Posted by: Jason Berrigan                                                                           19/04/08  1.55 pm

An interesting take on a horticultoral variation or occurrence of a threatened plant species and its significance is genetic integrity. I vaguely recall something on the conservation of genetic integrity is in the TSCA (hence the emphasis on species occurring at the limits of their range, etc).

Given the aim of conservation is of the typical genome of a species, this (assumedly) would not include genetic variability which is not typical of the species but is in fact either an artificially selected (ie via breeding selection over successive generations - like breeding dogs from wolves, etc) or (god forbid) an artificially induced result (ie genetic manipulation) - including hybridisation. Hence you could make a point of arguing that protection and potential dispersal of this horticultoral variety could on one hand be a threat rather than a boon to conservation of this species eg genes the horticultural variety may contain may make the species less fit to survive in its natural habitat, hence pose a threat to its long term recovery.

I once had the unusual dilemma of a Squirrel Glider population in a largely isolated remnant west of Kempsey. This occurrence was unusual as the animals' morphometrics were all over the place - in fact the first animals I processed appeared to be very large Sugar Gliders (ie face and ears typical morphometrics, tail as long as a Squirrel but not fluffy), and subsquent animals a mixture of both. I eventually collected a sample which went from typical Sugars to typical Squirrels. Discussions with the Museum, Barbera Triggs and Hans Brunner, and some local research which found a wildlife carer lived in the area (and had charge of both species, and apparently released animals in my area) suggested I may have had some hybrids on my hands.

There was some discussion about the actual signficance of these animals (ie do they actually qualify as a threatened species, or be considered a threat) which led to naught, and apart from the population being retained via setting aside habitat as part of that DA, nothing was done (other than perhaps some hand slapping of the carer judging by an angry anonymous phone call I recieved at the time). I have since found these unusual animals in nearby areas, as have at least one other consultant who was as baffled as I was. I have also recorded Squirrels of similar diversity (almost like dwarfs) west of Port Macquarie co-living with Sugars, but I suspect habitat quality may have been a factor there.

Still, the Kempsey situation and your dwarf lilly pilly pose an interesting paradox in regard to what is the significance of hybrids and horticultural varieties to the genetic conservation of threatened species, and the appropriate means to deal with them. A similar issue perhaps is the lack of Chlamydia in the Kangaroo Koala populations, and if these animals could be used to establish populations on the mainland. All of these issues I think  will take some significant mind bending to get around (LOL), and in most cases, I dont think will be resolved till it comes to the crunch ie Endangered.

Hi Jason,

The job is within Gosford LGA so most definitely within its natural distribution. As stated all these trees have been planted and at least 20 appear to be the cultivated dwarf version of the species.

Hi Kristan, what LGA is yr job in (mainly curious as to whether you are within the actual natural distribution of the subject plant).

I have had a scenario lately where a DA has been lodge on a parcel of land that has a mosaic of endemic and non-endemic species planted of which include a large number Syzygium paniculatum (~30 plants). These plants have been planted in obvious landscaped lines with irrigation lines occurring beneath them. A number of these trees appear to be the cultivated dwarf version and council are requiring a part 5A assessment for these trees removal.

I am have provided a 7 part test for the proposal which involves the removal of the majority of these planted trees and it will be interesting to see how council determine this matter

Another would be Macadamia tetraphylla. Widely cultivated commercially (assumedly without a license under the TSCA) and quite able to establish via seed fall outside its natural range. Consider a situation where the seeds roll or wash down a hill, and establish a population in the native forest (see it happen). A DA for the land requires the removal of the plantation and the natural habitat. Quite a paradox.

We also have E. nicholli all over town, and these are a highly prefered Koala species. We recommend their retention where used by Koalas, and sometimes their planting as Koalas who use this species have a developed dependance on them (apparently some will eat nothing else). Saying that, we have never bothered to do 7pt tests, and have never been questioned on it. As Mark says - these plants are outside the wild situation and arent contributing to a local gene pool. You can also buy the seeds for the Necklace Pod off Ebay - they are widely planted in Qld. Technically you need a permit under the TSCA to propagate a threatened species I recall (or at least to collect seeds, etc).

Also, what happens if you're removing the local population? an SIS for planted trees? I'd pay to see that in court.

on the serious side tho - the case is different when soil has been transferred (ie as fill) and the plants have propagated from the seedbank, etc from within. However, could be a tricky one for a fauna species translocated by accident (eg wildlife carer releases) to habitat where they've not occurred previously...

I think the DECC person was taking the Act a bit too literal. Perhaps I should have done an 8pt test for the colony of Brush-Tailed Rock Wallabies when they re-developed the local wildlife park into a residential estate...

Mark and DEC are correct. Strictly, technically, legally, the removal of even a Cocos Palm requires a Section 5a assessment as these palms provide Threatened species habitat ie Foraging rersources for Grey-headed Flying Foxes or alternatively a Sect 91 licence is required to Harm habitat under the act (assuming foraging resources =habitat). In reality i have not come across a Council that actually requires sect 5A's for Coco's palm removal. I guess the answer is that the detail of the Sect 5A has to be appropriate for the situation, a simple statement that "as the species is a landscape planting the removal of the specimen cannot be considered signficant" would suffice for most questions of the Sect 5A.

We recently conducted a survey in the Bankstown LGA where Eucalyptus nicholii and Eucalyptus scoparia were located on a site proposed for development. They were both planted, and we didn't think they required assessment under Section 5a. I called DECC to get their opinion and they said regardless of where the plant was, or how it got there, they were both still listed under the Act as threatened and as such, the normal process of assessment applied. We conducted the 7-part tests as per the recommendation.

It was also interesting to note that Eucalyptus nicholii is listed under the Bankstown Councils TPO as a tree which can be removed without consent.