September 2002 vol 5 no 1 ISSN 1441-1288 Forest Practices news Published by the Forest Practices Board, 30 Patrick Street, Hobart – Tasmania – 7000 phone (03) 6233 7966; fax (03) 6233 7954; email [email protected] – www.fpb.tas.gov.au Articles from this newsletter may be reproduced. Acknowledgement of the author and Forest Practices Board is requested. The views expressed in this newsletter are not necessarily those of the Forest Practices Board. Spotlight on tree ferns: Tasmania's celebrity plants (photo: John Hickey) What is David Attenborough’s favourite plant? Score one point if you said manfern (or Dicksonia antarctica if you are technically minded). And which Royal Personage has a magnificent grove of them at his estate in the English countryside. Score another point if you answered HRH Prince Charles. Yet, in Tasmania, they are just part of the scenery. They would be one of our most abundant forest species, with an estimated population of about 65 million plants in the state (see article on page 12). David Attenborough wrote about his manfern in the English gardening magazine Gardens Illustrated (February/March 1997). He confessed that he had agonised about buying it (from a London shop specialising in palms), because they were “endangered in the wild”. However, when he discovered that it had an export permit and had been collected from an area of the Tasmanian bush that was being cleared under licence, he could resist no longer. Obviously, his disposable income was also not a limiting factor – in 1997 a mature plant in the UK could cost from £99 to £599 (about $A1500). His delight in the manfern is evident from the article in Gardens Illustrated … “Now it stands beside my front door. During the winter, its fronds become tattered, but I stuff straw in the top to protect the embryonic leaf buds from the worst of the frost. Around April, I start gently groping in the russet-coloured nest of hair at the top that looks not unlike an orang-utan’s armpit. I can just detect the humps of the nascent leaf buds, and count them anxiously. And then, in May, the action starts. The croziers begin to rise. Rapidly, almost hourly, they uncurl. Their movement is not quite fast enough to see with the naked eye, but look away for an hour or two and you’d swear that you could see an increase….To me, it is indeed a fragment of jungle, a marvellous reminder of the undomesticated unordered wildernesses of the world that have given me so much delight and wonder throughout my life.” This edition of FPNews puts the spotlight on Tasmania’s five species of trunked ferns – manfern (or soft tree fern); rough tree fern; slender tree fern; skirted tree fern and king fern. (Note that the key to tree-ferns on page 9 does not require users to be familiar with the characteristics of orang-utans’ armpits.) author contact 03 62 33 7804 [email protected]Fred Duncan, Senior Botanist, Forest Practices Board
Transcript
1 Forest Practices News vol 5 no 1
September 2002 vol 5 no 1 ISSN 1441-1288
Forest Practices
newsPublished by the Forest Practices Board, 30 Patrick Street, Hobart – Tasmania – 7000
phone (03) 6233 7966; fax (03) 6233 7954; email [email protected] – www.fpb.tas.gov.auArticles from this newsletter may be reproduced.
Acknowledgement of the author and Forest Practices Board is requested.The views expressed in this newsletter are not necessarily those of the Forest Practices Board.
Spotlight on tree ferns: Tasmania's celebrity plants
(photo:John Hickey)
What is David Attenborough’s favourite plant? Score one point if you said manfern (or Dicksonia antarctica ifyou are technically minded). And which Royal Personage has a magnificent grove of them at his estate in theEnglish countryside. Score another point if you answered HRH Prince Charles.
Yet, in Tasmania, they are just partof the scenery. They would be oneof our most abundant forest species,with an estimated population ofabout 65 million plants in the state(see article on page 12).
David Attenborough wrote abouthis manfern in the Englishgardening magazine GardensIllustrated (February/March 1997).He confessed that he had agonisedabout buying it (from a Londonshop specialising in palms),because they were “endangered inthe wild”. However, when hediscovered that it had an exportpermit and had been collected froman area of the Tasmanian bush thatwas being cleared under licence,he could resist no longer.Obviously, his disposable income
was also not a limiting factor – in1997 a mature plant in the UK couldcost from £99 to £599 (about$A1500).
His delight in the manfern isevident from the article in GardensIllustrated …
“Now it stands beside my frontdoor. During the winter, its frondsbecome tattered, but I stuff straw inthe top to protect the embryonicleaf buds from the worst of the frost.Around April, I start gently gropingin the russet-coloured nest of hairat the top that looks not unlike anorang-utan’s armpit. I can justdetect the humps of the nascentleaf buds, and count themanxiously. And then, in May, theaction starts. The croziers begin torise. Rapidly, almost hourly, they
uncurl. Their movement is not quitefast enough to see with the nakedeye, but look away for an hour ortwo and you’d swear that you couldsee an increase….To me, it isindeed a fragment of jungle, amarvellous reminder of theundomesticated unorderedwildernesses of the world that havegiven me so much delight andwonder throughout my life.”
This edition of FPNews puts thespotlight on Tasmania’s fivespecies of trunked ferns – manfern(or soft tree fern); rough tree fern;slender tree fern; skirted tree fernand king fern. (Note that the key totree-ferns on page 9 does not requireusers to be familiar with thecharacteristics of orang-utans’armpits.)
Fred Duncan, Senior Botanist, Forest Practices Board
c-grove
Typewritten Text
Trim 2010/129388
2Forest Practices News vol 5 no 1
DevelopmentsRecent fines
Graham Wilkinson, Chief Forest Practices Officer, Forest Practices Board
Forest Practices Officers will know that the emphasis of the forest practices system is to achieve highenvironmental standards through an emphasis on planning, training and education.
Where problems arise, we expect thatthey will be dealt with through earlydetection and corrective action.Corrective action may mean remedialtreatment in the forest. Mostimportantly, it also means reviewingand improving systems to ensurethat similar errors do not arise in thefuture. From time to time, seriouserrors arise that generally reflectinadequate systems or insufficientcare. In these cases, penalties may beappropriate to reinforce theimportance that we all place onstriving for best practice.
Fines imposed for offences under theForest Practices Act during the year2001/2002 were as follows-
• Rodney Blake (landowner) andDanny Woods (contractor) – theBoard imposed total fines of $1,000under s.47B of the Forest PracticesAct for offences related to theharvesting of 70 tonnes of timberwithout a current Forest PracticesPlan. The land was previouslycovered by a FPP but operationsdid not commence during the termof the FPP. When harvesting didcommence, it was carried outwithin the streamside reserve of aclass 3 stream, causingenvironmental harm. The allegedoffences appear to have resultedfrom a lack of care and ignoranceof the law, but the Board consideredthat a penalty was warranted tosend a signal to landowners andcontractors that such activityneeds to strictly comply with therequirements of the Act.
• Forestry Tasmania (Bass District)– the Board imposed a fine of $3,000under s.47B of the Act for offencesrelated to the harvesting of treeswithin a streamside reserve. Theclass 3 streamside reserve wasincorrectly marked, resulting inthe harvesting of trees to within 5m of the stream over a 50 m sectionof the reserve. The offences did notresult in substantial
environmental harm. However,the Board was disappointed thatForestry Tasmania had been awareof a potential problem with themarking of the streamside reserveand yet it had failed to check themarking prior to harvesting.
• Forest Enterprises Australia – theBoard imposed a fine of $1,000 foroffences related to the applicationof herbicide to an area excludedfrom treatment under theprovisions of a Forest PracticesPlan. The error was the secondincident involving the applicationof herbicides to areas excludedwithin the plan. There was noevidence of any environmentalharm as a result of the spraying.The Board also acknowledgedthat the second spraying incidentmight have occurred partlybecause persons unknownremoved the tapes marking thespray-exclusion area.Notwithstanding this, the Boardwas of the view that the systemsused by FEA at that time weredeficient.
• Maydena Contractors – the Boardimposed a fine of $1,750 for offencesrelated to the harvesting offirewood on State forest outsidethe boundary of an FPP. The Boardfound that the contractors had nottaken adequate care with respectto complying with the FPP. TheBoard noted that firewoodoperations have traditionally beenregarded by some as being outsidethe forest practices system. Insetting a penalty, the Board hasplaced the firewood industry veryfirmly on notice that it must fullycomply with the requirements ofthe Forest Practices Act.
• Kelvin William Watson – wasconvicted under s.21 of the ForestPractices Act for cutting firewoodon private land at Waterloo in anarea reserved from harvestingunder an FPP. The reserve was
originally included in the plan inorder to protect a threatenedspecies of stag beetle. The illegalcutting had been detected by anFPO who had stopped theoperation before any major harmwas done to the beetle’s habitat.Magistrate Shan Tennent in theHuonville Court of Petty Sessionsfined Mr Watson $1,500 plus $900in costs. The Magistrate said thatMr Watson worked in the forestindustry and should have readthe plan and stayed outside thearea of forest set aside to protect thebeetle.
• Gunns – the Board imposed a fineof $50,000 on Gunns for breachesrelating to road works carried outon the Tasman Peninsula. TheBoard found that the roadconstruction and drainage workswere totally unacceptable,resulting in excessive sedimententering a major stream. The fineis the largest imposed to date bythe Board and reflects theseriousness of the breaches. TheBoard took into account thatGunns had been very cooperativein carrying out remedial works ata cost of over $80,000.
The Board also imposed a fine of$2750 on Red Roo, the companyemployed by Gunns on the roadworks at Tasman Peninsula.Action is in progress against asecond contractor. The Boardnoted that Gunns were primarilyresponsible for the supervision ofthe road works, but that this didnot remove the responsibility of allassociated contractors to ensurethat their operators comply withthe Code. The Board said that theindustry could no longer tolerateoperators who were not properlytrained and competent in therequirements of the Forest PracticesCode.
NoticeboardForward Training Program – Forest Practices Board
Another edition of FPNews hits the press. We’d like to acknowledge DavidHinley’s contribution in getting the newsletter out – in fact this is the 17th
production since issue 1.1, four years ago.
We hope that FPNews has been a good vehicle for exchanging informationabout forest practices in Tasmania. Some of our most interesting articleshave come from FPOs working in the bush – describing techniques thatthey’ve tried, interesting things they’ve observed and applications ofmanagement prescriptions. But it’s often the same FPOs who are makingthese contributions!!!
There are many times when we’ve heard experienced FPOs saying “I reallyshould write that up for FPNews” or “that would make a great page 3 photo”.But despite these good intentions, the editors have not had to delve deepinto their box of rejection slips. Well, now is the time to send in that articleor photo. The next FPNews is scheduled for December, and we are hopingfor a big issue of Christmas Holiday Reading!
And, talking of celebrations, it’s great to be able to report the safe arrival ofEmily Wapstra.
The (p)article boardFred Duncan & Mark Wapstra, editors, FP News
Feature: tree fernsFeature: tree fernsFeature: tree fernsFeature: tree fernsFeature: tree ferns ............................................................ 88888
Cultural HeritageCultural HeritageCultural HeritageCultural HeritageCultural Heritage ................................................................. 1414141414
General training in forestpractices for FT and othersupervisors
Fauna values andforest management(Suzette Wood)
28-30 Oct.2002
3 days NE Tas. Train FPOs in procedures forthreatened species
Forest PracticesManager training(Chris Mitchell)
Late 2002 1 day To beconfirmed
Update forest managers onrequirements of the forestpractices system
Forest PracticesOfficer course (ChrisMitchell)
Winter/Spring 2003
11 daystotal
Variouslocations
Pre-requisite course forappointment as FPO
1Course run jointly by Forestry Tasmania and Forest Practices Board
4Forest Practices News vol 5 no 1
SoilsCatchment behaviour after logging
Peter McIntosh, Senior Soils and Water Scientist, Forest Practices Board
As a very broad generalisation, a mature forest in Tasmania will intercept, evaporate and transpire about 200to 400 mm of water per year.The actual amount depends on theforest type, the amount of waterstored in the soil, the aspect, thesilvicultural history, and a host ofother factors. It follows thatremoving the forest cover willincrease effective rainfall by thesame amount as that previouslyintercepted by the trees.
Just how big this effect is wasmeasured in Victoria, in a pairedcatchment study. Streamflows inthe Picaninny catchment, whichhad 78% of its Eucalyptusdelegatensis forest cleared in 1972,were compared with those in theadjacent Slip Creek catchment(unlogged control). The differencein streamflow between the twocatchments was expressed asrainfall equivalents, in millimetresof rainfall (Figure 1). The studyshowed that clearfelling resultedin effective rainfall increasing byabout 250 mm per year. Thisincrease would have been greaterif the catchment had been 100%clearfelled. The effect lasted sixyears. By year seven, and for everyrecorded year after that, the effectiverainfall in the clearfelled andregenerated catchment was lessthan that in the control catchment.This is because after year six the
rapidly regenerating tree stand hasa very large leaf area (more than amature forest) and thereforetranspires more water than amature forest.
These catchment effects areimportant, not only for water yield,but for forest operations. The soilsin clearfelled coupes with veryyoung regeneration are wetter forlonger – much of the rainfall isstored in soil, or in groundwater indeep porous rocks. An examplefrom a catchment with jarrah (E.marginata) cover in westernAustralia (Figure 2) shows howlogging can affect groundwater.The effect illustrated is extreme,and is unlikely to occur on the samescale in Tasmania. However, thestudy demonstrates the principlethat a consequence of logging isthat groundwater levels are raised,and only after the regeneratingvegetation is growing at itsmaximum rate (three years underWestern Australian conditions)does the groundwater level beginto decline.
At the coupe scale, the implicationsfor forest operations of changedcatchment behaviour after loggingare:
(1) expect soils to be much wetterafter harvest – drainage linesmay behave like Class 4streams;
(2) expect Class 4 streams to flowwith more force, leading tomore downcutting and bankerosion (Figure 3);
(3) expect any erosion features (e.g.tunnel gullies or oldlandslides) to become activeas groundwater rises and soilsare saturated for longer;
(4) expect more flow on roads inroadside drains, and battercollapse if batters have beencut in unconsolidatedmaterials.
On the catchment scale, it makessense to sequence harvestoperations so that only a smallproportion of a catchment isharvested in any 5-year period.Where companies have inheritedlarge even-age plantations from aprevious (less environmentally-sensitive) era, planning shouldmake sure that coupe harvests areoffset, by several years if possible.Using different species in differentcoupes, and re-establishing nativeriparian zones, will ensure that
STREAMFLOW CHANGES
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
YEARS AFTER CLEARANCE
AN
NU
AL
STR
EAM
FLO
W
CH
AN
GES
(mm
)
Figure 1. Annual streamflow changes in thePicaninny catchment of the Central
Highlands, Victoria, relative to an undisturbedcatchment. Data from Vertessy (1999).
to page 5
CHANGES IN GROUNDWATER LEVEL FOLLOWING LOGGING
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86
YEAR
DEV
IATI
ON
OF
GR
OU
ND
WA
TER
LEV
EL F
RO
M
CO
NTR
OL
(m)
Figure 2. Changes in groundwater levelrelative to control boreholes following logging
in two experimental coupes in WesternAustralia. Data from Borg et al. (1987).
5 Forest Practices News vol 5 no 1
Legislation
from page 4different parts of the catchment have different hydrologicalresponses to rainfall. This will reduce erosion and help toreduce risks of extreme flow events, as well as producing amore varied and more attractive visual landscape.
References
H. Borg, P. King and I. Loh (1987). Stream and groundwaterresponse to logging and subsequent regeneration in thesouthern forest of Western Australia: interim results frompaired catchment studies. Water Authority of WesternAustralia, Report WH 34.
R. Vertessy (1999). The impacts of forestry on streamflows: areview. Pages 91-98 in: Proceedings of the 2nd ForestErosion Workshop, May 1999. CRC for CatcmentHydrology, Report 99/6.
Figure 3. Downcutting by about 1 m (see arrow) by a Class 4stream, after coupe harvest. The downcutting is attributed toincreased streamflow following removal of the forest cover.
Changes to forest practices legislation were discussed in FPNews 4(2). Since then, there have been severalbriefing sessions to FPOs, Councils, other government agencies and the media.
The Forest Practices Board has alsoproduced a number of informationsheets on the legislation changes.These are available on the FPB webpage. Information sheets includeland clearing, tree fern harvestingand firewood cutting. Please directinterested people towww.fpb.tas.gov.au or put themin contact with FPOs or the FPB if
further information is required.Also available on the web page is acopy of the tree fern managementplan.
Tree fern tag fee increase
The prescribed fee for a tree fern tagis set at two fee units. The Fee UnitsAct 1997 determines that on 1 Julyeach year the value of a fee unit is
adjusted by the Treasurer andgazetted. The amount gazetted on14/6/02 to be effective from 1/7/02 was $1.08 per fee unit, makingthe fee for a tree fern tag $2.16 until30/6/03.
(See page 6 for more aboutlegislation).
Tree fern tags are required whenever more than six are harvested from Tasmanian forest.
6Forest Practices News vol 5 no 1
LegislationClarification of what is a property –
for FPP purposesPaul Wilkinson, Environmental Officer, Forest Practices Board
Following changes to Section 5(1)(a) of the Forest Practices Regulations at the beginning of the year, we have hadongoing inquiries from FPOs and others on how to determine what is one “property” (i.e. one area of “applicableland”), where one owner has multiple titles adjacent to each other.
The information below is providedto clarify this issue, and may alsobe useful to planners dealing withthe Duty of Care policy.
To remind you, Regulation 5(1)(a)states that a Forest Practices plan isnot required:
"5. (1) for the purpose of section17(6) of the Act, the followingcircumstances are prescribed:
a) the harvesting of timber or theclearing of trees on land that isnot vulnerable land, with theconsent of the owner of that land,if –
i) The volume of timber harvestedor trees cleared is less than 100tonnes for each area ofapplicable land for each year;or
ii) The total area of land on whichthe harvesting or clearingoccurs is less than one hectarefor each area of applicable landfor each year – whichever is thelesser:”
In FP Regulation 3, “applicableland” other than State forest andCrown land is defined as “any landrecorded as one valuation on thevaluation roll under section 23(1)of the Land Valuation Act 1971”.
There are two useful sources thataccess the valuation roll and thuscan assist in determining what isone property. These are describedbelow.
The List(www.thelist.tas.gov.au)
This is a comprehensive, reliableand quick source of propertyinformation. Each valuation on thevaluation roll has a single ‘PropertyId’ number. Thus one Property Id =one valuation on the role = one areaof “applicable land” (i.e. oneproperty). The Property Id is shownat the top of the PropertyInformation Sheet obtainable onThe List. Each Property Id can havemultiple title references. These arethe titles that have been combinedto form this one property (Property
Id). The List information will alsoshow the title owners, rate payers,postal address, land use, land area,UPI references, valuations and titlemaps. Information from The Listcosts approximately $25 perproperty inquiry. The List can alsobe accessed at any ServiceTasmania Shop.
Rate Notice and Valuation Notice
Each valuation roll listing has aseparate rate notice (annually) andvaluation notice (every 5 years),which are sent to the owner i.e. 2rate notices = 2 properties = 2“applicable land” areas. Thedisadvantage of these sources isthat they don’t have a propertymap or title map i.e. the FPO cannotbe certain that all the land beingconsidered is covered by a ratenotice or valuation notice.
Contributors Guidelines for contributorsForest Practices News is published quarterly by the Forest PracticesBoard, Tasmania. FPNews provides a means for communicatingnew ideas and developments among those interested in thesustainable management of Tasmania’s forests. We particularlywelcome contributions from practising Forest Practices Officers.We welcome both feature articles and shorter contributions of evenjust a paragraph or two. Please include illustrations with yourcontributions if at all possible. Contributions can be supplied eitheras hard copy or electronically. If forwarding material electronically,the address is [email protected]. Please ensure that figures/pictures are sent as separate files and not embedded in Worddocuments. We look forward to seeing you in print in FPNews!
The effects of wildlife browsing on eucalypt regeneration are well known. It can be particularly severe in forestadjoining cropping and grazing land and where dense grass recovery compounds regeneration problems.
To try and satisfy both the need fora bare soil seedbed and protectionof regeneration from browsing,excavator scarifying has beentrialed in two Inland Eucalyptusamygdalina (black peppermint)forests at Blackwood Creek andBracknell. Both areas wereselectively logged to a basal area ofapproximately 8m2/ha.The machine used was aCaterpillar 325 excavator with a 6tyne root rake and grab attachment.The concept was to grab felledheads and debris and move themonto snig tracks to provide ‘caging’over disturbed ground. Where therewas not sufficient disturbedground, the root rake was used firstto disturb an area of about 5 metresdiameter. Alternatively, where alarge mass of heads occurred butseedbed was poor, the excavatorsimply reached into the middle ofthe slash and raked an openingthat was given adequate caging bythe surrounding slash.The aim was to have ‘cages’ every10-20 metres targeted in canopygaps. In areas with a poor seedcrop, manual sowing can then betargeted to the disturbed seedbedsbelow the ‘cages’.
The method has bothadvantages andd i s a d v a n t a g e scompared to pre-harvest dozerscarification.Scarification usingexcavators createsless seedbed in a giventime but allows bettertargeting of areas.This has advantagesin more sensitiveforest types such asInland E. amygdalinaforest where understoreyvegetation may be adverselyimpacted by excessive andwidespread ground disturbance.The chance of a head falling onscarified ground, and not beingsubsequently disturbed byskidders, is much more randomwith pre-harvest dozerscarification. Therefore greaterground coverage is needed toensure that heads fall on scarifiedground in canopy gaps. Undercloser examination, the cost-effectiveness of such widespreadpre-harvest dozer scarification maynot be much better than targetedexcavator scarification and headplacement after harvest.The level of soil disturbance at eachsite is also more controlled with
excavation scarification. Where adozer blade may easily be dug intoo deep, an excavator operator hasbetter control and vision.Excavator scarification asconducted in this trial appears tobe slightly more expensive thannormal dozer scarification. Whileone would expect a smallscarifying dozer to cover over ahectare per hour, this trialsuggested that about 0.8-0.9 ha/hrcould be covered once an operatorgets used to what is required. It isyet to be seen whether the ultimateregeneration success justifies theadditional cost. I would beinterested to hear of otherexperiences with similar methods.
Root rake on excavatorHead cagingover disturbedsoil
Excavator used in trial
8Forest Practices News vol 5 no 1
Feature
Introduction
An ever growing number of landowners, land managers and community groups are actively conserving and managingareas of native vegetation and threatened fauna and flora habitat across Tasmania, King Island and the Furneaux Group.In recognition of this stakeholder demand, and the need to sustainably manage Australia’s natural resources and uniqueenvironment, the Commonwealth Government funded the National Bushcare Program through the Natural Heritage Trustin 1997. In broad terms, the Program aims to reverse the long-term decline of Australia’s native vegetation and biologicaldiversity.
Tasmanian tree ferns: a key and descriptionsFred Duncan, Senior Botanist, Forest Practices BoardMark Neyland, Research Officer, Forestry Tasmania
The attractiveness of tree ferns is undeniable. Whether they occur in groves or as isolated individuals occupyinga moist niche in a dry environment, their luxuriance and primeval appearance invite inspection.
Changes to the Forest Practices Act,and requirements for threatenedspecies, mean that FPOs should beable to accurately identify tree fernsas well as merely admire them fromafar. The key presented here usesvegetative characters to distinguishthe five Tasmanian species thatregularly form trunks over onemetre in height. These species areTodea barbara (king fern), Dicksoniaantarctica (manfern or soft tree fern),Cyathea australis (rough tree fern),Cyathea cunninghamii (slender treefern) and Cyathea marcescens(skirted tree fern). Cyatheamarcescens is a natural hybridbetween C. cunninghamii and C.australis, and is more correctlywritten as Cyathea Xmarcescens.Table 1 (page 10) gives moredetailed comparisons of thecharacteristics and habitat of thesespecies.
Mature plants of three other species- Polystichum proliferum (catheadfern), Blechnum nudum (fishbonefern), and Diplazium australe (lady
fern) - may also form trunks, butthese rarely exceed 30 cm in height.
Garrett (1996) has goodphotographs and distributionmaps of all of the above species.
Two species of tree ferns (Cyatheacunninghamii and C. marcescens) areof conservation significance.Cyathea cunninghamii (slender treefern) is restricted to a few localizedpopulations in sheltered gullies(mostly in coastal areas) aroundTasmania (see map). The biggestpopulation, over 200 individuals,was discovered by an FPO at DalcoCreek, in the Esperance area.
Cyathea cunninghamii has beennominated for listing on theThreatened Species Protection Act.Cyathea marcescens is known fromthree sites in Tasmania, all with C.australis and C. cunninghamiipresent (as befits its hybrid origins).The largest population of C.marcescens is in Little Beach CreekForest Reserve, near Scamander.Suspected occurrences of these two
species should be reported to theFPB Botanist.
All species of tree ferns areimportant substrates for epiphyticferns, mosses and liverworts, asthe article by Nina Robertsdemonstrates (see page 11). It maybe feasible to modify operations tominimise disturbance to densestands of tree ferns in moist parts ofthe State, or to small populations orsporadic individuals in regionswhere they are uncommon (e.g. theMidlands). Often tree ferns areassociated with steeper slopes,gullies or creeklines that wouldnormally be protected by ForestPractices Code constraints. Someguidelines to maintain tree ferns inwood production forests are givenon page 13 of this issue of FPNews.
Reference
Garrett, M. (1996). The ferns ofTasmania: their ecology anddistribution. Tasmanian ForestResearch Council, Hobart.
Identification of species in this key is based on characters of the frond. Note that it is important to examine thebase of the stipe. Species can be classified using dead fronds if they are in good condition. Identification ofspecimens can be checked by referring to other characters listed in the table (next page).
If you want to confirm the identity of a plant, send a specimen of frond (including the base of the stipe) and fertilematerial (if possible) to the FPB Botanist. Alternatively, a photo or scan can be sent. Other information (trunkheight and diameter, habitat, location) should also be supplied.
! Stipe smooth near base" Stipe base hairless .................................................................................................................Todea barbara" Stipe base covered with soft reddish hairs ............................................................... Dicksonia antarctica
! Stipe rough and rasp-like near base" Trunk of mature plant more than 20 cm diameter; scales at base of stipe varnished
# Stipe base brown; scales brown ............................................................................... Cyathea australis# Stipe base black; scales dark brown ............................................................... Cyathea Xmarcescens$
" Trunk of mature plant less than 20 cm diameter; scales at base ofstipe often streaked (stipe base black; scales fawn to brown) ........................... Cyathea cunninghamii
" Trunk of mature plant absent or not determined# Most pinnules joined to rachis; scales at base of stipe varnished
% Stipe base brown; scales brown .......................................................................... Cyathea australis% Stipe base black; scales dark brown .......................................................... Cyathea Xmarcescens$
# Most pinnules petiolate; scales at base of stipe often streaked(stipe base black; scales fawn to brown) ........................................................ Cyathea cunninghamii
$ Cyathea Xmarcescens will only be found where both C. australis and C. cunninghamii co-occur.
Figure 1. Stipe base and scales of Cyatheaaustralis (A) and Cyathea cunninghamii (B). Figure 2. Stylised tripinnate frond of Cyathea species.
Terms used in the key and tableFrond ...................................................................................................................................................... full leaf of fernStipe ........................................................................... stalk of frond, from trunk to first divisions bearing leafletsRhachis .......................................................................................... axes or framework of the frond above the stipeTubercles ....................................................................................................................................... knobby projectionsBipinnate/Tripinnate ................................................................................................ frond is twice/thrice dividedPinnule ......................................................................................................... smallest segment of the divided frondPetiolate ............................................................................................. attached to the rhachis by the mid-vein onlySori ...................................................................... clusters containing spores on the underside of fertile pinnulesIndusia .................................................... membranes which cover or partly cover immature sori in many ferns
10Forest Practices News vol 5 no 1
Feature
Photo 2. Stream in dolerite talusRegional factors: dolerite, high rainfallvariabilityLocal stream factor: dolerite talus,stream appearing and disappearing(underground flow)Risk example: new surface channelformation or landslip
Cha
ract
eris
tics
of T
asm
ania
n tr
ee fe
rns
Spec
ies
Max
imum
trun
kdi
men
sion
sFe
atur
es o
f tru
nkFe
atur
es o
f mat
ure
fron
dFe
atur
es o
f sti
peR
epro
duct
ion
Hab
itat
and
dis
trib
utio
n in
Tas
man
ia a
nd e
lsew
here
Tode
a ba
rbar
a
Kin
g fe
rn
2 m
tall
200
cm d
iam
eter
Trun
k ba
rrel
sha
ped,
blac
k an
d fib
rous
on
outs
ide,
bea
ring
man
y cr
owns
of
fron
ds
Doe
sn’t
alw
ays
form
trun
k
Leng
th 2
00 c
m
Leat
hery
, bri
ght
shin
y gr
een
Bipi
nnat
ely
divi
ded
Stip
e ba
se s
moo
th
Base
hai
rles
s
Sori
den
sely
cove
ring
pin
nule
sto
war
ds b
ase
offr
ond
Indu
sia
abse
nt
Loca
lly c
omm
on in
gul
lies,
rock
cre
vice
s an
d cr
eek
bank
s,pa
rtic
ular
ly in
coa
stal
are
as in
the
nort
h of
sta
te
Tas,
Vic
, NSW
, Qld
, SA
(rar
e),
NZ
, Sou
th A
fric
a
Dic
kson
ia a
ntar
ctic
a
Soft
tree
fern
15m
tall
100
cm d
iam
eter
Trun
k fib
rous
and
ofte
n bu
ttres
sed,
som
etim
es d
ivid
ed
Old
fron
ds p
ersi
sten
ton
upp
er tr
unk,
less
so in
old
er p
lant
s
Leng
th 4
50 c
m
Stiff
, dar
k gl
ossy
gree
n ab
ove,
ligh
tbe
low
Trip
inna
tely
div
ided
Stip
e ba
se s
moo
th
Base
s w
ith s
oft
redd
ish-
brow
n ha
irs
Sori
on
mar
gins
of
pinn
ules
, pro
tect
edby
cup
-sha
ped
indu
sia
and
recu
rved
leaf
mar
gin
Wid
espr
ead
and
com
mon
inw
ette
r for
est t
ypes
; mor
elo
calis
ed in
gul
lies
and
prot
ecte
d en
viro
nmen
ts in
drie
r reg
ions
Tas,
Vic
, NSW
, Qld
, SA
(ext
inct
)
Cya
thea
aus
tral
is
Rou
gh tr
ee fe
rn
12 m
tall
30+
cm d
iam
eter
Trun
k fib
rous
with
buttr
ess
ofte
nde
velo
ping
in o
lder
plan
ts
Stip
e ba
ses
pers
iste
nton
upp
er tr
unk
Leng
th 4
50 c
m
Soft,
ligh
t gre
en,
abov
e, g
reen
or
blui
sh b
elow
Trip
inna
tely
div
ided
Stip
e ba
se b
row
nan
d ro
ugh
with
shar
p tu
berc
ules
that
ext
end
up s
tipe
Base
s w
ith d
ark
shin
y sc
ales
Sori
in ro
ws,
adja
cent
to m
ain
vein
on
pinn
ules
Indu
sia
abse
nt
Loca
lly c
omm
on in
wet
ter
fore
st ty
pes,
gul
lies
and
cree
kba
nks,
par
ticul
arly
in th
eno
rth
of s
tate
Tas,
Vic
, NSW
, Qld
Cya
thea
cunn
ingh
amii
Slen
der t
ree
fern
20 m
tall
15 c
m d
iam
eter
Trun
k sl
ende
r and
fibro
us to
war
ds b
ase
Stip
e ba
ses
pers
iste
nton
upp
er tr
unk,
oft
enm
oss
cove
red
Leng
th 3
00 c
m
Soft,
dar
k gr
een
abov
e, li
ghte
r bel
ow.
Trip
inna
tely
div
ided
Stip
e ba
se b
lack
and
roug
h w
ith s
hort
tube
rcul
es
Base
s w
ith th
inbr
own
scal
es, o
ften
stre
aked
.
Sori
in ro
ws,
adja
cent
to m
ain
vein
on
pinn
ules
Indu
sia
cup-
shap
ed
Loca
lised
in v
ery
prot
ecte
dfe
rn g
ullie
s, o
ften
asso
ciat
edw
ith s
trea
ms
in c
oast
al a
reas
Tas,
Vic
, NSW
(?),
Qld
, NZ
Cya
thea
Xm
arce
scen
s
Skir
ted
tree
fern
10 m
tall
40 c
m d
iam
eter
Trun
k fib
rous
with
buttr
ess
ofte
nde
velo
ping
in o
lder
plan
ts
Trun
ck o
ften
has
skir
t of p
ersi
sten
tfr
onds
Leng
th 5
00 c
m
Soft,
dar
k gr
een
abov
e
Trip
inna
tely
div
ided
Stip
e ba
se b
lack
and
roug
h w
ith s
hort
tube
rcul
es
Base
s w
ith d
ark
shin
y sc
ales
Sori
in ro
ws,
adja
cent
to m
ain
vein
on
pinn
ules
Indu
sia
very
sm
all,
sauc
er-s
hape
d
Hyb
rid
foun
d on
ly w
here
Cya
thea
aus
tral
is a
nd C
yath
eacu
nnin
gham
ii oc
cur t
oget
her.
Tas,
Vic
11 Forest Practices News vol 5 no 1
FeatureTree ferns as a forest habitatNina Roberts, Technical Officer, Forest Practices Board
If you stop to look at the trunks of mature tree ferns, you will probably see filmy ferns, mosses and liverwortsgrowing there, often in great luxuriance. My recent study, carried out through the University of Tasmania,examined the diversity of species that utilise the trunks of Dicksonia antarctica as habitat. I also looked at theepiphytic flora associated with Cyathea cunninghamii (slender tree-fern), which has a very restricted distributionin Tasmania.
There are five treefern species thatoccur in Tasmania:Dicksonia antarctica(soft tree fern ormanfern), Cyatheaaustralis (roughtree fern), Cyatheac u n n i n g h a m i i(slender tree fern),C y a t h e aX m a r c e s c e n s(skirted tree fern)and Todea barbara(king fern). Theyare distinguishedby severalcharacters, aso u t l i n e delsewhere in thisissue of FPNews.
Bryophytes (i.e.liverworts andmosses) are an extremely diverseplant group in wet forest, oftenoutnumbering vascular species bya factor of 4 or 5. Previous ecologicalstudies have shown thatmicroclimate and substratecharacteristics are important indefining microhabitats forbryophyte species. These small andrelatively simple plants preferparticular substrates within a forest– such as rocks, logs, soil, or eventhe bark of a single tree species.Ferns often utilise a similar rangeof substrates in wet forest, andlikewise have substratepreferences.
Tree fern trunks, which are madeup of persistent frond-bases anddense layers of fine aerial roots,offer a substrate that is unique inthe forest environment. It isrecognised that several species offilmy fern prefer this distinctive
The trunk of Cyathea cunninghamii is relatively thin,with large persistent frond bases. Here the mossHymenodon pilifer is growing between the hard
frond bases.
A Dicksonia trunk with fern and bryophyte epiphytes.
to page 12
substrate, but the diversity (inparticular the bryophyte diversity)of tree fern epiphytes in Tasmanianforests had not been investigatedprior to this study. The importanceof understanding the role of treeferns as habitat is heightened bytheir commercial value, andcurrent exploitation for thedomestic and internationalnursery trade.
Dicksonia antarctica is the mostwidespread tree fern species inTasmania, and has anexceptionally fibrous trunk relativeto the other Tasmanian species,due to hairy aerial roots that forma thick matt. These trunks are goodat holding moisture, and provideeasy anchorage for establishingepiphytes - so it is not surprisingthat they often support a greatabundance of them! I examined arandom sample of Dicksonia trunksat 10 study sites, mainly in thesouth-east of Tasmania. These sites
12Forest Practices News vol 5 no 1
Feature
were relatively diverse in theirtopography and dominantvegetation. My investigation wasrestricted to fern and bryophytespecies, which are by far the mostabundant epiphytic groups onthese hosts, although lichens andseed plants also occur.
On average, individual Dicksoniatrunks supported about 13epiphytic fern or bryophyte species.The composition of epiphytes fromtrunk to trunk was very variablewithin each site, and even more sobetween sites. Epiphytic diversityper site ranged from 30 to 58species. In total, across all sites, Irecorded 101 species on Dicksoniatrunks – a remarkably highdiversity to be associated with asingle host species.
Bryophytes made up the largestportion of total diversity (85species), whilst ferns wereconsiderably less diverse (16species) but often abundant. Veryfrequently occurring bryophytesincluded the mosses Cyathophorumbulbosum, Rhizogonium novae-hollandiae and Leptothecagaudichaudii, and the liverwortsTylimanthus diversifolius andBazzania involuta. The most frequent
ferns were Grammitis billardierei(finger fern) and four species offilmy fern: Crepidomanes venosum,Hymenophyllum flabellatum,Hymenophyllum australe andHymenophyllum rarum.
Whilst Dicksonia is clearly animportant host species, the site-to-site variation I found in diversityand composition of epiphytessuggests its ecological importanceis variable. The implication is thatthe conservation value of Dicksoniamay be greater at some sites thanothers – depending on how manyspecies are utilising it as habitat, orif it is supporting rare species. Thereis likely to be a complex range offactors underlying the variation inepiphytic diversity on Dicksoniatrunks. I found that steep gully sites,often near creeks, tended to havegreater species richness. I attributedthis to a larger variation inmicroclimatic conditionsassociated with the Dicksoniatrunks at such sites. The sensitivityof epiphytes to subtle microclimaticfactors was also indicated by thepreference of different species for acertain height on the trunk.Changes to microclimaticconditions, such as increased light
or wind, are likely to have a greatimpact on the suitability of tree ferntrunks as habitat.
Cyathea cunninghamii, whichoccurred at only three of the tenstudy sites, supported fewerspecies per trunk on average.However, Cyathea was clearlyfavoured as a host (over Dicksonia)by some of the bryophyte species –most notably the moss Hymenodonpilifer. Epiphytic fern species weremuch more likely to occur onDicksonia trunks. The differencesin epiphytic diversity andcomposition between Cyatheacunninghamii, which has a veryrestricted distribution inTasmania, and Dicksonia are likelyto be due to trunk characteristics.Cyathea cunninghamii has a muchthinner and less fibrous trunk thanDicksonia. It is important to notethat, despite supporting fewerspecies on average, C. cunninghamiiappears to provide especiallysuitable habitat for a least somebryophyte species, and thereforehas an ecological role that is distinctfrom that of Dicksonia.
Amongst the most frequently asked questions about Tasmanian tree ferns are how fast and how big do theygrow. And how many are out there…….
Michael Garrett, who runs BichenoNursery Tubestock (Tasmania’sbiggest commercial fernpropagator), has provided someanswers.
Trunks of Dicksonia antarctica(manfern or soft tree fern) grow at arate of 3 to 5+ cm/year incultivation, and 1 to 5 cm/yr in thewild. Growth rates will depend onsite conditions. So on an averagesite in the bush (3 cm/yr growth),a plant with a 2 m trunk will beabout 75 years old (allowing about6 yrs between germination of thespore and the trunk starting to
form). The tallest manfern I’ve seenis 10 m in the North West (MontaguRiver catchment).
The slender tree fern is the fastestgrowing member of the fraternity.Michael has measured growthrates of 30 cm/yr for Cyatheacunninghamii in his garden atBicheno. Growth rates are probablylower in the bush, where light ismore limiting. As plants get older,and their crowns get more exposed,growth would further decrease. Inrecent times, the tallest recorded C.cunninghamii (also from the NorthWest) was about 20 m. Cyathea
australis (rough tree fern) is slowergrowing than C. cunninghamii - itsgrowth rate is probably similar toDicksonia.
Todea barbara (king fern) puts onless height per year than otherspecies of trunked ferns. Todea hasa barrel-shaped trunk and showshuman-like characteristics bygrowing more in diameter thanheight as it ages.
How many are there? Dicksonia isby far the most abundant tree fernin Tasmania, with an estimatedpopulation in this state of about 65
13 Forest Practices News vol 5 no 1
Featuremillion plants (about 25% in formalreserves). It also occurs in Victoria,NSW and Queensland. Each frondis capable of releasing about 750million spores per year. Sotheoretically, within a few years ofspore release (it takes about 6 yearsfrom germination to initiation oftrunk formation), the progeny froma single manfern frond could coverabout 530 000 ha of suitable habitat(assuming an average crowndiameter of 3 m).
Cyathea cunninghamii and Cyatheamarcescens (skirted tree fern) are therarest of our tree ferns. About 20populations of C. cunninghamii areknown in Tasmania, varying fromless than 5 to over 200 plants.Cyathea marcescens is only knownfrom three sites – two in theNortheast and one on King Island.
Other tree fern FAQ’s deal withmaintaining populations of treeferns, and their epiphytic cargoes,in forests managed primarily forwood production. Clearly, thefocus on wet eucalypt forests forplantation establishment andnative forest silviculture means that
there can be substantial effectswithin wet forest coupes (thoughtree ferns and many epiphytes willrecolonise regrowth native forests).Maintenance of tree ferns andassociated species is achieved at aregional level through arepresentative system of formalreserves that contain areas ofmature forest. These are supportedat a subregional and landscapelevel by a network of informalreserves (e.g. streamside reserves,wildlife habitat strips) and sitestopographically protected fromlogging (e.g. steep slopes) that oftencontain humid environmentsfavoured by tree ferns. Thesehabitats provide a source of seedsand spores that facilitaterecolonisation of regeneratedcoupes by late-successional stagespecies. In drier areas of Tasmania,sites that are richest in tree ferns(and other fern species) are typicallyprotected by reservation ormanagement prescription (e.g.relict rainforest).
Dicksonia and Cyathea australis arethe tree ferns most directly affectedby forestry operations. The other
species are strongly associatedwith riparian environmentsand, in the case of C.cunninghamii and C. marcescens,any occurrences would beprotected by Forest PracticesCode restraints, reservation ormanagement prescription.
The primary aim of nativeforest silviculture is to achievegood establishment andgrowth of eucalyptregeneration, which at firstappearance may conflict withmaintaining tree ferns onintensively logged sites.However, in somecircumstances, loggingtechniques can be modified toreduce disturbance to tree fernrich environments within oradjacent to coupes. The mainaims are to reduce mortality totree ferns (mainly from intenseregeneration burns), and to
maintain upright and relativelyundamaged trunks, which willfacilitate recolonisation byepiphytes. Methods include:
• Retaining understorey islandswithin coupes (trials are beingconducted at the Warra LongTerm Ecological Research Site inthe Southern Forests);
• Minimising cable-yarding orground-based skidding throughdense patches of tree ferns;
• Felling trees so that the headsland outside dense patches oftree ferns;
• Locating wildlife habitat clumpsand extending streamsidereserves so that they contain siteswhich have abundant tree fernsand a diverse epiphytic flora(particularly important in drierareas);
• Minimising the risk of hotregeneration burns extendinginto retained fern-richenvironments (in some coupes,ground disturbance fromintensive logging may provideenough seedbed for eucalyptregeneration without the needfor a high intensity burn).
Some of these techniques will becovered in a future edition ofFPNews.
The extension of the Forest PracticesAct to cover commercial harvestingof manferns directs harvesting tosites to be converted from a nativeforest to other land use (mainlyplantation). This will provide betterprotection to populations in sites(e.g. streamside reserves) that mayhave been exploited in the past,and will also increase theproportion of manferns that remainin coupes that are regenerated tonative forest following logging.Funds generated by the sale of treefern tags will be used for monitoringand research, to ensure that theindustry is managed sustainably.
Dicksonia antarctica in E. brookerianawet forest, Seventeen Mile Plain
Reserve, Woolnorth area. CFPO is justvisible at the base of a 10 m tree fern!
14Forest Practices News vol 5 no 1
Cultural HeritageA land reborn – ‘Lorinna over the bridge’
Robert Onfray, Area Forester, Gunns Forest Products (Burnie)
“There was a sawmill which operated before the Second World War which was powered by a Burrison-Stewartsteam engine. The wheels off the steam engine were recently moved to Victoria. And you know what, I have just foundout that only three of these engines were ever built in 1860 in England.”This was part of a conversation I hadwith Noel Cox, one of six landholdersinvolved in a 300 ha hardwoodplantation development with Gunnsinvolving conversion of native forestand reforestation of previouslycleared land. I thought that it wouldbe worthwhile researching thissawmill and recording theinformation before it was forgottenforever. Instead, I discovered anuntold history of the area that shouldbe shared, and decided to present apaper at the Australian ForestHistory Society Conference.The area is immediately south ofLemonthyme Lodge on the westernside of Lake Cethana oppositeLorinna. There is no official name forthe area. Barry Graham, who wasresponsible for developing theproperties, decided to name them‘Cethana 6’ because they werelocated on the Cethana mapsheet.Even the new access road was calledCethana Road. But it is nowherenear the Cethana settlement.Surely the area must have had aname? I discussed this with Noeland he said that the area was simplycalled ‘Lorinna over the bridge.’ Nomap or historical record refers to thatname nor could I find any officialrecord. No one lived therepermanently and so I suppose itreally didn’t need a name. The bridgereferred to was the large woodenstructure, built in 1892, whichspanned the Forth River fromLorinna.The first Europeans to explore theupper Forth Valley passed throughthe area in the 1820s. The GreatWestern Road was built through thisarea to link Launceston with the VanDieman’s Land Company settlementat Emu Bay. Mining activity had abusy but short existence on theadjacent ‘Five Mile Rise’ in the 1880s.
Some of the properties were clearedand grazed or cropped. Othersremained timbered. On the originalsurvey plans the timber wasconsidered of “fair quality but owingto the inaccessible nature of thecountry and the distance from themarket it was of little or no value”.This is significant since the Crown,under the Crown Lands Act, coulddecline an application for thepurchase of land, if it felt the timbercould be utilised, and instead declarea Timber Reserve.An aerial photo taken in 1946 wasused to determine the level ofimprovement to the lands. It clearlyshows evidence of clearing. Theoriginal survey report for one blocknoted “small improvements havebeen made by sowing grass seedafter bushfires” and that it was“covered with thick scrub.” Theaerial photo shows cleared land thatappeared to already carry pasture.An old hut was also present and stillexists today. Another block was half
ringbarked and cleared by the mid-1940s, and the subsequent scrubregrowth was cleared again in themid-1970s. A hut built of split timberaround 1910 was also renovated androoms added in the 1970s (see photoon page 16). Cattle grazing continueduntil 1982, when it was abandoneddue to competition with thewallabies and pademelons.Logging also occurred in smallpatches prior to 1946. A road wasconstructed down the steep ridgejust south of Bull Creek. It becameknown as ‘Haines Track’, namedafter the sawmiller whose machinerybuilt the track to access the timber.The grade was too steep for the trucksto use fully loaded. They used a fordcrossing adjacent to the LorinnaBridge and the Lorinna Road totransport the logs to the sawmill atDevonport. There was also an oldhorse and sulky trail from DolcoathHill to the north, which was usedduring mining activities, but it wasnot suitable for vehicles.
An aerial view of the ‘Lorinna over the bridge’ area, takenin 1946, showing signs of land use at that time.
15 Forest Practices News vol 5 no 1
Small sawmills were set up on- sitein a couple of locations includingthe one with the Burrison-Stewartsteam engine. One sawmill cut celery-top pine along the creeks and flats aswell as hardwood for landownersin Lorinna for their houses in theearly 1940s. Remnants of an old postand rail fence indicate where an oldbullock paddock was.An event of great significance for thearea occurred in the early 1970s: theMersey-Forth hydro-electric schemedrowned the bridge over the ForthRiver and denied the landownerstheir traditional access to the area.The scheme was first conceived inthe early 1960s. It involved thecreation of three artificial lakes andseven dams and power stationsstretching from the Great WesternTiers to Paloona, near the mouth ofthe Forth River. Cethana dam wasbuilt on the upper Forth River justbelow Lorinna township. The damwall is 112 metres high, one of thelargest in the southern hemisphere,and created Lake Cethana.Although the Mersey-Forth PowerScheme was officially opened inMarch 1973, the upper Forth Riverwas flooded in early 1971 when theCethana Dam was completed. Newlakes, improved road access andscenic routes were established aspart of this scheme, and it wascommon knowledge that the ForthFalls Scenic Reserve was lost. Whata lot of Tasmanians did not knowwas how a small group oflandowners lost access to theirproperties. The sad irony is that,despite the massive amounts ofelectricity that could now begenerated for businesses andconsumers on the north coast,residents and landowners in the areadid not benefit from thisdevelopment. Despite two powerstations located within 5 kilometresand a major powerline nearby, thereis no electrical power for the area. Itis unlikely that it will be made
available now, as most of theresidents are ‘alternate lifestylers’who are keen on keeping thesettlement isolated.The only way to access ‘Lorinnaover the bridge’ after the creationof Lake Cethana was via HainesTrack. By 1971, it was a very roughfour-wheel drive track. With apetition in 1974, the landownersbegan to lobby the governmentsof the time to re-establish accessto their properties on a betterstandard road. After years ofnegotiation, the HEC agreed topay compensation monies ofaround $60,000 to the KentishCouncil to manage theconstruction of an access road ina better location. Jim Charleston,who had recently purchased oneof the properties at ‘Lorinna overthe bridge’, had his own fleet ofheavy machinery andvolunteered to build a roadfollowing the old Dolcoath trackusing the compensation money.Unfortunately, the money onlyallowed him to do the work as faras the present LemonthymeLodge site, some 500m north of‘Lorinna over the bridge’. The newroad followed the old track exceptfor a couple of sections. Thelandowner immediately to thenorth of the Lodge erected a gateon his property when he realisedthe new road was not on the roadreserve. The local council becameinvolved because theymaintained the road and claimedit as part of their road system forthe purpose of FederalGovernment grants. Theynegotiated with the landownerto construct a road to a house siteon his property in return for theroad sections becoming part ofthe public road system. Thisaction avoided a potentialprotracted legal battle for theaffected landowners and ensureda major tourist development
Cultural Heritage
would be accessible to the tourists.Despite the successes of the petitionto re-establish adequate access for‘Lorinna over the bridge’, the roadcondition deteriorated beyondLemonthyme Lodge due to the lackof maintenance.In 1996 the current landownersdecided to approach North ForestProducts to construct a road andharvest the timber on their properties.The obvious route along DolcoathRoad past the Lodge was discountedearly on due to the potential conflictwith the major tourist destination. Anew road was constructed throughadjoining State forest to the south inearly 1998. Harvesting commencedin April 1999 and was completedtwo years later. Hardwoodplantations are currently beingestablished under Share FarmAgreements with the landowners.‘Lorinna over the bridge’ was alwaysseen as part of Lorinna, with thewooden bridge acting as the link.That was until some 30 years agowhen a large scale hydro-electricscheme intervened and the woodenbridge was flooded, thus deliveringa death blow to the area. The broaderpopulation and industry ofTasmania were considered thewinners of the power scheme butthere were also losers. Some of the‘Lorinna over the bridge’landowners showed remarkableresilience and hope by fighting forthe right to access their properties.Others gave up and sold theirproperties. Today access has beenrestored, not through governmentassistance, but by a privateagreement between all of the currentlandowners and a timber company.It is the timber, considered worthlessby the Crown all those years ago,that has in fact provided the rebirthof ‘Lorinna over the bridge’.
Cultural HeritageFifth Australian Forest History Conference, Hobart
Andrew Wilson, Librarian, Forestry TasmaniaThe Australian Forest History Society was founded in 1988 by what their website calls “ a friendly network of peopleinterested in the history of Australia’s forests and woodlands’. The AFHS has about 100 members in Australia, NewZealand, the USA and Europe.In February this year, Hobart hostedthe Fifth Australian Forest HistoryConference, “Australia’s Ever-changing Forests”. The three dayconference (18-20 February) wasfollowed by a forest study tour (20-22 February).Conference delegates includedacademics, students, ecologists,historians, librarians and foresters(retired and currently working in theindustry). The papers presented weredivided into broad themes, namely:ecological change, scientificdiscovery, forest history, Tasmanianforests, forest management,changing attitudes and heritage.On the first day, papers covered theuse of historical records toreconstruct understanding ofecological changes, recent botanicaldiscoveries (Wollemi pine),historical research in the IUFROcommunity and forest policy pre-WW I in New Zealand and Australia.Day two saw papers focussed onTasmanian forest history, including:convict timber-getting, the wattlebark industry 1820-1830, the short-lived pyrolignite industry 1863-1868,the State’s early national parks
movement, settlement of “Lorinnaover the Bridge”, Henry Hellyer, theAustralian Forestry League inTasmania 1936-38 and Nature Daysin schools.Papers presented on day three werediverse, covering such topics as earlyforestry in Queensland, S.L. Kessel(WA Conservator of Forests 1922-41), timber production in PNGduring WW II, Europeanperceptions of forests, Wombat ForestSociety, fire management in NorthAmerica, World Heritageassessments and cultural heritagevalue assessments. Sessions werepunctuated by Mark Elvin’s readingsof translated Chinese poems,covering thousands of years, anddetailing the changing attitudes ofChinese civilization to their forests.Late on day three, with the formalconference completed, theparticipants in the forest study tourdeparted for Port Huon. Over thenext two days the tour visited sites ofhistorical significance such as thoseat Whale Point associated with earlyresearch into eucalypt pulping, andat Geeveston relevant to the workersstrike of 1921-22. The tour also visited
Bennets Road log hauler, timberindustry sites at Dover and Raminea,an aboriginal stone tool scatter site atHastings Plain, Duckholes tramwayand spur trestle bridge, the WoodenBoatbuilding School at Franklin andTahune Airwalk.The highlight of the study tour wasattendance at the play “Hard Workto Starve,” written by John Dargavelabout the industrial dispute betweenthe Huon Timber Company and itsworkers in 1921-22. It was staged atthe Geeveston Forest and HeritageCentre, with local non-actors takingthe roles. A good time was had byboth the audience and the players. Avideo is available of the performance.The range of issues covered by “foresthistory” is enormous and gives lotsof scope to any interested person toparticipate in the activities of theAustralian Forest History Society,which can be contacted at http://cres.anu.edu.au/environhist/afhsociety.html. The publication ofthe papers presented at theconference is imminent and will addto the significant body of workalready accumulated in previousproceedings.
Forest History in Tasmania:Thomson Hut (still standing) at
"Lorinna over the bridge". This isthe hut referred to as the "old hut"
in a 1946 photo of the area (seepage 14).
17 Forest Practices News vol 5 no 1
FaunaSwift parrot provides pollination service for blue gum
Raymond Brereton, Senior Zoologist, Forest Practices Board
Andrew Hingston has just completed his PhD in the School of Geography and Environmental Studies at theUniversity of Tasmania. His research aimed to determine which animals were effective pollinators of theTasmanian blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus subsp. globulus) and the closely related shining gum (E. nitens).
The latter species is native toupland areas in the south-easternAustralian mainland. Eucalyptusglobulus and E. nitens are the majortrees grown in eucalyptplantations in temperate regionsof the world, including Tasmania.Plantation stock are mostly grownfrom seeds, that are increasinglybeing collected from seed orchardsof trees selected for characters
desired by the forest industry. Seedproduction and fitness of theresultant trees depend largely uponpollen transfer between flowers ondifferent trees, because of partialself-incompatibility in these twospecies. Animals are required totransport pollen as they forage atflowers, as the pollen is not readilytransported by wind.
Eucalyptus globulus and E. nitenshave contrastingfloral forms, withe n o r m o u sdifferences innectar productionthat resulted intheir flowersbeing used bydifferent animalsas food sources.The small flowersof E. nitensproduced only0.3-0.6 mg ofnectar sugar perday and werev i s i t e dexclusively bysmall insects,mostly native.Introduced honeybees (Apismellifera) andbumble bees(Bombus terrestris),being largerinsects withgreater energyrequirements ,were rarely seenvisiting flowers ofE. nitens and birdswere never seen
attempting to feed from theirflowers. In contrast, the largeflowers of E. globulus produced 37– 56 mg of nectar sugar per day,making them attractive to birds andexotic bees with large energyrequirements, as well as smallerinsects.
Andrew found that single visits toflowers of E. globulus by swiftparrots (Lathamus discolor) resultedin significant increases in seedproduction compared to unvisitedflowers. Although other birdspecies were not sufficientlyassessed by this method todetermine whether they are alsoeffective pollinators, analyses oftheir foraging behaviour and pollenloads suggest they are. In contrast,his experiments indicated thatinsects were poor pollinators of E.globulus. Single visits to flowers byinsects, including honey bees andbumble bees, did not result insignificant increases in seedproduction. Even prolongedexposure to insects throughout thelife of a flower failed to result in theproduction of as many seeds asthat following a single swift parrotvisit, despite insects oftenconsuming all of the daily nectarproduction.
Andrew’s research shows that seedproduction and the fitness ofplantation trees will be enhancedby management practices thatbenefit populations of birds in seedorchards of E. globulus, and benefitpopulations of native flower-visiting insects in orchards of E.nitens.
Over the last couple of years, we’ve received some interesting fauna sightings from foresters and havedecided to publish a couple with the hope of stimulating more such records from out there. Please keepsending us your incidental fauna sightings.
They’ll be added to the databaseof fauna records maintained byDPIWE and we’ll publish someof the more unusual. Don’t forgetthat fauna sightings can beforwarded to the FPB Zoologystaff using Fauna Technical Note 9available via the zoology sectionof the FPB web page.
One record from the keen eye ofDavid Kyte:
“On Saturday just past, I watcheda female grey goshawk beingharassed by two ravens in theneighbour’s yard in wild Moonah.After quietly enduring the dive-bombing and repeated heckling,she flew over our house and dovequickly out of sight. After fiveminutes, I spotted her only 10 maway tucking into a freshly-killedmourning dove while fixing mewith a beady eye. She hopped upon a fence and continued eating fora further couple of minutes beforeflying off to a prominent gum treeand perching for a while. Theravens continued their mobbing(instinctive or hoping for a meal?)well into the evening. Along withsplitting wood, this was aSaturday’s highlight.”
Records of grey goshawks insuburban areas are not thatuncommon but seeing behaviournot often encountered in the wildis quite rare and exciting. Thephoto included is from NathanDuhig’s backyard where it seemsprudent to keep the guinea pigspenned in!
And one from Rob Young:
“Just to let you know, I was fishingdown the Black River yesterday(where the Bass Highway crosses
A grey goshawk eyes off the guinea pigs in Nathan Duhig’s backyard
the Black River). My son found agiant freshwater crayfish. This Ithought was unusual as the waterat this point is affected by the tide.At the time of locating the GFC, thetide was in and the bottom wasquite visible meaning that therewas not a large proportion offreshwater mixed in with the salt.The particulars of the GFC are asfollows: 1) 25 cm length, 2) ripewith roe, 3) located amongst rocksthat are uncovered at low tide. Andyes we let her go. We have not hada lot of rain in this area for the pastweek or so. So I don’t believe it waswashed down recently [but]possibly during the high rainfallperiod at the beginning of August.Is this a vagrant or do GFC migratetoward the estuaries to release theireggs?”
Which prompted this responsefrom Alastair Richardson (Schoolof Zoology and member of theForest Practices AdvisoryCouncil):
“I think it must be an exceptionalcase, since the animal would haveexperienced some osmotic stressin salt water, and eggs and young
would have suffered even more…Idon’t think they would cope withexposure to full salt water for long.So they don’t migrate to the sea torelease eggs.”
A regular column on sites containing information on forest practices and management. We invite your suggestions(site address and short summary). The FPB does not necessarily endorse the content of the sites. We will try tomaintain a balance of local, national and international sites.
www.google.com
This is a popular search engine, and an excellent resource for tracking down information on, or images of, floraand fauna species. Just type the name of the species (scientific names are best) and the search will come up withresults in the categories of ‘web’, ‘images’, ‘groups’ and ‘directory’. The ‘web’ category (automatically displayed)is the broadest, usually hitting on many entries, all of which will contain your search words.
Example: For information on the threatened plant species Tetratheca gunnii, type the species name and click onsearch (or just hit ‘enter’). The search only takes a few seconds, and the results are listed 10 at a time. The very firstentry to come up is the ‘Recovery Plan’, accessible as a PDF file from the DPIWE web site. If you’re just after a picture,click on the ‘images’ tab and thumbnails of all the found images appear (in this case one photo of T. gunnii).
One great feature of this search engine is its ability to guess if you’ve made a spelling mistake. For example, a searchfor Tetratheca guni will return the message “no results for your search, however the alternative spelling, Tetrathecagunnii, returned the following ….”. So you still get the same search results.
Another big plus is the relative lack of advertising material on this site.
In summary, Google provides a very quick and effective way of finding flora and fauna information or pictures.
Book reviewWe will try to feature a book review in each issue of FPNews. We welcome reviews from our readers on books andarticles on forestry-related subjects, particularly those relevant to forest practices planning.
Life in the Tall Eucalypt ForestsDavid Lindenmayer and Esther Beaton
published by Reed New Holland
Reviewed by Brian French and Nina Roberts
Life in the Tall Eucalypt Forests is a glossy full-colourbook that uses words and pictures to conjure up theawe-inspiring tall eucalypt forests (mainly E. regnansforest) of the Victorian Central Highlands. Clearlyinspired by the authors’ love of these forests, the resultis quite stunning. David Lindenmayer, responsible forthe text, is an ecologist (Associate Professor at ANU’sDepartment of Geography) but this book is pitched ata non-scientific audience. Common names are usedthroughout, and the text, which covers a range ofinformation about flora, fauna and ecological processes,is colourful and engaging. Take for example the captionunder a photo of a yellow-bellied glider: “Perhaps bestdescribed as a pig squealing while milk is frothed by acappuccino machine, the strange gurgling calls madeby the Yellow-bellied Glider are eerie night-time soundsin old-growth Mountain Ash forest”. In the main text,Lindenmayer breaks down the ecology of the forest intosome of its key components, addressing theirsignificance to the functioning of the forest ecosystem.Examples of such components include bark, tree fernsand logs. This is not intended as a reference book, butit provides an informative overview.
Esther Beaton’s spectacular photographs capture thetexture and colour of these forests perfectly. A lovelybook to look at and enjoyable to read - it would make agood addition to the coffee table as well as the bookshelf.
This book has a RRP of $29.95 but for those with an eye for a bargain, it is currently available at Angus andRobertson’s for $14.95.
20Forest Practices News vol 5 no 1
TrainingThe last issue of FPNews featured an article on the importance of training and education to the success of theforest practices system. We currently have over 200 forestry planners and operational supervisors goingthrough various training courses. In this article, for the interest of the non-FPO audience, we provide a summaryof training available through the Forest Practices Board for FPOs. See also the Forward Training Program, whichis a regular feature in FPNews.
Forest Practices Officer course
Twenty three people are currentlyundertaking the full FPO course,with training being completed inOctober. This is a 12 day trainingcourse that is one of the pre-requisites for appointment as anFPO. Entry to the course dependson the entrant having sufficientbackground skills/knowledge toundertake the course, and beingactively involved with forestpractices through theiremployment. Most course entrantshave already gained practicalexperience through in-housetraining from other FPOs at theirworkplace. The course provides the
management; and visuallandscape. Students must completeall course assignments andassessments, including thepreparation of an FPP.
Training in specific subject areas
Additional training is provided inspecialist areas to many FPOs. Forexample, this year the FPBspecialists are conducting trainingcourses and field days inlandscape, zoology and botany.This training enables FPOs toundertake particular surveys orassessments, and to provide adviceon that specialist area to other FPOswithin their organization.
Refresher courses
Refresher courses are runperiodically on a needs basis. These2-day courses allow the FPB toupdate FPOs on changes across allareas of the forest practices system,to review operational performanceas assessed in audits, and to obtainfeedback from FPOs on how theforest practices system can beimproved. Refresher courses arecurrently being conducted by theBoard. Three courses have beenconducted to date, with three moreplanned up to November.Attendance at refresher courses iscompulsory for all FPOs.
Advice and instruction
Advice is continually beingprovided to FPOs in both anunstructured way (e.g. throughresponses to telephone inquiries)and a structured way (e.g. technicalnotes, issue of instructions to FPOs;and replies to FPO notifications onthe presence of threatened species).Information on the forest practicessystem is also placed on the FPBweb site, and will soon include theFPO Planning Manual.
Forest Practices News
FPNews provides a medium forexchange of information involvingFPOs, FPB staff and others with aninterest in forest management. Asalways, articles on application offorest practices in the field are mostwelcome.
Training is occasionally providedto non-FPOs. Positions on coursesfor non-FPOs are usually verylimited as the Board’s first priorityis clearly to ensure that FPOs havethe requisite skills to fulfil theirresponsibilities under the ForestPractices Act.
Mixed reactions at a field day in the Northeast. Fortunately for allpictured, the wind didn’t change.
Chris Mitchell, Forest Practices Adviser, Forest Practices Board
FPOs with skills that enable themto prepare and certify ForestPractices Plans, and enforce theForest Practices Act.
Classroom and field sessions areconducted on a broad range ofsubjects, including: legislation; theForest Practices Code; ForestPractices Plans; cultural heritage;botany; zoology; soils and water;geomorphology; silviculture; fire
Briefings
Briefings are provided to all FPOsto update them on key changes tothe forest practices system forexample, briefings on changes tothe Forest Practices Act andRegulations were given to 200FPOs and other staff earlier thisyear.
