South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

Chris Obst

May 2005 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

A Recovery Plan prepared under the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

The preparation of this plan was funded by the Natural Heritage Trust II, through the SA Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board.

Cite as: Obst, C. (2005). South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan. Report to the Threatened Species and Communities Section, Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra.

Further copies of this Recovery Plan are available from:

Department for Environment and Heritage PO Box 231 BERRI SA 5343 (08) 8595 2111

This recovery plan was written and produced by Environmental & Biodiversity Services on behalf of the Department for Environment and Heritage. It was released for public comment in January, 2005.

Cover Photos all taken by Chris Obst:

Top left: Olearia pannosa ssp. pannosa (Silver Daisy-bush) Bottom left: Prostanthera eurybioides (Monarto Mintbush) Top right: Acacia pinguifolia (Fat-leaf Wattle) Bottom right: Pterostylis arenicola (Sandhill Greenhood Orchid)

ii South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

Contents

List of Tables...... v List of Figures ...... vii Abbreviations...... viii Executive summary ...... ix Introduction...... 1

Part A: Species Names and General Requirements...... 3

Species names and Conservation Status...... 3 Objects of the EPBC Act ...... 4 International Obligations...... 4 Affected Interests ...... 5 Role and Interests of Indigenous People...... 6 Benefits to other Species/Ecological Communities...... 7 Social and Economic Impacts ...... 7 Evaluation of Success...... 7 Definitions ...... 8 Explanation of Methods Used...... 9

Part B: Summary of Recovery Objectives and Known and Potential Threats...... 11

Recovery Objectives…………………………………………………….…...... ….11 Known and Potential Threats…………………………………………….………………...11

Part C: Threatened Species included within this Plan...... 18

1. Acacia menzelii (Menzel’s Wattle)...... 18 1.1 Species Information, Distribution and Location ...... 18 1.2 Past Research and Conservation Efforts ...... 23 1.3 Known and Potential Threats...... 24 1.4 Recovery Objectives, Actions and Performance Criteria...... 25

2. Acacia pinguifolia (Fat-leaf Wattle) ...... 33 2.1 Species Information, Distribution and Location ...... 33 2.2 Past Research and Conservation Efforts ...... 40 2.3 Known and Potential Threats...... 42 2.4 Recovery Objectives, Actions and Performance Criteria...... 44

3. Acacia rhetinocarpa (Resin Wattle)...... 52 3.1 Species Information, Distribution and Location ...... 52 3.2 Past Research and Conservation Efforts ...... 57 3.3 Known and Potential Threats...... 58 3.4 Recovery Objectives, Actions and Performance Criteria...... 59

iii South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

4. Caladenia colorata (Coloured Spider-orchid)...... 67 4.1 Species Information, Distribution and Location ...... 67 4.2 Past Research and Conservation Efforts...... 73 4.3 Known and Potential Threats...... 73 4.4 Recovery Objectives, Actions and Performance Criteria...... 75

5. Olearia pannosa ssp. pannosa (Silver Daisy-bush)...... 84 5.1 Species Information, Distribution and Location ...... 84 5.2 Past Research and Conservation Efforts ...... 91 5.3 Known and Potential Threats...... 92 5.4 Recovery Objectives, Actions and Performance Criteria...... 94

6. Phebalium lowanense (Lowan Phebalium)...... 102 6.1 Species Information, Distribution and Location...... 102 6.2 Past Research and Conservation Efforts ...... 108 6.3 Known and Potential Threats...... 109 6.4 Recovery Objectives, Actions and Performance Criteria...... 110

7. Prostanthera eurybioides (Monarto Mintbush) ...... 118 7.1 Species Information, Distribution and Location ...... 118 7.2 Past Research and Conservation Efforts ...... 125 7.3 Known and Potential Threats...... 126 7.4 Recovery Objectives, Actions and Performance Criteria...... 128

8. Pterostylis arenicola (Sandhill Greenhood Orchid) ...... 136 8.1 Species Information, Distribution and Location ...... 136 8.2 Past Research and Conservation Efforts ...... 142 8.3 Known and Potential Threats...... 143 8.4 Recovery Objectives, Actions and Performance Criteria...... 144

9. Thelymitra epipactoides (Metallic Sun-orchid)...... 152 9.1 Species Information, Distribution and Location ...... 152 9.2 Past Research and Conservation Efforts ...... 160 9.3 Known and Potential Threats...... 161 9.4 Recovery Objectives, Actions and Performance Criteria...... 163

Part D: Management Practices ...... 171

Part E: Duration of Recovery Plan and Estimated Costs...... 172

Resource Allocation ...... 172 Duration and Costs ...... 172

References and Further Reading...... 178

Appendix 1. Development of a Threat Matrix...... 182 Appendix 2. Summary Action Table ...... 184 Appendix 3. Current and Historical Sites...... 189

iv South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

List of Tables

Table A. The names and status of nationally threatened plant species included within this recovery plan...... ix Table 1. The names and status of nationally threatened plant species included within this recovery plan...... 3 Table 2. List of current and potential stakeholders in the management of species included within this recovery plan...... 5 Table 3. Priority order of threats to threatened species in the SA MDB...... 11 Table 4. Status of Acacia menzelii...... 18 Table 5. IUCN Assessment for Acacia menzelii...... 18 Table 6. Current and potential threats to Acacia menzelii in the SA MDB...... 24 Table 7. Recovery actions and performance criteria for Acacia menzelii...... 25 Table 8. Status of Acacia pinguifolia...... 33 Table 9. IUCN Assessment for Acacia pinguifolia...... 33 Table 10. Important populations of Acacia pinguifolia in the SA MDB...... 38 Table 11. Current number of surviving translocated A. pinguifolia plants in the SA MDB region...... 41 Table 12. Current and potential threats to Acacia pinguifolia in the SA MDB...... 42 Table 13. Recovery actions and performance criteria for Acacia pinguifolia...... 44 Table 14. Status of Acacia rhetinocarpa...... 52 Table 15. IUCN Assessment for Acacia rhetinocarpa...... 52 Table 16. Current and potential threats to Acacia rhetinocarpa in the SA MDB...... 58 Table 17. Recovery actions and performance criteria for Acacia rhetinocarpa...... 59 Table 18. Status of Caladenia colorata...... 67 Table 19. IUCN Assessment for Caladenia colorata...... 67 Table 20. Important populations of Caladenia colorata in the SA MDB...... 71 Table 21. Current and potential threats to Caladenia colorata in the SA MDB...... 73 Table 22. Recovery actions and performance criteria for Caladenia colorata...... 75 Table 23. Status of Olearia pannosa ssp. pannosa...... 84 Table 24. IUCN Assessment for Olearia pannosa ssp. pannosa...... 84 Table 25. Important populations of Olearia pannosa ssp. Pannosa in the SA MDB..88 Table 26. Current and potential threats to Olearia pannosa ssp. pannosa in the SA MDB...... 92 Table 27. Recovery actions and performance criteria for Olearia pannosa ssp. pannosa...... 94 Table 28. Status of Phebalium lowanense...... 102 Table 29. IUCN Assessment for Phebalium lowanense...... 102 Table 30. Important populations of Phebalium lowanense in the SA MDB...... 106

v South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

Table 31. Current and potential threats to Phebalium lowanense in the SA MDB...109 Table 32. Recovery actions and performance criteria for Phebalium lowanense. ...110 Table 33. Status of Prostanthera eurybioides...... 118 Table 34. IUCN Assessment for Prostanthera eurybioides...... 118 Table 35. Important populations of Prostanthera eurybioides in the SA MDB...... 123 Table 36. Current number of surviving translocated P. eurybioides plants in the SA MDB...... 125 Table 37. Current and potential threats to Prostanthera eurybioides in the SA MDB...... 126 Table 38. Recovery actions and performance criteria for Prostanthera eurybioides...... 128 Table 39. Status of Pterostylis arenicola...... 136 Table 40. IUCN Assessment for Pterostylis arenicola...... 136 Table 41. Important populations of Pterostylis arenicola in the SA MDB ...... 139 Table 42. Current and potential threats to Pterostylis arenicola in the SA MDB...... 143 Table 43. Recovery actions and performance criteria for Pterostylis arenicola...... 144 Table 44. Status of Thelymitra epipactoides...... 152 Table 45. IUCN Assessment for Thelymitra epipactoides...... 152 Table 46. Important populations of Thelymitra epipactoides in the SA MDB...... 158 Table 47. Current and potential threats to Thelymitra epipactoides in the SA MDB...... 161 Table 48. Recovery actions and performance criteria for Thelymitra epipactoides. 163 Table 49. Estimated duration and costs required to undertake recovery actions aimed at maintaining threatened species at their current abundance and status...... 174 Table 50. Estimated duration and costs required to undertake recovery actions aimed at improving threatened species abundance and status...... 175 Table 51. Estimated external funding that may be available if no other funding is forthcoming...... 176

vi South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

List of Figures

Figure 1. Location of the SA MDB and distribution of the threatened species covered in this Recovery Plan...... 2 Figure 2a & b. Acacia menzelii. a) shrub, b) phyllodes...... 19 Figure 3. Known locations and habitat critical to the survival of Menzel’s Wattle (Acacia menzelii) in the SA MDB...... 22 Figure 4 a & b. Acacia pinguifolia. a) shrub, b) flowers and phyllodes……………….34 Figure 5. Known locations and habitat critical to the survival of Fat-leaf Wattle (Acacia pinguifolia) in the SA MDB...... 39 Figure 6a & b. Acacia rhetinocarpa. a) shrub, b) phyllodes…………………….……..53 Figure 7. Known locations and habitat critical to the survival of Resin Wattle (Acacia rhetinocarpa) in the SA MDB...... 56 Figure 8a & b. Caladenia colorata. a) flowering plants, b) flower and bud…………..68 Figure 9. Known locations and habitat critical to the survival of Coloured Spider- orchid (Caladenia colorata) in the SA MDB ...... 72 Figure 10a & b. Olearia pannosa ssp. pannosa. a) flowering plant, b) flowers...... 85 Figure 11. Known locations and habitat critical to the survival of Silver Daisy-bush (Olearia pannosa ssp. pannosa) in the SA MDB ...... 90 Figure 12 a & b. Phebalium lowanense. a) flowering plant b) flowers...... 103 Figure 13. Known locations and habitat critical to the survival of Lowan Phebalium (Phebalium lowanense) in the SA MDB...... 107 Figure 14a & b. Prostanthera eurybioides. a) shrub, b) flowers……………………..120 Figure 15. Known locations and habitat critical to the survival of Monarto Mintbush (Prostanthera eurybioides) in the SA MDB ...... 124 Figure 16a & b. Pterostylis arenicola. a) flowering plants, b) flowers...... 137 Figure 17. Known locations and habitat critical to the survival of Sandhill Greenhood Orchid (Pterostylis arenicola) in the SA MDB ...... 141 Figure 18a & b. Thelymitra epipactoides. a) flower spikes, b) flowers...... 154 Figure 19. Known locations and habitat critical to the survival of Metallic Sun-orchid (Thelymitra epipactoides) in the SA MDB ...... 159

vii South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

Acknowledgements

Initially I would like to thank the Natural Heritage Trust II, and the South Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board for funding this project.

I would also like to thank the staff at Environmental and Biodiversity Services who had input into the project including Dr Travis How and Dr Leanne Pound. I would like to thank the following people for their valuable advice, assistance, comments and information they have provided during the preparation of this recovery plan:

The South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Team including Luke Geelen (DEH, Berri), Wendy Stubbs (DEH, Adelaide), Janet Kuys (RRSA), Tony Randall (GWLAP), Tim Jury (TPAG) and Yvonne Steed (TPAG), Karina Mercer (TSN) and Vicki-Jo Russell (TSN); David Taylor (DEH, Kangaroo Island) and Annie Bond (DEH, Adelaide)

Others not on the Recovery Team included Andrew West (DEH, Adelaide), Randall Johnson (DEH, South East), Manfred Jusaitis (DEH, Botanic Gardens of Adelaide), Ben Simon (Murray Mallee Local Action Planning Association Inc), Phillip Ainsley (DEH, Botanic Gardens of Adelaide), Leanne Liddle (DEH, Aboriginal Partnerships Section), Peter Bird (Animal and Plant Control Commission), Bill Gemmell (Animal and Plant Control Commission), Felicity Smith (DEH), Lissa Fountaine (DEH), Di Wallace-Ward (DEH), Rosemary Taplin, Martin O’Leary (DEH, Botanic Gardens of Adelaide), Anna Murphy (DEH, South East), Tina Fowler (DEH, South East), Oberon Carter (DSE, Victoria), Rick Davies, Jerry Smith, Matt Rose (Natural State), Andrew Allanson (TFL) and the Committee of the Eastern Hills & Murray Plains Catchment Group.

Thank you to all of the landholders for allowing access to their land and to those who gave their time and assistance in the field. Abbreviations

ANPC Australian Network for Plant Conservation BGASCC Botanic Gardens of Adelaide, Seed Conservation Centre, DEH BMA Bush Management Advisor, DEH DEH Department for Environment & Heritage, South Australia DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment DWLBC Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation EHMPCG Eastern Hills & Murray Plains Catchment Group GWLAP Goolwa to Wellington Local Action Planning Group HMRE Habitat Restoration Ecologist, DEH LAP Local Action Planning Group LC Local Council TSN Threatened Species Network RRSA Rural Solutions SA RE Regional Ecologist, DEH RPO Recovery Project Officer RPT Recovery Project Team SA MDB South Australian Murray Darling Basin SA MDB INRM South Australian Murray Darling Basin Integrated Natural Resource Management Group TFL Trees For Life TPAG Threatened Plant Action Group

viii South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

Executive summary

Introduction

This project was initiated, with funding from the Natural Heritage Trust II, through the South Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board. This recovery plan is a regional plan that focuses solely on species recovery within the South Australian Murray Darling Basin, and aims to make a significant contribution to the conservation of nine threatened flora species. This plan should be referred to as the South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan. Its effective life-span is five years, after which its effectiveness and further goals will need to be reviewed. The nine species within this recovery plan are varied, and represent several genera (see Table A).

This recovery plan has been produced within the requirements of the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and guidelines produced by the Department of the Environment and Heritage (2002).

Table A. The names and status of nationally threatened plant species included within this recovery plan.

Botanical NPW Act Region Status Common EPBC Act 1972 (SA) Species (Lang and Name 1999 (amended Kraehenbuehl in 2000) 2002) Menzel’s Acacia menzelii Vulnerable Vulnerable Vulnerable (MU) Wattle

Acacia pinguifolia Fat-leaf Wattle Endangered Endangered Endangered (MU)

Acacia rhetinocarpa Resin Wattle Vulnerable Vulnerable Vulnerable (MU)

Coloured Caladenia colorata Endangered Endangered Endangered (MU) Spider-orchid Olearia pannosa ssp. Silver Daisy- Vulnerable Vulnerable Vulnerable (MU) pannosa bush Lowan Phebalium lowanense Vulnerable Vulnerable Vulnerable (SE) Phebalium Prostanthera Monarto Endangered Endangered Endangered (MU) eurybioides Mintbush Sandhill Pterostylis arenicola Greenhood Vulnerable Vulnerable Vulnerable (MU) Orchid Thelymitra Metallic Sun- Endangered Endangered Endangered (MU) epipactoides orchid

MU Murray, SE South Eastern

ix South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

Recovery Objectives

The long-term objective of threatened species recovery is to reduce the probability of extinction in the wild and to maximise the likelihood of threatened species becoming self-sustaining. To work toward this long-term objective, the current plan of five-year duration has the following specific objectives:

1. Acquire accurate information on distribution, abundance, threats and critical and potential habitat 2. Maximise the number of populations and amount of habitat that is protected 3. Manage the threats from weeds 4. Manage the threats from grazing herbivores 5. Manage other threats to populations 6. Monitor and evaluate populations and extension activities 7. Manage fragmented populations 8. Increase the knowledge of this species through targeted research 9. Ensure sufficient resources are available to implement the recovery plan 10. Effectively coordinate and implement the recovery plan Recovery Actions and Performance Criteria

This plan identifies actions and associated performance criteria that are required in order to meet the specified recovery objectives outlined above. These actions and criteria are species specific and reflect the current level of understanding of the threatening processes impacting upon each species. There are approximately 38 actions outlined within this recovery plan for each species, each with one or more associated performance criteria. Duration and Costs

Four species included within this regional recovery plan, Acacia pinguifolia, Phebalium lowanense, Prostanthera eurybioides and Thelymitra epipactoides are each the subject of a national recovery plan. Cost estimates for those actions within this recovery plan which are also to be undertaken as part of these national recovery plans are therefore potentially an overestimate. It will be the responsibility of the recovery team and the recovery project officer to liaise with the national recovery teams to ensure there is no overlap or doubling up of efforts with regard to specific actions. The funding required to support this project over its life-span of five years, with the intention of improving threatened species status and abundance, is expected to be approximately $794,500.

x South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

Introduction

The South Australian Murray Darling Basin provides a unique environment for many plant species, several of which are endemic to this area. This region also supports several plant species which are now recognised as being nationally threatened. Figure 1 shows the approximate boundaries of the South Australian Murray Darling Basin (SA MDB) that were used in this project, and the distribution of the threatened species included in this plan. The boundaries are based on the boundaries of the South Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board, but also include the northern part of the South East Natural Resources Management Board. This plan should be referred to as the South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan.

This project has been initiated, with funding from the Natural Heritage Trust II, through the South Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board. This recovery plan is a regional plan that focuses solely on species recovery within the South Australian Murray Darling Basin, and aims to make a significant contribution to the conservation of nine threatened flora species. The effective life- span of this recovery plan is five years, after which its effectiveness and further goals will need to be reviewed.

The nine species covered in this recovery plan are varied, and represent several genera. Specifically the species are; Acacia menzelii (Menzel’s Wattle), Acacia pinguifolia (Fat-leaf Wattle), Acacia rhetinocarpa (Resin Wattle), Caladenia colorata (Coloured Spider-orchid), Olearia pannosa ssp. pannosa (Silver Daisy Bush), Phebalium lowanense (Lowan Phebalium), Prostanthera eurybioides (Monarto Mintbush), Pterostylis arenicola (Sandhill Greenhood Orchid) and Thelymitra epipactoides (Metallic Sun-orchid).

Four of the species included within this regional recovery plan are also the subject of national recovery planning, with plans either prepared or in preparation for Acacia pinguifolia, Phebalium lowanense, Prostanthera eurybioides and Thelymitra epipactoides. The current recovery plan draws information from these plans where relevant to these four species in the SA MDB.

The species within this plan are at risk from various threats. Through this project, we have gained an improved understanding of each of the individual species, and their habitat, resource requirements and specific threats. This knowledge will be used to develop effective and efficient conservation actions and management strategies to target threatening processes.

Due to time and financial constraints the field work for this project focussed predominantly on five of the nine species included within this plan. Specifically, these species were; Acacia pinguifolia, Caladenia colorata, Prostanthera eurybioides, Pterostylis arenicola and Thelymitra epipactoides. Limited field work was conducted on Olearia pannosa ssp. pannosa and Phebalium lowanense and no field work was conducted on Acacia menzelii or Acacia rhetinocarpa.

1 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

2 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

Part A: Species Names and General Requirements

Species names and Conservation Status

This recovery plan includes a total of nine plant species which are listed as threatened under the Commonwealth Government’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 [s269A] and the South Australian Government’s National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (Schedules 7 & 8) (amended in 2000).

Table 1. The names and status of nationally threatened plant species included within this recovery plan.

NPW Act Botanical Region Common EPBC Act 1972 (SA) Status (Lang and Species Name 1999 (amended Kraehenbuehl in 2000) 2002)

Menzel’s Acacia menzelii Vulnerable Vulnerable Vulnerable (MU) Wattle

Acacia pinguifolia Fat-leaf Wattle Endangered Endangered Endangered (MU)

Acacia rhetinocarpa Resin Wattle Vulnerable Vulnerable Vulnerable (MU)

Coloured Caladenia colorata Endangered Endangered Endangered (MU) Spider-orchid

Olearia pannosa ssp. Silver Daisy- Vulnerable Vulnerable Vulnerable (MU) pannosa bush

Lowan Phebalium lowanense Vulnerable Vulnerable Vulnerable (SE) Phebalium

Prostanthera Monarto Endangered Endangered Endangered (MU) eurybioides Mintbush

Sandhill Pterostylis arenicola Greenhood Vulnerable Vulnerable Vulnerable (MU) Orchid

Thelymitra Metallic Sun- Endangered Endangered Endangered (MU) epipactoides orchid

MU - Murray, SE - South Eastern

3 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

Objects of the EPBC Act

Promoting a co-operative approach to the protection and management of the environment involving governments, the community, land-holders and indigenous peoples

It is expected that the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders necessary for the implementation of this recovery plan will promote a co-operative approach to the plan, ensuring a successful outcome for environment protection and management.

Assisting in the co-operative implementation of Australia’s international environmental responsibilities

This recovery plan has been written with a view to meeting Australia’s international environmental responsibilities in a co-operative approach through the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders. Specifically, this recovery plan complies with policy and legislative objectives at the national, state and regional levels.

Recognising the role of indigenous people in the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of Australia’s biodiversity and Promoting the use of indigenous peoples’ knowledge of biodiversity with the involvement of, and in cooperation with, the owners of the knowledge

The Aboriginal Partnerships Section (APS) of the Department for Environment and Heritage has been contacted regarding the development of this recovery plan. The locations of populations of all nine species included within this plan have been provided to APS and forwarded to the Department of Aboriginal and Indigenous Services. This consultation was an initial approach to identify the relevant indigenous people that may have an interest in some or all of these species and the area in which they occur. The Aboriginal heritage organisations that were identified as being potentially interested have since been contacted but to date no comments have been received from these organisations.

International Obligations

Acacia menzelii, A. pinguifolia, A. rhetinocarpa, Olearia pannosa ssp. pannosa, Phebalium lowanense and Prostanthera eurybioides are not listed on any of the relevant international agreements, which include the following:

 Japan Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA),  China Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA),  Convention on Migratory Species (CMS/Bonn Convention), and  Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).  Ramsar Convention on Wetlands

However, the three orchid species, Caladenia colorata, Pterostylis arenicola and Thelymitra epipactoides are listed on one of the above international agreements, namely CITES. Whilst these three species are listed under CITES the implementation of Australia’s international environmental responsibilities are not affected by this plan. These three species are not listed on any of the other international agreements above.

4 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

Affected Interests

The community groups and statutory organisations presented in Table 2 have been identified as current and potential stakeholders in the management of the nine species included within this recovery plan.

Table 2. List of current and potential stakeholders in the management of species included within this recovery plan.

National Stakeholders Department of the Environment and Heritage (Australian Government) Threatened Species Network, WWF Australia General Public

State Stakeholders Department for Environment and Heritage (SA Government) Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation (SA Government) Rural Solutions SA (South Australian Government) Botanic Gardens of Adelaide Seed Conservation Centre, DEH (SA Government) Transport South Australia (SA Government) Department of Sustainability and Environment (Victorian Government) Threatened Plant Action Group Nature Conservation Society of South Australia Trees For Life Greening Australia Country Fire Service General Public

Regional Stakeholders Mount Lofty Ranges and Greater Adelaide Integrated Natural Resource Management Group South Australian Murray Darling Basin Integrated Natural Resource Management Group South East Integrated Natural Resource Management Group Alexandrina Council Tatiara District Council Southern Mallee District Council District Council of Karoonda East Murray The Coorong District Council The Rural City of Murray Bridge Mid Murray Council District Council of Mount Barker City of Victor Harbor Goolwa to Wellington Local Action Planning Group Mannum to Wellington Local Action Planning Group

5 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

Murray Mallee Local Action Planning Group Coorong District s Local Action Planning Group Eastern Hills & Murray Plains Local Action Planning Group Mid Murray Local Action Planning Group Eastern Hills & Murray Plains Catchment Group Threatened Flora and Habitat Recovery Officer, DEH, Naracoorte NPWS –Murraylands, South East and Adelaide Regions Murray Mallee Animal and Plant Control Board Upper South East Animal & Plant Control Board Lacepede, Tatiara and Robe Animal and Plant Control Board Asparagus Weeds Working Group Ngarrindjeri Heritage Committee Inc. Raukken Aboriginal Community Tattyara Aboriginal Heritage Consultancy Kungari Heritage Association Inc. Hindmarsh Island Landcare Group Point Sturt Landcare Group Rodwell Creek/Wistow Landcare Group Langhorne Creek Landcare Group Strathalbyn Natural Resource Centre Signal Point Riverine Environment Group Friends of Parks Friends of Nurragi Association Friends of the Upper South East Murray Bridge Field Naturalists Australian Plant Society Natural State (Private Consultancy)

Role and Interests of Indigenous People

The requirements of the Native Title Act 1993 only apply to land where Native Title rights and interests may exist. When implementing any recovery actions in this threatened species plan where there has been no Native Title determination, or where there has been no clear extinguishment of Native Title, there needs to be consideration of the possibility that Native Title may continue to exist.

Generally the Native title Act 1993 requires certain procedures to be followed prior to undertaking activities –known as future acts that may include certain recovery actions in this plan –which may affect Native Title rights and interests.

This threatened species plan is released and will be adopted subject to any Native Title rights and interests that may continue in relation to the land and/or waters. Nothing in the plan is intended to affect Native Title. The relevant provisions of the Native Title Act 1993 should be considered before undertaking any future acts that might affect Native Title.

6 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

Procedures under the Native Title Act 1993 are additional to those required to comply with the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1998.

Benefits to other Species/Ecological Communities

Other species sharing a common distribution with the nine plant species included within this plan may also benefit from the implementation of the recommended actions. Benefits to numerous species as a response to this plan will positively impact upon the vegetation communities in which the nine target species occur. Improvements will flow on to all species that co-exist in the habitat of threatened plant species in which management works are carried out. This will occur through habitat improvements gained by actions such as weed control, feral animal control, fencing and many other actions identified in the plan. Furthermore, improving the habitat of the nine target species may directly benefit any fauna species that utilise those particular habitats.

Research conducted on the nine target species will increase the understanding of germination and establishment requirements and various aspects of the ecology of these species. Obtaining this information may be beneficial to future conservation efforts of other closely related plant species.

Social and Economic Impacts

The implementation of this recovery plan is unlikely to cause significant adverse social and/or economic impacts. However, through the implementation of actions outlined in the recovery plan, there will be direct positive social impacts to local communities through their involvement with the recovery plan. Community involvement with the recovery plan will foster the building of strong community links and community empowerment, and develop interest and skills in natural resource management.

Benefits to agricultural production may also be experienced by landholders when control programs for weeds and pest animals are implemented, with flow on effects to local economies and communities.

Evaluation of Success

The monitored evaluation of this recovery plan and the planning and implementation of actions will be conducted by a recovery team. In this way, scientific experts and community representatives with relevant qualifications or interests can regularly review the progress of the project. The recovery team will also ensure all on ground works are conducted in an integrated manner with respect to any regional recovery plans that may incorporate any of the nine species included within this plan.

Both ecological and social achievements need to be evaluated as a part of this process. This is important because it may take a long time to see a change in ecological benchmarks such as population numbers or increased germination at specific populations. However, if we have managed to improve the social environment for threatened species management, such as by raising awareness or getting land holders or local government to alter their management of key threats at priority sites, then that is a significant outcome.

7 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

Definitions

Habitat that is critical to the survival of species/communities

Under regulation 7.09 of the EPBC Act 1999, habitat critical to survival might comprise:

 Sites needed to meet essential life cycle requirements (e.g. breeding or seed dispersal processes),  sites of water, shelter, fire, drought and flood refuges or those used at other times of environmental stress,  sites necessary for seed dispersal mechanisms to operate or to maintain populations of species essential to the threatened species or ecological community,  the habitat used by important populations,  habitat that is required to maintain genetic diversity and long-term evolutionary development,  areas that may not be occupied by the species and/or ecological community but are essential for the maintenance of those areas where they do occur.

According to the EPBC Act 1999, the Minister may, in identifying habitat critical to survival, also take into account: (Website link - http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/critical- habitat/index.html)

 Whether the habitat is necessary for use as corridors to allow the species to move freely between sites used to meet essential life cycle requirements;  Whether the habitat is necessary to ensure the long-term future of the species or ecological community through reintroduction or re-colonisation;  Any other way in which habitat may be critical to the survival of a listed threatened species or a listed threatened ecological community.

For the purposes of this recovery plan the habitat considered critical to the survival of each species is the currently occupied habitat, including any native vegetation occurring within a buffer around each population of 500 metres. This has been mapped for each species.

Potential habitat

Potential habitat is defined as habitat which may be currently unoccupied by a particular species, but which could present opportunities for reintroduction or reinvasions, or may maintain only a dormant seed bank. Potential habitat needs to be identified and protected and/or rehabilitated to ensure the long-term persistence of the species and/or ecological community.

Extent of Occurrence

IUCN (2001) defines the Extent of Occurrence as the area contained within the shortest continuous imaginary boundary which can be drawn to encompass all the known, inferred or projected sites of present occurrence of a taxon, excluding cases of vagrancy. The figure given for each species is based on the known populations of each species surveyed during this project within the SA MDB. Any populations located outside of the SA MDB are not included within the figure.

8 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

Population

Populations are defined as geographically or otherwise distinct groups within a species between which there is little chance of demographic or genetic exchange (typically one successful migrant individual or gamete per year or less) (IUCN, 2001). Little information is known on the genetics or demographics of populations of the species in this plan, and therefore a different more practical definition was needed, based on spatial criteria. For the purposes of this recovery plan it was decided that groups of plants that were geographically separate should be defined as separate populations. This distance varied between species, but was subjectively assessed as being groups greater than one kilometre apart, although this varied depending on how the plants were distributed on the ground.

Area of Occupancy

The area of occupancy is defined as the area within its ‘Extent of Occurrence’ which is occupied by a taxon, excluding cases of vagrancy (IUCN 2001).

Important Populations

All populations of each threatened species covered in this recovery plan are considered important due to the small total numbers of these species, the restricted range of the species and/or the low number of populations. Hence all populations should be managed for the protection of these species.

Explanation of Methods Used

Methodology for prioritising important populations

All populations have been given a priority rating to assist those managing these species in prioritising the actions of this plan. Prioritisation of important populations has been made on the following basis:

 Larger populations have been given a higher priority than smaller populations  Natural populations have been given a higher priority than translocated or planted populations  Populations at the extremes of the species range have been given a higher priority  Populations where a threat is posing an immediate high risk to the species have been given a higher priority

The distribution of populations of importance for each species has been mapped, with each map occurring in each species section.

Methodology for identifying current and potential threats

Each species has a table of threats in the appropriate section of this recovery plan, entitled current and potential threats. For the species surveyed in this recovery plan, threats were identified whilst in the field and also from past reports and discussion with experts. For the two species that were not surveyed at all in this plan, i.e. Acacia menzelii and Acacia rhetinocarpa, the identified threats are based on past reports and plans. Where a threat has been recorded in a previous study, it has been referenced in the table. Some of these threats have been referenced as “This Study”,

9 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan even though they have not been recorded from site visits. Threats recorded as such are based on the author’s knowledge of the species and of threats that are considered likely to be significant now or in the future.

The threats listed in the current and potential threats table have been selected from the known and potential threats listed starting on page 11. Threats are listed in order of the perceived risk each threat has or is likely to be having on the individual species. Each threat was given a rating of the perceived risk it posed to each species at all sites. The perceived risk was rated as high, medium, low or not applicable, with each risk level defined as follows;

 High Risk –threat is present and already having or likely to be having a significant impact on the species.  Medium Risk –threat is present and already having or likely to be having a moderate impact on the species. If threat is not present, it is considered to be likely to occur in the near future.  Low Risk –threat is present and already having or likely to be having a low impact on the species. If threat is not present, it is considered to be unlikely to occur in the near future.  Not Applicable –threat is not present and unlikely to have a significant impact on the species in the future.

Methodology for Prioritising Sites in the Recovery Objectives, Actions and Performance Criteria Tables for each species.

When deciding which sites were of a higher priority for carrying out actions, the table of Important Populations was used as a basis for this with higher priority populations being considered as a higher priority for work. Consideration was also given to the author’s assessment of a site in the field for some actions, but generally the priority order for actions coincides with the priority order of the Important Population table.

Recovery Objectives, Actions and Performance Criteria Tables

The use of a lighter grey scale text in the Recovery Objectives, Actions and Performance Criteria Tables, is intended to indicate those actions that have already been carried out, or those that are not relevant to that species. It is intended to make the tables easier to read, and to quickly indicate to the reader which actions are not relevant. Normal black text has been used for actions that are still applicable.

10 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

Part B: Summary of Recovery Objectives and Known and Potential Threats

Recovery Objectives

The long-term objective of threatened species recovery is to reduce the probability of extinction in the wild and to maximise the persistence of threatened species and likelihood of them becoming self-sustaining. To work toward this overall objective, the current plan of five-year duration has the following specific objectives:

Known and Potential Threats

The following threats are listed in priority order based on the results of the threat matrix (for each of the seven surveyed species) which is described in Appendix 1. This threat matrix score gives an indication of which threats are considered to be of a higher priority for the seven surveyed threatened species in the SA MDB as a whole (see Table 3). This does not necessarily correlate with the priority order of threats for individual species, which may occur in a different order. Refer to the section on Identification of threats under each species, for a description of which threats apply to each species, and their relative importance.

Table 3. Priority order of threats to threatened species in the SA MDB.

The higher the threat matrix score for an individual threat, the higher the incidence of the threat occurring across all seven of the surveyed species in this plan. The highest possible threat score is 21.

Ranking Value from Priority Threat Order Threat Matrix 1 Inadequate Knowledge of Ecology and Threats 19 2 Fragmentation 17 3 Grazing 17 4 Weeds - Bridal Creeper 17 5 Weeds - Other 16 6 Inappropriate Fire Regime 15

11 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

Ranking Value from Priority Threat Order Threat Matrix 7 Lack of Recruitment 15 8 Lack of Formal Protection 14 Inadequate Knowledge of Distribution, Abundance and 9 Population Trends 13 10 Weeds - Perennial Veldt Grass 11 11 Road/ Rail Maintenance Activities 8 12 Edge Effects eg spray drift 7 13 Vegetation Clearance 7 14 Phytophthora 6 15 Illegal Collection 6 16 Recreational Activities 5 17 Trampling 5 18 Other Disturbances eg rubbish dumping, flooding, bees 5

1. Inadequate Knowledge of Ecology and Threats

Without a good understanding of the ecology and threats relevant to threatened plant populations the ability to successfully plan for the recovery of these species will be limited. The knowledge required for recovery needs to be species specific in order to best manage each population. Some of the species in this plan have been researched to a certain degree; however more knowledge on all of the species would be beneficial to their effective management. Some species remain largely unstudied with very little information on even their most basic ecology.

Some necessary areas for research include investigating the key pollinators of orchid species to determine what they are (if unknown) and if they are still active at important populations. Seed predation is potentially an issue for some of the non orchid species in this plan. Other important areas for research include seedling recruitment, germination, pollination, optimal population size and genetic diversity, disturbance and fire regimes, and effects of competition and grazing.

2. Fragmentation

The fragmented nature of remnant vegetation in the SA MDB poses a significant threat to the populations of threatened species in this region. Fragmentation can affect species by distance effects, edge effects and declining genetic viability.

If a catastrophic event such as disease or a fire destroys an isolated population of threatened plants, the large distance between populations reduces the chance of propagules recolonising the patch (Saunders et al, 1991). This reduction in propagule transfer between patches of suitable habitat may also result in an increased impact of global warming on species existing in fragmented landscapes.

Edge effects are often much greater in small fragments of vegetation as they have a high edge to area ratio (Taylor, 2003). Threatened plant populations occurring in such fragments are more likely to be subject to impacts from threats which are likely

12 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan to occur along the perimeter of a vegetation fragment (Taylor, 2003)(see number 12 below for more information on edge effects).

Exchange of genetic material with other sub-populations can be prevented when small sub-populations are isolated from one another. This lack of genetic exchange can result in decreased levels of genetic diversity, inbreeding depression (the decline in vigour in the offspring of organisms that are closely related genetically) and higher rates of deleterious mutations (Glémin et al. 2001).

3. Grazing

Several threatened species within this plan are susceptible to the impacts of grazing, by native and introduced herbivores. The most severe impacts are thought to be from rabbits and kangaroos, but invertebrates also have impacts on some species, particularly terrestrial orchid species. It is unknown what species of invertebrates are impacting on these species, or even whether or not they are native. This will need to be investigated further before any management actions are implemented. Domestic stock, particularly cattle are having an impact on some sites within the project area. In many cases further investigation is needed to determine exactly which grazing animal is impacting on particular species.

Grazing upon seedlings of threatened plants may be responsible for greatly reducing recruitment (Hussey 2002; Davies 1992). Grazing by sheep may also result in compaction of soil around individuals and an increase in nutrients from manure (Cropper 1993). Soil compaction can reduce the ability of seedlings to penetrate the soil and germinate, whilst an increase in nutrients may facilitate the spread of weed seeds or be detrimental to some vegetation types (Cropper 1993).

It should be noted that appropriate grazing regimes could be useful in some habitat type’s e.g. grassy woodlands. Grazing has been recommended as the preferred management option for certain grassy woodlands interstate (Davies, 1997). It has been used for controlling weeds and promoting some threatened species. Care needs to be taken though before applying this in selected threatened species sites within the SA MDB, as potential damage could occur to soil crusts and other native species (Davies, 1997). Further research is needed in this area before grazing can be used as a reliable and well understood management tool. A recent study by Verrier and Kirkpatrick (2005) suggests that an appropriate mowing regime may also have beneficial effects for rare or threatened species that are superior to those of a grazing treatment.

4. Weeds - Bridal Creeper

Bridal Creeper (Myrsiphyllum asparagoides) is listed as a weed of national significance and it poses a particular threat to threatened plant species in the SA MDB. This species is widespread throughout the region and has the potential to compete with both mature plants and seedlings due to its smothering nature (Jusaitis 1991). All of the species surveyed within this plan were affected to some extent by the presence of Bridal Creeper, although it was not present at all sites. Bridal Creeper was not found at the Phebalium lowanense site, however it was present in the vicinity of these sites, and has the potential to be a threat to this species in the near future.

13 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

5. Weeds - Other

Many other weed species, besides Bridal Creeper and Perennial Veldt Grass, which occur in the SA MDB basin are having or have the potential to significantly impact on threatened species populations and habitats in general. Competition from weed species can be a threat to various life stages of threatened plant species (Jusaitis 1991). For example, the establishment of seedlings may be inhibited by competition from weed species (Threatened Plant Recovery Committee 1998, cited in Kahrimanis et al. 2001; Jusaitis 1991), as can mature plant growth (Jusaitis 1991). In the project area many of the other weed species have the potential to greatly increase in abundance if not targeted for control. Other common environmental weed species recorded in the SA MDB include Pine trees (Pinus spp.), annual grasses (Avena sp., Briza maxima, Bromus diandrus, Ehrharta longifolia, Vulpia myuros), Soursob (Oxalis pes-caprae), Scabiosa (Scabiosa atropurpurea), Gazania (Gazania linearis) and False Caper (Euphorbia terracina).

6. Inappropriate Fire Regime

Altered fire regimes can pose a significant threat to those threatened plant species that may rely on a fire event to regenerate. Fire events occurring either too often or too infrequently can severely impact upon the demography of threatened plant populations. Similarly, ill-timed fire may potentially threaten populations by damaging flowering or germinating plants.

7. Lack of Recruitment

Many of the threats listed in this section are known to be causing a lack of successful recruitment. However there are potentially other currently unknown factors that may also be causing a lack of recruitment. These may include elements to do with the ecology of the species that are currently not well understood. The regeneration and persistence of some of these species may be reliant upon appropriate disturbance dynamics, and in many cases these dynamics are unknown. Appropriate research into appropriate disturbance as a management tool needs to be conducted, with the aim of stimulating recruitment events.

8. Lack of Formal Protection

Protection of threatened species and their habitat within the national parks system, under heritage agreements or in council reserves is considered to provide legislative and therefore greater protection to the habitat of threatened species. Protected areas are managed for conservation rather than sustainable production. Therefore species on protected land are less likely to be impacted on by incremental vegetation clearance or disturbance threats, such as grazing or spray drift.

9. Inadequate Knowledge of Distribution, Abundance and Population Trends

A lack of knowledge relating to the distribution and abundance of threatened plant populations is a major threat to the successful management for recovery of these species. Populations that are least understood or potentially currently unknown may be those populations that are located in relatively remote or seldom visited areas. Assumptions regarding population distribution and critical habitat made in this plan

14 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan reflect existing knowledge only, and this may change in the future as knowledge of individual species increases. It is essential that reliable and up to date information on a species abundance and distribution is known, in order to undertake the most effective and efficient management practices. Up to date information on population trends –whether a population is increasing or decreasing and at what rates, is also critical in determining whether particular management actions are required and to what extent.

10. Weeds - Perennial Veldt Grass

Perennial Veldt Grass (Ehrharta calycina) is considered to be an environmental weed and has the potential to dominate the understorey once established. This species has the potential to inhibit the establishment of seedlings of threatened plant species through competition (Jusaitis 1991). It is a common weed in the SA MDB, particularly on sandy soils, and is considered to be a major threat to the persistence and regeneration of all native plant species.

Perennial Veldt Grass is still being used by farmers as a pasture grass species, and is useful in stabilising sandy soils, and also for managing salinity. Its use is common in the SA MDB, and it is still being promoted as a viable pasture grass species by agricultural institutions. It is still used in areas adjacent to native vegetation, even though it is a known environmental weed that will readily invade native vegetation areas given appropriate soil types and conditions. This is an important issue for Natural Resource Management Boards to look at, as many of the sites in this plan are affected by Perennial Veldt Grass, and its further promotion and use will be contrary to many of the recommended actions in this plan.

11. Road/Rail Maintenance Activities

Road and rail maintenance activities such as weed spraying, road widening, road grading and vegetation trimming all have the potential to impact on threatened plant populations if not carried out in the correct manner. Weed spraying in particular is currently impacting, on more than one of the species in this plan, at several sites in the project area.

12. Edge Effects

Populations of threatened species located in small or narrow blocks are at an increased risk from edge effects due to their large perimeter to area ratio. Small blocks are more likely to become degraded through increased edge effects from fertiliser drift, weed infestation and higher pest animal populations on the edges (Kahrimanis et al, 2001). Roadside populations of threatened plants are at particular risk from edge effects, especially when agricultural land occurs on the other side of the road. Spray drift of agricultural herbicides and pesticides from farmers was considered to be an issue, for more than one of the species, at several sites in the project area.

13. Vegetation Clearance

Although legal clearance is now managed under the State’s native vegetation legislation, illegal clearance does still occur, and both forms of clearance including

15 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan incremental clearance for activities including production, road works, fire management, fence construction etc are considered a significant threat to threatened plant populations. Land clearance not only reduces the number of surviving plants and the natural habitat in which threatened plant populations may occupy but also reduces the potential for future expansion of or connections between populations. Disturbance of land near the edge of populations can also increase the negative impact of edge effects. Populations likely to be particularly at risk from vegetation clearance include those in narrow strips of vegetation such as roadside vegetation corridors.

14. Dieback and Phytophthora

Dieback is a term given to plants which are suffering from a combination of visible and physical factors. While dieback commonly refers to Phytophthora, a fungus which attacks the root systems of some plant species, it also incorporates factors including insect attack, increased soil nutrients, waterlogging, lack of available soil moisture, soil compaction and other factors. Ultimately plant death occurs when the plant is unable to fight against the causal factor. The risk that these factors pose to species in the SA MDB is widespread and vary throughout the region. Although the impact of Phytophthora on the nine species included within this plan is unknown, there is the potential for plants to experience dieback or even death due to the root rotting effects of this soil pathogen.

Where working bees or any other management actions are to take place at individual populations, it will be very important to follow Phytophthora hygiene procedures to ensure that Phytophthora is not directly transported to key sites. The Recovery Project Officer will be responsible for ensuring that all people present carry out these hygiene procedures by providing information sheets, training and ensuring that Phytophthora car kits are readily available. An extensive amount of information and technical guidance on this subject can be found on the following website: http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/biodiversity/plantsand.html#pc

The Phytophthora Technical Group, DEH should be consulted to determine monitoring and research activities that may be needed to determine the impact of Phytophthora on the threatened species in this plan and important habitat.

15. Illegal Collection

The removal of individual plants by collectors is a potential threat to threatened plant populations. Removal of individuals has the potential to directly impact upon total population numbers and reduce genetic variability within populations and reduce the ability of threatened species to successfully reproduce. Orchids are at particular risk from illegal collection due to their small size and impressive floral displays which attract botanical enthusiasts.

16. Recreational Activities

Recreational activities including trail bike riding and horse riding may cause severe physical damage to populations of threatened plant species. These activities have the potential to completely destroy young seedlings and cause severe damage to older, established plants. Furthermore, these activities can cause compaction of soil that may negatively impact upon the root structure and development of plants, and

16 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan can disturb the soil surface encouraging the establishment of weeds. Populations most at risk from recreational activities include those populations that are located close to existing bike and horse tracks.

17. Trampling

Trampling by people is considered to pose a potential threat to threatened plant species if species are highly sort after by botanical enthusiasts or populations are located close to roads or walking paths. Trampling may also be caused by vehicles or stock animals. Trampling can result in reduced seedling establishment, juvenile plant destruction, damage to mature plants and soil compaction around plant populations.

18. Other Disturbances

A variety of factors, usually site specific can impact on threatened species, for example rubbish dumping, flooding, bees and revegetation. Bees are considered a potential threat to the effective pollination of Thelymitra epipactoides (Davies, 1991). Inappropriate revegetation in remnant habitat of threatened species was noted as a threat at a Caladenia colorata site. Dumping of rubbish has been reported to be a threat to some populations of Prostanthera eurybioides (Bundey and Mowling 1976, cited in Davies 1992), and was observed at several Olearia pannosa ssp. pannosa sites. This activity can cover and flatten young individuals and reduce the available ground area for seedling recruitment.

17 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

Part C: Threatened Species included within this Plan

1. Acacia menzelii (Menzel’s Wattle)

1.1 Species Information, Distribution and Location

Conservation Status/Taxonomy/Description of Community

Table 4. Status of Acacia menzelii.

Scientific Common EPBC Act NPW Act 1972 Botanical Region Status name name 1999 (SA) (amended (Lang and Kraehenbuehl in 2000) 2002) Acacia Menzel’s Vulnerable Vulnerable Vulnerable (MU) menzelii Wattle

SA –South Australia, MU –Murray

Regional IUCN Assessment and Implications

Table 5. IUCN Assessment for Acacia menzelii.

Species Acacia menzelii IUCN status in Data Deficient (DD) the SA MDB

An IUCN assessment for this species could not be carried out as there is currently insufficient data on populations, distribution, abundance and trends. It is anticipated that this data will become available as the recommended actions of this recovery plan are implemented, after which an IUCN assessment will take place. A classification of data deficient (DD) under the IUCN criteria (IUCN, 2001), indicates that there is inadequate information to make a direct assessment of its risk of extinction based on its distribution and/or population status.

Description

Acacia menzelii is an erect compact rounded spreading resinous shrub of 1-2m. Branching occurs near ground level resulting in numerous ascending stems, with branchlets terete and resinous, with a few short fine white hairs present. Leaves are in the form of phyllodes which are terete or subterete, 1.5-3.5 cm long, 1 mm in diameter, straight or slightly curved, spreading erect with 5 or 6 longitudinal resinous nerves making leaves feel sticky. The apex of each phyllode is obtuse with nearly no point (Jessop and Toelken 1986).

Inflorescences are simple and axillary, present either as singles or doubles, with flower-heads containing 25-30 individual flowers. Peduncles are thin, glabrous and 4-

18 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

8 mm long. Legumes are linear, 2.5-4.5 cm long, 2-3 mm broad, curved or slightly twisted, brown in colour, acute at both ends with margins nerve-like and yellowish. Seeds are longitudinally arranged within the legume with a large fleshy whitish aril (Jessop and Toelken 1986).

1cm a. Photo: Chris Obst b. Photo: Chris Obst

Figure 2a & b. Acacia menzelii. a) shrub, b) phyllodes.

Distribution and Conservation

Acacia menzelii is an endemic of South Australia (Davies 1992). Populations were confined to localised areas of the Murray Mallee, Southern Mount Lofty Ranges and Flinders Ranges (herbarium records at Adelaide Herbarium and National Herbarium of Victoria, Melbourne).

Davies (1992) confirmed the presence of three conserved populations and nine unprotected populations of A. menzelii in the Murray Mallee. He also located a population of plants possessing characters of both A. menzelii and A. montana in the Monarto area. A further two populations of A. menzelii in the Monarto area have been reported by the Monarto Development Commission (1976), one of which was relocated in 1985 (specimen at Adelaide Herbarium) and another four populations in the Monarto area have been reported in Davies (1992) however the original source of this information is unknown. A population has also been discovered on the eastern Mount Hack Range, in the Flinders Ranges (Davies 1995).

The distribution of A. menzelii is shown in Figure 3.

Extent of Occurrence

The extent of occurrence of this species is 364.2 km2 (36,422 hectares).

Habitat Critical to the Survival of the Species/Community

Given that A. menzelii is listed as vulnerable it is considered that all known habitat is critical to the survival of the species. Recovery actions include surveying for further populations that would lead to the identification of additional habitat critical to the survival of the species. All habitat that is critical to the survival of this species in the South Australian Murray Darling Basin area is mapped in Figure 3.

19 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

Topography and Soil Type

Acacia menzelii grows on the gentle slopes and undulating plains of the Murray mallee and Mount Lofty Ranges and frequently occurs amongst granite rock outcrops (Davies 1992). Associated soil types are described by Whibley (1980) as grey-brown calcareous loamy earths and by Davies (1992) as varying from loams, to loamy sands, to sandy loams to fine sandy loams of pH 6 to 9, which are reddish brown, dark reddish grey or dark brown when dry, and dark reddish brown or very dark brown when wet.

The population found in the Mount Hack Range grows on the west facing slope of a saddle with an elevation of 840 m extending to 890 m at the crest of a hill (Davies 1995). Soil in this area is of a fine sandy loam of pH 6, and reddish brown when dry or wet. At this site Acacia menzelii occurs between sloping terraces and slabs of quartzite (Davies 1995).

Vegetation Associations

Previous studies:

Whibley (1980) reports that in open areas A. menzelii grows in the following vegetation association:

 Eucalyptus socialis/E. incrassata open mallee

Davies (1992) reports that within the Monarto area Acacia menzelii occurs in the following vegetation associations:

 Eucalyptus socialis +/- E. leptophylla low open-woodland  Eucalyptus dumosa tall sparse shrubland  Eucalyptus porosa low woodland  Eucalyptus odorata low woodland  Callitris preissii open-woodland  Eucalyptus odorata +/- E. fasciculosa +/- E. leucoxylon +/- E. dumosa low woodland

Davies (1995) reports the following vegetation association in which A. menzelii is found at Mount Hack Range:  Eucalyptus odorata tall open shrubland

Climate

Temperature and rainfall data from the weather station at Murray Bridge, the closest weather station to A. menzelii populations, have been obtained from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology website. (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/) (April 2004).

The mean annual rainfall is 346.8mm at Murray Bridge. The average maximum and minimum temperatures in January are 28.8 ºC and 14.4 ºC respectively, and the average maximum and minimum temperatures in June are 16.6 ºC and 6.1 ºC respectively.

20 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

Fire and Disturbance

At present there is no available information relating to the effect of fire and disturbance on life history processes of A. menzelii.

Important Populations

As survey work was not conducted for this species during this project, priority populations were unable to be identified. However, the distribution of this species was identified from past reports and database records. The distribution of A. menzelii, including all populations of importance, is shown in Figure 3.

21 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

22 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

1.2 Past Research and Conservation Efforts

Previous Work on the Conservation of A. menzelii

There has been little effort toward the conservation of this species. However, this species has been included within the following threatened species reports;

 Davies (1992) Threatened plant species of the Murray Mallee, Mount Lofty Ranges and Kangaroo Island regions of SA.  Davies (1995) Threatened plant species management in the arid pastoral zone of South Australia.  Davies (2000) Population Trends for Threatened Plant Species in Parks & Pastoral Leases in South Australia.

Davies (2000, and references therein) reports that A. menzelii was grown at the Botanic Gardens of Adelaide, the Australian national Botanic Gardens in Canberra, the Burrendong Arboretum in Wellington (New South Wales) and at the Royal Botanic Gardens in Sydney. Plants were also reportedly being grown at the Mount Annan Botanic Gardens near Sydney (Davies, 1992).

A permanent monitoring site has also been established for the population of A. menzelii within the Mount Hack Range. This site was established by R. J.-P. Davies in 1993 and it is located on the Warraweena Pastoral Lease (see Population Number 601 in DEH ‘Threatened Plant Population Database (Davies 2000)). Since the establishment of this monitoring site in 1993 it has only been monitored twice due to its inaccessibility (Davies 2000).

Storage of A. menzelii seed at the Black Hill Flora Centre of the Botanic Gardens of Adelaide was occurring before the closure of the centre (Davies, 2000, and references therein). Since this time, seeds from two populations at Callington were collected in 2003. From this collection two thousand seeds are currently being prepared for entry into long-term storage at -20°C. These seeds will be stored at the Botanic Gardens of Adelaide Seed Conservation Centre, DEH and the Millennium Seed Bank Project (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, England) (P. Ainsley pers. comm.).

Ecology Relevant to Threatening Processes

Acacia menzelii is a perennial shrub and its flowering period extends from July to October (Jessop and Toelken 1986) however flowers can be produced as late at January (herbarium specimens at Adelaide Herbarium and National Herbarium of Victoria, Melbourne).

Past Research

There has been little past research conducted on aspects of the ecology of this species.

23 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

1.3 Known and Potential Threats

Identification of threats

Table 6. Current and potential threats to Acacia menzelii in the SA MDB.

Current/ Perceived Threats Potential Risk Reference

Inadequate Knowledge of Ecology and Threats Current High This Study

Inadequate Knowledge of Distribution, Abundance and Population Trends Current High This Study

Fragmentation Potential High Davies (1992)

Weeds –Other Potential High Davies (1992)

Grazing Potential High Davies (1992)

Road/Rail Maintenance Activities Potential High Davies (1992)

Vegetation Clearance Potential Low Davies (1992)

Threats to Species and Species Recovery at Specific Populations

As this species was not surveyed during this project it is unknown which populations are at particular risk to specific threats.

24 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

1.4 Recovery Objectives, Actions and Performance Criteria

Table 7. Recovery actions and performance criteria for Acacia menzelii.

Specific objective 1: Acquire accurate information on distribution, abundance, threats and critical and potential habitat Population Action Description Performance Criteria Responsibility Priority No. (listed in priority order) 1.1 Acquire baseline population 1. Undertake a preliminary RPO High All data on distribution, field survey of known abundance and threats of populations within one year known populations. of starting this plan.

2. Update records on DEH RPO Medium NA database within one and a half years of starting this plan.

3. Obtain accurate baseline RPO High All data and maps of all known population locations within one and a half years of starting this plan.

4. Subsequent to action 1.1.1 RPO High NA occurring, reassess the regional conservation status of this species according to IUCN criteria.

1.2 Prioritise sites for 1. Identify the priority level of RPO High All management and protection. each population for management within one and a half years of starting this plan.

1.3 Accurately survey known 1. Field survey of critical RPO High All critical habitat. habitat carried out within one and a half years of starting this plan.

2. Production of maps which RPO High NA identify critical habitat within two years of starting this plan.

1.4 Accurately identify, survey 1. Identification of potential RPO High NA and map potential habitat. habitat carried out within two years of starting this plan.

2. Field survey of potential RPO High NA habitat carried out within two and a half years of starting this plan.

3. Production of maps which RPO High NA identify potential habitat within three years of starting this plan.

25 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

Specific objective 2: Maximise the number of populations and amount of habitat that is protected Population Action Description Performance Criteria Responsibility Priority No. (listed in priority order) 2.1 Protect unreserved 1. Initiate agreements or BMA, RPO Unknown Where populations on public land. protocols on the protection applicable of unreserved populations on public land with the relevant authority within one year of starting this plan.

2.2 Protect populations on 1. Initiate Heritage Agreement BMA, RPO Unknown Where private land. discussions with private applicable landholders within one year of starting this plan.

2.3 Implement the Roadside 1. Meetings to be held with BMA, RPO Unknown Where Marker Scheme (RMS) on relevant councils and road applicable roadside reserve authorities within one year populations, and encourage of starting this plan, to the responsible authority to discuss the implementation appropriately manage the of the roadside marker population. scheme and management of these areas.

2. Roadside markers are to be BMA, RPO Unknown Where installed at 50% of applicable recommended roadside reserve populations within one year of starting this plan, and 100% of recommended roadside reserve populations within two years of starting this plan.

Specific objective 3: Manage the threats from weeds

Population Action Description Performance Criteria Responsibility Priority No. (listed in priority order) 3.1 Control Bridal Creeper 1. Reduction in the RPO Unknown Where infestations within a 200m abundance of bridal applicable radius of each population creeper so that it is no using appropriate methods. longer directly impacting upon priority populations within two years of starting this plan.

3.2 Control Perennial Veldt 1. Reduction in the RPO Unknown Where Grass infestations within a abundance of Perennial applicable 200m radius of each Veldt Grass so that it is no population using appropriate longer directly impacting methods. upon priority populations within two years of starting this plan.

26 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

3.3 Control other environmental 1. Reduction in the RPO Unknown Where weed infestations within a abundance of applicable 200m radius of each environmental weed population using appropriate species so that they are no methods. longer directly impacting upon priority populations within two years of starting this plan.

3.4 Introduce biological control 1. Bridal Creeper rust and/or RPO Unknown Where agents for Bridal Creeper in leaf hoppers to be applicable the most severe infestations. introduced to 50% of the most severely infested sites within two years of starting this plan, and 100% of these sites within three years of starting this plan.

Specific objective 4: Manage the threats from grazing herbivores

Population Action Description Performance Criteria Responsibility Priority No. (listed in priority order) 4.1 Accurately determine what 1. Establish and implement a RPO, RE High Where herbivores are impacting on method for investigating applicable this species. grazing by herbivores within two years of starting this plan.

4.2 Control the impact of grazing 1. Appropriate fencing to be RPO Unknown Where by herbivores. erected around specific applicable populations or individuals under threat from grazing within two years of starting this plan.

2. Rabbit control programs to RPO Unknown Where be initiated at sites where applicable rabbit grazing is occurring within two and a half years of starting this plan, with a 100% reduction in rabbit warrens within 400m of the population within five years of starting this plan. Where possible this should be implemented as part of a regional control program.

3. Provide information to the RPO Unknown Where Kangaroo Management applicable Program, DEH about sites where kangaroo numbers are having a negative impact on the population within two years of starting this plan.

27 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

Specific objective 5: Manage other threats to populations

Population Action Description Performance Criteria Responsibility Priority No. (listed in priority order) 5.1 Control the impacts of edge 1. Hold meetings or BMA, RPO Unknown Where effects, including spray drift, discussions with relevant applicable intentional spraying, road groups/individuals to and rail maintenance emphasise the importance activities. of biodiversity values and discuss options for best management practices within two and a half years of starting this plan.

5.2 Discourage activities such 1. Fence areas to prevent RPO, LC Unknown Where as illegal collection, impacts from recreational applicable trampling and inappropriate activities at populations recreational activities. under threat within three years of starting this plan.

2. Erect appropriate signage RPO, LC Low Where to indicate important applicable vegetation is being conserved within relevant areas within three years of starting this plan.

5.3 Undertake Phytophthora 1. Soil sampling for RPO Low Where testing. Phytophthora testing to be applicable conducted at suspect sites within three years of starting this plan.

2. If following soil sampling RPO High Where Phytophthora is found at applicable sites, erect appropriate signage and undertake appropriate management actions to reduce the risk of spread within four years of starting this plan.

5.4 Prevent the further 1. Discuss the importance of BMA, RPO Low Where clearance of remnant remnant vegetation and applicable vegetation containing this threatened species with species. relevant landholders.

2. Provide advice on the BMA, RPO Low NA distribution and critical habitat of this species to organisations governing vegetation clearance.

28 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

Specific objective 6: Monitor and evaluate populations and extension activities

6.2 Results from the above 1. Results from the monitoring RPO, RPT High NA monitoring to be program to be discussed incorporated into future with the recovery team with management activities. any changes to future management activities identified and recorded.

6.3 Develop and maintain a 1. Create a database for data RPO Medium NA database to efficiently and storage within six months of securely store survey and starting this plan. monitoring data.

6.4 Develop and implement a 1. Design an extension RPT Medium NA program to monitor and monitoring program within evaluate all communication six months of starting this and extension activities plan. throughout the life of this recovery plan. 2. Document all extension RPO High NA activities carried out, including comments on their successes, failures and improvements for the future.

3. Ensure an annual review of RPT High NA extension activities is carried out.

4. Initiate the development of RPT Medium NA a communications strategy for the recovery plan.

Specific objective 7: Manage Fragmented Populations

Population Action Description Performance Criteria Responsibility Priority No. (listed in priority order) 7.1 Manage the risk of losing 1. Seeds from representative BGA, RPO High Where genetic diversity within natural populations to be applicable populations of this species collected and stored within by collecting and one year of starting this appropriately storing seed plan at the Botanic Gardens material. of Adelaide Seed Conservation Centre, DEH (dependant on successful seed set).

29 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

7.2 Where population numbers 1. Populations of 50 plants to BGA, RPO Medium NA in the SA MDB are at be established in critically low levels (less than cultivation, in accordance 50 mature individuals) and in with the ANPC danger of extinction, translocation guidelines, establish populations in when and if considered cultivation. necessary by the recovery team. 7.3 Prevent the further 1. Discuss the importance of BMA, RPO Low Where fragmentation or loss of critical and potential habitat applicable critical and potential habitat. with relevant landholders.

7.4 Where appropriate, create 1. Initiate suitable BMA, RPO, Unknown Where buffer zones of native revegetation projects to HMRE applicable vegetation around existing establish buffer zones populations. around existing populations where needed within three years of starting this plan.

7.5 Increase the size and area 1. Research into natural RPO, BGA High NA of occupancy of existing germination and populations by encouraging establishment requirements natural regeneration. to be initiated within one year of starting this plan.

2. Field trials to be conducted RPO, BGA High Where into natural germination and applicable establishment within two years of starting this plan.

7.6 Subsequent to 7.2, where 1. Plants grown from seed to RPO, RPT Unknown Where appropriate re-stock be introduced at selected applicable populations that are not sites as deemed necessary naturally increasing despite by the recovery team. encouragement or re- establish populations that no longer exist.

7.7 Improve connectivity 1. Initiate suitable BMA, RPO, Unknown Where between populations of this revegetation projects to HMRE applicable species. establish linking corridors between isolated populations/sub- populations within three years of starting this plan.

Specific objective 8: Increase the knowledge of this species through targeted research

Population Action Description Performance Criteria Responsibility Priority No. (listed in priority order) 8.1 Conduct research into the 1. Research into relevant RPO, RPT, RE, High NA ecology of this species. aspects of the ecology of HMRE this species to be initiated within one year of starting this plan and supported for the duration of the recovery plan.

30 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

8.2 Conduct research into the 1. Research into provenance RPO, RPT, RE High NA ecological genetics of this boundaries, sub-population species, and the impacts of structure and optimal having fragmented population size and genetic populations on its long term diversity for population survival. survival to be initiated within one year of starting this plan and supported for the duration of the recovery plan.

8.3 Conduct research into why 1. Research into factors RPO, RPT, RE, High NA successful germination and related to successful HMRE recruitment is not occurring, natural germination and and ways to ameliorate this. recruitment such as disturbance/fire regimes, competition and grazing to be initiated within one year of starting this plan and supported for the duration of the recovery plan.

2. Implementation of RPO High Where appropriate management applicable techniques to initiate successful germination and recruitment as determined by research conducted under 8.3.1.

8.4 If Phytophthora is confirmed 1. If necessary, monitoring RPO, RE, High Where at a site encourage and research are to be Phytophthora applicable monitoring and research to initiated to determine the Technical Group determine the impact on this impact of Phytophthora, (DEH) species. including the effect on the threatened species and important habitat, and whether there is evidence of spread.

8.5 Feedback information from 1. Initiate meetings with RPO, RPT, RE High NA research into future research management activities. organisations/individual researchers and the recovery team to discuss research findings and ways to incorporate research results into future management activities.

Specific objective 9: Ensure sufficient resources are available to implement the recovery plan

31 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

9.2 Obtain sufficient funds to 1. Sufficient funding obtained RPT, BMA, RPO High NA allow the proper functioning to support a Threatened of a threatened flora project Flora Project Officer for the officer for the SA MDB SA MDB for the duration of region. the recovery plan.

Specific objective 10: To effectively coordinate and implement the recovery project

Population Action Description Performance Criteria Responsibility Priority No. (listed in priority order) 10.1 Build a network of 1. Interested government and RPO, RPT, BMA, High NA government and non- non-government DEH government organisations organisations to be and individuals. contacted within one year of starting this plan and kept up to date with regular correspondence throughout the duration of the recovery plan.

10.2 Develop stakeholder 1. Engage interested nature RPO High NA awareness and appreciation conservation, land of this species and management and encourage active landholder groups in the involvement in future activities of the program. management activities. 2. Fact sheet on this species RPO High NA to be produced with information on ecology, distribution and within one year of starting this plan.

10.3 Support and encourage 1. Workshops to be held to aid RPO High NA stakeholders across the stakeholders to develop the region to actively develop skills and knowledge skills and knowledge in required to manage this managing this species. species.

32 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

2. Acacia pinguifolia (Fat-leaf Wattle)

2.1 Species Information, Distribution and Location

Conservation Status/Taxonomy/Description of Community

Table 8. Status of Acacia pinguifolia.

Scientific Common EPBC Act NPW Act Botanical Region Status name name 1999 1972 (SA) (Lang and Kraehenbuehl (amended in 2002) 2000) Acacia Fat-leaf Endangered Endangered Endangered (MU) pinguifolia wattle

SA –South Australia, MU –Murray

Regional IUCN Assessment and Implications

Table 9. IUCN Assessment for Acacia pinguifolia.

Species Acacia pinguifolia IUCN status in Critically Endangered, CR C1 the SA MDB  C. Population size estimated to number fewer than 250 IUCN criteria met mature individuals, and (IUCN, 2001)  C1. An estimated continuing decline of at least 25% within three years or one generation

In order to down list this species from critically endangered to endangered, progress needs to be made in the following areas:  recruitment of individuals needs to be increased Recovery  understanding of why recruitment is not occurring needs to opportunities be improved through targeted research  the quality of habitat needs to be improved to increase the chance of successful recruitment occurring

In five years time the target for this species is to:  increase our knowledge of the ecology of this species, particularly in relation to recruitment so that management actions have been implemented to increase recruitment at all priority 1 populations Five year targets  increase the number of individuals from the current 152 to over 200  reduce the abundance of priority threats at all priority 1 populations so that they are no longer directly impacting on those sites

33 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

In ten years time the target for this species is to:  increase our knowledge of the ecology of this species, particularly in relation to recruitment so that management actions can be implemented to increase recruitment at all populations Ten year targets  increase the number of individuals from the current 152 to over 250  reduce the abundance of priority threats at all priority 1 and 2 populations so that they are no longer directly impacting on those sites

Description

A dense glabrous spreading light-green shrub, Acacia pinguifolia grows 1-2 m in height and often 2-3 m across. Numerous terete, ascending, arching branches extend from just above or at ground level, with branchlets glabrous, smooth, reddish- brown and with thin bark which is pale grey at the base of the stems. Phyllodes are 1-3.5 cm long, 2-3 mm in diameter and are straight or falcate, terete or somewhat compressed, rigid, thick and fleshy and light green in colour. The surface of phyllodes becomes wrinkled and grooved when dry and the apex ends abruptly with a minute, hard, thick point (Jessop and Toelken 1986).

Inflorescences are simple and axillary, solitary or twin, or sometimes up to four heads. Flower-heads are globular, deep yellow, with 20-30 individual flowers. Peduncles are glabrous, 5-10 mm long and legumes are 5-7 cm long, 5 mm broad, curved and finally twisted, swollen and raised over the seeds, dark brown with light- brown margins and are slightly constricted between the seeds. The seeds are longitudinally arranged within the legume, ellipsoid in shape with a whitish, fleshy aril (Jessop and Toelken 1986).

2cm a. Photo: Chris Obst b. Photo: Chris Obst

Figure 4a & b. Acacia pinguifolia. a) shrub, b) flowers and phyllodes.

Distribution and Conservation

Acacia pinguifolia is endemic to South Australia and has a widely separated distribution with disjunct populations located on the Eyre and Fleurieu Peninsula’s.

34 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

Within the SA MDB Acacia pinguifolia has a very restricted distribution and is located on the Fleurieu Peninsula near the town of Finniss (Pickett and Mallen 2001; Davies 1992). Only 116 naturally occurring individuals were observed within this area during this project (C. Obst, pers. obs.). These individuals are restricted to roadside or rail reserves. A further 36 translocated individuals (translocated between 1993 and 2001) are still surviving within the Finniss area (C. Obst, pers. obs.).

Of the seven populations recorded during this field survey, two are conserved in council reserves and five are not conserved. No new populations were recorded during this survey.

The distribution of A. pinguifolia is shown in Figure 5.

Extent of Occurrence

The extent of occurrence of this species is 135.8 km2 (13,574 hectares).

Habitat Critical to the Survival of the Species/Community

Given that A. pinguifolia is listed as endangered it is considered that all known habitat is critical to the survival of the species. Recovery actions include surveying for further populations that would lead to the identification of additional habitat critical to the survival of the species. All habitat that is critical to the survival of this species in the SA MDB is mapped in Figure 5.

Topography and Soil Type

Whibley (1980) generalises that A. pinguifolia grows on mainly sandy or hard alkaline yellow duplex soils. More specifically, A. pinguifolia in the Finniss area has been found on an undulating plain of sands, sandy clay loams and clay loams of pH 7.5 to 9.5. These soils were a grey or brown colour when dry, and dark grey or dark brown when wet (Davies 1992). Acacia pinguifolia specimens collected from the southern Eyre Peninsula were collected from an undulating terrain with a westerly aspect, either on cream loam with clay subsoil, on red loam (calcareous), brown clay-loam on schist (Adelaide Herbarium), brown clay loam on broken limestone, and pale grey sand over ironstone gravel (National Herbarium of Victoria, Melbourne, cited in Davies 1992).

Vegetation Associations

Previous studies:

Whibley (1980) reports that A. pinguifolia grows in the following vegetation association:

 Eucalyptus odorata/E. incrassata/Melaleuca uncinata open mallee

Davies (1992) reports Acacia pinguifolia occurring in the following vegetation association within the Finniss area:

 Eucalyptus incrassata or E. dumosa +/- E .leptophylla or E. calycogona tall shrubland (open to sparse) (Davies 1992).

35 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

On Eyre Peninsula Davies (1992) reports A. pinguifolia growing in the following vegetation associations:

 Eucalyptus calycogona mallee (Adelaide Herbarium),  Eucalyptus incrassata mallee (Adelaide Herbarium),  Eucalyptus cladocalyx mallee (Adelaide Herbarium),  Melaleuca uncinata heath (National Herbarium of Victoria, cited in Davies 1992).

General comment

Acacia pinguifolia is also known to occur in association with Eucalyptus odorata, E. incrassata and Melaleuca uncinata in woodland or open scrub (Whibley 1980), and with E. peninsularis and E. dumosa plant communities (Tay 1992, cited in Department for Environment and Heritage 2002).

Current study:

The current study found A. pinguifolia growing within the following vegetation association within the Finniss area:

 Eucalyptus leptophylla/E. incrassata +/- E. phenax +/- E. calycogona +/- E. fasciculosa mallee  Eucalyptus fasciculosa/E. incrassata/E. socialis mallee  Eucalyptus phenax +/- E. leptophylla +/- E. incrassata +/- E. socialis open mallee

Native species commonly found in the mid-storey of A .pinguifolia habitat included (in alphabetical order); - Acacia paradoxa - Acacia pycnantha - Callistemon rugosa - Dodonaea baueri - Grevillea ilicifolia - Hakea rostrata - Lasiopetalum baueri - Melaleuca lanceolata - Melaleuca uncinata

Native species commonly found in the understorey of A .pinguifolia habitat included (in alphabetical order); - Austrostipa elegantissima - Austrostipa sp. - Dianella revoluta var. revoluta - Enchylaena tomentosa var. tomentosa - Gahnia deusta - Lepidosperma viscidum - Lomandra multiflora

Climate

Temperature and rainfall data from the weather station at Goolwa (Hindmarsh Island Marina), the closest weather station to A. pinguifolia populations, have been obtained from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology website.

36 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

(http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/) (April 2004).

The mean annual rainfall at this weather station is 437.8mm. The average maximum and minimum temperatures in January are 23.6 ºC and 15.4 ºC respectively. Average maximum and minimum temperatures in June are 15.8 ºC and 7.6 ºC respectively.

Fire and Disturbance

There is little information available regarding the impact of fire on A. pinguifolia. Burning trials were carried out at the Brimarvi Road Council Reserve site by the Threatened Plant Action Group (TPAG) and Alexandrina Council Project Officers between 1998 and 2000. Within the report written by Pickett and Mallen (2003) the following information was presented on burning and disturbance of Acacia pinguifolia.

The trials involved using 1 x 1 m burn-boxes to burn ground level patches adjacent to mature individual’s of A. pinguifolia. The trials from the winter of 1998 resulted in three seedlings germinating, however these seedlings were dead by the summer of 2000. Three additional patches adjacent to mature plants were burnt during the winter of 1999. Several seedlings germinated, however they died during the following summer. Two more burn-box burns carried out in the winter of 2000 did not result in any new seedlings.

Additional trials were carried out to determine whether soil disturbance would encourage seed germination. Edge sections of the old Brimarvi Road surface (unsealed) were ripped to a depth of 30 cm. Subsequent inspections revealed no seedlings germinating. A raking trial was also conducted in winter 1999, which involved raking out leaf litter and some surface soil from beneath several A. pinguifolia plants. The raked material was spread over the ripped road edges to about 1.5 m from each plant. Subsequent inspections found one seedling germinating in this area, however it died soon after.

From these results it appears that fire and disturbance does initiate seedling germination in A. pinguifolia, however in these trials all seedlings soon died before reaching maturity. Observations of populations of A. pinguifolia populations on the Eyre Peninsula indicate that in this area disturbance of soil does initiate seed germination and seedling establishment (A. Freebairn, pers. comm.). Further research is needed in this area to increase the understanding of the factors involved.

37 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

Important Populations

The distribution of A. pinguifolia, including all populations of importance in the SA MDB, is shown in Figure 5.

Table 10. Important populations of Acacia pinguifolia in the SA MDB.

Priority No. of order naturally No. of Area of for Population Land Tenure, occurring translocated Total No. occupancy work Number Nearest Town plants plants of plants (m2) Steam Ranger Railway Line, 1 5 Finniss 60 0 60 9770 Brimarvi Road Council Reserve, 1 1 Finniss 40 4 44 9000 Woolshed Rd, 1 2 Finniss 10 4 14 125 Dry Plains Rd, 2 3 Finniss 4 1 5 7 Finniss to Milang Rd, 2 4 Finniss 4 2 6 30 Nurragi Council Reserve, 2 6 Finniss 0 20 20 332 Langhorne Creek Cemetery, Langhorne 3 7 Creek 0 3 3 100 Total 118 34 152

38 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

39 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

2.2 Past Research and Conservation Efforts

Past/Present Work on the Conservation of A. pinguifolia

Acacia pinguifolia has been the focus of considerable conservation effort with the species being included in several threatened species projects in recent years. These projects include;

 Brimarvi Road Closure and Habitat Protection (Acacia pinguifolia) –a Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) project (1998-1999, Project Number SA1149) funded by Alexandrina Council, HGT and the Threatened Plant Action Group (TPAG) (Picket and Mallen 2000),  The Brimarvi Road site is also a field site for TPAG, and has been worked on since 1994. During this time working bees have concentrated on weed control, but other work has involved lobbying, fencing, seed collection, propagation, planting, direct seeding and research activities.  Alexandrina Council Threatened Species Protection Project –a Threatened Species Network (TSN) Community Grants project (1998-1999, Project Number SA14/199) funded by Alexandrina Council, TSN and TPAG (Picket and Mallen 2001),  Brimarvi Road and Environs –Threatened Species Protection Project –a Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) project (2001-2003, Project Number 001629) funded by NHT, and Alexandrina Council (Pickett and Mallen 2003).  Davies (1992) Threatened plant species of the Murray Mallee, Mount Lofty Ranges and Kangaroo Island regions of SA,  Tumby Bay Roadside Management Plan (1994).

Prior to these projects, A. pinguifolia was included in the following study;

 Conservation Studies on Endangered Plant Species from South Australia’s Agricultural Regions (Jusaitis and Sorensen 1994).

This study aimed to improve the general understanding of the ecology and threats to this species so as to enable informed long-term management and recovery decisions to be made.

The earliest reports of conservation of A. pinguifolia are by Davies (1992, and references therein) which report the species being grown in botanic gardens including the nursery at Black Hill, the Australian National Botanic Gardens in Canberra and the Mount Annan Botanic Gardens near Sydney.

Acacia pinguifolia is also included in a recovery plan and project on 25 threatened flora species on the Eyre Peninsula;

 Freebairn, A. and Pobke, K. (2003). Draft Recovery Plan for 25 Plant Taxa on Eyre Peninsula, South Australia 2004-2009. Department for Environment and Heritage, Port Lincoln.

Conservation work undertaken has included translocations of A. pinguifolia seedlings at various locations which have occurred over several years (Nigel Mallen, pers. comm.). The following table shows the number of translocated plants remaining at the time of the current survey work (August and September 2004).

40 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

Table 11. Current number of surviving translocated A. pinguifolia plants in the SA MDB region.

Year of Location Number surviving Translocated by translocation in 2004 M. Pickett and N. Mallen, Alexandrina 1999-2001 Brimarvi Rd, Finniss 4 Council M. Pickett and N. Finniss to Milang Rd, Mallen, Alexandrina 1999-2001 Finniss 2 Council M. Pickett and N. Dry Plains Rd, Mallen, Alexandrina 1999-2001 Finniss 1 Council M. Pickett and N. Mallen, Alexandrina 1999-2001 Woolshed Rd, Finniss 4 Council M. Pickett and N. Langhorne Creek Mallen, Alexandrina 2000 Cemetery 3 Council Nurragi Reserve, Friends of Nurragi 1993 Finniss 20 Conservation Reserve

Additional conservation work in the form of working bees concentrating on weed control has occurred at the Brimarvi Road site. This work has been carried out by TPAG and has been ongoing since at least the mid 1990’s.

Seed has been collected from A. pinguifolia populations located on the Eyre Peninsula during 2004 by the Botanic Gardens of Adelaide Seed Conservation Centre, DEH. No seed was collected from individuals in the Finniss/Milang area due to poor seed set. The seed collected from the Eyre Peninsula populations will be tested for viability in 2005 prior to storage at the Botanic Gardens of Adelaide Seed Conservation Centre, DEH and the Millennium Seed Bank (P. Ainsley, pers. comm.).

Ecology Relevant to Threatening Processes

Flowering occurs from July to October (Jessop and Toelken 1986) however specimens have been collected flowering in June and also January (Adelaide Herbarium, National Herbarium of Victoria, Melbourne, cited in Davies 1992). Specimens with fruit have been collected from October to February (Adelaide Herbarium and National Herbarium of Victoria, Melbourne), and pods ripen and dehisce between November and January (Jusaitis and Sorensen 1994). Growth flushes occur during spring and early summer with growth rates slowing considerably during autumn and winter (Jusaitis and Sorensen 1994).

Past Research

Legume, or fruit set in A. pinguifolia is extremely low. An experiment conducted by Jusaitis and Sorensen (1994) on plants located at Finniss (site 90-26) and along the Tod Highway (site 90-25) found that no tagged flowers developed into pods in one year and only 1.6 % of flowers developed into legumes in a second year. Seed set averaged 5-6 seeds per legume.

41 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

Trials to determine conditions required for natural regeneration of A. pinguifolia have not been very successful. Trials conducted to date include ripping of ground, raking and fire trials (Pickett and Mallen 2003).

Past research into propagation techniques has resulted in a high seed germination rate of >60%, following rupture of the seed coat, either by boiling seed in water for 30 seconds or by soaking seed in concentrated sulphuric acid (H2SO4) for 30 minutes (Jusaitis and Sorensen 1994). However, seedlings produced often have poor vigour and are often unsuitable for introductions in the field (Pickett and Mallen 2003).

2.3 Known and Potential Threats

Identification of Threats

Table 12. Current and potential threats to Acacia pinguifolia in the SA MDB.

Current/ Perceived Threats Potential Risk Reference This study, Pickett and Weeds –Bridal Creeper Current High Mallen (2000) This study, Pickett and Weeds –Other Current High Mallen (2000)

Edge Effects Current High This study

Lack of Recruitment Current High This study This study, Jusaitis and Sorensen (1994), Road/Rail Maintenance Pickett and Mallen Activities Current High (2001)

Fragmentation Current High This study

Lack of formal protection Current High This study

Inappropriate Fire Regime Current High This study

Inadequate Knowledge of Ecology and Threats Current High This study

Recreational Activities Current Medium This study This study, Jusaitis and Sorensen (1994), Pickett and Mallen Grazing Current Medium (2000) Dieback and Phytophthora Potential Medium This study

Weeds –Perennial Veldt Grass Current Low This study

Other Disturbances eg rubbish dumping, flooding, bees Current Low This study

Illegal Collection Potential Low This study

42 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

Current/Pot Perceived Threats ential Risk Reference This study, Jusaitis and Vegetation Clearance Potential Low Sorensen (1994)

Threats to Species and Species Recovery at Specific Populations

Threats relevant to this species vary in severity and importance at the known populations. Threats of a medium or high risk include:  Weed species are a significant threat at all populations. Bridal Creeper is a threat at all populations; Bridal Veil is threatening population 1, and Perennial Veldt Grass threatens population 2. All populations are threatened by Scabiosa, Soursobs and annual grasses to varying degrees.  Edge effects are a serious threat to all populations.  Lack of recruitment is affecting all populations.  Road/rail maintenance activities are a threat to populations 3-5.  Fragmentation is a threat to all populations.  Lack of formal protection is a threat to populations 3-5.  Inappropriate fire regimes potentially threaten all populations.  Inadequate knowledge of the ecology and threats is an issue relevant to all populations.  Trail bike riding is occurring at populations 2 and 5. This may ultimately damage or kill individual plants.  Grazing by rabbits and/or hares is a threat to populations 1, 2 and 5.  Phytophthora poses a potential threat to all populations, particularly population 1 where signs of Phytophthora were evident.

43 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

2.4 Recovery Objectives, Actions and Performance Criteria

The use of a lighter grey scale text in the following table is intended to indicate those actions that have already been carried out, or those that are not relevant to that species.

Table 13. Recovery actions and performance criteria for Acacia pinguifolia.

Specific objective 1: Acquire accurate information on distribution, abundance, threats and critical and potential habitat Population Action Description Performance Criteria Responsibility Priority No. (listed in priority order) 1.1 Acquire baseline population 1. Field survey of known RPO Done NA data on distribution, populations carried out abundance and threats of within six months of known populations. starting this plan.

2. Update records on DEH RPO Low NA database within six months of starting this plan.

1. Obtain accurate baseline RPO Done NA data and maps of all known population locations within six months of starting this plan.

1.2 Prioritise sites for 1. Identify the priority level of RPO Done NA management and protection. each population for management within six months of starting this plan.

1.3 Accurately survey known 1. Field survey of critical RPO High All critical habitat. habitat carried out within one and a half years of starting this plan.

2. Production of maps which RPO High NA identify critical habitat within two years of starting this plan.

1.4 Accurately identify, survey 1. Identification of potential RPO High NA and map potential habitat. habitat within one year of starting this plan.

2. Field survey of potential RPO High NA habitat carried out within one and a half years of starting this plan.

3. Production of maps which RPO High NA identify potential habitat within two years of starting this plan.

44 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

Specific objective 2: Maximise the number of populations and amount of habitat that is protected Population Action Description Performance Criteria Responsibility Priority No. (listed in priority order) 2.1 Protect unreserved 1. Initiate agreements or BMA, RPO High 5 populations on public land. protocols on the protection of unreserved populations on public land with the relevant authority within one year of starting this plan.

2.2 Protect populations on 1. Initiate Heritage Agreement BMA, RPO NA NA private land. discussions with private landholders within one year of starting this plan.

2.3 Implement the Roadside 1. Meetings to be held with BMA, RPO High NA Marker Scheme (RMS) on relevant councils and road roadside reserve authorities within six populations, and encourage months of starting this plan the responsible authority to to discuss the appropriately manage the implementation of the population. roadside marker scheme and management of these areas.

2. Roadside markers are to be BMA, RPO High 3, 4 installed at all recommended roadside reserve populations within one year of starting this plan.

Specific objective 3: Manage the threats from weeds

Population Action Description Performance Criteria Responsibility Priority No. (listed in priority order) 3.1 Control Bridal Creeper 1. Reduction in the RPO High 5, 1, 2, 6,4, 3, infestations within a 200m abundance of Bridal 7 radius of each population Creeper so that it is no using appropriate methods. longer directly impacting upon priority populations within two years of starting this plan.

3.2 Control Perennial Veldt 1. Reduction in the RPO Low 5, 2 Grass infestations within a abundance of Perennial 200m radius of each Veldt Grass so that it is no population using appropriate longer directly impacting methods. upon priority populations within two years of starting this plan.

3.3 Control other environmental 1. Reduction in the RPO High 5, 1, 2, 6,4, 3, weed infestations within a abundance of 7 200m radius of each environmental weed population using appropriate species, including methods. Scabiosa, Soursobs and annual grasses so that they

45 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

are no longer impacting upon priority populations within two years of starting this plan.

3.4 Introduce biological control 1. Bridal Creeper rust and/or RPO High 5, 2 agents for Bridal Creeper in leaf hoppers to be the most severe infestations. introduced to 50% of the most severely infested sites within two years of starting this plan, and 100% of these sites by September 2008.

3.5 Control Bridal Veil 1. Reduction in the RPO High 1 infestations within a 200m abundance of Bridal Veil so radius of each population that it is no longer directly using appropriate methods. impacting upon priority populations within two years of starting this plan.

Specific objective 4: Manage the threats from grazing herbivores

Population Action Description Performance Criteria Responsibility Priority No. (listed in priority order) 4.1 Accurately determine what 1. Establish and implement a RPO, RE Medium NA herbivores are impacting on method for investigating this species. grazing by herbivores within two years of starting this plan.

4.2 Control the impact of grazing 1. Appropriate fencing to be RPO Medium 5, 1, 2, 6,4, 3, by herbivores. erected around specific 7 populations or individuals under threat from grazing within two years of starting this plan.

2. Rabbit control programs to RPO Medium 5, 1, 2 be initiated at sites where rabbit grazing is occurring within two and a half years of starting this plan, with a 100% reduction in rabbit warrens within 400m of the population within five years of starting this plan. Where possible this should be implemented as part of a regional control program.

46 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

Specific objective 5: Manage other threats to populations

Population Action Description Performance Criteria Responsibility Priority No. (listed in priority order) 5.1 Control the impacts of edge 1. Hold meetings or BMA, RPO High 5, 1, 2, 6,4, 3, effects, including spray drift, discussions with relevant 7 intentional spraying, road groups/individuals to and rail maintenance emphasise the importance activities. of biodiversity values and discuss options for best management practices within two and a half years of starting this plan.

5.2 Discourage activities such 1. Fence areas to prevent RPO, LC Medium 5, 2 as illegal collection, impacts from recreational trampling and inappropriate activities at populations recreational activities. under threat within three years of starting this plan.

2. Erect appropriate signage RPO, LC Low 5 to indicate important vegetation is being conserved within relevant areas within three years of starting this plan.

5.3 Undertake Phytophthora 1. Soil sampling for RPO High 1 testing. Phytophthora testing to be conducted at suspect sites within three years of starting this plan.

2. Provide advice on the BMA, RPO Low NA distribution and critical habitat of this species to organisations governing vegetation clearance.

47 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

Specific objective 6: Monitor and evaluate populations and extension activities

6.3 Develop and maintain a 1. Create a database for data RPO Medium NA database to efficiently and storage within six months of securely store survey and starting this plan. monitoring data.

3. Ensure an annual review of RPT High NA extension activities occurs.

4. Initiate the development of a communications strategy RPT Medium NA for the recovery plan.

Specific objective 7: Manage Fragmented Populations

48 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

7.3 Prevent the further 1. Discuss the importance of BMA, RPO Low Where fragmentation or loss of critical and potential habitat applicable critical and potential habitat. with relevant landholders.

7.4 Where appropriate, create 1. Initiate suitable BMA, RPO, Medium 1, 2, 3, 4 buffer zones of native revegetation projects to HMRE vegetation around existing establish buffer zones populations. around existing populations where needed within three years of starting this plan.

2. Field trials to be conducted RPO, BGA High Where into natural germination and applicable establishment within three years of starting this plan.

7.6 Subsequent to 7.2, where 1. Plants grown from seed to RPO, RPT Medium Where appropriate re-stock be introduced at selected applicable populations that are not sites as deemed necessary naturally increasing despite by the recovery team. encouragement or re- establish populations that no longer exist.

7.7 Improve connectivity 1. Initiate suitable BMA, RPO, Medium Where between populations of this revegetation projects to HMRE applicable species. establish linking corridors between isolated populations/sub- populations within three years of starting this plan.

Specific objective 8: Increase the knowledge of this species through targeted research

Population Action Description Performance Criteria Responsibility Priority No. (listed in priority order) 8.1 Encourage further research 1. Research into relevant RPO, RPT, RE, Medium NA into the ecology of this aspects of the ecology of HMRE species. this species to be initiated within one year of starting this plan and supported for the duration of the recovery plan.

49 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

8.3 Encourage research into 1. Research into factors RPO, RPT, RE, High NA why successful germination related to successful HMRE and recruitment is not natural germination and occurring, and ways to recruitment such as ameliorate this. disturbance/fire regimes, competition and grazing to be initiated within one year of starting this plan and supported for the duration of the recovery plan. Incorporate information from monitoring of populations on the Eyre Peninsula following recent fires.

2. Implementation of RPO High Where appropriate management applicable techniques to initiate successful germination and recruitment as determined by research conducted under 8.3.1.

50 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

Specific objective 9: Ensure sufficient resources are available to implement the recovery plan

Specific objective 10: To effectively coordinate and implement the recovery project

Population Action Description Performance Criteria Responsibility Priority No. (listed in priority order) 10.1 Build a network of 1. Interested government and RPO, RPT, BMA, High NA government and non- non-government DEH government organisations organisations to be and individuals. contacted within the first year of starting this plan and kept up to date with regular correspondence throughout the duration of the recovery plan.

10.2 Develop stakeholder 1. Engage interested nature RPO High NA awareness and appreciation conservation, land of this species and management and encourage active landholder groups in the involvement in future activities of the program. management activities. 2. Fact sheet on this species RPO Done NA to be produced with information on ecology, distribution and threats within six months of starting this plan.

51 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

3. Acacia rhetinocarpa (Resin Wattle)

3.1 Species Information, Distribution and Location

Conservation Status/Taxonomy/Description of Community

Table 14. Status of Acacia rhetinocarpa.

Scientific Common EPBC Act NPW Act Botanical Region Status name name 1999 1972 (SA) (Lang and Kraehenbuehl (amended in 2002) 2000) Acacia Resin Vulnerable Vulnerable Vulnerable (MU) rhetinocarpa Wattle

SA –South Australia, MU –Murray

Regional IUCN Assessment and Implications

Table 15. IUCN Assessment for Acacia rhetinocarpa.

Species Acacia rhetinocarpa IUCN status in Data Deficient (DD) the SA MDB

Description

An erect, compact, rounded, resinous spreading shrub, A. rhetinocarpa grows to a height of 0.5-1.5 m. Branchlets are hairy and light yellowish-brown in colour becoming dark grey towards the base. Phyllodes are obliquely obovate, 2-5 mm long, 2-3 mm broad, flat, thick, erect, yellowish-green, resinous and with an oblique point (Jessop and Toelken 1986).

Inflorescences are simple, axillary and singular. Flower heads are globular, bright yellow with 12-15 individual flowers. Peduncles are glabrous, 4-7 mm long and legumes are linear, 1-3.5 cm long, 2-2.5 mm broad, straight or curved, biconvex, brown, resinous and glossy with an acute apex. Seeds are positioned longitudinally within the legume and have a fleshy aril (Jessop and Toelken 1986).

52 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

1cm a. Photo: Chris Obst b. Photo: Chris Obst

Figure 6a & b. Acacia rhetinocarpa. a) shrub, b) phyllodes.

Distribution and Conservation

Acacia rhetinocarpa is a South Australian endemic found in small and scattered populations near the east coast of Eyre Peninsula around Arno Bay, the east coast of Yorke Peninsula near Curramulka, the south-eastern Mount Lofty Ranges and in the Monarto area of the SA MDB (Davies 1992; Whibley 1980).

A population of only eight individuals is present within the Monarto conserved area (Davies 2000) and a further three populations survive on private land (Davies 1992). Three populations were also present in the Ferries-McDonald Conservation Park (Davies 2000) and a single population of 25 individuals was confined to a railway reserve in the vicinity of Finniss (Davies 1992). A further three populations have since been found in the Finniss area (Pickett and Mallen 2001). All but one population from the Eyre Peninsula are found in road reserves with the exception of a large population of several hundred plants occurring in Coopana Water Reserve (Briggs pers. comm.). Populations on Yorke Peninsula are confined to roadsides and in paddocks, however one population of over 100 individuals is located on council land (Davies 1992).

The distribution of A. rhetinocarpa is shown in Figure 7.

Extent of Occurrence

The extent of occurrence of this species is 4976.3 km2 (497,629 hectares).

Habitat critical to the survival of the species/community

Given that A. rhetinocarpa is listed as vulnerable it is considered that all known habitat is critical to the survival of the species. Recovery actions include surveying for further populations that would lead to the identification of additional habitat critical to the survival of the species. All habitat that is critical to the survival of this species in the SA MDB is mapped in Figure 7.

Topography and Soil Type

Davies (1992) has observed A. rhetinocarpa growing on the lower eastern flanks of the Mount Lofty Ranges in sandy loam of pH 7 which was dark greyish brown when dry and very dark brown when wet, frequently with scattered limestone nodules.

53 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

These plants were growing on undulating floors of large, shallow, broad depressions and on the gentle west to north-east facing slopes of low broad ridges. Specimens of A. rhetinocarpa have been collected from the Eyre Peninsula from sand of deep yellow on the gentle east facing slopes of a wide valley, between low sand ridges (National Herbarium of Victoria, Melbourne). Whibley (1980) generalises that A. rhetinocarpa grows on calcareous sands, red shallow porous loam or grey-brown calcareous loamy earths.

Vegetation Associations

Previous studies:

Whibley (1980) reports Acacia rhetinocarpa usually grows within the following vegetation association:

 Eucalyptus gracilis/E. socialis/E. incrassata open mallee

In the eastern Mount Lofty Ranges Davies (1992) reports A. rhetinocarpa is found within the following vegetation associations:

 Eucalyptus porosa low woodland  Eucalyptus socialis/E. leptophylla/E. dumosa tall open-shrubland  Eucalyptus leptophylla/E. incrassata tall open-shrubland

Herbarium records (National Herbarium of Victoria, Melbourne) reveal that A. rhetinocarpa grows on the Eyre Peninsula in the following vegetation association:

 Eucalyptus dumosa/E. leptophylla/E. calycogona/E. incrassata/E. brachycalyx low mallee.

Climate

Temperature and rainfall data from the weather station at Murray Bridge, the closest weather station to A. rhetinocarpa populations, have been obtained from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology website. (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/) (April 2004).

The mean annual rainfall is 346.8 mm at Murray Bridge. The average maximum and minimum temperatures in January are 28.8 ºC and 14.4 ºC respectively, and the average maximum and minimum temperatures in June are 16.6 ºC and 6.1 ºC respectively.

Fire and Disturbance

Davies (2000) hypothesises that the lack of successful recruitment in A. rhetinocarpa is due to a decrease in fire frequency which may be due to the small size of parks in which some populations of A. rhetinocarpa are found, coupled with these parks being surrounded by agricultural land. A. rhetinocarpa has also been described as an early stage of post-fire (or other major disturbance) successional species (Opperman 1991).

54 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

Important populations

As survey work was not conducted for this species during this project, priority populations were unable to be identified. However, the distribution of this species was identified from past reports and database records. The distribution of A. rhetinocarpa, including all populations of importance, is shown in Figure 7.

55 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

56 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

3.2 Past Research and Conservation Efforts

Previous Work on the Conservation of A. rhetinocarpa

The importance of the need to conserve Acacia rhetinocarpa has been highlighted in recent years with the species being included in the following threatened species projects;

 Alexandrina Council Threatened Species Protection Project –a Threatened Species Network (TSN) Community Grants project (1998-1999, Project Number SA14/199) funded by Alexandrina Council, TSN and TPAG (Picket and Mallen 2001),  Brimarvi Road and Environs –Threatened Species Protection Project –a Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) project (2001-2003, Project Number 001629) funded by NHT, and Alexandrina Council (Pickett and Mallen 2003),  One site at Gilbert’s Siding on the Victor Harbor Tourist Railway is also a field site for TPAG, and has been worked on since the 1990’s. During this time working bees have concentrated on weed control among other activities.  Davies (1992) Threatened plant species of the Murray Mallee, Mount Lofty Ranges and Kangaroo Island regions of SA.  Davies (1995) Threatened plant species management in natural parks and wildlife reserves in South Australia.  Davies (2000) Population Trends for Threatened Plant Species in Parks & Pastoral Leases in South Australia.  Green (1993) Threatened plants of Yorke Peninsula.

The earliest reports of conservation of A. rhetinocarpa are by Davies (1992, and references therein) which report that seed of the species and 20 plants were being held at the Adelaide Botanic Gardens nursery at Black Hill Flora Centre. The Adelaide Botanic Gardens was reportedly conserving the species ex situ. Acacia rhetinocarpa was also reported to be grown at the Australian National Botanic Gardens in Canberra, the Burrendong Arboretum in Wellington, NSW, the Society for Growing Australian Plants and the Mount Annan Botanic Gardens near Sydney.

The Botanic Gardens of Adelaide Seed Conservation Centre, DEH attempted to collect seed from A. rhetinocarpa growing in the Finniss/Milang area in 2003, however low seed set prevented any seed collection. No seed was collected during 2004. In 2005 the Botanic Gardens of Adelaide Seed Conservation Centre, DEH will attempt to collect seed from both the Finniss/Milang and Eyre Peninsula populations for storage (P. Ainsley, pers. comm.). These seeds, once collected, will be stored at the Botanic Gardens of Adelaide Seed Conservation Centre, DEH and the Millennium Seed Bank Project (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, England) (P. Ainsley pers. comm.).

Ecology Relevant to Threatening Processes

The flowering period of Acacia rhetinocarpa ranges from August through to October (Jessop and Toelken 1986). Herbarium records indicate that A. rhetinocarpa can flower as late as March, with fruiting material collected from August to January (Adelaide Herbarium and National Herbarium of Victoria, Melbourne).

57 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

Past Research

Davies (2000) hypothesises that the lack of successful recruitment in A. rhetinocarpa is due to a decrease in fire frequency which may be due to the small size of remnant vegetation in which some populations are found, coupled with these areas being surrounded by agricultural land. A. rhetinocarpa has also been described as an early stage of post-fire (or other major disturbance) successional species (Opperman 1991).

3.3 Known and Potential Threats

Identification of Threats

Table 16. Current and potential threats to Acacia rhetinocarpa in the SA MDB.

Current/ Perceived Threats Potential Risk Reference

Fragmentation Potential High Davies (1992)

Weeds –Other Potential High Davies (2000 & 1992)

Grazing Potential High Davies (1992)

Road/Rail Maintenance Activities Potential High Davies (2000 & 1992)

Inadequate Knowledge of Ecology and Threats Current High This Study

Inadequate Knowledge of Distribution, Abundance and Population Trends Current High This Study

Dieback and Phytophthora Potential Low This study

Vegetation Clearance Potential Low Davies (1992)

Threats to Species and Species Recovery at Specific Populations

As these populations were not surveyed during this project it is unknown which populations are at particular risk to specific threats.

58 South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan

3.4 Recovery Objectives, Actions and Performance Criteria

The use of a lighter grey scale text in the following table is intended to indicate those actions that have already been carried out, or those that are not relevant to that species.

Table 17. Recovery actions and performance criteria for Acacia rhetinocarpa.