MONITORING AND PRIORITISATION OF FLORA TRANSLOCATIONS… · MONITORING AND PRIORITISATION OF FLORA...
Transcript of MONITORING AND PRIORITISATION OF FLORA TRANSLOCATIONS… · MONITORING AND PRIORITISATION OF FLORA...
i
MONITORING AND PRIORITISATION OF
FLORA TRANSLOCATIONS:
A SURVEY OF OPINIONS FROM
PRACTITIONERS AND RESEARCHERS
N. Hancock1, R.V. Gallagher1 & R.O. Makinson2
1. Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University
2. Royal Botanic Gardens & Domain Trust, Sydney
ii
This document was compiled as part of a project funded by the NSW Biodiversity
Research Hub in 2013-14. It is intended to be read in conjunction with the Australian
Network for Plant Conservation publication Guidelines for the translocation of
threatened plants in Australia (Vallee et al. 2004).
Please cite this publication as:
Hancock, N., Gallagher, R.V. & Makinson, R.O. (2014). Monitoring and prioritisation
of flora translocations: a survey of opinions from practitioners and researchers.
Report to the Biodiversity Hub of the NSW Office of Environment & Heritage.
For further correspondence contact: [email protected]
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary v
Acknowledgements v
List of Tables vi
RESULTS OF SURVEY OF PRACTITIONERS AND RESEARCHERS
Section 1 A synthesis of opinions on monitoring of flora
translocations – results from the Flora translocation
survey (2013)
1. The Flora Translocation Survey (2013)
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Aims and objectives of the survey 1
1.3 What is a successful translocation? 2
1.4 The importance of monitoring 2
2. Survey design
2.1 Selection of survey respondents 3
2.2 Survey format 4
2.3 Data analysis 5
3. Survey results: quantitative data
3.1 General information 5
3.2 Monitoring duration by habit groups 6
3.3 Monitoring duration by breeding system 8
3.4 Monitoring duration by planting method 10
3.5 Monitoring duration by taxonomic groups 11
3.6 Other life-cycle monitoring
3.6.1 Early survivorship 13
3.6.2 Growth 13
4. Interpretation of the quantitative data
4.1 Commonalities 14
iv
4.2 Considerations for interpretation of the data 14
4.3 Other comments 15
5. Other monitoring considerations
5.1 Representative sampling 15
5.2 Comparison to reference site 16
5.3 Other monitoring variables 16
5.4 Suggestions for simple, cost effective monitoring of flora
translocations 18
6. Conclusions 22
Section 2 Prioritisation of translocations
1.1 The need to prioritise 23
1.2 Decision tool for prioritising candidate species 23
1.3 Practitioner and researcher opinions on pre-translocation
assessments 27
References 32
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Compilation of established flora translocations in Australia 34
v
Summary
This document provides the results of a survey of practitioners and researchers
working within the field of flora translocations throughout Australia. Specifically,
opinions were sought on optimal strategies for monitoring translocations after they
have occurred and for which factors are most important for prioritising candidate
species. A dichotomous key containing a series of questions that need to be
addressed prior to the approval of a translocation are also provided. This key is
intended to act as a set of guiding principles for choosing between potential
candidates for translocations.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Tricia Hogbin in providing
assistance in survey design and interpretation of data. We also thank staff within the
NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, specifically Linda Bell and James Brazil-
Boast.
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Preferred duration of monitoring of flora translocation projects for various
plant growth habits
Table 2. Preferred duration of monitoring of flora translocation projects for various
plant breeding systems
Table 3. Preferred duration of monitoring of flora translocation projects by planting
method
Table 4. Additional monitoring variables, rated by respondents of the Flora
translocation survey (2013)
Table 5. Responses (%) from survey participants regarding factors that should be
known before proceeding with translocation
Table 6. Responses (%) from survey participants regarding preparatory measures
that should be undertaken before proceeding with translocation
Appendix 1. Compilation of established flora translocations in Australia
1
RESULTS OF SURVEY OF PRACTITIONERS AND
RESEARCHERS
SECTION 1 - A synthesis of opinions on monitoring
of flora translocations – results from the Flora translocation
survey (2013)
1. The Flora translocation survey (2013)
1.1 Introduction
Translocations intentionally move organisms from one site to another and are
broadly classified as re-introductions and augmentations (reinforcements) within an
organisms’ known distribution, and introductions and ecological replacements
beyond the known range (IUCN/SSC, 2013). Translocations are regarded as an
appropriate (but not risk free) tool, in a suite of measures aimed at the conservation
of biodiversity (IUCN/SSC, 2013).
The challenge for conservation managers is to minimise project costs but at
the same time, retain the benefits that key processes, such as monitoring, add to the
success of a translocation project. To investigate how (or if) this is being achieved,
we surveyed practitioners and researchers involved in Australian flora translocations
to gather opinions on how effectively monitoring is carried out on current projects..
The outcomes of this exploratory survey are an indication of thinking among a
selection of practitioners and researchers, constrained by questionnaire
format. They are not the whole story and are not in themselves an adequate basis
for policy or prioritisation procedures. More detailed canvassing of a wider range of
expertise holders, and deeper mining of the information sources, would be needed to
provide that basis.
1.2 Aims and objectives of the survey
The aim of the monitoring section of the Flora Translocation Survey, 2013, was to
investigate the possibility of formulating a general, cost effective monitoring guideline
that can be adapted for individual flora projects. In addition, the survey was used to
2
try and find commonalities between groups of species or species’ traits that could
lead to standardised monitoring.
1.3 What is a successful translocation?
Each translocation will have its own success criteria, but generally, success is
measured by the establishment of a self-sustaining population of the focal species
(Griffith et al., 1989; Fischer & Lindenmayer, 2000). Successful flora translocations
have also been described as the ability of the translocated population to persist and
reproduce (Godefroid et al., 2011). The Australian Network for Plant Conservation
(ANPC) flora translocation guidelines further splits success into short-term and long-
term objectives (Vallee et al., 2004). The short-term goal is the successful
establishment of the translocated individuals and the long-term goals are: the
management and control of threats; the attainment of sufficient numbers to avoid
both demographic and environmental stochasticity and successful reproduction and
natural recruitment (Vallee et al., 2004).
1.4 The importance of monitoring
Monitoring is a vital component of all translocation projects and is necessary for
ensuring adaptive management and evaluating success (Vallee et al., 2004;Menges,
2008; Maschinski et al., 2012). Monitoring contributes to the success of
translocations by (Menges 2008; Monks et al. 2012):
increasing basic biological and ecological knowledge;
enabling lessons to be learnt from past successes and failures by providing
the ability to adopt adaptive management;
allowing the evaluation of experimental approaches to translocation;
allowing comparisons with reference populations.
Furthermore, monitoring allows the assessment of the growth and survivorship of the
translocated population at regular intervals and permits the mitigation of threats as
they occur, thus increasing the chances of success (Dimond & Armstrong, 2007). In
particular, detailed long-term monitoring has been identified as a means to improve
current low success rates of species relocations (Sheean et al., 2012).
Implementation of a successful translocation project is dependent on long-
term monitoring and therefore requires an allocation of resources over a sufficiently
3
long period. The ANPC guidelines stipulate that a translocation should not proceed
until sufficient funding is secured for post-translocation monitoring (Vallee et al.,
2004).
The costs associated with translocations are not usually disclosed, however
Sheean et al. (2012) reported the costs of three Australian fauna species relocation
programmes: $190,000 with an additional cost of $25,000 per year for five years for
an amphibian; $600,000 for a marsupial and $300,000 for the supplementation of an
avian species (the time frame was included for the first project only). The amphibian
example suggests that whilst initial translocation costs are high, on-going monitoring
requirements also make a high proportion of overall costs. Reporting of on-going
translocation projects shows that monitoring tends to be carried out for short periods
(within three years), rather than 10+ years (Sheean et al., 2012).
2. Survey design
2.1 Selection of survey respondents
The data for this study was derived from a section of the Flora Translocation Survey,
2013, that pertained only to practitioners and researchers who have been involved in
Australian flora translocations and could nominate the specie(s) that they have
translocated. Potential participants were identified by the project collaborators and
included:
Australian State and Territory threatened species project officers;
Australian authors from the IUCN Reintroduction Specialist Group case study
reports 2011, 2010 and 2008
(http://www.iucnsscrsg.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=
192&Itemid=587;
Case study presenters at past ANPC workshops (since 2004) on
'Translocation of Threatened Plants in Australia';
Speakers at an Australian Association of Bush Regenerators seminar
3/10/13.
Authors of papers that included the terms “assisted colonisation”, “managed
translocation”, “plant” and “Australia” in titles or keywords accessed via the
Scopus Database in 2013.
4
Further participation was sought by the distribution of the survey through the
email networks of the Office of the Environment and Heritage (OEH) Threatened
Species Network, the Australian Network of Plant Conservation (ANPC) and the
Ecological Consultants Association of NSW.
2.2 Survey format
The survey was conducted on-line via SurveyMonkey and comprised two sections;
(1) Quantitative answers
(2) General opinions
In part (1) respondents were asked to identify flora species they have translocated
and to answer specific questions regarding the monitoring of the translocation project
for the identified species. The basis for these questions, from which a suite of
monitoring variables was determined, was derived from the current literature (Vallee
et al., 2004; Godefroid & Vanderborght, 2011; Maschinski et al., 2012). In particular,
these questions sought to elicit opinions on which variables should be measured for
translocated populations and at what duration. It is important to note that the
information gathered in the survey is not a substitute for expert opinion, but rather
seeks to complement already established protocols for flora translocation (namely
Vallee et al., 2004).
Respondents were provided with a list of life-cycle variables and asked to identify
the ideal duration of monitoring for each variable with a choice of: (1; 2; 3; 5; 7; 10;
10+ years, not important, not applicable). Life cycle variables included:
1. Survival;
2. Flowering plants;
3. Fruiting plants;
4. Seed production;
5. Abundance of naturally recruited (or regenerated) individuals;
6. Abundance of clonal offshoots (or ramet production)
To find commonalities between groups of species or species’ traits, respondents
were asked to categorize their species into the following groups:
Habit (woody plant - short-lived < 10 years; woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10
years; non-woody plant – perennial; non-woody plant – biennial; non-woody
plant – annual)
5
Breeding system (sexual; asexual; can be sexual &/or asexual; other)
Transplant method (seedling transplant; adult transplant; direct seeding)
Taxonomic (genus and species)
In addition to the above, in regard to their nominated species, respondents were
asked to provide details on the type of translocation undertaken, the conservation
status of the species at the time of translocation, publication details of the project,
the current status of the project (finished or not) and if finished, whether there is an
informal interest group maintaining some involvement.
In part (2) questions on more general aspects of monitoring, including the
effectiveness of volunteer groups and suggestions for simple, cost effective
monitoring were also asked. Each question allowed room for comments in order to
encapsulate any other monitoring variables the respondents deemed necessary.
2.4 Data analysis
For quantitative data, not every respondent answered each duration question for
each life-cycle parameter. To calculate percentages of responses for each life-cycle
measurement, where the individual measurements were skipped or allocated ‘not
applicable’, these responses were removed. Therefore, the base percentage
calculation is different for each parameter.
For the general opinion section, where closed-ended questions gave
numerous answer options, a rating average was applied to each option. The rating
average was calculated as follows:
w1*n1 + w2*n2+w3*n3
T
Where w = weight of the answer choice; n = the number of responses for that option;
T = total number of responses.
3. Survey results: quantitative data
3.1 General information
Thirty-one respondents participated in the monitoring section of the survey, yielding
data for 85 species. Thirteen species were identified more than once, two genera
(acacias and eucalypts) and two vegetation communities were identified and these
6
are not included in the number of (85) species. In addition, a bibliography of
translocation reports was compiled from survey responses and is included as
Appendix 1 to this report. 83% of the species were legislatively listed in one or more
Australian jurisdictions at the time of their translocation.
Reintroductions were the most common type of translocation (32%), followed
by introductions (22%) and ecological replacements (10%), as per the IUCN
definitions that were attached to the survey (IUCN/SSC 2013). Two thirds of the
projects are not finished in terms of the time frame set in their project plans.
Overwhelmingly, respondents think that all of the life cycle measurements
suggested in this survey are important to monitor. Some respondents provided
comments that their answer depends on the species and the circumstances. In
particular, we note the comments from one respondent (who has translocated
multiple species) that their answers ‘depends on what aspect of flowering/fruiting
plants are measured (e.g. flowering or not, the number of flowers, flower to fruit ratio)
and what goals/ success criteria is set and over what time frame’. There was no
capacity within the survey to ask respondents what specific aspects of each
monitoring parameter should be recorded for each species.
3.2 Monitoring duration by habit groups
The most frequently identified ‘habit’ for translocated taxa was Woody plant - long-
lived ≥ 10 years (Table 1). Non-woody plant – biennial and non-woody plant – annual
were absent from survey responses.
Table 1. Preferred duration of monitoring of flora translocation projects for
various plant growth habits. The first row in each cell identifies the number of
years the life cycle parameter should be measured according to survey respondents
and the percentage of total responses. The second row identifies the duration for the
second highest percentage of responses. The number in brackets in the third row of
each cell is the total number of responses. For instance for woody short-lived plants
(< 10 years), 75% of respondents think that survival should be monitored for over 10
years (10+) and 25% think it should be for 10 years (4 responses).
7
Woody plant -
short-lived < 10
years
Woody plant -
long-lived ≥ 10
years
Non-woody
perennial plant
Survival 10+: 75%
10: 25%
(4)
10+: 51%
5: 18%
(52)
5: 45%
10+: 39%
(44)
Flowering 5: 75%
10+: 25%
(4)
**10+: 52%
5: 23%
(49)
**10+: 44%
3: 32%
(41)
Fruiting *5: 75%
10+: 25%
(4)
**10+: 54%
5: 27%
(42)
**10+: 68%
5: 23%
(22)
Seeding 5: 75%
10+: 25%
(4)
**10+: 41%
5: 28%
(47)
5+: 29%
5: 24%
(41)
Recruitment 10+: 75%
10: 25%
(4)
10+: 53%
10: 17%
(48)
10+: 41%
5+: 27%
(44)
Clonal n/a
(0)
2: 36%
5 & 10: both 18%
(11)
***3: 50%
10 & 10+: both
12%(24)
*But would prefer 10 years. **A substantial proportion of these responses (all from one
respondent) gave a caveat that ‘it depends on the situation.’ ***This question was not
applicable to many species and the majority of the responses came from one respondent
with a caveat that this measurement is not important. N.B. where responses are low, the
majority of responses may be only one person’s view for multiple species.
8
3.3 Monitoring duration by breeding system
The most frequently identified breeding system was sexual (Table 2). Ten species
were nominated as ‘sexual and possibly also asexual but not confirmed’. These
responses were included in the sexual category.
Table 2. Preferred duration of monitoring of flora translocation projects for
various plant breeding systems. The first row in each cell represents the number
of years the life cycle parameter should be measured and the percentage of
responses total responses. The second row identifies monitoring duration for the
second highest percentage of responses. The number in brackets in the third row of
each cell is the total number of responses. For instance, for sexual breeding
systems, 49% of respondents think that survival should be monitored for over 10
years and 23% think it should be for five years (79 responses).
9
Sexual Asexual Can be sexual or
asexual
Survival (3) 10+: 49%
5: 23%
(79)
10+: 100%
(1)
5: 59%
10+: 32%
(22)
Flowering *10+: 48%
5: 22%
(78)
10+: 100%
(1)
3 & 5: both 30%
(20)
Fruiting *10+: 57%
**5: 28%
(55)
10+: 100%
(1)
5: 43%
10+: 36%
(14)
Seeding *10+: 33%
5: 29%
(74)
Only needs to
be done once:
100%
(1)
5: 39%
5+: 28%
(18)
Recruitment 10+: 53%
5: 16%
(77)
5: 100%
(1)
5: 32%
5+ & 10+: both 26%
(19)
Clonal ***3: 37%
2: 26%
(19)
5: 100%
(1)
***3: 46%
10 & 10+: both 23%
(13)
*A substantial proportion of these responses (all from one respondent) gave a caveat
that ‘it depends on the situation.’ **53% of responses nominated 5 years but would
prefer 10 years. *** 2/3rds of responses (one respondent) noted that this
measurement is not important.
10
3.4 Monitoring duration by planting method
The most frequently identified planting method was seedling transplant, followed by
adult transplant (Table 3). For the purposes of this survey, the definition of seedling
transplant was assumed to cover those plants grown by seed in a nursery or
propagated by cuttings, and then transplanted as tubestock. However, this definition
was not included in the glossary and whilst some respondents distinguished between
the two, cuttings was included in the data as a tubestock transplant. It is possible
that some respondents thought of a ‘seedling transplant’ as the digging up and
transplanting of natural plants. A small number of respondents used a combination of
planting methods and a very small number used tissue culture. Because the
combination method cannot be further split and the sample size is small respectively,
this data was not included in the analysis.
The results from the survey show that there is a large difference in monitoring
duration, depending on the planting method. Monitoring is recommended for 10+
years where seedlings are planted but only 5 years if adults are planted. It is difficult
to comprehend why there is a difference between the two groups for survival but
perhaps for the other parameters, it is assumed that the plants planted as adults are
already reproducing. Alternatively, unintended confusion surrounding the terminology
of seedling transplant may have skewed the data one way or another.
Table 3. Preferred duration of monitoring of flora translocation projects by
planting method. The first row in each cell represents the number of years the life
cycle parameter should be measured and the percentage of responses. The second
row gives the second highest percentage of responses is given. The number in
brackets in the third row of each cell is the total number of responses. For instance
55% of respondents think that where adult plants were transplanted, survival should
be monitored for five years and 22% think that it should be for more than 10 years
(18 responses).
11
Seedling transplant Adult transplant
Survival 10+: 39%
5: 30%
(56)
5: 55%
10+: 22%
(18)
Flowering *10+: 52%
3: 19%
(52)
5: 50%
10+: 25%
(16)
Fruiting *10+: 69%
5: 11%
(36)
5: 70%
10+: 20%
(10)
Seeding *10+: 38%
5+: 19%
(52)
5: 60%
10+,5+, 3: 13% each
(15)
Recruitment 10+: 46%
10 & 5+: both 18.5%
(54)
5: 50%
10+: 19%
(16)
Clonal **3: 59%
10, 5 & 2: 12% each
(17)
10+, **3yr & other: 22% each
10, 5 & 2: 11% each
(9)
*A substantial proportion of these responses (all from one respondent) gave a caveat
that ‘it depends on the situation.’ ** All responses from one respondent who
nominated 3 years but said that this measurement is not important.
3.5 Monitoring duration by taxonomic groups
The largest family represented in the survey was Proteaceae. Monitoring data was
recorded 23 times, for 15 species by 17 different respondents (some species were
12
represented twice and some respondents nominated more than one species). The
genera represented were: Banksia, Grevillea, Lambertia and Persoonia. All species
were nominated as having a sexual breeding system (including three Grevilleas that
were described as sexual and other, possibly selfing) and all but three Grevilleas as
having a woody, long-lived (≥ 10 years) habit (two Grevilleas were woody, short lived
and one was non-woody perennial).
Overwhelmingly for the Proteaceae, respondents thought that survival,
flowering, fruiting, seeding and the abundance of naturally recruited or regenerated
individuals should be monitored for 10+ years. However, it was also noted that for
some of these answers, the monitoring time depends on what aspect is being
monitored and what goals/success criteria are to be achieved. It should also be
noted that there were only two Lambertia species and one respondent thought that
monitoring for flowering, fruiting and seeded only needed to be for five years.
Orchids were represented by six species and one group “orchids” from six
different respondents. The six species were described as non-woody perennial
plants and all but one with sexual breeding systems. The ‘orchids’ group was
described as woody, long-lived (≥ 10 years) plants that can have either sexual or
asexual breeding systems. The majority of the respondents (2/3rds) thought that
survival, flowering, fruiting and the abundance of naturally recruited or regenerated
individuals should be monitored for five years. The remaining 1/3rd of respondents
suggested 10+ years. There was no consensus on seeding monitoring duration with
suggestions ranging from 3 - 10+ years and another comment that once seeding has
occurred, there is no need to monitor again.
Four Acacia species were represented in the survey, from five respondents.
Monitoring time for each parameter was variable but there was a slight preference
for 10+ years. Accordingly, it is difficult to draw generalisations for monitoring
guidelines for this taxon from the survey responses.
Unless the responses for a taxonomic group are large, caution should be
applied to the formulation of general monitoring guidelines from the survey
responses. Only the Proteaceae and orchid species as groups gave consistent time
frames to consider using the data for general monitoring guidelines. However, the
number of species analysed in the survey are small compared to their taxonomic
groups. Furthermore, inconsistent responses were given for the same species. As an
example, two different species were nominated by three and four different
13
respondents for each species. For the same species, a different monitoring time for
each parameter was suggested by the respondents.
3.6 Other life-cycle monitoring
3.6.1 Early survivorship
To assess how frequently survivorship should be monitored, we split ‘survival’
into three phases: (1) transplant shock (2) establishment success and (3) project
success. The first two phases were answered on a general basis and the results are
discussed below. The third phase was specifically for the respondent’s case study
species and these results have already been discussed.
Overall, for the early stages of survival (1 and 2), the largest percentages of
respondents recommended that plants should be monitored weekly for the first
month and then adjust for the particular species and then yearly for establishment
success.
For transplant shock, the monitoring duration suggested by respondents
varied but was most commonly cited as weekly for the first month, followed by
various time periods thereafter. Most of the suggested time periods came with
comments that it depends on the species, the environmental conditions and on-site
threatening processes. Several respondents did not directly answer the question
because they felt that it depended on too many circumstances to give a quantitative
answer. It was also mentioned that it is important that monitoring also includes the
cause of the mortality. For establishment success (the period after potential
transplant shock), there was no clear consensus how long survivorship should be
monitored. The largest percentage of respondents (35%) thought that establishment
success should be monitored yearly but it is unclear from the survey results for how
many years this should be applied.
3.6.2 Growth
Monitoring guidelines usually recommend that growth measurements are
recorded (Vallee et al., 2004; Maschinski et al., 2012), but this variable is not always
deemed necessary (Godefroid & Vanderborght, 2011). 65% of 26 respondents
recommend that growth measurements be taken. Height was the most commonly
14
mentioned trait, often in conjunction with width. However, growth measurements for
grasses, orchids and herbaceous species were generally less important.
4. Interpretation of the quantitative data
4.1 Commonalities
There are several ways that the data can be interpreted to find commonalities. For
example:
Within categories. For sexual breeding systems, the survey respondents
recommended that all monitoring is done for at least 10 years, apart from
abundance of clonal offshoots (or ramet production).
Between categories. Build a profile e.g. a woody long-lived, sexually
reproducing plant should be monitored for flowering for 10+ years.
Build a profile by taxonomic group. Monitoring duration suggested for the
taxonomic groups should be cross checked with the results from the habit
(Table 1) and breeding system (Table 2) data. The results should then be
reviewed by practitioners and researchers experienced in the biology,
translocation and revegetation of these groups. For example, a Proteaceae
that is a long-lived and sexually reproduces should be monitored for survival
for 10+ years. However, for non-woody perennial, sexually reproducing
orchids, monitoring duration for survival is less definitive because the
recommended monitoring duration for these three categories varied
considerably.
4.2 Considerations for interpretation of the data
The following should be considered when interpreting the survey results:
Magnitude of the largest response. More confidence should be allocated
where the percentages of responses is large. For example, for recruitment
(abundance of naturally recruited (or regenerated) individuals), 53% of
respondents nominated a particular monitoring duration for sexual breeding
systems compared to only 32% for can be sexual or asexual. More
confidence is given to the sexual monitoring time frame.
15
Number of responses: For breeding systems, there were 79 responses for
sexual compared to 1 response for other for duration of survival monitoring.
This does not mean that the response for other is wrong, but it represents
only one person’s view.
4.3 Other comments
Some additional comments from respondents on monitoring duration are added here
because they may assist in the conversion of general guidelines into more specific
ones.
If actions recommended from the results are unlikely to be carried forward and
resources aren't available, highly detailed monitoring is not important.
Once it has flowered/fruited successfully, there is no need to re-monitor this
parameter again assuming that nothing else changes.
Monitor until regular seed set - 3 seasons in a row.
To simplify monitoring, take photographs from fixed points at preferably
regular intervals.
If the aim is for a self-sustaining population, monitor for multiple generation
times for short lived plants or for at least two generations for long lived plants
to determine if recruitment is occurring and if those generations are
reproductive.
‘The survival and reproduction of new recruits should be followed until those
new recruits produce new recruits. Time frame will depend for example on
climate and frequency and timing of disturbance events.
5. Other monitoring considerations
5.1 Representative sampling
The majority of respondents believe that where the number of translocated
individuals is large and time consuming to monitor, representative samples, from
which inferences can be drawn, can be measured. This response applied to all of the
life-cycle parameters listed in this survey, apart from survival where every individual
should be measured. Two methods of representative sampling were suggested. The
16
first method is a random selection of a representative suite of plants (minimum of 10
plants per site per species) and secondly, transects through populations.
5.2 Comparison to reference site
To measure the success or otherwise of a translocation project, the life-cycle
measurements should be compared to those from natural populations of the species
(Vallee et al. 2004). To gauge the level of the importance of this monitoring action,
respondents were asked if their monitoring includes comparison(s) to a reference
site (e.g. the source populations), and if so, its timing. Overall, there was support for
this action but we note that a quarter of the respondents either do not make
comparisons to the reference site and / or they do not think that this measurement is
necessary (Figure 1). Of those who do compare, there was little difference between
a monitoring duration of each time the recipient site is monitored and when key
phenological phases of the focal species occur. One respondent opined that
‘comparisons should be made initially at each phase, but it becomes less important
once translocated and reference site become similar’.
Figure 1. Frequency of comparisons of the transplant and donor sites –
percentage of responses from the Flora translocation survey (2013).
5.3 Other monitoring variables
In addition to questions on monitoring duration, survey respondents were asked to
rank several important monitoring factors that enable assessment of the success or
failure of translocations. Respondents could nominate one of the following:
Unimportant, Not important, Important Very important; N/a. The list is by no means
17
complete but it provides a list of non-life cycle monitoring variables that may be
useful for prioritization if resources are limited.
Table 4. Additional monitoring variables, rated by respondents of the Flora
translocation survey (2013)
Average
rating
Make detailed notes of what went wrong 3.89
Competition from weeds and / or other natives 3.61
Disturbance(s) within the planting site (e.g. fire, storm damage) 3.46
Physical identification markers at the site are intact 3.43
Damage from disease / pathogens 3.43
Herbivory (leaf damage from both insects and grazers) 3.36
Keep the monitoring data in more than one format (e.g. enter digitally
and keep hand-written notes)
3.32
Evidence that that translocated species may have facilitated the
establishment or altered the trajectory of other species
3.21
Disturbance(s) in close proximity to the planting site 3.19
Weather conditions at the recipient site 3.11
The level of genetic variation of the translocated population compared
to the source population
2.81
From the list of factors provided (Table 4), respondents believe that making detailed
notes of what went wrong is the most important thing to monitor. Presumably,
analysis of the detailed notes and its subsequent circulation would enable lessons to
be learnt from past mistakes. As an example, a couple of comments referred to
plants being trampled, particularly during monitoring visits. It was suggested that
stepping stones or branches be positioned (at an early stage) to minimise damage to
plants (and possible recruits) from multiple visits and from visitors to the site.
Comments throughout the survey also reinforced the importance of monitoring
competition from weeds and /or other natives. The accumulation of biomass other
than the transplanted species (particularly in grassland) was seen as detrimental to
the ease of finding the location of transplants and their offspring. A regime of
18
ecological burning was suggested as an action to help with the monitoring process
and in some cases to provide a disturbance necessary for regeneration.
One useful suggestion for keeping the monitoring data in more than one
format is to email the data. Presumably this suggestion refers to data obtained whilst
still in the field. This action of course, relies on the availability of Wi-Fi connections.
Although taking weather conditions at the recipient site ranked relatively lowly,
it was commented that it can be easily achieved by approximating data from the
nearest BOM automated weather station. The usefulness of this data depends on
the existence of micro-climates at the site but nonetheless, it gives an idea of trends
across time.
Genetic considerations were poorly ranked. Comments accompanying the
monitoring section of the survey shed some light on why genetic considerations
ranked relatively poorly. Organizations often don’t have the resources to investigate
genetic factors and it is ‘expensive and time consuming’. Even organizations with
laboratories have found that one-off genetic testing is not done unless it is a large
study. One respondent opined that the genetic comparison between the source and
recipient sites is only important if large losses occur and it is known they have
occurred from specific clonal lines or parent plants. The method suggested to obtain
this information is to ensure that record keeping and tagging is of high standard. The
importance of effective tagging and detailed site maps (including safe and secure
GPS data) was also raised elsewhere in the survey as a means of effective
monitoring via easy location of transplants and their recruits.
5.4 Suggestions for simple, cost effective monitoring of flora translocations
Respondent’s suggestions of other ways to monitor translocations more efficiently
centred around four main themes:
(1) Management
Strategic leadership, coordination and support for and with practitioners by senior
federal and state ecological experts, was identified as a means to achieve a more
effective approach to all aspects of translocations. In particular, co-ordination of
19
translocations of threatened flora with similar biology and ecology was identified as a
means to stop on-ground regional practitioners operating in isolation (and hence
inefficiently). It was noted that projects can be highly dependent on motivated and
interested OEH/NPWS staff and it was implied that turnover of staff is detrimental to
project success.
(2) Circulation of reports and data
The importance of circulating all reporting aspects of translocations was evident in
the survey. Public access to reports (both successes and failures) and data was
seen as a viable way to enable learning. Where to publish to enable maximum
coverage was not well defined but more detail is given in a separate document
(Appendix 1) which lists publication details of many of the translocation projects that
were used as case studies for this survey. More consultation within the
‘translocation’ community on the subject of where data and reports can be safely
stored and easily circulated appears to be warranted. One respondent commented
‘OEH were provided with reports and follow up monitoring reports, but from
experience these can rarely be found’.
(3) Knowledge of the focal species
Detailed knowledge of biological and ecological data of the transplanted species was
identified as very important to the success of the project. Detailed knowledge was
identified as a means to facilitate more effective monitoring programs in the following
ways:
Context-specific monitoring sheets / programmes can be formulated.
The duration of recruitment monitoring can be fine-tuned e.g. ‘plant is long-
lived (>100 years) and recruitment is sporadic’ and seed bank knowledge e.g.
seed may be stored in the ground and not germinate for some years.
Success criteria can be more realistic.
Along the lines of the previous comment, and mentioned indirectly in the
survey, detailed species knowledge allows the correct ‘state variable’ to be
monitored (Lindenmayer et al., 2013). Two examples from the survey were
given: ‘If you are aiming for ecological replacement you should be measuring
the function that you are trying to affect rather than the population of the
20
translocated species (you may want to do both)’. Another example given was
where the aim of the project was the recombination of genets to facilitate
pollen (and gene) flow to maximise the potential for fertile seed production.
Therefore, the production of fertile seeds from recombination is the monitoring
target.
(1) Volunteers
The use of volunteers was highlighted by several respondents as an area where
project costs, including monitoring, can be reduced. The use of citizen science
(where the general public participate in scientific research) is increasingly being
recommended to aid in the collection of high quality empirical data (Vallee et al. ,
2004; Willis et al., 2009; Lindenmayer et al., 2013). To test the practicality of this
recommendation, survey respondents were asked their opinion on how effective
volunteers could be in long-term monitoring (assuming appropriate motivation,
training and supervision of volunteers). Respondents thought that volunteers
would be most effective in increasing the awareness of the project, leading to
better conservation outcomes (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Effectiveness of using volunteers in long-term monitoring of flora
translocation projects
Where the use of volunteers was thought to be problematic, was their inability to
suggest where adaptive management is needed and their incapacity to make other
associated observations than those on the monitoring sheet (examples given were:
the presence of pollinator species and visitations; possible new threat processes;
other ecological interactions). Failure to make these monitoring observations has
21
serious consequences. Biodiversity monitoring programs that do not include trigger
points that activate management actions when populations are declining, are thought
to contribute to extinctions at a scale ranging from local through to global
(Lindenmayer et al., 2013).
The question of how effective volunteers can be in monitoring elicited many
additional comments from respondents. Generally, the experience of those using
volunteers has been good and the question of the cost of training compared to the
benefit received produced many salient points. It was highlighted that volunteers
need good training and preferably a paid worker should also be present at the site.
Training must include protocols on the avoidance of the spread of pathogens and
damage to plants and other experimental variables. Training may be expensive so
care needs to be exercised when selecting and accepting volunteers to undertake
project work. In addition, it is important to identify appropriate existing registration
and insurance cover schemes that can take new volunteer groups under their
umbrella, to avoid the difficulties of taking out a new policy and being a disincentive
for particular projects. The goal is for highly trained and committed volunteers that
develop into a long term monitoring resource. It was suggested that the Australian
Network for Plant Conservation (ANPC) could train volunteers e.g. 1-2 day workshop
in monitoring threatened flora. Outsourced training would alleviate the time constraint
problems of government employees.
Volunteers should be engaged with the project to make the exercise
worthwhile for all concerned. One respondent said that given some ownership of the
site, volunteers have a greater capacity for undertaking monitoring and longer-term
commitments to a project than some government agencies. This was especially the
case where the tenure of the volunteer outlasts that of a ‘transient’ paid professional.
To retain the enthusiasm and engagement of volunteers, it was suggested that
support should extend to financial reimbursement such as fuel and other personal
costs. There is perhaps a fine balancing act in giving volunteers too much ownership
of a site and not enough. An example was given of a decision made by a
‘bureaucrat’ that resulted in the loss of volunteers from the system. A disagreement
such as this could stem from either a bad decision from management or a volunteer
disagreeing with the action.
22
Many volunteers currently involved in translocation projects are retired. Age of
volunteers is a consideration because trips to remote sites and those longer than a
couple of days may not be feasible. Retired (or any age demographic) volunteers are
often not available for each field trip. If volunteers are tasked with recording data that
is to be used in experimental analysis, an extra level of variability (operator error /
bias) is introduced into the data. Under these circumstances, ideally the same
volunteer should perform the monitoring each time.
Thirty two translocation projects (assuming that each species represents a
different project) currently have an informal interest group that maintain some
involvement. If citizen science / volunteering is pursued, these projects, in
conjunction with existing programs such as Landcare, Bushcare and Bird atlasing,
should be used as case studies to document and guide citizen science in monitoring.
A final comment from the survey on the subject of volunteers – ‘Community
science is a good thing. Abdicating responsibility is not’.
6. Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to investigate the possibility of formulating general
flora monitoring guidelines by analysing the results of the Flora translocation survey
(2013). Emphasis was on monitoring duration at different life-cycle events. The
results from the survey found that whilst some generalities can be made on the
duration of plant trait measurements, monitoring is context specific and any
guidelines arising from this study need to be individually adapted to each project.
However, where monitoring data is of adequate size for taxonomic groups that share
the same habit, breeding system and other biological traits, it may be worthwhile
pursuing general monitoring protocols with a working group of practitioners / experts.
The working group may then find commonalities between ‘state variables’ that can
improve the efficacy of monitoring, formulate a general monitoring guideline for the
taxa and contribute to a centralized database. Monitoring can be done via
representative sampling (for all life-cycle variables apart from survival) and the use of
volunteers is recommended, albeit with adequate training and supervision.
In addition, to basic plant measurements, there are numerous other variables that
should be monitored to confidently assess the success or otherwise of the
23
translocation project. The importance of these variables is also context dependant,
particularly in regard to the focal species and the site(s), and the survey was
therefore unable to find general commonalities. However, the survey results indicate
that ‘what went wrong’ is one of the most important factors to record and circulate
and that it is important to compare the source and transplant sites. Context
specificity was clearly a problem for many survey respondents when asked to give
their general views on monitoring.
SECTION 2 - Prioritisation of flora translocations
1.1 The need to prioritise
There is an acute need to be able to prioritise candidate species for translocation
projects. This need is present for projects with relatively short-term goals (e.g.
stabilising populations under direct threat from habitat loss) or projects with longer-
term goals (e.g. providing the ability for species to adapt to changing climates by
moving outside their current range – i.e. assisted colonisation). Funds available for
translocation are limited, and therefore, it is important to select candidate species
that have the highest likelihood of successfully established self-sustaining
populations in recipient sites.
1.2 Decision tool for prioritising candidate species
Figure 3 provides a set of guiding questions, arranged in a decision-making
framework, which were developed with close reference to the recommendations for
prioritising flora translocations developed by the Australian Network for Plant
Conservation (Guidelines for the translocation of threatened plants in Australia;
Vallee et al., 2004). The questions are applicable to all forms of translocation,
however, where special consideration may be needed for cases of assisted
colonisation for climate change adaptation additional questions have been provided.
It is recommended that the use of this decision tool is conducted by referring to the
relevant sections of Vallee et al. (2004).
24
Figure 3. Decision tool for prioritising candidate species for translocation
Q1. Is a translocation necessary to ensure the survival of the species? This
question applies in the short-term (<10 years; e.g. acute need to translocate due to
impending loss of habitat from development) or long-term (>100 years e.g. current
climate envelope of species projected to shift entirely outside current range and
species has traits associated with poor ability to adapt to climate change (see PART
A, Section 4)).
YES ………………………………… move to Q2 if: all
alternative strategies for managing the population decline of the
species have already been undertaken.
NO ………………………………… identify appropriate
alternative management action to translocation. Actions may
include: habitat protection/rehabilitation or removal of
threatening processes, or active management involving
manipulations of habitat or biotic processes (see section 2.2.1
Alternatives to translocation in Vallee et al. 2004).
Q2. Is the taxonomic status of the species certain?
YES ………………………………… move to Q3 if: the taxa is
an undisputed, formally described species.
NO ………………………………… clarification should be
sought from experienced taxonomists or population
geneticists. Uncertainty may arise if: inadequate taxonomic
work has been conducted on a species complex, the taxa is a
hybrid, subspecies or variant (see section 2.2.2 Taxonomy in
Vallee et al. 2004).
Q3. Is the distribution of the taxon adequately understood?
YES ………………………………… move to Q4 if the
following has been completed: (1) collation of all known
records for the species via herbaria, museum collections or
published plot-based studies; (2) targeted surveys of known
25
distribution have been conducted to identify potential additional
populations.
NO ………………………………… conduct desktop study
to collate distribution records in conjunction with targeted
surveys in the field (see section 2.2.3 Distribution in Vallee et
al. 2004).
Q4. Are threatening processes understood?
YES ………………………………… move to Q4a if the
following has been completed: a comprehensive assessment
of the threats affecting all remaining populations.
NO ………………………………… conduct a pre-
translocation assessment to identify key threatening
processes and options for mitigation (see section 2.2.4
Threatening processes in Vallee et al. 2004).
Q4a. Can threatening processes be controlled? For many threatened species, the
removal or management of threatening processes may be sufficient to ensure
population stability and may lead to an increase in population size, hence negating
the need for translocation. For assisted colonisation, climate change will be the
primary threatening process and it is assumed that although this cannot be
controlled, predictive tools can be used to assess the feasibility of this conservation
strategy (see PART A, Section 4 for further details).
YES ………………………………… move to Q5 if the
following has been completed: (1) active management or
removal of threatening processes such as weed invasion, or
reinstatement of appropriate disturbance regimes.
NO ………………………………… conduct a pre-
translocation assessment to identify key threatening
processes and options for mitigation (see section 2.2.4
Threatening processes in Vallee et al. 2004).
Q5. Have potential suitable recipient sites been identified?
26
YES ………………………………… move to Q6 if: (1) a number
of potential sites with secure, long-term tenure have been
identified and landholders or custodians approached for pre-
approval, (2) Existing threats to the focal species has been
removed or minimized and preparation (e.g. fencing) has been
factored into the decision, (3) sites representative of future
climate requirements
NO ………………………………… identify potential suitable
sites for translocation (see section 2.2.5 Availability of suitable
recipient sites in Vallee et al. 2004).
Q6. Have you considered the success of any previous translocation
programs? Translocations of taxonomically or functionally similar species can help
to guide the process of designing and implementing new programs.
YES ………………………………… move to Q7 if: a thorough
search of the literature and resources on translocations has
been conducted and, where relevant, primary reports have been
sourced and used to aid in the design of the current project.
(N.B. Appendix 1 of this report lists previous flora translocations
conducted in Australia).
NO ………………………………… identify previous studies
or reports of previous translocations for similar taxa; talk
with experts (see section 2.2.8 Success of past translocation
projects in Vallee et al. 2004).
Q7. Has a source of long-term financial funding been secured to complete all
aspects of the translocation?
YES ………………………………… proceed with translocation
if all questions in this checklist have been answered ‘yes’.
NO ………………………………… identify a secure source of
funding for the design, implementation and monitoring of
the project (see section 2.2.9 Resource availability and cost in
Vallee et al. 2004).
27
1.3 Practitioner and researcher opinions on pre-translocation assessments
As part of the Flora Translocation Survey 2013 (detailed in Section 1) practitioners
and researchers working on flora translocations in Australia were asked their opinion
on the importance of pre-translocation requirements and prioritisation methods.
Three questions were asked in this section and details of responses are given below.
Question 1: Can a translocation proceed before the following parameters are
known for a taxa? (n = 43 respondents). Respondents could nominate one of the
following: Important but translocation can proceed without this information; No
opinion; Translocation should not proceed without this information. Responses are
provided in Table 5.
Table 5. Responses (%) from survey participants regarding factors that should
be known before proceeding with translocation
Proceed
(%)
No opinion
(%)
Should not
proceed
(%)
Reason(s) for in-situ
decline
27.9 2.3 69.8
Disturbance factors
necessary for regeneration
are known and can occur
at the recipient site
39.5 0 60.5
Ecological relationships of
the taxon (incl. mutualisms
and dependent species)
48.8 4.7 46.5
Breeding system 53.5 4.7 41.9
Seed biology and seed
storage responses
62.8 2.3 34.9
Risks of inbreeding
depression and / or
outbreeding depression
65.1 4.7 30.2
28
Proceed
(%)
No opinion
(%)
Should not
proceed
(%)
Dispersal distance of seed
and pollen
72.1 2.3 25.6
The genetic structure
among populations
69.8 6.9 23.3
Population viability
analysis (PVA) outcomes
for source population
79.1 9.3 11.6
The genetic structure
within the existing source
population
83.7 0 16.3
Approximately 70% of respondents think that translocations should not proceed if the
reason(s) for the in-situ decline of the taxa is unknown (Table 5). The second most
important parameter was that disturbance factors that are necessary for regeneration
are known and can occur at the recipient site. Conversely, a large majority of
respondents think that knowledge of the genetic structure within the existing source
population and that population viability analysis outcomes for the source population,
while important, are not necessarily essential for translocations to proceed. As a
summary, ecological knowledge was rated relatively more important than genetic
information.
Question 2: Should a translocation proceed before the following preparatory
measures have been undertaken? (n = 42 respondents).
Respondents could nominate one of the following: Important but translocation can
proceed without this information; No opinion; Translocation should not proceed
without this information.
Table 6. Responses (%) from survey participants regarding preparatory
measures that should be undertaken before proceeding with translocation
29
Proceed
(%)
No opinion
(%)
Should not
proceed
(%)
Existing threats at the recipient site(s)
have been removed or minimized
7.1 0 92.9
Site-preparation requirements have
been factored into the project (e.g.
fencing and weed removal at the
recipient site)
7.1 0 92.9
A Translocation Proposal is prepared
and expertly assessed
19.1 0 81.0
The project has a clear monitoring
structure to assess reasons for
success / failure
23.8 0 76.2
It is determined that the translocated
species will not negatively affect
species at the recipient site(s)
(physically or genetically)
31.0 7.1 61.9
It is reasonably assured that the
recipient site will be legally protected
for the foreseeable future
35.7 0 64.3
Pollinators and dispersal agents are
present at the recipient site
42.9 0 57.1
The performance of the plants at the
recipient site can be compared to a
reference site e.g. the source
population or another wild population
52.4 2.4 45.2
A trial planting/seeding has been
undertaken
57.1 0 42.9
The recipient site(s) reflect
environment conditions expected in
the future
57.1 11.9 31.0
30
Proceed
(%)
No opinion
(%)
Should not
proceed
(%)
Multiple suitable recipient sites are
available
64.3 0 35.7
The translocation is set up as an
experiment to test specific
hypotheses (for example an
experimental factor could be planting
with and without fertilizer)
69.1 11.9 19.1
There is public support for the
translocation
73.8 11.9 14.3
Multiple source populations are
available
76.2 11.9 11.9
93% of respondents nominated that translocations should not proceed unless site
preparation requirements have been factored into the project (e.g. fencing and weed
removal at the recipient site) and that existing threats at the recipients site(s) have
been removed or minimized. Conversely, 76% of respondents think that
translocations can proceed without the availability of multiple source populations,
closely followed by 74% nominating that translocations can proceed without public
support.
Question 3: Please rank the level or urgency of the following situations in
order to prioritise for translocations approval (assuming all factors being
equal). Respondents were asked to rank the level of urgency (most urgent, urgent or
least urgent) for the following situations:
(a) The species is extinct in the wild and ex-situ material is available and can/has
been propagated;
(b) Populations of the species are few, small and declining;
(c) The species’ population(s) are currently stable but has a high risk of extinction
without human intervention;
31
Of the three possible situations, translocations that involve populations of species
that are few, small and declining were thought to be the most urgent (Figure 3).
Populations that are currently stable but have a high risk of extinction without human
intervention were considered to be the least urgent.
Figure 3. Level of urgency for prioritization of translocation approval
Respondents commented that their answers to this question were based on
assumptions such as:
threats are adequately controlled at the new site;
focal species is not naturally rare in the wild;
funding is available;
ex-situ population can continue to be maintained;
confident with climate predictions prior to utilizing ex-situ material;
no ex-situ material for (b);
acceptable systems to translocate into.
32
REFERENCES
Dimond, W. J., & Armstrong, D. P. (2007). Adaptive harvesting of source populations
for translocation: a case study with New Zealand robins. Conservation
Biology, 21, 114-24.
Fischer J. & Lindenmayer D. B. (2000) An assessment of the published results of
animal relocations. Biological Conservation, 96, 1-11.
Godefroid, S., Piazza, C., Rossi ,G., Buord, S., Stevens, A. D., Aguraiuja, R., Cowell,
C., Weekley, C. W., Vogg, G., Iriondo, J. M., Johnson, I., Dixon, B., Gordon,
D., Magnanon, S., Valentin, B., Bjureke, K., Koopman, R., Vicens, M.,
Virevaire, M. & Vanderborght, T. (2011) How successful are plant species
reintroductions? Biological Conservation, 144, 672-82.
Godefroid, S., & Vanderborght, T. (2011) Plant reintroductions: the need for a global
database. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20, 3683-8.
Griffith, B., Scott, J. M., Carpenter, J. W., & Reed, C. (1989) Translocation as a
species conservation tool: status and strategy. Science, 245, 477-80.
IUCN/SSC (2013) Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation
Translocations. Version 1.0. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Species Survival
Commission.
Lindenmayer, D. B., Piggott, M. P., & Wintle, B. A. (2013) Counting the books while
the library burns: why conservation monitoring programs need a plan for
action. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11, 549-55.
Maschinski, J., Albrecht, M. A., Monks, L. & Haskins, K. E. (2012) Center for Plant
Conservation Best Reintroduction Practice Guidelines In Plant reintroduction
in a changing climate: promises and perils, the science and practice of
ecological restoration. Island Press, USA.
Menges E. S. (2008) Restoration demography and genetics of plants: when is a
translocation successful? Australian Journal of Botany 56, 187-96.
Monks, L., Coates, D., Bell, T., & Bowles, M. L. (2012) Determining success criteria
for reintroductions of threatened long-lived plants. In: Plant reintroduction in a
changing climate. Promises and perils (eds J. Maschinski and K. E. Haskins),
Island Press, USA.
Sheean V. A., Manning A. D. & Lindenmayer D. B. (2012) An assessment of
33
scientific approaches towards species relocations in Australia. Austral
Ecology, 37, 204-15.
Vallee L., Hogbin T., Monks L., Makinson B., Matthes M. & Rossetto M. (2004)
Guidelines for the translocation of threatened plants in Australia. Second
Edition. Australian Network for Plant Conservation, Canberra.
Willis, S. G., Hill, J. K., Thomas, C. D., Roy, D. B., Fox, R., Blakeley, D. S., &
Huntley, B. (2009) Assisted colonization in a changing climate: a test‐study
using two UK butterflies. Conservation Letters, 2, 46-52.
Appendix 1 Compilation of established flora translocations in Australia
The transfer of knowledge of prior translocations is important to the success
of future projects. Respondents from the Flora translocation survey (2013)
were asked how the availability of data can be ensured for future workers. No
single preferred repository was identified but a common theme was that it is
preferable to publish data in as many locations as possible, although the
‘grey’ literature was preferred to more formal journals. For some respondents,
this preference arises from the inaccessibility of formal journals and the
potential for misplacement of data/reports by Government Agencies that
change through time. The most often mentioned non-formal venue for
publication was the ANPC's bulletin Australasian Plant Conservation.
Respondents were also asked to provide details of where they have
lodged reports of their projects. Table 1 lists by species, details of published,
“grey” or unpublished reports, websites or locations of reports that contain
information regarding the translocation project. This information was provided
by respondents of the Flora Translocation Survey (2013) and therefore
contains various referencing styles. Table 2 lists vegetation communities and
groups of species for which information on translocations was identified in the
course of this survey and review. In addition, general publications nominated
by the survey respondents, or opportunistically found by the author, are
included at the end of the paper.
This report has not systematically searched for translocation
knowledge in the large body of forestry literature. While experimental forestry
plantings often deal with strongly selected or cross-bred genotypes, this is not
always the case – and even for those the techniques used are highly relevant
for trait selection for future assisted colonisation projects. In addition, the
projects cited below are heavily skewed towards threatened species, whereas
a large body of information on revegetation and restoration exists from which
important principles can be drawn.
34
Details of information sources and translocation details from the Flora Translocation Survey, 2013. Notes pertaining to the table: Species: Name of the species translocated. State: Distribution by State/Territory as per the Atlas of Living Australia website: http://ala.org.au. Conservation status: Survey respondents provided the conservation status or indicated (yes or no) if the species was legislatively listed at the time of translocation as ‘threatened’ (State, Commonwealth &/or IUCN) or on the non-legislative ROTAP list. Habit: Woody plant - short-lived < 10 years; Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years; Non-woody plant – perennial; Non-woody plant – biennial; Non-woody plant – annual Breeding System: Sexual; Asexual; Can be sexual &/or asexual; Other Translocation type: Respondents were provided with a glossary containing descriptions of the following translocation types (IUCN/SSC (2013): Assisted colonisation (Benign introduction; Assisted migration; Managed relocation): the intentional movement and release of an organism outside its indigenous range to avoid extinction of populations of the focal species. For the purposes of this survey, it is used as a conservation strategy for species facing extreme threat from climate change. Ecological replacement (Taxon substitution; Ecological substitutes / proxies / surrogates; Subspecific substitution, Analogue species): the intentional movement and release of an organism outside its indigenous range to perform a specific ecological function. Introduction: the intentional movement and release of an organism outside its indigenous range. Reinforcement (Augmentation; Supplementation; Re-stocking; Enhancement): the intentional movement and release of an organism into an existing population of conspecifics. Reintroduction: the intentional movement and release of an organism inside its indigenous range from which it has disappeared. Method: Transplant method – method of planting: seedling transplant; adult transplant; direct seeding. For the purposes of this survey, the definition of seedling transplant was assumed to cover those plants grown by seed in a nursery or propagated by cuttings. However, this definition was not included in the glossary and some respondents distinguished between the two. Completion: Has the project finished (has formal monitoring ceased)? Group: If the project is finished, is there an informal interest group maintaining some involvement? N.B. Where the species’ translocation details are listed more than once, it is possible that they represent the same projects but note that not all details are the same.
35
Species State Report/citation details Conservation status
Breeding System
Habit Translocation type
Method Complete Group
Acacia aprica WA Monks L and Coates D (2002) The translocation of two critically endangered Acacia species Conservation Science Western Australia Vol 4(3) 54-61
Critically endangered: State level, Critically Endangered or Endangered: Federal level
Sexual and other (possible selfing)
Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years
Introduction Seedling transplant & direct seeding
No
Acacia pubescens
NSW
1. Moore R. J. and Clements A. (June 1998) Acacia pubescens (Vent.) R. Br. (Downy Wattle) – a threatened species of western Sydney, Australia Conference documentation - Planta Europa – Second European conference on the conservation of Wild Plants, 9-14 June 1998, Uppsala, Sweden 2. Moore, R., Peakall, R. & Clements, A. (1999). Analysis of the genetic diversity of Acacia pubescens: an assessment of clonality and its conservation implications. Prepared for NSW NPWS Central Directorate, Hurstville 3. Unpublished ecological reports to the client, various government departments (inc. OEH) from ecological consultant. Consultants have given talks to various bodies (workshops, seminars, conferences)
Endangered and Vulnerable Yes
Sexual Can be sexual &/or asexual
Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years As above
Reinforcement Ecological replacement
Adult transplant As above
Yes As above
Yes No
Acacia volubilis WA Limited information available from Dept. Parks and Wildlife (WA)
Critically endangered: State level, Critically
Sexual and other (possible selfing)
Non-woody plant -
Reinforcement Seedling transplant & plants grown
No
36
Species State Report/citation details Conservation status
Breeding System
Habit Translocation type
Method Complete Group
Endangered or Endangered: Federal level
perennial
from cuttings as well as seed
Acacia whibleyana
SA 1. Jusaitis M (2010) Augmentation of a Whibley Wattle population in South Australia by translocation IUCN "Global Re-Introduction Perspectives. 2010 Additional case-studies from around the globe. IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group, Abu Dhabi, UAE, pp 297-300. 2. Jusaitis M and B Sorensen (1998). Conservation Biology of Acacia whibleyana. Black Hill Flora Centre, Botanic Gardens of Adelaide. 3. Jusaitis M and B Sorensen (2007). Successful augmentation of an Acacia whibleyana (Whibley Wattle) population by translocation. Australasian Plant Conservation 16(1): 23-24 4. Jusaitis M and L Polomka (2008). Weeds and propagule type influence translocation success in the endangered Whibley Wattle, Acacia whibleyana (Leguminosae: Mimosoideae). Ecological Management & Restoration 9: 72-75
CE (IUCN) Sexual Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years
Reinforcement Seedling transplant & direct seeding
Yes
Acanthocladium dockeri
NSW SA
1. Jusaitis M and M Adams (2005). Conservation implications of clonality and limited sexual reproduction in the endangered shrub Acanthocladium dockeri
Yes
Other
Non-woody plant – perennial
Reintroduction
Seedling transplant
No
Yes
37
Species State Report/citation details Conservation status
Breeding System
Habit Translocation type
Method Complete Group
(Asteraceae). Australian Journal of Botany 53: 535-544. 2. Sharp A, A Clarke, M Jusaitis, A Pieck, P Slattery and D Potter (2010). Translocations of the critically endangered spiny daisy in the Mid-north of South Australia. In PS Soorae (ed), Global Re-introduction Perspectives: 2010. Additional case-studies from around the globe. IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group, Abu Dhabi, UAE, pp 340-344
CE (IUCN)
Asexual
As above
Introduction
As above
Yes
As above
Allocasuarina glareicola
NSW Yes Sexual Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years
Reinforcement Direct seeding
Yes Yes
Allocasuarina portuensis
NSW NPWS reports and recovery plans Yes Sexual Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years
Reinforcement Seedling transplant
Yes Yes
Arachnorchis actensis now: Caladenia actensis
ACT State (E) and Commonwealth (CE)
Sexual Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years
Introduction Seedling transplant but not actually planted yet
No n/a
Artanema fimbriatum
NSW QLD
http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roadprojects/projects/pac_hwy/coffs_harbour_ballina/devils_pulpit/public_information.html (construction documentation)
Sexual Non-woody plant -
Introduction Direct seeding
No n/a
38
Species State Report/citation details Conservation status
Breeding System
Habit Translocation type
Method Complete Group
perennial
Astelia alpina NSW TAS VIC
No Can be sexual &/or asexual
Non-woody plant - perennial
Reinforcement Seedling transplant
No Yes
Astelia psychrocharis
NSW VIC
No Can be sexual &/or asexual
Non-woody plant - perennial
Reinforcement Seedling transplant
No Yes
Baloskion australe
ACT NSW TAS VIC
No Can be sexual &/or asexual
Non-woody plant - perennial
Ecological replacement
Adult transplant
No Yes
Banksia anatona
WA Cochrane, J. A.; Barrett, S.; Monks, L.; et al., 2010, Partnering conservation actions. Inter situ solutions to recover threatened species in South West Western Australia, Kew Bulletin, Volume: 65 Issue: 4 Pages: 655-662
Critically Endangered EPBC
Sexual Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years
Introduction Seedling transplant
No n/a
Banksia brownii WA
1. Cochrane, J. A.; Barrett, S.; Monks, L.; et al., 2010, Partnering conservation actions. Inter situ solutions to recover threatened species in South West Western Australia, Kew Bulletin, Volume: 65 Issue: 4 Pages: 655-662 2. Internal reports for translocation approvals and monitoring reports. Overall reports to be published
Endangered EPBC Threatened State &
Sexual As above
Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years As above
Introduction As above
Seedling transplant As above
No As above
n/a As above
39
Species State Report/citation details Conservation status
Breeding System
Habit Translocation type
Method Complete Group
Endangered EPBC
Banksia montana
WA 1. Sarah Barrett, Rebecca Dillon, Anne Cochrane & Leonie Monks 2011 Conservation introduction of a threatened narrow range endemic species, Banksia montana, from the Stirling Range National Park, southern Western Australia In PS Soorae (ed), Global Re-introduction Perspectives: 2011.IUCN Additional case-studies from around the globe. IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group, Abu Dhabi, UAE, pp 220- 223. 2. Cochrane, J. A.; Barrett, S.; Monks, L.; et al., 2010, Partnering conservation actions. Inter situ solutions to recover threatened species in South West Western Australia, Kew Bulletin, Volume: 65 Issue: 4 Pages: 655-662 3. Internal reports for translocation approvals and monitoring reports. Overall reports to be published
Threatened State & Endangered EPBC Critically endangered
Sexual As above
Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years As above
Introduction As above
Seedling transplant As above
No As above
n/a As above
Banksia nivea ssp. uliginosa
(see Dryandra nivea ssp uliginosa)
Brachyscome diversifolia
ACT NSW QLD SA TAS VIC
Accepted for publication in the upcoming IUCN "Global Re-Introduction Perspectives" due to come out later this year (2013)
E (SA) Sexual Non-woody plant - perennial
Introduction Seedling transplant
No No
40
Species State Report/citation details Conservation status
Breeding System
Habit Translocation type
Method Complete Group
Brachyscome muelleri
SA 1. Paper accepted for publication in the upcoming IUCN "Global Re-Introduction Perspectives" due to come out later this year (2013). 2. Jusaitis M, L Polomka and B Sorensen (2004). Habitat specificity, seed germination and experimental translocation of the endangered herb Brachycome muelleri (Asteraceae). Biological Conservation 116: 251-266. 3. Jusaitis M, B Sorensen and L Polomka (1998). Conservation Biology of Brachycome muelleri. Black Hill Flora Centre, Botanic Gardens of Adelaide.
CE (IUCN) Sexual Non-woody plant - perennial
Introduction Seedling transplant & Direct seeding
No No
Caladenia actensis See Arachnorchis actensis
Caladenia calcicola
SA VIC
Provided (initially) to research institute Endangered EPBC, listed Vic.
Sexual Non-woody plant - perennial
Reintroduction Seedling transplant
No
Caladenia concolor
NSW SA VIC
ANPC plant conservation journal Regional Reports- personal comments.
Threatened in State and vulnerable in Federal
Sexual Non-woody plant - perennial
Reinforcement No Yes
Caladenia hastata
VIC Data unpublished and held with DEPI Endangered EPBC, listed Vic.
Sexual Non-woody plant -
Reintroduction Seedling transplant
Yes No
41
Species State Report/citation details Conservation status
Breeding System
Habit Translocation type
Method Complete Group
perennial
Cassinia rugata TAS VIC
Data unpublished and held with DEPI Vulnerable EPBC, listed Vic.
Sexual Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years
Reintroduction Seedling transplant
Yes No
Celmisia pulchella
ACT NSW
No Sexual Non-woody plant - perennial
Reinforcement Seedling transplant
No Yes
Chorizema humile
WA Limited information available from Dept. Parks and Wildlife (WA)
Critically endangered: State, Critically Endangered or Endangered: Federal
Sexual and other (possible selfing)
Non-woody plant - perennial
Introduction Seedling transplant & Plants grown from cuttings as well as seed
No
Cupaniopsis newmanii
NSW QLD
http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/Projects/B/Beechmont%20Road%20Upgrade%20Lower%20Beechmont/beechmontroadupgradecompliancereport.pdf.
Near threatened (NCA)
Sexual Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years
Reinforcement Seedling transplant from cuttings / some direct seed
No
Darwinia carnea WA Internal reports for translocation approvals and monitoring reports. Overall reports to be published
Critically endangered
Sexual Woody plant - short-lived < 10 years
Reinforcement Seedling transplant
Yes Yes
42
Species State Report/citation details Conservation status
Breeding System
Habit Translocation type
Method Complete Group
Darwinia ferricola
WA Dixon B 2010 Translocation of four rare ironstone endemic species onto a pre-mined area at Beenup in SW Australia In PS Soorae (ed), Global Re-introduction Perspectives: 2010.IUCN Additional case-studies from around the globe. IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group, Abu Dhabi, UAE, pp 301- 305. http://www.bgpa.wa.gov.au/science/biodiversity-and-extensions/beenup-translocation
State, IRP176 as Priority? Endangered under Commonwealth EPBC Act
Sexual Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years
Reintroduction Seedling transplant of cuttings only
Yes No
Daviesia bursarioides
WA Limited information available from Dept. Parks and Wildlife (WA)
Critically endangered: State, Critically Endangered or Endangered: Federal
Sexual and other (possible selfing)
Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years
Reinforcement Seedling transplant
No
Daviesia cunderdin
WA Limited information available from Dept. Parks and Wildlife (WA)
Critically endangered: State, Critically Endangered or Endangered: Federal
Sexual and other (possible selfing)
Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years
Introduction Seedling transplant & Plants grown from cuttings as well as seed
No
Dillwynia tenuifolia
NSW Yes Sexual Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years
Reinforcement Direct seeding
Yes Yes
Diuris chryseopsis
ACT NSW SA TAS
ANPC plant conservation journal Regional Reports- personal comments
No Sexual Non-woody plant -
Reinforcement Adult transplant
No Yes
43
Species State Report/citation details Conservation status
Breeding System
Habit Translocation type
Method Complete Group
VIC perennial
Diuris tricolor NSW QLD
Annual monitoring reports & a paper for publication to a mining company
Yes Sexual Non-woody plant - perennial
Ecological replacement
Adult transplant
no n/a
Dodonaea subglandulifera
SA Paper accepted for publication in the upcoming IUCN "Global Re-Introduction Perspectives" due to come out later this year (2013)
V (IUCN) Sexual Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years
Introduction Seedling transplant & Direct seeding
Yes Yes
Dryandra nivea ssp uliginosa (now Banksia nivea ssp. uliginosa)
WA Dixon B 2010 Translocation of four rare ironstone endemic species onto a pre-mined area at Beenup in SW Australia In PS Soorae (ed), Global Re-introduction Perspectives: 2010.IUCN Additional case-studies from around the globe. IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group, Abu Dhabi, UAE, pp 301- 305; http://www.bgpa.wa.gov.au/science/biodiversity-and-extensions/beenup-translocation
WA State, IRP 255 as Priority? Endangered under Commonwealth EPBC Act
Sexual Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years
Reintroduction Yes No
Elaeocarpus williamsianus
NSW 1. NSW NPWS 2.
Yes Endangered
Can be sexual &/or asexual Sexual
Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years As above
Reintroduction Reinforcement /recombination
Seedling transplant Seedling transplant / cuttings
No As above
n/a As above
44
Species State Report/citation details Conservation status
Breeding System
Habit Translocation type
Method Complete Group
Empodisma minor
QLD No Sexual Non-woody plant - perennial
Reinforcement Adult transplant
No Yes
Epacris purpurascens var purpurascens
NSW Unpublished ecological reports to the client, various government departments (inc. OEH) from ecological consultant. Consultants have given talks to various bodies (workshops, seminars, conferences)
Yes Can be sexual &/or asexual
Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years
Ecological replacement
Adult transplant
Yes No
Eremophila resinosa
WA Dixon B Translocation of the resinous Eremophila, from test tube, to a degraded bushland site in the wheatbelt of Western Australia In PS Soorae (ed), Global Re-introduction Perspectives: 2010. IUCN Additional case-studies from around the globe. IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group, Abu Dhabi, UAE, pp 311- 315. http://www.bgpa.wa.gov.au/science/biodiversity-and-extensions/eremophila-translocation
State as Priority 3
Sexual Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years
Reintroduction Tissue culture & some direct seeding
No No
Fontainea oraria
NSW QLD
1. NSW NPWS 2.
Endangered Yes
Sexual As above
Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years As above
Reinforcement / recombination Reinforcement
Seedling transplant / cuttings Seedling transplant
No As above
n/a As above
Gentianella meulleriana
ACT NSW
No Sexual Non-woody
Reinforcement Seedling transplant
No Yes
45
Species State Report/citation details Conservation status
Breeding System
Habit Translocation type
Method Complete Group
VIC plant - perennial
Grevillea batrachioides
WA Limited information available from Dept. Parks and Wildlife (WA)
Critically endangered: State level, Critically Endangered or Endangered: Federal level
Sexual and other (possible selfing)
Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years
Introduction Seedling transplant
No
Grevillea brachystylis ssp australis
WA Dixon B 2010 Translocation of four rare ironstone endemic species onto a pre-mined area at Beenup in SW Australia In PS Soorae (ed), Global Re-introduction Perspectives: 2010.IUCN Additional case-studies from around the globe. IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group, Abu Dhabi, UAE, pp 301- 305. http://www.bgpa.wa.gov.au/science/biodiversity-and-extensions/beenup-translocation
WA State as Priority? Endangered under Commonwealth EPBC Act
Sexual Woody plant - short-lived < 10 years
Reintroduction Yes No
Grevillea caleyi
NSW Unlublished data on experimental translocation with OEH
Endangered State & Commonwealth
Sexual Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years
Reinforcement Seedling transplant & seed
No
Grevillea humifusa
WA Limited information available from Dept. Parks and Wildlife (WA)
Critically endangered: State level, Critically Endangered or Endangered: Federal level
Sexual and other (possible selfing)
Non-woody plant - perennial
Introduction Seedling transplant
No
46
Species State Report/citation details Conservation status
Breeding System
Habit Translocation type
Method Complete Group
Grevillea iaspicula
ACT NSW
published articles by John Briggs (NSW OEH) in Australian Plant Conservation
TSC Act & EPBC - Endangered
Sexual Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years
Reinforcement Seedling transplant
no n/a
Grevillea parviflora ssp. parviflora
NSW
Wyong Shire Council, Donaldson Coal, Centennial Coal
Vulnerable NSW & Commonwealth
Can be sexual &/or asexual
Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years
Other - experimental translocation from a development site
Adult transplant
No
Grevillea scapigera
WA 1. Dixon, B. and Krauss, S. (2004).The Grevillea scapigera case study. Chapter 9. In Vallee, L., Hogbin, T., Monks, L., Makinson, B., Matthes, M. and Rossetto, M (2004). Guidelines for the translocation of threatened plants in Australia (2nd. Edn) pp. 65-69. Australian Network for Plant Conservation, Canberra. 2. Krauss, S.L., Dixon, B., and Dixon, K.W. (2002). Rapid genetic decline in a translocated population of the rare and endangered Grevillea scapigera (Proteaceae). Conservation Biology 16: 986-994. 3. Dixon,B. and Krauss, S. (2008). Translocation of the Corrigin grevillea in south Western Australia. Page 229-234 in - Ed. Soorae,P.S. (October 2008) Global re-introduction perspectives: Re-introduction case studies from around the
WA State and Commonwealth as Critically Endangered
Sexual Woody plant - short-lived < 10 years
Reintroduction Seedling transplant & includes tissue culture
Yes Yes
47
Species State Report/citation details Conservation status
Breeding System
Habit Translocation type
Method Complete Group
globe.ICUN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group, Abu Dhabi, UAE. 4. Dixon, B. and Krauss, S. (2006). The Corrigin Grevillea: 12 years of recovery. Western Wildlife vol.10:2, p.1, 4&5. 5. http://www.bgpa.wa.gov.au/science/biodiversity-and-extensions/grevillea-translocation
Grevillea wilkinsonii
NSW 1. ANPC. 2. Partial (and only partially quantitative) results and appraisals have been presented in several conference/forum situations separately and together by John Briggs (OEH NSW) and Bob Makinson (RBG Sydney), and in one of two non-peer reviewed articles, in the (non-public) process of expert interviews for the PAS2 process (2012), and in occasional partially-minuted meetings of the recovery team for the species
TSC Act & EPBC – Endangered ROTAP
Sexual As above
Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years Woody plant - short-lived ≥ 10 years
Reinforcement & Reintroduction Reinforcement
Seedling transplant Seedling transplant / cuttings
No As above
n/a Yes
Haloragis eyreana
SA 1. Jusaitis M and A Freebairn (2010). Habitat manipulation stimulates natural regeneration of Prickly Raspwort (Haloragis eyreana) on Eyre Peninsula (South Australia). Ecological Management & Restoration 11: 81-82.
CE (IUCN) Can be sexual &/or asexual
Non-woody plant - perennial
Reinforcement Seedling transplant & Direct seeding
Yes
48
Species State Report/citation details Conservation status
Breeding System
Habit Translocation type
Method Complete Group
2. Jusaitis M and A Freebairn (2011). Trial translocations into edaphically modified habitats enhanced the regeneration of prickly raspwort on Eyre Peninsula, South Australia. In PS Soorae (ed), Global Re-introduction Perspectives: 2011. More case studies from around the globe. IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group, Abu Dhabi, UAE, pp 205-209.
Hemigenia ramosissima
WA Limited information available from Dept. Parks and Wildlife (WA)
Critically endangered: State level, Critically Endangered or Endangered: Federal level
Sexual and other (possible selfing)
Non-woody plant - perennial
Introduction & Reinforcement
Seedling transplant & Plants grown from cuttings as well as seed
No
Lachnagrostis limitanea
SA Yes Sexual Non-woody plant - perennial
Reintroduction Seedling transplant
Yes Yes
Lambertia fairallii
WA Cochrane, J. A.; Barrett, S.; Monks, L.; et al., 2010, Partnering conservation actions. Inter situ solutions to recover threatened species in South West Western Australia, Kew Bulletin, Volume: 65 Issue: 4 Pages: 655-662
Endangered EPBC
Sexual Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years
Introduction Seedling transplant
No n/a
Lambertia orbifolia ssp Scott River Plains
WA Dixon B 2010 Translocation of four rare ironstone endemic species onto a pre-mined area at Beenup in SW Australia In PS Soorae (ed), Global Re-introduction Perspectives: 2010.IUCN Additional case-
WA State, IRP 178 as Priority ? Endangered under
Sexual Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years
Reintroduction Yes No
49
Species State Report/citation details Conservation status
Breeding System
Habit Translocation type
Method Complete Group
studies from around the globe. IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group, Abu Dhabi, UAE, pp 301- 305. http://www.bgpa.wa.gov.au/science/biodiversity-and-extensions/beenup-translocation
Commonwealth EPBC Act
Leionema equestre
SA Jusaitis M (2011). Trial translocations of Leionema equestre on Kangaroo Island, South Australia. In PS Soorae (ed), Global Re-introduction Perspectives: 2011.IUCN More case-studies from around the globe. IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group, Abu Dhabi, UAE, pp 210-214
E (IUCN) Sexual Non-woody plant - perennial
Introduction Seedling transplant & Direct seeding
Yes No
Lepidium ginninderrense
ACT 1. ACT Conservation Planning and Research as unpublished reports. 2. 3
ACT and Commonwealth State (E) and Commonwealth (V) Nationally threatened
Sexual As above As above
Non-woody plant – perennial As above As above
Reintroduction - but no populations there Introduction As above
Seedling transplant As above As above
No As above No
n/a n/a
Macadamia integrifolia
NSW QLD
http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/Projects/B/Beechmont%20Road%20Upgrade%20Lower%20Beechmont/beechmontroadupgradecompliancereport.pdf.
Vulnerable (EPBC, NCA)
Sexual Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years
Reinforcement Seedling transplant
No
Macrozamia pauli-guilielmi
QLD Translocation Performance Report for Macrozamia pauli-guilielmi and Acacia attenuata (Vegetation Matters 2013).
Endangered (Qld NCA, EPBC)
Sexual Woody plant - long-
Reinforcement Adult transplant, Direct
No n/a
50
Species State Report/citation details Conservation status
Breeding System
Habit Translocation type
Method Complete Group
Qld Department of Transport and Main Roads; Opus; DSEWPAC; Qld Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection
lived ≥ 10 years
seeding, Seedling transplant
Marsdenia longiloba
NSW QLD
1.http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roadprojects/projects/pac_hwy/port_macquarie_coffs_harbour/nambucca_hds_to_urunga/project_documents/index.html (construction documentation) 2. Nambucca Shire Council
NSW Endangered, Federal Vulnerable Endangered
Sexual Can be sexual &/or asexual
Non-woody plant – perennial As above
Introduction Other
Direct seeding Adult transplant
No Yes
n/a No
Melaleuca deanei
NSW Unpublished ecological reports to the client, various government departments (inc. OEH) from ecological consultant. Consultants have given talks to various bodies (workshops, seminars, conferences)
Yes Can be sexual &/or asexual
Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years
Ecological replacement
Adult transplant
Yes No
Montia australasica
ACT NSW SA TAS VIC WA
No Can be sexual &/or asexual
Non-woody plant - perennial
Reinforcement Seedling transplant
No Yes
Muehlenbeckia tuggeranona
ACT 1. ACT Conservation Planning and Research as unpublished reports
ACT and Commonwealth
Sexual also possibly asexual but not confirmed
Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years
Reinforcement/Reintroduction - but no populations there Introduction
Adult transplant
No As above
n/a
51
Species State Report/citation details Conservation status
Breeding System
Habit Translocation type
Method Complete Group
2. Preliminary results unpublished, ACT Govt
State (E) and Commonwealth (E)
Can be sexual &/or asexual
As above
Seedling transplant
Oreobolus pumilio
NSW TAS VIC
No Sexual Non-woody plant - perennial
Reinforcement Seedling transplant
No Yes
Persoonia micranthera
WA 1. Internal reports for translocation approvals and monitoring reports. Overall reports to be published 2.
critically endangered Endangered EPBC
Sexual As above
Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years As above
Introduction As above
Seedling transplant As above
No No
n/a
Persoonia pauciflora
NSW Criticlly endangered
Sexual Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years
Not yet
Phebalium glandulosum
NSW QLD SA VIC
1. Jusaitis M (1991). Endangered Phebalium (Rutaceae) species return to South Australia. Re-introduction News No. 3: 4. 2. Jusaitis M (1991). Micropropagation of endangered Phebalium (Rutaceae) species in South Australia. Botanic Gardens Micropropagation News 1: 43-45.
E (SA) Sexual Non-woody plant - perennial
Introduction Seedling transplant & Direct seeding
Yes Yes
52
Species State Report/citation details Conservation status
Breeding System
Habit Translocation type
Method Complete Group
3. Jusaitis M (1996). Experimental translocations of endangered Phebalium spp. (Rutaceae) in South Australia: An update. Re-introduction News No. 12: 7-8. 4. Jusaitis M (2000). The Ecology, Biology and Conservation of Threatened Phebalium Species in South Australia. Plant Biodiversity Centre, South Australia. 5. Jusaitis M (2011). Translocation of the desert Phebalium to Yookamurra Sanctuary, South Australia. In PS Soorae (ed), Global Re-introduction Perspectives: 2011. More case studies from around the globe. IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group, Abu Dhabi, UAE, pp 215-219
Pimelea spicata
ACT NSW
Yes Sexual Non-woody plant - perennial
Reinforcement Seedling transplant
Yes Yes
Pimelea spinescens ssp spinescens
VIC Mueck, S. 2000. Translocation of Plains Rice-flower (Pimelea spinescens ssp. spinescens), Laverton, Victoria. Ecol. Man & Restor. 1(2): 111- 116.
Critically endangered: EPBC Act and endangered: Victoria
Sexual Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years
Reinforcement Adult transplant
Yes No
Prasophyllum sp Wybong
NSW (not shown in ALA)
Annual monitoring reports & a paper for publication held by a mining company
Yes Sexual Non-woody plant - perennial
Ecological replacement
Adult transplant
no n/a
Prostanthera eurybioides
SA Jusaitis M (2010). Enhancement of Monarto Mintbush populations in South Australia by translocations. In PS Soorae (ed), IUCN
CE (IUCN) Sexual Woody plant - long-
Reinforcement Seedling transplant
Yes Yes
53
Species State Report/citation details Conservation status
Breeding System
Habit Translocation type
Method Complete Group
"Global Re-Introduction Perspectives: 2010. Additional case-studies from around the globe. IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group, Abu Dhabi, UAE, pp 306-310
lived ≥ 10 years
Psychrophyla introloba
NSW VIC
No Can be sexual &/or asexual
Non-woody plant - perennial
Reinforcement Seedling transplant
No Yes
Pterostylis arenicola
NSW SA VIC
E (SA) Can be sexual &/or asexual
Non-woody plant - perennial
Introduction Seedling transplant
No Yes
Pterostylis basaltica
VIC Data unpublished and held with DEPI Endangered EPBC, listed Vic.
Sexual Non-woody plant - perennial
Reintroduction Seedling transplant
Yes No
Ranunculus gunnianus
No Sexual Non-woody plant - perennial
Reinforcement
Seedling transplant
No Yes
Ranunculus millanii
ACT NSW VIC
No Sexual Non-woody plant - perennial
Reinforcement Seedling transplant
No Yes
Ranunculus pimpinellifolius
ACT NSW TAS VIC
No Sexual Non-woody plant -
Reinforcement Seedling transplant
No Yes
54
Species State Report/citation details Conservation status
Breeding System
Habit Translocation type
Method Complete Group
perennial
Rutidosis leptorrhynchoides
ACT NSW VIC
1. ACT Conservation Planning and Research as unpublished reports. 2.
ACT and Commonwealth Nationally threatened
Sexual As above
Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years Non-woody plant - perennial
Reintroduction - but no populations there Introduction
Direct seeding & Seedling transplant As above
Yes No
Yes n/a
Senna acclinis NSW QLD
Stanwell Corporation Limited; Qld Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection; Vegetation Matters
Rare (Qld Nature Conservation Act)
Sexual Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years
Reinforcement Adult transplant, Direct seeding, Seedling transplant
Yes
Swainsona recta
ACT NSW VIC
1 .ACT Conservation Planning and Research as unpublished reports 2. ANPC ?
ACT and Commonwealth TSC Act & EPBC – Endangered
Sexual As above
Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years Non-woody plant – perennial
Reintroduction - but no populations there Reintroduction
Adult transplant Seedling transplant & Direct seeding
No Yes
No
55
Species State Report/citation details Conservation status
Breeding System
Habit Translocation type
Method Complete Group
3 Preliminary results unpublished, ACTEW 4.
Endangered (or threatened) under Commonwealth, NSW, ACT and Vic legislation State (E) and Commonwealth (E)
As above As above
As above As above
As above Introduction
Adult transplant Seedling transplant
No No
Will be n/a
Symonanthus bancroftii
WA 1. Bunn, E. and Dixon,B. (2008). Re-introduction of the endangered Bancroft’s Symonanthus in Western Australia. Page 224-228 in- Ed. Soorae,P.S. (October 2008) Global re-introduction perspectives: Re-introduction case studies from around the globe.ICUN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group, Abu Dhabi, UAE. 2. Qigang Ye, Eric Bunn, Siegfried L. Krauss, Kingsley W. Dixon 2007 Reproductive success in a reintroduced population of a critically endangered shrub, (Solanaceae) Australian Journal of Botany 55(4) 425–432. 3.http://www.bgpa.wa.gov.au/science/biodiversity-and-extensions/symonanthus-translocation
WA State and Commonwealth as Critically Endangered
Sexual Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years
Reintroduction Tissue culture
Yes Yes
Synaphea quarztitica
WA (not show
Limited information available from Dept. Parks and Wildlife (WA)
Endangered: State level, Critically
Can be sexual
Non-woody plant -
Introduction Tissue culture
No
56
Species State Report/citation details Conservation status
Breeding System
Habit Translocation type
Method Complete Group
n in ALA)
Endangered or Endangered: Federal level
&/or asexual
perennial
Tetratheca juncea
NSW 1. Wyong Shire Council, Donaldson Coal, Centennial Coal 2. Assessment reports submitted by EFS to Wyong Shire Council and the developer involved. Documents can be supplied if required 3. Great lakes Council
Vulnerable NSW & Commonwealth Yes Vulnerable
Can be sexual &/or asexual As above As above
Non-woody plant - perennial As above As above
Other - experimental translocation from a development site Ecological replacement Other
Adult transplant As above Bulk topsoil
No Yes No
No
Verticordia albida
WA Limited information available from Dept. Parks and Wildlife (WA)
Critically endangered: State level, Critically Endangered or Endangered: Federal level
Sexual and other (possible selfing)
Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years
Introduction Seedling transplant & Plants grown from cuttings as well as seed
No
Verticordia lindleyi ssp lindley
WA http://www.bgpa.wa.gov.au/science/biodiversity-and-extensions/verticordia-translocation
WA State as Priority 3.
Sexual Woody plant - short-lived < 10 years
Reintroduction Yes Yes
Wilsonia backhousei
NSW SA
Sullivan M et al. Present to Ecological Soc in NZ
Yes Sexual Woody plant -
Reinforcement Seedling transplant
Yes Yes
57
Species State Report/citation details Conservation status
Breeding System
Habit Translocation type
Method Complete Group
TAS VIC WA
long-lived ≥ 10 years
Xanthorrhoea glauca
ACT NSW QLD VIC
Abigroup (Lend Lease); North Burnett Regional Council; Qld Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection; Vegetation Matters
Type ! restricted (Qld NCA)
Sexual Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years
Other - Conservation translocation
Adult transplant
No n/a
Zieria prostrata NSW http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/recoveryplanFinalZieriaProstrata.pdf
Endangered Sexual Woody plant - long-lived ≥ 10 years
Reintroduction Seedling transplant
Yes No
,
58
Table 2. Details of published, “grey” or unpublished reports, websites or locations of reports that contain information on flora translocations, listed by groups
Taxon Report/citation details Cooks River Castlereagh Ironbark Forest community
Unpublished ecological reports to the client, various government departments (inc. OEH) from ecological consultant. Consultants have given talks to various bodies (workshops, seminars, conferences).
Cumberland Plain Woodland community
Unpublished ecological reports to the client, various government departments (inc. OEH) from ecological consultant. Consultants have given talks to various bodies (workshops, seminars, conferences).
Orchids - various Unpublished ecological reports to the client, various government departments (inc. OEH) from ecological consultant. Consultants have given talks to various bodies (workshops, seminars, conferences).
Sydney Sandstone Ridgetop Woodland
http://www.dixonsand.com.au/environment_frame.htm (Annual Environmental Monitoring Reports)
Various non-threatened Western Sydney species
Unpublished ecological reports to the client, various government departments (inc. OEH) from ecological consultant. Consultants have given talks to various bodies (workshops, seminars, conferences).
General/other publications Cochrane, Anne; Monks, Leonie 2006 : Seedbanks and the conservation of threatened species In Eds: Sweedman, L; Merritt, AUSTRALIAN SEEDS: A GUIDE TO THEIR COLLECTION, IDENTIFICATION AND BIOLOGY Pages: 61-66 Dixon, B. (2005). Managing Phytophthora cinnamomi on a rare ironstone multi-translocation site in Western Australia. Australasian Plant Conservation vol. 13:4, 18-19. Dixon B (2010) Controlling weeds on translocation sites, strategies, solutions and probable short term costs to the environment. Abstracts< Australian Network for Plant Conservation, 8th National Conference, Perth. Jusaitis M (2012). Serendipity during long-term monitoring of translocation trials. Australasian Plant Conservation 20(3): 8-10. Jusaitis M (1993). Conservation studies on four endangered plants from Kangaroo Island, South Australia. Final report. Black Hill Flora Centre, Botanic Gardens of Adelaide. Jusaitis M and B Sorensen (1994). Conservation studies on endangered plant species from South Australia's Agricultural regions. Black Hill Flora Centre, Botanic Gardens of Adelaide. Jusaitis M (1997). Experimental translocations: Implications for the recovery of endangered plants. In DH Touchell, KW Dixon, AS George and AT Wills (eds), Conservation into the 21st Century. Proceedings of the 4th International Botanic Gardens Conservation Congress, Perth, Western Australia. Kings Park and Botanic Garden, Western Australia, pp 181-196.
59
Jusaitis M and J Val (1997). Herbivore grazing: an important consideration in plant translocations. Re-introduction News No. 13: 11-12. Jusaitis M and J Val (1997). Success of plant translocations can be improved by optimising choice of propagule. Re-introduction News No. 13: 10-11. Jusaitis M (2005). Translocation trials confirm specific factors affecting the establishment of three endangered plant species. Ecological Management & Restoration 6: 61-67.
60