DOCSLIB.ORG

Rare Or Threatened Plants in Victoria - 2005

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rare Or Threatened Plants in Victoria - 2005 advisory list of rare or threatened plants in Victoria - 2005 www.dse.vic.gov.au 1 Advisory List of Rare Or Threatened Plants In Victoria - 2005 Prepared and published by the Department of Sustainability and Environment, 8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne 3002. © State of Victoria, Department of Sustainability and Environment 2005. This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. Disclaimer This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication. This document may be cited as: Department of Sustainability and Environment (2005) Advisory List of Rare or Threatened Plants in Victoria - 2005. Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne, Victoria. ISBN 1 74152 090 8 Acknowledgements This document was compiled by David Cameron, with great assistance from Neville Walsh and Jeff Jeanes of the National Herbarium of Victoria. This list was compiled by David Cameron of the Parks, Flora and Fauna Division, Department of Sustainability and Environment, in consultation with Neville Walsh (National Herbarium of Victoria, Royal Botanic Gardens). Other major contributors include Gary Backhouse, Geoff Carr, Jeff Jeanes and Kevin Rule. 2 Introduction Purpose of the List This advisory list of vascular plants (angiosperms, conifers, ferns and fern allies), bryophytes and fungi (including lichens) that are considered extinct, threatened, rare or poorly known in Victoria is maintained by the Department of Sustainability and Environment. The information in this list may be of use in a range of planning processes, such as the preparation of National Park Management Plans, Forest Management Plans, local government planning schemes, regional catchment strategies and in setting priorities for actions to conserve biodiversity. Together with the range of programs and other resources available, lists of this type serve to increase community awareness of threatened species and may encourage community members to become involved in activities to protect threatened species, thereby reducing the risk of their conservation status worsening. Relationship to statutory lists This advisory list is not the same as the statutory list of threatened taxa established under the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act). There are no legal requirements or consequences that flow from inclusion of a species in this advisory list. However, some of the species in this advisory list are also listed as threatened under the FFG Act. The FFG Act Threatened List only includes items that have been nominated, assessed by the Scientific Advisory Committee and approved for listing by the responsible Minister. There are also species on this list that are listed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. This information is included in the tables. Readers who are interested in learning more about this Act should contact the Commonwealth Department of Environment and Heritage. Composition of the list and assessment of taxa The Advisory List of Rare or Threatened Plants in Victoria - 2005 updates the publication in 2003 of Advisory List of Rare or Threatened Vascular Plants in Victoria – 2003 (DSE 2003). This list includes a comprehensive list of rare or threatened bryophytes (mosses and liverworts) and a small selection of lichens and fungi. The inclusion of a preliminary list of only nine lichens and fungi is indicative of the poorly known or data deficient conservation status of the vast majority of taxa in these groups for which a definitive list of rare or threatened species must await further taxonomic investigation and the collation of reliable distribution data. The list refers to plants considered rare or threatened in Victoria only: their status elsewhere in Australia or beyond is not considered in assigning Victorian conservation status. Taxa are eligible for inclusion in the list if they are recognised as taxonomically valid by the National Herbarium of Victoria, they currently occur, or occurred, naturally in Victoria, and they are, or are highly likely to be, rare or threatened in Victoria. Where a species is represented in any given region by two or more infraspecific taxa then the species itself will usually (but not necessarily) have the same conservation status as the least threatened constituent infraspecific taxon. For clarity, the names of such species are not included in the list although their status can be confirmed in the current edition of the Victorian Flora Species Index. Where an EPBC Act or FFG Act status applies only at the species level, this status is shown in parentheses for the infraspecific taxa. Taxa which are generally recognised as naturally-occurring hybrids are included in this list only when they are listed in the current edition of A Census of the Vascular Plants of Victoria (Ross 2003). In general, such taxa are eligible for inclusion in these lists only when it is established that they are distinctive, stable and self-sustaining and supported by a published taxonomic description. The Department of Sustainability and Environment has published Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria – 2003. This list is available from the DSE web site at http://www.dse.vic.gov.au. The Department of Sustainability and Environment also publishes a list of plants periodically, based on the Department’s Flora Information System (eg. Victorian Flora Species Index 2001). 3 Arrangement of the List The list is divided into three sections representing three broad subdivisions of the plant world: vascular plants, non-vascular plants and fungi (including lichens). Non-vascular plants (bryophytes) are represented by mosses and liverworts. Nationally threatened taxa of terrestrial, freshwater or marine algae which are known to occur in Victoria (Scott et al. 1997) are not included in this list on account of the very rudimentary knowledge of the distribution and conservation status of algae at the present time. Column 1: Botanical Name The list is arranged alphabetically by botanical name. The taxonomy and botanical nomenclature used in the list is based on A Census of the Vascular Plants of Victoria (Ross & Walsh 2003) and subsequent advice from the National Herbarium of Victoria. It is current as of October 2003. Column 2: Common Name The common names listed are generally those provided in authoritative publications, including the Flora of Victoria (Walsh & Entwisle 1994, 1996, 1999), A Handbook to Plants in Victoria (Willis 1970, 1973) and other national, state and regional floras. Column 3: Conservation Status in Australia National conservation status is based on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) list of taxa considered threatened in Australia. In some instances the botanical and/or the common names of plants may have changed since the taxon was first listed under the EPBC Act. In such instances the EPBC Act status has been applied to the circumscription intended at the time of listing under the Act. This information is accurate as at December 2004. For further information regarding the EPBC Act and, in particular, for the most up-to-date listings under the Act, refer to the following web site: http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/ The categories for currently listed Victorian taxa are as follows: EX Extinct: A taxon is extinct when there is no reasonable doubt that the last individual of the taxon has died. CR Critically Endangered: A taxon is critically endangered when it is facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the immediate future. EN Endangered: A taxon is endangered when it is not critically endangered but is facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future. VU Vulnerable: A taxon is vulnerable when it is not critically endangered or endangered but is facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium-term future. Column 4: Conservation Status in Victoria x Presumed Extinct in Victoria: not recorded from Victoria during the past 50 years despite field searches specifically for the plant, or, alternatively, intensive field searches (since 1950) at all previously known sites have failed to record the plant. e Endangered in Victoria: at risk of disappearing from the wild state if present land use and other causal factors continue to operate. v Vulnerable in Victoria: not presently endangered but likely to become so soon due to continued depletion; occurring mainly on sites likely to experience changes in land-use which would threaten the survival of the plant in the wild; or, taxa whose total population is so small that the likelihood of recovery from disturbance, including localised natural events such as drought, fire or landslip, is doubtful. r Rare in Victoria: rare but not considered otherwise threatened - there are relatively few known populations or the taxon is restricted to a relatively small area. k Poorly Known in Victoria: poorly known and suspected, but not definitely known, to belong to one of the above categories (x, e, v or r) within Victoria. At present, accurate distribution information is inadequate. Column 5: Status under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 This column provides information on the listing status under the provisions of Part 3 of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. A taxon may be listed as threatened if it has been nominated, assessed by the Scientific Advisory Committee and approved by the Minister for Environment. Any person may make a nomination for listing. This information is accurate as at December 2004. For the most up-to-date listings under the Act, refer to the following web site: http://www.dse.vic.gov.au L Listed as threatened N Nominated for listing as threatened I Rejected for listing as threatened; taxon invalid or ineligible D Delisted as threatened under the FFG Act 4 Statistics Category Vascular plants Bryophytes Fungi (inc.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Acacia Saligna RA
    Risk Assessment: ………….. ACACIA SALIGNA Prepared by: Etienne Branquart (1), Vanessa Lozano (2) and Giuseppe Brundu (2) (1) [[email protected]] (2) Department of Agriculture, University of Sassari, Italy [[email protected]] Date: first draft 01 st November 2017 Subsequently Reviewed by 2 independent external Peer Reviewers: Dr Rob Tanner, chosen for his expertise in Risk Assessments, and Dr Jean-Marc Dufor-Dror chosen for his expertise on Acacia saligna . Date: first revised version 04 th January 2018, revised in light of comments from independent expert Peer Reviewers. Approved by the IAS Scientific Forum on 26/10/2018 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Branquart, Lozano & Brundu PRA Acacia saligna 8 9 10 Contents 11 Summary of the Express Pest Risk Assessment for Acacia saligna 4 12 Stage 1. Initiation 6 13 1.1 - Reason for performing the Pest Risk Assessment (PRA) 6 14 1.2 - PRA area 6 15 1.3 - PRA scheme 6 16 Stage 2. Pest risk assessment 7 17 2.1 - Taxonomy and identification 7 18 2.1.1 - Taxonomy 7 19 2.1.2 - Main synonyms 8 20 2.1.3 - Common names 8 21 2.1.4 - Main related or look-alike species 8 22 2.1.5 - Terminology used in the present PRA for taxa names 9 23 2.1.6 - Identification (brief description) 9 24 2.2 - Pest overview 9 25 2.2.2 - Habitat and environmental requirements 10 26 2.2.3 Resource acquisition mechanisms 12 27 2.2.4 - Symptoms 12 28 2.2.5 - Existing PRAs 12 29 Socio-economic benefits 13 30 2.3 - Is the pest a vector? 14 31 2.4 - Is a vector needed for pest entry or spread? 15 32 2.5 - Regulatory status of the pest 15 33 2.6 - Distribution
    [Show full text]
  • Framework for Using and Updating Ecological Models to Inform Bushfire Management Planning
    Framework for Using and Updating Ecological Models to Inform Bushfire Management Planning Final report Policy and Planning Division, Forest, Fire and Regions Acknowledgements Simon Watson, Katie Taylor, Thu Phan (MER Unit), Lucas Bluff, Rob Poore, Mick Baker, Victor Hurley, Hayley Coviello, Rowhan Marshall, Luke Smith, Penny Orbell, Matt Chick, Mary Titcumb, Sarah Kelly, Frazer Wilson, Evelyn Chia (DELWP Risk and Evaluation teams), Finley Roberts, Andrew Blackett, Imogen Fraser (Forest and Fire Risk Assessment Unit), and other staff from Forest, Fire and Regions Division, Bioodiversity Division, Arthur Rylah Institute, University of Melbourne, Parks Victoria, Country Fire Authority and Department of Land, Water, Environment and Planning who attended workshops. Jim Radford kindly provided comments on an earlier draft of this document. Authors Libby Rumpff, Nevil Amos and Josephine MacHunter Other contributors Kelly, L., Regan, T.J., Walshe, T., Giljohan, K., Bennett, A., Clarke, M., Di Stefano, J., Haslem, A., Leonard, S., McCarthy, M., Muir, A. Sitters, H. York, A., Vesk, P. Photo credit Kohout, M. © The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning 2019 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. You are free to re-use the work under that licence, on the condition that you credit the State of Victoria as author. The licence does not apply to any images, photographs or branding, including the Victorian Coat of Arms, the Victorian Government logo and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) logo. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ISBN 978-1-76077-890-3 (pdf/online/MS word) Disclaimer This publication may be of assistance to you, but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.
    [Show full text]
  • POLLINATION SYNDROMES and FLORAL SPECIALIZATION Charles
    31 Oct 2004 12:34 AR AR229-ES35-14.tex AR229-ES35-14.sgm LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: GJB 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132347 Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2004. 35:375–403 doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132347 Copyright c 2004 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved First published online as a Review in Advance on July 26, 2004 POLLINATION SYNDROMES AND FLORAL SPECIALIZATION Charles B. Fenster,1 W. Scott Armbruster,2 Paul Wilson,3 Michele R. Dudash,1 and James D. Thomson4 1Department of Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742; email: [email protected]; [email protected] 2School of Biological Sciences, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, PO1 2DY, United Kingdom; Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway; Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775; email: [email protected] 3Department of Biology, California State University, Northridge, California 91330-8303; email: [email protected] 4Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3G5; email: [email protected] KeyWords floral evolution, mutualism, plant-animal interaction, pollinator, pollination ■ Abstract Floral evolution has often been associated with differences in pollina- tion syndromes. Recently, this conceptual structure has been criticized on the grounds that flowers attract a broader spectrum of visitors than one might expect based on their syndromes and that flowers often diverge without excluding one type of pollinator in favorofanother. Despite these criticisms, we show that pollination syndromes provide great utility in understanding the mechanisms of floral diversification. Our conclusions are based on the importance of organizing pollinators into functional groups according to presumed similarities in the selection pressures they exert.
    [Show full text]
  • Creating Jobs, Protecting Forests?
    Creating Jobs, Protecting Forests? An Analysis of the State of the Nation’s Regional Forest Agreements Creating Jobs, Protecting Forests? An Analysis of the State of the Nation’s Regional Forest Agreements The Wilderness Society. 2020, Creating Jobs, Protecting Forests? The State of the Nation’s RFAs, The Wilderness Society, Melbourne, Australia Table of contents 4 Executive summary Printed on 100% recycled post-consumer waste paper 5 Key findings 6 Recommendations Copyright The Wilderness Society Ltd 7 List of abbreviations All material presented in this publication is protected by copyright. 8 Introduction First published September 2020. 9 1. Background and legal status 12 2. Success of the RFAs in achieving key outcomes Contact: [email protected] | 1800 030 641 | www.wilderness.org.au 12 2.1 Comprehensive, Adequate, Representative Reserve system 13 2.1.1 Design of the CAR Reserve System Cover image: Yarra Ranges, Victoria | mitchgreenphotos.com 14 2.1.2 Implementation of the CAR Reserve System 15 2.1.3 Management of the CAR Reserve System 16 2.2 Ecologically Sustainable Forest Management 16 2.2.1 Maintaining biodiversity 20 2.2.2 Contributing factors to biodiversity decline 21 2.3 Security for industry 22 2.3.1 Volume of logs harvested 25 2.3.2 Employment 25 2.3.3 Growth in the plantation sector of Australia’s wood products industry 27 2.3.4 Factors contributing to industry decline 28 2.4 Regard to relevant research and projects 28 2.5 Reviews 32 3. Ability of the RFAs to meet intended outcomes into the future 32 3.1 Climate change 32 3.1.1 The role of forests in climate change mitigation 32 3.1.2 Climate change impacts on conservation and native forestry 33 3.2 Biodiversity loss/resource decline 33 3.2.1 Altered fire regimes 34 3.2.2 Disease 35 3.2.3 Pest species 35 3.3 Competing forest uses and values 35 3.3.1 Water 35 3.3.2 Carbon credits 36 3.4 Changing industries, markets and societies 36 3.5 International and national agreements 37 3.6 Legal concerns 37 3.7 Findings 38 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Intro Outline
    THE REPRODUCTIVE ECOLOGY OF TWO TERRESTRIAL ORCHIDS, CALADENIA RIGIDA AND CALADENIA TENTACULATA RENATE FAAST Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Earth and Environmental Sciences The University of Adelaide, South Australia December, 2009 i . DEcLARATION This work contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution to Renate Faast and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference has been made in the text. I give consent to this copy of my thesis when deposited in the University Library, being made available for loan and photocopying, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. The author acknowledges that copyright of published works contained within this thesis (as listed below) resides with the copyright holder(s) of those works. I also give permission for the digital version of my thesis to be made available on the web, via the University's digital research repository, the Library catalogue, the Australasian Digital Theses Program (ADTP) and also through web search engines. Published works contained within this thesis: Faast R, Farrington L, Facelli JM, Austin AD (2009) Bees and white spiders: unravelling the pollination' syndrome of C aladenia ri gída (Orchidaceae). Australian Joumal of Botany 57:315-325. Faast R, Facelli JM (2009) Grazrngorchids: impact of florivory on two species of Calademz (Orchidaceae). Australian Journal of Botany 57:361-372. Farrington L, Macgillivray P, Faast R, Austin AD (2009) Evaluating molecular tools for Calad,enia (Orchidaceae) species identification.
    [Show full text]
  • Identifying Conservation Priorities and Assessing Impacts and Trade‐Offs of Potential Future Development in the Lower Hunter Valley in New South Wales
    Identifying conservation priorities and assessing impacts and trade-offs of potential future development in the Lower Hunter Valley in New South Wales A report by the NERP Environmental Decisions Hub Heini Kujala, Amy L. Whitehead and Brendan A. Wintle The University of Melbourne The Environmental Decisions Hub is supported through funding from the Australian Government’s National Environmental Research Program www.environment.gov.au/nerp and involves researchers from the University of Western Australia (UWA), The University of Melbourne (UM), RMIT University (RMIT), The Australian National University (ANU), The University of Queensland (UQ) and CSIRO . Identifying conservation priorities and assessing impacts and trade‐offs of potential future development in the Lower Hunter Valley in New South Wales. ISBN: 978‐07340‐5140‐0 (PDF) Hub Research Theme: 4.4 Regional Sustainability Plans (Hunter) Enquiries to: [email protected] © The University of Melbourne This work is copyright. It may be produced in whole or in part for study or training purposes subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgement of the source. It is not intended for commercial sale or use. Reproduction for other purposes other than those listed above requires the written permission from the authors. For permission to reproduce any part of this document, please approach the authors. Please cite the report as follows: Kujala H, Whitehead AL & Wintle BA (2015) Identifying conservation priorities and assessing impacts and trade‐offs of potential future development in the Lower Hunter Valley in New South Wales. The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria. Pp. 100 Purpose of the Report This report describes the framework and tools used to identify areas of high conservation priority in the Lower Hunter, and to assess the individual and cumulative impacts of potential future development scenarios.
    [Show full text]
  • Great Australian Bight BP Oil Drilling Project
    Submission to Senate Inquiry: Great Australian Bight BP Oil Drilling Project: Potential Impacts on Matters of National Environmental Significance within Modelled Oil Spill Impact Areas (Summer and Winter 2A Model Scenarios) Prepared by Dr David Ellis (BSc Hons PhD; Ecologist, Environmental Consultant and Founder at Stepping Stones Ecological Services) March 27, 2016 Table of Contents Table of Contents ..................................................................................................... 2 Executive Summary ................................................................................................ 4 Summer Oil Spill Scenario Key Findings ................................................................. 5 Winter Oil Spill Scenario Key Findings ................................................................... 7 Threatened Species Conservation Status Summary ........................................... 8 International Migratory Bird Agreements ............................................................. 8 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 11 Methods .................................................................................................................... 12 Protected Matters Search Tool Database Search and Criteria for Oil-Spill Model Selection ............................................................................................................. 12 Criteria for Inclusion/Exclusion of Threatened, Migratory and Marine
    [Show full text]
  • The Vegetation of the Western Blue Mountains Including the Capertee, Coxs, Jenolan & Gurnang Areas
    Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) The Vegetation of the Western Blue Mountains including the Capertee, Coxs, Jenolan & Gurnang Areas Volume 1: Technical Report Hawkesbury-Nepean CMA CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY The Vegetation of the Western Blue Mountains (including the Capertee, Cox’s, Jenolan and Gurnang Areas) Volume 1: Technical Report (Final V1.1) Project funded by the Hawkesbury – Nepean Catchment Management Authority Information and Assessment Section Metropolitan Branch Environmental Protection and Regulation Division Department of Environment and Conservation July 2006 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project has been completed by the Special thanks to: Information and Assessment Section, Metropolitan Branch. The numerous land owners including State Forests of NSW who allowed access to their Section Head, Information and Assessment properties. Julie Ravallion The Department of Natural Resources, Forests NSW and Hawkesbury – Nepean CMA for Coordinator, Bioregional Data Group comments on early drafts. Daniel Connolly This report should be referenced as follows: Vegetation Project Officer DEC (2006) The Vegetation of the Western Blue Mountains. Unpublished report funded by Greg Steenbeeke the Hawkesbury – Nepean Catchment Management Authority. Department of GIS, Data Management and Database Environment and Conservation, Hurstville. Coordination Peter Ewin Photos Kylie Madden Vegetation community profile photographs by Greg Steenbeeke Greg Steenbeeke unless otherwise noted. Feature cover photo by Greg Steenbeeke. All Logistics
    [Show full text]
  • Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 Protected Flora List November 2019
    Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 Protected Flora List November 2019 What is Protected Flora? Protected flora are native plants or communities of native plants that have legal protection under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. The Protected Flora List includes plants from three sources: plant taxa (species, subspecies or varieties) listed as threatened under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 plant taxa belonging to communities listed as threatened under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 plant taxa which are not threatened but require protection for other reasons. For example, some species which are attractive or highly sought after, such as orchids and grass trees, are protected so that the removal of these species from the wild can be controlled. For all listed species protection includes living (eg flowers, seeds, shoots and roots) and non-living (eg bark, leaves and other litter) plant material. Do I need a permit or licence? The handling of protected flora is regulated by the Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning (DELWP) to ensure that any harvesting or loss is ecologically sustainable. You must obtain a ‘Protected Flora Licence’ or Permit from one of the Regional Offices of DELWP if you want to collect protected native plants or if you are planning to do works or other activities on public land which might kill, injure or disturb protected native plants. In most cases, you do not require a Licence or Permit for works or activities on private land, although you may require a planning permit from your local council.
    [Show full text]
  • Redalyc.ARE OUR ORCHIDS SAFE DOWN UNDER?
    Lankesteriana International Journal on Orchidology ISSN: 1409-3871 [email protected] Universidad de Costa Rica Costa Rica BACKHOUSE, GARY N. ARE OUR ORCHIDS SAFE DOWN UNDER? A NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF THREATENED ORCHIDS IN AUSTRALIA Lankesteriana International Journal on Orchidology, vol. 7, núm. 1-2, marzo, 2007, pp. 28- 43 Universidad de Costa Rica Cartago, Costa Rica Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=44339813005 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2): 28-43. 2007. ARE OUR ORCHIDS SAFE DOWN UNDER? A NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF THREATENED ORCHIDS IN AUSTRALIA GARY N. BACKHOUSE Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Division, Department of Sustainability and Environment 8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne, Victoria 3002 Australia [email protected] KEY WORDS:threatened orchids Australia conservation status Introduction Many orchid species are included in this list. This paper examines the listing process for threatened Australia has about 1700 species of orchids, com- orchids in Australia, compares regional and national prising about 1300 named species in about 190 gen- lists of threatened orchids, and provides recommen- era, plus at least 400 undescribed species (Jones dations for improving the process of listing regionally 2006, pers. comm.). About 1400 species (82%) are and nationally threatened orchids. geophytes, almost all deciduous, seasonal species, while 300 species (18%) are evergreen epiphytes Methods and/or lithophytes. At least 95% of this orchid flora is endemic to Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Survey Guidelines for Australia's Threatened Orchids
    SURVEY GUIDELINES FOR AUSTRALIA’S THREATENED ORCHIDS GUIDELINES FOR DETECTING ORCHIDS LISTED AS ‘THREATENED’ UNDER THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 0 Authorship and acknowledgements A number of experts have shared their knowledge and experience for the purpose of preparing these guidelines, including Allanna Chant (Western Australian Department of Parks and Wildlife), Allison Woolley (Tasmanian Department of Primary Industry, Parks, Water and Environment), Andrew Brown (Western Australian Department of Environment and Conservation), Annabel Wheeler (Australian Biological Resources Study, Australian Department of the Environment), Anne Harris (Western Australian Department of Parks and Wildlife), David T. Liddle (Northern Territory Department of Land Resource Management, and Top End Native Plant Society), Doug Bickerton (South Australian Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources), John Briggs (New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage), Luke Johnston (Australian Capital Territory Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate), Sophie Petit (School of Natural and Built Environments, University of South Australia), Melanie Smith (Western Australian Department of Parks and Wildlife), Oisín Sweeney (South Australian Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources), Richard Schahinger (Tasmanian Department of Primary Industry, Parks, Water and Environment). Disclaimer The views and opinions contained in this document are not necessarily those of the Australian Government. The contents of this document have been compiled using a range of source materials and while reasonable care has been taken in its compilation, the Australian Government does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this document and shall not be liable for any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of or reliance on the contents of the document.
    [Show full text]
  • To Name Those Lost: Assessing Extinction Likelihood in the Australian Vascular Flora J.L
    To name those lost: assessing extinction likelihood in the Australian vascular flora J.L. SILCOCK, A.R. FIELD, N.G. WALSH and R.J. FENSHAM SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE 1 Presumed extinct plant taxa in Australia that are considered taxonomically suspect, or whose occurrence in Australia is considered dubious. These require clarification, and their extinction likelihood is not assessed here. Taxa are sorted alphabetically by family, then species. No. of Species EPBC1 Last collections References and/or pers. (Family) (State)2 Notes on taxonomy or occurrence State Bioregion/s collected (populations) comms Trianthema cypseleoides Sydney (Aizoaceae) X (X) Known only from type collection; taxonomy needs to be resolved prior to targeted surveys being conducted NSW Basin 1839 1 (1) Steve Douglas Frankenia decurrens (Frankeniaceae) X (X) Very close to F.cinerea and F.brachyphylla; requires taxonomic work to determine if it is a good taxon WA Warren 1850 1 (1) Robinson & Coates (1995) Didymoglossum exiguum Also occurs in India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Malay Peninsula; known only from type collection in Australia by Domin; specimen exists, but Field & Renner (2019); Ashley (Hymenophyllaceae) X (X) can't rule out the possibility that Domin mislabelled some of these ferns from Bellenden Ker as they have never been found again. QLD Wet Tropics 1909 1 (1) Field Hymenophyllum lobbii Domin specimen in Prague; widespread in other countries; was apparently common and good precision record, so should have been Field & Renner (2019); Ashley (Hymenophyllaceae) X (X) refound by now if present QLD Wet Tropics 1909 1 (1) Field Avon Wheatbelt; Esperance Known from four collections between 1844 and 1892; in her unpublished conspectus of Hemigenia, Barbara Rye included H.
    [Show full text]