Monitoring of Acacia Pendula in the Weeping Myall Management Areas, Bulga Coal, Singleton LGA: 2018 Results

2018

Monitoring of Acacia pendula in the

Weeping Myall Management Areas, Bulga Coal, Singleton LGA: 2018 Results

31 October 2018 Report to Bulga Surface Operations, Glencore

Stephen A.J. Bell

Eastcoast Flora Survey PO Box 216 Kotara Fair NSW 2289

Report produced by:

Stephen A.J. Bell Eastcoast Flora Survey Telephone (02) 4953 6523 PO Box 216 Kotara Fair NSW 2289 Australia Email: [email protected]

This document should be cited as:

Bell, S.A.J. (2018) Monitoring of Acacia pendula in the Weeping Myall Management Areas, Bulga Coal, Singleton LGA: 2018 Results. Unpublished Report to Bulga Surface Operations (Glencore). October 2018. Eastcoast Flora Survey.

This report is copyright. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced, copied, transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical or graphic) without the prior written permission of the author.

Cover image: Aerial view of Weeping Myall Management Area # 2, August 2018.

Report produced for:

Bulga Coal Surface Operations Bulga Joint Venture Broke Road Singleton NSW 2333

Project Manager: Tom Scott (Environment & Community Advisor)

Summary

Monitoring of Weeping Myall within the two WMMAs during 2018 has revealed few changes to either Acacia pendula individuals or the landscapes in which they occur. Extensive coppice growth from root suckers is continuing to occur in both MAs, but there remains no evidence of successful flowering, fruiting or new recruitment. Monitoring of the rare flowering event in the first half of 2018 showed how multiple stressors (invertebrates, mistletoes, drought) appear to be acting on the population of Acacia pendula within WMMA # 2, such that maintenance of individuals relies solely on the production of ramets (reported elsewhere).

Overall, floristic diversity and abundance within the two monitoring plots showed an increase of both native and weed species in 2018 when compared to previous years. Changes in diversity and abundance are a normal feature of grassy woodland environments, as variability in the timing and amount of rainfall influences species presence. The prolonged dry conditions experienced in the Hunter Valley over the past two years are clearly reflected in the number of species present within the MAs. Rainfall data from the nearby township of Bulga shows the limited amount of rain received throughout most of 2018 to date, with only the month of October receiving above average falls, and with a similar situation occurring during 2017.

With the 2018 monitoring program, a new experiment has been established and baseline data tabulated from twelve plots (6 treatment, 6 control) within WMMA # 1. These plots aim to quantify how emerging and expanding thickets of Acacia pendula ramets may be impacting upon co-occurring species within grassland and woodland environments, and will be monitored on an annual basis.

Future monitoring of the WMMAs should continue to address the general health of Weeping Myall plants, together with annual re-surveying the floristic composition of the two monitoring plots. In addition, the following recommendations are made:

 annual monitoring in Spring of newly installed growth experiment plots, to record floristic composition, and density and size of Acacia pendula ramets.  continue to informally monitor for flowering on individual Acacia pendula trees, in the event that a second flowering event occurs over the next twelve months.

Table of Contents

Summary ...... ii 1. Background...... 1 2. Study Area ...... 2 3. Methods ...... 2 3.1 Population Counts & Health Assessments ...... 2 3.2 Floristic Associations...... 2 3.3 Monitoring of Developing Acacia Thickets ...... 3 4. Results ...... 5 4.1 Population Assessment...... 5 4.2 Health Assessment ...... 5 4.3 Floristic Associations...... 7 4.4 Monitoring of Acacia Thickets ...... 9 4.4.1 Density and Size of Acacia Stems ...... 9 4.4.2 Extent of Bare Ground ...... 10 4.4.3 Floristic Composition ...... 10 5. Discussion ...... 11 6. Recommendations...... 12 7. References ...... 13 8. Appendices ...... 14 8.1 Floristic Plot Species List: 2015 to 2018 ...... 14 8.2 Floristic Plot Photographs: 2015 and 2018 ...... 18 8.3 Growth Plot Photographs: Baseline ...... 26

iii

1. Background

Under current legislation, Weeping Myall (Acacia pendula) is listed as an Endangered Population within the Hunter Valley under the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act). It is also considered a significant component of the Critically Endangered Hunter Valley Weeping Myall Woodland, listed as such on both the BC Act and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Recent conjecture on the origin of Weeping Myall plants in the Hunter, and consequently the legitimacy of Hunter Valley Weeping Myall Woodland as a threatened community, has questioned the importance of conserving these plants (Bell & Driscoll 2014, 2016; Tozer & Chalmers 2015, 2016). Despite this, the NSW Scientific Committee (2016) has resolved to retain the current listings for both the endangered population and community, and consequently the continued monitoring of the Weeping Myall Management Area reported here remains appropriate.

As part of previous development approvals, Bulga Surface Operations (Bulga Coal) set aside land to protect both the species (Weeping Myall) and the community (Hunter Valley Weeping Myall Woodland) within two Weeping Myall Management Areas (WMMAs). Neither of these land parcels form part of any formal biodiversity offset, but both have had fencing installed around them to exclude stock grazing. A management plan has been prepared for this land (Bulga Coal undated), within which the monitoring objectives for Weeping Myall are outlined:

 provide an updated count of Weeping Myall within each Management Area;  provide information regarding the health of individuals and the population;  establish permanent photo point monitoring;  collect floristic data to identify if native species (other than Weeping Myall) are also responding to management activities;  provide information regarding any weed or pest species that require management (and recommendations on suitable management actions); and  provide any other maintenance requirements.

Umwelt (2013) presented background data and reporting on the WMMAs, stating that the northern stand (WMMA # 1) supported relatively young trees, but that the southern stand (WMMA # 2) comprised very mature trees with no young plants. They reported that WMMA # 1 comprised between 1500 and 1800 juvenile trees and two dead mature trees, while WMMA # 2 contained twelve mature trees. Bell (2016) undertook the first annual monitoring event after establishment of the WMMAs, and documented that the earlier estimates of nearly 2000 individuals were a gross over- representation. That assessment was shown to actually be a count of ramets (‘branches’) rather than gamets (genetic individuals). A more accurate figure of around 46 individuals was subsequently provided for both WMMAs combined by Bell (2016). Increases in the number of ramets as a result of stock exclusion were noted at this time, but this did not represent an increase in individuals. It was also suggested that subsequent assessments of the WMMAs disband the requirement to provide annual counts of Acacia pendula, as these populations are effectively sterile and do not successfully sexually reproduce despite occasional flowering events. In its place, more general assessments of health and threats were recommended.

In response to a recommendation stemming from the 2017 monitoring report, a detailed assessment of an observed flowering event of Acacia pendula within WMMA # 2 was undertaken during the first six months of 2018 (Bell 2018). That study found that despite copious and ongoing flowering in most of the Acacia pendula trees, none were observed to progress to fruiting due particularly to predation by galling thrips and midges, and that persistence in the area appears to rely entirely on asexual reproduction through the production of ramets. A scientific paper outlining the results of this work is awaiting publication (Bell in press).

This current report documents the results of the fourth consecutive monitoring event conducted in the WMMAs during October 2018. In addition to the annual survey of native and weed species within each WMMA, a new experiment has also been established to track and monitor the growth of developing thickets of Acacia pendula over time.

2. Study Area

The two Weeping Myall Management Areas are located on the western side of Charlton Road, approximately 9 km north-east of Broke in the Hunter Valley (Figure 1). Collectively, the two MAs protect 6.8 ha of Weeping Myall (3 ha in WMMA # 1, 3.8 ha in WMMA # 2).

3. Methods

The WMMAs were inspected in October 2018, during which threat and health assessments were undertaken, together with re-surveying of floristic monitoring plots and the installation of new growth monitoring plots (see Section 3.3).

3.1 Population Counts & Health Assessments Within both WMMAs, general reconnaissance was undertaken to assess health of and threats to Acacia pendula, but also to ascertain whether there was an apparent increase in the number of ramets relative to the original 2015 assessment. This assessment was subjective in nature, and included the viewing of photographs of selected locations to compare results. Health assessments of individual plants was restricted to general observations of vigour and inspection for invertebrate pest species or overly-abundant mistletoe growth. As in recent years, no quantitative data on stem height or girth was collected due to the large number of ramets present.

3.2 Floristic Associations Re-sampling of the two 0.04 ha floristic sampling plots initially established in 2015 was undertaken in October 2018 (see Figure 2 for locations). In WMMA # 1, this plot was located within open forest/woodland of Grey Box (Eucalyptus moluccana), while in WMMA # 2 it was within Derived Native Grassland. In each plot, all vascular plant species (native and weed) were recorded and applied a cover abundance code using modified Braun-Blanquet scores (1-6 scale: 1 = few individuals, <5% cover; 2 = many individuals, <5% cover; 3 = 5-25% cover; 4 = 26-50% cover; 5 = 51-75% cover; 6 = 76-100% cover). Plant nomenclature followed those accepted by the National Herbarium of NSW (http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au). Structural data were also collected at each sample plot, including estimated height range, percentage cover and dominant species present for each observable stratum.

Figure 1 Location of Weeping Myall Management Area # 1 (WMMA # 1) and Weeping Myall Management Area # 2 (WMMA # 2).

Digital photographs were taken from each corner of both plots, and compared with those taken in earlier years. Numerical analysis of floristic data was undertaken using Primer (Clarke & Gorley 2006), to track any changes that may have occurred between the 2015 and 2018 census periods. Univariate statistics were carried out on the number of native and weed species present within each plot. Opportunistic observations on other weed species elsewhere within the MAs were also undertaken during field inspections.

3.3 Monitoring of Developing Acacia Thickets As recommended in the 2017 monitoring report, a new monitoring experiment was established within developing stands of Acacia pendula to assess the impact that these thickets may be having on other native species occurring within and around them. The experimental design adopts a treatment-control

3 approach so that over time changes in the floristic composition of co-occurring species can be compared to areas where no Acacia pendula occurs (Table 1). Twelve survey plots (6 treatment, 6 control), each of 5 x 5m, were installed as pairs in WMMA # 1 within three habitat-based strata where regrowth Acacia pendula has been observed (Figure 2). Species diversity, estimated cover and extent of bare ground were recorded for each plot. In addition, a count of all stems within each plot supporting Acacia pendula was made, to track the growth and density in these ramets over time. Measures of the smallest and largest diameter stems (recorded as circumference and later converted, taken 10cm above ground level) and the height of the tallest stem within each plot were also recorded.

Table 1 Experimental design of Acacia pendula growth monitoring plots. Habitat with Acacia pendula without Acacia pendula Total Plots Grassland GL01PEN, GL02PEN GL01CON, GL02CON 4 Grassy Woodland GW01PEN, GW02PEN GW01CON, GW02CON 4 Bare Woodland BW01PEN, BW02PEN BW01CON, BW02CON 4 Total 6 6 12

Figure 2 Locations of Acacia pendula floristic (large squares) and growth (small squares) monitoring plots within Weeping Myall Management Area # 1 (WMMA # 1, left) and Weeping Myall Management Area # 2 (WMMA # 2, right).

4. Results 4.1 Population Assessment As in previous years, Weeping Myall within the two management areas continues to produce numerous new ramets within grassland and woodland areas, a response to the removal of stock grazing pressures following fencing. This process has been repeating across many other stands of Myall in the Hunter Valley and is not unexpected. Weeping Myall in the Hunter is predominantly sexually inactive, and only spreads asexually via these root suckers; there is no evidence of successful flowering progressing to fruiting of Weeping Myall in the Hunter Valley, with the exception of planted horticultural specimens (see Bell & Driscoll 2014). The flowering study completed within WMMA # 2 in 2018 lends further support to this contention (Bell in press). Over time, ramets merge across the landscape, ensuring that the determination of where each individual plant starts and finishes is impossible without extensive destructive sampling. Attempts to count the number of stems and to categorise the age structure of each MA have therefore again not been attempted in 2018.

4.2 Health Assessment Observations on the general health of Weeping Myall within the two MAs revealed that both stands continue to produce numerous, vigorous ramets. All stems of Acacia pendula appeared healthy at the time of field inspections, with the exception of older specimens in WMMA # 2 that are continually affected by leaf and bud galls. Flowering occurred for the first time during the monitoring program in 2018, and a separate study was completed on the fate of this rare event (Bell 2018). No evidence of any previous fruiting has been noted on any of the trees examined in the four years of monitoring within the MAs.

Few invertebrate pests were directly observed on Weeping Myall during surveys, however most of the older individuals support numerous galls on flowering branches and phyllodes (leaves). These are caused primarily by native flower- and phyllode-galling midges and thrips (Asphondylia sp., Dasineura glomerata, Kladothrips rugosus), and fungal galls (Uromycladium sp.) (Bell in press). On two plants, evidence of caterpillars (Ochrogaster lunifer) were also observed (Figure 3), although at present their impact is very minor.

Several individual Weeping Myall trees in WMMA # 2, continue to support canopies heavily laden with mistletoe (Amyema quandang var. quandang) which, over time, are likely to cause branch mortality (Figure 4). An assessment of the impact of mistletoe on flowering progress has shown no observable impact to date (Bell 2018), and it is suggested that ongoing passive monitoring of mistletoe be undertaken in future years.

No evidence of feral pigs, first detected in 2016, was observed during the October 2018 assessment, so no further monitoring of this potential management issue is required at this stage.

Figure 3 Bag shelter produced by larvae of Ochrogaster lunifer in the branches of Acacia pendula.

Figure 4 Mistletoe (Amyema quandang) infestation on Weeping Myall in WMMA # 2, potentially causing early senescence.

4.3 Floristic Associations The two floristic survey plots established in WMMA # 1 and WMMA # 2 and re-surveyed in October 2018 recorded (in total) 71 species (Appendix 8.1). This represents a slight decrease in floristic diversity when compared to the 80 species (51 native, 29 weeds) recorded in 2015 and the 87 species (55 native, 32 weeds) recorded in 2016, but an increase on the 53 species (41 native, 12 weeds) recorded in the drought year of 2017. This trend is reflected in the individual totals displayed in Figure 5 for all species diversity from 2015 to 2018. Much of the decrease in native and weed diversity in recent years can be explained by the prolonged drought experienced in the Hunter Valley during 2017 and 2018 (see Section 5). All weeds recorded are typical of former grazing lands in the Hunter Valley, with African Olive (Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata) the only woody species observed (a few plants present in WMMA # 1).

Figure 5 Change in species diversity (natives & weeds) within monitoring plots in WMMA # 1 and WMMA # 2, surveyed between 2015 and 2018.

A comparison of the floristic composition of both monitoring plots over the four monitoring years completed to date, surveyed in the Spring/Summer of each year, showed a larger reduction in weed diversity during dry periods relative to native species (Figure 6). The decreasing trend in natives within WMMA # 1 observed in 2016 continued into 2017, but showed an increase in 2018. Similarly, there was a decrease in natives and weeds for WMMA # 2 between 2015 and 2017, but with 2018 data an increase is now occurring. Variations such as these are within expected seasonal fluctuations from year to year, and are not indicative of significant changes to the vegetation.

Numerical analysis of both monitoring plots over the four monitoring years from 2015 to 2018 showed a significant difference in floristic composition between the two management areas, and also between early (2015-2016) and recent (2017-2018) years for WMMA # 2 (Figure 7). This latter split is likely a direct reflection of the poor rainfall received during the current drought, which becomes most evident in open grassland areas such as WMMA # 2 where solar radiation at the ground surface is particularly high. No significant differences in floristic composition between years were evident for WMMA # 1, and the shading effect of the Eucalyptus moluccana canopy in this MA may help to explain this.

Site photographs of the two floristic plots from surveys undertaken in October 2018 are shown in Appendix 8.2, and compared against baseline images from 2015.

Figure 6 Comparison of weed and native species within monitoring plots in WMMA # 1 and WMMA # 2, surveyed between 2015 and 2018.

Figure 7 Site dendrogram produced from numerical analysis of floristic data, showing delineation into three significant groups (p<0.01); firstly for site (WMMA # 1 & WMMA # 2, at 46% similarity), and then into two groups based on years within WMMA # 2 (56% similarity for 2015-2016 and 2017-2018 data). Significant splits shown by solid lines.

4.4 Monitoring of Acacia Thickets 4.4.1 Density and Size of Acacia Stems The total number of Acacia stems present within newly established growth monitoring plots ranged from 5 to 101 (median = 61, mean = 56, st dev. = 33.5) (Figure 8). Open grassland areas supported the lowest number of stems, indicative of the early colonizing phase of Acacia across these habitats. No Acacia stems were present in the six control plots.

Figure 8 Density of Acacia pendula stems within growth monitoring plots, October 2018.

Measures of the smallest and largest stems present in each monitoring plot ranged from 0.3 cm to 3.5 cm diameter (Figure 9). Almost all plots supported very young stems only millimeters in size, suggestive of ongoing and continual emergence of stems in these areas. The tallest Acacia stems within each plot ranged from 1.2 to 1.6 m in height, indicative of an even aged cohort of ramets.

Figure 9 Smallest and largest Acacia pendula stems within growth monitoring plots, October 2018.

4.4.2 Extent of Bare Ground Not surprisingly, the extent of bare ground was greatest in those plots positioned within poorly vegetated areas (Figure 10). Relatively minor bare patches were present in most other plots, and one on the Grassland treatment-control pairs was significantly barer than the other. Bare areas present within plots are a reflection of dry conditions (and consequent lack of grass growth) and the history of previous land management. Resting macropods can also contribute to the extent of bare ground, particularly in woodland areas.

Figure 10 Extent of bare ground within Acacia pendula growth monitoring plots, October 2018.

4.4.3 Floristic Composition A total of 71 taxa (57 native, 14 weed) were recorded within Acacia growth monitoring plots. Appendix 8.3 shows photographs of each plot in October 2018.

Presence-absence analysis of baseline floristic data from monitoring plots revealed three significant clusters (p<0.01) more-or-less reflecting the three experimental strata under investigation (Figure 11). Beyond these three splits, there were no further significant differences in species composition between treatment and control groups within each stratum (despite the presence of Acacia pendula in treatment plots), suggestive of a sound baseline dataset and experimental design. One of the Bare Woodland control plots (BW02CON) was floristically more similar to a Grassy Woodland control plot, and hence aligned itself within the Grassy Woodland stratum, and future monitoring will determine how this plot progresses.

As Acacia pendula growth continues in coming years within the six treatment plots, it is expected that floristic composition of native and weed species across all three experimental strata will diminish due to shading, competition for resources, macropod activity or allelopathy, or a combination of all four. At this stage, there are no plans to distinguish between these various potential stressors.

Figure 11 Non-metric MDS produced from numerical analysis of floristic data, showing spatial arrangement of experimental stratum into three significant groups (p<0.01, 49% similarity, shown by solid ellipses around plots).

5. Discussion

Overall, floristic diversity and abundance within the two monitoring plots showed an increase of both native and weed species in 2018 when compared to previous years. Changes in diversity and abundance are a normal feature of grassy woodland environments, as variability in the timing and amount of rainfall influences species presence. The prolonged dry conditions experienced in the Hunter Valley over the past two years are clearly reflected in the number of species present within the MAs. Figure 12 summarises the rainfall received at nearby Bulga (~5 km to the north-west) since 2015, and this data shows the paucity of rain received throughout most of 2018 to date, with only the month of October receiving above average falls. A similar situation occurred during 2017.

Figure 12 Mean and monthly rainfall received at Bulga (Station Number 61143), 2015-2018. Source: Bureau of Meteorology 2018.

From a management perspective, there are few issues requiring attention within the Weeping Myall Management Areas. Both MAs still support a range of weed species but these are predominantly grassy and herbaceous in nature, and are typical of former grazing lands in this part of the Hunter Valley. However, some minor recommendations are made in Section 6 for future monitoring events.

6. Recommendations

7. References

Bell, S.A.J. (2018) Monitoring of Acacia pendula flowering in the Weeping Myall Management Area, Singleton LGA. Unpublished Report to Bulga Surface Operations (Glencore). August 2018. Eastcoast Flora Survey.

Bell, S.A.J. (in press) Fate of a rare flowering event in an endangered population of Acacia pendula (Weeping Myall) from the Hunter Valley of New South Wales. Cunninghamia in press

Bell, S. & Driscoll, C. (2014) Acacia pendula (Weeping Myall) in the Hunter Valley of New South Wales: early explorers’ journals, database records and habitat assessments raise doubts over naturally occurring populations. Cunninghamia 14: 179–200.

Bell, S. & Driscoll, C. (2016) Hunter Valley Weeping Myall Woodland - is it really definable and defendable with and without Weeping Myall (Acacia pendula)? Cunninghamia 16: 15-30.

Bulga Coal (undated) Weeping Myall Biodiversity Offset Management Plan. Bulga Open Cut, Glencore. Document No. BUL SD PLN 0061. Draft.

Clarke, K.R. & Gorley, R.N. (2006) PRIMER v6: User Manual/ Tutorial. PRIMER-E: Plymouth.

NSW Scientific Committee (2016) Final Determination to list Hunter Valley Weeping Myall Woodland of the Sydney Basin Bioregion as a critically endangered ecological community. NSW Scientific Committee.

Tozer, M., & Chalmers, A. (2015) Should Hunter Valley Weeping Myall Woodland in the Sydney Basin Bioregion be listed as a Threatened Ecological Community? Cunninghamia 15: 201-204.

Tozer, M. & Chalmers, A. (2016) Hunter Valley Weeping Myall Woodland in the Sydney Basin Bioregion should remain listed as a Threatened Ecological Community until strong evidence emerges in support of delisting. Cunninghamia 16: 31-34.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited (2013) Ecological Impact Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project. Prepared by Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited on behalf of Bulga Coal Management Pty Limited, April 2013.

8. Appendices 8.1 Floristic Plot Species List: 2015 to 2018

WMMA # 1 WMMA # 2 Species 2015 2016 2017 2018 2015 2016 2017 2018 Acacia pendula 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 Alternanthera sp. A 2 2 - 1 - - - - Amyema quandang var. quandang - - - - - 1 1 1 Aristida ramosa 3 - 2 2 4 3 3 3 Asperula conferta 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Atriplex semibaccata ------2 1 Austrostipa scabra subsp. falcata ------1 - Bidens pilosa * 2 - - - 1 - - - Boerhavia dominii 1 ------Bothriochloa decipiens var. decipiens 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 1 Brachyscome ciliaris var. subintegrifolia - - 1 - - - - - Brunoniella australis 2 2 1 2 - - - - Calocephalus citreus 2 2 1 1 - - - - Calotis cuneifolia - - - 1 - - - - Calotis lappulacea 2 1 2 2 - - 1 2 Carex inversa 2 2 - 2 2 2 1 2 Carthamus lanatus * - - - - 1 2 1 1 Centaurium tenuiflorum * - - - - 2 2 - - Chamaesyce drummondii 2 2 - 1 - - - 2 Cheilanthes distans - - - 2 - - - - Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi 1 2 2 1 - - - - Chloris truncata - 2 ------Chloris ventricosa 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 Chrysocephalum semipapposum 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cirsium vulgare * - - - - 2 2 1 1 Commelina cyanea ------1 2 Convolvulus erubescens 1 1 - - - - - 1 Conyza bonariensis * - - - - 2 2 - -

WMMA # 1 WMMA # 2 Species 2015 2016 2017 2018 2015 2016 2017 2018 Cyclospermum leptophyllum * - 2 - - 2 2 - 2 Cymbonotus lawsonianus - - - - - 1 - - Cymbopogon refractus 3 2 2 3 2 - - 1 Cynodon dactylon * 2 2 - 2 3 2 2 2 Daucus glochidiatus - - - - 2 2 - - Desmodium varians - - - 1 - - - - Dichanthium sericeum subsp. sericeum - - - - 3 3 - - Dichelachne micrantha - - - - 2 3 - - Dichondra repens 2 2 - 2 1 1 - - Digitaria diffusa 3 ------Einadia hastata - - - - - 1 - - Einadia nutans subsp. nutans 2 - 2 - - - - - Einadia polygonoides - 2 - 2 2 1 2 2 Enchylaena tomentosa - - - 2 - - - 2 Enteropogon acicularis - - - 2 2 2 - - Eragrostis brownii - - 2 2 - - - - Eragrostis leptostachya 2 2 1 2 2 2 - 1 Eremophila debilis 2 - 2 2 1 1 2 1 Eriochloa pseudoacrotricha - - - - 2 - - - Eucalyptus moluccana 3 3 3 3 - - - - Euchiton sphaericus - - - - 2 - - - Galenia pubescens * 1 - - 1 1 1 - - Gamochaeta americana * - - - - 2 2 - - Geranium solanderi var. solanderi ------1 Glossocardia bidens 2 2 1 2 - - - - Glycine clandestina 1 ------Glycine tabacina 2 1 - 1 - - 1 1 Gomphocarpus fruticosus * - 1 - - - 1 - - Gomphrena celosioides * - 1 - - 1 - - - Goodenia hederacea subsp. hederacea - 2 - - - - - 2 Goodenia ovata 1 ------Goodenia pinnatifida 2 - - - 2 - - - Hypochaeris microcephala var. albiflora * 2 - - - - 2 - -

WMMA # 1 WMMA # 2 Species 2015 2016 2017 2018 2015 2016 2017 2018 Hypochaeris radicata * 1 1 - - 2 - - - Lactuca serriola * - - - - 1 2 - - Lagenophora stipitata 1 2 ------Laxmannia gracilis - 1 - 2 - - - - Lepidium africanum * 2 2 - - 2 2 - - Lepidium bonariense * 1 1 - 2 - - - 1 Linum trigynum * - - - - 2 2 - - Lomandra confertifolia subsp. pallida - 2 1 - - 2 - - Lomandra filiformis subsp. filiformis - - 2 - - - 1 - Lomandra multiflora subsp. multiflora 1 1 1 1 - - - - Maireana enchylaenoides 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 Maireana microphylla 1 1 2 1 2 3 3 3 Medicago polymorpha * 1 ------Medicago spp.* ------2 Mentha satureioides - - - - 1 - - 2 Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides 2 - - 2 - 2 - 3 Minuria leptophylla 2 2 - 2 - - - - Modiola caroliniana * - - - - - 1 - 1 Myoporum montanum - - 1 1 - - 1 - Neptunia gracilis f. gracilis 2 2 2 - 2 1 2 2 Notodanthonia longifolia 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata * 1 1 1 2 - - - - Olearia elliptica subsp. elliptica - - 1 1 - - - - Opuntia stricta var. stricta * 1 1 1 1 - - - 1 Oxalis perennans 2 1 - 2 2 2 - 2 Panicum effusum 2 2 - 2 2 - 2 1 Panicum queenslandicum var. queenslandicum - - - - 2 2 - 2 Paspalum dilatatum * - - - - 3 1 - 1 Pennisetum clandestinum * - - - - - 2 2 - Petrorhagia dubia * - - - - - 2 - - Phyllanthus virgatus 2 - - 1 1 2 1 2 Plantago lanceolata * 2 2 1 2 3 3 3 3 Plantago myosuros subsp. myosuros * - - - - 2 2 2 -

WMMA # 1 WMMA # 2 Species 2015 2016 2017 2018 2015 2016 2017 2018 Portulaca oleracea - - 1 - - - - - Richardia stellaris * 1 2 ------Senecio madagascariensis * 2 2 1 1 2 2 - 1 Sida corrugata - 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 Sida rhombifolia * 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 Sida subspicata - - - - 2 2 2 1 Solanum nigrum * 1 1 ------Soliva sessilis * ------1 Sonchus asper subsp. glaucescens * - - - - 2 2 - 2 Sonchus oleraceus * - - - - - 1 - - Sporobolus creber 2 3 2 1 3 2 - 2 Stackhousia muricata - - - 1 - 2 - - Trifolium campestre * - - - - 2 - - - Verbena bonariensis * - - - - - 1 1 - Verbena rigida var. rigida * - - - - 1 1 2 1 Vittadinia sulcata 2 2 1 - - - - 1 Wahlenbergia communis - - - - - 2 - 1 Total 55 50 36 50 53 57 34 51

NB: Numbers are modified Braun-Blanquet scores (1-6 scale: 1 = few individuals, <5% cover; 2 = many individuals, <5% cover; 3 = 5-25% cover; 4 = 26-50% cover; 5 = 51-75% cover; 6 = 76-100% cover); * = weed species.

8.2 Floristic Plot Photographs: 2015 and 2018

WMMA # 1 Floristic Plot (looking NW) November 2015

WMMA # 1 Floristic Plot (looking NW) October 2018

WMMA # 1 Floristic Plot (looking NE) November 2015

WMMA # 1 Floristic Plot (looking NE) October 2018

WMMA # 1 Floristic Plot (looking SE) November 2015

WMMA # 1 Floristic Plot (looking SE) October 2018

WMMA # 1 Floristic Plot (looking SW) November 2015

WMMA # 1 Floristic Plot (looking SW) October 2018

WMMA # 2 Floristic Plot (looking NW) November 2015

WMMA # 2 Floristic Plot (looking NW) October 2018

WMMA # 2 Floristic Plot (looking NE) November 2015

WMMA # 2 Floristic Plot (looking NE) October 2018

WMMA # 2 Floristic Plot (looking SE) November 2015

WMMA # 2 Floristic Plot (looking SE) October 2018

WMMA # 2 Floristic Plot (looking SW) November 2015

WMMA # 2 Floristic Plot (looking SW) October 2018

8.3 Growth Plot Photographs: Baseline

GL01CON (Grassland 01, Control) October 2018

GL01PEN (Grassland 01, Acacia pendula) October 2018

GL02CON (Grassland 02, Control) October 2018

GL02PEN (Grassland 02, Acacia pendula) October 2018

GW01CON (Grassy Woodland 01, Control) October 2018

GW01PEN (Grassy Woodland 01, Acacia pendula) October 2018

GW02CON (Grassy Woodland 02, Control) October 2018

GW02PEN (Grassy Woodland 02, Acacia pendula) October 2018

BW01CON (Bare Woodland 01, Control) October 2018

BW01PEN (Bare Woodland 01, Acacia pendula) October 2018

BW02CON (Bare Woodland 02, Control) October 2018

BW02PEN (Bare Woodland 02, Acacia pendula) October 2018