APPLICATION FORM CONTAINMENT
Application for containment approval for new organisms under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996
Send by post to: Environmental Protection Authority, PO Box 131, Wellington 6140 OR email to: [email protected]
Application number
APP201153
Applicant
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research
Key contact
Dr Deborah Hofstra Mr Paul Champion
www.epa.govt.nz 2
Application for containment approval for new organisms
Important
This application form should be used if you intend to import, develop or field test any new organism (including genetically modified organisms (GMOs)) in containment. These terms are defined in the HSNO Act. The HSNO Act can be downloaded from: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1996/0030/latest/DLM381222.html. If your application is for a project approval of low-risk genetic modification, use application form EPA0062. The HSNO (Low Risk Genetic Modification) Regulations can be downloaded from: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2003/0152/latest/DLM195215.html. Applications to field test GMOs will be publicly notified. The other application types may or may not be publicly notified. This application form will be made publicly available so any confidential information must be collated in a separate labelled appendix. The fee for this application can be found on our website at www.epa.govt.nz. If you need help to complete this form, please look at our website (www.epa.govt.nz) or email us at [email protected]. This form was approved on 21 September 2011.
September 2011 EPA0061 3
Application for containment approval for new organisms
1. What type(s) of containment activities are you applying for?
Tick where appropriate: Application type Type of new organism
GM Import into containment X Non-GM
Develop in containment i.e. regeneration, fermentation or GM genetic modification Non-GM
GM Field test in containment Non-GM
2. Brief application description
Provide a short description (approximately 30 words) of what you are applying to do.
To hold 13 aquatic plant species in containment for scientific research purposes.
3. Summary of application
Provide a plain English, non-technical description of what you are applying to do and why you want to do it.
Over 70 freshwater invasive aquatic plants have been introduced into New Zealand, with devastating consequences for our native aquatic plants and other wildlife. Most New Zealand lakes, rivers, streams and wetlands are now affected by at least one species of introduced aquatic pest plant. Aquatic weeds cause serious problems for electricity generation by clogging up hydro dams, impede irrigation and flood control schemes, damage indigenous freshwater ecosystems, and make recreational activities, such as swimming and boating, difficult (NIWA 2011). NIWA’s Aquatic Biodiversity and Biosecurity Science Centre combines systematic and taxonomic expertise and resources to help meet the requirements of the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy and related international initiatives. Our biosecurity work ranges from identifying invasive species to managing aquatic weeds (NIWA, no date).
This application to import 13 aquatic plant species into containment will allow NIWA to research their potential to become weedy in New Zealand and to develop appropriate management responses should this occur in the future. The plants will be evaluated for weed potential in a secure containment facility.
September 2011 EPA0061 4
Application for containment approval for new organisms
The benefits of this work are that NZ will be response ready for incursions of new potential pest plant species from the aquarium and pond plant trade. An estimated 75% of naturalized aquatic species were imported through the trade, including 27 of the 30 aquatic species managed under legislation in New Zealand (Champion and Clayton 2000, 2003). Invasive weed species already cost NZ in terms of lost habitat and biodiversity, and the economic use of lakes and waterways. While NZ has an internationally renowned effective border management system, Champion and Clayton (2001) found that illegal importation of aquatic plants is likely to have occurred. Since that time there have been several border interceptions of aquarium plants, which highlights the importance of evaluating weed potential of plants in the international trade. NIWA’s research programme, for which this application is an integral part, aims to allow the ability to rapidly identify new pest plants, and understand the threats they pose to our environment is critical to developing effective and timely incursion response.
4. Describe the background and aims of your application
This section is intended to put the new organism(s) in perspective of the wider activities(s) that they will be used in. You may use more technical language but please make sure that any technical words used are included in a glossary.
This application is to import plants for research purposes. Specifically, to assess the potential of these species to become weeds in NZ aquatic environments. Plants will be held and evaluated in a containment facility where they will be assessed for plant growth and performance under a range of likely NZ habitat scenarios. This will add data to international observations on weed potential of these species, provide more accurate assessment of their potential threat to NZ, enable comparative identification with like NZ species in plant identification courses (eg., MAF, DOC staff), and as necessary (dictated by weed assessment outcome) enable development of appropriate incursion response tools (See attached references demonstrating the track record of the applicant).
5. Information about the new organism(s)
For non-GMOs: provide a taxonomic description of the new organism(s). For GMOs: provide a taxonomic description of the host organism(s) and describe the genetic modification (i.e. the experimental procedures and biological material to be used in the genetic modification and where the expression of foreign nucleic acid may occur). Describe the biology and main features of the organism including if it has inseparable organisms. Describe if the organism has affinities (e.g. close taxonomic relationships) with other organisms in New Zealand. Could the organism form an undesirable self-sustaining population? If not, why not? How easily could the new organism be recovered or eradicated if it established an undesirable self-sustaining population?
Taxonomic name Common name
Blyxa aubertii L.C. Rich.
Blyxa japonica Ascher. & Gürke
September 2011 EPA0061 5
Application for containment approval for new organisms
Butomus umbellatus L.
Egeria najas Planch.
Elodea nuttallii (Planch.) St. John western waterweed
Lagarosiphon cordofanus Casp.
Lagarosiphon madagascariensis Casp.
Myriophyllum sibiricum Komarov northern watermilfoil syn: Myriophyllum exalbescens Fern
Myriophyllum heterophyllum Michx variable or two leafed watermilfoil
Najas indica (Willd.) Cham.
Najas tenuifolia R. Br.
Najas marina L. spiny naiad
Ottelia alismoides (L.) Pers. duck-lettuce syn: Ottelia japonica Miq.
Biology and main features of the organism including if it has inseparable organisms.
The Blyxa species B. aubertii and B. japonica are relatively small (up to 20cm) submerged aquatic plants, with linear-tapered leaves that emerge from a short basal stem and may appear rosette like or as rooted tufts of radical leaves. The leaves are sheathed at the base, linear-tapered and 10 to 150 cm long by 5 to 15 cm. B. japonica differs from B. aubertii in that it has branched shoots. The flowers are usually long petiolate and solitary in a noninflated and exalate spathe (4 to 10 cm long). Petals (3) are white or reddish, linear 10 to 25mm long or longer than the sepals and fringed, the fruit are an oblong capsule with numerous elliptic seed. The plants have been described as annual, perennial and short lived species, dying off in cultivation. Continued propagation is from seed or by dividing basal side shoots. The plants grow submerged in shallow water ponds and marshes and slow flowing streams (Aston 1977, Kasselmann 2003).
Ottelia alismoides is an annual to perennial rooted submerged aquatic plant native to southeast Asia and northern Australia (Aston 1977). The large leaves are in a basal rosette and are broad-ovate to suborbicular, 15 to 20 cm wide and long, thin and translucent. Leaves are completely submerged at depth of 1.5m, although may be partly emerged in shallower systems, but are not able to withstand prolonged exposure to the air (Cook and Urmi-Konig 1984a). Spathes have crisped wings with some more strongly developed than the others and 0.5 to 1 cm wide. Flowers may be self-fertilised and produce numerous ellipsoid, glabrous seed (Kasselmann 2003). O. alismoides grows in standing (up to ca 1.5m) to slow-flowing water and has naturalised outside of tis native range (eg., Louisana, USA (http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu cited Nov 2011)), yet is also threatened within its native range (eg., China) due to habitat loss.
Egeria najas, Elodea nuttallii, Lagarosiphon cordofanus and Lagarosiphon madagascariensis are tall growing submerged perennial aquatic plant species (Symoens and Triest 1983). E. najas has thick (ca 1 to 1.5mm) slightly brittle stems with internodes 0.1 to 1cm long. The leaves are sessile, opposite with the upper leaves arranged in whorls (usually 5). When branching two whorls are arranged above each other at the node, compared with Elodea
September 2011 EPA0061 6
Application for containment approval for new organisms genus which has simple leaf whorls. The leaves are linear, acute and 14.5mm long by ca 1.5 mm wide, and more or less recurved. The apex has tiny pointed denticles, compared with Lagarosiphon genus which has two. Plants are dioecious, the male spathe has 2 to 3 flowers, with petals 3.5 to 9mm long by 2.6 to 7.5 mm. The female spathe has 1 (occasionally 2) flowers with white petals 2.8 to 5.7 mm long by 2.5 to 5.1 mm with yellow-orange staminodes (Cook and Urmi-Konig 1984b, Kasselmann 2003).
E. nuttallii has creeping or erect stems (ca 1mm thick) with soft leaves. Prophylls (first leaves) are opposite, and usually in whorls of 4 to 5 for upper leaves. Lateral shoots on nodes have simple leaf whorls, compared with Egeria which has double. Leaves are sessile, linear to lanceolate in shape and up to 8 mm long by ca 2mm wide and recurved on the shoot apex, with undulate margins and folded along the midrib. Plants are dioecious, rarely monoecious. Spathe with 1 (to 2) flowers, male spathe up to 4 mm long and 3 mm wide. Male flowers abscissing in bud. Sepals (3) are ca 2.2mm long by 1.6mm wide and green, petals (3) are triangular or rarely linear and much narrower and smaller than the sepals, very thin inconspicuous and white. Female sepals and petals are similar to the male counterparts. Female spathes are 8.5 to 14.5 mm by 0.8 to 1.8 mm, sepals are 1 to 2.1 mm long by 0.6 to 1.1 mm wide. The female petals are ca 1 to 2 mm long by 0.5 to 1mm wide, elliptic to obovate. The flowers have 3 staminodes, 3 styles, are usually bifid, and shorter than 2 mm (Cook and Urmi-Konig 1985, Kasselmann 2003).
Lagarosiphon species are perennial macrophytes whose vegetative survival is assured by rhizomes. Roots are adventitious and unbranched. Stems are filiform, sometime very long (ca up to 5m), they are circular in transverse sections, with air-activities in the cortex, and branching is axillary. L. madagascariensis is delicate in appearance, leaves are alternate, almost opposite, and rarely whorled. The leaf blade is linear and slightly recurved downwards ca 10 to 15mm long by 0.5 to 1 mm wide, thin, transparent with denticles (teeth) on each side of the margin. There are ovate to narrow-ovate scales on the leaf base. L. cordofanus has leaf margins with spines on excrescenes, and lacks marginal fibres (as distinct from L. madagascariensis). The plant is also soft, with alternate leaves, they may occasionally be in whorls, with leaves linear and slightly recurved (Symoens and Triest 1983, Kasselmann 2003). Both species are dioecious, but differ in the male inflorescence of L. madagascariensis has fewer flowers than that of L. cordofanus. Male flowers float on the water surface to mature, with 3 white reflexed sepals and petals each. The female spathe has one flower which floats on the water surface, but is attached to a long pedicle, the perianth is white 1.5 to 2mm with petals sometimes larger than sepals. For all four species E. najas, E. nuttallii, L. cordofanus and L. madagascariensis propagation is largely via fragmentation, with vegetative survival also assured by rhizomes (Symoens and Triest 1983). Depending on local conditions plants may exhibit seasonal decline and/or produce overwintering turions (eg., E. nuttallii) (Kasselmann 2003).
M. sibiricum and M. heterophyllum are perennial submerged rooted milfoil species. Both species have feather-like submerged leaves, small emergent leaves (1 to 3mm) and short erect/emerged flora spikes. Reproduction through fragmentation of stems and rhizomes and formation of winter buds (turions) (Weber 1972, Aiken and Walz 1979, Aiken and McNeil 1980, Aiken 1981) as well as sexually, including the existence of hybrids has been documented. These species inhabit a wide range of aquatic conditions, including under ice, and M. heterophyllum has been described as persisting on damp ground as a small emergent plant for several months, transitioning to an aquatic form once submerged (Aiken 1981, Global invasive species database).
The submerged leaves of M. heterophyllum are feather like, green, 2 to 5 cm long by 2 to 4 cm wide, finely pinnately divided into 7 to 10 leaflets and arranged in close whorls of 4 to 5 leaves, on stems that are dark red//brown in colour. The highly variable emergent leaves can reach 5 to 15 cm above the water; they are small oval (0.4 to 3 cm long by 1.5 to 5 mm wide) and bright green. The inflorescence spike is 5 to 35 cm long, held above the water, and consists of flowers (in whorls of four) in the axils of sharply toothed bracts. Flowers have 4 stamens and petals are 1.5 to 3 mm long and a subtended by downward turned bracts. Fruits are hard, 1 to 1.5 mm in length, round with 4 chambers. Winter buds (turions) have been found on M. heterophyllum, but produced at the base of the plant from the rhizome, not along erect stems and rarely detached from the plant (Aiken 1981). Like M. heterophyllum, M. sibiricum has two leaf types, submerged and emergent. The submerged leaves are feather-like, olive green, arranged in whorls of 3 to 4 with fewer than 14 leaflets pairs per leaf. The leaflet pairs at the base of the leaf are much longer than those at the tip, giving the leaf a lance shape. Emergent leaves are located beneath the flowers on the flower stalk and are tiny (1 to 3 mm long). They are smooth edged to coarsely toothed and are shorter than the flowers. Flowers are tiny, on emergent spikes up to 15 cm long. Female flowers lack petals, male flowers have 4 petals and 8 anthers. Fruit are nut-like 3mm in diameter and contain 4 seeds (4 chambers) (Aiken 1981, WDSE 2001).
September 2011 EPA0061 7
Application for containment approval for new organisms
N. marina and N. indica species are distributed as ornamental plants within the aquarium trade, while N. tenuifolia is a less widely distributed native of Australia. All are rooted submerged aquatic plants, in fresh and brackish water and maybe annual or perennial depending on the habitat eg., seasonal waterbodies in floodplains and rice. N. indica and N. tenuifolia are relatively slender in appearance, and N. marina has a distinctive spiny appearance to leaf margins and internodes (Aston 1977). All three species reproduce vegetatively and by seed (Aston 1977, Kasselmann 2003).
N. marina has stems up to 100 cm long, with a spiny appearance and few roots. The leaves are sessile, seemingly opposite or whorled, linear to lanceolate in shape (up to ca 4 to 6 cm long by 0.5 to 2.5 mm wide) and generally stiff. The leaf margins are coarsely toothed (triangular). Plants are dioecious, the male flowers have a spathe, the female flowers without. Seeds are elliptic to ovoid and ca 2 to 7 mm long (Kasselmann 2003).
N. indica stems are up to 50cm long, also glabrous with few roots and often branched. The leaves are sessile, alternate and linear (ca 2 to 3cm long and up to 1mm wide) flat to almost round or triangular in section view. The leaf margins have distinct denticles. Flowers are usually solitary in the leaf axils, with male flowers surrounded by a spathe and the female flowers are without. The seeds are ca 2mm in length that are reddish-brown (Kasselmann 2003).
N. tenuifolia is a slender, submerged attached plant with the horizontal basal stems rooting at the nodes. Main stems are erect, much branched and ca 45 cm long. The leaves are sessile, appearing opposite but each pairs is actually lower and upper on opposite sides of the stem, or in near-whorls of 3 or less. The leaves are narrow-linear in shape, 5 cm long by 1 to 3 mm wide, and finely toothed on the margins. Each tooth is surmounted by a small forward facing spine-cell. Each leaf is expanded at the base into a sheath that clasps. The leaf sheath has 2 minute sheath-scales in its axil, which are lanceolate to thread-like. The flowers are unisexual (plants monoecious), small axillary solitary or 2- 3 together, with the male flower (2 to 3 mm long, anther 1 to 1.3 mm long) higher on the stem than the female flower (1 to 4 mm long, with 2 or 3 lobed stigmas) (Aston 1977).
Butomus umbellatus is a marginal emergent species that can survive long period as a submerged plant. It is rush- like in appearance, with pink to white flowers. It is a perennial species that grows on shores of lakes, ponds and riverbanks, and is tolerant of water as deep as 3m (Jacobs et al 2011). It has been spread over long distances by people, and once established in a watershed it spreads locally by rhizomes and root pieces that fragment and are buoyant (Jacobs et al 2011). Its fruit is an indehiscent, many seeded capsule. B. umbellatus has a high capacity for sexual reproduction, however its effective seed set is regarded as unstable, with few populations producing fertile seed in its introduced North American range (Eckert et al 2000). Seed germination is enhanced by cold stratification, long days and wet emerged soil without competing plants (ie open spaces) (Hroudova and Zakravsky 2003). There are no known inseparable organisms with these species.
Describe if the organism has affinities (e.g. close taxonomic relationships) with other organisms in New Zealand
Family Hydrocharitaceae
Blyxa aubertii, Blyxa japonica, Egeria naja, Elodea nutalli, Lagarosiphon cordofanus, Lagarosiphon madagascariensiss, and Ottelia alismoides all belong to the family Hydrocharitaceae. There are no native plants belonging to this family within the New Zealand. There are six introduced species Egeria densa, Elodea canadensis, Lagarosiphon major, Hydrilla verticillata, Vallisneria australis and Ottellia ovalifolia. Amongst these MAF has an eradication response for Hydrilla verticillata; and E. densa and L. major are significant submerged weeds that are banned from sale and distribution. E. canadensis and Vallisneria australis are lesser weeds in lakes and waterways and O. ovalifolia is locally abundant eg., in farm dams.
Family Haloragaceae
Myriophyllum sibiricum and Myriophyllum heterophyllum belong to the family Haloragaceae. There are five native species of milfoil (Myriophyllum triphyllum, M. propinquum, M. pedunculatum, M. votschii and M. robustum) and one invasive alien species of milfoil (M. aquaticum) present in NZ. Amongst these two species, the native M. robustum and the weed M. aquaticum are marginal aquatic plants where they can form floating mats on the water
September 2011 EPA0061 8
Application for containment approval for new organisms whilst remaining anchored to the substrate. The native plants M. pedunculatum and M. votschii are small in stature and comparatively inconspicuous growing in short marginal turf vegetation. The native species M. triphyllum and M. propinquum are taller growing submerged aquatic macrophytes.
Family Najadaceae
Najas indica, Najas tenuifolia, and Najas marina belong to the family Najadaceae. There are no native plants belonging to this family within the New Zealand. However N. guadalupensis has been reported (although not confirmed) as present in NZ in the aquarium trade.
Family Butomaceae
Butomaceae contains the single species Butomus umbellatus. There are no native plants belonging to this family within the New Zealand. However B. umbellatus has been reported (unconfirmed) as present in NZ within the aquarium trade.
Could the organism form an undesirable self-sustaining population? If not, why not?
The Blyxa species are not considered to be highly invasive, although they may be locally abundant in their native range in shallow water systems, and have been described as weeds in rice paddies. They also have the ability to produce numerous seed (Kasselmann 2003) which can withstand period of drying, germinating when hydrated, as is the case with O. alismoides.
The Ottelia species have been distributed as ornamental plants within the aquarium trade and can form weedy populations. O. alismoides is a federally listed noxious weed in the USA, but is not considered highly invasive (http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu cited Nov 2011).
Amongst the other Hydrocharitaceae (E. najas, E. nuttallii, L. cordofanus and L. madagascariensis) propagation is primarily via fragmentation, as with species of the same genera already present in NZ. However, neither L. cordofanus nor L. madagascariensis both of which are readily traded and available via the internet are considered to be highly invasive. In contrast both E. nuttallii and E. najas can be competitive under some conditions and have been described as weeds (Simpson 1990, Barrat-Segretain 2001, Bini and Thomaz 2005).
N. marina and N. indica species are distributed as ornamental plants within the aquarium trade, and N. marina has been described as rare, as a weed, and as being displaced by more invasive species. Ducks and fish have also been implicated in the movement of najas species through seed consumption (Agami and Waisel 1986, 1988).
M. heterophyllum is described as capable of invasive growth and is now naturalised in Europe (GISD) and considered an emerging invader (EPPO). M. sibiricum has a reduced distribution in its native range due to habitat loss/alteration, and to displacement by a more invasive milfoil (Eurasian watermilfoil, M. spicatum), however experimental evidence also indicates there are environmental conditions where M. sibiricum can be more competitive.
Butomus umbellatus is known for its invasive potential in shallow water bodies and along riverbanks in its introduced range in North America (Eckert et al 2000). As with introduced aquatic plants in NZ, people are the common problem in the movement of plants between waterbodies. However once in a system (eg., lake or watershed) B. umbellatus is likely to spread via fragmentation which may be more rapid or prevalent in waterways with fluctuating water levels.
All of the above species (requested for import into secure containment) are dependent on movement by people for introduction into aquatic habitats, while it is possible that they could form self-sustaining populations (based on accessibility within the trade), some species more likely to do so than others (based on literature and international experience) eg., B. umbellatus more so than Blyxa spp. The degree to which establishment could occur and the potential for undesirable impacts, ie suitable habitat, response to climate, competitive interaction is part of the evaluation process that NIWA seeks to undertake. This will enable a science led approach to policy (eg., species
September 2011 EPA0061 9
Application for containment approval for new organisms that are not desirable to have in the country) and management solutions (ie., response ready approach) for those plants that may have significant environmental impacts in NZ.
How easily could the new organism be recovered or eradicated if it established an undesirable self-sustaining population?
Plant recovery or eradication would depend on the nature of the escape. For example, deliberate removal from the containment site, although considered unlikely, provides the only mechanism for plant liberation. If specimens were planted and established in a home garden or in the wild, the size of the plant population, the species and the nature of the site of liberation would dictate the method of eradication. For example, water drawdown or direct shading (eg., weed matting) would kill submerged species. However the feasibility of drawdown is dependent on the waterbody, and the time of year is significant relative to the speed of plant desiccation (and death), and the likelihood of seed set from some species (eg., Blyxa). This in turn determines what follow-up to the site would be required.
In general, as with known aquatic weeds in New Zealand, new incursions are identified by surveillance of likely habitat, as well as waterways adjacent to known source populations and frequented by people (eg., de Winton et al 2009). Plant identification is undertaken by botanical experts (eg., NIWA Aquatic Plants Group). Recommended eradication method is then determined based on the species, extent of the incursion and site specificities.
Of note, the aim of this research is to better determine the threat that these plants pose to the NZ aquatic environment, and for those species that are ‘weedy’ establish effective control methodologies. The purpose here is to enable a response ready approach nationally, should these plants appear in the country (or as naturalised populations) from illegal internet trading and subsequent liberation.
6. For field tests: The nature and method of the field test
Describe the nature and method of the field test and the experimental procedures to be used.
Not applicable.
7. Proposed containment of the new organism(s) (physical and operational)
Describe how you propose to contain the new organism(s) after taking into account its ability to escape from containment (i.e. the possible pathways for escape).
The imported aquatic plants will be contained in an aquaria that sits in a water-bath of copper sulphate (Section 3.2.1, PBC-NZ-TRA-PCQN) confined within the MAF registered PC2 glasshouse (Section 3.2.2, PBC-NZ-TRA- PCQN) for the duration of the MAF required quarantine period. After which (provided appropriate biosecurity clearance is granted) plants will be contained in aquaria/tanks within the plant security compound (NIWA, Ruakura). The plant security is a locked, fully enclosed outdoor compound with a range of ambient and temperature controlled tanks, which was purpose built for the containment and experimental evaluation of aquatic plant species.
What standard will you follow?
MAF/ERMA New Zealand Standard: Containment Facilities for Plants: 2007 at Physical Containment PC2.
September 2011 EPA0061 10
Application for containment approval for new organisms
How would you deal with any identified pathway of escape, e.g if the plant has water dispersed seeds all water will need to be filtered or treated to eliminate the seeds from the waste water stream.
There are no natural waterways or drains connected to the plant security compound that could provide a pathway for aquatic plant escape. Any water that may be drained from cleaning plants or tanks drains into an underground soak hole. There is no pathway for plant fragments or seed out of this hole so no further treatment is required.
Escape is limited to deliberate human intervention. To mitigate that risk the NIWA plant security compound is on an out of the way site (behind NIWA buildings on the Ruakura campus) with restricted access to authorised NIWA personnel via a locked gate and key register. The Ruakura campus itself has barrier arms to vehicle traffic that operate after hours, with swipe card entry for staff
How will you dispose of other waste? How will you prevent viable plant material from entering the waterways?
Waste material while the plants are under quarantine in the glasshouse (Registered Plant Quarantine or Containment Facility, PBC-NZ-TRA-PQCON L2) will be treated as per that standard (MAF/ERMA New Zealand Standard: Containment Facilities for Plants: 2007 in Physical Containment PC2).
After the MAF quarantine period has passed/been approved, plants will/may be moved into tanks in the security compound for research. This purpose built compound is entirely netted to prevent access by aquatic birds, with a locked gate accessible only to authorised NIWA personnel on the NIWA Ruakura campus.
Waste water from cultivation tanks or plant cleaning, drains directly into a soak hole within the security compound. Waste sediment and plant material from plant pruning or propagation is dried out either by open air exposure in a designated concrete tank, or by drying in the adjacent 80°C oven, or by autoclaving at 121°C for 20min in the adjacent laboratory. Treatment is dependent on the species, with most submerged species unable to survive extended periods out of water. Should material be deemed viable after desiccation in the concrete tank, it would then be treated by autoclaving.
Any waste material from experimental studies will be treated in the same manner as outlined above for plant cultivation.
8. Detail of Māori engagement (if any)
Discuss any engagement or consultation with Māori undertaken and summarise the outcomes.
None undertaken as EPA advised that consultation will not be required for this import into containment application.
9. Identification and assessment of beneficial (positive) and adverse effects of the new organism(s)
Adverse effects include risks and costs. Beneficial or positive effects are benefits. Identification involves describing the potential effects that you are aware of (what might happen and how it might happen). Assessment involves considering the magnitude of the effect and the likelihood or probability of the effect being realised.
Consider the adverse or positive effects in the context of this application on the environment (e.g. could the organism cause any significant displacement of any native species within its natural habitat, cause any significant deterioration of natural habitats or cause significant adverse effect to New Zealand’s inherent genetic diversity, or is the organism likely to cause disease, be parasitic, or become a vector for animal or plant disease?), human health and safety, the relationship of Māori to the
September 2011 EPA0061 11
Application for containment approval for new organisms environment, the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, society and the community, the market economy and New Zealand’s international obligations.
Adverse effects of the new organisms The potential adverse effects of new plants are the same as those for other known aquatic weeds currently in New Zealand which are well documented (eg., Wells et al 1997 and references therein). Adverse effects from aquatic plant invasion may include: displacement of native aquatic plants and potentially any native species that feed on the native aquatic plants, deterioration of waterways, lakes and ponds, and the surrounding habitat, changing the ecology of these aquatic freshwater systems impede economic and recreational use of lakes and waterways However these examples are not an account of the probability of escape from NIWA containment (section 5), rather the possibility of adverse impacts from aquatic weeds in general if imported and /or liberated illegally. The purpose of importing into containment is to prevent the potential adverse impacts outlined above. NIWA has a strong track record in providing management solutions for invasive freshwater weeds (eg., Clayton and Champion 2011, NIWA 2011a).
The above example highlights the reasons to be proactive in biosecurity research, which leads to the benefits associated with the proposed plant imports.
Specifically the benefits of importing these species are;
that there will be NZ specific data on species growth potential and competitive response with which to assess their invasive potential in NZ,
that data supports the use of species in the aquarium industry that are considered unlikely to naturalise and/or have any impact in NZ,
and/or that data combined with international experience, and the use of the AWRAM, leads to proactive management (engagement with government) with respect to legislation for the import and trade of species that have a high risk threat to our environment,
training for front line environmental staff (eg., DOC, Regional Councils) on the identification of potential pest plant species that are in a secure contained facility (NB: NIWA already runs plant ID courses),
and for those species (if any) that are identified as posing a significant threat, the development of control and or eradication protocols so that NZ is response ready for incursions of the pest plant species should they be imported and subsequently released.
10. For developments of GMOs that take place outdoors and field tests of GMOs: Alternative methods and potential effects from the transfer of genetic elements
Discuss if there are alternative methods of achieving the research objective. Discuss whether there could be effects resulting from the transfer of genetic elements to other organisms in or around the site of the development or field test.
Not applicable.
September 2011 EPA0061 12
Application for containment approval for new organisms
11. For imports of GMOs: Could your organism(s) undergo rapid assessment (s42B of the HSNO Act)?
Discuss whether the GMO(s) to be imported fulfil the following criteria: The host organism(s) are Category 1 or 2 host organisms as per the HSNO (Low Risk Genetic Modification) Regulations. The genetic modifications are Category A or B modifications as per the HSNO (Low Risk Genetic Modification) Regulations and the modifications are not listed in the Schedule of these Regulations. The minimum containment of the GMO(s) will be as per the HSNO (Low Risk Genetic Modification) Regulations (PC1 or PC2 as per AS/NZS2243.3:2002).
Not applicable.
12. Other information
Add here any further information you wish to include in this application including if there are any ethical considerations that you are aware of in relation to your application.
NIWA regularly run plant identification workshops for frontline biosecurity staff (eg,.in Regional Council’s, DOC). Inclusion of species not yet naturalised or potential species to be aware of could include these imported species should they demonstrate weed potential under NZ conditions. Information will also be communicated to the Federation of NZ Aquarium Societies via their website and the NIWA website.
13. Appendices(s) and referenced material (if any) and glossary (if applicable)
Agami, M and Waisel, Y. 1986. The role of mallard ducks (Anas platyrhynchos) in distribution and germination of seeds of the submerged hydrophyte Najas marina L. Oecologia, 68: 473-475.
Agami, M and Waisel, Y. 1988. The role of fish in distribution and germination of seeds of the submerged macrophytes Najas marina L and Ruppia maritima L. Oecologia, 76: 83-88.
Aiken, S. G. 1981. A conspectus of Myriophyllum (Haloragaceae) in North America. Brittonia, 33(1): 57-69.
Aiken, S. G. and McNeill, J. 1980. The discovery of Myriophyllum exalbescens Fernald (Haloragaceae) in Europe and the typification of M. spicatum L. and M. verticillatum L. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 80: 213-222.
Aiken, S. G. and Walz, K. F. 1979. Turions of Myriophyllum exalbescens. Aquatic Botany, 6: 357-363.
Aston, H.I. 1977. Aquatic plants of Australia. Melbourne University press.
Barrat-Segretain, M. H. 2001. Invasive species in the Rhone River floodplain (France): Replacement of Elodea canadensis Michaux by E. nuttallii St. John in two former river channels. Archiv fur Hydrobiology, 152(2): 237-251.
September 2011 EPA0061 13
Application for containment approval for new organisms
Bini, L. M. and Thomaz, S. M. 2005. Prediction of Egeria najas and Egeria densa occurrence in a large subtropical reservoir (Itaipu Reservoir, Brazil-Paraguay). Aquatic Botany, 83: 227-238.
Champion, P. D. and Clayton, J. 2000. Border control for potential aquatic weeds. Stage 1. Weed risk model. Science for Conservation 141. Department of Conservation, Wellington.
Champion, P. D. and Clayton, J. 2001. Border control for potential aquatic weeds. Stage 2. Weed risk assessment. Science for Conservation 185. Department of Conservation, Wellington.
Champion, P. D. and Clayton, J. 2003. The evaluation and management of aquatic weeds in New Zealand. In, Child et al (ed) Plant Invasions; ecological threats and management solutions, pp 429-434.
Champion, P.D.; Clayton, J.S.; Hofstra, D. E. 2010. Nipping aquatic plant invasions in the bud – weed risk assessment and the trade. Hydrobiologia 656: 167-172.
Champion, P.D.; Clayton, J.S.; de Winton, M. D.; Wells, R. D. S. 2008. A proactive management strategy for aquatic weeds in New Zealand. In, Proceedings of Ecology and Management of Alien Plant Invasions 9, Perth, Australia.
Clayton, J. S. and Champion, P. D. 2011. Eradicating a freshwater invader. Water and Atmosphere, Feb, p5.
Cook, C.D. and Urmi-Konig, K. 1984a. A revision of the genus Ottelia (Hydrocharitaceae). 2. The species of Eurasia, Australia and America. Aquatic Botany, 20: 131-177.
Cook, C.D. and Urmi-Konig, K. 1984b. A revision of the genus Egeria (Hydrocharitaceae). Aquatic Botany, 19: 73-96.
Cook, C.D. and Urmi-Konig, K. 1985. A revision of the genus Elodea (Hydrocharitaceae). Aquatic Botany, 21(2): 111-156. de Winton, M. D., Champion, P. D., Clayton, J.S., Wells, R. D. S. 2009. Spread and status of seven submerged pest plants in New Zealand lakes. NZ Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 43: 547-561.
Eckert, C. G., Massonnet, B., Thomas, J. J. 2000. Variation in sexual and clonal reproduction among introduced populations of flowering rush, Butomus umbellatus (Butomaceae). Canadian Journal of Botany, 78: 437-446.
Hroudova, Z. and Zakravsky, P. 2003. Germination responses of diploid Butomus umbellatus to light, temperature and flooding. Flora, 198: 37-44.
Jacobs, J., Mangold, J., Parkinson, H., Dupuis, V., Rice P. 2011. Ecology and management of flowering rush (Butomus umbellatus L). USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Invasive Species Technical Note No. MT-33.
Kasselmann, C. 2003. Aquarium plants. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida.
NIWA, 2011. NIWA fights against biosecurity invasion. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1108/S00009/niwa-fights- against-biosecurity-invasion.htm
NIWA, 2011a. Saving our waterways from alien invaders. NIWA Year in review. Pp18-19.
September 2011 EPA0061 14
Application for containment approval for new organisms
NIWA, no date. Aquatic biodiversity and biosecurity - our services. http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/aquatic- biodiversity-and-biosecurity/our-services
Simpson, D. A. 1990. Displacement of Elodea canadensis Michx by Elodea nuttallii (Planch) H. St John in the British Isles. Watsonia, 18: 173-177.
Symoens, J. J. and Triest, L. 1983. Monograph of the African genus Lagarosiphon Harvey (Hydrocharitaceae). Bull. Jard. Bot. Nat. Belg. 53: 441-448.
Weber, J. A. 1972. The importance of turions in the propagation of Myriophyllum exalbescens (Haloragidaceae) in Douglas Lake, Michigan. The Michigan Botanist, 11: 115-121.
Wells, R.D.S., de Winton, M. D., Clayton, J. S. 1997. Successive macrophyte invasions within the submerged flora of Lake Tarawera, Central North Island, New Zealand. NZ Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 31: 449- 459.
WSDE, 2001. An Aquatic Plant Identification Manual for Washington’s Freshwater Plants. Washington State Department of Ecology. Pp195.
September 2011 EPA0061 15
Application for containment approval for new organisms
14. Signature of applicant or person authorised to sign on behalf of applicant
X I request the Authority to waive any legislative information requirements (i.e. concerning the information that shall be supplied in my application) that my application does not meet (tick if applicable).
I have completed this application to the best of my ability and, as far as I am aware, the information I have provided in this application form is correct.
5 December 2011
Signature Date
September 2011 EPA0061