DOCSLIB.ORG

List of Naturalised Plants of National Significance and Their Legal Status

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
List of Naturalised Plants of National Significance and Their Legal Status Invasive Plants of National Importance and their Legal Status by State and Territory A Report by Andreas Glanznig and Ouerdia Kessal WWF Australia June 2004 WWF is one of the world's largest and most experienced independent conservation organizations, with almost 5 million supporters and a global network active in more than 90 countries. WWF Australia's mission is to conserve biodiversity in Australia and the Oceania Region. With the help of more than 50,000 supporters across Australia, we are currently working on 180 projects across the region, employing more than 80 people, and raising and investing around $10 million annually in conservation activities. For more information, contact: WWF Australia GPO Box 528 Sydney, NSW, Australia Toll Free: 1800 032 551 Fax: 02-9281-1060 www.wwf.org.au [email protected] This report was prepared by Andreas Glanznig, Biodiversity Policy Manager, WWF Australia, and Ouerdia Kessal, Project Officer, WWF Australia. First published in 2004 by WWF Australia GPO Box 528 Sydney NSW 2001 © WWF Australia 2004. All Rights Reserved. ISBN 1 87594 170 3 WWF Australia Report For bibliographic purposes this paper should be cited as: Glanznig, A. and Kessal, O. 2004. Invasive Plants of National Importance and their Legal Status by State and Territory. WWF Australia: Sydney For copies of this paper or a full list of WWF Australia publications on a wide range of conservation issues, please contact us on [email protected] or call (02) 9281 5515 Acknowledgements The advice and input of officials from all State and Territory governments is gratefully acknowledged. 2 Invasive Plants of National Importance and their Legal Status by State and Territory – A WWF Australia Report Invasive Plants of National Importance and their Legal Status by State and Territory Executive Summary The importance of implementing a strong national approach to prevent and control invasive plant problems has long been recognised. A major challenge has been harmonising State and Territory laws to foster a national statutory approach. While a key aspiration of the National Weeds Strategy, adopted in 1997 by the Australian and all State and Territory Governments, there remains both a high degree of variability in the terms and categories used by different States and Territories to declare noxious plant species. There are also large differences in the quality of their respective laws. Most recently, the recognition by the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council of the need to develop a robust national framework to prevent and control invasive species again highlights the pressing need to develop an effective national statutory response. This report assesses the legal status to Invasive Plants of National Importance under respective State and Territory laws. Invasive Plants of National Importance are defined in this report to include plants on the Alert List of Environmental Weeds, those recommended for national eradication or containment in the report Weed Categories for Natural and Agricultural Ecosystem Management, those on the Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy target plant list, and Weeds of National Significance (WONS). However, to date only WONS species have been agreed by both the Australian Government and the States and Territories. To overcome the poor consistency between the classes and categories used by States and Territories, this study developed four general standard control classes to compare the legal status of IPNI by State and Territory. These were: 1.) prohibited from sale, 2.) prohibited from import, 3.) eradication required, 4.) control required. The key results are presented in the tables below. Alert List Eradication Eradication Northern Weeds of from Natural from Australia National Ecosystems Agricultural Quarantine Significance Target List Ecosystems Strategy Target (WONS) Target List Plant List Number of listed invasive 28 34 26 41 20 plants Number and % under no 15 (54%) 21 (62%) 7 (27%) 29 (71%) 0 (0%) State/Territory legal control Prohibited for Sale in 18.3 % 9.9 % 24.5 % 6.7 % 58.1 % State/Territory* Prohibited for Import into 20.5 % 12.5 % 29.3 % 9.8 % 53.1 % State/Territory* Subject to Eradication in 15.2 % 7.7 % 18.7 % 5.5 % 31.9 % State/Territory* Subject to Control in 4.9 % 2.9 % 8.7 % 0.9 % 32.5 % State/Territory* Note: * Average across all States and Territories Prohibited for Sale Prohibited for Import Subject to Subject to Control in in State/Territory* into State/Territory* Eradication in State/Territory* State/Territory* New South Wales 26.3% 22.3% 27.3% 7.8% Queensland 41.4% 41.4% 29.7% 9.8% South Australia 33.0% 19.6% 17.6% 8.1% Tasmania 24.5% 24.5% 1.5% 23.1% Victoria 20.6% 20.6% 19.6% 4.0% Western Australia 26.1% 55.7% 15.5% 1.5% Australian Capital 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 18.1% Territory Northern Territory 16.3% 16.3% 8.0% 6.0% Total 23.5% 25.1% 14.9% 9.8% Note: * Average across all classes of invasive plants of national importance Invasive Plants of National Importance and their Legal Status by State and Territory – A WWF Australia Report 3 The key findings are: • There is a high degree of variability in State and Territory legal controls to invasive plants. At a national level, preventative legal measures on Invasive Plants of National Importance are poor, covering only about a quarter of plant species on average across all IPNI classes. • On average, Queensland has the strongest preventative legal measures (controls on sale and importation) in place, though still only averaged 41.4% for preventative controls on IPNI species. • By far, the State or Territory with the weakest preventative legal controls in place is the Australian Capital Territory, which averaged 0.0% due to outdated legislation not including provisions to enable the prohibition on sale and importation of declared invasive plants. • The best performing State for controls on sale is Queensland (41.4%), followed by South Australia with an average of 33.0%, then followed by the cluster of New South Wales, Western Australia and Tasmania and further down, Victoria. • The best performing State for controls on importation is Western Australia, which prohibits the importation of over half (55.7%) of IPNI species into their State. The findings lead to the following conclusions: • Combined State and Territory government legislation forms a very poor statutory framework to prevent the sale of Invasive Plants of National Importance. • Most Invasive Plants of National Importance are not prohibited for sale, ranging from an average of 6.7% for NAQS target list species, 18.3% for Alert List species to 58.1% for WONS species and varieties. • The low result for WONS, despite a long standing agreement by all States and Territories to control the sale of these species, highlights that the States alone are unable to develop a coherent national legislative approach to Invasive Plants of National Importance in a timely manner, if at all. To date, only 2 States, Queensland and South Australia prohibit the sale of all 20 WONS. • In general, the States and Territories did not have any legal controls in place for a high proportion of priority invasive plants still able to be eradicated, which included over half of the Alert List and nearly two- thirds of the natural ecosystem target list. This exemplifies that State and Territory government weed control efforts are poorly coordinated with those of the Australian Government, and the need for States and Territories to endorse and agree to be involved in the any national effort to prevent and eradicate priority species. • For naturalised non-native plants recommended for national eradication or containment, there is a strong State/Territory bias toward agricultural over environmental invasive plants. This needs to be corrected by the States and Territories as a matter of urgency. • States and Territories with relatively weaker legislative controls need to amend or enact new legislation to strengthen the overall preventative response to invasive plants, in particular the Australian Capital Territory. • At a national level, far stronger legal controls are needed to prevent the sale and importation of Invasive Plants of National Importance. • The findings provide strong evidence of the need for national controls, under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999, to prohibit the sale of invasive plants of national importance. Without such regulations, efforts by the NRM Ministerial Council and Primary Industries Ministerial Council to establish “a national framework for preventative action” will be severely compromised. 4 Invasive Plants of National Importance and their Legal Status by State and Territory – A WWF Australia Report 1. Objectives The State and Territory governments declare noxious plants under a very wide range of control classes and categories. The aim of this analysis is to: 1. Define four general legal control categories for invasive plant species to enable direct comparison between States and Territories: prohibition from sale, prohibition from import, subject to eradication, and subject to control. 2. Ascertain the legal status in each State and Territory of Invasive Plants of National Importance against these four general categories. Invasive Plants of National Importance are defined in this report to include plants on the Alert List of Environmental Weeds, those recommended for national eradication or containment in the report Weed Categories for Natural and Agricultural Ecosystem Management, those on the Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy target plant list, and Weeds of National Significance. 2. Approach 2.1 Comparative table of State and Territory declared and control categories Respective State and Territory legislation and declaration processes were used to develop a comparative table to assess the differing legal control status for Invasive Plants of National Importance (IPNI) against four standard categories: I. Prohibited for Sale and/or trade by State / Territory II. Prohibited Import by State / Territory III.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Vegetation of Robinson Crusoe Island (Isla Masatierra), Juan
    The Vegetation ofRobinson Crusoe Island (Isla Masatierra), Juan Fernandez Archipelago, Chile1 Josef Greimler,2,3 Patricio Lopez 5., 4 Tod F. Stuessy, 2and Thomas Dirnbiick5 Abstract: Robinson Crusoe Island of the Juan Fernandez Archipelago, as is the case with many oceanic islands, has experienced strong human disturbances through exploitation ofresources and introduction of alien biota. To understand these impacts and for purposes of diversity and resource management, an accu­ rate assessment of the composition and structure of plant communities was made. We analyzed the vegetation with 106 releves (vegetation records) and subsequent Twinspan ordination and produced a detailed colored map at 1: 30,000. The resultant map units are (1) endemic upper montane forest, (2) endemic lower montane forest, (3) Ugni molinae shrubland, (4) Rubus ulmifolius­ Aristotelia chilensis shrubland, (5) fern assemblages, (6) Libertia chilensis assem­ blage, (7) Acaena argentea assemblage, (8) native grassland, (9) weed assemblages, (10) tall ruderals, and (11) cultivated Eucalyptus, Cupressus, and Pinus. Mosaic patterns consisting of several communities are recognized as mixed units: (12) combined upper and lower montane endemic forest with aliens, (13) scattered native vegetation among rocks at higher elevations, (14) scattered grassland and weeds among rocks at lower elevations, and (15) grassland with Acaena argentea. Two categories are included that are not vegetation units: (16) rocks and eroded areas, and (17) settlement and airfield. Endemic forests at lower elevations and in drier zones of the island are under strong pressure from three woody species, Aristotelia chilensis, Rubus ulmifolius, and Ugni molinae. The latter invades native forests by ascending dry slopes and ridges.
    [Show full text]
  • The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts
    The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: A County Checklist • First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Somers Bruce Sorrie and Paul Connolly, Bryan Cullina, Melissa Dow Revision • First A County Checklist Plants of Massachusetts: Vascular The A County Checklist First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP), part of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, is one of the programs forming the Natural Heritage network. NHESP is responsible for the conservation and protection of hundreds of species that are not hunted, fished, trapped, or commercially harvested in the state. The Program's highest priority is protecting the 176 species of vertebrate and invertebrate animals and 259 species of native plants that are officially listed as Endangered, Threatened or of Special Concern in Massachusetts. Endangered species conservation in Massachusetts depends on you! A major source of funding for the protection of rare and endangered species comes from voluntary donations on state income tax forms. Contributions go to the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Fund, which provides a portion of the operating budget for the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program. NHESP protects rare species through biological inventory,
    [Show full text]
  • Chrysanthemoides Monilifera Ssp
    MANAGEMENT OF BONESEED (CHRYSANTHEMOIDES MONILIFERA SSP. MONILIFERA) (L.) T. NORL. USING FIRE, HERBICIDES AND OTHER TECHNIQUES IN AUSTRALIAN WOODLANDS Rachel L. Melland Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Agriculture, Food and Wine University of Adelaide August 2007 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................... II ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................ VI DECLARATION ................................................................................................................ VIII ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................. IX CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1 1.1 AIMS OF THIS THESIS .......................................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................... 5 2.1 PROCESSES OF NATIVE ECOSYSTEM DEGRADATION ............................................................ 5 2.2 GLOBAL PLANT INVASIONS – ECOSYSTEM DEGRADING PROCESSES .................................... 6 2.3 THE ENVIRONMENTAL WEED PROBLEM IN AUSTRALIA ..................................................... 10 2.4 CAUSES AND PROCESSES OF INVASIVENESS .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Plants-Derived Biomolecules As Potent Antiviral Phytomedicines: New Insights on Ethnobotanical Evidences Against Coronaviruses
    plants Review Plants-Derived Biomolecules as Potent Antiviral Phytomedicines: New Insights on Ethnobotanical Evidences against Coronaviruses Arif Jamal Siddiqui 1,* , Corina Danciu 2,*, Syed Amir Ashraf 3 , Afrasim Moin 4 , Ritu Singh 5 , Mousa Alreshidi 1, Mitesh Patel 6 , Sadaf Jahan 7 , Sanjeev Kumar 8, Mulfi I. M. Alkhinjar 9, Riadh Badraoui 1,10,11 , Mejdi Snoussi 1,12 and Mohd Adnan 1 1 Department of Biology, College of Science, University of Hail, Hail PO Box 2440, Saudi Arabia; [email protected] (M.A.); [email protected] (R.B.); [email protected] (M.S.); [email protected] (M.A.) 2 Department of Pharmacognosy, Faculty of Pharmacy, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 2 Eftimie Murgu Square, 300041 Timisoara, Romania 3 Department of Clinical Nutrition, College of Applied Medical Sciences, University of Hail, Hail PO Box 2440, Saudi Arabia; [email protected] 4 Department of Pharmaceutics, College of Pharmacy, University of Hail, Hail PO Box 2440, Saudi Arabia; [email protected] 5 Department of Environmental Sciences, School of Earth Sciences, Central University of Rajasthan, Ajmer, Rajasthan 305817, India; [email protected] 6 Bapalal Vaidya Botanical Research Centre, Department of Biosciences, Veer Narmad South Gujarat University, Surat, Gujarat 395007, India; [email protected] 7 Department of Medical Laboratory, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Majmaah University, Al Majma’ah 15341, Saudi Arabia; [email protected] 8 Department of Environmental Sciences, Central University of Jharkhand,
    [Show full text]
  • A Systematic Study of Boerhavia L. and Commicarpus Standl. (Nyctaginaceae) in Southern Africa
    A systematic study of Boerhavia L. and Commicarpus Standl. (Nyctaginaceae) in southern Africa M. Struwig (B.Sc; M. Env. Sc.) Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Philosophiae Doctor in Environmental Sciences at the Potchefstroom campus of the North-West University Supervisor: Prof. S.J. Siebert Co-supervisor: Dr. A. Jordaan Assistant supervisor: Prof. S. Barnard November 2011 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost I would like to thank my Heavenly Father for the opportunity and for the courage and strength to complete this study to the best of the abilities that He gave me. Very special thanks to Prof. S.J. Siebert for his endless patience, guidance and encouragement. I would like to thank the following persons and institutions: Dr. A. Jordaan and Prof. S. Barnard for their guidance and assistance with the morphological, anatomical, palynological and molecular work Mr L. Meyer and Ms E. Klaassen (WIND) for their assistance with fieldwork in Namibia (2009 & 2010) Prof. A.E. van Wyk for teaching me the methodology of acetolizing pollen The curators of the following herbaria for access to their Nyctaginaceae collection: BLFU, BOL, GRA, J, KMG, KSAN, NH, NMB, NU, PRE, PRU, PUC, UCBG, UNIN, WIND and ZULU Dr. L.R. Tiedt and Ms W. Pretorius at the Laboratory of Electron Microscopy of the North- West University for technical assistance and guidance with the SEM, TEM and light microscopic work Ms M.J. du Toit for assistance with the maps Prof. L. du Preez for the use of the African Amphibian Conservation Research Group’s microscope DNA Sequencer of the Central Analytical Facilities, Stellenbosch University for the DNA sequencing laboratory work Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Horsetails – Equisetum Species
    alert list for environmental weeds Horsetails – Equisetum species G Current G Potential Horsetails (Equisetum species) The problem Horsetails (Equisetum spp.) are on the Alert List for Environmental Weeds, a list of 28 non-native plants that threaten biodiversity and cause other environ- mental damage. Although only in the Horsetails early stages of establishment, these weeds have the potential to seriously degrade Australia’s ecosystems. – Equisetum The popularity of interesting foliage plants for landscaping in Australian gardens is contributing to a local increase in horsetails, which are among the world’s worst weeds. Several species are species being sold for use in Australian gardens. Horsetails produce inhibitory substances that can depress the growth of neighbouring plants at high densities. Horsetails are also promoted for E. arvense is pictured here. Photo: Charles Webber, California Academy of Sciences, USDA-NRCS Plants medicinal purposes. As well as being highly invasive, horsetails shoots that bear fruiting cones and die Key points are toxic to livestock and can even kill back to the ground each year. Both types animals that eat contaminated hay. of shoots break easily at the joints when • Prevention and early intervention are the Horses, cattle and sheep are particularly pulled and feel hard and rough due to most cost-effective forms of weed control. susceptible and can die within a few hours the silica in their tissues. The shoots grow Horsetails are so invasive and difficult to control of eating large amounts of the plants. from long, underground stems, called that it is very important to prevent them In high densities, horsetails reduce crop rhizomes, which extend to great depths.
    [Show full text]
  • Poaceae: Pooideae) Based on Plastid and Nuclear DNA Sequences
    d i v e r s i t y , p h y l o g e n y , a n d e v o l u t i o n i n t h e monocotyledons e d i t e d b y s e b e r g , p e t e r s e n , b a r f o d & d a v i s a a r h u s u n i v e r s i t y p r e s s , d e n m a r k , 2 0 1 0 Phylogenetics of Stipeae (Poaceae: Pooideae) Based on Plastid and Nuclear DNA Sequences Konstantin Romaschenko,1 Paul M. Peterson,2 Robert J. Soreng,2 Núria Garcia-Jacas,3 and Alfonso Susanna3 1M. G. Kholodny Institute of Botany, Tereshchenkovska 2, 01601 Kiev, Ukraine 2Smithsonian Institution, Department of Botany MRC-166, National Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 37012, Washington, District of Columbia 20013-7012 USA. 3Laboratory of Molecular Systematics, Botanic Institute of Barcelona (CSIC-ICUB), Pg. del Migdia, s.n., E08038 Barcelona, Spain Author for correspondence ([email protected]) Abstract—The Stipeae tribe is a group of 400−600 grass species of worldwide distribution that are currently placed in 21 genera. The ‘needlegrasses’ are char- acterized by having single-flowered spikelets and stout, terminally-awned lem- mas. We conducted a molecular phylogenetic study of the Stipeae (including all genera except Anemanthele) using a total of 94 species (nine species were used as outgroups) based on five plastid DNA regions (trnK-5’matK, matK, trnHGUG-psbA, trnL5’-trnF, and ndhF) and a single nuclear DNA region (ITS).
    [Show full text]
  • In the Eastern Cape, South Africa
    Bothalia 28,2: 141-149 (1998) A revision of Lachenalia (Hyacinthaceae) in the Eastern Cape, South Africa A.P. DOLD* and P.B. PHILLIPSON* Keywords: Eastern Cape, Hyacinthaceae, Luchenalui Jacq.f. ex Murray, South Africa, taxonomy ABSTRACT A taxonomic account of the genus Lacheiuiliii Jacq.f. ex Murray in the Eastern Cape, South Africa, is given. Eight species are recognised, and descriptions of these are amended and elaborated as necessary, three taxa have been reduced to synonymy and five species erroneously recorded within the province are excluded Three of the species are endemic to the province. An identification key is provided. INTRODUCTION & De Wet 1993 for references) and Duncan (1988, 1996, 1997), has resulted in the species from Western Cape The genus Lachenalia is confined to southern Africa becoming reasonably well known taxonomically. The and consists of a little over 100 species (Arnold & De same cannot be said for the Eastern Cape species. They Wet 1993). The majority of these species occur in the have mostly been unknown in cultivation, and they are winter rainfall region of the Western Cape in the sclero- generally represented only by few, rather old herbarium phyllous shrublands or ‘fynbos’ ol the Cape floristic specimens. region (sensu White 1983). The geographic range of a few species extends from this region into the western In the course of field work in the Eastern Cape it parts of the Eastern Cape and one even occurs as far became clear that Baker’s treatment was far from ade­ northeast as the Free State. The few remaining species quate.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Recent Incursions of Weeds to Australia 1971
    Recent Incursions of Weeds to Australia 1971 - 1995 1 CRC for Weed Management Systems Technical Series No. 3 CRC for Weed Management Systems Technical Series No. 3 Cooperative Research Centre for Weed Management Systems Recent Incursions of Weeds to Australia 1971 - 1995 Convened by R.H. Groves Appendix compiled by J.R. Hosking Established and supported under the Commonwealth Government’s Cooperative Research Centres 2 Program. Recent Incursions of Weeds to Australia 1971 - 1995 CRC for Weed Management Systems Technical Series No.3 January 1998 Groves, R.H. (Richard Harrison) Recent incursions of weeds to Australia 1971 - 1995 ISBN 0 9587010 2 4 1. Weeds - Control - Australia. I. Hosking, J.R. (John Robert). II. Cooperative Research Centre for Weed Management Systems (Australia). III. Title. (Series: CRC for Weed Management Systems Technical Series; No. 3) 632.5 Contact address: CRC for Weed Management Systems Waite Campus University of Adelaide PMB1 Glen Osmond SA 5064 Australia CRC for Weed Management Systems, Australia 1997. The information advice and/or procedures contained in this publication are provided for the sole purpose of disseminating information relating to scientific and technical matters in accordance with the functions of the CRC for Weed Management Systems. To the extent permitted by law, CRC for Weed Management Systems shall not be held liable in relation to any loss or damage incurred by the use and/or reliance upon any information advice and/or procedures contained in this publication. Mention of any product in this publication is for information purposes and does not constitute a recommendation of any such product either expressed or implied by CRC for Weed Management Systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Boerhavia Dominii Click on Images to Enlarge
    Species information Abo ut Reso urces Hom e A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Boerhavia dominii Click on images to enlarge Family Nyctaginaceae Scientific Name Boerhavia dominii Meikle & Hewson Hewson, H.J. & Meikle, R.D. in George, A.S. (1984) Flora of Australia 4: 9, 318. Type: Kangaroo Hills Stn, Qld, 2 Apr. 1965, M. Lazarides 7122; holo: CANB. Flowers. Copyright R.L. Barrett Common name Tarvine Stem Prostrate to trailing herb with stems up to 80 cm long; leafy stems glabrous or clothed in glandular hairs. Leaves Flowers. Copyright R.L. Barrett Leaves lanceolate to broadly ovate; lamina 10-40 x 5-10 mm, petioles up to 3 cm long. Both surfaces clothed in numerous reddish glandular hairs. Flowers Inflorescence an axillary and terminal umbel, sometimes a glomerule; peduncle stout, 2-16 cm, mostly 4-5 cm long. Flowers pedicelllate or sessile, pedicels up to 10 mm long, slender. Perianth base glandular in furrows; upper part campanulate, 1-2 mm long, white, pink or mauve, corolla absent, calyx petaloid. Stamens 2-4, 1-2 mm long. Style not exceeding the stamens. Fruit Fruit fusiform, 3-4 x 1-1.5 mm, glandular hairy, mucous; ribs 5; furrows usually densely glandular hairy. Seed Flower buds. Copyright R.L. Barrett with 3 low lengthwise ridges. Testa smooth. Seedlings Features not available. Distribution and Ecology Occurs in the WA, NT, CYP, NEQ, CEQ and southwards to Victoria and South Australia. Altitudinal range from near sea level to 580 m.
    [Show full text]
  • Haworthia ×Subattenuata 'Kinjoh' by Mr Shinnosuke Matsuzawa and Published in the Catalogue of Yokohama-Ueki 1925
    Haworthia ×subattenuata ‘Kinjoh’ Contents Some Observations on Roots. Harry Mays, UK. ................................................................................................. 2-5 Aloe mossurilensis Ellert, sp. nov. Anthon Ellert, USA ........................................................................................ 6 Cultivar publication dates ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Haworthia ×subattenuata ‘Kinjoh’. Mays-Hayashi, Japan ............................................................... Front cover,6 Bruce Bayer’s Haworthia. Update 5 ........................................................................................................................ 7 White Widows and their Common-Law Hubbies. Steven A. Hammer, USA .................................................. 8-9 Rick Nowakowski - Natures Curiosity Shop. ....................................................................................................... 10 Repertorium Plantarum Succulentarum (The Rep), offer David Hunt, UK ..................................................... 10 Two Japanese Cultivars Distributed by Rick Nowakowski. ................................................................................ 11 ×Gasteraloe ‘Green Ice’. David Cumming ........................................................................................ Back cover,11 Index of plant names Volume 9 (2009) ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Shenton Bushland Management Plan 2013 - 2018 Prepared By: Vicki Shannon, City of Nedlands Doc
    City of Nedlands (08) 9273 3500 [email protected] 71 Stirling Highway Nedlands 6009 Cover Photo Sally Wallace Document Information Document Title: Shenton Bushland Management Plan 2013 - 2018 Prepared by: Vicki Shannon, City of Nedlands Doc. Status: Final Adopted 25 March 2014 Document History Version Description Date 1. First Draft 14/02/2013 2. Second Draft 19/03/2013 3. Third Draft 13/09/2013 4. Public Consultation Draft 29/11/2013 5. Final for Council Endorsement 10/03/2014 6. Final Adopted 25 March 2014 25/03/2014 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ 4 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 5 Summary of Actions ............................................................................................................................ 5 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................... 7 Study Site ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Disturbance Factors ........................................................................................................................... 8 Implementation of Previous Management Plans .............................................................................. 8 Management Challenges and Success ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]