Natural! Volume 124 (2) April 2007 Published by The Field Naturalists Club of Victoria since 1884 From the Editors This edition of The Victorian Naturalist continues the growing tradition of publish- ing the papers from the FNCV's annual Biodiversity Symposium in a single, 'spe- cial' issue. The most recent of these symposia, held in September 2006, focused on species that have become invasive. As noted in Dr Yen's Introduction to this collec- tion of papers, invasive species are not necessarily introduced species; some native species have benefitted from various aspects of European settlement. This certainly is borne out in a couple of the papers published here. A particular feature of this issue, unrelated to the bulk of papers, is the inclusion of an article detailing new combinations in some terrestrial orchids. Although received only recently, the passage of this article has been expedited through the editorical process because of the timeliness of its data. The soon-to-be-published newest edi- tion of Census of vascular plants of Victoria will contain a reference to the new combinations first published in this issue of The Victorian Naturalist. Looking ahead, the Editors are currently working on a second 'Special' issue for the year. Readers with an interest in entomology will be pleased to learn that the August edition will contain a collection of papers that concentrate on invertebrates. The Victorian Naturalist is published six times per year by the The Field Naturalists Club of Victoria Inc. Registered Office: FNCV, I Gardenia Street, Blackburn, Victoria 3130, Australia. Postal Address: FNCV, Locked Bag 3, Blackburn, Victoria 3130, Australia. Phone/Fax (03) 9877 9860; International Phone/Fax 61 3 9877 9860. email: fncv@vicnet.net.au www.vicnet.net.au/~fncv Editors: Mrs Anne Morton, Dr Gary Presland and Dr Maria Gibson Editorial Assistant: Virgil Hubregtse Address correspondence to: The Editors, The Victorian Naturalist , FNCV, Locked Bag 3, Blackburn, Victoria Australia 3 1 30. Phone: (03) 9877 9860. Email: vicnat@vicnet.net.au All subscription enquiries should be sent to FNCV, Locked Bag 3, Blackburn, Victoria Australia 3130. Phone/Fax:6l 3 9877 9860. Email fncv@vicnet.net.au Yearly Subscription Rates - The Field Naturalists Club of Victoria Inc. Membership Metropolitan Concessional (pensioner/student/unemployed) Country (more than 50 km from GPO) Junior Family (at same address) $60 $49 $49 $17 $77 Institutional Libraries and Institutions (within Australia) Libraries and Institutions (overseas) Schools/Clubs AUSS110 $60 $110 Victorian Naturalist April Volume 124 (2) 2007 Editors: Anne Morton, Gary Presland, Maria Gibson Editorial Assistant: Virgil Hubregtse Introduction by Alan Yen 68 Contributions Of weeds and other introduced species: Ferdinand Mueller and plant and animal acclimatisation in colonial Victoria by Linden Gillbank 69 Invasive plant pathogenic fungi in native Victorian ecosystems by James H Cunnington 79 Contingency planning and prioritising pest plants by John Weiss 83 Invasive terrestrial invertebrates in Victoria by Nick Collett, Greg Lefoe and Alan L Yen 87 Challenges in managing miners by Michael F Clarke, Richard Taylor, Joanne Oldland, Merilyn J Grey and Amanda Dare 1 02 Battling Bridal Creeper in coastal dunes - a community approach by Greg Lefoe and Sue Longmore 106 The potential impact of the Large Earth Bumblebee Bombus terrestris (Apidae) on the Australian mainland: Lessons from Tasmania by Andrew B Hingston 1 10 Hybridisation and invertebrate hosts - two neglected aspects of pest plants in south-eastern Australia by Randal I W Robinson 117 New combinations in the terrestrial orchid genera Caladenia R.Br. and Pterostylis R.Br. (Orchidaceae) for Victoria, Australia, by Gary N Backhouse 123 Book Review Forest trees of Australia by D Boland and eight other authors, reviewed by Leon Costermans 125 Wild Neighbours: The humane approach to living with wildlife by Ian Temby, reviewed by Anne Morton 126 CSIRO list of Australian vertebrates: a reference with conservation status. 2nd edition, by Mark Clayton, John C Wombey, Ian J Mason, R Terry Chesser and Alice Wells, reviewed by Gary Presland 127 ISSN 0042-5184 Front cover ‘..Pittosporum bicolor (foreground, bluish-green), Pittosporum bicolor x undulatum (background, bright green) at Masons Falls, Kinglake National Park, Victoria. See article on p 1 17. Back cover: Heavily damaged leaves of Cyclamen with Red-legged Earth Mites clearly visible. See article on p 1 17. Biodi vers ity Sympos i um Introduction to the FNCV 2006 Biodiversity Symposium Issue: Invasive species Alan Yen Vice-President, FNCV In 1981 the Field Naturalists Club of Victoria (FNCV) published a special issue of The Victorian Naturalist (Vol. 98 No. 1 ) that included articles about introduced mammals, trout, non-marine molluscs, introduced aquatic plants, weeds, boneseed and pigs. All of the plants and animals dis- cussed are species introduced into Australia since European settlement and have become pests. The concept of ‘introduced’ species is very much a blurred one, because ‘intro- duced’ and ‘pest’ are not necessarily syn- onymous. The deliberately-introduced bio- logical control agents for some of these pests would not generally qualify as pests themselves. There are also native species that have become pests. For example, the Cootamundra Wattle is an environmental weed over much of south-eastern Australia. Some native species have become pests without translocation from one area to another; the Noisy Miner has become more common in remnants because fragmentation of woodlands and forests has resulted in conditions more favourable for this species. This special issue of The Victorian Naturalist has a diverse range of papers. The papers by Gillbank, Robinson, Hingston and Weiss were presented at the 2006 FNCV Biodiversity Symposium on Sunday 10 September; the remainder were presented later as manuscripts. The topics covered range from the history of introduc- tions of exotics by Ferdinand Mueller; the threats of invasive plants and animals to our environment; the measures used to control them; programmes that involve the general community in helping to prevent the entry and spread of these invasives; and future threats. These topics take in issues related to plants, animals and fungi. The environmental and social conse- quences of the spread of these invasive species are well known. Many are now tar- gets of containment or elimination pro- grammes. Yet the elimination of an inva- sive species is not easy, and once an inva- sive species becomes established, eradica- tion of it is nearly impossible. The main priorities today are to prevent the entry of invasive species in the first place, and this includes determining priorities based on the levels of risk that they pose. The annual FNCV Biodiversity Symposium highlights different environ- mental issues that affect our native flora and fauna. Invasive species are a major threat, and these have become more appar- ent because of increased international trav- el and trade. The contents of this issue highlight the threats that we face but also provide some glimmer of hope that major incursions can be stopped early. The FNCV wishes to thank all the pre- senters at the 2006 Symposium as well as those people who prepared written presen- tations for this issue. The FNCV also acknowledges the support of the Department of Sustainability and Environment for assistance with catering at the Symposium. 68 The Victorian Naturalist Biodiversity Symposium Of weeds and other introduced species: Ferdinand Mueller and plant and animal acclimatisation in colonial Victoria Linden Gillbank History and Philosophy of Science Department, The University of Melbourne, 3010 Email: Iindenrg@unimelb.edu.au Abstract Prompted by nostalgia and economic hopes, but without an ecological understanding of the world, Ferdinand Mueller and other Europeans sought to ‘improve’ the Colony of Victoria by introducing useful and attractive species. As Government Botanist ( 1853 - 96 ), Mueller introduced an enormous diversity of foreign plants for cultivation and naturalization, and, while Director of Melbourne’s Botanic Garden ( 1857 - 73 ), tested their colonial viability. From 1858 to 1861 Mueller was the hon- orary secretary of a management committee for a collection of birds and animals resident in the Botanic Garden; and, for the following twelve years, vice-president of a society which grew out of that committee - the Acclimatisation Society of Victoria, which was devoted to the introduction of species with economic and aesthetic appeal. Even after losing the Botanic Garden, Mueller contin- ued to publicise and popularise the introduction of desirable plants, meanwhile providing weed information and advice. ( The Victorian Naturalist 1 24 (2), 2007, 69-78) Introduction At a time of confident geographic, eco- nomic and scientific understanding of the world’s flora and fauna, Europeans intro- duced ‘new’ animals and plants into the British colony of Victoria. In the nineteenth century, Europeans depended on natural products to satisfy their needs, and saw the world as a collec- tion of continents, islands and seas harbour- ing the plants and animals which would provide their foods, medicines, fibres and timbers. Europeans explored and exploited the world. They pilfered a remarkable array of organisms, and developed and refined taxonomic systems to classify them. They established colonial botanical gardens to trial the cultivation of plants with economic potential, often in regions with climates very different from that of the imperial power. As European tastes and technologies expanded to value and process an increas- ing diversity of the world’s flora and fauna, oceans were criss-crossed with shiploads of species destined for new landscapes. By the mid-nineteenth century a taxonomic system provided a universal lexicon of plant names and a framework within which new species could be established, and the term ‘habitat’ was understood in the proto-ecological con- text of phytogeography. When post-Enlightenment European minds met post-Gondwanan Australian landscapes, the human manipulation of these landscapes over many millennia and their evolution across unimaginable eras remained unseen. Europeans saw peculiar plants and animals which challenged their concepts and taxonomic systems. They also saw the young antipodean colony of Victoria as sadly deficient in useful and attractive creatures, and rose to the laud- able challenge to ‘improve’ it with intro- ductions of the world’s floral and faunal treasures. And they harboured a gnawing nostalgia for the sights and sounds of ‘home’. Furthermore, as waves of job- seeking immigrants left depleted gold- fields in the late 1850s, Victoria’s govern- ment and swollen populace were anxious to find new industries. What ‘new’ animal or plant could graze or grow in the grow- ing colony? A scientific society, the Philosophical Institute of Victoria, and the Government Botanist and sometime Botanic Garden Director would help. Plants Dr Ferdinand (later Baron von) Mueller was Victoria’s Government Botanist for most of the second half of the nineteenth century - from 1853 until his death in 1896. From 1857 until his directorship was abolished in 1873, he was also, with no additional salary. Director of Melbourne’s Vol. 124 (2) 2007 69 Biodiversity symposium Botanic Garden. Dr Mueller soon expressed his optimistic vision for Victoria’s future prospects, con- cluding his second annual report as Government Botanist that, with 'the seren- est climate’, ‘no praise too high’ could be bestowed ‘on the productiveness of our adopted country’. We possess in the Southern hemisphere, what the Ancients in the Northern called “regiones felices,” those happy latitudes of a warm temperate zone, in which Nature with a prodigal hand offered prominently, amidst so many other gifts, the Cerealia, the Olive, and the Vine, and to which we there have added from the far East, the Orange, the Tea; from India, the Rice; and from the New World, the Maize, Cassava, Arrowroot, Tobacco, and so many other treasures of the vegetable world, on which mankind now rely for luxury and support. All these may be here successfully produced along with those which we enjoyed in the country of our youth, and will, I trust, with the mighty resources of our mineral wealth, render this country one of the most delightful and pros- perous of the globe (Mueller 1854: 7). As he later explained: In all zones, except the most icy, mankind depends on plants for its principal wants. For our sustenance, clothing, dwellings, or uten- sils; for our means of transit, whether by sea or land; indeed, for all our daily require- ments. we have to draw the material largely - and often solely - from the vegetable world. ... To render, therefore, these vegetable trea- sures accessible to our fullest benefit, not only locally but universally, must ever be an object of the deepest significance (Mueller 1871b: 58). Mueller devoted much of his working life to encouraging and facilitating the intro- duction of the world’s vegetable treasures into Victoria, presenting his ideas about desirable plants in lectures and reports. In a public lecture in 1870, he described his species-enriched vision splendid of Victoria’s mountain valleys: Might not the true Tulip tree, and the large Magnolias of the Mississippi and Himalaya, tower far over the Fern trees of these valleys, and widely overshade our arborescent Labiatae? Might not the Andine Wax Palm, the Wettinias, the Gingerbread Palm, the Jubaea, the Nicau, the northern Sabals, the Date, the Chinese Fan-palms, and Rhapis flabelliformis, be associated with our [Livistona] Palm in a glorious picture? Or turning to still more utilitarian objects, would not the Cork tree, the Red Cedar, the Camphor tree, the Walnuts and Hickories of North America, grow in these rich, humid dales, with very much greater celerity than even with all our tending in less genial spots? Could not, of 400 coniferous trees and 300 sorts of oaks, nearly every one be natu- ralised in these ranges, and thus deals [planks], select tanning material, cork, pitch, turpentine, and many other products, be gained far more readily there than elsewhere in Victoria, from sources rendered our own? He affirmed that of about 10,000 kinds of trees, which proba- bly constitute the forests of the globe, at least 3000 would live and thrive in these mountains of ours; many of them destined to live through centuries, perhaps not a few through twice a thousand years, as great his- toric monuments (Mueller 1871b: 60-1). A month after his August 1857 appoint- ment as Director of Melbourne's Botanic Garden, Dr Mueller addressed Victoria’s respected Philosophical Institute on the subject of desirable plant introductions. In response to numerous inquiries, he wished ‘to draw attention to some of the most use- ful plants deserving either introduction into this country or a wider diffusion through- out our territory’, and discussed an enor- mous number of trees and other plants from the subtropical and colder girdles of the globe. Since ‘a large proportion of our population is returning gradually from a migratory life [gold-seeking] to the firm abodes of settled communities,’ he sug- gested that ‘the time has arrived, when our thoughts should be directed, not only to the means of our present, but also of our future prosperity’ (Mueller 1858a: 93). The Botanic Garden was an essential accessory for the Government Botanist. He needed it to test the ability of plants to grow in Victoria, and to propagate plants and collect seeds for distribution across the Colony. Mueller’s first annual report as Government Botanist records the Garden’s importance ‘for the experimental introduc- tion of foreign plants into our adopted 70 The Victorian Naturalist Biodiversity symposium country’ (Mueller 1853: 7). The German- bom discipline of phytogeography, which sought explanations for the climatic shap- ing of the world’s vegetation, underpinned Mueller’s understanding of the essential role of a botanic garden as a place to test- cultivate plants from similar climatic zones (Jeffries 1997), and led hint to seek (unsuccessfully) experimental gardens in other climatic regions of Victoria (Home et al. 2002: 333-4, 405, 628). His first report as Director of the Botanic Garden concludes: when it is considered that under the mildness of our climate we may choose from the end- less number of plants of the whole temperate and subtropical zone, and that even many from the warmest parts of the globe may be acclimatized in our latitudes, it will then be needless to show how wide a field is left for our progress, and we may trust that many of the future introductions into our Garden will not be without practical value to the Colony (Mueller 1857: 8). Mueller’s annual reports include long lists of seed and plant donors, thirty botanic gar- dens and over 150 individual donors being recorded for 1860 (Mueller 1861: 3-4). Mueller sought all manner of useful plants to test their suitability for colonial cultivation or naturalization. Some of those he mentioned in his substantial Philosophical Institute paper were already growing in the Botanic Garden. His annual report for 1858 records the following eclectic collection: various Spice plants, the Tallow tree, the Nettle tree of lllawarra, the Desert Clianthus (which was figured as a notable flower already by Capt. Dampier), the Bottle tree of Sir Thomas Mitchell, the Litchi tree, the Cherimoir, the Banyan tree, the tall Pampas grass, the prolific Prairie Festuca, the edible Flovenia, the Gunyang, the Staranis, the Paraguay and Chinese Tea, the Camphor tree, the Tulip tree, Waratah, Bananas, the American Sarsaparilla, the Cork tree, the Giant Pine of California, the Cochineal Cactus, the Chinese Grass-cloth plant, the Australian and Indian Rotang, the Coffee tree, the Cotton plant (which now without protection occasionally ripens its pods), the Red Cedar, the Kaurie Pines from East Australia, Polynesia, and New Zealand, Bog Bean, Acorus, Nelumbium or Sacred Pythagorean Bean, many medicinal plants, &c (Mueller 1858b: 7). These and other useful plants are among the 3300 species listed in the ‘Catalogue of plants under cultivation in the Melbourne Botanic Garden’ which Mueller appended to his 1858 report. During his sixteen years as Director, Mueller oversaw the cultivation of many thousands of plant species in Melbourne’s Botanic Garden. His aim was always to give precedence to utilitarian and indus- trial culture, while less attention was bestowed on mere ornamental cultivation . . . I kept the requirements of a young country in view, where the extensive distribution of new industrial plants, such as Cork Oaks, American nut trees, Assam and Chinese tea &c, is needed far in preference to the ephemerous show of florist flowers (Home etal 2002: 517). In the 1860s visitors to the Botanic Garden could see all sorts of medicinal, food and fibre plants, and, in the Garden and the adjacent Government House Reserve, enjoy the umbrageous beauty of avenues and plantations of an impressive diversity of coniferous and deciduous timber trees. Animals Under Mueller the Botanic Garden con- tained more than plants. Initially there were birds on the lagoon and in the shrub- bery (Mueller 1857: 8). Then an aviary was added, prompted by an Institute talk by Edward Wilson, gentleman farmer and co-owner and retired editor of Melbourne’s newspaper. The Argus. In April 1857, Wilson discussed his orchestration of the transfer of the Murray Cod to the Yarra River - his own small correction of the ‘unequal and even eccen- tric’ distribution of Nature’s creatures. ‘With a virgin country, an Italian climate, and British institutions to lend force and intelligence to our endeavours’, Wilson (1857a: 24) shared Mueller’s hopes for vast and varied economic and aesthetic improvements, and pointed out that Nature seems to have been lavish in the sup- ply of her various gifts, but singularly capricious in their adjustment; or rather she has properly and kindly left to man the inter- esting and agreeable task of supplementing her own efforts, of discovering by experi- Vol. 124 (2) 2007 71 B iodiversity’ symposium ment and the action of his own intellect how far the gift itself may be multiplied, extended and improved (Wilson 1857a: 25). In a subsequent Institute paper on the introduction of such welcome British song- birds as canaries, skylarks and nightin- gales. Wilson (1857b: 86) explained that he had ‘no idea of living in a half-fur- nished country’. His talk prompted the for- mation of the Institute’s Song Bird Committee (which included Wilson) to consider future symphonic introductions. Following Mueller’s recommendation, the Committee’s request for government funds for the erection of an aviary in the Botanic Garden was successful (Maroske and Gilfedder 1994). Meanwhile, Wilson became a founding committee-member of the new Zoological Society of Victoria, which was established in October 1857, and sailed for England, where he began orchestrating the transmission of birds to Melbourne. Early aviary residents included canaries, goldfinches, chaffinches, siskins, linnets, Java sparrows, nightingales, skylarks, blackbirds, thrushes, Manilla doves, par- tridges, larks, starlings, hedge sparrows, Fiji pigeons, ring doves, ortolans, Ceylon doves, turtledoves - many sent by Edward Wilson (Maroske and Gilfedder 1994). The purpose was more than display. Birds were to be liberated in the Botanic Garden and beyond. In September 1858 Mueller informed the Philosophical Institute that ‘the birds are mostly prospering, and there are many young canaries’. With a view to setting loose a large number of birds for naturalisation, he besought Institute mem- bers and their friends for donations of female goldfinches and linnets, and also thrushes, blackbirds and nightingales (Philosophical Institute of Victoria 1858). Mueller reported that the aviary (Fig. 1), which had ‘become very attractive to the public’, was ‘placed in the dense shrubbery of the valley between the rustic bridge and the lake, in order that the sight and song of the birds may be fully enjoyed without dis- turbing them’. It housed a large number of birds ‘entrusted to our care by the Philosophical] Institute, with a view of effecting the domiciliation of the young birds in our garden, and thereby gradually a general distribution of foreign song birds over Australia’ (Mueller 1858b: 4). A sec- 72 ond wing was added during 1859, ‘the whole dry and shady space below the bridge thereby becoming available as a secluded spot for brooding birds’ (Mueller 1860a: 3). Unfortunately a trial sanctioned by the Institute's Committee ‘to naturalize foreign singing birds, by setting them at liberty in our shrubberies’ was not success- ful. Gradually, although well provided with food, the num- ber of the liberated birds decreased, and at last they entirely disappeared. In an attempt to naturalize the more hardy thrushes [from Wilson], we may anticipate to be more suc- cessful, particularly if at the proper season, the birds are at once transferred to suitable spots in the forest ranges, or perhaps to some of the islands (Mueller 1860a: 8). Although many birds suffered badly dur- ing the long sea voyage to Melbourne, ornithological expectations and experi- ments continued. During 1860 many pairs were liberated ‘near the Yarra Bend Asylum, on Phillip Island, Sandstone Island, and Churchill Island’, as well as in the Botanic Garden, or ‘distributed to gen- tlemen who had constructed aviaries suffi- ciently spacious and secure to render the prospect of the increase of these birds rather hopeful’ (Mueller 1861: 9). Meanwhile the Philosophical Institute agreed to hand over its incoming birds to the young Zoological Society, which, with- out promised government funds, was unable to develop its own rather swampy grounds on the northern (Richmond) side of the Yarra River, leaving its small, but growing, menagerie accommodated in the aviary and an enclosure in the Botanic Garden on the other side of the Yarra. Ferdinand Mueller and Frederick McCoy, Professor of Natural Science at Melbourne’s young University, were two of the four government nominees on the committee established in mid-1858 to manage the impecunious Society’s crea- tures - the Zoological Gardens Management Committee, which received the £3,000 earlier promised to the Zoological Society (Gillbank 1996a; 1996b). As the Committee’s Honorary Secretary from 1858 to 1861, Dr Mueller sought useful animals and, as Botanic Garden Director, continued to seek, grow and distribute useful plants. The Victorian Naturalist Biodiversity symposium Fig. 1 . The aviary in Melbourne’s Botanic Garden, photographed by Ed Haigh in 1861. Picture Collection, State Library of Victoria. When the Zoological Society’s land was incorporated into the Botanic Garden, Mueller could sign his annual report as Government Botanist and Director of the Botanic and Zoological Garden. By 1860 the mainly donated exotic faunal residents included llamas. Angora goats, fat-tail sheep, elk, fallow deer, Sumatra deer, Ceylon deer, four species of monkey and English squirrels, as well as various water- birds and songbirds (Mueller 1861: 10). The arrival of 46 thrushes and llamas (in a mixed llama-alpaca flock) from Edward Wilson, prompted Mueller to report that the disinterested zeal, the circumspect care, and patient perseverance of that gentleman, for the introduction of the treasures of the animal kingdom into this country, cannot receive a sufficiently high eulogium. To his exertions, supported by some friends of the colonies in Britain, we owe principally the donation of our llama-alpaca flock (Mueller 1860a: 8). In his presidential address to the Philosophical Institute (almost Royal Society) of Victoria, Mueller (1860b: 5) commended Edward Wilson’s zoological zeal, and expressed his own continuing high hopes: Might not the vegetable treasures from every zone, except the torrid, be flourishing around us, ministering to our necessary wants and to our luxurious enjoyment? Might not the pas- tures of our silent Alps, might not our grass- less forest-ranges, like the Andes or the Himalayan mountains, yet be enlivened by the alpaca or the Cashmere goat? Might not the desert game of Southern Africa yet roam in lively sport throughout our inland solitudes, and render them more hos- pitable, perhaps betraying to the wea- ried wanderer, by their path, the water- pool on which his life depends? Might not the camel’s track across the continent guide with their flocks the harbingers of new colonization to the oases of our inland wastes ... (Mueller 1860b:3)? Government funds allowed the Zoological Committee to acquire expen- sive animals. At great government expense, two dozen camels arrived in 1 860, and in August set off from Royal Park with Burke and Wills and the rest of the Royal Society’s over-encumbered expedition to cross the continent - just as Royal Park was being considered as an alternative site for a menagerie (Gillbank 1996b). Fresh from participating in the establish- ment of an English acclimatisation society, the eagerly-awaited Edward Wilson returned late in 1 860 to a Melbourne well- set for acclimatisation, and quickly became a member of the Zoological Gardens Management Committee, which was now the provisional committee of a new society dedicated to something much grander than mere menagerie management - acclimatisa- tion. The Acclimatisation Society of Victoria was the third such society in the world, and, like the English society, echoed the aims and aspirations of the earlier-estab- lished French society (Gillbank 1986). The Acclimatisation Society of Victoria (ASV) Melbourne’s new society echoed the hopes and aspirations of resident Europeans. It would seek to satisfy their economic and nostalgic desires by orchestrating the intro- duction of plants and animals of use and pleasure. Arising on a wave of enthusiasm for animal and plant acclimatisation, it was an organisation truly of its time, and sought Vol. 124 (2) 2007 73 B iodiversity symposium to complete the work which Nature had apparently left incomplete in Australia. It had high ideals and huge hopes. The Acclimatisation Society of Victoria (ASV) was formally established at a public meeting presided over by Victoria’s gover- nor, Sir Henry Barkly, on 25"' February 1861. With Henry Barkly as Patron and Edward Wilson President, Ferdinand Mueller was Vice-President, a position he held from 1861 to 1872. The ASV attract- ed members, and funding and land from a government willing to continue supporting the zoological enterprise. Angora goats, Chinese sheep, llamas and alpacas were transferred to the patch of Royal Park per- manently reserved for zoological purposes, to become the nucleus of the ASV’s zoo- logical collection, leaving birds singing in the aviary and swimming on the lagoon in the Botanic Garden. To the dismay of many Melbournians, the main purpose of the ASV’s zoological gardens was not the display of animals. Instead they were a staging depot where sea-weary animals could rest and hopefully breed, while awaiting transfer to a rural property or lib- eration in the wild (Gillbank 1996a; 1996b). With its council including scientists, doc- tors, lawyers, newspapermen and wealthy farmers and pastoralists, the ASV exuded influence; and sister societies were estab- lished in other Australasian colonies (Gillbank 1986). In its first annual report, the ASV Council expressed gratitude for ‘the liberality of the Legislature’ and con- fidence that continuing government sup- port would result in the aggrandisement of the colony, and the multiplication of its industrial resources, while its attractions as a place of residence will be materially enhanced when it offers to the lover of nature and the sportsman the same sources of pastime and enjoyment with which he was familiar in the country from which he emigrated ... .No country in the world is so favourably circumstanced for acclimatisation purposes as Victoria, and it is within the power of its inhabitants to enrich it by stocking its broad territory with the choicest products of the animal kingdom borrowed from every temperate region on the face of the globe (Acclimatisation Society of Victoria 1862: 9). The ASV tried to please everyone. For the pastoralist it offered the alpaca. Angora and Cashmere goat; for the sportsman deer, elk. hare, quail and various ducks; for the angler salmon, trout, carp and other fish; and for the agriculturalist, such sup- posedly grub-eating birds as the thrush, blackbird, starling, sparrow and Common (Indian) Myna. Professor Frederick McCoy, delivered the ASV’s first anniversary address in November 1862, explaining that acclimati- sation was the bringing together in any one country the various useful or ornamental animals of other countries having the same or nearlv the same climate and general conditions of surface (McCoy 1862: 36). He had a gastronomic slant on biodiversi- ty, and particularly valued those cud-chew- ing, hooved quadrupeds, the ruminants, which include sheep, goats, cattle, deer and antelopes. Explaining their meat-producing importance. Professor McCoy revealed the ‘extraordinary’ fact that while Nature has so abundantly furnished forth the natural larder of every other simi- larly situated country on the face of the earth with a great variety, and a profusion of indi- viduals of ruminants good for food, not one single creature of the kind inhabits Australia! Furthermore, If Australia had been colonised by any of the lazy nations of the earth, this nakedness of the land would have been indeed an oppres- sive misfortune, but Englishmen love a good piece of voluntary hard work, and you will all, I am sure, rejoice with me that this great piece of nature’s work has been left to us to do (McCoy 1862:39). He mentioned arrangements for the acqui- sition of the highly-prized eland and other South African antelopes, and the anticipat- ed arrival of a flock of the valuable ‘pure Cashmere-shawl goat, from Thibet’, pur- chased by the ASV with the intention of forming a great herd on some of the highest mountains of Gipps Land which retain snow sufficiently long to produce the temperature necessary for preservation of the finest qualities of the wool and hair’ (McCoy 1862: 50). In the 1 860s Professor McCoy helped the ASV introduce the Cashmere goat and two 74 The Victorian Naturalist Biodiversity symposium other creatures from India - the Arrindy silkworm and the Indian Myna. While Dr Mueller continued to distribute white mul- berry trees, which the ASV hoped would eventually support a silk industry, the introduction of the Arrindy silkworm, which lives on the castor oil plant, was unsuccessful. The ASV had the supposedly grub-consuming Indian Myna and other ‘precious’ introduced birds given legal protection from shooting (by listing them under Victoria’s game act). Farmers, how- ever, did not appreciate their fruit-consum- ing propensities, and, despite McCoy’s continuing praise of their grub-eradication value, the ASV decided not to oppose the removal of sparrows and mynas from leg- islative protection in 1871 (Gillbank 2001 ). By then public criticism of Melbourne’s Botanic and Zoological Gardens was esca- lating. The Botanic Garden was not beauti- ful enough. The ASV’s menagerie was not exciting enough. In a public lecture in 1871 Mueller discussed the importance of a botanic garden in bringing together ‘the greatest possible number of select plants from all the different parts of the globe’ and their scientific, geographic and economic display. By ‘the introduction of novel utili- tarian species, local industries are to be extended, or new resources to be originat- ed’, and public interest generated in the util- isation of plants and their products (Mueller 1 872a: 6). But this was apparently not what the public wanted. Just as Baron Ferdinand von Mueller was being ousted from his too scientific and instructive Botanic Garden (Cohn and Maroske 1996), the ASV acknowledged its zoo-keeping role and became the Zoological and Acclimatisation Society of Victoria and began seeking more interesting animals for its Zoological Gardens. Nevertheless the Society published Mueller’s papers on timber trees and other plants ‘readily eligible for Victorian indus- trial culture, with indications of their native countries and some of their uses’ (Mueller 1871a, 1872b, 1874, 1875, 1878), which he prepared ‘with a view of promot- ing the introduction and diffusion of the very many kinds of plants, which in our geographical latitudes may be extensively reared in forests, on fields or pasture’ (Mueller 1876: iii). Seeking a wider audi- ence for this important information, he gained ministerial approval for a depart- mental publication - his 293-page book. Select plants readily eligible for industrial culture or naturalisation in Victoria, with indications of their native countries and some of their uses (1876), in which he sought to bring together ‘some condensed notes in popular language on all the princi- pal utilitarian plants hitherto known to pros- per in extra-tropic zones’ (Mueller 1876: iii). Since the information was relevant to other temperate parts of the world, Mueller removed ‘Victoria’ from the title and added ‘extra-tropical’, and edited and enlarged it for NSW, Indian, American, German, French and Victorian editions in the 1880s. The 1885 Victorian edition of Select extra- tropical plants contains 466 pages of infor- mation about useful alien and Australian plants. Not surprisingly, it does not include thistles and other acknowledged weeds. Weeds Mueller was affronted by the accusation that he had introduced weeds into Victoria. Certainly Capeweed Arctotheca calendula (= Cryptostemma calendulaceum) was a glaringly obvious problem in the Botanic Garden, but Mueller pointed out that, on his arrival in 1852, it was already widely established around Melbourne (Maroske 2005: 178). And he knew that it had been recognised as a Victorian weed long before that. Since he had ‘repeatedly been accused of having brought this and other weeds’ into the Colony, Mueller (1869: 10) reported that these assertions were ‘contrary to facts, and that already, in 1833, Baron Von Huegel noticed and recorded the cryptostemma as an inexter- minable weed of Australia’. In a public lecture, he mentioned the ‘Cape Weed, for the presence of which I am not responsi- ble, as it had already irrepressively invaded some parts of Australia as early as 1833’ (Mueller 1872a: 29). Before moving to Victoria, Mueller had observed and col- lected it in South Australia, recording on his herbarium specimens its common occurrence round Adelaide in 1 848 (Kloot 1983: 112). Mueller was aware of weeds as soon as he arrived in Australia. While collecting and documenting the South Australian Vol. 124 (2) 2007 75 Biodiversity symposium flora, he recognised familiar plants prolif- erating in disturbed areas round Adelaide and in rural fanning areas - plants which, unlike Capeweed (from South Africa), were well-known weeds in Europe (Kloot 1983, 1987). Victoria’s National Herbarium (MEL) holds specimens of weeds Mueller collected in various parts of South Australia in the late 1840s, some of which include annotations such as ‘on roads, waste places and cultivated land around Adelaide’ for Wireweed Polygonum aviculare (Kloot 1983: 1 18). When South Australia’s Thistle Act 1851 was passed, Mueller estimated that about 100 plant species (from Europe and the Cape of Good Hope) had become natu- ralised ‘beyond the possibility of extirpa- tion’ in South Australia (Kloot 1983: 98). Aimed at preventing the further spread of plants commonly known as the Scotch Thistle, the Act covered purple-flowered thistles, but not the true Scotch Thistle, which was not common in South Australia (Kloot 1987: 88). Victoria’s Thistle Bill was passed in 1856, while Mueller was away on a British expedi- tion across northern Australia. ‘An Act to make provision for the eradication of certain thistle plants and the Bathurst Burr’ (1856) covered four purple-flowered thistles well- known in Europe - Spotted Thistle, Carduus Marianus, Sacred Thistle, Carduus Benedictus, Spear Thistle Carduus Lanceolatus , and Scotch Thistle Onopordon Acanthium , - and the Bathurst Burr Xanthium Spinosum, from South America (Parsons 1973: 14). In 1861 Mueller warned that ‘unless the growth of the thistles becomes methodically checked, their num- ber will year after year be vastly increasing until it may finally [be] almost beyond pos- sibility to arrest the progress of these weeds’, and advised that the Thistle Act should be rigorously enforced on private land and tenders should be hired to deal with weeds on Crown land (Maroske 2005: 176). When amendments to Victoria’s 1865 Thistle Prevention Statute were being con- sidered, Mueller recommended the removal of the Holy or Sacred Thistle, which had ‘never been really abundant’ and had ‘lately almost disappeared’, and the addition of the troublesome Creeping or Perennial Thistle Carduus arvensis, ‘on account of its creep- ing perennial root, which is very tenacious 76 of life’ (Home et al. 2002: 590-591). Mueller was aware that Wireweed (some- times called Knot Weed), docks and other weeds were spreading but. because their seeds were neither as readily wind-dispersed as thistle-down nor as readily transported by stock as the Bathurst Burr, he would not seek their inclusion under the Act ‘unless many other troublesome weeds, such as the Burr Clover Medicago denticulata , the South European Star Thistle Centaurea Mel i tens is, Cryptostemma calendulaceum and many other weeds, were also included in the operations of the act’ (Home et al. 2002: 592). Mueller's suggestion for the addition of weeds ‘deemed by the Government Botanist as sufficiently noxious to be operat- ed against in conformity with this act’ (Home et al 2002: 591), was echoed in the 1891 Act, which allowed plants to be pro- claimed ‘thistles’ without requiring an amendment (Parsons 1973: 14). To facilitate recognition and understand- ing of plants whose destruction was required under the Thistle Act, Mueller (1893) prepared an illustrated booklet on the nine species • Carduus Marianus Spotted Thistle • Carduus lanceolatus Spear Thistle • Onopordon Acanthium Scotch Thistle • Xanthium spinosum Bathurst Burr • Carduus arvensis Perennial Thistle • Carduus pycnocephalus Shore Thistle • Centaurea Calcitrapa Star Thistle • Centaurea Melitensis Malta Thistle • Kentrophyllum lanatum Saffron Thistle All are listed in Mueller’s ‘Plants, hither- to immigrated and naturalized in Victoria, with indications of their nativity and English popular names’ in his Key to the system of Victorian plants (1888). Mueller did not include their descriptions because most of the 171 listed naturalized aliens, being widely distributed in Europe, were described in publications on the British flora, which were readily available in Victoria. The list also includes other weeds, such as Capeweed, Arctotheca cal- endula Knot-Weed Polygonum aviculare Burr-Clover, Medicago denticulata and the docks Rumex crispus and Rumex conglom- eratus. Not all the listed naturalised aliens were undesirable weeds. Mueller (1885) described over a quarter of them in his Select extra-tropical plants, readily eligi- The Victorian Naturalist Biodiversity symposium ble for industrial culture or naturalization , including Chamomile, Parsley, Chicory, Samphire, Artichoke, Fennel, Lettuce, Horehound, Alfalfa or Lucerne, Penny- royal, Tree-Tobacco, Parsnip, Castor Oil Plant, Rosemary, Salad Burnet, Salsify, Gorse or Furze, Vetch and various clovers and grasses. The entry for Horehound Marrubium vulgare includes good and bad attributes - ‘in many countries quite a weed ... its naturalization can nowhere be unwelcome, as it does not unduly spread . . . The plant accommodates readily to any forlorn waste land’ (Mueller 1885: 209). It was cultivated in the Botanic Garden in the 1850s and 1860s (Mueller 1858b, Maroske pers. com.). So were various apparently not-yet-natu- ralised species of Rubus , including several types of blackberry. The nine species recorded in the Botanic Garden in 1858 include Rubus fruticosus, the ordinary Bramble or Blackberry-bush (Mueller 1858b: 25). The ‘British Blackberry, which proves to be remarkably prolific,’ was among the numerous plants distributed to public institutions in 1861 (Mueller 1862: 6). In 1860 Mueller (1861: 5) welcomed the addition of the Canadian Blackberry Rubus Canadensis to the Botanic Garden and ‘scattered the seeds of the large-fruited Canada blackberry along the alpine springs’ on the Baw Baw plateau, later learning that ‘this delicious fruit is estab- lished on the rivulets of that mountain’ (Mueller 1871c: 38). In 1870 he told his audience ‘Disseminate the Strawberries of the countries of our childhood, naturalise the Blackberry of northern forest moors’ (Mueller 1871b: 72). In the mid-1890s Rubus fruticosus was not one of Victoria’s over 200 acknowledged naturalised plants (Anon 1893), and Mueller continued to claim that it ‘deserves to be naturalised on the rivulets of any ranges’ in his Select extra-tropical plants (1895). As the number of, and information about, desirable species increased the size of suc- cessive editions of Mueller’s Select extra- tropical plants, so too did the small num- ber of warnings about potential weeds. Warnings for ten of Mueller’s (1888) natu- ralized species described in the 9"' edition of Select extra-tropical plants (1895), include that Tall Meadow-oatgrass Avena elatior ‘becomes easily irrepressible on Vol. 124 (2) 2007 account of its wide-creeping roots’; Wild Oats Avena fatua is ‘hard to exterminate in grain-fields, where it sometimes proves quite troublesome’; Penny-royal Mentha Pulegium is ‘To be avoided on pastures, as not readily repressed’; and Gorse or Furze Ulex Europaeus is ‘Too apt to stray as a hedge plant’. Entries for 26 species in the 9 ,h edition include some indication that the plant was a potential weed (Maroske 2005: Appendix U). Balancing the usefulness of plants with their possible weediness was not easy. In retrospect In an era when acclimatisation was an extremely popular exercise in what today might be called biological globalisation, Mueller and other well-intentioned Europeans introduced into Victoria all sorts of useful plants and animals from climatically similar parts of the world. With the wisdom of hindsight we may smile dismissively at those responsible for such unsuitable past introductions as the fox, sparrow, Capeweed and blackberry, which we know have become invasive weeds and pests. Many such introductions have been environmentally disastrous. But, with ideas and technologies unavailable to ecologically-unaware 19 th century acclima- tises, we should be careful of slick con- demnations of actions and aspirations of so long ago. No-one today would want to introduce something like the Bumble Bee. Or would they? Acknowledgements I thank Sara Maroske and Helen Cohn for infor- mation and comments; and Jill Thurlow in Melbourne’s Royal Botanic Gardens library and Leanne McCredden in the University of Melbourne library for help with Mueller’s pub- lished papers and various editions of his Select extra-tropical plants. Species names are those used in the references cited. References Acclimatisation Society of Victoria (1862) The first annual report. (Wilson & Mackinnon: Melbourne) Anon (1893) Record of plants, naturalized in the Colony of Victoria since 1889. The Victorian Naturalist 10. 144-145. Cohn H and Maroske S (1996) Relief from duties of minor importance: the removal of Baron von Mueller from the directorship of the Melbourne Botanic Gardens. Victorian Historical Journal 61, 103-127. Gillbank L (1986) The origins of the Acclimatisation Society of Victoria: practical science in the wake of the gold rush. Historical Records of Australian Science 6, 359-374. 77 B iodiversity symposium Gillbank L (1996a) A paradox of purposes. Acclimatization origins of the Melbourne Zoo. In New worlds, new animals. From menagerie to zoo- logical park in the nineteenth century . pp. 73-85. Eds R J Hoage and W A Deiss. (The Smithsonian Institution/The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore and London) Gillbank L (1996b) A tale of two animals alpaca and camel: zoological shaping of Mueller’s Botanic Gardens. Victorian Historical Journal 67 , 83-102. Gillbank L (2001) Animal acclimatisation: McCoy and the menagerie that became Melbourne's zoo. The Victorian Naturalist 1 1 8, 297-304. Home R W, Lucas A M, Maroske S, Sinkora I) M and Voigt J H eds. (2002) Regardful ly Yours. Selected correspondence of Ferdinand von Mueller Vol. 11. (Peter Lang: Bern) Jeffries S (1997) Alexander von Humboldt and Ferdinand von Mueller's argument for the scientific botanic garden. Historical Records of Australian Science II, 301-310. Kloot P M (1983) Early records of alien plants natu- ralised in South Australia. Journal of the Adelaide Botanic Gardens 6, 93 - 1 3 1 . Kloot P M (1987) The naturalised flora of South Australia. Journal of the Adelaide Botanic Gardens 10,81-111. Maroske (2005) Science by correspondence: Ferdinand Mueller and botany in nineteenth-century Australia. (Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Melbourne) Maroske S and Gilfedder F (1994) Breaking the silence. The aviary in the Melbourne Botanic Gardens and the acclimatisation of song birds, 1857- 61 . Australian Garden History 6, 7-15. McCoy F (1862) Acclimatisation, its nature and applic- ability to Victoria. In The first annual report of the Acclimatisation Society of Victoria , pp 31-51. (Melbourne) Mueller F (1853) First general report of the Government Botanist on the vegetation of the Colony. Victoria - Parliamentary Papers - Votes and Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly 1853 1 (A. No. 26a) Mueller F (1854) Second general report of the Government Botanist on the vegetation of the Colony. Victoria - Parliamentary Papers - Votes and Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly 1854-5 1 (A. No. 18) Mueller F (1857) Report on the Botanic Garden, Melbourne. Victoria - Parliamentary Papers - Votes and Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly 1856-7 4 (No. 81a) Mueller F (1858a) On a general introduction of useful plants into Victoria. Transactions of the Philosophical Institute of Victoria 2, 93-109. Mueller F (1858b) Annual report of the Government Botanist and Director of the Botanic Garden. Victoria - Parliamentary Papers - Votes and Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly 1858-9 2 (No. 1 7) Mueller F (1860a) Annual Report of the Government Botanist and Director of the Botanical and Zoological Garden. Victoria - Parliamentary Papers - Votes and Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly 1859-60 4 (No. 37) Mueller F (1860b) Anniversary address of the presi- dent. Transactions of the Philosophical Institute of Victoria 4. 1-8. Mueller F (1861) Annual report of the Government Botanist and Director of the Botanic and Zoologic Garden. Victoria - Parliamentary Papers - Votes and Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly 1860-1 3 (No. 19) Mueller F (1862) Report of the Government Botanist and Director of the Botanic Garden. Victoria - Parliamentary Papers - Votes and Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly 1861-2 3 (No. 105) Mueller F (1869) Report of the Government Botanist and Director of the Botanic Garden. Victoria - Parliamentary Papers - Votes and Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly 1869 3 (No. 21) Mueller F (1871a) The principal timber trees readily eligible for Victorian industrial culture, with indica- tions of their native countries, and some of their tech- nologic uses. Annual Report of the Acclimatisation Society of Victoria 1871, 29-58. Mueller F (1871b) The application of phytology to the industrial purposes of life. Lectures delivered in the Lecture Room of the Museum during the Spring ses- sion of 1870 (Samuel Mullen: Melbourne) Mueller F (1871c) Forest culture in its relation to industrial pursuits. (Government Printer: Melbourne) Mueller F (1872a) The objects of a botanic garden in relation to industries. (Mason, Firth & M‘Cutcheon: Melbourne) Mueller F (1872b) Select plants (exclusive of timber trees) readily eligible for Victorian industrial culture, with indications of their native countries and some of their uses’ Proceedings of the Zoological and Acclimatisation Society of Victoria 1 : 249-428. Mueller F (1874) Additions to the lists of the principal timber trees and other select plants, readily eligible for Victorian industrial culture. Proceedings of the Zoological and Acclimatisation Society of Victoria 3, 47-95. Mueller F (1875) Second supplement to the select plants, readily eligible for Victorian industrial cul- ture. Proceedings of the Zoological and Acclimatisation Society of Victoria 4, 45-7 1 . Mueller F (1876) Select plants readily eligible for industrial culture or naturalisation in Victoria, with indications of their native countries and some of their uses. (M'Carron, Bird & Co: Melbourne) Mueller F (1878) Third supplement to the select plants, readily eligible for Victorian industrial culture. Proceedings of the Zoological and Acclimatisation Society of Victoria 5, 1 95-2 1 4. Mueller F (1885) Select extra-tropical plants, readily eligible for industrial culture or naturalization, with indications of their native countries and some of their uses. New Victorian edition, revised and enclarged. (Government Printer: Melbourne) Mueller F (1888) Key to the system of Victorian plants. I. Dichotomous arrangement of the orders, genera and species of the native plants, with annotations of primary distinctions and supporting characteristics. (Government Printer: Melbourne) Mueller F (1893) Illustrated description of thistles, etc., included within the provisions of the Thistle Act of 1890. (Government Printer: Melbourne) Mueller F (1895) Select extra-tropical plants, readily eligible for industrial culture or naturalisation, with indications of their native countries and some of their uses. (Government Printer: Melbourne) Parsons W T (1973) Noxious weeds of Victoria. (Inkata Press: Melbourne) Philosophical Institute of Victoria (1858) Meeting 29 September. Transactions of the Philosophical Institute of Victoria 3, xxiv. Wilson E ( i 857a) On the Murray River Cod, with par- ticulars of experiments instituted for introducing this fish into the River Yarra-Yarra. Transactions of the Philosophical Institute of Victoria 2, 23-34. Wilson E (1857b) On the introduction of the British song bird. Transactions of the Philosophical Institute of Victoria 2, 77-88. Received 28 September 2006; accepted 7 December 2006 78 The Victorian Naturalist Biodiversity symposium Invasive plant pathogenic fungi in native Victorian ecosystems James H Cunnington Primary Industries Research Victoria (PIRVic), Department of Primary Industries, Knoxfield Centre, Private Bag 15, Ferntree Gully Delivery Centre, Victoria 3156. Email: james.cunnington@dpi.vic.gov.au Abstract Despite the introduction of hundreds of species of plant pathogenic fungi into Victoria over the last 200 years, Phytophthora cinnamomi is the only introduced fungus to have caused significant disease in native ecosystems. Of native plant pathogenic fungi, Chalara australis affecting Myrtle Beech is probably causing the most disease. Of fungi not yet present in Australia, Guava Rust Puccinia psidii and Sudden Oak Death Phytophthora ramorum are seen as the most significant potential diseases of native plants, while the Australian daisy rust Puccinia lagenophorae is a surprising invasive pathogen in Europe and North America. ( The Victorian Naturalist 124 ( 1 ), 2007, 79-83). Introduction Of the more than 100 000 described species of fungi, approximately 1 0 000 can cause diseases in plants (Agrios 1997). Most plant species are affected by at least several different species of fungi, which are so well adapted to their hosts that they are unable to survive on any other material, but most of these do not cause significant disease in the plant (Alexopoulos et al. 1996). Disease can occur in all parts of the plant, although the roots and leaves are the most commonly affected. Root diseases can be quite strik- ing as the infected plants are often unable to take up water, resulting in a complete collapse of the plant (if it is herbaceous), or rapid dieback of the leaves (if the plant is woody). Foliar diseases are easier to diagnose as the fungi usually produce dis- crete leaf lesions where they produce microscopic spores that are dispersed by wind and rain. Most plant pathogenic fungi, particularly those that cause foliar disease, are quite host specific, i.e. they only infect a single species of plant, or its close evolutionary relatives (Agrios 1997). There are fewer root pathogenic fungi, but these often affect a much wider range of plants. There is a balance between plants and their pathogens in their natural environ- ments. If a fungus killed an entire plant population, then the fungal population would also die out, as it would not have a host plant to live on. Eucalypts, for exam- ple, are affected by a very large number of fungal species (Keane et al. 2000), but these rarely cause serious disease in their native habitats. In plantations some of these can be serious pathogens. This is generally true for all plants that are brought into cultivation. As the crops become more genetically uniform and are grown repeatedly in the same soils, the balance between host and pathogen shifts to a point where a pathogen can become extremely aggressive and can destroy a crop (Agrios 1997). Another way in which a pathogenic fun- gus can become very destructive is by intro- ducing it to a new environment. The pathogen can jump onto new plant species and quickly cause significant disease or death. It is in these situations that the pathogen becomes truly invasive (Anagno- stakis 1987). Luckily, there are not many serious cases of this happening, especially in Australia, but there are several species of plant pathogenic fungi expected to become serious invasive pathogens were they to be introduced into Australia. This paper will briefly discuss the two exotic species that are likely to become extremely invasive if they are introduced to Victoria. A rare example of an Australian fungus that has become invasive in Europe and North America will also be discussed. But first we will look at a North American example of a very serious invasive plant pathogenic fun- gus, and then two most important invasives in Victoria; one of which has been intro- duced, while the other is probably native. Vol. 124 (2)2007 79 B iodi versity symposium Fig. 1. Cryphonectria parasitica spores oozing from an infected chestnut stem. AQIS post entry quarantine station. Knoxfield, 2001 . Photograph by Robin Eichner. Fig. 2. Section through rust pustule of Puccinia lagenophorae showing two-celled teliospores. Specimen on Lagenophora stipitata from Daniel McAlpine collection, Kiewa Valley, 1902. Scale bar equals 40 pm. Chestnut Blight in North America The damage done by Chestnut Blight in North America can be used to appreciate the disastrous effects that a plant pathogen- ic fungus can have when introduced into a new geographical area. In 1905, American Chestnut Caslanea dentata trees outside the New York Zoological Garden were reported to be dying (Anagnostakis 1987). Symptoms included bark cankers (lesions) and wilting of distal foliage. The causal agent was identified as the fungus Cryphonectria parasitica (an ascomycete). Native to Asia, C. parasitica is a minor pathogen of Japanese and Chinese 80 The Victorian Naturalist Biodiversity symposium Chestnuts, Castanea crenata and Castanea mollissima respectively, but an extremely aggressive pathogen of American Chestnut. Once it arrived in North America, presumably on plants imported from Asia, it spread at a rate of about 37 km per year. The fungal spores are trans- ported on the surfaces of animals and through rain splash. By the mid 1950s it was estimated that about 3.6 million hectares of American Chestnut trees were dead or dying. These trees were once a major component of the hardwood forests of the eastern United States, but now exist only as stems and stumps that continually re-shoot, only to become infected. If Chestnut Blight were to reach Australia it would destroy our, admittedly small. Chestnut industry. In 2001, Chestnut plants from Spain were about to be released from quarantine facilities in Victoria, when small lesions were found on the stems on one of the plants. Microscopic examination and fungal culturing revealed that it was infected with Chestnut Blight (Fig. 1). The plant appeared healthy during the two years it had spent in quarantine (Cunning- ton and Pascoe 2003). The Cinnamon Fungus In Australia the most invasive plant patho- genic fungus is the Cinnamon Fungus Phytophthora cirmamomi (an oomycete). Originally described from Cinnamon in the mountains of tropical Western Sumatra, P. cirmamomi needs little introduction to Australians, so will be mentioned here briefly. In Victoria it is the sclerophyll forests that are most affected by Phytophthora dieback (Weste 1974). Typically, susceptible trees and shrubs die back, to be replaced by relatively resistant grasses and sedges. Those plants most sus- ceptible include species of Xanthorrhoea, Epacrid-aceae, Acacia, Myrtaceae, Fabaceae and Proteaceae. The impact of P. cirmamomi is so significant that it was list- ed as a ‘Key Threatening Process’ in the Common-wealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Flardham (2005) presents a recent review of P. cirmamomi. Myrtle Wilt in Victoria and Tasmania Myrtle Beech Nothofagus cunninghamii is a dominant tree in cool temperate rain- forests in Victoria and Tasmania. The disease known as Myrtle Wilt was first reported in 1973 in north-western Tasmania, where areas of Myrtle Beech were noticed to be dying back. The causal agent, Chalara australis (anamorphic fun- gus) was not described until 1989 (Kile and Walker 1987). It is thought to be indige- nous to south-eastern Australia. Myrtle Wilt has been found throughout cool tem- perate rainforests in Tasmania, and in the Otway Ranges, Central Fiighlands and Strzelecki Ranges in central and southern Victoria (Cameron and Turner 1996). The fungus is spread by airborne and water- borne spores that infect through wounds in the outer bark. It may spread from tree to tree via root contact or grafts. Death occurs six months to three years after infection. There is still some uncertainty regarding the natural status of Myrtle Wilt, given that it occurs in both disturbed and undisturbed sites, and that it has only reached epidemic levels in the past 30 years. If C. australis is truly an indigenous fungus, it is unusual that it has evolved to become an aggressive pathogen of its only host. Exotic pathogens The two plant pathogenic fungi that do not yet occur in Australia and are most likely to cause serious disease to native plants in Victoria are Guava Rust Puccinia psidii and Sudden Oak Death Phytophthora ramo- mm . Puccinia psidii (a basidiomycete) is a rust fungus native to South America. It infects leaves and stems, forming yellow spore-filled pustules. Infected leaves shriv- el, and in heavily affected trees, severe defoliation can occur. The fungus occurs naturally on native South American plants in the subfamily Myrtoideae of the Myrtaceae, but also infects Australasian plants in the subfamily Leptospermoideae such as Eucalyp-tus, Melaleuca and Callistemon (Simpson et al. 2006). Its dis- tribution appears to be spreading from tropi- cal South America into more temperate regions in Central America, where it occurs as far north as Florida. In 2005 P. psidii was found in Hawaii on Psidium, Eugenia and Metrosideros. It is probably the most seri- ous threat to native ecosystems in Australia. Phytophthora ramorum (an oomycete) was described from Europe in 2001 where it was killing Viburnum and Rhododendron Vol. 124 (2) 2007 81 Biodiversity symposium (Werres et al. 2001). At that time the dis- ease was known as ‘Ramorum Dieback', but the fungus reached North America, where in California, it is currently killing very large numbers of oaks. This has led to a new common name for the disease, 'Sudden Oak Death'. Phytophthora ramo- rum is now known to affect over 100 species of plants from 30 families. Depending on the plant, the fungus can cause lethal cankers, shoot blights or leaf blights. It produces spores that are spread by wind and rain. The origin of Phytophthora ramorum remains unknown. The European and North American forms appear to be distinct, and may warrant sep- arate subspecies. Both forms were probably recently introduced into their respective continents. Presumably they have arrived on plants, or plant products, from other parts of the world. Asia is often suggested as its origin, as large numbers of Rhododendron species are affected by P. ramorum , and the centre of diversity for Rhododendron is in Asia. The effect this fungus could have on native Australian ecosystems is also unknown given its wide host range and unpredictable pathogenicity. Puccinia lagenophorae on composites In the early 1960s a new rust fungus was reported causing leaf lesions on Groundsel Senecio vulgaris in Britain, France and Switzerland (Wilson et al. 1965). Its origin was unknown, and it was described as the new species Puccinia terrieriana. By 1 965 it was very widespread in Britain and cross-infectivity studies using its air-borne spores revealed that it could infect other composites including Cineraria Senecio cruentus, English Daisy Beilis perennis and Calendula Calendula officinalis. A comprehensive examination of similar rust fungi revealed that it was not a new species, but rather the Australian native fungus, Puccinia lagenophorae (Wilson et al. 1965). Described in 1884, P. lageno- phorae (Figure 2) infects several genera of Australian Asteraceae, including Lageno- phora, Calotis and Podotheca (McAlpine 1906; herbarium VPRI and DAR records). Sixty species of composites are now known to be susceptible. The fungus has since moved to North America (Scholler and Koike 2001), where it has created some concern over the effect it may have on the 1 00 or so native species of Senecio (Littlefield et al. 2005). Although it does not cause serious disease in Europe and North America, P. lageno-phorae is a good, but very rare, example of a plant pathogenic Australian fungus that is inva- sive in other parts of the world. Final remarks Over 200 species of plant pathogenic fungi have been introduced into Victoria in the last 150 years (Cunnington 2003). But, almost all of these have since infected only the plant species they were introduced with. Even those few introduced fungi that affect a wide range of introduced cultivated plants have not moved into native systems. Only P. cinnamomi has become a truly invasive plant pathogen in Victoria, yet the damage caused by this single invasive organism has been devastating. With the increasing movement of agricultural products around the world, quarantine legislation and inspection regulations continue to improve (Palm 1999). But even in Australia, where quarantine regulators are heavily funded, several new plant pathogenic fungi become established each year. We can probably consider ourselves fortunate that more plant pathogenic fungi have not become invasive in our native ecosystems. Acknowledgement I thank Ian Smith (School of Forest and Ecosystem Science, The University of Melbourne) for helpful discussions on Myrtle Wilt, and the anonymous reviewer for sugges- tions. References Agrios GN (1997) Plant pathology. (Academic Press: California) Alexopoulos CJ, Mims CW and Blackwell M (1996) Introductory mycology (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: USA) Anagnostakis SL (1987) Chestnut blight: the classical problem of an introduced pathogen. Mycologia 79. 23-37. Cameron DG and Turner LA ( 1996) Survey and moni- toring of myrtle wilt within cool temperate rain- forests in Victoria. (Department of Natural Resources and Environment: East Melbourne) Cunnington JH (2003) Pathogenic fungi on introduced plants in Victoria. A host list and literature guide for their identification. (Department of Primary Industries: Melbourne) Cunnington JH and Pascoe IG (2003) Post entry quar- antine interception of chestnut blight in Victoria. Australasian Plant Pathology 32, 569-570. Hardham A (2005) Phytophthora cinnamomi. Molecular Plant Pathology 6, 589-604. 82 The Victorian Naturalist Biodiversity symposium Keane P, Kile GA, Podger FD and Brown BN (2000) Diseases and pathogens of eucalypts. Ed. (CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood, Victoria) Kile GA and Walker J (1987) Chalara australis sp. nov. (Hyphomycetes), a vascular pathogen of Nothofagus cunninghamii (Fagaceae) in Australia and its relationship to other Chalara species. Australian Journal of Botany 35, 1-32. Littlefield LJ, Marek SM, Tyrl RJ and Winkelman KS (2005) Morphological and molecular characterisation of Puccinia lagenophorae, now present in central North America. Annals of Applied Biology 147, 35- 42. Me Alpine D (1906) Rusts of Australia (Department of Agriculture: Victoria) Palm ME (1999) Mycology and world trade: a view from the front line. Mycologia 91, 1-12. Scholler M and Koike ST (2001) First occurrence of Puccinia lagenophorae causing rust in common groundsel in North America. Plant Disease 85, 335. Simpson JA, Thomas K and Grgurinovic CA (2006) Uredinales species pathogenic on species of Myrtaceae. Australasian Plant Pathology 35, 549- 562. Werres S, Marwitz R, Man in A Veld WA, de Cock AWAM, Bonants PJM, De Weerdt M, Themann K, Ilieva E and Baayen RP (2001) Phytophthora ramo- rum sp. nov., a new pathogen on Rhododendron and Viburnum. Mycological Research 105, 1 155-1 165. Weste G (1974) Phytophthora cinnamomi - the cause of severe disease in certain native communities in Victoria. Australian Journal of Botany 22. 1-8. Wilson IM, Walshaw DF and Walker J (1965) The new groundsel rust in Britain and its relationship to cer- tain Australasian rusts. Transactions of the British Mycologia l Society 48, 501-511. Received 12 October; accepted 13 December 2006 Contingency planning and prioritising pest plants John Weiss Department of Primary Industries PO Box 48, Frankston, Victoria 3199. Email: John.Weiss@dpi.vic.gov.au Weed control is an emotive issue and all land managers have to deal with it, often with limited funds. Land managers, however, are usually motivated to prioritise control of weeds having an obvi- ous impact on their use of the land, for example those that are already well established and abundant. Recently, an increasing focus has been given to preventing weed spread early in the invasion process, that is, by attempting to eradicate particular species long before they expand and become widespread. Land managers need to identify the present and future priority weeds so that resources can be focused on them. This paper describes a generic process or contingency plan to assist in developing either local, regional or state plans to identify and act upon new and emerging pest plants. (The Victorian Naturalist, 124 (2), 2007, 83-86) Introduction Preventing the naturalisation of potentially invasive species is accepted as the first and most cost-effective option for dealing with biological invasions (Wittenberg and Cock 2001). Moreover, economic modelling sug- gests that preventing the spread of new pests can generate a benefit-cost ratio of up to 38:1, far exceeding most other forms of government investment (AEC group 2002). Currently, it is estimated that at least 27 009 non-native plant species have been imported into Australia (Virtue et al. 2004). While it is difficult to predict how many of these will become invasive, near- ly 8000 have documented histories as inva- sive species somewhere in the world and over 3000 of these already have natu- ralised somewhere in Australia (Randall 2006). It is possible that tomorrow’s weeds, potentially over 4900 species, are being sold as garden plants right now. Recent (1970 - 1995) plant introductions into Victoria A total of 135 new vascular plant species were recorded as introduced into Victoria between 1970 and 1995. The number natu- ralising per year is shown in Fig. 1 and a regression indicates that the rate of new introductions is increasing, with the pre- sent average of 7.3 new plants establishing per year with an annual increase of 0.25 plants each year. Predominantly these new plants have originated from South Africa and Europe, and have been introduced deliberately as ornamental plants. The most common new invaders into Victoria are from the families Iridaceae and Poaceae in the Monocots; Salicaceae, Fabaceae, Asteraceae and Malaceae in the Dicots; and Pinaceae in the Conifer group (Groves and Hosking 1997). Vol. 124 (2) 2007 83 Biodiversity symposium Year Naturalised Fig. 1 . Number of new plant species naturalised in line) indicating the rate of naturalisations. The procedures presently being imple- mented by AQ1S hopefully will prevent the introduction and release of many new weeds in Australia and Victoria. However, new weed problems would still arise in the future from several sources, including; • invasive plants that continue to penetrate current or improved protocols for the introduction and release of potential weeds (e.g. plants may be considered benign but become weedy nevertheless); • invasive plants that are introduced acci- dentally (e.g. as contaminants of import- ed seed); • invasive plants already in Australia that assume major significance as weeds due to changes in environmental conditions (e.g. flood or fire) or other factors (e.g. climate change); and • translocated native species. Contingency plan An early warning and contingency plan needs to have many separate systems with well defined protocols and procedures as well as defined roles and responsibilities of the key players. The strategy should include: • a system to highlight new or potential weeds, which may need action; Victoria, 1970-1995, and linear regression (dotted • a system to identify; • a system to assess risk; • a notification system; • a process to ensure a plan of action is developed; • a process to implement and review the plan. Waterhouse and Corlett (1996) indicated a similar procedure. Whenever a new (escaping or naturalised) alien species is recorded by any of the State herbaria: 1. Convey the details promptly to the appropriate ‘designated authority’ (e.g. Department of Natural Resources or Department of Agriculture). 2. Conduct a literature review to determine whether the species has been document- ed as a weed elsewhere. 3. Investigate the known native and exotic distributions and predict the potential Australian distribution. 4. Perform a weed risk analysis to deter- mine whether it is likely to be a weed of any significance. 5. Recommend and implement actions as necessary. This may range from main- taining a ‘watching brief on the weed’s distribution and invasiveness through localised control efforts to a full-scale eradication program. 84 The Victorian Naturalist Biodiversity symposium 6. Notify interstate ‘designated authorities’ of all new weeds, and keep them informed throughout the assessment process. The process should not be halted at Step 2 if the literature review fails to reveal previ- ous documentation as a weed, otherwise invasive species such as Praxelis clematidea will continue to be overlooked. The Victorian Departments of Sustain- ability and Environment (DSE) and Primary Industries (DPI) instigated a Weed Alert and Rapid Response Plan in 2005 that implements a surveillance and response plan for potential new and emerg- ing weeds in Victoria (DPI 2005). Early Detection Procedures are necessary to ensure that any new weeds are detected as early as possible. Early detection requires commu- nity awareness coupled with strategic mon- itoring; collections are encouraged as relatively few people collect weedy species and submit them. An effective awareness program would lead land managers and users to recognise how important it is to call attention to any new plants appearing in their locality. The need for an awareness program is recog- nised in the Australian National Weeds Strategy ( 1 999). As distinguishing between indigenous and introduced flora is difficult, monitor- ing is required in native vegetation. Such surveys should determine hazard site selec- tion or target areas that are prone to inva- sion (e.g. disturbed sites, roadsides and waterways), and possibly remote reserves where weed invasions could otherwise go undetected for a long time. As predicting problematic plants is diffi- cult, all introduced plants in native vegeta- tion should be subject to field surveys, par- ticularly with the anticipated change in weed distribution and impact associated with global warming forecasts. DSE and DPI are not sufficiently funded to routinely survey introduced species, although the need is recognised. Identification and Reporting Detection of potential problems must be supported by a readily accessible identifi- cation and reporting mechanism. The Australian National Weeds Strategy pro- poses that formal procedures should be developed with the following purposes: 1. All interested individuals will know where plants new to a particular area can be sent for identification. 2. Potential weeds submitted by individu- als will be determined to be either: • plants previously recorded in the particu- lar state or Territory or region/catchment from where they were submitted, or • plants not previously recorded in the particular State or Territory or region/catchment but recorded else- where in Australia, or • plants not previously recorded in Australia. 3. Agencies to which such plants are sent (National and State herbaria and govern- ment agencies with botanical expertise) will report plants new to an area to rele- vant weed control authorities. 4. Weed control authorities can rapidly assess the weed potential and signifi- cance of the new plant and make an appropriate response. Plant identification and reporting mecha- nisms should be well coordinated across Australia. A compatible protocol should be implemented in Victoria, however the National Herbarium of Victoria is not cur- rently funded specifically to collect or describe introduced species. Assessment The national post-border weed risk man- agement protocol (Anon 2006) has been published recently to foster the use, stan- dardisation and further development of decision support systems for prioritising weed species for management at different scales (Virtue and Panetta 2006) With the limited amount of funding avail- able to pest plant management, an assess- ment procedure has to be able to compare the relative importance of existing and of new and emerging weed problems. To accu- rately assess any plant requires using a com- bination of scientific data and expert knowl- edge. The problem is how to integrate human judgements with quantitative assess- ment techniques. The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a Multiple Criteria Analysis technique which addresses this problem. Complex issues can be broken down into a set of related criteria. This sys- tematic process is a ‘divide and conquer’ approach to problem solving. It is used Vol. 124 (2) 2007 85 Biodiversity symposium across many problem domains. By mapping out issues as a set of nested criteria, a deci- sion hierarchy can be developed. The process also allows for relative importance or weight to be applied to each criterion and group. The DSS is a multi-layered system that rests on a database layer containing spatial data and tabular data from the departmental corporate database. Victoria’s Pest Plant Assessment project at DPI - Frankston has established a proce- dure to assess and prioritise any plant on its intrinsic abilities to invade suitable ecosystems and its present and potential impacts on social, environmental or agri- cultural land use. This procedure utilises the AHP of a Decision Support System. The assessment procedure is split into three main parts: a scoring system which analyses a plant's intrinsic invasiveness characteristics, and production of the pre- sent distribution and potential distribution (utilising climate modelling programs). This distribution is then linked to a geospa- tial information database enabling impacts to be estimated on social, environmental or agricultural resource bases. A separate economic model is incorporated into the system which estimates the potential bene- fit in controlling these weeds on public or private land. Thus any plant can be assessed for its rel- ative importance compared to other weeds based on its intrinsic ability to invade (or rate of spread), its present and potential distribution and its Victorian social, eco- nomic and environmental impacts. References AEC group (2002) Economic impact of State and local government expenditure on weed and pest animal management in Queensland. Report submitted to Local Government Association of Queensland, pest.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2004. Anon (1999) National Weeds Strategy, a strategic approach to weed problems of national significance. (Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council) Anon (2006) MB 294:2006 National post border weed risk management protocol. (CRC Australian Weed Management, Adelaide, Standards Australia, Sydney and Standards New Zealand, Wellington) Department of Primary Industries (2005) Weed Alert Rapid Response Plan Victoria, A surveillance and response plan for potential, new and emerging weeds in Victoria. DPI, Frankston, Victoria. Groves R and Hosking JR (1997) Recent Incursions of Weeds to Australia 1 97 J - 1 995. CRC for Weed Management Systems. Technical Series No. 3. Randall RP (2006) The Australian exotic species data- base, a CRC for Australian Weed Management pro- ject. 15th Australian Weeds Conference, pp 715-718. Virtue JG and Panetta FD (2006) A national protocol for post-border weed risk management. 15th Australian Weeds Conference, pp 57. Virtue JG, Bennett SJ and Randall RP (2004) Plant introductions in Australia: how can we resolve ‘weedy’ conflicts of interest. 15th Australian Weeds Conference, pp 42 - 48. Waterhouse BM and Corlett RT (1996) Overlooked but still invading: Praxelis clematidea the unknown weed. 1 1th Australian Weeds conference. Wittenberg R and Cock MJW (2001) Invasive alien species: a toolkit of best prevention and management practices. (CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK) Received 16 November 2006; accepted 5 January > 2007 One Hundred and One Years Ago NOTES ON THE RUSTS OF AUSTRALIA By D. M ‘Alpine, Government Vegetable Pathologist (Excerpt from a paper read before the Field Naturalists Club of Victoria, 9"' April 1906.) Miscellaneous - There are some interesting points in connection with certain species of rusts which are worthy of special mention. There is a rust found on the Marigold, which is a well-known imported plant, and it is only known at present in Australia, so that the question is raised whether the Marigold, since its introduction, has become subject to a native rust, or has the rust found upon it been overlooked in the Old World? From The Victorian Naturalist , 23, p 51, June 1906 86 The Victorian Naturalist Biodiversity symposium Invasive terrestrial invertebrates in Victoria Nick Collett 1 , Greg Lefoe 2 and Alan L Yen 1 'The University of Melbourne, School of Forest and Ecosystem Science, 123 Brown Street, Heidelberg, 3084. email: ncollett@unimelb.edu.au 'Primary Industries Research Victoria, Department of Primary Industries, 40 Ballarto Road, Frankston, Victoria 3199. email: greg.lefoe@dpi.vic.gov.au 'Primary Industries Research Victoria, Department of Primary Industries, 621 Burwood Highway, Knoxfield, Victoria 3056. email: alan.yen@dpi.vic.gov.au Abstract A high number of exotic invertebrate species has been accidentally or deliberately introduced into Victoria since European settlement. The effects of these introductions on native flora and fauna have ranged from benign through to devastating, depending upon the species in question and on the con- text of their introduction. Exotic species are generally easier to identify, and in the case of potential future invasive species identified through such processes as pest risk analysis combined with vigilant quarantine inspection processes, it is possible to anticipate and identify potential paths of entry to prevent incursions in the first instance. However, subsequently dealing with exotic pests that have successfully established and native invertebrate species that have become pests is a more complex scenario. This paper discusses some of the significant exotic invertebrates to have established in Victoria and their impacts on the environment, either beneficial, benign or adverse. Impacts of exotic invertebrates on amenity plantings and forests are examined, as well as issues covering invasive native invertebrates establishing outside of either their normal host or geographic range. Broad actions to prevent or limit the spread of exotic and native invasive invertebrates are also discussed. (The Victorian Naturalist, 124 (2), 2007, 87-102) Introduction It is estimated that over 500 exotic species of insects and arachnids have become established in Australia since European settlement (Thomson et al. 1 987). This fig- ure included both accidental and deliberate introductions. No doubt, in the 20 years since this estimate was originally made, the number of exotic invertebrate species that has become established will have increased significantly. This paper concerns ‘invasive’ inverte- brates in Victoria. One definition of inva- sive invertebrates is ‘a species that is not native to an ecosystem and whose introduction does or is likely to cause eco- nomic or environmental harm or harm to human health’ (Chornesky et al. 2005). This definition links the concept of ‘pest’ to human interests. The distinction between ‘invasive’ and ‘pest’ invertebrates is often blurred and ill- defined. Invasive species are often cate- gorised as exotic species that have the abil- ity to colonise rapidly and adapt to a par- ticular environment, and in most cases, cause unwanted problems. Exotic species can be accidental or deliberate introduc- tions but not all exotic species that are invasive become pests, and some have been deliberately introduced for primarily economic reasons such as the various bio- logical control agents, earthworms and dung beetles. It is possible that a species introduced for economic purposes ulti- mately becomes a pest in its own right; cane toads, while not invertebrates, are an example of this. The difficulty in defining invasive species is that not all invasive species are exotic. There are many examples of native species that naturally have large popula- tion boom and bust cycles and become pests, of which the Australian plague locust Chortoicetes terminifera (Walker) is a prime example. There are also native species that have been moved out of their natural range and become invasives, while some species have become invasives because of human mediated environmental change. Some exotic species have been deliberately introduced for beneficial rea- sons that may be perceived to have mini- mal environmental effects (biological con- trol reasons) or there may be debate about these effects (e.g. European Honey Bees). Hence the distinction between exotic, invasive and introduced species is rather arbitrary. This paper does not intend to Vol. 124 (2) 2007 87 Biodiversity symposium undertake a comprehensive review of all invasive invertebrates in Victoria. More thorough treatments can be found in New (1994). We do not include economic pests of introduced agricultural plants, nor do we consider the occasional outbreaks of the native Australian plague locust. We will primarily deal with invertebrates that may have significant detrimental effects on the environment but whose effects can be miti- gated by actions undertaken by people. This includes introduced exotics, intro- duced native species, and forest insects because of their potential to expand their ranges due to changes in land use such as the expansion of the eucalypt plantation estate, agroforestry and shelter belts. Environmental and amenity aspects of invasive invertebrates The following is a brief resume of the bet- ter known invertebrates that have been introduced into Victoria. Some exotic invertebrates, such as several species of spiders (Yen 1995), have been accidentally introduced, but the effects of these are not known. Except for the European Honey Bee Apis mellifera Linnaeus, the list does not include species such as dung beetles, earthworms, parasitic wasps and other bio- control agents, deliberately introduced for beneficial economic and environmental reasons. Whether these groups have had any adverse effects on the native fauna is not known. Exotics Slugs and snails There are over 60 native slug and snail species in southeastern Australia, with 10 introduced slug and 12 introduced snail species also present (Daniell 1994). The main observable environmental effects are grazing on native plant species by intro- duced slugs and snails. Introduced slugs appear to be prevalent on native grasslands (where there are no known native species of slugs) with the snail species Theba pisana (Muller) also recorded in very high numbers in some coastal dune areas (Smith 1967). Introduced snails are not limited to the terrestrial environment, with the exotic snail Potamopyrgus antipodarum (Gray) having colonised some lakes in Victoria (Schreiber et al. 1998). Portuguese Millipedes The Portuguese Millipede Ommatoiulus moreletii (Lucas) (Diplopoda: Julidae) was first recorded in Australia at Port Lincoln, South Australia, in 1953 (Baker 1985). It is now widespread in south-eastern Australia, including Victoria, where it can reach very high densities (Baker 1985). Portuguese Millipedes are attracted to light, and become a nuisance when they invade homes. They are particularly active in autumn when most problems occur. Portuguese Millipedes have invaded a range of habitats in Australia including Eucalyptus woodlands, grasslands, and domestic gardens. Baker (1985) reported that the highest densities occur in newly invaded areas, with populations subse- quently declining as the invasion front moves on. Explanations for this decline include depletion of resources such as food, or the impact of natural enemies as native predators adapt to a new prey source. There is, as yet, no evidence that Portuguese Millipedes impact directly on native millipedes although there have been only limited studies of interactions (Baker 1985; Griffin and Bull 1995). Baker(1985) suggested Portuguese Millipedes may occupy a previously vacant detritivore niche in Australia, however, further research on the potential impacts of Portuguese millipedes in natural ecosys- tems is needed. European Wasp Vespula germanica, English Wasp Vespula vulgaris The European Wasp Vespula germanica (F.) (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) is native to Europe, North Africa and temperate Asia, but has subsequently spread to North America, New Zealand, South Africa, South America and Australia (Spradbery and Maywald 1992). The English Wasp V. vulgaris (L.) (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) is closely related to the European Wasp, and in Australia has established in Victoria and Tasmania (Lefoe and Ward 2001, Matthews et al. 2000). Within Victoria and Tasmania the range of English Wasps is believed to be more restricted than that of European Wasps, although mis-identifica- tion is probably common where their ranges overlap. European Wasps are gen- erally considered the more serious pest in 88 The Victorian Naturalist Biodiversity symposium Australia because of their abundance and widespread distribution. The English Wasp was first discovered in Australia at Malvern, Victoria, in 1958 and while the initial infestation was destroyed, more were found in 1 960. Despite attempt- ed eradication, English Wasps continued to spread in an easterly direction, reaching the Dandenong Ranges in the early 1970s, and West Gippsland by the late 1970s. English Wasps are now also present in southeastern Tasmania, including Hobart, where they are thought to have arrived as recently as 1995 (Bashford 2001). European Wasps possibly arrived in Australia from New Zealand, where they had initially been accidentally introduced and established (Spradbery and Maywald 1992). The first record of European Wasps in Australia was in 1954 at Sydney, where hibernating queens were discovered in a timber consignment from New Zealand (Chadwick and Nikitin 1969). The first nests were discovered in 1959 in Hobart, Tasmania, and later in New South Wales (1975), Western Australia and Victoria (1977) and South Australia (1978) (Spradbery and Maywald 1992). European Wasps have continued to spread across south and south-eastern Australia where they have quickly become widespread in Tasmania, Victoria and New South Wales (Spradbery and Maywald 1992). Crosland (1991) estimated unaided queen dispersal at only 730-815 metres per year. European Wasps, however, can spread more rapidly through accidental human transportation of hibernating queens (Crosland 1991). In South Australia, European Wasps remain a predominantly urban problem, although their numbers have increased steadily. While repeated introductions have occurred in Western Australia, with a large outbreak recorded in Perth in 1990, European Wasps are not yet considered to have successfully established in that state (Widmer and van Schagen 1995). In Queensland, reports of European Wasps occurred during 1988 and 1991, and the first nest was found in 1992 (Spradbery and Maywald 1992). European and English Wasps impact on a number of different sectors in the commu- nity. In years of high abundance European and English Wasps can affect some agri- cultural industries such as Honey Bees and soft-fruit industries, especially grape grow- ing and wine making operations. European Wasps can also cause serious injury, with hospitalisations due to stings increasing in Australia (Levick et al. 1997). European and English Wasps are particularly aggres- sive when their nest is threatened, and accidental disturbance of wasp nests poses a considerable threat to humans and other animals. In urban areas, the major concern is wasp stings, although disruption to out- door activities and the cost of control add to the impact of wasps. Most information on the deleterious impacts of wasps in natural ecosystems derives from studies conducted in New Zealand (Beggs and Wilson 1991, Harris and Oliver 1993, Beggs and Rees 1999). In natural ecosystems, wasps prey on native invertebrates, compete with native animals for food, disrupt natural ecosystem processes, and can pose a health risk to Parks staff and visitors. However there is very little detailed information on the impacts of wasps in Australian ecosys- tems. In Tasmania, European Wasps prey on the threatened Ptunarra Xenica Oreixenica ptunarra (M Driessen pers. comm. 2001). Bashford (2001) also report- ed that the number of calliphorid flies caught in Malaise traps at Warra, Tasmania, declined as the number of Vespula spp. increased. Continued studies at the site may determine whether intro- duced Vespula wasps have any long term impact on populations of calliphorid flies and other prey species. The European Honey Bee, Apis mellifera The European Honey Bee, Apis mellifera, has been in Australia for over 100 years. It has been an important part of the economy in the provision of honey, but there has been considerable debate about whether it has been detrimental to native bees and other insects, native birds and native plants. Paton (1996) concluded that it was difficult to generalise about the effects of A. mellifera, and in a special issue of The Victorian Naturalist, New ( 1 997), Schwarz and Hurst (1997), Manning (1997), and Paton (1997) presented different perspec- tives on the issue. Paini and Roberts (2005) provided some preliminary evi- Vol. 124 (2) 2007 89 B iodivers i ty sympos ium deuce on A. mellifera affecting native bees, but Paini (2004) stated that possibly any adverse effects are historical. In fact, Yates et al. (2005) give one example in an urban park where feral Honey Bees may be the major pollinator of some native plant species. To complicate the matter further, there could be potential flow-on effects if the Honey Bee Mite Varroa destructor (Anderson & Trueman) gets into Australia (Cunningham et al. 2002). Tramp ants Environmental conditions in Australia have resulted in the evolution of a very rich and diverse ant fauna that undertakes a range of important ecological functions (Andersen 1983). A significant threat therefore to the Australian environment is the establishment of exotic ant species. Several species have been identified as invasive and have colonised different parts of the world primarily by hitch-hiking on freight transport. These ants, collectively named tramp ants, originate mainly in Central and South America, Africa or South Asia (McGlynn 1999), and have colonised both urban and natural habitats. Australia has been colonised by eleven tramp ant species: the ghost ant Tapinoma melanocephalum (Fabricius), the white- footed ant Technomyrmex albipes (F. Smith), the red imported Fire Ant Solenopsis invicta (Buren), the Crazy Ant Paratrechina longicornis (Latreille), the Yellow Crazy Ant Anoplolepis gracilipes (Fr. Smith), the African Big-headed Ant Pheidole megacephala (Fabricius), the Argentine Ant Linepithema humile (Mayr), the Singapore Ant Monomorium destructor (Jerdon), the Pharoah Ant Monomorium pharaonis (Linnaeus), the Tropical Fire Ant Solenopsis geminata (Fabricius) and the Little Fire Ant Wasmannia auropunc- tata (Roger) (Commonwealth of Australia 2006). Whereas specimens of the Pharaoh Ant were collected in St Kilda in 1938, and the Singapore Ant in Camberwell (1939) and Myrtleford (1940), these two species are primarily tropical and these records probably reflect more transient than estab- lished populations (John Wainer, pers. comm. 2006). The African Big-headed Ant was found in Melbourne by Clark (1941) and more recently by Wainer (pers. comm. 2006). The red imported Fire Ant entered Victoria in 2001 via potted palm trees orig- inating from Queensland, where it is under eradication, and in soil on a shipping con- tainer from the USA. Both these Victorian incursions were subsequently eradicated (John Wainer, pers. comm. 2006). The major tramp ant species in Victoria is the Argentine Ant. This species was first found in Balwyn in 1939 (Clark 1941), and it is thought to have spread from this initial colony to colonise Tasmania, New South Wales, the ACT and Western Australia. It is primarily a pest of urban environments where it can nest in suitable cavities out- side homes from which they can establish large foraging trails into houses to seek food and water. Colonies can range in size from a dozen to many thousands and they can establish satellite nests that are highly mobile. However, their pest status spreads beyond the urban environment and they have an impact in orchards by protecting honeydew producing insects such as aphids and scales against their natural predators and parasitoids. There are reports of Argentine Ants reducing the abundances of native ants in California (Holway 1998), Hawaii (Cole et al. 1992), South Africa (Bond and Slingsby 1984) and Japan (Touyama et al. 2003). Recently, Rowles and O’ Dowd (2007) demonstrated that the Argentine Ant displaced native ant species from baits in coastal scrub vegetation on the Mornington Peninsula. This displace- ment has the potential to alter plant com- munity composition because some of the displaced native ant species (species of Pheidole and Rhytidoponera) are impor- tant dispersal agents and predators of seeds. Elm Bark Beetle, Elm Leajhopper, Elm Leaf Beetle In Australia the exotic elm tree Ulmus spp. has been widely planted in urban land- scapes, especially in Victoria. The largely pest-free status of elms in Australia changed in 1974 when the smaller European Elm Bark Beetle, Scolytus multi- striatus (Marsham) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), was discovered in Melbourne. While its mode of entry into Australia has not been precisely deter- mined, it possibly occurred through the 90 The Victorian Naturalist Biodiversity symposium Port of Melbourne, using dunnage as its vector. Later surveys subsequently found the smaller European Elm Bark Beetle to be well established in Victoria (Neumann and Minko 1985) and it has since spread into New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory and South Australia (Neumann 1987). The smaller European Elm Bark Beetle, while widespread, is usu- ally considered a minor pest in the absence of the Dutch elm disease (DED) pathogen. However, as a known vector of the causal agents of DED, Ophiostoma ulmi (Buisman) and O. novo-ulmi Brazier, the beetle has the potential to rapidly spread these pathogens should they be introduced into Australia. In 1986 the Elm Leafhopper, Ribauticma ulmi Linnaeus (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) was observed on elms around Melbourne although its mode of entry is not known. This species of leafhopper causes cosmetic damage or ‘speckling’ of leaves by damag- ing leaf mesophyll cells. There is very lit- tle known of its long-term effects on tree health and it is usually considered a minor pest (Missen etal. 1991). The Elm Leaf Beetle, Pyrrhalta luteola Muller (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), a serious pest of European elms, was first discovered on the Mornington Peninsula, Victoria, in 1989 (Kwong and Field 1994). While its mode of introduction is again unknown, it was well established before its initial discovery. The elm leaf beetle is now defoliating elms in metropolitan Melbourne and much of regional Victoria (Lefoe 1999). Where infestations occur, control measures are required to be imple- mented immediately to prevent serious defoliation damage occurring. If not ade- quately controlled. Elm Leaf Beetle is like- ly to shorten the lives of elms in Australia and can make them more prone to attack from the smaller European Elm Bark Beetle. Native species Moreton Bay Fig psyllid The Moreton Bay Fig Ficus macrophylla is native to New South Wales and Queensland, being widespread in coastal scrub and coastal rainforest (Floyd 1989). It is a large tree, up to 50 metres high, and has been planted widely in parks and gar- dens in Victoria. A native psyllid Mycopsylla fici (Tryon) (Hemiptera: Homotomidae) causes significant damage to Moreton Bay Figs in Victoria (Honan and McArthur 1998). Feeding by immature psyllids causes localised leaf necrosis and early leaf fall. Fallen leaves containing sticky lerps are also a nuisance to pedestri- ans and potentially hazardous when they stick to shoes on wet paths. For these rea- sons chemical control of psyllids is some- times necessary, although the size of the trees, and the protection afforded by the sticky lerps has made control difficult. Recent studies (Honan and McArthur 1998; Lefoe 2005) have provided useful information to enable tree managers in Victoria to monitor psyllid populations and determine whether control is necessary. A native parasitoid Psyllaephagus sp. (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) is present in Melbourne (Honan and McArthur 1998), further highlighting the need to conduct chemical applications prudently. Although both M. fici and Psyllaephagus sp. are common in central Melbourne, their statewide distribution is not known. Forestry aspect of invasive invertebrates Exotic invertebrates Quarantine provides the first line of defence against the unwanted introduction into Australia of forestry-related insect pests, and their subsequent establishment in the plantation estate (Lawrence 1963; Department of Primary Industries and Energy 1996). This involves the careful inspection by trained observers of all wood products and related material capable as acting as a vector for forest insect pests, and the treatment or immediate destruction of any pests once found. Regular reviews are also conducted to allow for new prod- ucts and pathways of entry that continually develop (Senate Standing Committee on Natural Resources 1979). Despite continu- al enforcement of strict quarantine mea- sures at Australian ports, at least 46 species of exotic forestry-related insect pests have breeched quarantine barriers and established in Australia (Table 1). An ‘established forest insect pest’ is defined as an exotic insect that has passed through a complete generation or life- cycle on or within a native or exotic tree Vol. 124 (2) 2007 91 Biodiversity symposium Table 1. Some exotic forest/forest product insect pests, or related organisms, known to have estab- lished in Australia (Department of Primary Industries and Energy 19%). Order/family Genus/species Comments Acarina (mites, ticks) Tetranychidae Ol igony chus ununguis Damage to foliage of Pinus spp. in (Jacobi) Spruce spider mite Queensland (Wylie 1978) 1 sop ter a (termites. ‘white ants’) Kalotermitidae Cryptotermes brevis Damage to seasoned exotic and native (Walker) West Indian drywood softwoods and low-density hardwoods termite (Gay 1967) established in Queensland during 1930s and detected in NSW in 1946 (Heather 1971 ; Eldridge and Simpson 1987) C. cynocephalus Light Damage to seasoned timber, probably introduced during 19 lh century (Wylie, DPI Qld, pers.comm.) C. domesticus (Haviland) Damage to seasoned timbers, introduced in early 1950s (Yule and Watson 1976; Miller and Paton 1983) C. dudleyi Banks Damage to seasoned timbers introduced during the 19 ,h century (Wylie, DPI Qld, pers.comm.,) Hemiptera (bugs) Adelgidae Pineus pint (Macquart) Damage to foliage of Pinus spp. on Pine adelgid marginal sites (Tanton and Alder 1977) Aphidae Elatobium abietinum Damage to foliage of Picea spp. (Walker) Spruce aphid (Naumann 1993) Essigella californica (Essig) Damage to foliage of Pinus spp. Monterey Pine aphid (Collett et al. 2000) Euceraphis betulae Damage to foliage of Betula spp. (Koch) European birch aphid (Naumann 1993) Myzocallis castanicola Damage to foliage of Quercus spp. Baker Oak aphid (Naumann 1993) Pemphigus bursarius Damage to foliage of Populus spp. (Linnaeus) Poplar gall aphid (Naumann 1993) Cicadellidae Ribautiana ulmi Damage to foliage of Ulmus spp. (Linnaeus) Elm Leafhopper (Neumann 1991) Coleoptera (beetles) Anobiidae Anobium punctatum Damage to seasoned softwoods (De Geer) Furniture beetle (French 1968, 1970;CS1RO 1939) Ernobius mollis (Linnaeus) Damage to bark of softwood Pine bark anobiid (Brimblecombe 1957) Bostrichidae Dinoderus minutus (Fabricius) Bamboo borer Wylie and Yule (1977) Lyctus brunneus (Stephens) Serious damage to seasoned sapwood Powderpost beetle of many cucalypts and brushwoods (Rosel 1969; Wylie and Yule 1977) L. discedens Blackburn Small powderpost beetle As above Minthea rugicollis (Walker) Damage to seasoned sapwood Hairy powderpost beetle (Wylie and Yule 1977) 92 The Victorian Naturalist Biodiversity symposium Table 1 cont. Order/family Genus/species Comments Coleoptera (beetles) Bostrichidae Rhyzopertha dominica (Fabricius) Lesser grain borer Wylie and Yule (1977) Xylopsocus gibbicollis (Maclcay) Common auger beetle Wylie and Peters (1987) Xylothrips religiosus (Boisduval) Northern auger beetle Wylie and Yule ( 1 977) Cerambycidae Aridaeus thoracicus (Donovan) Tiger longicorn Wylie and Peters (1987) Hylotrupes baiulus (Linnaeus) Damage to seasoned softwood European house borer timber (Flowick 1966) Chrysomelidae Pyrrhalta hiteola (Muller) Damage to foliage of Ulmus spp. Established in Victoria in or before 1989 (Neumann 1991; Kwong and Field 1994) Elm Leaf Beetle Curculionidae Platypodinae Crossotarsus mniszechi Ambrosia beetle; Chapuis Wylie and Yule (1977) Diapus pusillimus Chapuis Walnut pinhole borer As above D. quinquespinatus Chapuis As above Platypus parallelus (Fabricius) Common ambrosia beetle As above Scolytinae 1 Eccoptoptems sexspinosus (Motschulsky) Wylie and Yule (1977) Hylastes ater (Paykull) Usually in inner bark of dead pine Black pine bark beetle material, occasionally kills young seedlings on second rotation sites (Minko 1958; Neumann 1987) Hylurgus ligniperda (Fabricius) Goldenhaired bark beetle As above Ips grandicollis (Eichhoff) Mostly ‘secondary’, but occasionally a Fivespined bark beetle ‘primary’ tree killer of Pinus spp. Established since 1942 (Morgan 1967, Rimes 1959, Neumann and Morey 1984) Phloeosinus cupressi Hopkins Cypress bark beetle Neumann (1987) Scolytus multistriatus (Marsham) Established since 1974 in Victoria; Elm Bark Beetle carrier of Dutch Elm Disease (Rosel and French 1975; Neumann and Minko 1985) Xyleborus ferrugineus Established in Queensland before (Fabricius) 1971 (J.K.ing, DPI Qld, pers.comm.); has attacked green logs of Bunya pine in Queensland; also logs from fire- killed Pinus spp. (Wylie et al. 1 996) X. fornucatus Eichhoff Booth et al. (1990) X. indicus Eichhoff Wylie and Yule (1977) Vol. 124 (2) 2007 93 Biodiversity symposium Tabic 1 cont. Order/fa milv Genus/species Coleoptera (beetles) X. perforans (Wollaston) Island pinhole borer X. saxeseni (Ratzeburg) Fruit-tree pinhole borer X. similis Ferrari X. solidus Eichhoff Thickset scolytid borer X. torquatus Eichhoff Lepidoptera (butterflies, moths) Gracillariidae Phyllonorycler messaniella (Zeller) Oak leafminer Hymenoptera (wasps ants bees, sawflies) Siricidae Sirex noctilio Fabricius Sirex wasp Vespidae Vespula germanica (Fabricius) European wasp V vulgaris (Linnaeus) English wasp Comments As above Neumann and Minko (1985) Booth el at. (1990) Naumann (1993) Wylie and Yule (1977) Damage to foliage of Quercus spp. (Naumann 1993) The most destructive tree-killing pest in plantations of Pinus spp. Established in Tasmania in 1950s and in Victoria in 1962 (Gilbert and Miller 1952; Irvine 1962; Neumann and Minko 1981) Important pest in operational and recreation forestry (Dept.Agric.Vic. 1983; Crosland 1991) Detected in Victoria in 1958; important pest in operational and recreation forestry (Dept.Agric.Vic. 1983) 1 Sub-family Scolytinae is reported to contain 92 established species in Australia, of which 26 are considered exotic (Brimblecombe 1953). species or originally uninfested imported or locally produced wood product, life- cycles however, can vary substantially between insect pest species resulting some- times in variations of times when the insect pest entered Australia and when it was first detected. For example, the Asian Gypsy Moth Lymantria dispar (Linnaeus), a foliage feeder with a one year life-cycle is potentially more detectable in its early establishment phase than the European House Borer (Hylotrupes bajulus (Linnaeus)), a less visually apparent wood boring insect that has a life-cycle of between one and twenty years. The frequency of exotic insect pest inter- ceptions is generally linked to two factors, namely the countries/regions with which we conduct the major part of our trade and the pathway (mode of entry) by which the exotic pest gains entry. Studies by Wylie and Peters (1987) found that the majority of intercepted wood-boring insect taxa originated in Asia (46.1%) with the next largest group originating from the Australasia/Pacific region (30.4%), with Asia especially being our most significant trading region. However, care should be taken in the interpretation of such trends. For example, Australia conducts signifi- cant trade with North America and yet interceptions account for only 6.9% of total interceptions, indicative of potentially more strict quarantine procedures prior to goods being exported and the types of goods exported. In examining the modes of entry by which insect pests enter Australia, studies have found that sawn timber and wooden crates account for 45% and 30% respec- 94 The Victorian Naturalist Biodiversity symposium tively of all interceptions (Wylie and Peters 1987). Using such data is useful in directing sometimes scarce resources to monitor the most likely entry pathways for future insect pest incursions into Australia. Impacts of forest insect pests in terms of forestry, most invasive exotic invertebrates have impacted on exotic plantation species such as Pinus radiata D.Don although a few native insect species such as Lichenaula spp. (a defoliating moth species) have adapted to exotic tree species such as P. radiata and, on occa- sion, cause varying degrees of damage. One of the most significant insect pest species of P. radiata is Sirex Wood Wasp Sirex noctilio Fabricius, first recorded in Victoria in 1961 where it caused signifi- cant tree mortality before the introduction of various biocontrol and silvicultural con- trol methods in the 1970s and 1980s. Sirex, through the introduction of phytotoxins, not only kills trees but also renders the timber subsequently useless for construc- tion or pulping purposes. In the mid-1970s a severe outbreak of Sirex caused exten- sive tree mortality in the Delatite area ot north-east Victoria (Neumann et al. 1987), while lesser outbreaks have been recorded in south-west Victoria near Rennick in the mid-1980s and around Shelley in north- east Victoria in the late 1 990s. A recently introduced aphid species the Monterey Pine aphid ( Essigella californica (Essig)) first observed in north-east Victoria in the late 1990s has established throughout the pine estate where it has caused significant defoliation damage over a wide area. Symptoms of damage include mottled chlorosis of the older needles fol- lowed by premature needle shed with defo- liation most predominate in the upper crown between March and July (Collett et al. 2000). However, defoliation of the lower crown can also be associated with very severe levels of aphid attack (Collett et al. 2000). Defoliation is predominantly observed in pine stands greater than 1 5 yrs of age. However, it has also been observed occurring in stands of all age classes (Collett et al. 2000). Such defoliation has been shown to result in substantial reduc- tions in incremental growth and associated declines in timber yields (May 2004). Initial surveillance data have shown defoli- ation to be most pronounced in north-east Victoria and to a lesser extent in the Ballarat region, coinciding with regions where mean autumn daily temperatures of approximately 22° C predominate. The Fivespined Bark Beetle Ips grandi- collis (Eichhoff) and to a lesser extent the Golden-haired Bark Beetle Hylurgus lig- niperda (Fabricius) and Black Pine Bark Beetle Hylastes ater (Paykull) generally attack young, newly established seedlings in plantations where sometimes wide- spread mortality is caused through lethal feeding attacks in the outer cambium lay- ers of trees (Neumann and Morey 1984; Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands 1988). Attack is most predominant in summer months when the higher tem- peratures allow rapid increases in beetle populations in freshly felled green slash on logged sites, before damaging feeding and breeding attacks on adjacent young trees and seedlings. Damage by Ips is also caused to freshly felled logs stored on log- ging landings where feeding attacks allow the introduction of blue stain fungus Diplodia pinea (Desm.) into timber, ren- dering it subsequently useless for pulp paper production. Widespread Ips attacks on seedlings and young four-year-old Radiata pine trees have been documented in south west Victoria in the early 1980s with lesser attacks occurring around Myrtleford and Bright (Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands 1988). While these examples are by no means comprehensive, they serve to show the vari- ety of age classes attacked, the range of damage (i.e. defoliation and borer damage) caused and the spread of seasons and loca- tions in which damage is caused. Some pests have an already long history within Victoria (i.e. Sirex), with comprehensive information available on their ‘attack profiles’. However, some of the more recent introductions such as the Monterey Pine aphid require longer term research coupled with ongoing surveil- lance to develop pest profiles so as to assist in making more informed longer term man- agement decisions. Invasive native pest invertebrates In terms of invasive native invertebrates within a forestry setting in Victoria, this Vol. 124 (2) 2007 95 B iodiversity symposium concept requires a more detailed definition of what situations we consider a native insect to be termed a "pest’ species. In native forests it is difficult to define ade- quately outbreaks of native invertebrate species such as the Red Gum psyllid Cardiaspina retator (Taylor), Gumleaf Skeletoniser Uraba lugens Walker and Spurlegged Phasmatid Didymuria vio- lescens (Leach) as ‘pest outbreaks’. Such 'outbreaks’ are well documented in the lit- erature throughout Victoria in the past 50- 60 years (Neumann and Marks 1976; 1990; Neumann 1978; Collett 2001; Harris 1972; Elliott et al. 1998) and it could be suggested that such outbreaks are cyclical and form part of the normal ‘ebb and flow’ of invertebrate activity within native forests. Only when these ‘outbreaks’ impact on economic activities such as har- vesting and logging or on the aesthetics of forest areas with parks and reserves could we possibly consider them ‘pest outbreaks’ in the traditional sense. When examining the ‘invasive’ aspects of such outbreaks, there is no substantial documented evi- dence that any of these ‘pest species’ gen- erally move beyond their expected geo- graphic range when in outbreak mode to native forest areas outside this range. Only when these insect species are found within native plantations may it be reasonable therefore to treat them as ‘invasive pest’ species. An example of this scenario is U. lugens in north central Victoria, which has caused occasional defoliation to E. camal- dulensis (Dehnh.) plantations (Collett pers. comm. 2006), with the original populations having originated within native red gum forests in the region. In these situations, the possibility of parallels being made with exotic insect incursions in exotic softwood plantations could be made, although the potential to control such outbreaks, espe- cially using methods such as biological control, would be substantially diminished. Of concent, however, is the potential for eucalypt plantations using tree species planted well out of their native range to ‘draw in’ native insect pest species, which in turn may divert either on to local native plant species or alternative native planta- tion species. The situation may also arise whereby the spread of these ‘invasive’ native pests may not be accompanied by their range of native biocontrol agents. Examples of this scenario include E. grandis (Hill) plantings at Mildura, which have drawn in populations of Autumn gum moth Mnesampela privata (Guenee) into the region (Bashford 1998). Future threats posed by exotic pest incursions The list of exotic insect pest species likely to cause considerable damage to the plan- tation industry in Victoria is potentially enormous. Until an exotic pest species has entered and established, there is no certain way to determine the exact threat it poses to both native and exotic plantation tree species. However, in order to plan for the eventuality of such exotic insect pest incur- sions occurring, rigorous interrogation of available information is conducted to deter- mine the country of origin of potentially dangerous insect pests, including such information as their host tree species range, life-cycle and optimal environmental con- ditions for development both in their coun- try of origin and Australia. This informa- tion is incorporated into pest profiles known as Pest Risk Assessments (PRAs) which can be specific to individual pest species or generically written to cover a range of insects posing a similar risk. A PRA includes all known available informa- tion on a pest species as well as contin- gency plans for dealing with an incursion and potential outbreak of the pest in Australia. The lists of potential pest species and associated PRAs varies constantly as new information is gathered, examined and updates provided accordingly. While many insect pest species pose a considerable threat to plantations, a small subset has been selected as species with the greatest potential to establish and cause significant economic and environmental damage. This list is shown in Table 2 and was compiled by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) in consulta- tion with state forestry authorities (Commonwealth of Australia 200 1 ). Of the species listed, the majority are borer species with the potential to enter Australia cryptically within timber products, and consequently are sometimes difficult to assess fully and subsequently treat. Other pests such as the potentially highly 96 The Victorian Naturalist Biodiversity symposium Table 2. Exotic forcst/timber insect pest species yet to establish in Australia posing a potentially con- siderable threal to lores! and amenity trees and timber in service (Commonwealth of Australia 2001 ). Origin Genus/species Isoptera (termites) Coptotermes formosanus Shiraki Incisitermes minor ( Hagen) L. monachal (Linnaeus) Orgyia thyellina Butler Urocerus gigas (Linnaeus) China, Taiwan, Japan, Sri Lanka South Africa, USA (Hawaii) China, Korea, Eastern Russia, Japan, Taiwan Asia, Europe, Chile, USA, Canada, Russia Comments/Potential Impact Can severely damage timber in buildings. Very destructive. A serious pest of timber in service. Serious hardwood pest (eucalypts, pears, apples) Pest of windthrown and fire damaged trees Pest of seasoned timber with large host range Highly destructive pest of seasoned softwood Serious impact on native Araucaria species Serious pest of spruce species Attack leads to introduction of wood decaying fungi Attacks exposed wood in houses, furniture and panelling. Highly destructive defoliator of over 600 tree species Defoliator of numerous tree species (elms, oaks, conifers) Serious pest of exotic ornamental tree species Pest of seasoned timber in service Can kill stressed trees (pines and other conifer species) USA, Mexico, Canada Coleoptera (beetles) Anoplophora glabripennis (Motschulsky) Arhopalus ferus (Fabricius) Stromatium barbatum (Fabricius) Sth China, Korea, Japan USA (parts of) UK, Europe, Russia, New Zealand India, Sri Lanka, Burma, Mauritius Madagascar, Pakistan, Nepal Europe, Middle East, Africa, Asia, Sth America, USA, China Hylotrupes bajulus (Linnaeus) Vanapa oberihuri (Pouillaude) Papua New Guinea, Indonesia Ips typographic (Linnaeus) Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins Heterobostrychus aequalis (Waterhouse) Europe, China, Japan, Korea Russia Canada, USA Europe, India, Asia, Middle East, South Africa Lepidoptera (moths, butterflies) Lymantria dispar (Linnaeus) China, Eastern Russia, Korea, Japan, USA As above Hymenoptera (bees, wasps, ants) Camponotus pennsylvanicus USA, Canada (De Geer) destructive Asian Gypsy Moth (Matsuki et al. 2000), while more visible as their egg masses are laid on object surfaces, can lay these egg masses on a variety of material (i.e. timber, metal, plastics, etc) and conse- quently, require more detailed examination in order to locate and treat. The future: possible effects of invasive invertebrates on ecosystem function and solutions The question that arises is whether in the long term some of the invasive species become naturalised or ‘integrated’ into the Australian fauna or whether they have a significant adverse effect on the structure Vol. 124 (2) 2007 97 Biodiversity’ symposium and functioning of Australian ecosystems. The Australian environment is unique in that a significant proportion of its inverte- brate fauna is dependent upon the domi- nant Eucalyptus and Acacia flora (Majer et al. 1997). Many tens of thousands of plant- feeding insect species have co-evolved with their Eucalyptus or Acacia host plants, and there is a complex, but poorly understood, relationship that involves varying degrees of host plant specificity (from monophagous - feeding on only one host plant species, through to poly- phagous), and the ability to utilise different host plant species in different locations (Fox and Morrow 1981). It is possible that colonisation of different host plant species by polyphagous species (either native or exotic) may result in the reduction of insect diversity associated with Eucalyptus and Acacia. The spread of some of these polyphagous species through the Australian environment may be aided by tree planting, agroforestry, and the spread of weedy native species. An example of the latter may be the spread of the weedy Acacia baileyana F. Muell. and A. longifo- lia (Andr.) Willd. through the bush and possibly the spread of a psyllid species Acizzia uncatoides (Ferris and Kylver) (Yen 2002). While herbivorous insects are important, the potential adverse effects of invasives may become more readily appar- ent with pollinators. Pollination of native plant species is another area that could be affected by invasive species. The potential effects of the European Honey Bee have already been discussed. Exotic predators such as the European Wasp may have inhibited pollination of native plants by their native pollinators (Bashford 2001; Hingston et al 2004). The Bumblebee Bombus terrestris Linneaus is another exotic species that has already been introduced into Tasmania, and there is current research on its effects upon the native flora and fauna (Hingston and McQuillan 1998; Hingston 2005, 2006; Hingston et al. 2006). An applica- tion to introduce the Bumblebee to the mainland for the pollination of glass house plants such as tomatoes was submitted under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999), and is still under consideration. In Victoria, the introduction of bumblebees is listed as a potentially threatening process under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (1988). This listing cited the potential for B. terrestris to (1) polli- nate a suite of exotic plants that it polli- nates in their countries of origin, resulting in the possible spread of more exotic weeds; (2) compete with native nectar feeding fauna; and (3) cause a possible decline in the seed production of native plant species. It is difficult to outline uniform guidelines for both exotic and native invasive inverte- brate species. Three broad general actions covering both groups may consist of: 1. Exclusion of future invasives (quaran- tine). This is clear, in principle, for exotic species, but more difficult for native species that are transported across Australia. Native species that become ‘pests’ can be species (a) that have been moved around with their native host plant; (b) that switch host plant species to colonise new native host plant species; and (c) that have colonised exotic plant species. For exotic species, effort can be direct- ed at their paths of entry and establish- ment. The paths of entry considered the most likely points of entry of pests into Victoria are through major seaport and harbour areas, overseas airports and international mail centres (Common- wealth of Australia 2006). International mail centres pose the least risk, firstly because the type of suitable host material (i.e. foliage, timber) is not imported through the centres in the necessary quantities likely to lead to an establish- ment, and secondly because of the thor- ough inspection regimes conducted at such locations. International airport arrivals pose a greater risk, as cargo flights have the capacity to bring in suffi- cient quantities of potential host material such as timber and plant products to allow an exotic establishment to occur. However, by far the greatest threat is posed by the entry of high volumes of cargo through major seaports. In recent times, additional emphasis has been placed on examination of high-risk vec- tors such as pallet wood and packing 98 The Victorian Naturalist Biodiversity symposium crate timber, but despite the high levels of inspection, some movement of exotic pests outside of the port of entry is inevitable. In addition to initial entry points, it is the experience of overseas countries (including New Zealand and the United States) that it is within a 5 km radius of such entry points that initial establish- ment of exotic pest species occurs. New Zealand studies have identified that 55% of new forest pest incursions were detect- ed by formal port environs surveys, while 29% were detected during forest surveys (Gadgil 2000). In ports such as Melbourne, Geelong, Westernport and Portland within Victoria, urban areas are interspersed with parks, gardens and street trees, and/or large areas of native bush and planted shelterbelts. These pro- vide potentially attractive lodgement points and subsequent pathways that could allow pest species to establish, reproduce and subsequently spread. Overseas experience has found that if such incursions are not contained and the pests eradicated within two years, subse- quent control is virtually impossible. 2. Eradication or control of current inva- sives. Eradication is generally feasible only at the early stages of colonisation. Once invasives have established, it is gen- erally a matter of minimising spread and numbers through containment strategies. 3. Awareness of future threats. It is impor- tant to be aware of the risk of introduc- tions associated with different invasive species. With exotic species, it is easier to determine which species are more like- ly to enter Australia and to determine their potential range using tools such as climate modelling. Climate change has to be factored into the equation because, with increasing temperatures, the effects on population dynamics of invasive species may be complex as it affects both the invasive species themselves and their natural enemies. The potential effects on native species are more difficult to deter- mine due to our lack of knowledge of most of the native species, and how changes in land use and vegetation pat- terns across the landscape will affect them. Another important issue is that society is subject to rapid and sometimes unexpected changes. Some of these changes can accel- erate incursion rates and can involve modes and rates of transportation, changes in trading partners and access, and tourism patterns that are difficult to predict. However, recognition of these issues may ensure some allowances are made in the development of future guidelines and pre- dictive models concerning invasive threats to Victoria. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank John Wainer (DPI) for information on tramp ants in Victoria, and Dennis O’Dowd (Monash University) for pro- viding an advance copy of one of his papers. References Andersen AN (1983) An introduction to ants. The Victorian Naturalist 100 , 188-195. Baker GH (1985) The distribution and abundance of the Portuguese millipede Ommatoiulus moreletii (Diplopoda: Julidae) in Australia. Australian Journal of Ecology 10 , 249-259. Bashford R (1998) Proceedings of Autumn gum moth Workshop, Mildura, 20 t "-2D t August 1998. Bashford R (2001) The spread and impact of the intro- duced vespine wasps Vespula germanica (F.) and Vespula vulgaris (L.) (Hymenoptera: Vespidae: Vespinae) in Tasmania. Australian Entomologist 28 , 1 - 12 . Beggs JR and Rees JS (1999) Restructuring of Lepidoptera communities by introduced Vespula wasps in a New Zealand beech forest. Oecologia 119 , 656-671. Beggs JR and Wilson PR (1991) The kaka Nestor meridionals, a New Zealand parrot endangered by introduced wasps and mammals. Biological Conservation 53 , 23-28. Bond W and Slingsby P (1984) Collapse of an ant- plant mutualism: the Argentine ant ( Iridomyrmex humilis) and myrmecochorus Proteaceae. Ecology 65 , 1031-1037. Booth RG, Cox ML and Madge RB (1990) HE Guides to Insects of Importance to man. 3. Coleoptera. International Institute of Entomology. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge) Brimblecombe AR (1953) An annotated list of the Scolytidae occurring in Australia. Queensland Journal of Agricultural Science 10 , 167-205. Brimblecombe, AR (1957) The pine bark anobiid. Queensland Agricultural Journal 83 , 637-639. Chadwick CE and Nikitin MI (1969) Some insects and other invertebrates intercepted in quarantine in New South Wales. Part 2. Arthropoda (excluding Coleoptera) and Mollusca. Journal of the Entomological Society of Australia (N.S. W.) 6, 37-56. Chornesky E, Bartuska AM, Aplet GHG, Britton KO, Cummings-Carson J, Davis FW, Eskow J, Gordon DR, Gottschalk K.W, Haack RA, Hansen AJ, Mack RN, Rahel FJ, Shannon MA, Wainger LA and Wigley TB (2005) Science priorities for reducing the threat of invasive species to sustainable forestry. BioScience 55 , 335-348. Clark J (1941) Notes on the Argentine ant and other exotic ants introduced into Australia. Memoirs of the National Museum, Melbourne 12 , 59-70. Vol. 124 (2) 2007 99 B iodivers i ty sympos ium Cole FR, Medeiros AC, Loope LL and Zuehlke WW (1992) Effects of the Argentine ant on arthropod fauna of Hawaiian high-elevation shrubland. Ecology’ 73, 1313-1322, Collett NG (2001) Biology and control of psyllids, and the possible causes for defoliation of Eucalyptus camaldulensis Dehnh. (river red gum) in south-eastern Australia - a review. Australian Forestry 64, 88-95. Collett NG, Simpson JA and Sehoenbom C (2000) A review of the current status of the Monterey Pine Aphid Essigella californica (Essig.) in Australia. Proceedings of a workshop held at the Centre for Forest Tree Technology, November 17, 1999. Commonwealth of Australia (2001) Forest and Timber: A Field Guide to Exotic Pests and Diseases. (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Australia) Commonwealth of Australia (2006) Threat abatement plan to reduce the impacts of tramp ants on biodiver- sity in Australia and its territories. (Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra) Crosland MWJ (1991) The spread of the social wasp, Vespula germanica , in Australia. New Zealand Journal of Zoology* 18, 375-388. Cunningham SA, FitzGibbon F and Heard TA (2002) The future of pollinators for Australian agriculture. Australian Journal Agricultural Research 53, 893- 900. Daniell A (1994) The impact of terrestrial molluscs on native vegetation in south-eastern Australia. The Victorian Naturalist 111, 218-222. Department of Agriculture Victoria (1983). European and English wasps. Agnote No. 2342/83. Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands (1988) The Five-spined Bark Beetle in pine plantations. Research and Development Note No. 10. Lands and Forest Division. Department of Primary Industries and Energy (1996) Recent Incursions of Forest Pests and Pathogens, pp 21-53. Report commissioned by Bureau of Resource Sciences, 2: Forest and Forest Product Pests (Neumann FG and Collett NG). Eldridge RH and Simpson JA (1987) Development of contingency plans for use against exotic pests and diseases of trees and timber. 3. Histories of control measures against some introduced pests and diseases of forests and forest products in Australia. Australian Forestry 50, 24-36. Elliott HJ, Ohmart CP and Wylie FR (1998; Insect Pests of Australian Forests: Ecology and Management. (Inkata Press: Melbourne) Floyd AG (1989) Rainforest Trees of Mainland South- East Australia. (Inkata Press: Melbourne) Fox LR and Morrow PA (1981) Specialization: species property or local phenomenon? Science 21 1, 887-893. French JRJ ( 1968) The distribution of the furniture bee- tle Anobium punctatum (De Geer) (Coleoptera: Anobiidae) in New South Wales. Journal of Australian Entomological Society 7, 1 15-122. French JRJ (1970) Review of control measures against the common furniture beetle, Anobium punctatum (De Geer). Journal of Institute of Wood Science 5, 29-32. Gadgil P (2000) A Generic Incursion Management Plan for the Australian Forest Sector. A report com- missioned and published by the Forest Health Committee on behalf of the Standing Committee on Forestry. Gay FJ (1967) A world review of introduced species of termites. CSIRO Bulletin No. 286. Gilbert JM and Miller LW (1952) An outbreak of Sirex noctilio in Tasmania. Australian Forestry 16. 63-69. Griffin TT and Bull CM (1995) Interactions between introduced and native millipede species in South Australia. Australian Journal of Zoology* 43, 129-140. Harris A J (1972) The effect of flooding on population density of Gum leaf Skeletonizer moth, Uraba lugens Walk, in Barmah State Forest. Research Branch, Forest Commission Victoria. Harris RJ and Oliver HI 1 (1993) Prey diets and popula- tion densities of the wasps Vespula vulgaris and V. germanica in scrubland-pasture. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 17, 5-12. Fleather NW (1971) The exotic drywood termite Cryptotermes brevis (Walker) (Isoptera: Kalotcrmitidae) and endemic Australian drywood ter- mites in Queensland. Journal of Australian Entomological Society 10. 134-141. Hingston AB (2005) Does the introduced bumblebee, Bombus terrestris (Apidae), prefer flowers of intro- duced or native plants in Australia? Australian Journal of Zoology 53, 29-34. Hingston AB (2006) Is the exotic bumblebee Bombus terrestris really invading Tasmanian native vegeta- tion? Journal of Insect Conservation 10, 289-293. Hingston AB, Herrmann W and Jordan GJ (2006) Reproductive success of a colony of the introduced bumblebee Bombus terrestris (L.) (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in a Tasmanian National Park. Australian Journal of Entomology 45. 137-141. Hingston AB and McQuillan PB (1998) Does the recently introduced bumblebee Bombus terrestris (Apidae) threaten Australian ecosystems? Australian Journal of Ecology 23, 539-549. Hingston AB, McQuillan PB and Potts BM (2004) Pollinators in seed orchards of Eucalyptus nitens (Myrtaceae). Australian Journal of Botany 52, 209- 222 . Holway DA (1998) Effect of Argentine ant invasions on ground-dwelling arthropods in northern California riparian woodlands. Oecologia 115, 206-212. Honan P and McArthur K (1998) The integrated man- agement of Moreton Bay Jig psyllids in the City of Melbourne. Unpublished report. Keith Turnbull Research Institute, Frankston. Howick CD (1966) Hylotrupes bajulus: its incidence in Australia and a survey of its habits. CSIRO Forest Products Technology* Paper 47. Irvine CJ (1962) Forest and timber insects in Victoria 1962. Victoria 's Resources 4, 40-43. Kwong RM and Field RP (1994) Elm leaf beetle life history and distribution in southern Victoria. Plant Protection Quarterly 9, 43-47. Lawrence AO (1963) The importance to forestry of quarantine control. Forestry Commission Victoria Bulletin , 17. Lefoe G (1999) Elm leaf beetle continues its march across Victoria. Under Control: Pest Plant and Animal Management News 9, 17. Lefoe G (2005) Management of Moreton Bay fig psyl- lids in the City of Melbourne. Unpublished final report to City of Melbourne for Projects PLH010 and PLH011, Department of Primary Industries, Frankston. Lefoe G and Ward DF (2001) European and English wasps. Landcare Note PA0078, (Department of Natural Resources and Environment: Melbourne) Levick NR, Winkel KD and Smith G (1997) European wasps: an emerging hazard in Australia. Medical Journal of Australia 167, 650. Majer JD, Recher HF, Wellington AB, Woinarski JCZ and Yen AL (1997) Invertebrates of eucalypt forma- tions. In Eucalypt Ecology v Individuals to Ecosystems. pp. 278-302. Eds. J Williams and JCZ Woinarski (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge). Manning R (1997) The honey bee debate: A critique of scientific studies of honey bees Apis mel/ifera and their alleged impact on Australian wildlife. The Victorian Naturalist 1 14, 13-22. 100 The Victorian Naturalist Biodiversity symposium Matthews RW, Goodisman MAD, Austin AD and Bashford R (2000) The introduced English wasp, Vespula vulgaris (L.) (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) newly recorded invading native forests in Tasmania. Australian Journal of Entomology 39, 1 77-179. May BM (2004) Assessment of the causality of EssigeWa-ascribed defoliation of mid-rotation radiata pine and its national impact in terms of cost of lost wood production. Client Report No. 15 19, Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation. Matsuki M, Kay M, Serin J, Floyd R and Scott JK (2000) Potential Risks of Accidental Introduction of Asian Gypsy Moth ( Lyman tria dispar ) to Australia and New Zealand: Effects of Climatic Conditions and Suitability of Native Plants. McGlynn T (1999) The worldwide transfer of ants: geographical distribution and ecological invasions. Journal of Biogeography 26, 535-548. Miller LR and Paton R (1983) Cryptotermes in man- groves in the Northern Territory (Isoptera: Kaloteritidae). Journal of Australian Entomological Society 22, 189-190. Minko G (1958) Hylastes ater in Ovens plantation. Forestry Commission Victoria, Plantation Technical Papers 5, 20-23. Missen J, Meagher D and Foletta I (Eds.) (1991) Insect pests and Dutch elm disease: threats to elm trees in Victoria. Research and Development Section, (Department of Conservation and Environment: Melbourne) Morgan FD (1967) ips grandicollis in South Australia. A ustral ian Forestry 31, 137-155. Naumann I (1993) Common and scientific names for insects and allied organisms of economic and envi- ronmental importance. CSIRO Handbook of Australian Insect Names, Sixth Edition. (CSIRO: Collingwood) Neumann FG (1978) Studies on the egg stage of Didymuria violescens (Leach)(Phasmatodea: Phasmatidae) inhabiting Mountain Ash forest in Victoria. Journal of the Australian Entomological Society 17, 217-224] Neumann FG (1987) Introduced bark beetles on exotic trees in Australia with special reference to infesta- tions of Ips grandicollis in pine plantations. Australian Forestry > 50, 166-178. Neumann FG (1991) Insect pests and Dutch Elm Disease: threats to elm trees in Victoria. Department of Conservation and Environment, Research and Development section, R&D Note 19. Neumann FG and Marks GC (1976) A synopsis of important pests and diseases in Australian forests and forest nurseries. Australian Forestry 39, 83-102. Neumann FG and Marks GC (1990) Status and manage- ment of insect pests and diseases in Victorian soft- wood plantations. Australian Forestry > 53, 131-1 44. Neumann, FG and Minko G (1981) The Sirex wood wasp in Australian radiata pine plantations. Australian Forestry 44, 46-63. Neumann FG and Minko G (1985) Studies on the intro- duced smaller European elm bark beetle, Scolytus multistriatus, a potential vector of Dutch elm disease in Victoria. Australian Forestry 48, 1 16-126. Neumann FG and Morey J (1984) Studies on the intro- duced bark beetle Ips grandicollis (Eichhoff) in Victorian radiata pine plantations. Australian Forest Research 14, 283-300. Neumann FG, Morey JL and McKimm RJ (1987) The Sirex wasp in Victoria. Bulletin No. 29, Lands and Forest Division, (Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands: Melbourne). New TR (1994) Exotic Insects in Australia. (Gleneagles Publishing: Adelaide) New TR (1997) Significance of honey bees in the Australian environment: Setting the scene. The Victorian Naturalist 114, 4-7. Paini DR (2004) Impact of the introduced honey bee {Apis mellifera ) (Hymenoptera: Apidae) on native bees: A review. Austral Ecology 29, 399-407. Paini DR and Roberts JD (2005) Commercial honey bees {Apis mellifera) reduce the fecundity of an Australian native bee {Hylaeus alcyoneus). Biological Conservation 123, 103-1 12. Paton D (1996) Overview of the impacts of feral and managed honeybees in Australia. (Australian Nature Conservation Agency: Canberra) Paton D (1997) Honey bees Apis mellifera and the dis- ruption of plant-pollinator systems in Australia. The Victorian Naturalist 114, 23-29. Rimes GD (1959) The bark beetle in Western Australian forests. Journal of Agriculture of Western Australia 8, 353-355. Rosel A (1969) Oviposition, egg development and other featuresof the biology of five species of Lyctidae (Coleoptera). Journal of Australian Entomological Society 8, 145-152. Rosel A and French JRJ (1975) Elm bark beetle in Australia. Nature 253, 305. Rowles AD and O’Dowd DJ (2007) Interference com- petition by Argentine ants displaces native ants: implications for biotic resistance to invasion. Biological Invasions 9, 73-85. Schreiber, ESG, Glaister A, Quinn GP and Lake PS (1998) Life history and population dynamics of the exotic snail Potamopyrgus antipodarum (Prosobranchia: Hydrobiidae) in Lake Purrumbete, Victoria, Australia. Marine Freshwater Research 49, 73-78. Schwarz M and Hurst P (1997) Effects of introduced honey bees on Australia’s native bee fauna. The Victorian Naturalist 114, 7-12. Senate Standing Committee on National Resources (1979) The adequacy of quarantine and other control measures to protect Australia’s pastoral industry from the introduction and spread of exotic livestock and plant diseases : Parliamentary Paper 287/1979. (Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra) Smith BJ (1967) Notes on the distribution of the dune- snail, Theba pisana Muller at Portsea Back Beach, Victoria. The Victorian Naturalist 84, 267-270. Spradbery JP and Maywald GF (1992) The distribution of the European or German wasp, Vespula germanica (F.) (Hymenoptera: Vespidae), in Australia: Past, present and future. Australian Journal of Zoology’ 40, 495-510. Tanton MT and Alder D (1977) The distribution and possible effects of the woolly aphid Pineus (Adelgidae: Homoptera) on Pinus radiata D.Don growing in the Australian Capital Territory. Australian Forest Research 7, 253-263. Thomson JM, Long JL and Horton DR (1987) Human exploitation of and introductions to the Australian fauna. In Fauna of Australia, General articles, Volume 1A, pp. 227-249 Eds GR Dyne and DW Walton. (Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra) Touyama Y, Ogata K and Sugiyama T (2003) The Argentine ant, Linepithema humile, in Japan: Assessment of impact on species diversity of ant communities in urban environments. Entomological Science 6, 57-62. Widmer M, and van Schagen J (1995) European wasps - eradicating an unwanted pest. Western Australian Journal of Agriculture 36, 119-123. Wylie FR (1978) Preliminary report on infestations of a spider mite Oligonychus sp. in exotic pine plantations Vol. 124 (2) 2007 101 Biodiversity symposium of south-east Queensland. Queensland Department of Forestry. Internal Report. Wylie FR and Peters BC (1987) Development of con- tingency plans for use against exotic pests and dis- eases of trees and timber. 2. Problems with the detec- tion and identification of pest insect introductions into Australia, with special reference to Queensland. Australian Forestry 50, 16-23. Wylie FR and Yule RA (1977) Insect quarantine and the timber industry in Queensland. Australian Forestry 40. 1 54- 1 66. Wylie FR, De Baar M. King, J, Fitzgerald, C. and Peters BC (1996) Managing attack by bark and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in fire- damaged Pinus plantations and salvaged logs in sout- east Queensland. Paper Submitted to XX International Congress of Entomology, Firenze, Italy, August. 25-31. Yates CJ, Hopper SD and Taplin RH (2005) Native insect flower visitor diversity and feral honeybees on jarrah (Eucalyptus marginata) in Kings Park, an urban bushland remnant. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 88. 1 47- 1 53. Yen AL (1995) Australian spiders: an opportunity for conservation. Records of the Western Australian Museum Supplement No. 52, 39-47. Yen AL (2002) Short-range endemism and Australian Psylloidea (Insecta: Hemiptera) in the genera Glycaspis and Acizzia (Psyllidae). Invertebrate Systematics 16, 631-636. Yule RA and Watson JAL (1976) Three further domes- tic species of Cryptotermes from the Australian mainland (Isoptera: Kalotermitidae). Journal of Australian Entomological Society 15, 349-352. Received 18 January 2007; accepted 16 February 2007 Challenges in managing miners Michael F Clarke, Richard Taylor, Joanne Oldland, Merilyn J Grey and Amanda Dare Department of Zoology, La Trobe University, Bundoora, 3086 Corresponding author: M. Clarke Email: m.clarke@latrobe.edu.au Abstract Three of the four members of the genus Manorina have been linked to declines in bird diversity and abundance; they are the Noisy Miner M. melanocephala, the Bell Miner M. melanophrys, and the Yellow-throated Miner M. flavigula. The negative influence of these species in remnant vegetation appears to be spreading in eastern Australia. Some habitat restoration and revegetation programs have the potential to exacerbate the problems associated with these species by inadvertently creating additional habitat for them to dominate. Better understanding of the habitat preferences of miners can guide restoration efforts so that they decrease the likelihood of undesirable outcomes. This con- tribution is based upon an article that appeared supplement to Wingspan vol 16, no. 4, 2006. (The Watching a Noisy Miner Manorina melanocephala saunter confidently down a Macquarie Street footpath in central Sydney, picking up lunchtime scraps, one gets the distinct impression that this bird ‘owns the place’. Regrettably, for much of eastern Australia this has become the case, to the detriment of many other native birds. Noisy Miners belong to the genus Manorina (not to be confused with the introduced Common Myna Acridotheres tristis from India). Members of this genus of native honeyeater are renowned for liv- ing in complex colonies of kin (Dow and Whitmore 1990; Painter et al. 2000) which aggressively defend their communal terri- tory from virtually all other species of bird (Dow 1977). While the Noisy Miner is probably the most familiar member of the genus to most Australians, its close rela- tives the Bell Miner M. melanophrys and in the State of Australian Birds Report 2006 , as a Victorian Naturalist, 124 (2), 2007, 102-105) the Yellow-throated Miner M. flavigula have also been implicated in major changes in bird communities and habitats in different parts of the country (Chandler 1922; Loyn et al. 1983; Loyn 1987; Clarke and Schedvin 1999; Ewen et al. 2003). Ironically, expansion of the range of the Yellow-throated Miner into formally con- tinuous mallee habitats, has contributed to the decline of the fourth member of the genus, the endangered Black-eared Miner M. melanotis ( Joseph 1986). The Noisy Miners’ communal defence is so effective that they commonly achieve a virtual monopoly on any piece of habitat they choose to colonise (Dow 1977). Unfortunately, their domination of both rural and urban landscapes is increasing. They are what author Tim Low (2002) has labelled one of the native ‘winners’ from white settlement, and their ascendancy has 102 The Victorian Naturalist Biodiversity symposium contributed to many other species becom- ing ‘losers’. Although their range within Australia does not appear to be increasing dramatically according to the New Atlas of Australian Birds (Barrett et al. 2003), it is their increasing domination of remnant vegetation within that range that is of major concern. Some researchers suggest the vast majority of remaining Box wood- lands in northern Victoria and southern NSW are already dominated by Noisy Miners (I. Davidson, pers. comm.). Although it is hard to determine. Noisy Miners were probably much less common prior to white settlement than they are today. Their preferred habitat was probably clumps of eucalypts adjacent to open grassy clearings, not too far from water. Clearing of woodlands and forests for agriculture and urbanisation has inadvertently created tens of thousands of hectares of prime Noisy Miner habitat: lots of grassy clearings edged by eucalypts. Being the adaptable general- ists they are, they continue to colonise more and more habitat, to the exclusion of many other native species, some of which, like the endangered Regent Honeyeater, are left with few places to forage unmolested by Noisy Miners. For many years researchers recognised that where Noisy Miners were present in small remnant woodlands, other small insectivorous birds were less abundant (Dow 1977; Ford and Bell 1982; Ford 1985, 1986; Loyn 1985, 1987; Catterall et al. 1991). However, it was unclear whether the absence of small birds was due to the habitat being so degraded that only Noisy Miners could live there, or that the Noisy Miners were excluding the other species. An experimental study conducted by Grey et al. (1997, 1998) demonstrated categori- cally that Noisy Miners were excluding the other species. Upon removal of Noisy Miners from small remnant woodlands, a multitude of small insectivorous birds immediately flooded in and utilised the resources previously unavailable to them. Our research in Grey Box remnants indicat- ed that the level of leaf damage from her- bivorous insects decreased following the removal of Noisy Miners, compared to control sites (Grey et al. unpubl. data). Through excluding small insectivorous birds from remnant woodlands. Noisy Miners may be contributing to rural tree decline if their territorial behaviour ulti- mately reduces the level of predation upon defoliating insects. It is likely that the spread of eucalypt dieback will accelerate if there is a further decline in avian diversi- ty in rural and urban landscapes. This is an issue of economic importance to agricultur- al communities, not just one of aesthetics. Widespread removal of Noisy Miners from the landscape is not feasible. However, if we understand what makes a site attractive for colonisation by Noisy Miners, we can at least attempt to avoid cre- ating more habitat that suits them. Although Noisy Miners have long been regarded as an ‘edge species’, until recently there has been little research done to identify how far from edges they will penetrate into remnant vegetation (Piper and Catterall 2003), nor the kind of edges they prefer. Work in both Queensland (Piper and Catterall 2003) and Victoria (Clarke et al. unpubl. data) has revealed the disturbing picture that Noisy Miners will commonly dominate as much as 150-300m in from a remnant’s edge. This has profound implications for: a) the size remnants need to be to have any ‘Noisy- Miner-free’ core habitat (> 36 ha) and b) for the width habitat corridors need to be if they are to avoid being dominated by Noisy Miners (> 600 m). Additional research has shown that along remnant edges Noisy Miner colonies typically occur at corners of the remnant, where corridors join the rem- nant or where clumps or protrusions of canopy vegetation extend into the paddock from the remnant (Taylor 2005). A major focus of many revegetation efforts to date has been the creation of habitat corridors connecting patches of remnant vegetation to facilitate the move- ment and dispersal of wildlife across the landscape. Although the studies mentioned above suggest Noisy Miners are very like- ly to dominate such corridors and diminish their value as dispersal routes for small insectivorous birds, such habitat connec- tions are still extremely important for the conservation of other wildlife such as small mammals and reptiles. In addition to planting corridors of eucalypts, habitat restoration efforts should consider mea- sures for making corridors and the edges of remnants less attractive to Noisy Miners. Vol. 124 (2) 2007 103 B iodiversity symposium Hastings and Beattie (2006) suggest euca- lypt plantings supplemented with both hip- innate acacias and a shrubby understorey are less attractive to Noisy Miners. Taylor’s (2005) research suggests we should be avoiding the creation of comers, clumps and protrusions in revegetation efforts. Steps could also be taken to enclose protrusions within 100 m of the edge and revegetate out to these new boundaries, with the objective of ‘round- ing’ and ‘smoothing’ the perimeter of the remnant (Fig. 1 ). Such extensions of the boundaries of remnants could also preserve isolated hollow-bearing trees in paddocks. Research we have conducted in the Mallee regions of north-west Victoria sug- gest the Yellow-throated Miner of the semi-arid and arid zone is having a some- what similar impact to that of the Noisy Miner (Clarke et al. unpubl. data). Yellow- throated Miners are monopolising the thin road-side strips of remnant vegetation that run between the vast paddocks cleared for cereal cropping and grazing. Even small groups of miners (5-10) can successfully exclude the majority of small insectivorous birds that would otherwise move along these vitally important habitat corridors. There is an urgent need to create miner-free refuges in these landscapes, if we are to maintain the remaining diversity of birds. A third member of the genus, the Bell Miner, has long been linked to eucalypt dieback in forest habitats along the east coast of Australia from Melbourne to Bundaberg (e.g. Chandler 1922). The expansion of the dieback associated with the presence of Bell Miners over the last decade has been so dramatic that it has earned its own acronym - BMAD - Bell Miner Associated Dieback! Tens of thou- sands of hectares of forest in north-eastern NSW and south-eastern Queensland are affected (Wardell-Johnson et al. 2005). Removal experiments by Loyn et al. (1983) and Clarke and Schedvin (1999) demonstrated that through their territorial exclusion of other insectivorous species of birds, Bell Miners allow sap-sucking bugs called psyllids to multiply into major infes- tations that contribute to the death of some canopy tree species. While it is tempting to blame the Bell Miners for this habitat degradation, that begs the question of what it is about a site that predisposes it to host- ing an infestation of psyllids (Bell Miner- enhanced or otherwise). It is known that psyllids are phloem feeders that gain their nitrogen from free amino acids and other soluble nitrogen compounds. Young and epicormic foliage of eucalypts is rich in these compounds. This has led people to postulate many different kinds of distur- bances that might result in eucalypts putting on a flush of young or epicormic growth that is inadvertently attractive to psyllids, and then Bell Miners (see review by Wardell-Johnson et al 2005). These include stress due to changed hydrological conditions (water-logging or drought), soil pathogens (such as Cinnamon Fungus 300 m Paddock 200 m - " 100 m / / / / / / □ ) \ \ \ A Remnant Fig. 1. The edge of a large remnant with two projections: A - a corner and B - a clump. The broken lines highlight the perimeter ot the proposed revegetation extending into the paddock, enclosing both projections, and smoothing the remnant 104 The Victorian Naturalist Biodiversity symposium Phytophthora cinnamomi), elevated nutri- ent levels in the soil, the absence of fre- quent low-intensity fires, competition from weeds, and micro-climatic changes associ- ated with forest fragmentation and clearing. While some have advocated the removal of Bell Miners, this does not always result in the recovery of the trees (Clarke and Schedvin 1999). If the psyllid burden is not the primary reason the trees are stressed on a site then they are unlikely to recover just because the psyllid burden is removed. Much more research is needed to identify the factors that predispose a site to infesta- tion by psyllids and colonisation by Bell Miners. Such research should clarify what role, if any, human activities have in mak- ing a site attractive and what can be done to avoid or redress any imbalance created. In conclusion, it must be stressed that these three species of native miner are not behaving in some aberrant manner. They are simply behaving as miners have proba- bly behaved for millennia on this conti- nent. It just happens that we have altered landscapes in ways that have profoundly tipped the balance in their favour - at great cost to many other species. How we have changed the landscape to favour Noisy Miners and Yellow-throated Miners and what can be done to limit the impact these birds have is becoming clear. Whether we will take responsibility for rectifying the mess we have created is less certain. References Barrett G. Silcocks A, Barry S, Cunningham R and Poulter R (2003). The New Atlas of Australia Birds. (Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union: Hawthorn East, Victoria). Catterall CP, Green RJ and Jones DN (1991). Habitat use by birds across a forest-suburb interface in Brisbane: implications for corridors. In Nature Conservation 2: The Role of Corridors, pp. 247-58. Eds D Saunders and R Hobbs (Surrey Beatty and Sons: Sydney). Chandler LG (1922) Bush Charms. (Whitcombe and Tombs: Melbourne). Clarke MF and Schedvin N (1999) Removal of bell miners Manorina melanophrys from Eucalyptus radiata forest and its effect on avian diversity, psyl- lids and tree health. Biological Conservation , 88, 111 - 120 . Dow DD (1977) Indiscriminate interspecific aggression leading to almost sole occupancy of space by a single species of bird. Emu 77, 1 15-21. Dow DD and Whitmore MJ (1990) Noisy Miners: vari- ations on the theme of communality. In Cooperative Breeding in Birds. Long-term Studies of Ecology and Behaviour pp. 223-261. Eds WD Koenig and P Stacey. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge). Ewen JG, Crozier RH, Cassey P, Ward-Smith T, Painter JN, Robertson RJ, Jones DA, and Clarke MF (2003) Facultative control of offspring sex in the cooperatively breeding bell miner Manorina melanophrys. Behavioural Ecology 14: 157-164. Ford HA (1985) The bird community in eucalypt wood- land and eucalypt dieback in the northern tablelands of New South Wales. In Birds of Eucalypt Forests and Woodlands; Ecology, Conservation, Management pp. 333-340. Eds A Keast, HF Recher, H Ford, and D Saunders. (Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union and Surrey Beatty & Sons: Sydney) Ford HA (1986) Birds and eucalypt dieback in north- eastern New South Wales. In The Dynamic Partnership: Birds and Plants in Southern Australia. pp 150-154. Eds HA Ford and DC Paton. (Government Printer: Adelaide) Ford HA and Bell H (1982) Density of birds in euca- lypt woodland affected to varying degrees by dieback. Emu 81, 202-208. Grey MJ, Clarke MF and Loyn RH (1997). Initial changes in the avian communities of remnant euca- lypt woodlands following a reduction in the abun- dance of noisy miners, Manorina melanocephala. Wildlife Research 24, 631-48. Grey MJ, Clarke MF and Loyn RH (1998). Influence of the noisy miner Manorina melanocephala on avian diversity and abundance in remnant grey box woodland. Pacific Conservation Biology > 4, 55-69. Hastings RA and Beattie AJ (2006) Stop the bullying in the corridors: Can including shrubs make your revegetation more Noisy Miner free? Ecological Management and Restoration 7, 105-1 12. Joseph L (1986) The decline and present status of the black-eared miner in South Australia. South Australian Ornithologist 30, 5-13. Low T (2002) The New Nature: winners and losers in wild Australia (Viking: Camberwell). Loyn RH (1985) Birds in fragmented forest in Gippsland, Victoria. In Birds of Eucalypt Forests and Woodlands; Ecology, Conservation, Mangement pp.323-331. Eds A Keast, HF Recher, H Ford, and D Saunders. (Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union and Surrey Beatty & Sons: Sydney) Loyn, RH (1987). Effects of patch area and habitat on bird abundances, species numbers and tree health in fragmented Victorian forests. In Nature Conservation: The Role of Remnants of Native Vegetation, pp. 65-77 . Eds D Saunders, G Arnold, A Burbidge and A Hopkins. (Surrey Beatty and Sons: Sydney) Loyn RH, Runnalls RG, Forward GY and Tyers J (1983). Territorial bell miners and other birds affect- ing populations of insect prey. Science 221, 1411-13. Painter JN, Crozier RH, Poiani A, Robertson R & Clarke MF (2000) Complex social organisation reflects genetic structure and relatedness in the coop- eratively breeding bell miner, Manorina melanophrys. Molecular Ecology’, 9, 1339-1348 Piper SD and Catterall SP (2003) A particular case and a general pattern: hyperaggressive behaviour by one species may mediate avifaunal decreases in frag- mented Australian forests. Oikos 101, 602-614. Taylor R (2005) Habitat preferences of the noisy miner, Manorina melanocephala, as edge specialist threatening woodland bird communities in south- eastern Australia. (Unpublished Hons. Thesis, La Trobe University). Wardell-Johnson, G, Stone, C, Recher, H and Lynch, AJJ (2005) A review of eucalypt dieback associated with bell miner habitat in south-eastern Australia. Australian Forestry 68, 231-236. Received 12 October 2006; accepted 25 January > 2007 Vol. 124 (2) 2007 105 Biodiversity symposium Battling Bridal Creeper in coastal dunes - a community approach Greg Lefoe 1 and Sue Longmore : 'Department of Primary Industries, Primary Industries Research Victoria, Frankston 3199 Email: greg.lefoe@dpi.vic.gov.au -Swan Bay Integrated Catchment Management Committee, Queenscliff, 3225 Abstract This paper examines whether a community-based approach to the biological control (biocontrol) of Bridal Creeper Asparagus asparagoides L. Druce can be effective in reducing the impact of the weed. Bridal Creeper is a serious threat to native vegetation on Victoria's Bellarine Peninsula. In many situations, such as occurs at Buckley Park Foreshore Reserve, Bridal Creeper can be difficult to control without serious off-target damage. Implementing the biocontrol of Bridal Creeper is there- fore seen as a priority. A model for a community-based biocontrol program was adopted on the Peninsula to facilitate the spread and impact of biocontrol agents. The program has required a close collaboration between researchers, land managers, and community groups, including local schools. As a result of the program biocontrol agents have been released at 46 sites on the Bellarine peninsu- la. Two agents in particular are now spreading and causing visible damage to bridal creeper infesta- tions. The program has demonstrated the important role biocontrol can play in the integrated man- agement of a widespread environmental weed, and provides a strong basis for future collaboration at a local level in weed management issues. (The Victorian Naturalist 124^(2), 2007, 106-109) Introduction The Bellarine Peninsula is located adjacent to Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. A major threat to native vegetation in the area is the invasive introduced plant Bridal Creeper Asparagus asparagoides L. Druce, listed by the Commonwealth government as one of twenty Weeds of National Significance (WoNS) (Thorpe and Lynch 2000). Above- ground parts of the plant can smother native vegetation during the autumn-spring growing season. Although the above- ground parts of the plant senesce during summer, dense underground mats compris- ing rhizomes and storage tubers may pre- vent seedling recruitment throughout the year (Raymond 1999). Community groups and local schools on the Bellarine Peninsula have combined with government agencies and land managers to facilitate the implementation of biological control. This paper examines the effectiveness of the collaboration in implementing biocon- trol of Bridal Creeper, highlighting Buckley Park Foreshore Reserve as an example of a significant Bellarine Peninsula site threatened by the weed. Buckley Park Foreshore Reserve According to the draft Buckley Park Coastal Management Plan (CDA and WE 2005): Buckley Park Foreshore Reserve is a unique location consisting of an extensive sand dune and coastal vegetation system with populations of vegetation communi- ties with rare and vulnerable conservation status within the Geelong/Barwon Coast Region and Victoria. The reserve is also rich in both European and Indigenous Australian history further adding to the value of the reserve. The reserve occupies approximately 5 kms of foreshore and coastal dunes between the townships of Ocean Grove and Point Lonsdale, Victoria, and is managed by the City of Greater Geelong, on behalf of the Department of Sustainability and Environment. Adjacent land managers include the Barwon Coast Committee of Management and Borough of Queenscliff, as well as numerous private landowners (C.D.A. and W.E. 2005). The reserve com- prises two Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVCs) in the Otway Plain Bioregion: (i) Coastal Dune Scrub/Coastal Dune Grassland Mosaic (EVC 1) and (ii) Coastal Alkaline Scrub/Calcarenite Dune Wood- land (EVC 858). The draft Buckley Park Coastal Management Plan (C.D.A. and W.E. 2005) lists five significant plant com- munities in the reserve, each of which is threatened by invasive plants. Bridal 106 The Victorian Naturalist Biodiversity symposium Creeper is the most prevalent invasive plant in four of the five listed plant communities. Managing Bridal Creeper on the Bellarine Peninsula Controlling Bridal Creeper in areas such as Buckley Park Foreshore Reserve is diffi- cult as manual removal of large infesta- tions is extremely labour intensive, and herbicide controls have potential for seri- ous off-target damage. Even when infesta- tions are controlled, tuber mats may per- sist; Turner et al. (2006), for example, esti- mated that 50 years after Bridal Creeper is killed up to 35% of the below-ground bio- mass of the plant may remain. Biological control agents such as the rust fungus Puccinia myrsiphvlla (Thuem.) may act as a nutrient sink, and help to deplete tuber reserves (Morin et al. 2006). Biological control is, therefore, seen as an important part of the integrated management of bridal creeper. Biological control of Bridal Creeper in Australia Research into the biocontrol of Bridal Creeper was initiated in the late 1980s (Scott and Kleinjan 1991). One pathogen and two insects have been approved for release in Australia since 1999 (Morin et al. 2006). They are, in order of approval: (i) the leafhopper Zygina sp. in 1999, (ii) the rust fungus P. myrsiphvlla in 2000, and (iii) the leaf beetle Crioceris sp. in 2002. Approval to release these biocontrol agents followed extensive testing by CSIRO that demonstrated the agents are specific to bridal creeper (Morin et al. 2006). In Victoria, the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) has conducted widespread releases of the leaf hopper and rust fungus across the State (Morin et al. 2006). The leafhopper and rust fungus have estab- lished at most release sites and are dispers- ing naturally (Holland-Clift and Kwong 2004; unpubl. data). The first release in Victoria of the leaf beetle occurred at Coolart in March, 2005, and it has been released subsequently at just eight loca- tions in the State (Morin et al. 2006; unpubl. data). Implementing biological control of Bridal Creeper on the Bellarine Peninsula Once a biocontrol agent is approved for release in Australia, there is an opportunity Vol. 124 (2) 2007 for research agencies to work closely with land managers and community groups to maximise the impact of biocontrol. Holland-Clift and Kwong (2004) proposed a model for a community-based biocontrol program with clearly defined research and extension requirements, and a phased approach to the development and delivery of biocontrol. This is the model largely adopted on the Bellarine Peninsula. As a result, at least 34 leafhopper releases, and 1 1 rust fungus releases now have been recorded on the Bellarine Peninsula up to 2006 (Longmore 2005, unpubl. data). There has been only one release of the leaf beetle on the Bellarine Peninsula, at Edwards Point. However, establishment at that site is not yet confirmed. The model proposed by Holland-Clift and Kwong (2004) comprises the following phases: 1 . Selecting sites for biocontrol Local knowledge is necessary to select sites suitable for biocontrol and to ensure biocontrol is integrated with local weed management strategies. This works best where biocontrol researchers work closely with local groups and land managers to provide guidance and advise on site selec- tion (Holland-Clift and Kwong 2004). In the case of Buckley Park, local knowledge of factors such as the severity of the Bridal Creeper infestation, potential for off-target herbicide damage, and access difficulties, led to the reserve being identified as a pri- ority for biocontrol. 2. Releasing biocontrol agents Training and extension activities are essen- tial in the early stages of implementing biocontrol. This ensures local groups and land managers acquire the skills and knowledge to continue, and even expand, programs once they commence. On the Bellarine Peninsula the support of DPI officers was critical for the subsequent success of the biocontrol program. For example, the initial releases of leafhoppers and rust fungus at Buckley Park Foreshore Reserve were made by DPI officers to maximise the likelihood of establishment. However, the opportunity was taken to involve the land manager, community group representatives, and school groups (through DPI’s Weed Warriors school pro- gram). This involvement included on-site 107 Biodiversity symposium demonstrations and participation in release techniques, discussion of agent and weed biology, and training in methods to collect and redistribute the agent once it became established. 3. Monitoring release sites Once agents become widespread it is often difficult for DPI officers to adequately monitor the establishment, spread, and impact of biocontrol agents at all release sites. Community involvement in monitor- ing sites is therefore important, but has limitations. Community groups should not be asked to collect detailed technical data, as the demands on time may be unrealistic and the quality of the data may vary con- siderably (Holland-Clift and Kwong 2004). However, community groups on the Bellarine Peninsula have made a valuable contribution by monitoring agent establish- ment and spread using simple measures developed in collaboration with researchers. In Buckley Park Foreshore Reserve, an ongoing collaboration between the City of Greater Geelong, Barwon Coast Committee of Management, Swan Bay Integrated Catchment Management Committee, and volunteers from the Friends of Buckley Park, has allowed quite detailed data on agent establishment and spread to be collected over several years. 4. Redistributing biocontrol agents once they are established In their case study. Holland-Clift and Kwong (2004) found 100% establishment of biocontrol agents at new sites when redistribution occurred from a nearby established site, and was accompanied by training and demonstration of collection and release techniques. Holland-Clift and Kwong (2004) concluded it is this phase where community groups, with proper sci- entific and technical support, can make the greatest impact in a biocontrol program. They stressed though that ‘some element of community participation throughout the previous three phases also is necessary in order to select appropriate sites and to refine release and monitoring protocols rel- evant to the community members’ skills and knowledge’ (Holland-Clift and Kwong 2004). In this way a compromise can be reached between: (i) the research agency’s desire to have trained biocontrol officers conducting and monitoring releases; (ii) the requirement to conduct as many suc- cessful releases as possible over a wide area, usually within a specified funding period; and (iii) the need to gain support for biocontrol from land managers and the broader community. Buckley Park Foreshore Reserve pro- vides an example of all four phases being successfully implemented, with the reserve now being used for biocontrol demonstra- tions and training, and as a source of rust fungus and leafboppers for redistribution to new sites. In addition, a new technique for the widespread release of rust fungus was trialled in three areas on the Peninsula, including Buckley Park Foreshore Reserve, in 2006. This new method, called spore-water (a mixture of rust fungus spores and rainwater) allows land man- agers to inoculate large areas of bridal creeper using conventional spray equip- ment (Overton and Overton 2006), includ- ing aerial application equipment (Fig. 1 ). Aerial application of the rust fungus may be useful particularly for infestations that are difficult to access from the ground, such as occurs in much of Buckley Park Foreshore Reserve. In addition to recorded release sites, there are likely to be more releases by members of the local community that have not been recorded. The CSIRO, for example, main- tains an interactive web-site that allows the general public to locate release sites in their area (www.ento.csiro.au/weeds/bridal creeper/). This web-site and others (i.e. www.weeds.org.au/WoNS/bridalcreeper/, Fig. 1 . Helicopter application of ‘spore-water’ at Buckley Park Foreshore Reserve, September 2006. Photo: Greg Lefoe. 108 The Victorian Naturalist Biodiversity symposium www.dpi.vic.gov.au, and www. weeds. crc.org.au) also provide detailed informa- tion on Bridal Creeper management and biological control. Conclusion The model for community involvement adopted on the Bellarine Peninsula has enabled many more biocontrol releases to be conducted against Bridal Creeper than would have been possible if DPI were act- ing with limited collaboration. The extent of the releases, and the success of the agents in establishing and spreading from release sites, have provided a positive experience of biocontrol for the individu- als, groups, and schools involved. The leafhopper and rust fungus, for example, are now causing visible damage to Bridal Creeper on the Bellarine Peninsula. The program has demonstrated the important role biocontrol can play in the integrated management of widespread environmental weeds, and provides a strong basis for future collaboration at a local level in weed management issues. Acknowledgements Swan Bay Integrated Catchment Management Committee, Friends of Buckley Park, Friends of Edwards Point, Swan Bay Environment Association, Bellarine Landcare Group, Friends of Point Richards, Barwon Coast Committee of Management, City of Greater Geelong, Parks Victoria, Bellarine Secondary College, Queenscliff Primary School, St Leonards Primary School, Gordon TAFE, Department of Primary Industries, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Corangamite Catchment Management Authority, and the Natural Heritage T rust. References Contour Design Australia (CDA) and Wychwood Environmental (WE) (2005) Draft Buckley Park Coastal Management Plan.(Contour Design Australia and Wychwood Environmental: Melbourne) Holland-Clift S and Kwong RM (2004) Community involvement in biological control: towards the devel- opment of an improved evaluation model. Proceedings of the 14th Australian Weeds Confer- ence, eds BM Sindel and SB Johnson, pp. 631-635. (Weed Society of New South Wales: Wagga Wagga) Longmore S (2005) Bridal Creeper Biocontrol Report 2005. Swan Bay Integrated Catchment Management Committee, Queenscliff (unpublished) Morin L, Neave M, Batchelor K and Reid A (2006) Biological control: a promising tool for managing bridal creeper, Asparagus asparagoides L. (Druce), in Australia. Plant Protection Quarterly 2 1 , 69-77. Overton B and Overton D (2006) The development of 'spore-water’ on Kangaroo Island for rapid spread of bridal creeper rust fungus. Plant Protection Quarterly 2 1 , 77-78. Raymond KL (1999) Ecology of Asparagus asparagoides (bridal creeper), an environmental weed of southern Australia. (Unpublished PhD the- sis, Monash University) Scott JK and Kleinjan CA (1991) Bridal creeper (Myrsiphyllum asparagoides) in Australia and devel- opments towards its biological control. Plant Protection Quarterly 6. 116-119. Thorp JR and Lynch R (2000) The Determination of Weeds of National Significance. (National Weeds Strategy Executive Committee: Launceston) Turner PJ, Scott JK and Spafford Jacob H. (2006) Barrier to restoration: the decomposition rate of bridal creeper’s root system. Proceedings of the 15th Australian Weeds Conference, eds C Preston, JH Watts and ND Crossman, pp. 827-830 (Weed Management Society of South Australia Inc.: Adelaide) Received 7 December 2006; accepted 18 January 2007 One Hundred and Twenty Years Ago THE LOCUST PLAGUE. A CORRESPONDENT at Murtoa, in the Wimmera district, forwards the following notes on this subject:- “They appear to be a bit dainty in their tastes, as they ate all the leaves off the ‘Scothch thistles,’ but would not touch the so-called ‘sow thistles,’ which is somewhat fortunate, as stock are very fond of the latter. In passing through the crops they took the flag off the wheat, and all the wild oats and wheat, so that in several places there is nothing left but the ears of wheat on the tops of bare stems, they cut off a few ears of wheat, but they were in all cases those of shorter and later straws; the others appear to have been too hard for them.. From The Victorian Naturalist 3 p. 131, February 1887. Vol. 124 (2) 2007 109 Biodiversity' symposium The potential impact of the Large Earth Bumblebee Bombus terrestris (Apidae) on the Australian mainland: Lessons from Tasmania Andrew B Hingston School of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 78, Hobart, Tasmania,7001. Email: hingston@utas.edu.au. Abstract The Large Earth Bumblebee Bombus terrestris (L.) (Hymenoptera: Apidae) is an invasive species that has not yet established on the Australian mainland. However, a feral population was discovered in Tasmania in 1992 and applications have been made to import the species to the Australian main- land for pollination of crops inside greenhouses. The introduction of B. terrestris to the Australian mainland for pollination of greenhouse crops poses a potential threat to Australia’s biodiversity because: (1) B. terrestris is likely to escape from captivity and form feral populations in the wild across a large area; (2) B. terrestris forages on many species of native and introduced plants and has spread rapidly throughout all major native vegetation types in Tasmania; (3) B. terrestris is able to reduce the amounts of nectar available to other animals by foraging at lower temperatures than other bees; and (4) the effectiveness of B. terrestris as a pollinator sometimes differs from that of other animals. Recent research suggests that B. terrestris is reducing reproductive success in an endan- gered species of bird in Tasmania by reducing nectar availability, and several species of introduced plants have become more invasive in Tasmania since B. terrestris arrived there. (The Victorian Naturalist 1 24 ( 1 ) 2007. 110-117) Introduction The Large Earth Bumblebee Bombus ter- restris (L.) (Hymenoptera: Apidae) is an invasive species that has not yet estab- lished itself on the Australian mainland, but has been present in Tasmania since 1992 (Semmens et al. 1993). Concern about the potential for its establishment on mainland Australia has already led to B. terrestris being listed as a threatening process in both Victoria and New South Wales (Lefoe and Backholer 2002;Whelan et al. 2004). It is, therefore, important for people living on the Australian mainland to become familiar with B. terrestris, and its potential impacts, to maximize the chances of any founder populations being reported as soon as possible to relevant government agencies. Early detection pro- vides the best chance of preventing B. ter- restris from establishing feral populations on the Australian mainland. Bombus terrestris is a heavily-built, hairy bee with broad black and golden-yellow bands. It varies greatly in size, with body lengths ranging from 8 mm up to 35 mm. The larger individuals make a loud buzzing sound and are often heard before they are seen. This species has annual colonies in pre-existing cavities in or near the ground and comprises three castes. Queens are the largest caste and these establish the colonies on their own after having mated with a drone. The queen col- lects nectar and pollen from flowers to feed her first batch of larvae which devel- op into workers. The adult workers then take over the role of collecting food to feed subsequent batches of larvae and the colony grows in size until worker produc- tion is replaced by production of new queens and drones. After worker produc- tion ceases the adult workers gradually die off and, with the decline of numbers of bees collecting nectar and pollen, the colony and original queen eventually die out. The new queens then mate with drones and establish new colonies (Cumber 1953; Donovan and Macfarlane 1984; O’Toole and Raw 1991; Prys-Jones and Corbet 1991). Bombus terrestris is currently expanding its range across the world because of human assistance. The natural distribution of B. terrestris encompasses most of Europe, as well as the near east, Mediterranean islands, part of the north coast of Africa, the Canary Islands and Madeira (Estoup et al. 1996; Widmer et al. 1998; Chittka et al. 2004). The British sub- species B. terrestris audax (Harris) was no The Victorian Naturalist Biodiversity symposium also introduced successfully to New Zealand from England in 1885 (Hopkins 1914). This was the extent of the global distribution for over 100 years. However, in 1987 the horticulture industry started using B. terrestris to improve pollination of greenhouse crops, particularly tomato Solarium lycopersicum L. (Velthuis and van Doom 2006). Colonies of B. terrestris have subsequently been sold to growers of greenhouse tomatoes, not only within the natural distribution of B. terrestris and New Zealand, but also, in Iceland, Finland, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, South Africa, Taiwan, China, South Korea and Japan (Hingston et al. 2002; Australian Hydroponic & Greenhouse Association 2005; Velthuis and van Doom 2006). Bombus terrestris has escaped from green- houses and formed feral populations in Japan (http://www003.upp.so-net.ne.jp/ consecol/english/maruhana/maruhanainfo _eng.html; Matsumara et al 2004), Chile (Ruz and Herrera 2001), Mexico and Uruguay (Australian Hydroponic & Greenhouse Association 2005). Approval has not been given to import B. terrestris to Australia. However, two appli- cations have been made to import B. ter- restris to the Australian mainland for the pollination of greenhouse crops. The first of these (Goodwin and Steiner 1997) was rejected (Goodwin and Steiner 1999). However, another organization has recent- ly reapplied (Australian Hydroponic & Greenhouse Association 2005) and this is currently being assessed by the Australian Department of Environment and Heritage. Australia has a poor history of importing animals because it seemed like a good idea at the time, only to discover that it wasn’t such a great idea after all (Low 1999). The lessons from this history are that it is important to assess carefully the risks asso- ciated with any proposed introduction of an exotic animal. Pest risk associated with introduction of non-native organisms has been defined as a function of: the risk of escaping from captivity; the risk of estab- lishing outside captivity; the organism’s potential geographic range; the organism’s potential abundance within that range; and the organism’s per capita effect on the ecosystem (Bigsby and Crequer 1998; Parker et al. 1999). This paper considers the risk of B. terrestris becoming a pest as a result of its proposed use inside green- houses on the Australian mainland (Australian Hydroponic & Greenhouse Association 2005). The risk of Bombus terrestris escaping from captivity Colonies of B. terrestris can be started only by queens. Therefore, preventing queens escaping from hives could be an effective way of preventing a feral popula- tion from establishing. The likelihood of queens escaping from greenhouses can be reduced by adjusting the diameter of the hive’s entrance to make it too small for queens to pass through while remaining large enough for workers to exit the hive and pollinate tomatoes (Thorp 2003; Australian Hydroponic & Greenhouse Association 2005; Ings et al. 2006). Unfortunately, this is not 100% effective at preventing queens from escaping from the hive into the greenhouse (Griffiths 2004; Australian Hydroponic & Greenhouse Association 2005). A representative of the bumblebee-production industry has stated ‘On average, the pollinating life of a hive is some 8 to 10 weeks, at which time emerging bees are all males, sometimes followed by the emergence of new queens. Over 50% of hives within the greenhouse can expect to produce these queens. The diameter of the flight hole is such that it should prevent the egress of the larger- sized queens, but in practice, some queens and males escape into the glasshouse envi- ronment. Thus, whilst not all commercial hives will produce queens and the number per hive will be small, some can be expect- ed to escape into the natural environment, where they will be fertilised by escaping males’ (Griffiths 2004). The risk of Bombus terrestris establish- ing outside captivity Supporters of the introduction of B. ter- restris to the Australian mainland have also stated that queens will escape from the greenhouses and produce feral colonies. Griffiths (2004) stated ‘there is a risk that a limited number of fertilised queens will escape from commercial glasshouses into the environment. Whilst the overall num- Vol. 124 (2) 2007 111 Biodiversity symposium bers will be few, some feral colonies will establish’. Similarly, the previous submis- sion to import B. terrestris to the Australian mainland stated "While it is not the inten- tion to establish feral populations, it is antic- ipated that improper use or accident could result in bumblebees establishing in the wild’ (Goodwin and Steiner 1997). The establishment of feral populations of B. ter- restris in Japan (Matsumara et al. 2004; http://www003.upp.so-net.ne.jp/consecol/ english/maruhana/maru-hana_ info_eng.html), Chile (Ruz and Herrera 2001), Mexico and Uruguay (Australian Hydroponic & Greenhouse Association 2005), as a result of escape from green- houses, clearly supports their view. The potential geographic range of Bombus terrestris on the Australian mainland There is some uncertainty surrounding the area over which B. terrestris could estab- lish on the Australian mainland. However, a consultant’s report produced as part of the recent proposal to import B. terrestris to the Australian mainland indicates that this area is likely to be substantial. McClay (2005) produced two CL1MEX models to predict the potential geographic range of B. terrestris across mainland Australia. Model 1, based on the range of climates within the natural distribution of B. ter- restris, predicted that B. terrestris could spread across most of Victoria, the eastern half of NSW, almost all the way up the Queensland coast, south-eastern SA, and a large area in south-western WA from Eyre to Geraldton. Model 2, based on the range of climates in the British Isles where sub- species B. terrestris aitdax occurs, predict- ed that this subspecies would be restricted to a smaller area comprising coastal and high elevation areas in Victoria and south- ern NSW south of Sydney, a small area in south-eastern SA, as well as high altitude areas around Armidale in northern NSW. However, this area, which is greater than the size of Tasmania, is the absolute mini- mum over which B. terrestris aitdax would spread (McClay 2005). In the absence of evidence that the natural range of B. ter- restris aitdax is constrained by climate rather than the North Sea and English Channel, McClay (2005) concluded that B. terrestris aitdax ‘could establish in broader areas of Australia, possibly approaching the limits of the potential distribution of B. terrestris senstt lato' as determined from Model 1. The potential abundance of Bombus ter- restris within its predicted range The density at which B. terrestris will occur if it establishes on the Australian mainland is also uncertain. However, observations of B. terrestris in Tasmania suggest that it is capable of becoming a major component of flower visitor faunas within climatically suitable areas on the Australian mainland. Bombus terrestris can reproduce successfully in indigenous Australian vegetation. A colony excavated in a Tasmanian national park produced at least 304 new queens and 939 workers/ drones (Hingston et al. 2006). Bombus ter- restris also sometimes comprises large parts of flower visitor faunas in Tasmania. For example, it comprised 43% of visits to flowers of Gompholobium huegelii Benth. (Hingston and McQuillan 1999), up to 92% of flower visitors to Eucalyptus ovata Labill. (AB Hingston, SA Mallick and S Wotherspoon unpubl. data.), and up to 100% of flower visitors to Tree Lupin Lupinus arboreus Sims (Stout et al. 2002). The per capita effect of Bombus ter- restris on the ecosystem Determining the effect that B. terrestris is having on the Tasmanian ecosystem will require a great deal more research. Potential harmful impacts that B. terrestris could have include: ‘(1) competition with native animals for nectar and/or pollen of native plants; (2) reduced seed production and/or altered gene flow in native plants; and (3) increased seed production in intro- duced weed species’ (Hingston 2005). The potential for these three impacts to occur depends upon the foraging preferences of B. terrestris because the first two are dependent upon B. terrestris foraging on native plants and invading native vegeta- tion while the third impact could result from foraging on introduced species of plants. Proponents of the introduction of B. ter- restris to the Australian mainland have consistently argued that B. terrestris 112 The Victorian Naturalist Biodiversity symposium causes little harm in Tasmania because it prefers to forage on introduced species of plants and rarely invades native vegetation (Goodwin and Steiner 1997; Carruthers 2003; Griffiths 2004; Australian Hydro- ponic & Greenhouse Association 2005). However, ‘even if bumblebees do concen- trate their foraging on introduced plants, they could still have serious impacts on native plants and the native animals that feed from their flowers if some introduced plants produce more seeds as a response to pollination services by bumblebees and consequently become more invasive and outcompete the native plants’ (Hingston 2005). An example of this is the South African lily Agapanthus praecox Willd. subsp. orientalis, which was not listed as naturalised in the late 1990s in Tasmania (Rozefelds et al. 1999) but is now regarded as an environmental weed around Hobart and the Tasmanian coast (Connolly et al. 2004; Hingston et al. 2005). This apparent increase in invasiveness may have been caused by B. terrestris because it appears to be the major pollinator of A. praecox in Hobart (Hingston 2006b). Bombus ter- restris is the most common visitor to the flowers of A. praecox in Hobart, contacts the stigma and anthers far more frequently than does the only other regular visitor, and carries significantly more pollen of A. praecox than does the only other regular visitor (Hingston 2006b). Similarly, Rhododendron ponticum L. was not recorded as naturalised in the late 1990s (Rozefelds et al. 1999). However, large numbers of seedlings have recently been seen at several locations in western Tasmania, just outside the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (M Baker 2005 pers. comm. 9 Nov.). It is likely that B. terrestris has caused the naturalisation of R. ponticum because bumblebees are known to be major pollinators of R. pon- ticum in Europe (Mejias et al. 2002; Stout et al. 2006). Another invasive plant in Tasmania that may be benefiting from pol- lination services provided by B. terrestris is Buddleia davidii Franchet, which has also become more invasive since the arrival of B. terrestris (A Crane 2005 pers. comm. 14 Nov.). Because its stigma is sit- uated 5-7 mm along a narrow tubular corolla (AB Hingston pers. obs., see also Webb et al. 1988), only animals with tongues of this length or more are likely to deposit pollen on the stigma. The pro- boscises of B. terrestris - queens 8-1 1 mm, (Brian 1954); drones 8.1 mm (Medler 1962); workers 6. 9-9. 3 mm (Prys-Jones and Corbet 1991) - are long enough to contact the stigma in almost all cases, whereas those of the only other common visitor to flowers of B. davidii in Tasmania, the Honey Bee Apis mellifera L. (5. 3-7. 2 mm, Ruttner et al. 1978), are probably less likely to contact the stigma. It is also possible that B. terrestris is harming Tasmanian native fauna and flora directly, because the claims that B. ter- restris prefers to forage on introduced species of plants and rarely invades native vegetation in Tasmania (Goodwin and Steiner 1997; Carruthers 2003; Griffiths 2004; Australian Hydroponic & Green- house Association 2005) are contrary to a large volume of peer-reviewed research (Hingston and McQuillan 1998a,b, 1999; Olsson et al. 2000; Hingston et al. 2002, 2004b, 2006; Hingston 2005, 2006a). The only study in Tasmania that considered the relative numbers of flowers of introduced and native plants in the study area while testing the foraging preferences of B. ter- restris found that ‘The numbers of bum- blebees seen foraging per 1000 flowers did not differ significantly between introduced plants and Australian native plants, and the preferred food sources of bumblebees included flowers of both introduced and Australian native species’ (Hingston 2005). Indeed, it was known 10 years ago that B. terrestris was foraging on a wide variety of native plants in several types of native vegetation near Hobart (Hingston and McQuillan 1998a). By five years ago, B. terrestris had been found in ‘all of Tasmania’s major (native) vegetation types, altitudes from sea level to 1260 m ASL, and the entire breadth of annual pre- cipitation in the state’ (Hingston et al. 2002). During the summer of 2004-2005 ‘More than 10 bumblebees were seen in one day at 153 locations in native vegeta- tion, including 42 locations within 10 National Parks and 38 locations within the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area’ (Hingston 2006a). Further evidence of the capacity of B. terrestris to invade Vol. 124 (2) 2007 113 Bioclivers it}’ symposium Tasmanian native vegetation and forage on native plants comes from the excavation of a nest in Maria Island National Park in May 2005. This colony produced at least 304 new queens and 939 workers/drones on a diet that appeared to comprise almost entirely native plants, because at least 95.3% of the pollen stores in the nest were from native plants, with 84.5% being from Eucalyptus (Hingston et al. 2006). This capacity for B. terrestris to invade native vegetation and forage on native plants in Tasmania means that it is a poten- tial competitor of a wide range of native animals. The foraging profile of B. ter- restris in native vegetation near Hobart ‘overlapped with those of all anthophilous insect families, all bee subgenera, and all species of nectarivorous birds which were encountered’ (Hingston and McQuillan 1998a). At this stage there has been little research into the competitive effects of B. terrestris on Tasmanian fauna, although there is some evidence of B. terrestris competing with native bees. In the pres- ence of B. terrestris, native megachilid bees visited fewer flowers per hour, fewer flowers per foraging bout, spent less time per flower, and spent less time foraging, which suggests that they were being dis- placed through resource competition (Hingston and McQuillan 1999). However, it is not known if this translates into lower reproductive output in the megachilid bees. Indeed, we almost certainly do not have a complete list of the species of bees that occur in Tasmania (Hingston 1998, 1999), let alone know what impact B. terrestris is having on them. Stronger evidence of com- petition from B. terrestris reducing repro- ductive output in a native animal comes from observations of B. terrestris foraging heavily on Eucalyptus globulus Labill. (Hingston 2002; Hingston et al. 2004a,b) and E. ovata Labill. (AB Hingston, SA Mallick and S Wotherspoon unpubl. data). Reduced food availability in these plants is likely to reduce reproductive success in the nationally endangered Swift Parrot Lathamus discolor (Shaw), because its breeding success is limited by the avail- ability of nectar and pollen of these two species of tree (Swift Parrot Recovery Team 2001; Gartrell 2002; AB Hingston 2002-2006 unpubl. data). Comparisons of the amounts of nectar in bagged and exposed flowers of E. ovata in the outer Hobart suburb of Mt Nelson revealed that B. terrestris sometimes has a marked effect on the amount of nectar available to Swift Parrots, particularly at low ambient tem- peratures. On a warm day (17 Nov. 2002, maximum temperature 28.2°C), B. ter- restris commenced foraging at 7.00 am and the amount of nectar in exposed flow- ers declined between 7.00 am and 8.00 am to less than half of that in bagged flowers. This decline can be attributed only to for- aging by B. terrestris because the only other common visitors to the flowers, Honey Bees, did not start foraging until 9.00 am (AB Hingston, SA Mallick and S Wotherspoon unpubl. data). On a day that was too cold and showery for Honey Bees to forage (6 Dec. 2002, maximum temper- ature 12.8° C), B. terrestris foraged from E. ovata continuously from 6.00 am until 6.00 pm and comprised 92% of all flower visitors on that day. During this time, the amounts of nectar in exposed flowers remained low while those inside bags increased markedly (AB Hingston, SA Mallick and S Wotherspoon unpubl. data). Hence, B. terrestris appeared to consume all of the diurnal nectar production on this day, which would clearly reduce the amount available to Swift Parrots. Evidence that reproduction in Swift Parrots was limited by food availability in this sit- uation comes from the fact that, although 120 Swift Parrots foraged predominantly on flowers of E. ovata throughout this breeding season at Mt Nelson, few chicks were fledged. Single fledglings were observed on only three occasions (4, 29 and 30 Dec. 2002), with the last of these observations being of a fledgling on the ground that was too weak to fly (AB Hingston 2002 unpubl. data). The capacity for B. terrestris to remove nectar from flowers at times when it is too cold for Honey Bees to forage (AB Hingston, SA Mallick and S Wotherspoon unpubl. data), suggests that B. terrestris could also reduce nectar availability to commercial Honey Bees. Indeed, Tasmanian apiarists appear to be very concerned about the threat that B. terrestris poses to their industry. 1 was invited to present a seminar at the Tasmanian Beekeepers’ Association 114 The Victorian Naturalist Biodiversity symposium AGM in 2005, and delegates were very worried about this threat. By invading native vegetation and forag- ing on many species of native plants in Tasmania, B. terrestris could also affect seed production in native plants. However, few studies have investigated this. Bombus terrestris appears to be able to pollinate Eucalyptus globulus, although it is not very effective at this. Single visits to flow- ers by B. terrestris resulted in less than 10% as many seeds as did single visits by Swift Parrots (Hingston et al. 2004b). Hence, in situations where more effective pollinators such as Swift Parrots are scarce, B. terrestris might increase seed production. However, if B. terrestris dis- places pollinators that were more effective, the net effect could be a decline in seed set. Bombus terrestris may also reduce seed production by displacing effective pollinators from flowers with tubular corollas that it robs of nectar. This involves B. terrestris biting holes through the bases of tubular corollas to access nec- tar, if the corolla tube is too long for B. ter- restris to reach nectar by probing through the corolla throat, thereby avoiding contact with anthers and stigmas and not pollinat- ing the flower. Bombus terrestris has been observed robbing the native species Epacris impressa Labill. (Hingston and McQuillan 1998b), Richea scoparia Hook, f. (Olsson et al. 2000), R. dracophylla R. Br., Billardiera longiflora Labill., and a Correa cultivar with tubular corollas in Tasmania (AB Hingston pers. obs.). Conclusions The introduction of B. terrestris to the Australian mainland for pollination of greenhouse crops poses a potential threat to Australia’s biodiversity because B. ter- restris is likely to escape from captivity and form feral populations in the wild across a large area, it forages on many species of native and introduced plants and has spread rapidly throughout all major native vegetation types in Tasmania, it is able to reduce the amounts of nectar avail- able to other animals by foraging at lower temperatures than other bees, and the effectiveness of B. terrestris as a pollinator sometimes differs from that of other animals. Acknowledgements I am grateful to Dr Ken Walker for helpful com- ments on the manuscript, and to Matthew Baker and Andrew Crane for information on the spread of weeds in Tasmania. References Australian Hydroponic & Greenhouse Association (2005) Proposal to import Bombus terrestris (Bt) onto mainland Australia for crop pollination purpos- es. Application to the Department of Environment and Heritage. Available at: http://www.deh.gov.au/ biodiversity/trade-use/invitecomment/bombus-ter- restris.html Bigsby H and Crequer J (1998) Conceptual model for the management of pest risk. In Proceedings of the Conference on Statistics in Ecology and Environmental Monitoring 2: Decision Making and Risk Assessment in Biology, pp 7-16. Eds DL Fletcher, L Kavalieris and BFJ Manly. (University of Otago Press for the Centre for Applications of Statistics and Mathematics, University of Otago: Dunedin) Brian AD (1954) The foraging of bumble bees. Part II. Bumble bees as pollinators. Bee World 35, 81-91. Carruthers S (2003) Plight of the bumblebee. Practical Hydroponics and Greenhouses 69, 24-30. Chittka L, Ings TC and Raine NE (2004) Chance and adaptation in the evolution of island bumblebee behaviour. Population Ecology 46, 243-25 1 . Connolly A, Wind A, Burns D, Kinsey M, Roberts J and Crane A (2004) Coastal weeds of Tasmania. (Coastcare: Tasmania) Cumber RA (1953) Life cycle of the humble bee. New Zealand Science Review, 92-98. Donovan BJ and Macfarlane RP (1984) Bees and polli- nation. In New Zealand Pest and Beneficial Insects pp 247-258. Ed RR Scott. (Lincoln University College of Agriculture: Canterbury) Estoup A, Solignac M, Cornuet J-M, Goudet J and Scholl A (1996) Genetic differentiation of continen- tal and island populations of Bombus terrestris (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in Europe. Molecular Ecology 5, 1 9-3 1 . Gartreli BD (2002) Nutritional and Physiological Constraints on Reproduction in the Endangered Swift Parrot, Lathamus discolor. (Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Tasmania) Goodwin S and Steiner M (1997) Introduction of Bombus terrestris for biological pollination of horti- cultural crops in Australia. A submission to AQIS and Environment Australia. Gosford I PM Services: Gosford. Available at: http://www.tmag.tas.gov.au/ workshop/append2.html Goodwin S and Steiner M ( 1 999) Background to a sub- mission to Environment Australia. In Workshop on Possible Introduction of Bumblebees (Bombus ter- restris) for Pollination of Horticultural Crops in Australia. Ed RE Buttermore. (Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery: Hobart) Available at: http://www.tmag.tas.gov.au/workshop/proceedings.ht ml Griffiths D (2004) A critical study on the introduction onto mainland Australia of the bumblebee Bombus terrestris for the commercial pollination of protected tomato and other crops. Practical Hydroponics and Greenhouses 77, 42-59. Hingston AB (1998) Temporal and spatial variation in abundances of native bee species on an altitudinal gradient in southern Tasmania. Australian Journal of Zoology 46, 497-507. Hingston AB (1999) Affinities between southern Tasmanian plants in native bee visitor profiles. Australian Journal of Zoology 47, 361-384. Vol. 124 (2) 2007 115 B iodi vers ity sympos ium Hingston AB (2002) Pollination ecology of Eucalyptus globulus ssp. globulus and Eucalyptus nitens (Myrtaceae). (Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Tasmania) Hingston AB (2005) Does the introduced bumblebee, Bombus terrestris (Apidae), prefer flowers of intro- duced or native plants in Australia? Australian Journal of Zoology 53, 29-34. Hingston AB (2006a) Is the exotic bumblebee Bombus terrestris really invading Tasmanian native vegeta- tion? Journal of Insect Conservation 10 , 289-293. Hingston AB (2006b) Is the introduced Bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) assisting the naturalization of Agapanthus praecox ssp. orient alis in Tasmania? Ecological Management and Restoration 7, 236-238. Hingston AB and McQuillan PB (1998a) Does the recently introduced bumblebee Bombus terrestris (Apidae) threaten Australian ecosystems? Australian Journal of Ecology > 23, 539-549. Hingston AB and McQuillan PB (1998b) Nectar rob- bing in Epacris impressa (Epacridaceae) by the recently introduced Bumblebee Bombus terrestris (Apidae) in Tasmania. The Victorian Naturalist 115 , 1 16-119. Hingston AB and McQuillan PB (1999) Displacement of Tasmanian native megachilid bees by the recently introduced bumblebee Bombus terrestris (Linnaeus, 1758) (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Australian Journal of Zoology > 47, 59-65. Hingston AB, Marsden-Smedley J, Driscoll DA, Corbett S, Fenton J, Anderson R, Plowman C, Mowling F, Jenkin M, Matsui K, Bonham KJ, Ilowski M, McQuillan PB, Yaxley B, Reid T, Storey D, Poole L, Mallick SA, Fitzgerald N, Kirkpatrick JB, Febey J, Harwood AG, Michaels KF, Russell MJ, Black PG, Emmerson L, Visoiu M, Morgan J, Breen S, Gates S, Bantich M and Desmarchelier JM (2002) Extent of invasion of Tasmanian native vegetation by the exotic bumblebee Bombus terrestris (Apoidea: Apidae). Austral Ecology 27, 162-172. Hingston AB, Potts BM and McQuillan PB (2004a) Pollination services provided by various size classes of flower visitors to Eucalyptus globulus ssp. globu- lus (Myrtaceae). Australian Journal of Botany 52, 353-369. Hingston AB, Potts BM and McQuillan PB (2004b) The swift parrot Lathamus discolor (Psittacidae), social bees (Apidae), and native insects as pollinators of Eucalyptus globulus ssp. globulus (Myrtaceae). Australian Journal of Botany 52, 37 1 -379. Hingston AB, Wapstra H and Wapstra A (2005) City meets Bush... A Guide to Our Local Bush/and. Mt Nelson, Tolmans Hill, Sandy Bay. (Mt Nelson and Lambert Gully Bushcare Groups: Hobart, Tasmania) Hingston AB, Herrmann W and Jordan GJ (2006) Reproductive success of a colony of the introduced bumblebee Bombus terrestris (L.) (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in a Tasmanian National Park. Australian Journal of Entomology’ 45, 137-141. Hopkins I (1914) History of the humble-bee in New Zealand: its introduction and results. New Zealand Department of Agriculture, Industries and Commerce Bulletin 46, 1-29. Ings TC, Ward NL and Chittka L (2006) Can commer- cially imported bumble bees out-compete their native conspecific? Journal of Applied Ecology > 43 , 940-948. Lefoe G and Backholer J (2002) Keep Victoria Bumblebee Free. (Dept of Natural Resources and Environment: Frankston) Available at: http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/ nreninf.nsf/LinkView/823E3E9A7566B26CCA256C40 00 1 AE6 A3 A5F56BB 1 473442224A256DEA00282268 Low T ( 1 999) Feral Future: the untold story of Australia’s exotic invaders. (Viking Penguin Books Australia Ltd: Victoria) Matsumara C, Yokoyama J and Washitani I (2004) Invasion status and potential ecological impacts of an invasive alien bumblebee, Bombus terrestris L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae) naturalized in southern Hokkaido, Japan. Global Environmental Research 8, 51-66. McClay A (2005) CLIMEX models to predict the potential naturalised range of the European bumble- bee Bombus terrestris (L.) in mainland Australia. Report prepared for the Australian Hydroponic and Greenhouse Association. July 2005. Available at: http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/trade- use/invitecomment/bombus-terrestris.html Medler JT (1962) Morphometric analyses of bumble- bee mouthparts. In Transactions of the XI International Congress of Entomology. Volume 2, pp 517-521. Eds II Strouhal and M Beier. (Organisationskomitee des XI. Internationalen Kongresses fur Entomologie: Wien) Mejias JA, Arroyo J and Ojeda F (2002) Reproductive ecology of Rhododendron ponticum (Ericaceae) in relict Mediterranean populations. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 140 , 297-3 1 1 . Olsson M, Shine R and Ba’K-Olsson E (2000) Lizards as a plant’s ‘hired help': letting pollinators in and seeds out. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 71, 191-202. O'Toole C and Raw A (1991) Bees of the World. (Blandford Publishing: London) Parker IM, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Goodell K, Wonham M, Kareiva PM, Williamson MH, Von Holle B, Moyle PB, Byers JE and Goldwasswer L (1999) Impact: toward a framework for understand- ing the ecological effects of invaders. Biological Invasions 1,3-19. Prys-Jones OE and Corbet SA (1991) Bumblebees. (The Richmond Publishing Co Ltd: Slough) Rozefelds ACF, Cave L, Morris DI and Buchanan AM (1999) The weed invasion in Tasmania since 1970. Australian Journal of Botany 47, 23-48. Ruttner F, Tassencourt L and Louveaux J (1978) Biometrical-statistical analysis of the geographic vari- ability of Apis mellifera L. Apidologie 9, 363-38 1 . Ruz L and Herrera R (2001) Preliminary observations on foraging activities of Bombus dahlbomii and Bombus terrestris (Hym: Apidae) on native and non- native vegetation in Chile. Acta Horticulturae 561 , 165-169. Semmens TD, Turner E and Buttermore R (1993) Bombus terrestris (L.) (Hymenoptera: Apidae) now established in Tasmania. Journal of the Australian Entomological Society > 32, 346. Stout JC, Kells AR and Goulson D (2002) Pollination of the invasive exotic shrub Lupinus arboreus (Fabaceae) by introduced bees in Tasmania. Biological Conservation 106,425-434. Stout JC, Parnell JAN, Arroyo J and Crowe TP (2006) Pollination ecology and seed production of Rhododendron ponticum in native and exotic habi- tats. Biodiversity and Conservation 15 , 755-777 . Swift Parrot Recovery Team (2001) Swift Parrot Recovery Plan. (Department of Primary industries, Water and Environment: Hobart) Thorp RW (2003) Bumble bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae): Commercial use and environmental con- cerns. In For Non-Native Crops, Whence Pollinators of the Future? Thomas Say Publications in Entomology: Symposium Proceedings of the Entomological Society of America, Chapter 2. Eds K Strickler and J Cane. (Entomological Society of America: Lanham, Maryland) Velthuis HHW and van Doom A (2006) A century of advances in bumblebee domestication and the eco- nomic and environmental aspects of its commercial- ization for pollination. Apidologie 37, 42 1 -45 1 . 116 The Victorian Naturalist Biodiversity symposium Webb CJ, Sykes WR and Garnock-Jones PJ (1988) Flora of New Zealand. Volume IV. Naturalised Pteridophytes, Gymnosperms, Dicotyledons. (Botany Division, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research: Christchurch) Whelan RJ, Brown CL and Farrier D (2004) The pre- cautionary principle: what is it and how might it be applied in threatened species conservation? In Threatened species legislation: is it just an Act? pp 49-58. Eds P Hutchings, D Lunney and C Dickman. (Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales: Mosman, NSW) Widmer A, Schmid-Hempel P, Estoup A and Scholl A (1998) Population genetic structure and colonization history of Bombus terrestris s.l. (Hymenoptera: Apidae) from the Canary Islands and Madeira. Heredity 81 , 563-572. Received 5 October 2006; accepted 18 December 2006 Hybridisation and invertebrate hosts - two neglected aspects of pest plants in south-eastern Australia Randall W Robinson Victoria University, Faculty of Health Engineering and Science, St Albans Campus, PO Box 14428, MCMC, Victoria, 8001. Abstract Many of the threats to our native flora, including habitat destruction, weed infestations, rabbits, are glaringly obvious. Hybridisation between native and ‘introduced’ species and introduced plant species acting as hosts for introduced pests are two threats that are generally overlooked by the casual observer. Examples are given of these two threats to our native plants. The implications of hybridisation and introduced plants acting as hosts on the long-term survival of our natural heritage are discussed. (The Victorian Naturalist, 124 (2), 2007, 117-122) Introduction The impact of introduced plants in Australia has gained national attention of late, being ranked as one of the highest risks to both economic and biodiversity values. The Co-operative Research Centre (CRC) for Australian Weed Management estimates that the cost of weeds to agricul- ture alone is in the vicinity of $4 billion per year (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003). This figure does not take into consideration the impact of weeds on natural ecosystems, the potential loss of biodiversity values or the impacts on human health, most notable on hay fever sufferers (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003). It is estimated that there are 2 700 natu- ralised plant species in Australia, many of which were deliberate introductions for agricultural or ornamental use (Muyt 2001). Three hundred and seventy of these species are now of critical importance Fig. 1. Pittosporum bicolor (Left), Pittosporum undulatum (Right) and hybrid (Middle). Vol. 124 (2) 2007 117 Biodiversity symposium (declared noxious in various states of Australia) and the focus of major control efforts (Thorp and Lynch 2000). In Victoria alone, there are over 580 taxa that are listed as major threats to either agricul- ture or the environment (DSE 2006). There is a range of national and state pro- grammes to address the problem of weeds, the most notable being the Weeds of National Significance Programme and the Weeds and Pests on Public Land Initiative. This latter initiative is funded to the value of $14 million over a period of four years (DSE 2006). Assessment of the impacts on biodiver- sity can be particularly hard to quantify, especially in an economic sense. However, the direct threats on particular plant, ani- mal and vegetation communities can be noted. The Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG), has the provi- sion for the listing of potentially threaten- ing processes (PTPs). It is interesting to note that of the 36 presently-listed PTPs, five directly implicate weed invasions: 1. Invasion of native vegetation by Blackberry Rubus fruticosus spp. agg. 2. Invasion of native vegetation by ‘envi- ronmental weeds’ 3. Introduction and spread of Spartina to Victorian estuarine environments 4. Spread of Pittosporum undulatum in areas outside its natural distribution 5. Degradation of native riparian vegeta- tion along Victorian rivers and streams. In action statements prepared under the FFG Act 1988, 1 1 vegetation communities and I 1 1 plant species are also considered directly threatened by weed invasions, with mention in each of these action state- ments of weed invasions (DSE 2006). Interestingly, it is not only plants that are threatened by weed invasions but a range of animals as well, most notably the Mountain Pygmy Possum Burramys parvus (DSE 2006). While such direct threats as those listed above are commonly cited and are actively dealt with, there is a range of other less obvi- ous and potentially more insidious impacts of pest plants that go unnoticed by many. Hybridisation Hybrid plants are the mainstay of our hor- ticultural and agricultural industries but what happens when these plants occur in the ‘wild’? Robin and Carr (1986) high- lighted the issue of hybridisation between indigenous and introduced species and pro- vided 19 examples from the genera Acacia , Coprosma , Epilobium, Grevillea , Nicotiana and Pittosporum. Twenty years later, hybridisation between indigenous and introduced plants still receives little attention but would appear to be an even greater risk than originally thought. A few examples may help to illustrate this point. Banyalla Pittosporum bicolor is a small native tree that occurs in damp forest in the higher rainfall areas of Victoria, generally at higher elevations (Otways, Central Highlands, Central and East Gippsland) New South Wales and Tasmania. Conversely, Sweet Pittosporum Pittosporum undulatum is a large under- storey tree of the lowlands originally con- fined to rainforest gullies of Victoria (South and East Gippsland), New South Wales and Queensland. The desirability of P. undulatum , for garden use, led to its introduction to gardens throughout Australia and indeed warmer parts of the world, soon after colonisation. The first record of hybridisation between these two species was not recognised as a hybrid when Morris and Curtis (1974) described the species Pittosporum undulatum var. emmettii from Tasmania. Since 1974, botanists have recognised the hybrid origin of this taxon and found it throughout the entire range of P. bicolor (Flora Information Service, DSE) (Fig. 1) Silver Wattle Acacia dealbata is one of the most widespread wattles in Victoria, New South Wales and Tasmania, generally occurring in damp to wet forest and along rivers and drainage lines. Cootamundra Wattle Acacia baileyana is a small tree, naturally occurring in a small, low rainfall area around the Cootamundra to the Wagga-Wagga area of southern inland NSW. Like P. undulatum , A. baileyana is a very popular garden plant and widely natu- ralised in south-eastern Australia and sev- eral countries throughout the world. Hybrids between A. baileyana and A. deal- bata were first noticed in the early 1980s (Flora Information Service, DSE). The hybrids between these two acacias have inherited characteristics from each parent 118 The Victorian Naturalist Biodiversity symposium Table 1 List of hybrids between indigenous and introduced/ introduced native species in South-east- ern Australia (Flora Information Service, DSE). Acacia longifolia subsp. longifolia x mucronata Acacia longifolia subsp. longifolia x oxycedrus Coprosma hirtella x robusta Coprosma quadrifida x repens Correa reftexa x glabra Epilobium billardiarianum x ciliatum Eucalyptus botryoides x camaldulensis Eucalyptus globulus subsp .globulus x subsp. pseudoglobulus Eucalyptus leucoxylon subsp. bellarinensis x subsp. megalocarpa Eucalyptus leucoxylon subsp. connata x subsp. megalocarpa Eucalyptus nitens x ovata Grevillea rosmarinifolia x various species and hybrids Hardenbergia comptoniana x violacea Hardenbergia ‘Happy Wanderer’ (comptoniana x violacea) x violacea Leptospermum laevigatum x mysinoides Melaleuca armillaris x ericifolia Nicotiana glauca x suaveolens (Nicotiana flindersiesis) Nicotiana glauca x velutina Pittosporum bicolor x undulatum Table 2. Native forb genera on which RLEM have been observed to feed. * = very sensitive Ajuga Kennedia Rutidosis* Arthropodium Leucochrysum Stylidium* Brachyscome* Lotus* Swainsona Craspedia* Microseris* Velleia Cullen Minuria Wahlenbergia* Glycine Podolepis Xerochrysum Goodenia Pterostylis that make them a cause for concern: from A. dealbata they have inherited the habit of extensive clonality (suckering), from A. baileyana drought tolerance (pers. obs.) These hybrids can be found growing in a wide range of habitats, from damp forests and rivers to dry hilltops, forming large vegetatively produced colonies tens of metres across (pers. obs.). These are just two of the increasing num- ber of species that are found to be hybri- dising in bushland areas throughout south- eastern Australia. What is the long-term impact of this type of ‘genetic pollution’ (Robin and Carr 1986) on our biological heritage? In all likelihood, several of our plants may be hybridised out of existence. In some cases, most notably Grevillea ros- marinifolia ‘Hurstbridge Form’, this already may have happened. Table 1 lists some examples of known hybrids. Weeds as harbour for invertebrate pests During studies carried out on the recruit- ment of grassland forbs in Victoria (Robinson 2005), it became evident that the introduced Red-legged Earth Mites Halotydeus destructor (RLEM) were feed- ing heavily on mature plants of many indigenous species. The feeding of the RLEM was causing considerable damage to the mature plants, in some cases weak- ening them to the point of death or in some cases preventing flowering. Investigations into RLEM revealed that they are a major problem in agricultural crops, reducing recruitment by up to 86% in Lucerne, Canola and various clovers (Liu and Ridsdill-Smith 2000). Red-legged Earth Mites were introduced into Australia from South Africa in 1914 (Liu and Ridsdill-Smith 2000). Interestingly, in their home country, they feed primarily on members of the Daisy family (Asteraceae) and Pea family (Fabaceae) (Annells and Ridsdill-Smith 1994). One of their host plants in South Africa is the now ubiquitous Capeweed Arctotheca calendula (Annells and Ridsdill-Smith 1994). The mites cause very little damage to Capeweed apart from the odd stippling of leaves and slightly larger dead patches on leaves where they have extracted the contents of individual Vol. 124 (2)2007 119 Biodiversity’ symposium Fig. 2. Acacia baileyana x dealbata on a dry hillside at Cottles Bridge, Victoria. cells in the leaf (pers. obs.). The distribu- tion of this pest is generally in south-east- ern and south-western Australia at eleva- tions below about 300 m. The distribution of this species coincides with the distribu- tion of lowland grasslands and grassy woodlands in southern Australia (Lui and Ridsdill-Smith 2000). A survey of plants susceptible to the pri- vations of RLEM carried out by the author revealed that it was not only the agricultur- al crops and indigenous natives that were sensitive. Some of our most common and widespread weeds are sensitive to RLEM or act as host to the species. Most of the ‘thistles’ including Spear Thistle Cirsium vulgare and Variegated Thistle Silybum marianum host large numbers of this pest but still seem able to survive and repro- duce (pers. obs.). Other species including several of the Chickweeds, particularly Stellaria media and Cerastium glomeratum. Shepherds Purse Capsella bursa-pastoris, and even the horticulturally desirable Cyclamen species are particularly sensitive hosts. Light infestations of the above-listed introduced weed species, which occur in even the most intact grasslands and grassy woodlands, would provide harbour for RLEM. The spread of RLEM-sensitive weeds and their dominance of some vege- tation types, coupled with infestations of RLEM, may be putting enormous pressure on our indigenous forb species. Observations by Neville Scarlett (pers. comm.) indicate that several of the Snout Mites, predatory mites that feed on RLEM, may be absent from ‘disturbed’ grasslands. Scarlett further observes that many of the indigenous species are sensitive to RLEM and the equally widespread Blue Oat Mite Penthaleus major. The importance of weed control, coupled with invertebrate control, may be one of the keys to allow the successful recruit- ment and conservation of our indigenous forb species. Table 2 contains a short list of some of the genera sensitive to attack by RLEM. Long-term implications The hybridisation of indigenous and intro- duced species and the hosting of inverte- brate pests by weeds could have long-term implications for the structure and floristics of plant populations. Alterations to the genetic make-up of populations, particular- ly the changes brought about by the mixing or homogenisation of formerly distinct 120 The Victorian Naturalist Biodiversity symposium Fig. 3. Acacia baileyana (Left), Acacia dealbaia (Right) and hybrid (Middle). Fig. 4. Red-legged Earth Mites on the underside of a leaf of Shepherds Purse Capsella bursa-pastoris. Necrotic areas are damage caused by RLEM. species, may bring about extinctions of some plants, even some of the most common species. The physical and ecological attributes of hybrid entities, particularly wider ecologi- cal amplitudes exhibited by the examples given above, extensive clonality and larger size may lead to replacement not only of the original species subject to hybridisation, but other species as well. In the case of Pittosporum bicolor x undulatum , the hybrid plant has most of the attributes of the introduced parent: larger size, denser canopy and more prolific flowering. This will lead to stronger competition with other plants, particularly for light and water. In the case of Acacia bai- leyana x dealbata, the strong suck- ering habit and much wider ecologi- cal tolerances of the hybrid will allow a wide range of vegetation communities to be invaded, with the consequent flow-on effects. Genetic ‘pollution’ is difficult to assess and not readily evident to the casual observer. Complete replace- ment of the original genetic entity with the hybrid may not be evident until there is a recruitment event. This may be analogous to the case of the Red-tailed Black Cockatoo where there would appear to be many individual animals. It is not until there is an analysis of the age Vol. 124 (2) 2007 121 Biodiversity’ symposium structure of the population that it is realised that there are no young birds and most of the older birds are beyond repro- ductive age. In the case of Grevillea ros- marinifolia , there would appear to be many plants until one notices that all of the seedlings are of hybrid origin and the older plants are dying or unthrifty. In the case of RLEM, predation of the seedlings of many of the grassland forbs may be creating a similar scenario to that described above. Many of the grassland forb species are long-lived perennials. Unfortunately, there is little evidence of recruitment of these species but the process of death and decay of the older plants con- tinues apace. One or a few episodic events, a particularly bad drought or intense fire, could eliminate older plants, leaving little or no ability for recruitment within the pop- ulation. Incremental and imperceptible loss becomes a sudden loss in these situations. To overcome the above problems there is a need for intervention and further investi- gation of the problem. To date, there is lit- tle information to inform management decisions, particularly the setting of priori- ties and understanding the genetics or influence of hybridisation on the genetic makeup of populations. Additionally, there is a need for investigations into the recruit- ment dynamics of plants and the impact of weed invasions on recruitment, either directly or indirectly, and their impacts on vegetation dynamics in general. Controlling weeds is only a part of the solution to achieve what is in fact our pri- mary goal: the attainment of high quality sustainable plant and animal communities. References Annells, A J and Ridsdill-Smith, T J (1994). Host plant species and carbohydrate supplements affecting rate of multiplication of redlegged earth mite. Experimental and Applied Acarology 18, 521-530. CRC for Australian Weed Management (2003). Killing us softly Australia’s green stalkers: a call to action on invasive plants and a way forward. CRC for Australian Weed Management, Glen Osmond, SA, Australia. DSE (2006) Interim guidelines and procedures for managing the environmental impacts of weeds on public lands in Victoria. State of Victoria, Victoria, Australia. DSE (2006) Draft Action Statements. http://www.dse. vic.gov.au/dse/nrenpa.nsf/FID/- 5C06524B60919FED4A2567C 1001 223BF?OpenDo cument. Viewed 22 August 2006. DSE (2006). Interim guidelines and procedures for managing the environmental impacts of weeds on public land in Victoria. The State of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia. Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (1988), Parliament of Victoria, Victoria, Australia. Flora Information Service, DSE Liu A and Ridsdill-Smith T J (2000) Feeding by Redlegged earth mite ( Halotydeus destructor ) on seedlings influences subsequent plant performance of different pulse crops. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 40, 715-723. Morris DI and Curtis W M (1974) Recent additions to the Tasmanian flora and some notes on nomencla- ture. Records of the Queen Victoria Museum 50, 1 -5 Muyt A (2001) Bush invaders of south-east Australia: a guide to the identification and control of environ- mental weeds found in south-east Australia. RG and FJ Richardson, Victoria, Australia. Robin J M and Carr G W (1986) Hybridisation between introduced and native plants in Victoria, Australia. In: Ecology of Biological Invasions: An Australian perspective. Ed. RH Groves and JJ Burdon (Australian Academy of Science: Canberra) Robinson R W (2005). Direct seeding in weed infested remnant grassland situations using native forbs. Plant Protection Quarterly 20, 84-89. Thorp J R and Lynch R (2000) The Determination of Weeds of National Significance. National Weeds Strategy Executive Committee, Launceston. Received 5 October 2006; accepted 25 January 2007 One Hundred and Twenty Years Ago THE LOCUST PLAGUE. A CORRESPONDENT at Murtoa, in the Wimmera district, forwards the following notes on this subject:- "They appear to fly in swarms, in size varying from a few yards wide to over a mile, and of great length, as sometimes the flight continues from half an hour to an hour without the slightest break. They fly about 20 to 25 feet above the ground, and seem to be able to sustain themselves on the wing for a long distance, and I fancy those which rest, except for feeding purposes, are younger and weaker than the company they are in. They evidently camp at night. 1 went out about half-past eight for the purpose of catching some; they were all on the move as soon as they heard me, but only used their legs, and did not attempt to fly. They did not do much damage to the wheat crops in this district; but the grass paddocks were cleared right off in a day or two, so that the farmers will be obliged to sell their sheep at once for what they will fetch, as they have no feed left” From The Victorian Naturalist 3 p. 131, February 1887 122 The Victorian Naturalist Contribution New combinations in the terrestrial orchid genera Caladenia R.Br. and Pterostylis R.Br. (Orchidaceae) for Victoria, Australia Gary N Backhouse Department of Sustainability and Environment, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Division, 8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne 3002 Email Gary.Backhouse@dse.vic.gov.au Abstract New combinations are made in the terrestrial orchid genera Caladenia R.Br. and Pterostylis R.Br. to accommodate new species described in genera not presently recognised in Victoria. (The Victorian Naturalist 124 (2), 2007, 123-124) Introduction There have been many changes to the tax- onomy of Australian orchids in recent years, at both the genus and species level. Over 90 new taxa were described in 2006 alone (Jones 2006a; 2006b; Jones and Clements 2006; Jones and Rouse 2006; Jones et al. 2006). Some of this taxonomy has been controversial, with significant dif- ferences between various authorities on the validity of proposed new genera. This has resulted in new segregate genera proposed in Caladenia R.Br. sens. lat. (Jones et al. 2001) and Pterostylis R.Br. sens. lat. (Jones and Clements 2002) being disputed (Hopper and Brown 2004a; Hopper and Brown 2004b) and, subsequently, not being widely recognised by botanical taxonomic authorities in Australia. Despite this situation, new species contin- ue to be described in genera presently not recognised by State herbaria. For instance, 23 new taxa were described in Arachnorchis (Jones 2006a) ( =Caladenia sensu Hopper and Brown 2004a) and 19 new taxa in Bunochilus (Jones 2006b) ( =Pterostylis sensu Hopper and Brown 2004b) in 2006. This is an unfortunate situation as, without a validly accepted scientific name, newly described species cannot clearly be accom- modated in official lists of a region’s flora. A validly accepted scientific name also makes the process of listing threatened species under State and Commonwealth bio- diversity conservation legislation easier, a necessary first step in implementing any required protection measures. New combinations are made in Caladenia R.Br. (from Arachnorchis D.L. Jones & M.A. Clem.) and Pterostylis R.Br. (from Bunochilus D.L. Jones & M.A. Clem.) for Vol. 124 (2) 2007 those taxa occurring in Victoria. These combinations are made so a valid name can be included in the census of vascular plants of Victoria maintained by the National Herbarium of Victoria, and are central to the nomenclature adopted by botanists and legislative authorities in this State. Acknowledgements 1 am grateful to David L Jones, CSIRO Centre Plant Biodiversity Research, ACT, for discus- sions on the rationale for making these new combinations, and Neville Walsh, National Herbarium of Victoria, for comments and checking the new combinations. References Hopper S and Brown A (2004a) Robert Brown’s Caladenia revisited, including a revision of its sister genera Cyanicula, Ericksonella and Pheladenia Caladeniinae : Orchidaceae. Australian Systematic Botany 17, 171-240. Hopper S and Brown A (2004b) Robert Brown’s Caladenia and Pterostylis revisited. The Orchadian 6. 184-186. Jones D (2006a) Miscellaneous new species of Australian Orchidaceae. Australian Orchid Research 5, 45-111. Jones D (2006b) Towards a revision of Bunochilus D.L.Jones & M.A. Clem. Australian Orchid Research 5, 112-142. Jones D and Clements M (2002) A new classification of Pterostylis R.Br. (Orchidaceae). Australian Orchid Research 4. 64-124. Jones D and Clements M (2006) Fourteen new taxa of Orchidaceae from northern and eastern Australia and two new combinations from New Guinea. Australian Orchid Research 5, 2-33. Jones D and Rouse D (2006) Fourteen new species of Prasophyllum from eastern Australia. Australian Orchid Research 5, 143-168. Jones D, Clements M, Sharin I and Mackenzie A (2001) A new classification of Caladenia R.Br. (Orchidaceae). The Orchadian 13, 389-419. Jones D, Clements M and Sharm t (2006) Towards a revision oi the Thelych iton speciosus group. Australian Orchid Research 5, 34-44. 123 Contribution New combinations Caladenia ampla (D.L. Jones) G.N. Backh., comb. nov. Basionym: Arachnorchis ampla D.L. Jones, Australian Orchid Research 5: 50 (2006) Caladenia ancylosa (D.L. Jones) G.N. Backh., comb. nov. Basionym: Arachnorchis ancylosa D.L. Jones, Australian Orchid Research 5:51 (2006) Caladenia clavescens (D.L. Jones) G.N. Backh., comb. nov. Basionym: Arachnorchis clavescens D.L. Jones, Australian Orchid Research 5: 53 (2006) Caladenia cremna (D.L. Jones) G.N. Backh., comb. nov. Basionym: Arachnorchis cremna D.L. Jones, Australian Orchid Research 5: 53 (2006) Caladenia cretacea (D.L. Jones) G.N. Backh., comb. nov. Basionym: Arachnorchis cretacea D.L. Jones, Australian Orchid Research 5: 58 (2006) Caladenia douglasiorum (D.L. Jones) G.N. Backh., comb. nov. Basionym: Arachnorchis douglasiorum D.L. Jones, Australian Orchid Research 5: 62 (2006) Caladenia grampiana (D.L. Jones) G.N. Backh., comb. nov. Basionym: Arachnorchis grampiana D.L. Jones, Australian Orchid Research 5' 62 (2006) Caladenia oreophila (D.L. Jones) G.N. Backh., comb. nov. Basionym: Arachnorchis oreophila D.L. Jones, Australian Orchid Research 5: 55 (2006) Caladenia osmera (D.L. Jones) G.N. Backh., comb. nov. Basionym: Arachnorchis osmera D.L. Jones, Australian Orchid Research 5: 56 (2006) Caladenia peisleyi (D.L. Jones) G.N. Backh., comb. nov. Basionym: Arachnorchis peisleyi D.L. Jones, Australian Orchid Research 5: 57 (2006) Pterostylis crassa (D.L. Jones) G.N. Backh., comb. nov. Basionym: Bunochilus crassus D.L. Jones, Australian Orchid Research 5: 127 (2006) Pterostylis diminuta (D.L. Jones) G.N. Backh., comb. nov. Basionym: Bunochilus diminutus D.L. Jones, Australian Orchid Research 5: 120 (2006) Pterostylis loganii (D.L. Jones) G.N. Backh., comb. nov. Basionym: Bunochilus loganii D.L. Jones, Australian Orchid Research 5: 1 19 (2006) Pterostylis macilenta (D.L. Jones) G.N. Backh., comb. nov. Basionym: Bunochilus macilentus D.L. Jones, Australian Orchid Research 5: 1 17 (2006) Pterostylis montana (D.L. Jones) G.N. Backh., comb. nov. Basionym: Bunochilus montanus D.L. Jones, Australian Orchid Research 5: 1 18 (2006) Pterostylis prasina (D.L. Jones) G.N. Backh., comb. nov. Basionym: Bunochilus prasinus D.L. Jones, Australian Orchid Research 5: 133 (2006) Received 1 February 2007; accepted 12 April 2007 124 The Victorian Naturalist Book Reviews Forest Trees of Australia by D Boland and eight other authors Publisher: CSIRO Publishing, 2006 (Fifth Edition). 768 pages, Hardback, 81 colour photographs, hundreds of black and white photographs. ISBN 0643069690. RRP $125.00 Forest Trees of Australia first came on the botanical scene just fifty years ago. It was a relatively slim book covering just 67 species for the whole of Australia — all eucalypts, and even then, little more than a tenth of the eucalypt species count. Its title, and the orig- inating authority (Forestry and Timber Bureau, Canberra), indicate its primary cri- teria for species selection, namely trees of economic value for their timber. It was first published in 1957, and I owned an early copy, now long since vanished. In spite of its limited coverage for our area, it used a design style which I had always wanted in books of this type — a consistent treatment of every species with logical, sys- tematic, concise descriptions, and clear, comprehensive illustrations, all on one page or spread, making it easy to compare species. It also had another much-longed-for fea- ture — distribution maps. It was this book that inspired me to use a similar style of presentation, albeit simpler, in the first publication of Trees of Victoria in 1966. Over subsequent editions, the number and diversity of genera and species steadily grew, as did the weight and price of the book, but the well-proven style of presenta- tion has changed little. This 5th edition gives its criteria for species inclusion as ‘important to the tim- ber industry, conspicuous in the landscape, of environmental value, or of ornamental interest’. In its 768 pages, it describes 178 eucalypts and 121 non-eucalypts (pines, sheoaks, figs, wattles, melaleucas, banksias, palms and many others). The descriptions for every species incor- porate comprehensive environmental information, associates, related species and taxonomic background as well as detailed description of all plant parts. The photographs clearly illustrate all the critical plant parts and are in black and FOREST TREES OF AUSTRALIA FIFTH EDITION white. However, there are also about 80 colour plates of forest types and bark char- acteristics in the front of the book, preceding a 33-page introduction covering geology, summaries of the main tree families, and environmental and distribution factors. The book concludes with a good glossary sup- ported by line illustrations. What makes the 5th edition different from the 4th ( 1 984)? Apart from the inclu- sion of 72 additional species treatments (including the unique and much publicised Wollemi Pine), there are many new pho- tographs (including scanning electron micrographs), updated taxonomy, new supporting chapters, and revised distribu- tion maps. The latter are ‘spotted’ from records, but at the scale of the maps can give only a broad picture compared with, say, Flora of Victoria. Updating of taxonomy is an ongoing issue in any botanical publication, espe- cially as some name changes come down to an individual botanist’s opinion. For example, while most authorities have final- ly accepted Corymbia as a genus separate from Eucalyptus in the same way as Angophora, this book does not adopt this change (but does give Corymbia in syn- onymy). Hence the ‘Corymbia confusion’ continues! My recommendation? There is no doubt that this is an accurate, reliable and well- presented book. Whether one would want Vol. 124 (2) 2007 125 Book Reviews to pay the $125 depends on where one’s interest in trees lies. From a Victorian viewpoint, most of the additional species are in remote parts of Australia, some with very restricted natural distribution; I could- n't see any extra species for the Victorian area. On the other hand, for the species it does treat, this book gives more informa- tion on environmental factors and timber characteristics than any other, and if this is interesting or important to the reader, the book is certainly recommended. Leon Costermans 1/6 St Johns A vc Frankston, Victoria 3199 Wild Neighbours: The humane approach to living with wildlife by lan Temby; illustrated by Elisabeth Bastian Publisher; Citrus Press, Broadway, NSW, 2005. 250 pages. Paperback ISBN 0975102354. RRP $36.00 The humane approach to living with wildlife IAN TEMBY Have you ever had to deal with problem faunal species sharing your house and backyard? This book has all the answers for dealing with a complete range of would-be sharers from bandicoots to wom- bats and butcherbirds to wattlebirds. Even spiders rate a chapter in this comprehen- sive coverage of the creatures of our neighbourhoods. Part 1 is a general coverage with sections on conflict resolution, to feed or not to feed, health issues, and tools and tactics to be used. Part 2 expands this. Each species or species group is assigned a chapter, which provides descriptions and back- ground information on the species, their habitats and diets and their reproductive strategies. The problems that arise and suggestions for resolving these problems are discussed under the headings Tolerance, Exclusion, Repellents and Live Trapping. Tolerance is always the pre- ferred option, whilst live trapping is not recommended except in extreme cases, and only where permitted by government agency or licensed operator. Temby is sympathetic to wildlife, partic- ularly species that may not be appreciated by humans, such as crows and ravens which are noted for their intelligence and problem-solving ability, or spiders, which ‘can be considered a chemical free pest control service’ and snakes, which are often senselessly killed regardless of their importance to the ecosystem. Often a species, such as Masked Lapwing, is admired for its successful adaptation to the urban environment. Introduced species are also included, and while we may deplore their spread and dis- placement of our native species, they still add interest to a bland structured streetscape. This is a very informative and useful book peppered with the author’s humourous comments and anecdotal sto- ries of interactions with wildlife. Overall, the emphasis is on how lucky we are to have native wildlife that is willing to share our habitat with us. Anne Morton 10 Rupicola Crt Rowville Vic 3178 126 The Victorian Naturalist Book Reviews CSIRO list of Australian vertebrates: a reference with conservation status. Second edition. by Mark Clayton, John C Wombey, Ian J Mason, R Terry Chesser and Alice Wells Publisher: CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, 2006. 162 pages, paperback. ISBN 0643090754. RRP $59.95 To paraphrase the Bard: What’s in a name? That which we call an Orange- bellied Parrot would be as threatened by any other name. That’s not to say, of course that names are unimportant, and this is particularly the case with scientific names. And as with all areas of scientific study there is always a bit of movement going on. Hence there is a regular need to update the names and groupings of verte- brates. This book is the second edition of a work that was originally published in 1998. As the authors say (p. 1), ‘numerous changes in intervening years’ in the taxonomy and nomenclature of Australian vertebrates make a new edition timely. Most of those changes are reflected in this new edition, although some revisions in the higher level systematics of Australian vertebrates are not included. Having said as much, the authors do not indicate either what those changes were or why they haven’t been included. However, this edition does provide information not presented in its predecessor. This includes detail of all currently recognised and named subspecies; distributional informa- tion for species found in all Commonwealth territories (e.g. Norfolk Island and Australian Antarctic Territory); more complete nomenclatural data for all species; and a supplementary table of vagrant and accidental mammal records. The structure of the book is straightfor- ward and easy to follow. It begins with an introductory section of general information, wherein are presented such matters as the rationale for the book, an explanation of the types of information the work contains, and details of the sources of background data upon which the core of the book is based. In the four sections that follow this intro- duction, the complete range of vertebrate animals is tabulated under general headings of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mam- mals. Within each of these sections, species are grouped together by family. These CSIRO LIST OF AUSTRALIAN VERTEBRATES A REFERENCE WITH CONSERVATION STATUS Mark Clayton | lohn C. Wombey | Ian |. Mason | R. Terry Chesser | Alice Wells tables constitute the core of the book, with the conservation status of each animal indi- cated for all states and territories, by means of codes positioned in columns adjacent to the species’ names. These four sections are followed by another new feature in this edi- tion, an Appendix that provides details of all newly described and accepted taxa. Finally, all animals are indexed twice - separately by both common and scientific names, grouped in the same order as in the body of the book. By its nature, this is not a book that one would pick up for a spot of light reading. However, it will be an invaluable reference tool for both professionals and interested amateurs in a wide range of contexts dealing with vertebrates in natural environments. The review copy of Australian verte- brates can be found henceforth within the Reference section of the FNCV Library, where it will no doubt be sought regularly by the Editors of The Victorian Naturalist. Gary Presland School of Social and Environmental Enquiry The University of Melbourne, 3010 Vol. 124 (2) 2007 127 s /