Macadamia Offset Review, Lower Beechmont (September 2018)

Home , Macadamia tetraphylla, Stenocarpus, Stenocarpus sinuatus

Macadamia Offset Review, Lower Beechmont

Report to Department of Transport & Main Roads Final September 2018

Acknowledgements

Healthy Land and Water (HLW) acknowledges the support provided by the Department of Transport and Main Roads (Viviana Gamboa and Chris Lowe), Department of Defence (Glenn Hewton, Joan Young, Rebecca Worrall and John Blanchard) and Bush Nuts (Charlie Booth and Mick Bellotti) for this project.

This project utilises six years of offset maintenance, monitoring data and reporting undertaken by Bush Nuts.

This report prepared by HLW staff, Liz Gould and Paul Donatiu.

Photo credits: Paul Donatiu (Figure 3), Liz Gould (all other images)

The material contained in this publication is produced for general information only. It is not intended as professional advice on specific applications. It is the responsibility of the user to determine the suitability and appropriateness of the material contained in this publication to specific applications. No person should act or fail to act on the basis of any material contained in this publication without first obtaining specific independent professional advice. Healthy Land and Water and the participants of our network expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of anything done by any such person in reliance, whether in whole or in part, on this publication. The information contained in this publication does not necessarily represent the views of Healthy Land and Water or the participants of our network.

For further information about Healthy Land and Water, please email [email protected] or telephone (07) 3177 9100.

Macadamia Offset Review, Lower Beechmont (September 2018)

Contents

Acknowledgements ...... 2 1 Project background ...... 5 2 Project method ...... 5 2.1 Inception meeting ...... 6 2.1.1 Project requirements and deliverables ...... 6 2.1.2 Roles and responsibilities ...... 6 2.1.3 Project timelines ...... 6 2.2 Acquisition and review of Bush Nuts monitoring data ...... 6 2.3 Collection of new site data ...... 6 2.3.1 Macadamia status ...... 7 2.3.2 Vegetation condition ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.4 Contribute leaf samples ...... 9 3 June 2018 Survey Results ...... 10 3.1 Macadamia status ...... 10 3.1.1 Number of trees ...... 10 3.1.2 Tree height ...... 10 3.1.3 Tree DBH ...... 10 3.1.4 Tree Health ...... 11 3.1.5 Flowers ...... 11 3.1.6 Fruit ...... 11 3.1.7 Macadamia species ...... 11 3.2 Vegetation condition ...... 11 3.2.1 Weed cover ...... 11 3.2.2 Weed species ...... 11 3.2.3 Regenerating native species ...... 12 3.2.4 Leaf sample analysis ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4 Discussion ...... 14 4.1 Success of propagated M. integrifolia ...... 14 4.2 Active growth ...... 15 4.3 Reproduction through seedling recruitment ...... 16 4.3.1 Age and size of planted trees ...... 16 4.3.2 Fruit set ...... 17 4.3.3 Nut predation ...... 17 4.3.4 Dispersal and germination ...... 18 4.3.5 Extent of canopy cover ...... 19 4.3.6 Survey timing ...... 19

Macadamia Offset Review, Lower Beechmont (September 2018) 4.4 Germplasm conservation...... 20 4.5 Propagation method ...... 20 4.6 Long term sustainability ...... 21 5 Recommendations ...... 22 6 References ...... 23

Tables Table 1 Photopoint locations ...... 7 Table 2 Native Regeneration Evident in Monitoring Plots 1-5 ...... 13

Figures Figure 1 Location of planted macadamia and monitoring plots at DTMR Offset Site, Lower Beechmont ...... 8 Figure 2 Layout of monitoring quadrat ...... 9 Figure 3 Labelled M. integrifolia MRMT 9(3) ...... 10 Figure 4 Flowers on planted macadamia MRMT 20(1)...... 11 Figure 6 The edge of the translocation area showing dense lantana beyond...... 12 Figure 7 Macadamia integrifolia height and probability of flowering (from Neal et al. 2010) ...... 17 Figure 8 Comparison of germination versus predation in macadamia nut shells...... 18 Figure 9 Probability of M. integrifolia flowering and projected foliage cover (PFC) (from Neal et al. 2010) ...... 19

Appendices Appendix 1 Instrument of Decision, Beechmont Road Upgrade, south-east Queensland (EPBC 2010/5673) – Conditions attached to the approval ...... 25 Appendix 2 Reviewed DTMR reports ...... 30 Appendix 3 Data supplied by Bush Nuts, June 2018...... 31 Appendix 4 Macadamia data collection sheet ...... 33 Appendix 5 Planted macadamia height measurements ...... 34 Appendix 6 Planted macadamia other details (June 2018) ...... 37 Appendix 7 Leaf samples collected from DTMR Offset, Beechmont Road, Lower Beechmont ...... 40

Macadamia Offset Review, Lower Beechmont (September 2018)

1 Project background

In May 2018, the Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR) commissioned Healthy Land and Water (HLW) to review Queensland Nut (Macadamia integrifolia) translocation at Lower Beechmont and determine whether this has resulted in successful recruitment of M. integrifolia. Implementation of translocation and revegetation activities (the Translocation Plan) and review of Translocation Plan implementation by a suitably qualified expert, were conditions of Australian Government approval for the widening and upgrading of 561m of Beechmont Road, Lower Beechmont (refer Australian Government Instrument of Decision, Beechmont Road Upgrade, south-east Queensland (EPBC 2010/5673) in Appendix 1). The Translocation Plan (Reynolds 2011) identified 23 mature and six juvenile M. integrifolia that would be impacted through the proposed road safety improvements. The objective of the Translocation Plan was to establish, over a five-year period from commencement, a vegetation community offsetting the loss of affected threatened and least concern species. This included propagating through cuttings the 29 M. integrifolia trees and planting no less than 102 trees from these cuttings, and trial of propagation from seed and planting of any resultant seedlings. The location for the offset planting was the adjacent Canungra Field Training Area (CFTA), directly opposite the impact site, where several wild specimens of M. integrifolia and M. tetraphylla (Rough-shelled Bush Nut) are recorded. Bush Nuts Native Nursery (Bush Nuts) was engaged by DTMR in August 2012 to implement the Translocation Plan and staged plantings commenced in March 2013, following weed control. Ongoing maintenance activities and the status of the site and translocated plants (according to project success indicators and measures of success identified in the Translocation Plan), were reported annually by Bush Nuts to DTMR. All DTMR’s annual reports, including the associated Bush Nuts’ monitoring results, are published on the DTMR website, from where they were accessed by HLW and reviewed for this report. Bush Nuts’ final report in February 2017 contained evidence that recruitment is now occurring on the site, with flowering and fruiting by translocated plants.

2 Project method

HLW’s approach to the project comprised: 1. Inception meeting with DTMR staff 2. Acquisition and review of monitoring data collected by Bush Nuts Native Nursery 3. Collection of new site data, e.g., number of surviving translocated plants and the height, girth, health, reproductive status of these, evidence of recruitment, including photographs 4. Contribute leaf samples from translocated and original macadamia trees within the offset site to Southern Cross University’s genetic database 5. Prepare draft report for DTMR 6. Review and provide final report, survey data, supporting photographs, maps and drawings to DTMR

Macadamia Offset Review, Lower Beechmont (September 2018)

2.1 Inception meeting

On 30 May, HLW representatives (Liz Gould and Paul Donatiu) met with Viviana Gamboa (DTMR) to review project requirements and deliverables, discuss roles and responsibilities and determine timelines for project activities.

2.1.1 Project requirements and deliverables

The activities and deliverables outlined in HLW’s Proposal (submitted 01 February) were confirmed, with a detailed methodology to be developed by HLW.

All survey equipment and materials were to be supplied by HLW.

2.1.2 Roles and responsibilities

Liz Gould was identified as the primary contact (project manager) within HLW, with responsibility for project coordination, with Paul Donatiu providing additional botanical expertise.

Viviana Gamboa confirmed her role as DTMR project manager and agreed to liaise with Department of Defence for access to CFTA and advise HLW of access requirements.

2.1.3 Project timelines

It was agreed to extend the project timelines until 30 June 2018 for site survey work by (i.e., within existing access arrangements with CFTA), with project reporting in late July/August.

HLW would liaise with Bush Nuts regarding survey dates to ensure compatibility with maintenance activities and for assistance with site familiarity.

2.2 Acquisition and review of existing information

DTMR’s annual compliance reports, which include as appendices the associated monitoring and evaluation reports prepared by Bush Nuts, were sourced from the DTMR website and reviewed; refer Appendix 2.

This identified the need for digital data relating to project activities, including the GPS location of photopoints and planted M. integrifolia. This information was readily sourced from Bush Nuts in early June 2018 (Appendix 3). The Translocation Plan (Reynolds 2011) and the 12 Week Planting Monitoring Progress Report (Bush Nuts 2013b) provided valuable background information which was supplemented by a review of recent literature.

2.3 Collection of new site data

Surveys to collect new data were conducted on 13 and 20 May by Liz Gould and Paul Donatiu (HLW), assisted by Viviana Gamboa and Chris Lowe (DTMR) and on 20 May by Mick Bellotti (Bush Nuts). The purpose of the surveys was to assess the status of M. integrifolia plantings, the presence and density of weeds and extend of native species regeneration in the translocation area.

Macadamia Offset Review, Lower Beechmont (September 2018)

2.3.1 Macadamia status

Location details for all M. integrifolia planted by Bush Nuts were uploaded into a mobile device to facilitate locating specimens during surveys (Figure 1). The intent of the survey work was to locate as many specimens as possible, with a minimum target of 80% located. Site conditions and location imprecision were considered to make it unlikely that 100% of labelled plants would be found.

A survey sheet was developed for consistent data capture (refer Appendix 4). This contained label details for all planted M. integrifolia, together with the height of plants (measured in January 2018 by Bush Nuts), and blanks fields for recording the following information:

• Plant height – measured in centimetres (cm) from the ground to the highest point of longest stem, using a retractable metal tape

• Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) – measured in millimetres (mm) at 1.5m above ground using a DBH tape

• Plant health – recording of the extent of visible disease or other damage (e.g., insect infestation) utilising the categories: Healthy (<25% plant affected), Minor (25-50% plant affected), Moderate (50-75% plant affected), Severe (>75% plant affected) and Dead.

• Presence of flowers – yes/no; the presence of flowers at any stage of development

• Presence of fruit – yes/no; the presence of fruit at any stage of development

• Other comments, e.g., presence of seedlings underneath, evidence of past fruiting, new growth, abundance of flowers and/or fruit

2.3.2 Vegetation condition

Six monitoring plots were established by Bush Nuts, with four of these reported as containing planted M. integrifolia (Bush Nuts 2018); refer Table 1. Each monitoring plot was 10m x 10m and centred on a star picket. Bush Nuts placed a second star picket 5m north of the centre picket and in the middle of the plot boundary and used this as a photopoint, taking photos from this looking south toward the centre star picket (see Figure 2) on an annual basis. The location of each camera point (photo point) is included in Table 1.

Table 1 Photopoint locations

Monitoring Plot Number Latitude Longitude Translocated macadamia present PP1 S -28.05606 E 153.24115 MRMT13(1), MRMT21(3) PP2 S -28.05617 E 153.24098 MRMT4(7) PP3 S -28.05646 E 153.24104 None PP4 S -28.05649 E 153.24170 MT9(3) PP5 S -28.05922 E 153.23936 MRMT6 (3) PP6 S -28.05913 E 153.23970 None

Macadamia Offset Review, Lower Beechmont (September 2018)

Figure 1 Location of planted macadamia and monitoring plots at DTMR Offset Site, Lower Beechmont

Macadamia Offset Review, Lower Beechmont (September 2018)

The January 2018 monitoring results provided by Bush Nuts Camera for each plot with planted M. integrifolia were reviewed and reassessed by HLW during the June 2018 survey work for weed species, weed cover and regenerating native species.

Centre 10m 2.4 Contribute leaf samples

Recent research by Dr Craig Hardner (University of Queensland) and Dr Catherine Nock (Southern Cross University, SCU) used genetic analysis of macadamia leaves to reveal information on tree origins; for example, 10m relatedness to other wild trees, evidence of hybridisation, influence of cultivated trees (Hardner et al. 2016). Genetic Figure 2 Layout of monitoring quadrat information can help to determine conservation priorities and recovery actions for macadamia populations, as well as identify traits for potential for use in horticulture.

Methodology established by HLW, with input from Dr Nock, through other macadamia projects was followed to take leaf samples from planted M. integrifolia during survey work.

This comprised the cutting of young leaves from planted trees and placement in a resealable bag containing self-indicating silica beads and a completed specimen label recording the following details:

• Date (of leaf collection)

• Site id (code attributed to the site)

• Tree number (from tree label)

• Coordinates (GPS Location)

• Locality (suburb or property address)

• Elevation (derived from GPS)

• Collector (name of the person that collected the leaves)

• Other info (e.g., tree height, health, presence of flowers or fruit)

Details from each specimen label were recorded in a database managed by HLW, prior to posting of leaf samples to SCU for storage under an existing arrangement between HLW and SCU.

Macadamia Offset Review, Lower Beechmont (September 2018)

3 June 2018 Survey Results

3.1 Macadamia status

The requirements of the Translocation Plan included an offset planting of no less than 102 M. integrifolia propagated from cuttings of 29 trees, and establishment of 80% of propagated plants at the end of a five year maintenance period (Reynolds 2011).

Prior to planting each propagated macadamia was labelled with an aluminium tag coded to identify the parent (donor) tree, and progeny number; Figure 3 shows an example of a labelled tree. Labelling also enabled comparative measurements of individual trees over time.

3.1.1 Survey representativeness

HLW’s June 2018 survey aimed to assess the status of at least 80% of the trees monitored in January 2018 by Bush Nuts.

In January, Bush Nuts measured 92 M. integrifolia and reported them as healthy and growing well (Bush Nuts 2018).

During the course of HLW’s June 2018 surveys, 81 of the 92 trees (88%) were located, with a further six trees found that were not measured in January. In total, 87 planted trees were assessed. Figure 3 Labelled M. integrifolia MRMT 9(3) Even excluding the additional six trees, HLW exceeded the minimum 80% survey target.

3.1.2 Tree height

Comparing height measurements for matched trees1 between January 2018 and June 2018 found an average growth of 18.1cm. The June 2018 height measurements of seven trees were less than their January 2018 height, potentially due to different measurement techniques and/or loss of tree tops, through storm damage, insect attack, etc; measured differences ranged from 5cm to 108cm. Excluding the seven trees from height calculations resulted in an adjusted average growth of 22.6cm.

The results of all tree height measurements (June 2013 to June 2018) are provided in Appendix 5.

3.1.3 Tree DBH

Tree DBH was not measured by Bush Nuts, no doubt due to the small size of trees at planting. Measurements by HLW in June 2018 found an average DBH of 19.65mm across the 77 trees with a DBH of 5mm or greater; 10 trees had a DBH of less than 5mm.

1 Labelled trees recorded in January 2018 and also found in June 2018.

Macadamia Offset Review, Lower Beechmont (September 2018)

Individual tree measurements may be useful for future growth comparisons and are provided in Appendix 6.

3.1.4 Tree Health

All planted macadamias surveyed in June 2018 were considered healthy, with minimal damage evident due to disease or insect damage. New growth was found on seven trees; as noted in Appendix 6.

3.1.5 Flowers

In June 2018, one planted M. integrifolia, MRMT 20(1), was found with six racemes in various stages of development (Figure 4). The presence of a small canopy opening on the western side of the tree may have been a trigger for flowering.

3.1.6 Fruit Figure 4 Flowers on planted macadamia No fruit were recorded during June 2018 on any MRMT 20(1). planted macadamia and no shells or other evidence of past fruiting was found on the ground within each tree’s drop zone.

3.1.7 Macadamia species

One of the planted macadamia measured during June 2018 appeared to be M. tetraphylla (tree MS 50 (1), Figure 5); all others were M. integrifolia.

3.2 Vegetation condition

3.2.1 Weed cover

Weed cover at all five monitoring plots surveyed (PP1 to PP5) was less than 1% in June 2018. This was consistent with the January 2018 monitoring results.

3.2.2 Weed species

Only four weed species were noted within the Figure 5 Planted Macadamia tetraphylla (MS monitoring plots (listed below) and all plants were 50(1)), showing red new growth, leaves with seedlings. no petiole and four leaves per node.

Macadamia Offset Review, Lower Beechmont (September 2018)

• Dutchman’s Pipe (Aristolochia elegans) – Category 3 Restricted Matter, Biosecurity Act 2014.

• Lantana (Lantana camara) - Category 3 Restricted Matter, BS Act 2014.

• Easter Cassia (Senna pendula var. glabrata)- Environmental Weed, City of Gold Coast

• Brazilian nightshade (Solanum seaforthianum) - Category 3 Restricted Matter, BS Act 2014.

Outside of the translocation area, however, dense infestations of several invasive weeds were evident (Figure 6).

3.2.3 Regenerating native species

In January 2018, Bush Nuts recorded 38 native species regenerating across monitoring plots 1-5. Many of the same species were noted in June 2018, however, seedlings of a further 19 native species were also identified within the combined plot area (Table 1).

3.2.4 Leaf sample analysis

Leaf samples were collected from six planted trees and from two mature ‘wild’ trees (refer details in Appendix ) and sent to SCU for storage. DNA extraction and analysis of the results is reliant on further funding and will be provided when available.

Figure 6 The edge of the translocation area showing dense lantana beyond.

Macadamia Offset Review, Lower Beechmont (September 2018)

Table 2 Native Regeneration Evident in Monitoring Plots 1-5

Native Species January 2018 Additional Native Species June 2018 Acacia disparrima Alpinia caerulea Acacia melanoxylon Breynia oblongifolia Acacia sp. Cordyline sp. Alphitonia excelsa Cryptocarya sp. Aphananthe philippinensis Cupaniopsis anacardioides Calochlaena dubia Diploglottis australis Cayratia eurynema Dysoxylum rufum Cissus antarctica Eucalyptus sp. Cissus hypoglauca Geitonoplesium cymosum Diplocyclos palmatus Juncus sp. Eucalyptus grandis Neolitsea dealbata Ficus fraseri Podocarpus elatus Geranium homeanum Rubus moluccanus Glochidion ferdinandi Rubus parvifolius Grevillea robusta Sarcopteryx stipata Harpulia pendula Stenocarpus sinuatus Homalanthus nutans Syzygium oleosum Jagera pseudorhus Tetrastigma nitens Legnephora moorei Zehneria cunninghamii Macadamia sp. Macaranga tanarius Maclura cochinchinensis Mallotus philippensis Melia azedarach Myrsine variabilis Oplismenus sp. Pandorea baileyana Pandorea pandorana Pipturus argenteus Polyscias elegans Rhodosphaera rhodanthema Rubus rosifolius Rubus rosifolius var. rosifolius Stephania japonica Stephania japonica var. discolor Toona ciliata Trema tomentosa

Macadamia Offset Review, Lower Beechmont (September 2018)

4 Discussion

This review considered the actions undertaken by DTMR and contractors under their management, to fulfil the offset requirements of the Australian Government identified in the conditional approval for the Beechmont Road Upgrade (EPBC 2010/5673) and detailed in the associated Translocation Plan (Reynolds 2011).

This review was a requirement of the Australian Government and was instigated by DTMR to fulfil Item 5 of the conditions attached to the approval, i.e., “a Suitably Qualified Expert provides written advice to the department that successful recruitment of translocated M. integrifolia within the total offset area at Annexure A has occurred” (refer Appendix 1).

The Australian Government also required implementation of the Translocation Plan. Appendix 1). Consequently, this review also assesses achievement of the measures of success identified within the Plan for M. integrifolia, namely:

• 80% success of propagated plants at the end of five years of maintenance (Section 4.1)

• Average growth is measured and evidence of active growth is documented in each monitoring report (Section 4.2)

• Reproduction through seedling recruitment is evident (Section 4.3)

During the course of undertaking the review, however, it became evident that consideration of other factors would provide a richer picture of the work undertaken; consequently the following additional elements were investigated:

• Germplasm conservation (Section 4.4)

• Propagation methods (Section 4.5)

• Long-term site sustainability (Section 4.6)

The following discussion (Sections 4.1 to 4.6) is based on examination of annual monitoring reports and associated data provided by DTMR (Appendix 2) and Bush Nuts (Appendix 3), perusal of relevant literature and 1.5 days of site surveys by HLW staff accompanied by DTMR and/or Bush Nuts staff.

It should be noted that whilst mature M. tetraphylla were present at the southern end of the translocation site and one planted M. tetraphylla was found in June 2018, the translocation project was established for M. integrifolia and that, unless otherwise noted, the following discussion relates to this species.

Whilst this review is an independent assessment and addresses Items 5 and 6 in the conditions of approval, it does not constitute an audit of compliance which can be required by the Australian Government under Item 4 of the approval conditions.

4.1 Success of propagated M. integrifolia

The offset formula in the Translocation Plan required 102 M. integrifolia to be successfully propagated (V - NC Act ratio 1:3.5 = 29 x 3.5 = 101.5), for which 300 cuttings were considered needed.

Macadamia Offset Review, Lower Beechmont (September 2018)

On 17 October 2011, cuttings were collected by two nurseries from 18 of the 25 mature M. integrifolia trees that were to be impacted by the Beechmont Road upgrade. Hidden Valley Nursery collected 224 cuttings and Gecko Regen at least2 29 cuttings (Bush Nuts 2013). A “few smaller seedlings were transplanted (sic) to the nurseries” and two (MS50 and MS52) were reported as planted (Bush Nuts 2013a).

Between October 2011 and March 2013, cuttings were grown to a size suitable for planting, resulting in 187 trees; 158 from Hidden Valley Nursery and 29 from Gecko Regen. Eight seedlings were also grown to planting size by Gecko Regen (Bush Nuts 2013a).

The Translocation Plan required 80% success for all propagated M. integrifolia with any death of more than 20% during the initial 12 week establishment period to be replanted by the contractor (Reynolds 2011).

Between March and June 2013, Bush Nuts planted 131 of the 158 propagated macadamia trees and only one death occurred during the establishment period (Bush Nuts 2013b, Bush Nuts 2014). Given the high survival rate, there was no requirement for replanting. The fate of the other 27 trees is not known.

In January 2018, Bush Nuts reported 92 surviving trees. HLW’s June survey was not comprehensive, however, did find five labelled trees that were not measured in January3. Assuming no tree deaths between January and June, this brings the number of surviving translocated macadamia to 964. Of these 96 trees, four were propagated from seed (one of which appears to be a M. tetraphylla) and two were the transplanted seedlings (MS50 and MS52).

Consequently, 89 M. integrifolia propagated from cuttings survive, rather than the 102 required.

There is an interpretation in all Bush Nuts’ reports, however, that the milestone of 80% success identified in the Translocation Plan was 80% of 102 planted trees surviving, i.e., 82 surviving trees, rather than planting 128 trees to achieve 102 surviving plants. This interpretation was clearly accepted by both DTMR and the Australian Government.

Bush Nuts exceeded their interpreted minimum requirement with 89 surviving M. integrifolia from cuttings. Bush Nuts also undertook further (unlabelled) plantings (M. Bellotti, pers. comm., June 2018), though the origins of these additional plants are unknown.

4.2 Active growth

The inclusion of height measurements for individual trees in Bush Nuts’ annual reports provides clear evidence of active growth of planted macadamias throughout the project. These results were confirmed through the location and measurement of trees by HLW in June 2018.

Average tree growth between June 2013 and June 2018 was 2.5m.

2 The exact number of cuttings collected by Gecko Regen is not included in any of the reports reviewed. 3 Three unlabelled trees were also measured by HLW during the June 2018 survey. As the origins of these trees are unknown, e.g., natural regeneration, planted from seed by Bush Nuts or translocated tree missing a label, they have been excluded from survival calculations. 4 These figures exclude additional unlabelled plantings of propagated M. integrifolia undertaken by Bush Nuts (M. Bellotti, pers. comm., June 2018)

Macadamia Offset Review, Lower Beechmont (September 2018)

4.3 Reproduction through seedling recruitment

There is no evidence yet of seedling recruitment by planted M. integrifolia.

The expectation that this would be achieved five years from planting was optimistic.

During June 2018, only one of the 77 surveyed planted M. integrifolia was flowering, no planted trees were found with fruit on them and there was no evidence of past fruiting (e.g., nuts or shells on the ground beneath trees). A few flowers were noted on one of the mature M. integrifolia on site, though thorough examination of mature trees within the translocation site was not undertaken.

In January 2016, however, Bush Nuts reported the first flowering and fruiting of a planted tree (MRMT 9(3)) which is quite precocious at only 34 months after planting; the tree was 2.1m tall at the time (Bush Nuts 2016). Another tree (MRMT 3 (5)) bore fruit in January 2017, 45 months after planting (Bush Nuts 2017) and low numbers (estimated at <5%) of M. integrifolia were reported as flowering during 2016 and in early 2017 (Bush Nuts 2017, Bush Nuts 2018).

It is possible that, over the life of the project, more planted M. integrifolia produced flowers or fruit than were observed due to the difficulties of finding low numbers of either of these amongst dense foliage.

Regardless, the results summarised above are not surprising for several reasons:

• Young age and small size of planted trees;

• Low fruit set;

• Low germination rates;

• Extent of canopy cover; and

• Survey timing.

These are discussed in detail in the following sections.

4.3.1 Age and size of planted trees

Macadamia growers’ are advised that nut production initiates four to five years from planting, though it is seven years before commercially viable yields are produced (MMI 2018). To achieve these results, orchard trees need to be actively managed through fertilising, watering, training and pruning, weed control and mulching, and pest and disease management (O’Hare 2004).

The translocated M. integrifolia were planted between March and June 2013, so are of an age to start bearing fruit. They were assisted with fertiliser application on planting, watering during establishment and as required in subsequent years, and targeted weed control by Bush Nuts, however, the intensity of management activity does not compare with an orchard environment and it is unlikely that the planted M. integrifolia will have achieved a similar height to orchard trees of the same age.

Macadamia Offset Review, Lower Beechmont (September 2018)

Research into the demography and fecundity of wild populations of M. integrifolia (Neal et al. 2010), found a significant positive relationship between the probability of flowering and tree height (Figure 7) and between tree height and the number of flowers (racemes) produced.

In June 2018, the average height of planted trees was 2.95m, with the largest specimen 5.4m; at this height M. integrifolia have only a 10-20% probability of flowering (Neal et al. 2010).

Given this, having two planted trees flowering within five years is very positive.

4.3.2 Fruit set

Macadamia are renowned for low fruit set. In their study of M. integrifolia fecundity in the wild, Neal et Figure 7 Macadamia integrifolia height and al. (2010) found an average of 80 racemes (flower probability of flowering (from Neal et al. 2010) clusters) were produced by flowering trees, and that the more racemes produced, the higher the probability of fruiting; this significantly decreased for trees located in continuous habitat, such as found at the project site. Further, Neal et al. (2010) found that fruiting trees only produced on average 2.5 fruit per fruiting tree. This low proportion of fruit set is also well known within commercial orchards, where only 1-2% of all flowers are expected to turn into nutlets (MMI 2018) and fewer than these reach maturity.

Fruit development relies on effective pollination of macadamia flowers. Though macadamia are weakly self-compatible, at least in orchard conditions, this results in lower final fruit set compared with cross-pollination (Neal et al. 2010). Cross-pollination requires the transfer of pollen from other macadamias and these must be located within 2-3km; the distance able to be travelled by the primary pollinators of macadamia: stingless native bees (Tetragonula carbonaria) and introduced honey bees (Apis melifera).

These pollinators generally travel shorter distances within continuous habitats (Neal 2007), such as found at the translocation site.

Heard (1993) found that 150 visits by pollinators to each raceme were required to ensure adequate pollination. Installation of native bee hives in orchards is now a common strategy to boost nut production.

Tetragonula carbonaria is also reported to stop foraging at temperatures below 18oC (Heard and Hendrikz 1993) which may limit pollination between late autumn and early spring.

Consequently, the proximity and abundance of pollinators and the seasonality of flowering affects fruit development.

4.3.3 Nut predation

The fate of the fruit observed on planted M. integrifolia in January 2016 and 2017 is not known, however, no nut shells (germinated or predated; refer Figure 8) were found on the ground beneath the trees. It is possible that shells were overlooked during the June survey; the small

Macadamia Offset Review, Lower Beechmont (September 2018)

Figure 8 Comparison of germination versus predation in macadamia nut shells. Following seed germination (above left), nut shells exhibit a relatively clean split into two halves; by comparison (above right), grooved incisions around the edges of holes in nuts are evidence of rat predation. number, combined with high leaf fall, means any shells would be difficult to find amongst the leaf litter.

Nut predation could also be a reason why no nut shells were found. Small rodents, feral pigs and cockatoos are major predators of macadamia nuts. Predation can occur both in the tree and following nut fall.

Studies of the impact of the introduced Black Rat (Rattus rattus) in Australian macadamia orchards (Horskins et al. 1998) found losses of up to 30% of total production. This figure is considered an underestimate by Elmouttie and Wilson (2005) as it was calculated based only on in-crop foraging, i.e., foraging within the tree canopy.

It is possible that the fruit of the planted M. integrifolia were eaten before reaching maturity and whilst still in the tree, or after maturing and falling to the ground. Given the relatively clear ground beneath planted trees (resulting from weed maintenance activities), it is also possible fallen nuts were taken a short distance away from the planted tree before being eaten. Elmouttie and Wilson (2005) found that nuts removed from the cleared and open ground layer within orchards were carried away and consumed in adjacent, more sheltered areas.

Intensive monitoring of the fruit while on the planted trees, potentially including the use of remote cameras, could have provided intelligence on fruit fate; this would need to be undertaken for up to 6 months.

4.3.4 Dispersal and germination

No germinated nut shells or macadamia seedlings were found on the ground beneath planted M. integrifolia; suggesting either predation or dispersal.

Macadamia seed dispersal is by small rodents and gravity fall, probably with some assistance from local flooding (although viable nuts tend not to float). Given the small size of the planted trees, it is unlikely that nuts falling from the trees would have travelled very far; rodents and/or heavy rain, however, could have moved fallen nuts metres away from the planted trees.

Macadamia Offset Review, Lower Beechmont (September 2018)

If nuts were carried away from planted trees by rats, either for storage in a cache or for immediate consumption, they are likely to have been wholly or partially eaten and seed germination is unlikely (Elmouttie and Wilson 2005).

Heavy downfalls, causing overland flow, may have the capacity to move fallen macadamia nuts. One such possible event was ex-Tropical Cyclone Debbie, which passed through the site during March 2017, following the second observed fruiting of a planted M. integrifolia. Local rainfall stations (Canungra Finch Road, Hinze Dam, Laheys Lookout Alert and Tyungun Alert) recorded falls of 556mm to 782mm (average 637mm) during this time.

The moisture provided by summer storms and other rainfall events, such as ex-Tropical Cyclone Debbie, can assist to break macadamia seed dormancy and speed up germination. Macadamia germinate readily from seed, though this may take weeks or months depending on shell condition (scarified or cracked shells germinate more quickly) and moisture levels.

4.3.5 Extent of canopy cover

Neal et al. (2010) found a significant negative relationship between the probability of flowering and projected foliage cover (PFC) (refer Figure 9), which has flow-on ramifications for fruit formation and abundance.

The actions of Bush Nuts to reduce competition for light from faster growing native species through selective pruning, will have improved the opportunity for flowering by planted M. integrifolia.

4.3.6 Survey timing

Macadamia integrifolia flower predominantly Figure 9 Probability of M. integrifolia flowering and in spring, with flowering in south east projected foliage cover (PFC) (from Neal et al. 2010) Queensland starting in July and peaking in September (O’Hare et al. 2004), though flowering outside this period occurs sporadically in response to favourable conditions (MMI 2018) and is typical of wild and cultivated populations.

Consequently, surveys undertaken outside of spring, such as HLW’s June 2018 survey, are unlikely to detect any significant numbers of flowers.

Young nuts form on macadamia trees following successful pollination of flowers and reach full size usually in late November early December; mature nuts begin to fall in early March and continue to fall over the next six months, with the peak of nut drop typically occurring in late May and June (MMI 2018).

Based on this, any planted M. integrifolia that produced fruit during the 2017-18 summer, are likely to have dropped these by the time of the June 2018 survey.

Consequently the annual monitoring of planted M. integrifolia growth by Bush Nuts in January was the most appropriate time to detect fruit production; at this time of year any nuts would be at maximum size and still on the tree.

Macadamia Offset Review, Lower Beechmont (September 2018)

4.4 Germplasm conservation

A primary focus of the Translocation Plan (Reynolds 2011) was “to retain the germplasm of all M. integrifolia trees to be removed”, through propagation by cutting of each of the 29 impacted M. integrifolia (23 mature and six juvenile trees) and propagation by seed where available.

Cuttings were collected by both nurseries on one day, 17 October 2011 (DTMR 2013), with Hidden Valley Nursery collecting cuttings from 18 of 25 M. integrifolia trees, and Gecko Regen collecting cuttings from 12 trees (Bush Nuts 2013a).

Whilst the plant labelling codes used by Hidden Valley Nursery and Gecko Regen differ, consistent numbers were used for parent trees (B. Reynolds, pers. comm. 2018).

Comparing the nursery propagation data in Table 7 and 8 in Bush Nuts (2013a) reveals that cuttings were collected from 19 of the 29 impacted M. integrifolia, representing 66% of germplasm. Hidden Valley Nursery identified seven trees that were not collected from due to safety concerns, though one of these (MRMT/MT10) was collected from by Gecko Regen.

Representatives of 18 of these 19 trees survive on site as at June 2018, representing 62% of the impacted M. integrifolia germplasm.

It can be concluded that the offset did not meet the Translocation Plan aim of retaining the germplasm of all removed M. integrifolia.

4.5 Propagation method

DMTR’s first annual compliance report records that cuttings, seed and seedlings were collected on 17 October 2011(DMTR 2013).

Propagation by cuttings was identified as the preferred method in order to conserve the germplasm of the source plants (Reynolds, 2011), though propagation by seeds also was recommended if seeds were available.

In the wild, flowering and seed set by M. integrifolia is limited and sporadic, with high levels of seed predation, so seed availability is generally quite limited; seed availability would have been restricted further through the short timeframe allowed for collection (one day).

Seedlings are also usually the result of cross-pollination, thus the progeny have a mixture of genes from both parent trees (whilst M. integrifolia can self-pollinate, fertilisation rates are low and few seeds are produced).

Propagation from seed also carries with it the risk of reduced genetic diversity if pollen was received from a cultivated variety of macadamia; the risk of this occurring is lower with increased distance from cultivated trees, due to a maximum pollination distance of approximately 3km (Neal 2007).

Consequently, for the purposes of the project, it is appropriate that the majority of propagation of impacted trees was undertaken by cuttings, with seed collected from only four trees.

As at June 2018, surviving propagated macadamia comprised:

• 89 trees through cuttings from 18 trees, all M. integrifolia; and

Macadamia Offset Review, Lower Beechmont (September 2018)

• four trees through seed from four trees – one of these trees was a M. tetraphylla, the rest M. integrifolia.

Despite the benefits for germplasm conservation, propagation by cuttings was a less successful method: 253 cuttings were collected, 112 were subsequently planted and 89 trees (35%) were surviving in June 2018. By comparison, 8 seedlings were established, with 50% survival (four trees) as at June 2018; this sample size is quite small, however, and this survival rate may not be consistent if applied at a larger scale.

The success of propagation by cutting varied between parent trees. Whilst Hidden Valley reported overall survival rate of 71% from cutting collection to planting out stage (Bush Nuts 2013), this varied substantially between trees from as little as 20% to 100% survival.

There is no record in the monitoring data supplied by Bush Nuts of the planting of stock from the seeds of two trees (MS16 and MS17).

Two transplanted seedlings, MS 50 and MS 52 (Bush Nuts 2013a) survive as at June 2018.

4.6 Long term sustainability

The careful initial site selection for the offset, undertaken in consultation with macadamia conservation experts Mr Ian McConachie OAM and Dr Michael Powell, will contribute greatly to the long term survival and reproductive potential of the planted macadamias, however, this will be affected by future land management.

Ongoing management to reduce the canopy cover above the planted macadamias will provide optimum conditions for growth and flowering, leading to nut production. Introduction of native bee hives could assist with macadamia pollination and mitigation of predation will assist with nut germination, however, further, more intensive monitoring would be required to determine the extent to which these are limiting reproduction at the site.

The translocation site is surrounded by dense infestations of Lantana and other weed species. The maintenance regime undertaken by Bush Nuts has clearly been highly successful, based on the extremely low weed diversity and abundance with the translocation site and the high diversity and abundance of regenerating native species.

Without ongoing site maintenance, however, it is likely that over time weeds will reinfest the translocation site, albeit at lower levels (unless facilitated through disturbance events, e.g., major storms, road maintenance, army operations).

The presence of weeds such as Dutchman’s Pipe and exotic grasses, in areas adjacent to the translocation site, are of particular concern due to the capacity of these weeds to transform native vegetation through, respectively, smothering of mature trees and increasing the incidence and severity of fire.

Macadamia Offset Review, Lower Beechmont (September 2018)

5 Recommendations

Macadamia are slow growing species. Once planted, well cared for orchard trees take a minimum of five years to bear fruit and seven years to reach full production (MMI 2018). Prior to planting, cuttings need to develop a sufficient root system; this is estimated by some nurseries as taking nine to 15 months (BBMN, 2008).

This project aimed to undertake propagation, planting and growth to reproductive status within five years.

The macadamia planted as part of the offset requirements, have been given the best chance for growth and reproduction through the ongoing and careful attention of Bush Nuts and the support provided by DTMR, however, the nature of the environment in which the trees are growing and the factors impacting macadamia reproduction (outlined in the Discussion section of this report), counteract this work.

Recommendation 1: A minimum timeline of ten years is required to achieve reproduction by planted macadamias through seedling recruitment.

Conservation of the impacted trees germplasm was not as effective as initially planned due to the inability to collect from some parent trees due to safety concerns and variability in success of propagation from different parent trees. Genetic isolation and genetic differentiation are considered a key element prioritisation of wild populations for conservation in the species’ Recovery Plan (Costello et al. 2009) and the negative impact from cultivated macadamias is a threat, referred to by Costello et al. 2009 as “genetic pollution”.

Improved germplasm conservation in this project could have been achieved through a higher priority being placed on this element of the project. Ideally, germplasm conservation should have been included in the Translocation Plan as one of the measures of success, with associated key performance indicators. Recommendation 2: Conservation of wild macadamia germplasm should be prioritised in any future translocation or offsetting projects and included as a key performance indicator. Recommendation 3: Future projects should take into account the high variation in survival rate between cuttings collected from different parent trees when collecting source material and allow for as low as 20% survival. Recommendation 4: Propagation quantities should be increased to allow for less than 100% survival in order to achieve a final required number of surviving trees at project completion. Recommendation 5: Further genetic research, including analysis of the leaf samples collected during HLW’s June 2018 surveys, will improve understanding of broader implications for macadamia conservation and local actions required.

The long term survival and reproductive potential of the planted macadamias will be affected by future land management and this is reliant on support, including access provision, from the Department of Defence. Recommendation 6: Approach the Department of Defence regarding support for ongoing maintenance of the translocation site, particularly canopy management above planted macadamias for a further three years.

Macadamia Offset Review, Lower Beechmont (September 2018)

Recommendation 7: Approach the Department of Defence regarding support for development and implementation of a staged action plan for weed and fire management in areas adjacent to the translocation area. Recommendation 8: Investigate opportunities for the involvement of researchers in the ongoing monitoring of planted macadamias, e.g., flower and nut production, pollinators, seed predators, germination rates, in order to determine specific actions required to improve reproduction outcomes on site.

6 References

BBMN, Bonnie Brae’s Macadamia Nursery (2008) What we grow. Available from: http://www.bonniebraesnursery.co.za/products.html [Accessed 27 August 2018]

Bush Nuts (2013a) Beechmont Road Macadamia integrifolia Translocation Site: Monitoring and Evaluation Progress Report. Bush Nuts Native Nursery, February 2013. Appendix A in DTMR (2013) Beechmont Road Upgrade South East Queensland (EPBC 2010/5673) Annual Compliance Report No.1.

Bush Nuts (2013b) Beechmont Road Macadamia integrifolia and Cupaniopsis newmanii Translocation and Ecosystem Rehabilitation: 12 Week Planting Monitoring Progress Report. Bush Nuts Native Nursery, June 2013.

Bush Nuts (2014) Beechmont Road Macadamia integrifolia Translocation Site: Monitoring and Evaluation Progress Report. Bush Nuts Native Nursery, March 2014. Appendix A in DTMR (2014) Beechmont Road Upgrade South East Queensland (EPBC 2010/5673) Annual Compliance Report No.2

Bush Nuts (2016) Beechmont Road Macadamia integrifolia Translocation Site: Monitoring and Evaluation Progress Report 2015-2016. Bush Nuts Native Nursery, February 2016. Appendix A in DTMR (2016) Beechmont Road Upgrade South East Queensland (EPBC 2010/5673) Annual Compliance Report No.4.

Bush Nuts (2017) Beechmont Road Macadamia integrifolia Translocation Site: Monitoring and Evaluation Progress Report 2016-2017. Bush Nuts Native Nursery, February 2017. Appendix A in DTMR (2017) Beechmont Road Upgrade South East Queensland (EPBC 2010/5673) Annual Compliance Report No.5.

Bush Nuts (2018) Beechmont Road Macadamia integrifolia Translocation Site: Monitoring and Evaluation Progress Report 2017-2018. Bush Nuts Native Nursery, February 2018.

DTMR (2013) Beechmont Road Upgrade South East Queensland (EPBC 2010/5673) Annual Compliance Report No.1. Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads.

Elmouttie, D. and Wilson, J. (2005) The potential importance of nut removal by rodents from Australian macadamia orchards. Journal of Environmental Management 77 (2005) 79–83

Eriksson, O., & Ehrlén, J. (2008). Seedling recruitment and population ecology. In M. Leck, V. Parker, & R. Simpson (Eds.), Seedling Ecology and Evolution (pp. 239-254). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815133.013

Hardner, C., Nock, C., Batley, J., Termizi, A.A.A., Peace, C., Hayashi, S., Montenegro, D. and Edwards, D. (2016) Backyard macadamias in Brisbane as a reservoir of genetic diversity for

Macadamia Offset Review, Lower Beechmont (September 2018)

breeding. Poster presented at: TropAg2015 “Meeting the Productivity Challenge in the Tropics”, 16-18 November 2015, Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre.

Heard, T.A. and Hendrikz, J.K. (1993) Factors influencing flight activity of colonies of thestingless bee Trigona carbonaria (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Aust. J. Zool. 41,343–353, http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/zo9930343.

Horskins, K., White, J. and Wilson, J. (1998) Habitat usage of Rattus rattus in Australian macadamia orchards systems: implications for management.

MMI, Macadamia Marketing International (2018) Crop Protection 17, 359–364. () Macadamia Farming in Australia. Available from http://www.macadamiamarketing.com/industry- information/growing-macadamias-in-australia [Accessed 08 August 2018]

Neal, J. M. (2007) The impact of habitat fragmentation on wild Macadamia integrifolia Maiden and Betche (Proteaceae) population viability [dissertation]. University of New England, Armidale (in press).

Neal, J.M., Hardner, C.M. and Gross, C.L. (2010) Population demography and fecundity do not decline with habitat fragmentation in the rainforest tree Macadamia integrifolia (Proteaceae). Biological Conservation 143 (2010) 2591–2600.

O’Hare, P., Quinlan, K., Stephenson, R. and Vock, N. (2004) Macadamia grower’s handbook. Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries.

Reynolds, B.T. (2011) Beechmont Road Macadamia integrifolia and Cupaniopsis newmanii Translocation and Ecosystem Rehabilitation Plan v3. Project No. 230/2020/1. Report by Greening Australia to Department of Transport and Main Roads.

Macadamia Offset Review, Lower Beechmont (September 2018)

Appendix 1 Instrument of Decision, Beechmont Road Upgrade, south-east Queensland (EPBC 2010/5673) – Conditions attached to the approval

Macadamia Offset Review, Lower Beechmont (September 2018)

September 2018

Appendix 2 Reviewed DTMR reports DTMR’s compliance reports and the Translocation Plan were accessed from the DTMR website, as identified below.

September 2018

Appendix 3 Data supplied by Bush Nuts, June 2018

September 2018

Appendix 4 Macadamia data collection sheet The first page of the data collection sheet developed by HLW for use in June 2018 survey is shown below. The first two columns, Plant Name and Height Jan-18, were pre-populated from data provided by Bush Nuts. Data for other columns was collected according to the method described in Section 2.3.1.

September 2018

Appendix 5 Planted macadamia height measurements The table below provides details of all measured planted macadamia at the Beechmont Road Translocation Site. Measurement data for all plants was not collected each survey period and the June 2018 survey, in particular, aimed only to assess 80% of plants surviving at January 2018. All plants are thought to be M. integrifolia except MS 50(1) which is M. tetraphylla. Plants coded “DEF” were plants found by HLW in June with no tag and which could not be matched to previously measured trees. Plant Code Height (mm) Jun-13 Feb/Mar-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jun -18 ? No Data 1250 2500 3450 3700 Gecko No Data 1100 1300 1600 2300 2500 unknown# MS 10 220 Not Found MS 50 (1) 170 450 750 1350 2200 2400 MS 52 (1) 210 250 400 550 1200 1500 MT 8 (1) 300 800 1300 1800 2800 3100 MT 9(1) 170 900 1150 1300 1800 MT 9(2) 200 800 1150 1500 2300 2500 MT 9(3) 230 1000 1400 2800 3000 MTS 1 (1) 210 850 1300 2150 2700 3000 MTS 23 (1) 220 400 500 1000 1450 1600 MRMT 1(1) 340 1550 1950 2600 3000 3100 MRMT 2(1) 360 600 1000 1200 1400 1300 MRMT 2(2) 500 800 850 1000 1250 170 MRMT 2(3) 600 Dead MRMT 2(4) 460 700 700 700 700 700 MRMT 2(5) 500 900 1250 1400 1750 2000 MRMT 2(6) 250 650 Dead 600 750 MRMT 3(1) 470 1100 1150 1700 1900 MRMT 3 620 Not Found photo 2200 MRMT 3(3) 600 850 1800 1950 2800 3100 MRMT 3(4) 660 1350 1550 2150 2800 3300 MRMT 3(5) 2300 3400 3800 4800 5400 MRMT 3(6) 400 1900 2600 3900 4800 5300 MRMT 3(7) 180 1000 1400 1800 2150 2100 MRMT 4(1) 500 1350 1600 2150 2650 2800 MRMT 4(2) 590 1000 1200 1700 2200 2450 MRMT 4(3) 700 Dead MRMT 4(4) 570 1350 2800 3750 4400 MRMT 4(5) 630 Not Found MRMT 4(6) 550 1800 1800 1800 2150 2400 MRMT 4(7) 180 1700 2050 2650 3800 3900 MRMT 4(7) 2nd No Data 400 Dead 400 plant MRMT 6(1) 520 1150 1900 2700 3500 3900 MRMT 6(2) 470 1000 1300 2050 2750 MRMT 6(3) 640 1250 1850 2850 3800 4100 MRMT 6(4) 490 700 1450 2950 4100 4500 MRMT 6(5) 660 950 1500 2200 3200 3400 MRMT 7(1) 440 1300 1950 2250 3700 3700 MRMT 7(1) No Data 1650 3000

September 2018

Plant Code Height (mm) Jun-13 Feb/Mar-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jun-18 MRMT 7(2) 550 1350 1950 2200 2500 2600 MRMT 7(3) 500 Not Found MRMT 7(4) 350 1500 2250 2800 4100 4300 MRMT 7(5) 550 1600 2100 2850 3400 3500 MRMT 7(6) Not Found MRMT 7(7) 310 750 2150 2750 3700 4100 MRMT 7(8) 430 1550 2200 3000 3800 4200 MRMT 7(9) 320 1400 1750 2000 3000 3200 MRMT 8 (5) 360 350 400 550 950 1100 MRMT 8(1) 340 Not Found MRMT 8(2) 620 950 1500 2000 2900 3500 MRMT 8(3) 280 Dead MRMT 8(4) 400 300 200 Dead MRMT 8(6) 340 Dead MRMT 8(7) 330 Dead MRMT 9(1) 430 1150 1800 2150 2600 MRMT 9(10) 720 1150 1600 2000 2800 3100 MRMT 9(11) 240 Dead MRMT 9(13) No Data 900 1100 1500 1600 MRMT 9(14) No Data 1250 1700 1900 2350 2800 MRMT 9 - next to 3000 2(1) MRMT 9(2) 500 Not Found MRMT 9(3) 620 1700 2100 2100 3200 3200 MRMT 9(4) 520 1500 2150 2800 3200 3400 MRMT 9(5) 940 1300 2100 2900 3800 4300 MRMT 9(6) 560 1400 1900 2700 3100 MRMT 9(7) 510 600 1150 1850 2400 2700 MRMT 9(7) 2 1500 MRMT 9(8) 340 Dead MRMT 9(9) 240 Not Found MRMT 12(1) 410 1700 1850 2500 3600 3700 MRMT 13(1) 500 1600 2400 3450 4400 4800 MRMT 15(1) 540 Not Found Not Found MRMT 15(2) 570 1450 1700 2600 3600 4000 MRMT 15(3) 440 1800 2250 2650 3000 3400 MRMT 15(4) 540 1200 1600 1800 2900 3200 MRMT 15(5) 550 400 2200 3000 3500 3600 MRMT 15(6) 410 750 1000 1300 2100 2400 MRMT 15(7) 300 900 1600 2500 3500 3400 MRMT 15(8) 560 1200 2350 2850 3100 3100 MRMT 18(1) 450 1600 1950 3050 3600 3100 MRMT 18(2) 480 1100 1500 2050 2700 MRMT 18(3) 540 1400 2200 2800 3400 3800 MRMT 18(4) 600 1500 1500 1700 2550 2600 MRMT 18(5) 1000 1000 1400 2200 2500 MRMT 18(6) 320 Dead 3900 MRMT 19(1) 360 1000 1200 1450 2100 2100 MRMT 19(2) 360 1000 1200 1600 2100 2100 MRMT 19(3) 330 Not Found

September 2018

Plant Code Height (mm) Jun-13 Feb/Mar-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jun -18 MRMT 19(4) 440 800 1250 1600 2650 MRMT 19(5) 300 Dead MRMT 20(1) 510 1300 1950 2600 2900 3000 MRMT 20(2) 470 1100 1600 2000 2650 2800 MRMT 20(3) 370 Dead MRMT 20(4) 380 800 1250 1400 1700 1750 MRMT 20(5) 410 550 600 1100 1400 1300 MRMT 21(1) 500 1400 1650 1800 2300 2500 MRMT 21(2) 430 1250 1700 2200 2800 2900 MRMT 21(3) 640 1350 1700 2100 3000 3300 MRMT 21(4) 530 900 1100 1500 2200 2400 MRMT 21(5) 450 1100 1400 1800 2100 2500 MRMT 21(6) 480 Dead MRMT 22(1) 560 1300 1800 2600 3500 3500 MRMT 22(10) 1600 2150 2850 3300 3400 MRMT 22(10) 2 410 1600 2200 2700 3300 3300 MRMT 22(11) 390 350 550 1150 1800 2000 MRMT 22(12) 280 Dead MRMT 22(13) 280 950 1450 1550 2000 2000 MRMT 22(2) 310 1200 1750 1950 2450 MRMT 22(3) 670 1450 2150 2450 3100 3700 MRMT 22(4) 540 1800 2750 3300 4400 4400 MRMT 22(5) 720 1400 2050 2600 2950 3100 MRMT 22(6) 630 1200 1850 2300 3800 3600 MRMT 22(7) 720 1400 2300 3400 3800 4300 MRMT 22(8) 1800 2150 1350 2700 2750 MRMT 22(9) 540 1300 1550 2150 2700 3000 MRMT 23(1) 300 800 1250 1800 2700 MRMT 23(2) No Data 900 1400 2000 2550 2700 MRMT 24(1) 520 1100 1650 1900 2100 2300 DEF3 3200 DEF4 4700 DEF5 900

Count 105 94 92 93 92 87 Sum 47150 106450 149350 198450 256000 257420 Average 449.05 1132.45 1623.37 2133.87 2782.61 2958.85 Min 170 250 200 550 700 170 Max 940 2300 3400 3900 4800 5400

September 2018

Appendix 6 Planted macadamia other details (June 2018) The table below provides other details recorded for planted macadamia in June 2018 at the Beechmont Road Translocation Site. This survey aimed only to assess 80% of plants surviving at January 2018, and only details for the surveyed plants are included. All plants are M. integrifolia except MS 50(1) which is M. tetraphylla. Plants coded “DEF” were plants found with no tag and which could not be matched to previously measured trees. DBH Leaf Plant Code Health Flowers Fruit Comments, e.g., seedlings (mm) sample Gecko 9 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction Yes unknown# M. tetraphylla; No evidence of MS 50 (1) 14 Healthy - - reproduction; new growth; photos x 2 MS 52 (1) <5 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MT 8 (1) 17 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction No evidence of reproduction; MT 9(2) 12 Healthy - - new growth No evidence of reproduction; MTS 1 (1) 17 Healthy - - new growth No evidence of reproduction; MTS 23 (1) <5 Healthy - - Yes new growth MRMT 1(1) 17 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 2(1) <5 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 2(2) 6 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 2(4) <5 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction Yes MRMT 2(5) 6 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 3 9 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 3(3) 23 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 3(4) 17 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 3(5) 40 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction Yes MRMT 3(6) 33 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 3(7) 11 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 4(1) 15 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 4(2) 10 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 4(6) 13 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 4(7) 28 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 4(7) <5 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction 2nd plant MRMT 6(1) 37 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 6(3) 29 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 6(4) 32 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction Yes MRMT 6(5) 23 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 7(1) 19 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 7(2) 15 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 7(4) 30 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 7(5) 20 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 7(7) 28 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 7(8) 32 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 7(9) 17 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 8 (5) <5 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 8(2) 21 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction

September 2018

DBH Leaf Plant Code Health Flowers Fruit Comments, e.g., seedlings (mm) sample MRMT 9(10) 15 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 9(14) 16 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 9 - 15 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction next to 2(1) MRMT 9(3) 19 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 9(4) 24 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 9(5) 30 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 9(6) 13 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 9(7) 11 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 9(7) 2 <5 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 12(1) 25 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 13(1) 34 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 15(2) 28 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction No evidence of reproduction; MRMT 15(3) 23 Healthy - - some leaf-miner damage MRMT 15(4) 21 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 15(5) 35 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 15(6) 9 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 15(7) 22 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 15(8) 20 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 18(1) 17 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 18(3) 27 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 18(4) 16 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 18(5) 11 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 18(6) 18 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 19(1) 9 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 19(2) 10 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction 6 racemes in different stages; MRMT 20(1) 26 Healthy Yes - canopy more open on west Yes side No evidence of reproduction; MRMT 20(2) 20 Healthy - - Yes new growth MRMT 20(4) <5 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 20(5) <5 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 21(1) 14 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 21(2) 18 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 21(3) 19 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 21(4) 10 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 21(5) 9 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 22(1) 20 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 26 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction 22(10) MRMT No evidence of reproduction; 28 Healthy - - 22(10) 2 near turnaround 22(10) MRMT 7 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction 22(11) MRMT 10 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction 22(13) No evidence of reproduction; MRMT 22(3) 21 Healthy - - new growth MRMT 22(4) 39 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 22(5) 25 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction

September 2018

DBH Leaf Plant Code Health Flowers Fruit Comments, e.g., seedlings (mm) sample No evidence of reproduction; MRMT 22(6) 25 Healthy - - Yes new growth MRMT 22(7) 31 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 22(8) 13 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 22(9) 13 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 23(2) 17 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction MRMT 24(1) 10 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction DEF3 <5 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction DEF4 27 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction DEF5 17 Healthy - - No evidence of reproduction Yes

Count 87 87 1 0 9 Sum 1513 Average 17.39 Min 6 Max 40

September 2018

Appendix 7 Leaf samples collected from DTMR Offset, Beechmont Road, Lower Beechmont

Date Tree Species Latitude Longitude Location Altitude Leaf Tree Description Precision (m) Collector (m) Details 13/06/2018 MRMT2(4) M. integrifolia -28.05652 153.241530 5 370 Liz Gould Small tree grown from cutting from cleared wild trees; age 0400748162 5yrs; height 0.7m; dbh <5mm 13/06/2018 MRMT6(4) M. integrifolia -28.0561 153.24112 5 370 Liz Gould Small tree grown from cutting from cleared wild trees; age 0400748162 5yrs; height 4.5m; dbh 32mm 13/06/2018 MRMT22(6) M. integrifolia -28.05626 153.24104 5 370 Liz Gould Small tree grown from cutting from cleared wild trees; age 0400748162 5yrs; height 3.6m; dbh 25mm 13/06/2018 MTS23(1) M. integrifolia -28.05644 153.24101 5 370 Liz Gould Small tree grown from seed from cleared wild trees; age 0400748162 5yrs; height 1.6m; dbh <5mm 13/06/2018 MRMT3(5) M. integrifolia -28.05751 153.24109 5 370 Liz Gould Small tree grown from cutting from cleared wild trees; age 0400748162 5yrs; height 5.4m; dbh 40mm 13/06/2018 Gecko M. integrifolia -28.05704 153.24135 5 370 Liz Gould Small tree grown from seed or cutting from cleared wild 0400748162 trees; age 5yrs; height 2.5m; dbh 9mm 13/06/2018 MRMT20(2) M. integrifolia -28.05738 153.24097 5 370 Liz Gould Small tree grown from cutting from cleared wild trees; age 0400748162 5yrs; height 2.8m; dbh 20mm 13/06/2018 MRMT20(1) M. integrifolia -28.05668 153.24130 5 370 Liz Gould Small tree grown from cutting from cleared wild trees; age 0400748162 5yrs; height 3.0m; dbh 26mm; 4 racemes in different stages 13/06/2018 DEF1 ?integ/tetra -28.05861 153.240006 5 359.74 Liz Gould Mature tree ~12m; leaves in whorls 3 and 4; ?hybrid; dbh hybrid 0400748162 16cm 20/06/2018 DEF2 M. integrifolia -28.05609 153.24152 5 370 Liz Gould Mature tree on west side of track near turnaround; 0400748162 flowering 20/06/2018 DEF3 M. integrifolia -28.05580 153.240983 5 387.29 Liz Gould Small tree grown from seed or cutting from cleared wild 0400748162 trees; age 5yrs; height 3.2m; dbh 17mm