EPACRIS STUARTII RECOVERY PLAN 1996–2005 · 2014. 2. 17. · 6 Epacris stuartii Recovery Plan...

EPACRIS STUARTII

RECOVERY PLAN

1996–2005

Prepared by David Keith and Mick Ilowski

EPACRIS STUARTII RECOVERY PLAN1996–2005

Prepared byDavid Keith and Mick IlowskiNature Conservation Branch

Resource Management and Conservation DivisionDepartment of Primary Industries, Water and Environment

GPO Box 44A, Hobart, Tasmania 7001In conjunction with the Epacris stuartii Recovery Team

Funded by Environment AustraliaNovember 1999

ISBN: 0 7246 4290 0

4 Epacris stuartii Recovery Plan 1996-2005

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Belinda Pellow, Wendy Potts, Tony Auld, Judy Scott and Brooke Craven assisted with fieldwork. MarkFountain (Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens) assisted with collection of cuttings and successfullypropagated the material. Stephen Harris provided advice and administrative support. Prof. JamieKirkpatrick made available laboratory space and equipment while I was a Research Associate ofDepartment of Geography and Environmental Studies (University of Tasmania). Shauna Roche(Kings Park and Botanic Garden) supplied information, advice and materials for the germinationexperiment. Dr Phil Barker (Forestry Tasmania) made survey information available and participatedin some fruitful discussion about the biology and management of Phytophthora in relation toEpacris. Tim Rudman (Parks and Wildlife Service) offered some very helpful ideas on managementduring and after a visit to the site. Transport to the site was assisted by the Lune River Youth Hosteland the Ida Bay Railway Company. This project was funded by the Australian Nature ConservationAgency under the Endangered Species Program (Project No. 423).

Front cover illustration by Wendy Potts.

Endangered Species Unit Project Number 423. Funded by the Endangered Species Program, a program of the NaturalHeritage Trust, and administered by the Biodiversity Group, Environment Australia. The views expressed are those ofthe authors.

Citation: Keith, D.A and Ilowski, M. (1999) Epacris stuartii Recovery Plan 1996–2005. Department of PrimaryIndustries, Water and Environment, Hobart.

Copyright © The Director, Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment,GPO Box 44A, Hobart, Tasmania, 7001.

Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism or review as permitted under theCopyright Act, no part may be reproduced by any means without permission of the Director, Parks and WildlifeService.

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements...........................................................................................................................4

Summary..........................................................................................................................................6

Introduction......................................................................................................................................8

Description and Classification of Species .......................................................................................8Conservation Status........................................................................................................................8Distribution and Abundance..........................................................................................................8

Distribution................................................................................................................................8Population size and structure....................................................................................................10

Habitat.........................................................................................................................................10Physical environment...............................................................................................................10Substrate microhabitat..............................................................................................................10Vegetation ...............................................................................................................................11Fire History..............................................................................................................................11

Life History and Ecology ............................................................................................................11Flowering phenology, pollination and breeding system............................................................12Fruit Production.......................................................................................................................12Seed Dispersal..........................................................................................................................13Seed dormancy and dynamics of seed bank.............................................................................13Seedling recruitment and establishment....................................................................................13Propagation .............................................................................................................................17

Reasons for Listing......................................................................................................................17Existing Conservation Measures...................................................................................................17Strategy for Conservation ............................................................................................................18

Objectives and Criteria for Recovery ............................................................................................19

Specific Objectives.......................................................................................................................19Criteria ........................................................................................................................................19

Recovery Actions...........................................................................................................................20

1. Maintenance of Population Above Threshold Size...................................................................201.1 Population monitoring.......................................................................................................201.2 Habitat management to restore or avoid decline in wild population ....................................20

2. Disease Avoidance and Management .......................................................................................212.1 Undertake annual site inspections to detect invasion of Phytophthora.................................212.2 Promote and implement Phytophthora hygiene measures ..................................................212.3 Development works to reduce spread of infected mud........................................................212.4 Treatment and quarantine of infected areas........................................................................22

3. Research into Regeneration Ecology for Population Management ...........................................223.1 Determine seed longevity...................................................................................................223.2 Develop management technique for seedling regeneration.................................................233.3 Develop management decision support system...................................................................23

4.0 Ex Situ Safety Net..................................................................................................................234.1 Establish an ex situ population ...........................................................................................234.2 Reintroduction should wild population become extinct ......................................................24

Implementation Schedule................................................................................................................25

References ......................................................................................................................................27

6 Epacris stuartii Recovery Plan 1996–2005

SUMMARY

Current Species Status

Epacris stuartii stapf. is classified as Endangered under both Tasmanian State and Commonwealthendangered species legislation. There is only one wild population of about 850 mature plants. Thepopulation has declined by approximately 20% between the beginning of 1994 and March 1996.

Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors

Epacris stuartii is restricted to 0.3 ha of heathland on an exposed headland near Southport, south-eastTasmania. Plants occur in shallow soil or in crevices on outcrops of dolerite. Major threats are:disease epidemic caused by Phytophthora cinnamomi; fire regimes involving high frequency firesand/or fires followed by drought; and extreme storm events.

Recovery Objectives

To minimise the chance of extinction of Epacris stuartii by:

1. maintaining the wild population above a threshold of 500 mature individuals

2. minimising the chance of site invasion by Phytophthora cinnamomi and mitigating its impact ifinfection occurs

3. developing management techniques to restore the wild population should it fall below thethreshold size

4. establishing and maintaining an ex situ collection of E. stuartii for the purpose of reintroductionif required.

Recovery Criteria

1. The population size is maintained above 500 mature individuals in perpetuity.

2. The site remains free of Phytophthora cinnamomi in perpetuity. Infected vegetation is treatedimmediately, in the event that P. cinnamomi invades the site.

3. Management techniques to increase the size of the wild population of E. stuartii are developedand implemented where appropriate.

4. A representative ex situ living collection of E. stuartii is established and maintained, and used as asource of material for reintroduction in the event that the wild population becomes extinct.

Recovery Actions

1.1 Population monitoring.

1.2 Habitat management to restore or avoid decline in wild population.

2.1 Annual site inspections to detect invasion of Phytophthora cinnamomi.

2.2 Promote and implement measures to ensure Phytophthora hygiene.

2.3 Development works to reduce the spread of infected mud: (a) re-direct access track and installfootwear washdown station; (b) construct elevation walkway.

2.4 Treatment and quarantine of infected areas.

3.1 Determine seed longevity.

Epacris stuartii Recovery Plan 1996-2005 7

3.2 Develop management technique for seedling regeneration.

3.3 Develop decision support system for management.

4.1 Establish an ex situ population to an appropriate wild location and disperse plants to privategardens.

4.2 Reintroduce a representative sample of plants, should the wild population become extinct.

Estimated Cost of Recovery

Costs are in 1996 dollars. Costs for the seven years 1999–2005 are identical and quoted on a perannum basis.

Actions

Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr 8 Yr 9 Yr1 0

Total

1.1 7 190 2 710 2 710 2 710 2 710 2 710 2 710 2 710 2 710 2 710 31 580

1.2

2.1

Contingency actions: see main text for indicative costs

Costs included in Action 1.1

2.2 2.550 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 9 750

2.3 28 837 28 837

2.4 Contingency action: see main text for indicative costs

3.1 16 024 10 988 27 012

3.2 11 994 11 994

3.3 5 052 5 052

4.1 26 575 48 700 75 275

4.2 34 728 16 579 16 579 67 886

Total 106375

57 652 68 789 3 510 3 510 3 510 3 510 3 510 3 510 3 510 257386

8 Epacris stuartii Recovery Plan 1996–2005

INTRODUCTION

Description and Classification o fSpecies

Epacris stuartii Stapf. belongs to a genus ofabout 40 species endemic to south-easternAustralia and New Zealand. Epacris belongs thefamily Epacridaceae which has a Gwondwanandistribution including Australia, south-eastPacific Islands, South America, Malaysia andIndo-China. The Epacridaceae includes a groupof genera (tribe Epacrideae), including Epacris,Sprengelia, Richea, Andersonia andDracophyllum, distinguished by their drydehiscent fruits bearing multitudinous tiny seeds.The other tribe within the family (Styphelieae)includes genera such as Leucopogon, Styphelia,Trochocarpa, Acrotriche and Cyathodes,characterised by indehiscent fleshy fruits bearingfew seeds. The Epacridaceae is placed in theOrder Ericales, along with one other family,Ericaceae, which is distributed principally inforests and heathlands of the northernhemisphere.

Epacris stuartii is an erect or semi-prostratemulti-stemmed shrub growing up to 1 m tall. Itsbranches are robust, bearing ovate-cordate(heart-shaped) leaves tending to ovate (oval-shaped) on young branches, 4-7 mm long and 3-5 mm wide with short stalks (<1 mm long). Theleaves have a thick glossy cuticle, a pungentmucronate apex and three parallel veins on thelower surface. The flowers appearing in latewinter - early spring are white, solitary in the leafaxils, subsessile and crowded along the upperparts of the branches. The style and anthers areprominently exserted from the corolla tubewhich is 3-4 mm long and has five lobes 3.5 - 5mm long. Fruits are capsules up to 2 mm longand enclosed until dehiscence within imbricatewhorls of sepals and bracts. The seeds are tinyand numerous within the fruits (Curtis 1963,Crowden and Menadue 1990).

Epacris stuartii belongs to a group of about 10closely related species known as the ‘Epacristasmanica complex’ (Crowden and Menadue1990). This group is endemic to Tasmania andincludes several other threatened species,including E. barbata, E. virgata, E. apsleyensis,E. exserta and E. glabella. Crowden andMenadue (1990) concluded from amorphometric analysis based on selected leafand floral characters that E. stuartii was distinctfrom other taxa in the group. The analysisshowed the closest relatives of E. stuartii to be E.virgata sens. str., E. sp. aff. exserta (MtCameron) and E. tasmanica (Group A), a small-flowered taxon more similar to E. virgata than E.tasmanica sens. str. which was placed in Group B

(large flowers). Epacris stuartii was distinguishedfrom these taxa in the analysis by its longerleaves and corolla lobes (petals). Severalcharacters that were not included in Crowden andMenadue’s (1990) analysis are likely to reaffirmthe distinctness of E. stuartii from other taxa inthe group. These include the thickness and lusterof its leaves (thicker and more glossy in E.stuartii than other taxa in Group A), the lengthof its inflorescences (less elongated in E.stuartii), the width of its basal and ultimatebranches (more robust in E. stuartii), and itshabit (more usually semi-prostrate in E. stuartiicf. always erect in other taxa). The taxonomicstatus of some other members of the Epcaristasmanica complex remains to be formallyresolved (Crowden and Menadue 1990).

Conservation Status

Epacris stuartii is currently classified as anEndangered species under both Tasmanian stateand Commonwealth endangered specieslegislation. It had previously been regarded asVulnerable (Leigh et al. 1981, Briggs and Leigh1988). The change in status appears to haveresulted from a reappraisal of availableinformation on its distribution and apparentthreats, rather than evidence of recent decline inpopulation size or range.

Distribution and Abundance

Distribution

Epacris stuartii has only ever been known from asingle locality on Southport Bluff, about 6 kmsouth-east of Southport township in far south-eastern Tasmania (Fig. 1, Appendix 1). Thepopulation occupies an area of approximately0.3 ha over a range of about 300 m.

Searches of apparently similar habitat have beencarried out by Dr R. K Crowden (University ofTasmania), Mrs K. Geeves (Society for GrowingAustralian Plants) and recently by Dr P. J. C.Barker (Forestry Tasmania). Searches carried outby Barker were part of a survey project fundedby the Endangered Species Program (Project No.508) and will be reported later in 1996. Thesearches have examined rocky dolerite coastlinein the vicinity of Southport Bluff (Fig. 1). Allsearches were unsuccessful. Some similar habitatsin the area, such as clifftop heath on SouthBruny Island support Epacris myrtifolia, ratherthan E. stuartii, or no Epacris species at all.Therefore it seems unlikely that otherpopulations of E. stuartii exist. However, areas ofapparently similar habitat that remain to be


searched occur along the inaccessible coastline between Cockle Creek and South East Cape.

CapeBruny

Southport

SouthportBluff

RechercheBay

*

Figure 1: Distribution of Epacris stuartii (*) showing areas of coastline searched unsuccessfully fornew populations (circled). The southern shores of Port Esperance, the coastline between Dover andHuon Point and at Fluted Cape (Bruny Island) were also searched unsuccessfully.

1 0 Epacris stuartii Recovery Plan 1996–2005

The population of Epacris stuartii is disjunctfrom populations of related taxa in the E.tasmanica complex. The closest knownpopulations belong to the taxon described as E.tasmanica (Group A) by Crowden and Menadue(1990) and included by them within a broadenedconcept of E. virgata. These populations occur30 km to the north-east near Adventure Bay onSouth Bruny Island and 45 km to the northbetween Snug and Kettering and are separatedfrom E. stuartii by wide bodies of water(D’Entrecasteaux Channel and the Huon Riverestuary, respectively). Other taxa in the E.tasmanica complex occur on the east Tasmaniancoast north from Hobart and at scatteredlocations in northern and western lowlandTasmania (Crowden and Menadue 1990). Thegeographic isolation of E. stuartii from relatedtaxa, its very localised seed dispersal and thepresumed small home range of its invertebratepollinators may be major factors involved in itsspeciation.

Population size and structure

In 1995 the population of Epacris stuartii atSouthport Bluff was estimated to contain a totalof ca. 1,000 plants, of which ca. 85% wereestimated to be reproductively mature (Fig. 2).The estimate was derived from mean populationdensity (3 plants per square metre) multiplied bythe area of occurrence (300 m2), which wasmapped by foot traverse. The estimate wasvalidated by an exhaustive census of plantswithin an area comprising about one-third of thetotal area occupied by the population. Thiscensus yielded 400 individuals.

The population of E. stuartii comprised plantsthat varied in size and reproductive status. Threesize classes were defined for established plants bysumming the length of all their basal stems(small: <50 cm, medium: 50-100 cm and large:>100 cm). Thus individuals were placed in thelargest size class either if they had one or twolong stems (erect growth form) or many shortstems (semi-prostrate growth form). Anadditional size class was defined to includeseedlings, recognised by their short (<10 cm)slender stems and small leaf size. In February1995 less than 1% of the total population wasrepresented by seedlings These were presumed tohave emerged in the previous year. Thepopulation structure varied between substrates.On soil, more than 41% of plants were large,compared to 18% on intermediate substrates and5% on rock substrates (Fig. 2). Conversely only26% of plants on soil substrates were smallcompared to 36% on intermediate substrates and72% on rock substrates (Fig. 2). The percentageof reproductive plants varied from 55-78% in thesmall size class, to 75-95% in the medium class,to 94-100% in the large size class (Fig. 2).

Figure 2: Population structure in the threemicro-habitat types.

Habitat

Physical environment

Epacris stuartii occurs on an exposed doleriteheadland at an elevation of 5 to 19 m above sealevel. The headland is semi-circular in shape andhas a flat top inclined gently to the west andterminating in a small interrupted clifflinearound its northern, eastern and southern edges.Epacris stuartii is associated with seaward slopesand rocky outcrops. Plants are scattered mostlyaround eastern and southern aspects in numeroussmall subcatchments draining different parts ofthe headland. Despite the range of aspects, theentire population is exposed to onshore windsvarying from slight to gale force.

Substrate microhabitat

There is small-scale variation in the substratemicrohabitat of E. stuartii. The majority of thepopulation occurs in shallow, well-drained, darkgrey loam - sandy loam (Fig. 2). In thismicrohabitat soil depth varies up to ca. 20 cmand a scattering of dolerite rocks may protrudethrough the soil surface. A smaller, butsignificant proportion of the population occurson massive rocky outcrops (Fig. 2), either increvices with no visible soil, or in shallowdepressions with up to 1-2 cm of soil or moss,presumably with roots penetrating cracks in thesubsurface rock. On average, plants on rocksubstrates are smaller than those in shallow soilsubstrates (Fig. 2). Plants also grow in sites thatmay be regarded as intermediate microhabitats.

Epacris stuartii Recovery Plan 1996-2005 1 1

Vegetation

Epacris stuartii occurs exclusively in heathland.The structure and composition of co-occurringvegetation varies with substrate microhabitat andfire history. On shallow soil substrates the heathmay be dominated by a dense shrub stratum withLeptospermum scoparium, Acacia verticellata,Westringia brevifolia and Banksia marginata upto ca. 1 m tall. Epacris stuartii occurs mainly ingaps of the canopy of these larger shrubs,though some individuals occur beneath thecanopy and others protrude through it. Smallershrubs include Pultenaea dentata, Epacrisimpressa, Bossiaea prostrata and Astrolomahumifusum. Groundcover species includeStylidium graminifolium, Gonocarpustetragynus, Helichrysum scorpioides, Violahederacea, Deyeuxia densa, Microlaenastipoides, Danthonia pilosa, Poa poiformis andLepidosperma sp.. In recently burnt areas thecover of large shrubs is reduced and there is analmost continuous groundcover dominated byLomandra longifolia and Deyeuxia densa withvarious other grasses and sedges. On rockysubstrates the cover of vegetation is sparse, withscattered individuals of Westringia brevifolia,Leptospermum scoparium, Poa poiformis,Baumea juncea, Selliera radicans and theintroduced grass Aira caryophyllea.

Fire History

The fire history of Southport Bluff andsurrounds was established by examining firereports prepared by the Parks and WildlifeService, gathering observations during fieldinspections and by interviewing relevantpersonnel. Fire records for the George IIIHistoric Site and the adjacent Southport LagoonWildlife Sanctuary extend back to 1978. Twofires have apparently burnt the population ofEpacris stuartii on Southport Bluff between1978 and 1996. The first fire occurred on 3rdFebruary 1981. A detailed fire report (Skinner1981) and recollections by Ranger R. R.Donnelly, who inspected the Bluff on 4thFebruary 1981, both indicate that the fire wasintense and that it burnt the entire population ofE. stuartii. This description of the 1981 fire issupported by the remains of long dead shrubs,evidently killed in the 1981 fire, that aredistributed around the cliffline and on the cliffface itself around the entire headland (pers. obs.,1995). It therefore seems reasonable to assumethat virtually all E. stuartii plants were burnt in ahigh intensity fire, though it is impossible to tellwhether a few individuals escaped the 1981 firein small patches.

The second fire occurred on 2nd April 1994(Bradley 1994). This fire apparently reachedmoderate intensity on the flat summit of the

Bluff because the foliage of shrubs was entirelyconsumed (pers. obs., February 1995). Aroundthe edges of the Bluff the fire was patchy.Scorched foliage remaining on plants around thecliffline (pers. obs.) suggest that the fire wasgenerally less intense in these areas. Unburntpatches up to 50 m2 in size were scattered aroundthe north, east and south edges of the Bluff. Thespatial pattern of burnt areas appeared to beunrelated to fuel density and rocky outcrops.Both microhabitats of E. stuartii (dense heath onshallow soil and open heath on rocky outcrops)each contained a mosaic of burnt and unburntpatches. On some of the rocky outcrops the firehad spotted between individual shrubs, some ofwhich were quite small and separated bydistances of a few metres.

Both the 1981 and the 1994 fires started severalkilometres to the west between Southport Lagoonand the Ida Bay Railway. There is a very highfrequency of ignitions in the vicinity ofSouthport Lagoon, though many of these occurto the west and south of the lagoon itself (Parksand Wildlife Service fire records). The causesinclude arson, unattended campfires, andactivities connected with the operation of therailway and quarries. Although these ignitionshave to date resulted in only a moderatefrequency of fires at Southport Bluff, there is apotential for a more frequent fire regime whichmay threaten the population of Epacris stuartii(see below).

Life History and Ecology

As part of the Research Plan (Action 1) a censuswas established to examine the populationdynamics of the E. stuartii. A sample ofestablished plants stratified by plant size,substrate microhabitat, fire history and shadingwas permanently tagged with fire-resistant metaltags. Censuses were carried out in February 1995and January 1996 to measure rates of survival,growth and reproduction. For each plant thefollowing data were recorded: alive or dead;substrate microhabitat (soil, rock orintermediate); shading by canopies of adjacentplant (unshaded, shaded, intermediate); effect of1994 fire (entirely burnt, partially burnt, entirelyunburnt); number and lengths of basal stems;and number of infructescences produced in thecurrent season. It was assumed that plantsretaining dead foliage in February 1995 haddied during 1994.

Epacris stuartii has a low background rate ofmortality (<1% per annum) and is thereforelikely to be long-lived. The life span ofindividual shrubs is unknown, but probably inthe order of decades.

Mortality during 1994 -1996 occurred in two


major episodes, April 1994 and February 1996,in addition to the low level of backgroundmortality. The first episode of mortality wasrelated to a fire and was essentially confined toplants on rock substrates. Almost all burnt plantson soil substrates survived and resprouted. Thefire caused a decline in the population ofestablished plants by 12%.

The second episode of mortality occurredsuddenly 3 weeks after a severe storm which wasfollowed by warm weather. This resulted in afurther decline in the population of standingplants of at least 15% and up to 50%, dependingon the fate of surviving plants that sufferedvarying levels of leaf tissue death. Several othershrub species at the site showed a similarresponse at the same time. These wereLeptospermum scoparium, Westringia brevifolia,Banksia marginata, Astroloma humifusum,Pultenaea dentata, Leucopogon parviflorus andLomatia tinctoria. Tests of soil and root samplesfailed to detect evidence of Phytophthoracinnamomi. It seems likely that plant mortalityand dieback were a response to extreme saltlevels deposited by high winds and seas during astorm event of rare and extreme severity. Thisinterpretation is supported by observations at thesame time of similar responses in other coastalheathlands of south-east Tasmania (e.g. onTasman Peninsula and South Bruny Island).

Among the few plant deaths not associated witheither episode of mortality, the symptoms andpattern of mortality were consistent withdesiccation being the cause. Overall thepopulation of established plants has declined byat least 20% between early 1994 and March1996.

Flowering phenology, pollination and breedingsystem

In 1995 floral buds were initiated in January andFebruary on new growth that emerged in theprevious spring. Buds on five inflorescences on asample of 36 plants were tagged and followedbetween March 1995 and February 1996. Thefirst flowers were recorded early in August (Fig.3), though scattered individuals were observedflowering, mainly on north-facing slopes, asearly as late May. Flowering was complete bylate October. Fruit dehiscence began late inDecember and was complete by early February1996. The phenology of flowering and fruitingobserved in 1995-96 was consistent withanecdotal observations (R. Crowden, pers.comm., K. Geeves pers. comm.) and herbariumrecords from previous years.

The pollinators of Epacris stuartii are large adultcarrion flies (family Calliphoridae). Two speciesof flies were directly observed pollinating E.

stuartii on several days during August andSeptember 1995: Calliphora sp. (“metallicgreen abdomen” group) and Calliphora hilli(Dr P. B. McQuillan, pers. comm., Department ofGeography and Environmental Studies,University of Tasmania). Calliphora is awidespread genus of flies in Tasmania (P.McQuillan, pers. comm.). Epacris stuartii wasapparently the only local pollen source exploitedby Calliphora spp. at this time of year and seemslikely to be their first floral food source afteremergence as adults. After flowering of E.stuartii was complete flies were observed visitingflowers of Westringia brevifolia, Acaciaverticillata and Leptospermum scoparium whichflowered in an overlapping sequence on the sitethrough the summer months into autumn.

It seems unlikely that outcrossing within the E.stuartii population would be limited bypollinator movements because individual flies ingenera such as Calliphora are capable oftravelling several hundred metres in a singleflight (P. McQuillan, pers. comm.).

Experimental investigations have failed to detectany limitation in seed set due to self pollinationor due to limited availability of pollinators.Application of self or cross pollen and exclusionof pollinators had no significant effect on theproportion of fruit set. Even though the presentresults suggest that E. stuartii has a self-compatible breeding system, the slightly higherfruit set on cross-pollinated plants relative to self-pollinated plants suggests that the species may bepreferentially outcrossing.

Fruit Production

In 1995-96 fruit production depended on plantsize, fire history and shading by the canopies ofneighbouring plants, but was independent ofsubstrate. A similar pattern was evident in 1994-95. Large plants produced more fruit than thosein the small and medium size classes in theunburnt area (Fig. 4). Plants of comparable sizeproduced similar numbers of fruits on rock andsoil substrates (Fig. 4). However, overall fruitproduction was greater on soil substrates than onrock because the latter habitat supported veryfew plants in the large size class (Fig. 1). In theburnt area, fruit production was substantiallyreduced compared with the unburnt area (Fig.4).

Overall about 30% of buds initiated in early1995 produced viable fruit in early 1996. Thecauses of death of developing buds, flowers andfruits varied over time and in relation to firehistory and shading by the canopies ofneighbouring plants. The major cause of budand fruit loss was spontaneous abortion. In thesoil substrate spontaneous abortion of buds and


developing fruits was greatest amongst thoseplants that were most shaded by the canopies ofneighbouring plants. Less than 5% of budsproduced viable fruits in plants that were entirelybeneath the canopies of neighbouring plants(Fig. 5a) compared to ca. 60% in plants thatwere free from the canopies of neighbouringplants (Fig. 5c) and ca. 40% in plants that werepartially beneath the canopies of neighbouringplants (Fig. 5b). On rock substrates and in theburnt area there was minimal shading byneighbouring plants, however, there were greaterfruit losses to due wallaby grazing than in plantsin soil in the unburnt area (Fig. 5d, e). Fruitlosses caused by wallaby grazing were greatest inthe burnt area where less than 10% of budsproduced viable fruits (Fig. 5e). Predation bybeetle larvae and damage due to physical agentssuch as wind and mammal trampling were minorcauses of fruit loss (Fig. 5).

Seed Dispersal

Seed release occurs during January and February(Fig. 4). Seeds are dispersed passively and lackstructures that may assist dispersal by wind oranimals. Quantitative data on seed dispersal arelacking. However, very few seeds are likely to bedispersed more than a few metres from theirparent plant. The clustering of seedlings within ametre of adult plants supports the inference thatseed dispersal is very localised.

Seed dormancy and dynamics of seed bank

Seeds of Epacris stuartii are dormant, although asmall fraction of each year’s seed crop may benon dormant. Experimental investigation of theseed dormancy mechanism suggests thatdarkness, pre-heating and smoke derivatives mayeach have a role in breaking seed dormancy(Fig. 6). Low levels of germination in both lightand dark where seeds were not treated with eitherheat or smoke derivatives suggests that E. stuartiihas fire-related seed dormancy and a relativelysmall non-dormant seed fraction. The responseto darkness suggests that seeds buried in the soilare more likely to germinate than those lying onor near the soil surface. Germination is thereforelikely to be curtailed until seed burial occurs andthis is likely to influence the fate of emergingseedlings. Seedlings emerging from sitesrelatively deep in the soil profile are more likelyto survive dry weather conditions during their

establishment phase than seedlings emergingfrom seeds on or near the soil surface (Bell et al.1995).

The longevity of seeds is unknown. However, thetiming of seedling emergence suggests that E.stuartii is likely to have a persistent soil seedbank. Seedlings that emerged in 1995 werelikely to have been derived from seeds releasedalmost two years earlier in the fruiting seasonbefore the 1994 fire. Adult plants in the vicinityof seedlings were either killed by the fire orresprouted and failed to produce seeds in theonly reproductive season before the seedlingsemerged. The clustering of seedlings aroundtheir presumed parent plants suggests that seedswere unlikely to have been dispersed from plantsin unburnt areas.

Seedling recruitment and establishment

The total number of seedlings emerging in 1994and 1995 was small. The 412 recorded seedlingsoccurred in an area occupied by about 400mature plants. Less than half of these seedlingssurvived beyond six months after emergence andseedling survival was higher on soil than on rocksubstrates (Fig. 7). The time it takes for seedlingsto become mature and large enough to survivefire (in soil substrates) is unknown but likely tobe several years.

Seedling emergence was almost entirely confinedto the burnt area, more abundant on rock thanon soil substrates and occurred almostexclusively in 1995 (Fig. 7). This spatial patternof seedlings in relation to the burnt area isconsistent with the existence of fire-related seeddormancy mechanisms and the production of asmall fraction of non-dormant seeds. A similarrelationship between fire and seedling emergencehas been observed in other Epacris species(Keith 1991).

Seedling emergence was confined to the springseason in both 1994 and 1995, possiblyreflecting the favourability of warmer, moistconditions for seed germination. The emergenceof more seedlings in the second year after a firethan in the first year is unusual among heathlandshrubs and may be in response to low soilmoisture in the first post-fire year. Substantiallymore rainfall occurred in the spring and summerof 1995 than in the comparable seasons of 1994.


Figure 3: Reproductive phenology of Epacris stuartii in 1995-96.

Figure 4: Fruit production of Epacris stuartii in 1995 in relation to plant size, substrate and firehistory.


Figure 5: The fate of developing Epacris stuartii buds and fruits (viable, aborted, destroyed by fruitpredators, destroyed by grazers or destroyed by physical agents).

a) Unshaded by neighbouring plants in unburnt vegetation on soil substrate.

b) Partially shaded by neighbouring plants in unburnt vegetation on soil substrate.

c) Fully shaded by neighbouring plants in unburnt vegetation on soil substrate.

d) Unshaded by neighbouring plants in unburnt vegetation on rock substrate.

e) Unshaded by neighbouring plants in burnt vegetation on soil substrate.


Figure 6: Germination of Epacris stuartii seed under combinations of light, pre-heating to 90C for10 minutes and treatment with smoked water and smoked filter paper. Data indicate preliminaryresults of a continuing experiment.

Figure 7: Emergence of Epacris stuartii seedlings in (a) 1994 and (b) 1995 in areas of different firehistory on rock and soil substrates. Solid bars indicate numbers of seedlings surviving at 6 monthsafter emergence. Hatched bars indicate numbers of seedlings that failed to survive their first 6 monthsafter emergence.


Propagation

Propagation of Epacris stuartii has been carriedout successfully from cuttings collected in May1995. The cuttings consisted of new growth onolder wood. Three methods of cutting treatmentwere tested: basal dipping in undiluted ESIROOT (ER); basal dipping in professionalstrength Clonex; and immersion in 0.35% ESIROOT solution followed by basal dipping inprofessional strength Clonex. The two basaldipping methods were most successful in strikingcuttings, yielding greater than 80% strike andsurvival at 18 weeks after propagation (Fig. 8).Dunking in diluted ESI ROOT and subsequentbasal dipping in Clonex was a significantly lesssuccessful propagation technique, yielding 30%strike and survival rate (Fig. 8).

It appears possible to propagate Epacris stuartiifrom seed, although germinants have not yetbeen grown on beyond cotyledon stage. If thesuccess of germination as a propagationtechnique is confirmed, it may prove to be amore cost-effective method of establishing andmaintaining an ex situ living collection thanpropagation by cuttings.

Reasons for Listing

Epacris stuartii is listed as an endangered speciesby the Australian and New Zealand Environmentand Conservation Council and in Schedule 1,Part 1 of the Commonwealth EndangeredSpecies Protection Act (1992). It is also gazettedas an endangered species under the TasmanianRare and Vulnerable and Endangered SpeciesProtection Act (1996). The principal reasons forits endangered status include: its extremelyrestricted natural geographic range; its small andrecently declining population size; imminentthreats posed by disease epidemic, certain fireregimes and extreme weather events; and itslimited capacity for regeneration.

Epacris stuartii is known only from an area of0.3 ha and has a total population of about 850mature plants, which has declined by 20% overtwo years since early 1994. Seedling recruitmentover this period has been very localised andinsufficient in magnitude to maintain populationstability.

Epacris stuartii is known to be susceptible to thefungal pathogen, Phytophthora cinnamomi(Barker and Wardlaw 1995), which is associatedwith disease epidemics causing extreme declinesin populations of related Epacris species on theeast coast of Tasmania (Keith 1995, unpubl.data). Phytophthora cinnamomi has beenrecorded along the walking track within 1 km of

the E. stuartii population and, given currentusage of the track by bushwalkers, is highlylikely to invade the site in the near future.

Epacris stuartii may be threatened by fireregimes that comprise fires repeatedly followedby drought conditions and fires recurring at highfrequency. A fire caused the Epacris stuartiipopulation to decline by about 15% in 1994.The reasons for this decline appear to beassociated with weather conditions in the yearafter the fire, which were apparently too dry tosupport seedling recruitment. Thus, post-fireseedling recruitment was insufficient to offset thenumber of established plants killed by fire. It isalso likely that Epacris stuartii is adverselyaffected by high frequency fire regimes, sincethese have been implicated in populationdeclines of a wide range of woody shrub species(Keith 1996). Although the population has notexperienced high fire frequencies in recent times,the potential for this to occur in future isunderscored by the extremely high frequency ofignitions associated with recreational use of theadjacent Southport Lagoon Wildlife Sanctuaryand surrounding lands.

Epacris stuartii may also be threatened by severestorms though physical damage and excessivesalt loads. Such an event in February 1996apparently caused the death of numerous plantsand severe defoliation in about two-thirds of thepopulation. The frequency of severe stormevents associated with this level of mortality anddefoliation is unknown. When combined withother threats (disease epidemic and adverse fireregimes) and the limited capacity forregeneration in the E. stuartii population, theimpact of severe storms may be substantial.

Existing Conservation Measures

The only population of Epacris stuartii isprotected within a reserve of secure tenure,George III Historic Site. No active managementis carried out on the reserve other than themonitoring of fires. A management plan iscurrently in preparation for the adjacentSouthport Lagoon Wildlife Sanctuary. The planwill address issues such as recreational usage,visitor access and fire management that arerelevant to conservation of E. stuartii.

Access to the site is currently by foot along 5 kmof undeveloped walking track or by boat andfoot from nearby beaches. Vehicular access tothe northern side of Southport Lagoon andthence George III Historic Site was closed in1994 and the prohibition of vehicular access islikely to be continued when the managementplan is adopted. Signs direct walkers from theIda Bay Railway terminus at Deep Hole toGeorge III Historic Site. The walk is currently


promoted in an ad hoc manner by the Ida BayRailway Company and the Lune River Youth

Hostel. The existence and significance of E.stuartii is not publicised.

Figure 8: Strike and survival rate of Epacris stuartii cuttings collected and propagated in May 1995.Solid bars indicate cuttings that struck and survived to 18 weeks. Grey shaded bars indicate cuttingsthat failed to strike or survive. A total of 146 cuttings were tested from 14 genets in the wildpopulation (data courtesy of M. Fountain, Royal Tasmanian Botanic Gardens).

A monitoring program based on a sample of 250plants has been established in 1995 as part of theResearch Plan and is proposed to continue in thestrategy for conservation.

A small ex situ living collection of E. stuartii wasestablished in 1995 and is held at the RoyalTasmanian Botanic Gardens. The collectionconsists of approximately 90 individuals raisedfrom cuttings collected from 13 plants in thewild population. The ex situ collection is unlikelyto be a very comprehensive representation ofgenetic variability in the wild population and willrequire expansion if it is to function as anadequate safety net for the wild population.

Strategy for Conservation

This Recovery Plan will run for a term of 10years from 1996 to 2005 inclusive. The major

threat to E. stuartii is a disease epidemic causedby Phytophthora cinnamomi, which is expectedto infect the population during the term of thisPlan. Other risk factors such as fire regimes andthe timing of critical weather events (drought andstorm) may contribute to the overall threat atvarious times. Three strategies for conservationof E. stuartii will be implemented concurrentlyto address these threats:

(i) preventative measures to minimise thechance of invasion by P. cinnamomithrough access management, monitoringand early detection;

(ii) remedial measures to restore the wildpopulation or limit its decline throughhabitat management and disease treatment;and

(iii) a safety net to allow reintroduction, shouldthe wild population become extinct.


OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA FOR RECOVERY

The overall objective of this Recovery Plan is to minimise probability of extinction of Epacris stuartiiin the wild. This is unlikely to entail down listing the species’ status from Endangered because of itsnaturally restricted range and the limited area of suitable habitat.

Specific Objectives

1. To maintain the wild population of E. stuartii above a minimum threshold size of 500 matureindividuals.

2. To minimise the chance of invasion of George III Historic Site by Phytophthora cinnamomi andmitigate its impact on vegetation should infection occur.

3. To develop management techniques to restore the wild population of E. stuartii should it fallbelow the minimum threshold size.

4. To establish and maintain an ex situ collection of E. stuartii that represents, to an appropriatelevel, the variation within the wild population for the purpose of reintroduction should E. stuartiibecome extinct in the wild.

Criteria1. The population size is maintained above 500 mature individuals in perpetuity.

2. Southport Bluff remains free of infections of Phytophthora cinnamomi in perpetuity. Infectedvegetation in the vicinity is treated immediately, in the event that P. cinnamomi invades the site.

3. Management techniques to increase the size of the wild population of E. stuartii are developedand implemented if the population falls below 500 mature individuals.

4. A representative ex situ living collection of E. stuartii is established and maintained, and used as asource of material for reintroduction if the wild population becomes extinct.

2 0 Epacris stuartii Recovery Plan 1996-2005

RECOVERY ACTIONS

Implementation of the Recovery program will beoverseen by the Recovery Team consisting of abotanist from Parks and Wildlife Service, a landmanager from Parks and Wildlife Service(Esperance District), an officer from the RoyalTasmanian Botanical Gardens, an officer fromthe Endangered Species Unit (EnvironmentAustralia), the Tasmanian representative of theTasmanian Conservation Trust andrepresentatives of local business and/orcommunity interests as appropriate. The textbelow describes the recovery actions, justifiestheir need and provides estimated costs in 1996dollars.

1. Maintenance of Population AboveThreshold Size

1.1 Population monitoring

An up to date knowledge of the status of thepopulation is an essential basis for futuredecisions for management of fire, access, etc.Prior to 1995 the population had not been visitedregularly or assessed in a systematic manner. In1995 a monitoring program was established aspart of the implementation of the Research Plan.It is essential that monitoring continue so thatpopulation declines may be detected and theircause be identified as early as possible.

The existing monitoring program is based on asample of 250 established plants. The plants aremarked permanently with numbered brass tagson stainless steel stakes in an area south ofGeorge III Monument. Monitoring will continueto be carried out annually in January and willinvolve a census of survival and fruit productionof existing plants and a search for new seedlings,which will be tagged. Fires occurring in thepreceding year will be mapped on a detailed siteplan with reference to Departmental fire records.It is essential that monitoring occur in January ofeach year when fruits are mature. Annualmonitoring will continue for 10 years under thisPlan. In addition, it will be necessary to carry outmonitoring on a monthly basis in 1996 to assessrecovery of individual plants suffering dieback,apparently as a consequence of the storm inFebruary 1996. The fate of these plants, whichrepresent a high proportion of the totalpopulation, is critical to future managementoptions.

ESP funds are required for employment of aproject officer for 2 weeks in January of eachyear and two days per month in 1996 to carryout field work and evaluation and managementof data. Funds are also required to meet minor

costs of materials and travel allowance. Parks andWildlife Service will contribute vehiculartransport, training and supervision time.

Year

Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4-1 0

Total

Cost 7 190 2 710 2 710 2 710 31580

NB: In Year 1 a project officer, vehicle andoffice accommodation is required for 5 weeks.

1.2 Habitat management to restore or avoiddecline in wild population

Management actions directed at restoring the sizeof the population will be required if substantialpopulation declines are detected in themonitoring program. A decline in the number ofplants in the monitoring sample from 250 to 180will be taken as an indication that the totalpopulation is approaching the criticalmanagement threshold of 500 mature plants.This will be verified by inspection of the entirepopulation.

In the event that the population does decline tothreshold size, appropriate management actionsto encourage seedling recruitment will beconsidered. These potentially includeimplementation of regeneration fires, protectionfrom wildfire, smoke treatment, watersupplementation and fencing to excludemacropod grazers. At present there is insufficientknowledge to determine the conditions underwhich each of these actions should beimplemented Research is required to determinethe details of implementation (Action 3.3). Withthe exception of fire protection, none of themanagement actions listed should beimplemented without further research.

The timing of population management actionscannot be forecast, since it is dependent uponwhen and if the wild population declines to thethreshold size. Indicative costs of implementingactions are provided for one year as a guide forpossible funding requirements. The RecoveryTeam may or may not submit fundingapplications to Environment Australia for theseor related actions during the term of this Plan,depending on the status of the wild population.

a) Fire protection: May be required to preventpopulation decline due to high frequencyfire. The most feasible management optionfor fire protection is to create a firebreaknear the western boundary of the HistoricSite and to burn back in a westerly direction.Costs include labour for planning, slashing,burning and post-fire patrol, consumablesand boat hire. Repeat burns may be requiredat appropriate intervals. Costs are for one


treatment.

b) Regeneration fire: May be required tostimulate seedling regeneration. Costs as forprevious action, but without creation offirebreak.

c) Smoke treatment/water supplementation:May be required to stimulate and sustainseedling regeneration. Field apparatus forsmoke treatment has been developed byKings Park and Botanic Garden. Costsinclude apparatus, labour for planning,treatment and follow-up monitoring/wateringand travel.

d) Fencing: May be required to excludemacropods and prevent grazing of seedlingsand resprouting plants. Costs includematerials, transport and labour.

Management Action Cost

Fire protection 2 203

Regeneration fire 1 523

Smoke treatment/watersupplementation

11 935

Fencing 5 980

2. Disease Avoidance and Management

2.1 Undertake annual site inspections to detectinvasion of Phytophthora

Early detection of P. cinnamomi is essential ifthe impact of a disease epidemic on E. stuartii isto be mitigated. Annual monitoring is necessaryto ensure that invasion of the pathogen anddisease symptoms are detected early becausedeath rates of Epacris species in infected areasmay exceed 50% in the first year that symptomsbecome evident (Keith, unpubl. data).

Monitoring will entail a site inspectionthroughout the full extent of the population torecord symptoms of disease. Soil samples willalso be collected for analysis from any sitessuspected to be infected and severalrepresentative apparently uninfected sites. Theprecise location of sample collection points willbe recorded to assist with data interpretation.Monitoring will be carried out in January of eachyear because disease symptoms are most likely tobe expressed by this time of year.

Disease monitoring will be integrated withpopulation monitoring (Action 3.1.1), to becarried out at the same time of year. Integrationof the two monitoring programs allows costsavings to be achieved. Costs of Action 3.2.1 areincluded within the estimates for Action 3.1.1.

2.2 Promote and implement Phytophthorahygiene measures

The major risk of disease introduction to GeorgeIII Historic Site is through transport of infectedmud on footwear of visitors including tourists,management staff and researchers. For thisreason, visitation to the Historic Site will not beencouraged or promoted.

The Parks and Wildlife Service will ensure that allstaff and external researchers follow hygienicprocedures when visiting the site. Theseprocedures include washdown or change offootwear at appropriate sites. The RecoveryTeam will distribute educational material to andseek the co-operation of local tourist ventures toencourage recreational bushwalkers to followhygienic procedures when visiting the area. Keyventures to be targeted include the Ida BayRailway Company and the Lune River Hostel.The educational material will include a brochuredescribing the impact and spread of the disease,describe hygienic washdown procedures andnotify intending visitors that they will berequired to change or washdown footwear atdesignated points. An existing brochure,“Phytophthora Root Rot ... the plant killer”prepared by Parks and Wildlife Service withassistance from Environment Australia includesmuch of the necessary information. Funds willbe required to prepare an insert with informationlocally applicable to the Southport area andGeorge III Historic Site.

Appropriate signs designating washdown pointswill be erected at the Deep Hole Railwayterminus, Southport boat ramp and at a locationtopographically suitable for washdown near thewestern boundary of George III Historic Site.

Parks and Wildlife Service and relevant researchinstitutions will bear the costs of hygienicprocedures for their own staff. Liaison with localtourist ventures will be carried out by localService staff. Funds will be required forproduction of education material and signage.

Year

Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4-1 0

Total

Cost 2 550 800 800 800 9 750

2.3 Development works to reduce spread ofinfected mud

Development of the access route to George IIIHistoric Site will reduce the spread of infectedmud and hence the risk of disease in the E.stuartii population. The current access track hasdeveloped in an unplanned manner determinedby previous movements of vehicles and walkers.The aims of future access management will be tominimise the transport of mud to the Historic


Site from elsewhere and to confine walker trafficwithin the Historic Site to a defined pathway. Thepreferred strategy is to redirect the existingaccess track, install a footwear washdown stationand construct an elevated walkway within theHistoric Site. Careful planning of these works isessential to ensure that the potential for invasionof P. cinnamomi is minimised.

The re-routed access track will direct walkers intoan uninfected area which will serve as an ‘clean’buffer zone through which all walkers aredirected on their way to the Historic Site. Afootwear washdown station with appropriatesignage will be installed at the beginning of thenew section of track to minimise the transport ofinfected mud into the buffer zone. The bufferzone should be as wide as possible, to minimisethe transport of infected mud across its entirebreadth, as a precaution against failure of walkersto effectively wash down their footwear. The newsection of track required will therefore be up to 3km in length and will be located to include asuitable washdown site and avoid areas likely tobecome muddy. The washdown station must belocated at a topographically suitable site withpermanently available water. A ground survey isnecessary to locate sites of P. cinnamomiinfection along the existing access route and toevaluate options for a new track route and asuitable site for the washdown station.

The purpose of the walkway is to confine walkermovements to a single route within the HistoricSite and to direct people away from significantstands of Epacris stuartii, thus minimising thechance of infection. The walkway will extend forup to 400 m from the western boundary of theHistoric Site, across a drainage depression andacross the headland summit to the George IIIMonument. With the co-operation of visitors,these works offer the best possible option forminimising the chance of introduction of P.cinnamomi into the Historic Site and, in the eventthat introduction occurs, containing the infectionto a single route and hence minimising thechance of spread through E. stuartii habitat.

Planning and design of the works will beundertaken by Parks and Wildlife Service staff inconsultation with the Recovery Team. Parks andWildlife staff will carry out the ground surveyand soil testing. Funds will be required to meetsalary costs of a track cutter and labourers andpurchase materials. Re-routing of the walkingtrack and installation of the washdown station (a)will receive higher priority than construction ofthe elevated walkway (b).

Year

Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4-1 0

Total

Cost 28837

28 837

2.4 Treatment and quarantine of infected areas

George III Historic Site will be quarantined attimes considered appropriate by localmanagement staff. Quarantine restrictions maybe required when infections are evident in thevicinity of E. stuartii and when weatherconditions pose a high risk of spread. If diseasesymptoms are reported within George IIIHistoric Site and the presence of P. cinnamomi isconfirmed (Action 3.2.1), infected vegetationand adjacent sites will be treated withphosphonate as soon as weather conditions aresuitable. Initially, two treatments of phosphonatemay be required, several weeks apart. Follow uptreatments will be implemented at appropriateintervals. Parks and Wildlife Service has thecapacity for rapid response to treat small areas tominimise the impact of disease.

Phosphonate is applied by spray to plant foliageand acts systemically to increase plant resistanceto infection. It does not act directly on thepathogen. There is a possibility that phosphonatemay elicit a toxic response when plants areexposed to multiple applications over time.There is no evidence of a toxic response inrelated Epacris species after one application (P.Barker, pers. comm. Forestry Tasmania),however there are no data on responses tomultiple applications. It may therefore benecessary to monitor foliage of treated andcontrol plants. The timing of, and necessity forphosphonate application will be determined bythe appearance of the disease on site. Indicativecosts are given for two treatments.

Management Action Cost

Treatment and quarantine 4 688

3. Research into Regeneration Ecologyfor Population Management

3.1 Determine seed longevity

An understanding of the longevity of the soilseed bank is an essential basis for populationmanagement in the event of a major populationdecline. Existing germination data suggest thatthe population size could be restored through aregeneration fire to stimulate seed germination.However, the presence and activity ofPhytophthora cinnamomi will determine theoptimum timing of such a fire. If P. cinnamomiis active, new seedlings emerging after the firewill simply be exposed to the disease and die.The net result will be depletion of the soil seedbank. However, with time since the initial diseaseepidemic the activity of P. cinnamomi is knownto decline. Thus seedlings may avoid disease ifthey emerge after the activity of the pathogen


has declined. A delay of several years inimplementing a regeneration fire may thereforebe beneficial, so long as sufficient seeds remainviable in the soil over that time. Knowledge ofseed longevity will establish the limits offlexibility to the timing of regeneration fires.There will also be spin off benefits for ex situconservation. If seeds prove to be long-lived,seed storage would prove to be a cost-effectivemeans of maintaining a very large geneticallydiverse ex situ collection.

A seed burial experiment will be carried out overtwo years to determine the longevity of seed inthe soil. The Parks and Wildlife Service willprovide supervision, vehicular transport andarrange use of laboratory facilities. Funds arerequired to meet the cost of salary, travel andconsumables.

Year

Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4-1 0

Total

Cost 16024

10 988 27 012

3.2 Develop management technique for seedlingregeneration

Existing data indicate that seedling regenerationis limited by fire-related germination cues.Nonetheless, regeneration fires may fail tostimulate substantial seedling regeneration, as wasthe case after the 1994 fire. Laboratoryexperiments on E. stuartii seed and field trials onother species (Dixon et al. 1995) suggest thatseedling regeneration may be enhanced in thefield by application of smoke treatment followedby supplementary watering if soil moisture islimiting. If feasible, this may be an importantmanagement technique for restoring populationsize and one that is substantially more costeffective than reintroduction of ex situ stock. It isimportant that a regeneration technique isdeveloped before the need arises to reverse asubstantial decline in the wild population.

An experiment to test the effect of smoketreatment and supplementary watering onseedling establishment will be carried out in thefield. The methodology will be developed inconsultation with Western Australian researchers.Funds are required to meet the salary costs of aproject officer, materials and travel costs. PWSwill meet the costs of supervision, vehiculartransport and use of office space and equipment.

Year

Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4-1 0

Total

Cost 11994

11 994

3.3 Develop management decision supportsystem

The are a potentially complex range of scenariosinvolving fire, disease epidemic and weatherconditions to which management must respondto maintain Epacris stuartii above the populationthreshold. There is also a range of managementresponses available to restore population size,depending on the cause of decline (Action3.2.1). A decision support system is required toassist wildlife and field staff to determine themost appropriate management response tovarious scenarios. Funds are required to meet thesalary cost of a project officer for one month todevelop the decision support system.

Year

Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4-1 0

Total

Cost 5 052 5 052

4.0 Ex Situ Safety Net

4.1 Establish an ex situ population

Under the worst case scenario, Epacris stuartiicould decline to extinction in the wild during theterm of this Plan. The development andmaintenance of a genetically representative exsitu living collection is essential insurance againstsuch an outcome. The principal requirements ofsuch a collection are: (i) geneticrepresentativeness; (ii) commitment tomaintenance in perpetuity; and (iii) securityagainst disease infection and vandalism. Geneticrepresentativeness can only be assured by agenetic survey of the wild population. In theabsence of such a survey, geneticrepresentativeness may be approximated bystratified sampling of the population. Materialfor propagation should thus be collected fromplants scattered throughout the entire populationand from both microhabitat types.

The options proposed by Keith for ex situconservation collection of Epacris stuartii are:(A) establishment and maintenance of a secureliving collection at the Royal TasmanianBotanical Gardens; (B) establishment of a livingcollection on other land; (C) establishment of asemi-natural population in suitable bushland;and (D) dispersal of propagated material throughthe community for cultivation in home gardens.

Option (A) was the preferred option for ex situconservation but is the most expensive. Acheaper and possibly more cost effectivealternative is a combination of options (C) and(D). Option (C), the establishment of an ex situpopulation on other land, was also proposed byBarker (1994) to be undertaken on SouthportIsland, adjacent to the wild population onSouthport Bluff and consequentlyenvironmentally similar. Southport Island offersthe security of an isolated population particularly


with regard to Phytophthora cinnamomiinfection.

Before proceeding with Southport Island as an exsitu site the island will be surveyed for botanicaland zoological values. An assessment will bemade with regard to the potential impacts oftranslocation of E. stuartii. The assessment willbe undertaken with due regard to the guidelinesendorsed by the Australian Network for PlantConservation. If other Epacris species are foundon the island the potential impacts ofhybridisation will also be closely studied. Detailsof the translocation will be lodged with theThreatened Species Unit at EnvironmentAustralia. Another location will be sought andassessed if Southport Island turns out to beunsuitable.

Since an ex situ wild population would not beclosely monitored further security could begained by also dispersing propagated materialthrough the community for cultivation in homegardens (option D). These plants would be asource of material in the event of loss of the wildand ex situ populations.

Year

Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4-1 0

Total

Cost 26 575 48700

75 275

4.2 Reintroduction should wild populationbecome extinct

If Epacris stuartii becomes extinct in the wild,reintroduction will be necessary. To minimise

site disturbance, unnecessary alteration to geneticcomposition of the population and costs,reintroduction from cultivated stock will not beconsidered until. Reintroduction will beattempted only when (i) extinction of the wildpopulation is confirmed; (ii) attempts have beenmade to restore the wild population throughmanagement (e.g. stimulating regeneration fromthe soil seed bank); and (iii) when threateningprocesses that caused the decline of the wildpopulation have been abated. A reintroductionproject will follow guidelines endorsed by theAustralian Network for Plant Conservation.

Extinction of the wild population is not expectedduring the term of this Plan. However, indicativecosts are provided in the event that a fundingapplication for reintroduction is required. Apart-time project officer will be required forthree years to plan the reintroduction project, co-ordinate planting and undertake monitoring andmaintenance. If and when the need arises, fundswill be sought to meet the cost of salary, traveland consumables. The Parks and Wildlife Serviceand Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens willmeet costs of propagation, supervision, vehiclesand office equipment and accommodation.

Year

Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4-1 0

Total

Cost 34728

16 579 16579

67 886


IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Task Task Description Priority Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr 8 Yr 9 Yr 10 Total

1 Maintence of PopulationAbove Threshold Size

1.1 Population monitoring 1 7 190 2 710 2 710 2 710 2 710 2 710 2 710 2 710 2 710 2 710 31 5801.2 Habitat management to restore or

avoid decline in wild populationContingency action

2 Disease Avoidance andManagement

2.1 Undertake annual site inspectionsto detect invasion of Phytophthora

Costs included in Action 1.1

2.2 Promote and implementPhytophthora hygience measures

1 2 550 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 9 750

2.3 Development works to reducespread of infected mud

1-2 28 837 28 837

2.4 Treatment and quarantine ofinfected areas

Contingency action

3 Research into RegenerationEcology for PopulationManagement

3.1 Determine seed longevity 1 16 024 10 988 27 0123.2 Develop management technique

for seedling regeneration2 11 994 11 994

3.3 Develop management decisionsupport system

1 5 052 5 052

4 Ex Situ Safety Net4.1 Establish an ex situ population 1-2 26 575 48 700 75 2754.2 Reintroduction should wild

population become extinct2 34 728 16 579 16 579 67 886


106 375 57 652 68 789 3 510 3 510 3 510 3 510 3 510 3 510 3 510 257 386

REFERENCES

Barker, P.J.C. and Wardlaw, T. J. (1995). Susceptibility of selected Tasmanian rare plants toPhytophthora cinnamomi. Australian Journal of Botany 43, 379-386.

Bell, D.T., Rokich, D.P., McChesney, C.J. and Plummer, J.A. (1995). Effects of temperature, lightand gibberellic acid on the germination of seeds of 43 species native to Western Australia. Journal ofVegetation Science 6, 797-807.

Bradley, P. (1994). ‘Fire report - Southport Lagoon, 2 April 1994.’ Unpublished report. TasmanianParks and Wildlife Service.

Briggs, J.D. and Leigh, J.H. (188). ‘Rare or threatened Australian plants.’ Special Publication No.14. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Canberra.

Crowden, R.K. and Menadue, Y. (1990). Morphometric analysis of variation in the ‘Epacristasmanica complex’ (Epacridaceae). Australian Systematic Botany 3, 253-264.

Curtis, W.M. (1963). ‘Flora of Tasmania. Part 2.’ Tasmanian Government Printer.

Dixon, K., Roche, S. and Pate, J.S. (1995). The promotive effect of smoke derived from burntnative vegetation on seed germination of Western Australian plants. Oecologia 101, 185-192.

Keith, D.A. (1991). ‘Coexistence and species diversity in upland swamp vegetation: the roles ofenvironmental gradients and recurring fires.’ PhD thesis. University of Sydney.

Keith, D.A. (1995). Surviving fire and fungal pathogens: are there life-history solutions forthreatened species of Epacris? In 'Bushfire '95: Proceedings of the fifth Australian BushfireConference' (Eds. T. Blanks, M. Chladil, R. Chuter and K. Green). (Forestry Tasmania, Parks andWildlife Service, Tasmania Fire Service: Hobart)

Keith, D.A. (1996). Fire-driven extinction of plant populations: a review of theory and evidencefrom Australian vegetation. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales 115, in press.

Leigh, J.H., Briggs, J.D. and Hartley, W.M. (1981). ‘Rare or threatened Australian plants.’ SpecialPublication No. 7. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Canberra.

Skinner, A.D. (1981). ‘Southport Lagoon Conservation Area - Fire February 1981.’ Unpublishedreport. Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service.


EPACRIS STUARTII RECOVERY PLAN: 1996-2005Prepared by David Keith and Mick Ilowski

Date post:	19-Jan-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

EPACRIS STUARTII RECOVERY PLAN 1996–2005 · 2014. 2. 17. · 6 Epacris stuartii Recovery Plan...

Documents