintain the living collections as individual groupings

of plants is also a critical issue to be addressed by the RTBG. Table 7.1

adapts the table used to analyse the collections and reflects the intended

precinctual developments described above, showing for each collection:

future directions including whether or not the collection

should be retained in size and location, retained and

expanded in size, upgraded in content or retained but

moved to a new location or de-accessed;

comments on the future directions expanding on the

opportunities for each; and

the existing unweighted ratings for each attribute and

current total scores, highlighting where the greatest benefits

can be derived from upgrading the collections.

Note within the table, that upgrade refers to improvements that can be made

within the collection to enhance its rating against a particular attribute. It is not

practical to expect that all low scores can be raised. For instance, scores

against the heritage attribute are inherently fixed, that is unless a particular

bed was reconstructed using historic precedent.

Highlighted areas are, therefore, considered to be the priority areas where it

would be most beneficial for the Gardens to target its efforts.

Chapter 7 Directions Forward 85

Table 7.1 Living Collections Directions (A3)


Table 7.1 Living Collections Directions (A3)


The principle recommendations from the analysis of the collections are to:

emphasise the introduction on species of conservation

significance and of known provenance;

recognise the strong relationship of the Tasmanian and

Southern Hemisphere collections to the vision and mission

of the Gardens and the need to retain and expand these

collections for their potential benefits;

de-access the Asian Woodland and Conifer Cultivars

collections and replace them with other species or

collections that support the vision, mission, goals, strategies

and interpretation plan;

significantly redevelopment of the Sub-Antarctic (subject to

a business case) and Tasmanian Ferns collections as major

visitor attractions;

expand the opportunities for the development of economic

plant collections; and

improve the presentation of WSUD garden and other native

plant collections to encourage visitors that such collections

have aesthetic value.

Importantly, the table also highlights the significant need for improved

interpretation and those collections where greatest benefits might be gained in

doing so. The RTBG Interpretation Plan 2008-2013 identifies:

four primary interpretation themes that convey the what

makes the RTBG distinctive and three secondary themes,

that expand on these principle ideas adding depth and

richness to the potential interpretive messages; and

a suite of media best targeted to the RTBG’s audiences and

assessed against the themes they may best be used to

illustrate.

Table 7.2, from the Interpretation Plan, highlights those collections and the

principle and secondary interpretation themes with which they have the

strongest correlation. The findings from the table suggest how each collection

might be targeted to a theme for best effect in reaching the Gardens

audiences.

Th

eme

No

.P

1P

2P

3P

4S

1S

2S

3

Th

eme

Co

nce

pt

Bio

div

ersi

tyH

ort

icu

ltu

ral

Lea

der

Fu

ll C

ircl

eC

on

vict

L

abo

ur

vs

No

w

Mak

e a

Dif

fere

nce

-E

nvi

ron

-m

enta

l C

han

ge

Gar

den

s as

F

amily

Insp

irat

ion

an

d

San

ctu

ary

Att

rib

ute

s fr

om

Liv

ing

C

olle

ctio

ns

anal

ysis

ad

dre

ssed

by

Th

eme

(so

me

attr

ibu

tes

rela

te t

o m

ult

iple

th

emes

)

Reg

ion

al/

Co

nse

rvat

ion

Bo

tan

ical

/ S

ite

Su

itab

ility

His

tori

cal/

Inte

rpre

tati

on

/ E

du

cati

on

/

His

tori

cal/

Ho

rtic

ult

ure

(i

ncl

ud

es

Aes

thet

ics)

Reg

ion

al/

Co

nse

rvat

ion

Tou

rism

/ R

ecre

atio

nal

/ C

om

mer

cial

/ H

ort

icu

ltu

re

(in

clu

des

A

esth

etic

s)

Sp

irit

ual

/ H

ort

icu

ltu

re

(in

clu

des

A

esth

etic

s)

CA

TE

GO

RY

FO

CU

SC

OL

LE

CT

ION

Tasm

ania

nG

eogr

aphi

cal F

ocus

Sub

anta

rctic

Gre

ater

Hob

art

Eas

t Coa

stTa

smai

nan

Rem

nant

Gra

ssla

ndTa

xono

mic

Foc

usE

pacr

idac

eae

Tasm

ania

n F

erns

Dem

onst

ratio

n F

ocus

WS

UD

Gar

den

Her

itage

Foc

usF

renc

h M

emor

ial

Hor

ticul

tura

l Foc

usV

isito

r C

entr

e B

eds

Co

nse

rvat

ion

an

d R

esea

rch

Geo

grap

hica

l Foc

us

For

esho

reR

emna

nt G

rass

land

So

uth

ern

Hem

isp

her

eG

eogr

aphi

cal F

ocus

New

Zea

land

Gon

dwan

a Te

rrac

es

Taxo

nom

ic F

ocus

Hor

ticul

tura

l Foc

usP

rote

aC

ult

ura

l an

d O

rnam

enta

lH

ortic

ultu

ral F

ocus

Con

serv

ator

y

Con

ifer

Cul

tivar

s

Fuc

hsia

Hou

seP

alm

col

lect

ion

Asi

an W

oodl

and

Sal

via

Col

lect

ion

Mag

nolia

ceae

Gre

y F

olia

ge p

lant

sTa

xono

mic

Foc

usE

ucal

ypt L

awn

Con

ifer

Spe

cies

Dem

onst

ratio

n F

ocus

Her

b G

arde

nP

ete'

s P

atch

/Eco

nom

icE

asy

Acc

ess

Gar

den

Cac

ti &

Suc

cule

nts

Her

itage

Foc

usH

erita

ge A

pple

sS

igni

fican

t Tre

esC

otta

ge G

arde

nG

eogr

aphi

cal F

ocus

Japa

nese

Gar

den

Chi

nese

Aus

tral

ian

Col

lect

ions

mar

ked

in y

ello

w to

be

de-

acce

ssed

or

sign

ifica

ntly

re

-foc

used

Tab

le 7

.2 I

nter

pret

atio

n T

hem

es R

elat

ed to

Liv

ing

Col

lect

ions

Bed

ding

pla

nts

- in

clud

ing

Flo

ral C

lock

Dec

iduo

us T

rees

– (

elm

s an

d oa

ks)

Rho

dode

ndro

ns &

Cam

ellia

sM

ixed

Bor

der

(Frie

nds

Bor

der,

Rill

s, L

ily

Tasm

ania

n S

eed

Con

serv

atio

n C

entr

eC

onse

rvat

ion

Col

lect

ions

(P

otte

d)

Sou

ther

n H

emis

pher

e (P

otte

d)S

outh

ern

Hem

isph

ere

Con

ifers

(P

otte

d)


Amongst its other recommendations, the RTBG Interpretation Plan 2008-2013

also identified the opportunity to develop a children’s garden to address

opportunities to reach this important market segment.


In regards to the Sub-Antarctic House and the Fernery, the SMP proposes

development of these into major visitor attractions as follows.

S U B - A N T A R C T I C C O O L T E M P E R A T U R E C O L L E C T I O N S

The SMP proposes the idea of a major visitor attraction at Pavilion Point to

house the Sub-Antarctic Collection and other Cool Temperature Collections

(alpine and sub-alpine) subject to the development of a business case. The

proposal builds on the popularity of the existing Sub-Antarctic Collection and

addresses the issue of the lack of appropriate conditions in the Gardens for

the growing of cool temperature species.

The attractiveness of the site lies in its riverside setting with outstanding views

to the eastern shore, access to the water’s edge and potential access by boat

from elsewhere in the estuary. Heating and cooling systems could benefit

from the use of reverse cycle technology drawing on the cool river water

nearby.

The development proposal would be made more attractive if the flora

collections could be combined with fauna, particularly penguins native to the

Sub-Antarctic collections represented in the building and/or other relevant

fauna species (including other birds, insects, marine invertebrates, etc)32.

Whilst the site is difficult to access by car, this could be overcome by:

improving public transport to the site either by bus or by rail;

encouraging access via the inter-city cycleway;

linking the site to the Gardens proper by the proposed

overpass (see Accessible Paths above);

increasing the size and configuration of the lower Gardens

car park (see Arrival, Parking and Entry);

establishing the proposed car park on the golf course (in

this scenario visitors would pass through the Gardens and

cross the proposed footbridge to the development site; and

improvements to the road junction at the Domain Highway.

32 The Biodome in Montreal is a good example of the concept proposed here. The Biodome allows visitors to walk through replicas of four ecosystems found in the Americas. A variety of animals live in each simulated habitat.


T A S M A N I A N F E R N H O U S E

The SMP proposes that the Fernery could be significantly extended and

upgraded to become a far more significant attraction within the Gardens along

the lines of the Evolution House at the Kew Gardens. The upgraded fern

house would involve replacement of the existing fernery with a new,

architecturally designed building that extends the amount of covered area.

The bulk of the enclosed space would house extensive plantings of some of

the earliest known plants: ferns and cycads, lichens, selaginellas, horsetails

and mosses and other bryophytes. Tasmania is home to: nine aquatic

Pteridophyte species (ferns and fern allies) that require permanent submersion

or temporary inundation that could be accommodated in a new fernery. Other

areas in an expanded could include related rainforest and wet forest plant

species. In contrast to the emphasis on species requiring wet, moist

conditions, Tasmania is also home to 15 species that are specially adapted to

survive in seasonally dry habitats which could also be accommodated in part

of an expanded fern house33.

All plants would of known provenance and feature species of conservation in

line with the policies herein.

The whole of the new Fernery would be accessible via a network of paths

linked by stairs and or inclinators or mini-lifts. Moisture soaked, stone walls

could provide a rugged appearance and backdrop to the otherwise soft feel of

the fern and moss beds.

Waterfalls, overhead sprinklers and misting devices would heighten the

experience of the space.

Within the fern house spaces would be created where gatherings could occur

with suitable backgrounds for photographs. Small shelters might also be

created in which visitors could gather out of the mist. Temperature, humidity

and soil moisture displays could aid understanding of the environment in which

ferns live.

Interpretation would be linked to the themes identified in the Interpretation

Plan, particularly around issues of biodiversity and the ancient quality of ferns

and related non-vascular species.

33 Lang, C. 2005. “Proposal for the Development of an Expanded Fernery Display House – A Case Study Lead-In Document” unpublished proposal to the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens.

A T T A C H M E N T A T H E M A N A G E M E N T F R A M E W O R K F O R T H E R T B G

The Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Strategic Master Plan 2008-2013

defines the strategic framework within which the Gardens are to be managed

including its vision, mission and goals as follows (Figure A1).

Stated in full here, much of the strategic framework has direct relevance to the

development and on-going management of the living collections.

A . 1 R T B G V I S I O N

The Vision of the RTBG is

“The Vision of the RTBG is to create and maintain an

exceptional garden that enriches Tasmania’s social and

cultural life, educates the community about the importance

of plants and contributes to the conservation of the flora of

Tasmania and the world.”

The vision

sets aspirational aims for a reputation of excellence within

the international arena;

provides a focus on Tasmania as the locus for the

operations and the identity of the Gardens (i.e. its sense of

place but also as a focus for collections); and

specifies that the Gardens contribute to flora conservation

initiatives.

Vis

ion

Mis

sion

Goa

ls

Pol

icie

s

Act

ion

Str

ateg

ies

Inte

rpre

tatio

n T

hem

es

Fig

ure

A.1

Str

ateg

ic M

anag

emen

t Fra

mew

ork

Attachment A RTBG Strategic Framework A3

A . 2 R T B G M I S S I O N

The transformation of vision into reality is an active process in which the

organisation’s mission is a central guiding force, therefore,

In common with other botanical gardens, the RTBG will:

act as an ex situ repository for species of

conservation significance and participate in other

conservation programs aimed at preserving bio-

diversity in the world; and

incorporate plants of an economic value to the

community.

In achieving its mission, the RTBG will create and maintain

core/priority plant collections based on Tasmania’s flora and

associated cool climate flora from the southern hemisphere.

In respect to its history, the RTBG will maintain:

the Gardens in a manner that recognises and

interprets the layered history of the site from

Aboriginal times through to the present;

identified heritage collections of plants that are of

State, national and international significance for

their historic heritage values; and

the place in a manner that respects its important

landscape and sense of place values.

The mission reiterates the aspiration to excellence, identifies the importance of

the Gardens to the Tasmanian community, provides focus on the experience

of the place through education, emphasises the role of the RTBG in

conservation and identifies the core values that underpin the place as

Tasmania’s botanic gardens i.e. Tasmanian endemic flora and associated cool

climate plants from the southern hemisphere and the heritage values of the

site.

A4 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

A . 3 R T B G M A N A G E M E N T G O A L S A N D S T R A T E G I E S

In the application of its values to the achievement of its vision and mission,

three objectives are recognised. These goals and objectives describe the

outcomes that the RTBG is trying to achieve and establish the key strategies

arising .

Goal 1. To sustainably manage the core values of the RTBG as Tasmania’s

botanical garden.

Strategy 1.1. Insure the RTBG is internationally recognised

for its collections of southern hemisphere cool climate

plants with a particular emphasis on Tasmania’s flora.

Strategy 1.2. Respect, conserve and interpret the cultural

values of the site.

Strategy 1.3. Support and be involved in world

conservation programs for the world’s flora.

Strategy 1.4. Be a community leader in sustainable

environmental programs.

Strategy 1.5. Engage in appropriate research related to the

conservation of species of conservation significance from

southern hemisphere cool climate areas with a particular

emphasis on Tasmania’s flora.

This goal addresses the definition of the RTBG as a ‘Tasmanian botanical

garden’ (see Section 1) and recognises the significant values embodied in the

Gardens and that these values must be managed in a sustainable manner if

the SMP is to be considered successful.

This goal also addresses a principle requirement to maintain the integrity of

the RTBG as a true botanical gardens through appropriate curation of living

collections, involvement in the conservation of the world’s flora and the

conduct of targeted research.

Goal 2. To promote and manage the Gardens to ensure its users have the

opportunity to attain a quality experience of the place and its values.

Strategy 2.1 To achieve excellence in horticultural and

botanical education, training and extension programs;


Strategy 2.2 To communicate the relevance, importance

and history of the RTBG, its programs, people and context

through meaningful and valued interpretation;

Strategy 2.3 To be a recognised deliverer of quality

programs, products and services;

Strategy 2.4 To position the RTBG as one of the top

Tasmanian attractions in terms of number of visits and

levels of awareness;

Strategy 2.5 To develop the built environment to facilitate

the experience of the Gardens

Strategy 2.6 To maintain the built environment of the RTBG

in a manner that addresses requirements for basic function,

safety and public amenity.

This goal addresses the use value of the Garden and the benefits to be

derived from the successful management of the RTBG as an education and

training centre, a community asset and a tourism destination.

The management of the visitor experience is directly related to people’s

expectations for the Gardens as a destination for daily life and/or for tourism.

Goal 3. To ensure there is sufficient capacity to sustainably manage34 the

place.

Strategy 3.1 To ensure that the legislative requirements for

the operations of the Gardens are effectively met.

Strategy 3.2 To ensure that the funding available to the

Gardens is adequate to realise its vision and mission.

Strategy 3.3 To deliver innovative, proactive and

sustainable business practices to support and enhance

RTBG programs.

Strategy 3.4 To provide a safe and enriching work and

social environment for staff, stakeholders and visitors.

This goal addresses the core operational activities of the Gardens and

recognises that the RTBG has a responsibility to achieve a consistent and

integrated approach to the management of the Gardens and that to achieve

34 Manage being defined as the day to day activities which serve to direct or control use so as to protect the values of the place, to ensure the safety of users and/or to improve their access to the area.


this the RTBG must have the legislative power, the organisational and

procedural capacities and the funding necessary to implement, monitor and

evaluate the strategies set out in the SMP.

A . 4 T H E P O L I C Y F R A M E W O R K

A range of policies, including those contained in the LCP (highlighted), assist

in achievement of the RTBG’s goals as shown in Table A.1.

Policies provide principles, standards and guidelines and direct the creation of

procedures that apply in the operations of the Gardens. Policies have no

statutory weight, but supply criteria and guidance in setting a course of action.

The policies may be added to as demand dictates or amended as ‘policy

learning’ occurs.

Policies are different to ‘regulations’ that prohibit, control or allow activities

within the Gardens. Regulations have legislative force arising from the Royal

Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Act 2002. Part 3 of the Act establishes a range

of regulations for the Care, Control and Management of the Gardens. Part 4,

Section 29 allows for the establishment of new regulations for the purposes of

the Act.

Policies are also different to ‘procedures’, the latter being developed as tools

for the implementation of policies. Procedures are developed by the staff of

the RTBG and detail the content or step by step processes that are

undertaken in relation to the tasks of managing and maintaining the Gardens.


Goals Policy Areas Policies

1. To sustainably manage the core values of the RTBG as Tasmania’s botanic gardens.

Core Values Policy Living Collections

Biodiversity Conservation (includes research)

Education

Heritage Conservation

2. To promote and manage the RTBG to ensure its users have the opportunity to attain a quality experience of the place and its values.

Visitor Experience Policy

Interpretation

Visitor Survey

Visitor Facilities (includes access and new development)

Events and Activities

3. To ensure there is sufficient capacity to sustainably manage the place.

Capacity to Manage Policy

Land Acquisition

Funding and Resources

Management Partnerships

Future Use and Development

Coordinated Planning

Monitoring and Review of Plans and Policies and Procedures

Operations and Asset Management (includes water use)

Occupational Health and Safety and other Personnel Management and Employment Policies35

Table A.1. RTBG Policy Framework

35 The RTBG is subject to the Health and Safety Policies of the Department of Tourism, Arts and the Environment. Policies include but are not limited to: Remote and Isolated Work Safety Policy, OHSMS Management and Coordination Policy, Incident Accident Reporting Policy, Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and Control Safety Policy, Dangerous Good and Hazardous Substances Safety Policy. The RTBG also works within Governmental policies related to personnel management and employment.


A . 5 I N T E R P R E T A T I O N T H E M E S

Themes sit at the heart of the interpretive program. They form a set of

‘launching pads’ from which the entire program is developed and delivered.

They allow for considerable creativity in developing the program, providing for

varying levels of layering and depth, while weaving together a range of topics

– all geared to the delivery media, audience and location.

Themes are presented with a range of underpinning ideas for context. The

diversity of these underpinning ideas indicates the considerable opportunity for

rich layering of interpretive content.

A.5.1 Primary Themes

The following themes are considered primary because together they convey

what makes RTBG distinctive in relation to other natural or cultural areas and

other botanical gardens in Australia and overseas. In this way, they contribute

to RTBG’s competitive advantage. They establish the key ideas about RTBG

and what ‘makes it tick’ for the audience most interested in interpretation –

International & National Visitors.

In addition, P1 and P2 communicate that RTBG is leading edge, has an

incredibly valuable role that no-one else can replicate, and is sharing its

knowledge and expertise with the local community and specialist

‘communities’ nationally and overseas.

A.5.2 Secondary Themes

Secondary themes are no less important, in their own right, than primary

themes. However, they either put ‘flesh on the bones’ – communicating the

depth and richness of the RTBG experience – or are less relevant to the main

interpretive audience.

PR

IMA

RY

TH

EM

ES

U

ND

ER

PIN

NIN

G ID

EA

S

RA

TIO

NA

LE

P1

With

out t

he w

ork

of th

e R

oyal

Tas

man

ian

Bot

anic

al

Gar

dens

, our

bio

dive

rsity

w

ould

suf

fer

– an

d so

wou

ld

we.

RT

BG

is m

ore

than

a b

eaut

iful p

ark

– b

ecau

se p

lant

s ar

e cr

itica

l to

life,

it’s

hel

ping

pre

serv

e qu

ality

of l

ife fo

r T

asm

ania

ns a

nd o

ther

s th

roug

h pr

otec

ting

our

nativ

e sp

ecie

s.

Its r

ole

in c

onse

rvin

g T

asm

ania

n an

d ot

her

cool

clim

ate

Sou

ther

n H

emis

pher

e sp

ecie

s is

par

t of a

maj

or w

orld

fo

rce

in c

onse

rvat

ion

e.g.

bio

logy

and

pro

paga

tion

of s

elec

ted

rare

and

thre

aten

ed s

peci

es in

con

junc

tion

with

th

e D

epar

tmen

t of P

lant

Sci

ence

at t

he U

nive

rsity

of T

asm

ania

; pro

paga

tion

of r

are

and

thre

aten

ed s

peci

es fo

r re

vege

tatio

n of

min

e si

tes;

par

t of t

he M

illen

nium

See

d B

ank

proj

ect,

colle

ctin

g se

ed fr

om r

are

and

prot

ecte

d T

asm

ania

n flo

ra.

It no

t onl

y pl

ays

an a

ctiv

e ro

le in

con

serv

atio

n of

Tas

man

ian

flora

but

con

trib

utes

to th

e kn

owle

dge

and

skill

ba

nk o

f oth

er o

rgan

isat

ions

and

indi

vidu

als.

The

exp

erie

nce

wor

ld-w

ide

show

s th

at b

otan

ical

gar

dens

like

the

RT

BG

are

piv

otal

in m

aint

aini

ng p

lant

di

vers

ity a

t a ti

me

whe

n w

e ar

e se

eing

the

grea

test

rat

e of

spe

cies

ext

inct

ion

in e

arth

’s h

isto

ry. M

ore

than

2,5

00

bota

nica

l gar

dens

glo

bally

hav

e al

mos

t 30%

of t

he w

orld

’s p

lant

div

ersi

ty. N

o pl

ants

, no

peop

le!

Tas

man

ia h

as ic

onic

spe

cies

that

are

vul

nera

ble.

RT

BG

is th

e la

st r

epos

itory

for

som

e pl

ants

und

er th

reat

. T

asm

ania

’s fl

ora

is d

istin

ctiv

e an

d ha

s G

ondw

anan

con

nect

ions

.

RT

BG

is p

art o

f a g

loba

l net

wor

k an

d is

wor

king

with

par

tner

s lo

cally

.

The

Tas

man

ian

See

d C

onse

rvat

ion

Cen

tre

is in

trin

sic

to th

e ex

-situ

con

serv

atio

n of

Tas

man

ian

spec

ies.

Bio

dive

rsity

mat

ters

! All

life

depe

nds

on p

lant

s ye

t pla

nts

are

an a

t-ris

k re

sour

ce. P

lant

s ar

e al

so th

e ba

sis

for

mos

t eco

-sys

tem

s. P

lant

s ha

ve p

laye

d a

key

role

in h

uman

his

tory

(fo

od, a

rt, b

io-p

rosp

ectin

g, tr

ade,

res

ourc

es

etc.

).

The

gar

dens

hav

e pl

ayed

and

con

tinue

to p

lay

an im

port

ant r

ole

in th

e ex

chan

ge o

f pla

nts

with

oth

er s

ites

arou

nd A

ustr

alia

and

the

wor

ld a

nd th

is c

ontin

ues

toda

y w

ith th

e S

eed

Ban

k.

We

can

lear

n ab

out t

he p

urpo

ses

for

plan

ts e

.g. m

edic

inal

, foo

d, o

ther

eco

nom

ic p

urpo

ses,

etc

.

The

col

lect

ions

of t

he R

TB

G il

lust

rate

the

conn

ectio

ns b

etw

een

Tas

man

ia’s

flor

a, o

ther

Sou

ther

n H

emis

pher

e flo

ra a

nd th

e an

cien

t flo

ra o

f Gon

dwan

a

Enc

ompa

sses

thre

e le

vels

– th

e ‘b

ig p

ictu

re’ o

r ge

neric

im

port

ance

of p

lant

s; p

oint

of

diffe

renc

e fo

r R

TB

G; a

nd s

cope

fo

r a

rang

e of

det

aile

d co

nten

t.

Link

s to

oth

er lo

cal a

ttrac

tions

th

at fe

atur

e T

asm

ania

n/

Gon

dwan

an p

lant

s, s

uch

as

Mou

nt W

ellin

gton

.

P2

The

Roy

al B

otan

ical

G

arde

ns is

a le

ader

in

Tas

man

ian

hort

icul

tura

l pr

actic

es, o

peni

ng th

e w

orld

of

plan

ts fo

r yo

u.

RT

BG

pla

ys a

n im

port

ant r

ole

in tr

aini

ng th

e bo

tani

sts

and

hort

icul

tura

lists

of t

he fu

ture

, hel

ping

to e

nsur

e th

at

exce

llenc

e in

Tas

man

ian

hort

icul

tura

l pra

ctic

es a

nd fl

ora

cons

erva

tion

is m

aint

aine

d.

It al

so e

xcite

s, in

spire

s an

d ed

ucat

es p

eopl

e ab

out g

row

ing

plan

ts.

The

RT

BG

hor

ticul

tura

l pra

ctic

es a

re n

ot ju

st a

bout

edi

ble

plan

ts e

.g. i

t has

cul

tivat

ed s

ome

Tas

man

ian

spec

ies

neve

r cu

ltiva

ted

befo

re. I

t is

the

only

pla

ce in

the

wor

ld g

row

ing

Sub

anta

rctic

flor

a in

a c

ontr

olle

d en

viro

nmen

t.

Its h

ortic

ultu

ral t

hera

py p

rogr

am w

as o

ne o

f the

firs

t in

Aus

tral

ia.

Fro

m th

e ea

rly d

evel

opm

ent o

f Van

Die

men

’s L

and

– p

artic

ular

ly fr

om th

e pe

riod

whe

n R

TB

G c

ame

unde

r th

e au

spic

es o

f the

Roy

al S

ocie

ty o

f Van

Die

men

’s L

and

for

Hor

ticul

ture

, Bot

any

and

the

Adv

ance

men

t of S

cien

ce

– it

has

been

a fo

cus

for

the

isla

nd’s

hor

ticul

tura

l res

earc

h an

d pr

actic

es (

linki

ng to

ear

ly te

chno

logy

, suc

h as

A

rthu

r W

all).

The

ran

ge o

f col

lect

ions

and

pla

nts

refle

cts

an im

men

se w

orld

of p

lant

s e.

g. a

t a r

ecen

t Wor

ld H

arm

ony

Day

, at

leas

t one

pla

nt r

epre

sent

ing

alm

ost e

ach

of m

ore

than

80

mig

rant

com

mun

ities

was

iden

tifie

d.

Rel

ates

to s

harin

g kn

owle

dge

and

expe

rtis

e an

d in

this

way

, be

ing

dire

ctly

rel

evan

t to

the

loca

l com

mun

ity.

P3

The

sto

ry o

f the

Gar

dens

ha

s go

ne fu

ll ci

rcle

, fro

m

surv

ival

on

a lo

cal s

cale

bac

k th

en to

the

surv

ival

of e

very

on

e of

us

in th

e fu

ture

.

The

site

beg

an w

ith a

focu

s on

sur

viva

l, th

roug

h fo

od g

athe

ring

and

food

pro

duct

ion

for

subs

iste

nce.

Thi

s le

d to

in

trod

uctio

n of

exo

tic p

lant

s fo

r th

e co

lony

and

has

now

ret

urne

d to

a fo

cus

on m

ore

glob

al s

urvi

val –

the

co

nser

vatio

n of

Tas

man

ian

plan

ts a

s pa

rt o

f ret

aini

ng th

e w

orld

’s b

iodi

vers

ity a

nd e

nsur

ing

the

ongo

ing

surv

ival

an

d w

ellb

eing

of a

ll of

us.

The

his

tory

of h

uman

occ

upat

ion

of th

e G

arde

ns g

oes

back

mor

e th

an 3

5,00

0 ye

ars

to th

e or

igin

al T

asm

ania

n A

borig

inal

inha

bita

nts.

The

Mou

hene

enne

r pe

ople

sou

rced

she

llfis

h fr

om th

e D

erw

ent R

iver

and

food

stuf

fs

from

loca

l pla

nts

on th

e si

te a

nd g

athe

red

ther

e to

coo

k an

d ea

t it.

The

Brit

ish

then

use

d th

e si

te in

the

early

180

0s, i

n th

e fle

dglin

g co

lony

of V

an D

iem

en’s

Lan

d, a

s pa

rt o

f a

farm

. T

he th

en-G

over

nor

Sor

ell r

efus

ed to

rec

ogni

se th

e tit

le fo

r th

e fa

rm a

nd p

art o

f it b

ecam

e a

Gov

ernm

ent

Gar

den.

Thi

s in

itial

pha

se w

as fo

cuse

d on

sub

sist

ence

in a

new

, rem

ote

settl

emen

t thr

ough

pro

duct

ion

of

edib

le p

lant

s.

The

nex

t mai

n ph

ase

was

its

deve

lopm

ent a

nd e

xpan

sion

, und

er th

e au

thor

ity o

f the

Roy

al S

ocie

ty o

f Van

Cul

tura

l her

itage

, cou

ched

in a

m

essa

ge th

at r

elat

es to

us

toda

y, is

the

focu

s. T

his

links

to

P1.

36 F

rom

Roy

al T

asm

ania

n B

otan

ical

Gar

dens

The

mat

ic H

isto

ry, p

repa

red

in 2

007

by H

isto

rian

Lind

y S

crip

ps a

s pa

rt o

f the

RT

BG

Con

serv

atio

n M

anag

emen

t Pla

n.

Die

men

’s L

and

for

Hor

ticul

ture

, Bot

any

and

the

Adv

ance

men

t of S

cien

ce, a

s pa

rt o

f a th

irst f

or k

now

ledg

e. T

he

focu

s sh

ifted

to:

shar

ing

of s

peci

men

s, s

cien

ce a

nd r

esea

rch,

cul

tivat

ion

of “

usef

ul p

lant

s”, a

nd a

cclim

atis

atio

n an

d su

pply

of t

rees

, fru

its a

nd p

lant

s in

trod

uced

to th

e co

lony

.

Mem

bers

of t

he s

ocie

ty h

ad p

rivile

ged

acce

ss fo

r a

num

ber

of y

ears

but

by

1848

the

Gar

dens

wer

e fr

eely

av

aila

ble

to th

e pu

blic

and

bec

ame

a po

pula

r pl

ace

for

recr

eatio

n an

d ed

ucat

ion

The

Gar

dens

fluc

tuat

ed, w

ith p

erio

ds o

f bei

ng r

un d

own

inte

rspe

rsed

with

per

iods

of r

evita

lisat

ion.

By

the

early

19

00s,

a fo

cus

was

em

ergi

ng o

n fa

cilit

ies

for

visi

tors

suc

h as

“a

retir

ing

plac

e fo

r la

dies

and

chi

ldre

n” a

nd

“…ta

bles

pro

vide

, and

a b

rick

firep

lace

ere

cted

, with

woo

d an

d w

ater

at h

and.

Vis

itors

are

now

abl

e to

boi

l the

ir ke

ttles

…”.

36

Thr

ough

the

late

180

0s, t

he G

arde

ns p

rovi

ded

thou

sand

s of

pla

nts

for

land

scap

e de

velo

pmen

t thr

ough

out

Tas

man

ia, i

nclu

ding

Fra

nklin

Squ

are

in H

obar

t, C

atar

act G

orge

and

Por

t Art

hur.

All

of th

e bu

ilt h

erita

ge h

as it

s ow

n st

ory

to te

ll (e

.g. A

rthu

r W

all,

Frie

nds

Cot

tage

, Con

serv

ator

y). A

nd s

o ha

s th

e bu

ilt h

erita

ge th

at h

as d

isap

pear

ed o

r is

out

of s

ight

(th

ere

are

man

y la

yers

her

e).

The

pla

nts

also

hav

e m

any

stor

ies

to te

ll –

not j

ust b

otan

ical

but

als

o re

latin

g to

soc

ial h

isto

ry.

The

Gar

dens

are

a p

rodu

ct o

f a c

ontin

ually

-evo

lvin

g la

ndsc

ape.

The

y ha

ve a

lway

s be

en a

nd a

re a

‘wor

k in

pr

ogre

ss’,

right

bac

k to

the

early

day

s w

hen

they

wer

e us

ed b

y G

over

nmen

t Hou

se a

s a

farm

and

incl

udin

g th

e re

clam

atio

n of

the

bay

as p

art o

f the

Gar

dens

site

.

The

y ar

e on

e of

onl

y si

x ‘R

oyal

’ bot

anic

al g

arde

ns in

the

wor

ld (

alon

g w

ith K

ew a

nd E

dinb

urgh

in th

e U

.K.,

Ham

ilton

in C

anad

a, S

ydne

y an

d M

elbo

urne

).

P4

It to

ok u

nski

lled

conv

ict l

abou

r to

est

ablis

h th

ese

gard

ens

– an

d ta

kes

spec

ialis

t ski

lls a

nd k

now

ledg

e to

kee

p th

em th

rivin

g no

w.

The

Gar

dens

wer

e pa

rt o

f the

Van

Die

men

’s L

and

conv

ict s

yste

m, w

ith th

e la

bour

forc

e la

rgel

y co

nsis

ting

of

conv

icts

unt

il 18

58.

The

gar

dens

may

ulti

mat

ely

be a

pro

duct

of g

ente

el V

icto

rian

idea

ls a

nd a

spira

tions

. Yet

it w

as th

e lo

wes

t lev

el

of e

arly

soc

iety

that

bro

ught

the

idea

ls to

frui

tion.

The

ava

ilabi

lity

of c

heap

, uns

kille

d co

nvic

t lab

our

was

the

only

mea

ns in

the

early

day

s of

pre

vent

ing

“the

G

arde

ns fr

om fa

lling

into

a s

tate

of d

ecay

”.37

(le

ads

to th

e R

oyal

Soc

iety

’s r

ole

in in

trod

ucin

g sp

ecia

list s

kills

an

d ex

pert

ise)

.

Tod

ay, R

TB

G s

taff

are

reco

gnis

ed fo

r br

ingi

ng a

hig

h le

vel o

f exp

ertis

e an

d sp

ecia

list k

now

ledg

e to

the

care

an

d de

velo

pmen

t of t

he G

arde

ns a

nd to

vita

l con

serv

atio

n w

ork.

The

Gar

dens

are

par

t of a

wid

er T

asm

ania

n co

nvic

t sto

ry th

at c

an b

e ex

perie

nced

at o

ther

site

s, in

clud

ing

Hob

art’s

Cas

cade

s F

emal

e F

acto

ry, P

ort A

rthu

r H

isto

ric S

ite, a

nd S

arah

Isla

nd.

Ena

bles

RT

BG

to ta

p in

to

exis

ting

stre

ngth

of t

ouris

t in

tere

st in

the

conv

ict s

tory

and

to

bui

ld o

n ex

perie

nces

vis

itors

ar

e lik

ely

to h

ave

had

else

whe

re.

Als

o is

a le

gitim

ate

way

to

show

case

, app

ropr

iate

ly, R

TB

G

as a

cen

tre

of e

xcel

lenc

e.

37 F

rom

The

mat

ic H

isto

ry p

repa

red

by h

isto

rian,

Lin

dy S

crip

ps, i

n 20

07 a

s pa

rt o

f RT

BG

Con

serv

atio

n M

anag

emen

t Pla

n.

SE

CO

ND

AR

Y T

HE

ME

S

UN

DE

RP

INN

ING

IDE

AS

R

AT

ION

ALE

S1

The

Roy

al T

asm

ania

n B

otan

ical

Gar

dens

sho

ws

you

how

to m

ake

a di

ffere

nce

whe

n it

com

es to

env

ironm

enta

l ch

ange

.

RT

BG

is a

n hi

stor

ical

rec

ord

of c

limat

e ch

ange

issu

es. P

lant

ada

ptat

ions

hav

e oc

curr

ed a

s a

resu

lt of

the

plan

et’s

his

toric

al c

limat

e ch

ange

.

Thr

ough

the

Gar

dens

, I c

an d

isco

ver

that

I ha

ve a

n im

port

ant p

art t

o pl

ay in

the

heal

th a

nd w

ellb

eing

of m

ysel

f, ot

hers

and

the

plan

et –

thr

ough

the

Gar

dens

’ was

te m

anag

emen

t/rec

yclin

g pr

actic

es to

the

com

post

hea

p in

P

ete’

s V

eggi

e P

atch

and

dire

ct le

arni

ng o

n-si

te.

The

env

ironm

ent i

s fr

agile

, ess

entia

l and

sus

cept

ible

and

ther

e ar

e th

ings

you

can

do

to w

ork

with

this

.

RT

BG

is a

cen

tre

for

findi

ng o

ut in

form

atio

n on

env

ironm

enta

l iss

ues.

It is

a p

lace

whe

re y

ou c

an le

arn

and

get

exci

ted

and

it is

an

acce

ssib

le s

ourc

e of

env

ironm

enta

l kno

wle

dge

e.g.

bei

ng w

ater

wis

e, le

arni

ng a

bout

wee

ds

and

whi

ch p

lant

s sh

ould

n’t b

e in

you

r ga

rden

, dis

cove

ring

orga

nic

gard

enin

g.

RT

BG

offe

rs fo

rmal

edu

catio

nal p

rogr

ams

and

info

rmal

lear

ning

.

Hig

hlig

hts

the

RT

BG

’s a

ctiv

e ro

le in

con

trib

utin

g to

qua

lity

of

life

for

loca

ls a

nd o

ther

s.

For

man

y lo

cals

, thi

s pl

ace

is

like

a m

embe

r of

the

fam

ily.

Man

y lo

cals

con

side

r th

e G

arde

ns a

s a

supp

ortiv

e ‘re

lativ

e’, c

omin

g he

re f

or c

omfo

rt in

har

d tim

es, t

o sl

ow

dow

n or

che

er u

p, to

enj

oy th

e se

nse

of s

afet

y, to

hav

e fu

n, o

r to

feel

a s

ense

of b

elon

ging

and

pla

ce (

e.g.

A

ntar

ctic

exp

editi

oner

s on

ret

urn)

.

The

Gar

dens

are

a r

epos

itory

of l

ocal

mem

orie

s. T

hey

are

a w

itnes

s to

the

begi

nnin

gs, e

ndin

gs a

nd th

e cy

cles

of

our

live

s –

visi

ting

as c

hild

ren,

cou

rtin

g, w

eddi

ngs,

sca

tterin

g th

e as

hes

of lo

ved

ones

.

Eve

n w

hen

they

don

’t vi

sit,

loca

ls f

eel g

ood

know

ing

that

the

Gar

dens

are

ther

e w

hen

they

wan

t or

need

to

expe

rienc

e th

em.

The

Gar

dens

are

an

impo

rtan

t par

t of l

ocal

iden

tity

and

the

imag

e of

Hob

art.

The

se a

re T

asm

ania

’s b

otan

ic g

arde

ns a

nd w

e ar

e pr

oud

of it

s hi

stor

y, it

s co

nditi

on a

nd th

e un

ique

Tas

man

ian

flora

with

in it

.

Per

sona

lises

the

sign

ifica

nce

of th

e G

arde

ns to

the

loca

l co

mm

unity

.

S3

The

Roy

al T

asm

ania

n B

otan

ical

Gar

dens

hav

e th

e po

wer

to in

spire

us

and

prov

ide

sanc

tuar

y in

our

bus

y liv

es.

The

Gar

dens

are

a u

niqu

ely

insp

iring

pla

ce fo

r re

invi

gora

tion

and

reco

nnec

tion

– ph

ysic

ally

, em

otio

nally

and

spi

ritua

lly. “

It gi

ves

us th

e ch

ance

to r

econ

nect

with

our

selv

es, o

ther

s an

d na

ture

.”

Thi

s is

a p

lace

that

nou

rishe

s ou

r im

agin

atio

n.

It is

a p

ower

ful p

lace

bec

ause

of i

ts s

enso

ry r

ichn

ess.

It is

a p

lace

of r

ecre

atio

n an

d re

laxa

tion,

with

opp

ortu

nitie

s fo

r in

divi

dual

and

gro

up

expr

essi

on/e

xper

ienc

es.

The

gar

dens

are

free

ly a

cces

sibl

e to

all.

Thi

s is

a p

lace

of l

ife! W

e ca

n lis

ten

to –

and

be

refu

eled

by

– th

e st

ory

that

nat

ure

tells

us

abou

t the

cy

cles

of l

ife.

Am

ong

all t

he d

estr

uctio

n an

d de

stru

ctiv

e pr

oces

ses

on th

e pl

anet

, the

RT

BG

sho

ws

us th

at

hum

ans

can

still

cre

ate

som

ethi

ng b

eaut

iful.

The

Gar

dens

sho

ws

that

eve

ryda

y ef

fort

(on

the

part

of

thos

e w

ho w

ork

here

and

are

pas

sion

ate

abou

t it)

can

cre

ate

extr

aord

inar

y ou

tcom

es.

The

Gar

dens

are

a r

ich

and

dyna

mic

env

ironm

ent t

hat i

s he

re fo

r ev

eryo

ne. W

e ca

n al

l sha

re in

the

owne

rshi

p of

them

and

can

be

part

of t

he G

arde

ns c

omm

unity

.

The

y re

min

d us

that

eve

ry d

ay a

bove

the

grou

nd is

a g

ood

day

– th

ey a

re a

pla

ce o

f unc

ompl

icat

ed

love

(so

meh

ow li

fe a

nd w

hat’s

impo

rtan

t all

seem

s si

mpl

er, h

ere)

.

In e

xplo

ring

the

them

ed G

arde

ns, w

e ar

e in

form

ed a

bout

our

ow

n id

entit

y an

d th

e di

ffere

nt id

entit

ies

of o

ther

cul

ture

s.

Info

rms

the

way

RT

BG

is

deve

lope

d ov

er ti

me.

S3

is

deliv

ered

larg

ely

thro

ugh

impl

icit

rath

er th

an o

vert

m

eans

e.g

. the

pro

visi

on o

f in

timat

e or

soc

ial s

pace

s;

oppo

rtun

ity/fa

cilit

ies

for

cont

empl

atio

n.

Als

o hi

ghlig

hts

the

impo

rtan

ce

of s

enso

ry e

lem

ents

in th

e in

terp

retiv

e pr

ogra

m.

A T T A C H E M E N T B T H E M A S T E R P L A N

In

spiri

ng P

lace

Env

ironm

enta

l Pla

nnin

g, L

ands

cape

Arc

hite

ctur

eTo

uris

m a

nd R

ecre

atio

n

Nor

th 1

:200

0@A

1

INSPIRING PLACE

S

ite M

aste

r P

lan

Roy

al T

asm

ania

n B

otan

ical

Gar

dens

M

ay 2

009

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

b

13

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

23

24

Fac

iliti

esN

ew v

isito

r hu

b an

d A

dmin

istr

atio

nN

ew a

nd e

xpan

ded

Tasm

ania

n F

ern

Hou

seS

ub-A

ntar

ctic

/Alp

ine

Cen

tre

Sup

erin

tend

ent’s

cot

tage

inte

rpre

tatio

n ar

eaTe

achi

ng a

nd L

earn

ing

Cen

tre

The

Frie

nd’s

Cot

tage

C

onse

rvat

ory

Arr

ival

, Par

kin

g a

nd

Pat

hs

Term

inat

e Lo

wer

Dom

ain

Roa

d. C

reat

e tu

rnin

g, a

rriv

al, d

rop-

off z

one

Bus

par

king

and

lay-

byS

tage

1 p

arki

ng u

sing

Low

er D

omai

n R

oad

alig

nmen

tP

edes

tria

n lin

k to

Sol

dier

’s M

emor

ial A

venu

e vi

a P

owde

r M

agaz

ine

Ped

estr

ian

prom

enad

e to

his

toric

ent

ry g

ate

Fea

ture

ped

estr

ian

brid

ge to

fore

shor

eF

utur

e pa

rkin

g N

ew 1

:20

retu

rn p

ath

from

nor

th o

f Gar

dens

Incl

inat

or li

nkin

g lo

wer

and

upp

er G

arde

nsN

ew p

edes

tria

n lin

k to

Cor

nelia

n B

ay W

alk

New

Fea

ture

Co

llect

ion

sB

eaum

aris

Zoo

– s

outh

ern

coni

fer

and

Gon

dwan

an s

peci

es

Tasm

ania

n gr

assl

ands

and

woo

dy g

rass

land

sTa

sman

ian

dry

scle

roph

yll f

ores

tTa

sman

ian

wet

scl

erop

hyll

fore

stTa

sman

ian

heat

hlan

d an

d co

asta

l spe

cies

Sal

tmar

shE

cono

mic

and

edu

catio

n ga

rden

sC

hild

ren’

s G

arde

n

Uti

lity

Are

asN

orth

ern

stor

age

area

Nur

sery

Eas

tern

sto

rage

are

a

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10)

11)

12)

13)

14)

15)

16)

17)

18)

19)

20)

21)

22)

23)

24)

25)

a) b) c)

7

10

11

12

14

22

25

c

a10

Key

24

FINAL Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens LIVING COLLECTIONS ...€¦ · world network of botanic...

Documents

Transcript of FINAL Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens LIVING COLLECTIONS ...€¦ · world network of botanic...