Monitoring and Prioritisation of Flora Translocations: a Survey of Opinions from Practitioners and Researchers

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

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]

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

iii

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

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.

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

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

1 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

2 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.

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)

 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

5 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).

Woody plant - Woody plant - Non-woody short-lived < 10 long-lived ≥ 10 perennial plant years years 10+: 75% 10+: 51% 5: 45% Survival 10: 25% 5: 18% 10+: 39% (4) (52) (44)

5: 75% **10+: 52% **10+: 44% Flowering 10+: 25% 5: 23% 3: 32% (4) (49) (41)

*5: 75% **10+: 54% **10+: 68% Fruiting 10+: 25% 5: 27% 5: 23% (4) (42) (22)

5: 75% **10+: 41% 5+: 29% Seeding 10+: 25% 5: 28% 5: 24% (4) (47) (41)

10+: 75% 10+: 53% 10+: 41% Recruitment 10: 25% 10: 17% 5+: 27% (4) (48) (44)

n/a 2: 36% ***3: 50% Clonal (0) 5 & 10: both 18% 10 & 10+: both (11) 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.

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).

Sexual Asexual Can be sexual or asexual 10+: 49% 10+: 100% 5: 59% Survival (3) 5: 23% (1) 10+: 32% (79) (22)

*10+: 48% 10+: 100% 3 & 5: both 30% Flowering 5: 22% (1) (20) (78)

*10+: 57% 10+: 100% 5: 43% Fruiting **5: 28% (1) 10+: 36% (55) (14)

*10+: 33% Only needs to 5: 39% Seeding 5: 29% be done once: 5+: 28% (74) 100% (18) (1)

10+: 53% 5: 100% 5: 32% Recruitment 5: 16% (1) 5+ & 10+: both 26% (77) (19)

***3: 37% 5: 100% ***3: 46% Clonal 2: 26% (1) 10 & 10+: both 23% (19) (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.

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).

Seedling transplant Adult transplant

10+: 39% 5: 55% Survival 5: 30% 10+: 22% (56) (18)

*10+: 52% 5: 50% Flowering 3: 19% 10+: 25% (52) (16)

*10+: 69% 5: 70% Fruiting 5: 11% 10+: 20% (36) (10)

*10+: 38% 5: 60% Seeding 5+: 19% 10+,5+, 3: 13% each (52) (15)

10+: 46% 5: 50% Recruitment 10 & 5+: both 18.5% 10+: 19% (54) (16)

**3: 59% 10+, **3yr & other: 22% each Clonal 10, 5 & 2: 12% each 10, 5 & 2: 11% each (17) (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

11 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

12 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

13 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.

 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

15 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

16 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 3.32 and keep hand-written notes) Evidence that that translocated species may have facilitated the 3.21 establishment or altered the trajectory of other species 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 2.81 to the source population

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

17 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

18 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

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

20 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.

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

22 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).

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

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?

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).

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 27.9 2.3 69.8 decline Disturbance factors 39.5 0 60.5 necessary for regeneration are known and can occur at the recipient site Ecological relationships of 48.8 4.7 46.5 the taxon (incl. mutualisms and dependent species) Breeding system 53.5 4.7 41.9 Seed biology and seed 62.8 2.3 34.9 storage responses Risks of inbreeding 65.1 4.7 30.2 depression and / or outbreeding depression

Proceed No opinion Should not (%) (%) proceed (%) Dispersal distance of seed 72.1 2.3 25.6 and pollen The genetic structure 69.8 6.9 23.3 among populations Population viability 79.1 9.3 11.6 analysis (PVA) outcomes for source population The genetic structure 83.7 0 16.3 within the existing source population

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

Proceed No opinion Should not (%) (%) proceed (%) Existing threats at the recipient site(s) 7.1 0 92.9 have been removed or minimized Site-preparation requirements have 7.1 0 92.9 been factored into the project (e.g. fencing and weed removal at the recipient site) A Translocation Proposal is prepared 19.1 0 81.0 and expertly assessed The project has a clear monitoring 23.8 0 76.2 structure to assess reasons for success / failure It is determined that the translocated 31.0 7.1 61.9 species will not negatively affect species at the recipient site(s) (physically or genetically) It is reasonably assured that the 35.7 0 64.3 recipient site will be legally protected for the foreseeable future Pollinators and dispersal agents are 42.9 0 57.1 present at the recipient site The performance of the plants at the 52.4 2.4 45.2 recipient site can be compared to a reference site e.g. the source population or another wild population A trial planting/seeding has been 57.1 0 42.9 undertaken The recipient site(s) reflect 57.1 11.9 31.0 environment conditions expected in the future

Proceed No opinion Should not (%) (%) proceed (%) Multiple suitable recipient sites are 64.3 0 35.7 available The translocation is set up as an 69.1 11.9 19.1 experiment to test specific hypotheses (for example an experimental factor could be planting with and without fertilizer) There is public support for the 73.8 11.9 14.3 translocation Multiple source populations are 76.2 11.9 11.9 available

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;

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.

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

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.

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.

Species State Report/citation details Conservation Breeding Habit Translocation Method Complete Group status System type Acacia aprica WA Monks L and Coates D (2002) The Critically Sexual Woody Introduction Seedling No translocation of two critically endangered endangered: and other plant - transplant Acacia species Conservation Science State level, (possible long- & direct Western Australia Vol 4(3) 54-61 Critically selfing) lived ≥ seeding Endangered or 10 years Endangered: Federal level

Acacia NSW 1. Moore R. J. and Clements A. (June Endangered and Sexual Woody Reinforcement Adult Yes Yes pubescens 1998) Acacia pubescens (Vent.) R. Br. Vulnerable plant - transplant (Downy Wattle) – a threatened species of long- western Sydney, Australia lived ≥ Conference documentation - Planta Europa 10 years – 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 Yes Can be As Ecological As above As above No client, various government departments sexual above replacement (inc. OEH) from ecological consultant. &/or Consultants have given talks to various asexual bodies (workshops, seminars, conferences)

Acacia volubilis WA Limited information available from Dept. Critically Sexual Non- Reinforcement Seedling No Parks and Wildlife (WA) endangered: and other woody transplant State level, (possible plant - & plants Critically selfing) grown

Species State Report/citation details Conservation Breeding Habit Translocation Method Complete Group status System type Endangered or perenni from Endangered: al cuttings Federal level as well as seed

Acacia SA 1. Jusaitis M (2010) Augmentation of a CE (IUCN) Sexual Woody Reinforcement Seedling Yes whibleyana Whibley Wattle population in South plant - transplant Australia by translocation IUCN "Global Re- long- & direct Introduction Perspectives. 2010 Additional lived ≥ seeding case-studies from around the globe. 10 years 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

Acanthocladium NSW 1. Jusaitis M and M Adams (2005). Yes Other Non- Reintroduction Seedling No Yes dockeri SA Conservation implications of clonality and woody transplant limited sexual reproduction in the plant – endangered shrub Acanthocladium dockeri perenni al

Species State Report/citation details Conservation Breeding Habit Translocation Method Complete Group status System type (Asteraceae). Australian Journal of Botany 53: 535-544. CE (IUCN) 2. Sharp A, A Clarke, M Jusaitis, A Pieck, P Asexual As Introduction As above Yes As Slattery and D Potter (2010). above above 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

Allocasuarina NSW Yes Sexual Woody Reinforcement Direct Yes Yes glareicola plant - seeding long- lived ≥ 10 years Allocasuarina NSW NPWS reports and recovery plans Yes Sexual Woody Reinforcement Seedling Yes Yes portuensis plant - transplant long- lived ≥ 10 years Arachnorchis ACT State (E) and Sexual Woody Introduction Seedling No n/a actensis Commonwealth plant - transplant now: (CE) long- but not Caladenia lived ≥ actually actensis 10 years planted yet Artanema NSW http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roadprojects/pro Sexual Non- Introduction Direct No n/a fimbriatum QLD jects/pac_hwy/coffs_harbour_ballina/devils woody seeding _pulpit/public_information.html plant - (construction documentation)

Species State Report/citation details Conservation Breeding Habit Translocation Method Complete Group status System type perenni al Astelia alpina NSW No Can be Non- Reinforcement Seedling No Yes TAS sexual woody transplant VIC &/or plant - asexual perenni al Astelia NSW No Can be Non- Reinforcement Seedling No Yes psychrocharis VIC sexual woody transplant &/or plant - asexual perenni al Baloskion ACT No Can be Non- Ecological Adult No Yes australe NSW sexual woody replacement transplant TAS &/or plant - VIC asexual perenni al Banksia WA Cochrane, J. A.; Barrett, S.; Monks, L.; et Critically Sexual Woody Introduction Seedling No n/a anatona al., 2010, Partnering conservation actions. Endangered plant - transplant Inter situ solutions to recover threatened EPBC long- species in South West Western Australia, lived ≥ Kew Bulletin, Volume: 65 Issue: 10 years 4 Pages: 655-662 Banksia brownii WA 1. Cochrane, J. A.; Barrett, S.; Monks, L.; et Endangered Sexual Woody Introduction Seedling No n/a al., 2010, Partnering conservation actions. EPBC plant - transplant Inter situ solutions to recover threatened long- species in South West Western Australia, lived ≥ Kew Bulletin, Volume: 65 Issue: 10 years 4 Pages: 655-662

2. Internal reports for translocation Threatened As above As As above As above As above As approvals and monitoring reports. Overall State & above above reports to be published

Species State Report/citation details Conservation Breeding Habit Translocation Method Complete Group status System type Endangered EPBC

Banksia WA 1. Sarah Barrett, Rebecca Dillon, Anne Threatened Sexual Woody Introduction Seedling No n/a montana Cochrane & Leonie Monks 2011 State & plant - transplant Conservation introduction of a threatened Endangered long- narrow range endemic species, Banksia EPBC lived ≥ montana, from the Stirling Range National 10 years 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 Critically As above As As above As above As above As approvals and monitoring reports. Overall endangered above above reports to be published Banksia nivea (see Dryandra nivea ssp uliginosa) ssp. uliginosa Brachyscome ACT Accepted for publication in the upcoming E (SA) Sexual Non- Introduction Seedling No No diversifolia NSW IUCN "Global Re-Introduction Perspectives" woody transplant QLD due to come out later this year (2013) plant - SA perenni TAS al VIC

Species State Report/citation details Conservation Breeding Habit Translocation Method Complete Group status System type Brachyscome SA 1. Paper accepted for publication in the CE (IUCN) Sexual Non- Introduction Seedling No No muelleri upcoming IUCN "Global Re-Introduction woody transplant Perspectives" due to come out later this plant - & Direct year (2013). perenni seeding 2. Jusaitis M, L Polomka and B Sorensen al (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. Caladenia actensis See Arachnorchis actensis Caladenia SA Provided (initially) to research institute Endangered Sexual Non- Reintroduction Seedling No calcicola VIC EPBC, listed woody transplant Vic. plant - perenni al Caladenia NSW ANPC plant conservation journal Regional Threatened in Sexual Non- Reinforcement No Yes concolor SA Reports- personal comments. State and woody VIC vulnerable in plant - Federal perenni al Caladenia VIC Data unpublished and held with DEPI Endangered Sexual Non- Reintroduction Seedling Yes No hastata EPBC, listed woody transplant Vic. plant -

Species State Report/citation details Conservation Breeding Habit Translocation Method Complete Group status System type perenni al Cassinia rugata TAS Data unpublished and held with DEPI Vulnerable Sexual Woody Reintroduction Seedling Yes No VIC EPBC, listed plant - transplant Vic. long- lived ≥ 10 years Celmisia ACT No Sexual Non- Reinforcement Seedling No Yes pulchella NSW woody transplant plant - perenni al Chorizema WA Limited information available from Dept. Critically Sexual Non- Introduction Seedling No humile Parks and Wildlife (WA) endangered: and other woody transplant State, Critically (possible plant - & Plants Endangered or selfing) perenni grown Endangered: al from Federal cuttings as well as seed Cupaniopsis NSW http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/Projects/ Near threatened Sexual Woody Reinforcement Seedling No newmanii QLD B/Beechmont%20Road%20Upgrade%20Lo (NCA) plant - transplant wer%20Beechmont/beechmontroadupgrad long- from ecompliancereport.pdf. lived ≥ cuttings / 10 years some direct seed Darwinia carnea WA Internal reports for translocation approvals Critically Sexual Woody Reinforcement Seedling Yes Yes and monitoring reports. Overall reports to endangered plant - transplant be published short- lived < 10 years

Species State Report/citation details Conservation Breeding Habit Translocation Method Complete Group status System type Darwinia WA Dixon B 2010 Translocation of four rare State, IRP176 Sexual Woody Reintroduction Seedling Yes No ferricola ironstone endemic species onto a pre- as Priority? plant - transplant mined area at Beenup in SW Australia In Endangered long- of cuttings PS Soorae (ed), Global Re-introduction under lived ≥ only Perspectives: 2010.IUCN Additional case- Commonwealth 10 years studies from around the globe. IUCN/SSC EPBC Act Re-introduction Specialist Group, Abu Dhabi, UAE, pp 301- 305. http://www.bgpa.wa.gov.au/science/biodiver sity-and-extensions/beenup-translocation Daviesia WA Limited information available from Dept. Critically Sexual Woody Reinforcement Seedling No bursarioides Parks and Wildlife (WA) endangered: and other plant - transplant State, Critically (possible long- Endangered or selfing) lived ≥ Endangered: 10 years Federal Daviesia WA Limited information available from Dept. Critically Sexual Woody Introduction Seedling No cunderdin Parks and Wildlife (WA) endangered: and other plant - transplant State, Critically (possible long- & Plants Endangered or selfing) lived ≥ grown Endangered: 10 years from Federal cuttings as well as seed Dillwynia NSW Yes Sexual Woody Reinforcement Direct Yes Yes tenuifolia plant - seeding long- lived ≥ 10 years Diuris ACT ANPC plant conservation journal Regional No Sexual Non- Reinforcement Adult No Yes chryseopsis NSW Reports- personal comments woody transplant SA plant - TAS

Species State Report/citation details Conservation Breeding Habit Translocation Method Complete Group status System type VIC perenni al Diuris tricolor NSW Annual monitoring reports & a paper for Yes Sexual Non- Ecological Adult no n/a QLD publication to a mining company woody replacement transplant plant - perenni al Dodonaea SA Paper accepted for publication in the V (IUCN) Sexual Woody Introduction Seedling Yes Yes subglandulifera upcoming IUCN "Global Re-Introduction plant - transplant Perspectives" due to come out later this long- & Direct year (2013) lived ≥ seeding 10 years Dryandra nivea WA Dixon B 2010 Translocation of four rare WA State, IRP Sexual Woody Reintroduction Yes No ssp uliginosa ironstone endemic species onto a pre- 255 as Priority? plant - (now Banksia mined area at Beenup in SW Australia In Endangered long- nivea ssp. PS Soorae (ed), Global Re-introduction under lived ≥ uliginosa) Perspectives: 2010.IUCN Additional case- Commonwealth 10 years studies from around the globe. IUCN/SSC EPBC Act Re-introduction Specialist Group, Abu Dhabi, UAE, pp 301- 305; http://www.bgpa.wa.gov.au/science/biodiver sity-and-extensions/beenup-translocation Elaeocarpus NSW 1. NSW NPWS Yes Can be Woody Reintroduction Seedling No n/a williamsianus sexual plant - transplant &/or long- asexual lived ≥ 10 years

2. Endangered Sexual As Reinforcement Seedling As above As above /recombination transplant above / cuttings

Species State Report/citation details Conservation Breeding Habit Translocation Method Complete Group status System type Empodisma QLD No Sexual Non- Reinforcement Adult No Yes minor woody transplant plant - perenni al Epacris NSW Unpublished ecological reports to the client, Yes Can be Woody Ecological Adult Yes No purpurascens various government departments (inc. sexual plant - replacement transplant var OEH) from ecological consultant. &/or long- purpurascens Consultants have given talks to various asexual lived ≥ bodies (workshops, seminars, conferences) 10 years

Eremophila WA Dixon B Translocation of the resinous State as Priority Sexual Woody Reintroduction Tissue No No resinosa Eremophila, from test tube, to a degraded 3 plant - culture & bushland site in the wheatbelt of Western long- some Australia In PS Soorae (ed), Global Re- lived ≥ direct introduction Perspectives: 2010. IUCN 10 years seeding 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/biodiver sity-and-extensions/eremophila- translocation Fontainea NSW 1. NSW NPWS Endangered Sexual Woody Reinforcement Seedling No n/a oraria QLD plant - / transplant long- recombination / cuttings lived ≥ 10 years

2. Yes As above As Reinforcement Seedling As above As above transplant above

Gentianella ACT No Sexual Non- Reinforcement Seedling No Yes meulleriana NSW woody transplant

Species State Report/citation details Conservation Breeding Habit Translocation Method Complete Group status System type VIC plant - perenni al Grevillea WA Limited information available from Dept. Critically Sexual Woody Introduction Seedling No batrachioides Parks and Wildlife (WA) endangered: and other plant - transplant State level, (possible long- Critically selfing) lived ≥ Endangered or 10 years Endangered: Federal level Grevillea WA Dixon B 2010 Translocation of four rare WA State as Sexual Woody Reintroduction Yes No brachystylis ssp ironstone endemic species onto a pre- Priority? plant - australis mined area at Beenup in SW Australia In Endangered short- PS Soorae (ed), Global Re-introduction under lived < Perspectives: 2010.IUCN Additional case- Commonwealth 10 years studies from around the globe. IUCN/SSC EPBC Act Re-introduction Specialist Group, Abu Dhabi, UAE, pp 301- 305. http://www.bgpa.wa.gov.au/science/biodiver sity-and-extensions/beenup-translocation Grevillea caleyi NSW Unlublished data on experimental Endangered Sexual Woody Reinforcement Seedling No translocation with OEH State & plant - transplant Commonwealth long- & seed lived ≥ 10 years Grevillea WA Limited information available from Dept. Critically Sexual Non- Introduction Seedling No humifusa Parks and Wildlife (WA) endangered: and other woody transplant State level, (possible plant - Critically selfing) perenni Endangered or al Endangered: Federal level

Species State Report/citation details Conservation Breeding Habit Translocation Method Complete Group status System type Grevillea ACT published articles by John Briggs (NSW TSC Act & Sexual Woody Reinforcement Seedling no n/a iaspicula NSW OEH) in Australian Plant Conservation EPBC - plant - transplant Endangered long- lived ≥ 10 years

Grevillea NSW Wyong Shire Council, Donaldson Coal, Vulnerable NSW Can be Woody Other - Adult No parviflora ssp. Centennial Coal & sexual plant - experimental transplant parviflora Commonwealth &/or long- translocation asexual lived ≥ from a 10 years development site Grevillea WA 1. Dixon, B. and Krauss, S. (2004).The WA State and Sexual Woody Reintroduction Seedling Yes Yes scapigera Grevillea scapigera case study. Chapter 9. Commonwealth plant - transplant In Vallee, L., Hogbin, T., Monks, L., as Critically short- & Makinson, B., Matthes, M. and Rossetto, M Endangered lived < includes (2004). Guidelines for the translocation of 10 years tissue threatened plants in Australia (2nd. Edn) culture 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 reintroduction perspectives: Re-introduction case studies from around the

Species State Report/citation details Conservation Breeding Habit Translocation Method Complete Group status System type 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/biodiver sity-and-extensions/grevillea-translocation Grevillea NSW 1. ANPC. TSC Act & Sexual Woody Reinforcement Seedling No n/a wilkinsonii EPBC – plant - & transplant Endangered long- Reintroduction lived ≥ 10 years

2. Partial (and only partially quantitative) ROTAP As above Woody Reinforcement Seedling As above Yes results and appraisals have been presented plant - transplant in several conference/forum situations short- / cuttings separately and together by John Briggs lived ≥ (OEH NSW) and Bob Makinson (RBG 10 years 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

Haloragis SA 1. Jusaitis M and A Freebairn (2010). CE (IUCN) Can be Non- Reinforcement Seedling Yes eyreana Habitat manipulation stimulates natural sexual woody transplant regeneration of Prickly Raspwort (Haloragis &/or plant - & Direct eyreana) on Eyre Peninsula (South asexual perenni seeding Australia). Ecological Management & al Restoration 11: 81-82.

Species State Report/citation details Conservation Breeding Habit Translocation Method Complete Group status System type 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 WA Limited information available from Dept. Critically Sexual Non- Introduction & Seedling No ramosissima Parks and Wildlife (WA) endangered: and other woody Reinforcement transplant State level, (possible plant - & Plants Critically selfing) perenni grown Endangered or al from Endangered: cuttings Federal level as well as seed Lachnagrostis SA Yes Sexual Non- Reintroduction Seedling Yes Yes limitanea woody transplant plant - perenni al Lambertia WA Cochrane, J. A.; Barrett, S.; Monks, L.; et Endangered Sexual Woody Introduction Seedling No n/a fairallii al., 2010, Partnering conservation actions. EPBC plant - transplant Inter situ solutions to recover threatened long- species in South West Western Australia, lived ≥ Kew Bulletin, Volume: 65 Issue: 10 years 4 Pages: 655-662 Lambertia WA Dixon B 2010 Translocation of four rare WA State, IRP Sexual Woody Reintroduction Yes No orbifolia ssp ironstone endemic species onto a pre- 178 as Priority ? plant - Scott River mined area at Beenup in SW Australia In Endangered long- Plains PS Soorae (ed), Global Re-introduction under lived ≥ Perspectives: 2010.IUCN Additional case- 10 years

Species State Report/citation details Conservation Breeding Habit Translocation Method Complete Group status System type studies from around the globe. IUCN/SSC Commonwealth Re-introduction Specialist Group, Abu EPBC Act Dhabi, UAE, pp 301- 305. http://www.bgpa.wa.gov.au/science/biodiver sity-and-extensions/beenup-translocation Leionema SA Jusaitis M (2011). Trial translocations of E (IUCN) Sexual Non- Introduction Seedling Yes No equestre Leionema equestre on Kangaroo Island, woody transplant South Australia. In PS Soorae (ed), Global plant - & Direct Re-introduction Perspectives: 2011.IUCN perenni seeding More case-studies from around the globe. al IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group, Abu Dhabi, UAE, pp 210-214 Lepidium ACT 1. ACT Conservation Planning and ACT and Sexual Non- Reintroduction Seedling No ginninderrense Research as unpublished reports. Commonwealth woody - but no transplant plant – populations perenni there al 2. State (E) and Commonwealth As above As Introduction As above As above n/a (V) above

Nationally 3 threatened As above As As above As above No n/a above

Macadamia NSW http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/Projects/ Vulnerable Sexual Woody Reinforcement Seedling No integrifolia QLD B/Beechmont%20Road%20Upgrade%20Lo (EPBC, NCA) plant - transplant wer%20Beechmont/beechmontroadupgrad long- ecompliancereport.pdf. lived ≥ 10 years Macrozamia QLD Translocation Performance Report for Endangered Sexual Woody Reinforcement Adult No n/a pauli-guilielmi Macrozamia pauli-guilielmi and Acacia (Qld NCA, plant - transplant attenuata (Vegetation Matters 2013). EPBC) long- , Direct

Species State Report/citation details Conservation Breeding Habit Translocation Method Complete Group status System type Qld Department of Transport and Main lived ≥ seeding, Roads; Opus; DSEWPAC; Qld Parks and 10 years Seedling Wildlife Service, Department of transplant Environment and Heritage Protection Marsdenia NSW 1.http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roadprojects/p NSW Sexual Non- Introduction Direct No n/a longiloba QLD rojects/pac_hwy/port_macquarie_coffs_har Endangered, woody seeding bour/nambucca_hds_to_urunga/project_do Federal plant – cuments/index.html (construction Vulnerable perenni documentation) al Endangered Can be As Other Adult Yes No 2. Nambucca Shire Council sexual above transplant &/or asexual

Melaleuca NSW Unpublished ecological reports to the client, Yes Can be Woody Ecological Adult Yes No deanei various government departments (inc. sexual plant - replacement transplant OEH) from ecological consultant. &/or long- Consultants have given talks to various asexual lived ≥ bodies (workshops, seminars, conferences) 10 years Montia ACT No Can be Non- Reinforcement Seedling No Yes australasica NSW sexual woody transplant SA &/or plant - TAS asexual perenni VIC al WA Muehlenbeckia ACT 1. ACT Conservation Planning and ACT and Sexual Woody Reinforcement Adult No tuggeranona Research as unpublished reports Commonwealth also plant - /Reintroductio transplant possibly long- n - but no asexual lived ≥ populations but not 10 years there confirmed

Introduction As above n/a

Species State Report/citation details Conservation Breeding Habit Translocation Method Complete Group status System type 2. Preliminary results unpublished, ACT State (E) and Can be As Seedling Govt Commonwealth sexual above transplant (E) &/or asexual

Oreobolus NSW No Sexual Non- Reinforcement Seedling No Yes pumilio TAS woody transplant VIC plant - perenni al Persoonia WA 1. Internal reports for translocation critically Sexual Woody Introduction Seedling No micranthera approvals and monitoring reports. Overall endangered plant - transplant reports to be published long- lived ≥ 10 years

2. Endangered As above As As above As above No n/a EPBC above

Persoonia NSW Criticlly Sexual Woody Not yet pauciflora endangered plant - long- lived ≥ 10 years Phebalium NSW 1. Jusaitis M (1991). Endangered E (SA) Sexual Non- Introduction Seedling Yes Yes glandulosum QLD Phebalium (Rutaceae) species return to woody transplant SA South Australia. Re-introduction News No. plant - & Direct VIC 3: 4. perenni seeding 2. Jusaitis M (1991). Micropropagation of al endangered Phebalium (Rutaceae) species in South Australia. Botanic Gardens Micropropagation News 1: 43-45.

Species State Report/citation details Conservation Breeding Habit Translocation Method Complete Group status System type 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 Yes Sexual Non- Reinforcement Seedling Yes Yes NSW woody transplant plant - perenni al Pimelea VIC Mueck, S. 2000. Translocation of Plains Critically Sexual Woody Reinforcement Adult Yes No spinescens ssp Rice-flower (Pimelea spinescens ssp. endangered: plant - transplant spinescens spinescens), Laverton, Victoria. Ecol. Man EPBC Act and long- & Restor. 1(2): 111- 116. endangered: lived ≥ Victoria 10 years Prasophyllum NSW Annual monitoring reports & a paper for Yes Sexual Non- Ecological Adult no n/a sp Wybong (not publication held by a mining company woody replacement transplant show plant - n in perenni ALA) al Prostanthera SA Jusaitis M (2010). Enhancement of Monarto CE (IUCN) Sexual Woody Reinforcement Seedling Yes Yes eurybioides Mintbush populations in South Australia by plant - transplant translocations. In PS Soorae (ed), IUCN long-

Species State Report/citation details Conservation Breeding Habit Translocation Method Complete Group status System type "Global Re-Introduction Perspectives: 2010. lived ≥ Additional case-studies from around the 10 years globe. IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group, Abu Dhabi, UAE, pp 306-310 Psychrophyla NSW No Can be Non- Reinforcement Seedling No Yes introloba VIC sexual woody transplant &/or plant - asexual perenni al Pterostylis NSW E (SA) Can be Non- Introduction Seedling No Yes arenicola SA sexual woody transplant VIC &/or plant - asexual perenni al Pterostylis VIC Data unpublished and held with DEPI Endangered Sexual Non- Reintroduction Seedling Yes No basaltica EPBC, listed woody transplant Vic. plant - perenni al Ranunculus No Sexual Non- Reinforcement Seedling No Yes gunnianus woody transplant plant - perenni al Ranunculus ACT No Sexual Non- Reinforcement Seedling No Yes millanii NSW woody transplant VIC plant - perenni al Ranunculus ACT No Sexual Non- Reinforcement Seedling No Yes pimpinellifolius NSW woody transplant TAS plant - VIC

Species State Report/citation details Conservation Breeding Habit Translocation Method Complete Group status System type perenni al Rutidosis ACT 1. ACT Conservation Planning and ACT and Sexual Woody Reintroduction Direct Yes Yes leptorrhynchoid NSW Research as unpublished reports. Commonwealth plant - - but no seeding & es VIC long- populations Seedling lived ≥ there transplant 10 years

Nationally 2. threatened As above Non- Introduction As above No n/a woody plant - perenni al

Senna acclinis NSW Stanwell Corporation Limited; Qld Parks Rare (Qld Sexual Woody Reinforcement Adult Yes QLD and Wildlife Service, Department of Nature plant - transplant Environment and Heritage Protection; Conservation long- , Direct Vegetation Matters Act) lived ≥ seeding, 10 years Seedling transplant

Swainsona ACT 1 .ACT Conservation Planning and ACT and Sexual Woody Reintroduction Adult No recta NSW Research as unpublished reports Commonwealth plant - - but no transplant VIC long- populations lived ≥ there 10 years

2. ANPC ? TSC Act & As above Non- Reintroduction Seedling Yes No EPBC – woody transplant Endangered plant – & Direct perenni seeding al

Species State Report/citation details Conservation Breeding Habit Translocation Method Complete Group status System type

3 Preliminary results unpublished, ACTEW Endangered (or As above As As above Adult No Will be threatened) above transplant under Commonwealth, NSW, ACT and Vic legislation

State (E) and 4. Commonwealth As above As Introduction Seedling No n/a (E) above transplant

Symonanthus WA 1. Bunn, E. and Dixon,B. (2008). Re- WA State and Sexual Woody Reintroduction Tissue Yes Yes bancroftii introduction of the endangered Bancroft’s Commonwealth plant - culture Symonanthus in Western Australia. Page as Critically long- 224-228 in- Ed. Soorae,P.S. (October Endangered lived ≥ 2008) Global re-introduction perspectives: 10 years 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/biodiv ersity-and-extensions/symonanthus- translocation Synaphea WA Limited information available from Dept. Endangered: Can be Non- Introduction Tissue No quarztitica (not Parks and Wildlife (WA) State level, sexual woody culture show Critically plant -

Species State Report/citation details Conservation Breeding Habit Translocation Method Complete Group status System type n in Endangered or &/or perenni ALA) Endangered: asexual al Federal level Tetratheca NSW 1. Wyong Shire Council, Donaldson Coal, Vulnerable NSW Can be Non- Other - Adult No juncea Centennial Coal & sexual woody experimental transplant Commonwealth &/or plant - translocation asexual perenni from a al development site

2. Assessment reports submitted by EFS to Yes As above As Ecological As above Yes No Wyong Shire Council and the developer above replacement involved. Documents can be supplied if required

3. Great lakes Council Vulnerable As above As Other Bulk No above topsoil

Verticordia WA Limited information available from Dept. Critically Sexual Woody Introduction Seedling No albida Parks and Wildlife (WA) endangered: and other plant - transplant State level, (possible long- & Plants Critically selfing) lived ≥ grown Endangered or 10 years from Endangered: cuttings Federal level as well as seed Verticordia WA http://www.bgpa.wa.gov.au/science/biodiver WA State as Sexual Woody Reintroduction Yes Yes lindleyi ssp sity-and-extensions/verticordia- Priority 3. plant - lindley translocation short- lived < 10 years Wilsonia NSW Sullivan M et al. Present to Ecological Soc Yes Sexual Woody Reinforcement Seedling Yes Yes backhousei SA in NZ plant - transplant

Species State Report/citation details Conservation Breeding Habit Translocation Method Complete Group status System type TAS long- VIC lived ≥ WA 10 years Xanthorrhoea ACT Abigroup (Lend Lease); North Burnett Type ! Sexual Woody Other - Adult No n/a glauca NSW Regional Council; Qld Parks and Wildlife restricted (Qld plant - Conservation transplant QLD Service, Department of Environment and NCA) long- translocation VIC Heritage Protection; Vegetation Matters lived ≥ 10 years Zieria prostrata NSW http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resourc Endangered Sexual Woody Reintroduction Seedling Yes No es/nature/recoveryplanFinalZieriaProstrata. plant - transplant pdf long- lived ≥ 10 years

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 Unpublished ecological reports to the client, various Forest community government departments (inc. OEH) from ecological consultant. Consultants have given talks to various bodies (workshops, seminars, conferences). Cumberland Plain Woodland Unpublished ecological reports to the client, various community 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 http://www.dixonsand.com.au/environment_frame.htm Woodland (Annual Environmental Monitoring Reports) Various non-threatened Western Unpublished ecological reports to the client, various Sydney species 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.

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.