Threatened and Uncommon Plants of New Zealand

Newde Lange Zealand et al.—ThreatenedJournal of Botany, and 2004, uncommon Vol. 42: 45–76 plants of NZ 45 0028–825X/04/4201–0045 © The Royal Society of New Zealand 2004 Threatened and uncommon plants of New Zealand P. J. de LANGE P. N. JOHNSON Science & Research Unit Landcare Research Department of Conservation Private Bag 1930 Private Bag 68908 Dunedin, New Zealand Newton R. HITCHMOUGH Auckland, New Zealand Biodiversity Recovery Unit D. A. NORTON P.O. Box 10 420 Conservation Research Group Wellington, New Zealand School of Forestry University of Canterbury Private Bag 4800 Abstract A reappraisal of the conservation status Christchurch, New Zealand of the indigenous New Zealand vascular plant flora P. B. HEENAN is presented. The list comprises 792 taxa (34% of Landcare Research New Zealand’s total indigenous vascular flora) in the P. O. Box 69 following categories: Extinct 4 taxa, Acutely Threat- Lincoln 8152, New Zealand ened 122 taxa (comprising 47 taxa Nationally Criti- cal, 54 Nationally Endangered, 21 Nationally S. P. COURTNEY Vulnerable), Chronically Threatened 96 taxa (com- Department of Conservation prising Serious Decline 26 taxa, Gradual Decline 70 Nelson/Marlborough Conservancy taxa), At Risk 499 taxa (comprising Sparse 126 taxa, Private Bag Range Restricted 373 taxa), Non-resident Native 26 Nelson, New Zealand taxa (comprising Vagrant 16 taxa, Colonist 10 taxa), B. P. J. MOLLOY and Data Deficient 45 taxa. A further 208 plants are listed as Taxonomically Indeterminate, being those Research Associate which might warrant further conservation attention Landcare Research once their taxonomic status is clarified. A further 31 P. O. Box 69 named taxa and 18 rated as Taxonomically Indeter- Lincoln 1852, New Zealand minate, and previously considered to be threatened C. C. OGLE and/or uncommon, are removed from this updated 22 Forres Street listing. A concordance of plant names is provided. Wanganui, New Zealand The lists presented use a new threat classification B. D. RANCE system developed by the New Zealand Department of Conservation for sole use within this country. This Department of Conservation paper represents the first time the entire known Southland Conservancy indigenous vascular flora has been assessed from a Private Bag conservation perspective since the mid 1970s. Invercargill, New Zealand A brief analysis of the patterns of rarity exhibited by the taxa listed is presented. Keywords New Zealand; threatened vascular B03016; Online publication date 30 March 2004 plants; uncommon vascular plants; conservation Received 13 May 2003; accepted 3 December 2003 status; rarity 46 New Zealand Journal of Botany, 2004, Vol. 42 Fig. 1 New Zealand threat classification system (after Molloy et al. 2002). Box denotes a category in the classification. INTRODUCTION appointed representatives from the Department of Conservation, universities, and crown research The last listing of New Zealand’s threatened and institutes (see authorship list for this paper). In uncommon vascular plants was conducted by the accordance with agreements reached between the New Zealand Threatened Plant Committee in the late New Zealand Botanical Society Committee, which 1990s (de Lange et al. 1999). Since that publication, was responsible for the functions of the former New the listing process used has been superseded by the Zealand Threatened Plant Committee, and the development of a new threat classification system for Department of Conservation (Rogan 2002), all New Zealand taxa (Molloy et al. 2002). This this paper continues the process of reporting, system is a refinement of the threat classification through peer-reviewed literature, the results of this framework proposed by de Lange & Norton (1998) assessment. and used by the former New Zealand Threatened This new list updates and supersedes all previous Plant Committee for vascular plants, and the Spe- threatened vascular plant listings (Cameron et al. cies Priority Ranking System developed and used by 1993, 1995; de Lange et al. 1999; Hitchmough 2002) the New Zealand Department of Conservation for a for New Zealand and remains valid from the date of range of taxonomic groups (Molloy & Davis 1992). publication until the next list is published. The new threat classification system, developed by a specialist panel for the Department of Conserva- tion between March 1999 and December 2001 (Molloy et al. 2002), is a uniquely New Zealand- METHODS based conservation status assessment tool (cf. IUCN 1994, 2000), which has now been applied for birds, The following lists are for vascular plant taxa bats, marine mammals, frogs, reptiles, freshwater (species, subspecies, varieties, forma, and those and marine fish, freshwater, marine, and terrestrial entities as yet without formal taxonomic rank) invertebrates, bryophytes, macro-algae, fungi, and believed to be indigenous to the New Zealand vascular plants indigenous to New Zealand Botanical Region (Wardle 1991), excepting those (Hitchmough 2002). endemic to Macquarie Island*. Included are indig- As part of the development of the new system, a enous New Zealand plants that also occur naturally new panel undertook a comprehensive re-evaluation overseas (e.g., in Australia), where they may or may of the threatened status of the New Zealand vascular flora between October and December 2001 Macquarie Island*, though biogeographically part of the (Hitchmough 2002). This panel comprised some New Zealand subcontinent, is under the control of members of the former New Zealand Threatened Australia, thus, New Zealand-based assessments of its Plant committee (de Lange et al. 1999) plus biota are unnecessary. de Lange et al.—Threatened and uncommon plants of NZ 47 not be considered threatened (e.g., Amphibromus System does not preclude individuals from using fluitans, Sebaea ovata). Initial information for this IUCN Threat Categories, and information used for revision was gathered from the previous three list- the New Zealand listings presented here, and held ings of threatened, local, and uncommon plants by the Department of Conservation, is available to (Cameron et al. 1993, 1995; de Lange et al. 1999), those wishing to undertake an independent IUCN and Flora of New Zealand volumes I–V. This infor- threat assessment. mation was supplemented by public submissions and Unlike earlier listings, except perhaps that of expert opinion regarding the conservation status of Given (1976), the present listing has resulted from the New Zealand indigenous flora. Submissions an assessment of all taxa known to be indigenous to were solicited from the New Zealand botanical com- New Zealand. Thus, the taxa listed here are the sub- munity through the New Zealand Botanical Society set of the entire vascular flora that meet the criteria Newsletter (Hitchmough 2001). Submissions were that define the categories of Extinct, Acutely Threat- then collated and reviewed by the vascular plant ened, Chronically Threatened, At Risk, Non-resident panel in October 2001. Native, and Data Deficient (Molloy et al. 2002). The placement of candidate taxa in risk catego- Four lists are presented here (Appendices 1–4). ries was based on the criteria outlined by Molloy et Appendix 1 comprises the main New Zealand al. (2002), panel knowledge, and referral to her- Threatened and Uncommon Vascular Plant list. barium records and recent publications. In situations Appendix 2 deals with all Taxonomically Indeter- of doubt, provisional assessments of candidate taxa minate plants. Appendix 3 lists the vascular plant were referred to specialists in species autecology, taxa no longer considered to be at risk or nationally reproductive biology, demography, historical and uncommon, or, in the case of unnamed entities, those current range information, threats, and projected whose identity could not be determined by experts decline patterns, for their advice. All provisional and which could not be linked to herbarium speci- assessments were then re-evaluated by the panel in mens. Appendix 4 provides a concordance of names December 2001, and the interim listings were posted used by de Lange et al. (1999) and altered in this for external comment by Department of Conserva- publication. Plants listed in Appendix 2 as tion botanists and those who provided the candidate Taxonomically Indeterminate are assigned a provi- taxa for the listing process. The lists stemming from sional conservation status using the same criteria as that exercise were published by the Department of in Appendix 1 but recognising that information on Conservation (Hitchmough 2002). However, as a their taxonomic relationships has either not been result of the incomplete listings in that document, formally evaluated or remains in doubt. new information, further public comment, and our Authority abbreviations of all published plant requirement to publish a paper within peer-reviewed names follow those recommended by Brummitt & literature (Rogan 2002), the entire vascular plant list Powell (1992). Those plants considered to be of Hitchmough (2002) was reassessed by the panel Taxonomically Indeterminate (212 taxa) are listed during January and February 2003. by showing their probable affinity (e.g., Ranuncu- The risk categories used (Appendices 1 and 2) are lus aff. stylosus) and, where this is not known or there those defined in Molloy et al. (2002) (Fig. 1), namely is a suspected aggregate, names are then listed al- “Extinct”, “Acutely Threatened” (Nationally Criti- phabetically (e.g., Cardamine (a) or Lepidium aff. cal, Nationally Endangered, Nationally

Load more