Indigenotes - Indigenous Flora and Fauna Association

September 2012 Volume 23 Three
The INDIGENOTES VOLUME wonders 23 NUMBER 3 of belly botany PAGE 6

Presidents letter
Places you love
A
new campaign urges us to make our voice heard for biodiversity
conservation. The Places You Love campaign is being run by an alliance of
conservation groups. It aims to counter a corporate-led attack on Australia’s
conservation laws.
At the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting of state and
federal governments earlier this year, business had special access through the
COAG ‘Business Advisory Forum’. This unprecedented access was granted to
no other sector of Australian civil society. The business lobbies’ clamour to slash
environmental protection found a willing ear among many governments. They
were quick to adopt the belittling label ‘green tape’ to describe environmental
laws. On 13 April 2012, COAG announced its intention to ‘streamline’ both
federal and state environmental laws across Australia with a particular emphasis
on environmental assessment processes. This effectively hands state and territory
governments the power to assess and approve projects in their state, removing
the federal government’s current and very important oversight role. In particular,
there is an intention to nobble the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) which has seriously advanced conservation
in this country over the last decade.
Imperfect as they are, our environmental laws have provided brakes to our
nation’s hurtling race to destroy nature. I have witnessed many instances where
Federal laws have had more ‘teeth’ than State legislation and have been critical
to conservation victories. The Places You Love campaign is providing a means to
collectively express our very clear support for these laws. The IFFA committee
supports the aims of the conservation group alliance and this initiative.
I urge members to become informed, add your voice and spread the word about
this campaign. At the website below you can upload photos of places you want to
protect and find templates for letters to send to your local members and the PM.
Don’t be silent, nature needs your voice.
http://placesyoulove.org/
IFFA & SPIFFA
OUTING
Cranbourne
Botanic Gardens
27th October 11am
Join our Southern Peninsula IFFA brethren
for a heathland walk and lunch at
Cranbourne Botanic Gardens.
Meet at 11am in the Stringybark Picnic
Area (Melways map 133K12) for a walk
through the heathlands at the site.
We will lunch at around 1pm.
Those who are interested can then either
do a walk in another part of the
heathland or go to the formal part of the
gardens for the Australian Garden walk at
around 2pm.”
Bookings are not required, but inquiries
can be made to Fam Charko on
0402519124, or bookings@iffa.org.au.
IFFA’s trip to Nardoo Hills was a great
success, and will be written up for the
next issue of Indigenotes.
Review
Life in a gall. The biology and ecology of insects that live in plant galls.
Rosalind Blanche. CSIRO Publishing 2012, 70 pages
When walking in the bush with others, I am frequently asked about the lumps,
bumps and miniature sculptures that adorn our gums and wattles and other plants.
Up till now, I have only been able to answer questions in general terms, aware I was
missing out on a world of stories hidden within these galls. In my garden, one kind
of Gall-wasp helps by pollinating delicious figs while the Citrus Gall Wasp deprives
me of lemons
Rosalind Blanche’s slender book is a perfect introduction to this fascinating
world. The range of different invertebrates (as well as fungi, viruses,
nematode worms and others) that creates galls was a revelation.
Examples of the diverse life cycles and ecologies inside these structures
are efficiently related in the easy to understand and copiously illustrated
text. I was particularly struck by the social life of gall-forming thrips
which form miniature hives
The galls’ effect on native plants used in commerce was another
interesting story – with studies on the local ecology of galls used to
design biological control program overseas. Blanche completes this book
with a practical chapter on how you can study galls for yourself and the
inspiring story of a Canberra primary School project that contributed to
the discovery and naming of a wasp with a unique gall lifecycle.
I heartily recommend this book to both the beginner and experienced
amateur naturalist alike, it shows there is a whole realm of intriguing
complexity waiting to be found in any bushland or backyard.
Reviewed by Brian Bainbridge.
2
INDIGENOUS FLORA AND FAUNA ASSOCIATION INC

Dingy Swallowtail or
Small Citrus Butterfly,
Papilio anactus.
Mick Connolly
utterflies and habitat restoration
What sets a lepidopteran heart aflutter? What sort of grand design
builds into butterfly habitat? The simple planting of lomandra is not
enough, explains Ian Faithfull
John Reid’s article in Indigenotes 23:2 concentrates on
the particular food plants of butterfly species, and advocates
their establishment as a method of conserving and restoring
butterfly populations. Although such plantings are a fundamental
requirement, this is an oversimplified approach since butterflies,
like other animals, require much more than food.
Yen (2011 p. 205) summarised the situation this way: “In
most cases, there is an emphasis on recreating pre-European
settlement habitats .. . and [this] often only involves planting
known food plants, especially of butterflies, in the hope that
they will be colonised.”
Historical records
Firstly, as Braby (1989) remarked, there were at that time
few studies that provided a reasonably complete picture of the
butterfly fauna of any specific region or habitat in Victoria. Little
has subsequently changed. Published historical information on
the Melbourne fauna is scarce and consists mostly of isolated
records of species of particular interest because of their rarity,
abundance, unseasonal occurrence, etc. There are few published
accounts of the faunas in particular areas of Melbourne. Examples
include the fauna of LaTrobe University (Braby 1989), Yarra
Bend (Faithfull 1992) and Wattle Park, Burwood (Braby and
Berg 1987 1989, Faithfull 1989 1993). Accounts may appear in
local newsletters, ecological survey reports etc. but these tend to
be even less accessible.
The Dunn and Dunn (2006) butterfly database has good
Victorian coverage and enables compilation of faunas for
particular areas based on actual distribution point records,
however information is not available for many localities in
the Melbourne area. In contrast, the maps in Braby (2000)
generally extrapolate the range of a species to cover areas
between known distribution points and thus may be grossly
misleading if used to assemble a species list for a particular
locality. The Atlas of Victorian Wildlife and Museum of
Victoria databases also contain butterfly records and should be
consulted if seeking to compile local area information. Lack of
adequate historical documentation of the local fauna means the
effects of restoration efforts cannot be objectively assessed and
there appears to be little evidence that restoration plantings
or butterfly gardening in the Melbourne region have had any
butterfly conservation benefits. Tons of Lomandra longifolia
have been planted, but I am floundering to come up with any
documentation of its utilisation.
Flavours in favour
Secondly, current understandings of known food plants of
a butterfly species are incomplete and knowledge continues to
expand. According to Common and Waterhouse (1981) the
food plants of the Australian Admiral, Vanessa itea, on mainland
Australia were species of Urtica (stinging nettles), but the food
plant list now includes two Parietaria species (Braby 2000).
INDIGENOTES VOLUME 23 NUMBER 3 3

Butterflies and habitat restoration Continued from page 3
It may well be the plant species assumed to be a host in
a particular area is not a host, and in some cases the actual
favoured host may await discovery. In many cases with
Melbourne butterflies, the actual hosts are exotic species,
e.g. Ehrharta erecta is commonly utilised by the Common
Brown, Heteronympha merope, in Melbourne (Braby
2000). Melbourne is probably very similar to the City of
Davis, California, where non-indigenous food plants, both
cultivated and naturalised are very important for the diverse,
highly valued butterfly fauna, so much so the objectives of
butterfly conservationists conflict with those of plant-focused
restorationists and weed controllers (Shapiro 2002).
Habitat and microhabitat
Thirdly, as any entomologist will attest, patches of
apparently suitable food plants are usually not inhabited. The
precise factors that make for good habitat are generally poorly
known. Breeding populations may shift from habitat patch
to habitat patch, or remain in one
habitat patch for many years without
neighbouring patches being colonised.
Many other factors beside the
presence of the food plant determine
the suitability of the habitat for a
particular butterfly species. Many of
the blues (Lycaenidae) have symbiotic
relationships with ants, which protect and guard larvae and
pupae. Eggs may not be laid if ants of the appropriate taxa
are not present, or if laid, the larvae may be exterminated by
predators without ants to guard them.
Suitable temperatures (often measured as accumulated
‘degree-days’) are very important for the development of
the juvenile stages of Lepidoptera. In particular the extent
to which the plants are exposed to sunlight has differential
importance for different species.
Food plants in shaded positions at a particular time of day
in a particular season may never be colonised because the
fertilised adult female won’t fly there. The larval webs of Delias
harpalyce are almost always on the sunny side of a mistletoe
clump, and Ogyris species pupate under the bark on the sunny
side of a tree (K. Dunn, pers. comm.), so mistletoes in shaded
areas are less likely to be successfully utilised.
With other butterfly species, like the grass-feeding
Heteronympha merope, shade of some type appears to be
necessary: open grasslands are just not suitable for it.
Moisture conditions are also important, both for plant
growth, since larvae usually require fresh, palatable food during
their development, and because excessive humidity or dryness
will have adverse effects on survival of juvenile stages.
Food plants may be rejected if their foliage contains
inadequate levels of essential nutrients, or particular
biochemical constituents that might be characteristic of
varieties of a plant species that are oviposition deterrents or
toxic to larvae. Adult butterflies require nectar, and often feed
on other liquids such as fluids in puddles, dung, tree sap,
etc. If suitable adult food and watering requirements are not
present in the vicinity of a planting then colonisation will be
unlikely.
Adult butterflies utilise flight spaces and perches that tend to
be species specific. For example, a male butterfly may require a
suitable open area in a particular height range to patrol if it is
to remain in the area.
Many butterflies require areas of bare ground on which to
bask, so over-thorough revegetation that fills all the spaces can
be detrimental to them.
The importance of microhabitats is generally poorly
understood, as are a range of other habitat factors. Many
skipper butterflies (Hesperiidae), for example, oviposit not
on the host itself but on leaf litter near the food plant (Braby
2000), so absence of such litter might preclude establishment.
Some species often pupate off the food plant, e.g. under the
bark of nearby trees, so restoration efforts must take this into
consideration.
Factors such as chemical pollution, artificial lights and
anthropic noise levels may well have an impact. Disruptive
wind patterns such as those produced by vehicle traffic along
major roads possibly disrupt butterflies sufficiently to preclude
their establishment in roadside plantings.
Patches of apparently suitable food plants are usually not
inhabited . . . Breeding populations may shift from habitat
patch to habitat patch, or remain in one habitat patch for
many years without neighbouring patches being colonised.
The role of predators and parasites in the limitation of
butterfly populations is poorly understood, but it seems likely
that in some areas the presence of a particular predator (e.g.
an exotic ant species) could prejudice the survival of juvenile
butterfly populations.
Recolonisation and reintroduction
Finally, the food plants must be found by adult female
butterflies in order to be colonised. Since many species
disperse poorly, that may never happen once a butterfly species
has disappeared from an area.
What constitutes a suitable dispersal corridor for nonmigrant
butterflies has generally never been established for
Victorian species. Adults of the Swordgrass Brown, Tisiphone
abeona, seem rarely to venture far into open areas and may
require continuous canopy at least 2 m high with plenty of
flight space beneath. Reintroductions of butterflies (this is
usually effective only with juvenile stages) may be required, but
such translocations have various potential problems, similar to
those with which most readers will be familiar in the context
of plants, such as the risk of genetic pollution if provenances
are not understood, and the choice of an unsuitable ecotype
for introduction.
Monitoring and documentation
So there is a need to document and publish local area
butterfly species lists and known local food plants, with
details of the condition of the vegetation during the period of
observations. This at least will enable some future assessment
of the success of plantings in regard to butterfly diversity.
Where revegetation programs are believed to have been
successful at providing habitat for butterflies this information
needs to be recorded and compiled. Casual records of
single or a few species will be difficult to publish but could
be submitted to the Atlas of Victorian Wildlife or may be
4
INDIGENOUS FLORA AND FAUNA ASSOCIATION INC

Review
Intelligent Tinkering
Bridging the gap between Science and Practice
Robert J. Cabin
Society for Ecological Restoration
Island Press, Washington
Distributed in Australia by CSIRO Publishing
‘Intelligent tinkering’ was the term used by the famous
ecologist, Aldo Leopold, over sixty years ago to describe his
explorations into restoration of degraded prairie land. The
casual approach this term suggests is still the dominant
mode of knowledge-building among ecological restoration
practitioners.
Cabin, a trained ecologist, explains how scientists are often
frustrated by practitioner’s perceived reluctance to employ formal
scientific processes. Cabin has also experienced practitioner’s
disgust at collaborations with scientists that result in findings they
regard as obvious or irrelevant.
In this thought-provoking book, Cabin has attempted to unravel
the issues that underlie this problem. These range from the
self-evident to deep philosophical divides. Cabin explains that
classic science investigations attempt to prove general rules, while
locally developed projects are concerned with site peculiarities. In
many cases this means investigations critical to the practitioner
are of no interest to a scientist and vice versa. Thus scientists
become perceived as out-of-touch
and practitioners and their work
are dismissed as ‘un-scientific’
and a hindrance to ‘doing things
right’. This is disastrous for projects
based on collaboration and Cabin’s
book is a plea for scientists and
practitioners to find common
ground and respect for each other’s
strengths.
Cabin’s book is illustrated by his
fascinating work in the restoration
of a ‘basket-case’ ecosystem; the
dry forests of Hawaii. National and cultural peculiarities are
occasionally apparent but the joys and frustrations will be familiar
to many in Australian restoration projects. Among minor quibbles,
I occasionally felt that Cabin under-estimated the scientific basis
of the intuition and ‘art’ of practitioners.
While the problem this book addresses may seem very specific,
it handicaps progress of thousands of projects to conserve our
biodiversity. Professionals, volunteers and academics seeking to
combine their efforts will benefit from the variety of perspectives
that Cabin brings to light.
Brian Bainbridge
Butterflies and habitat restoration Continued from page 4
acceptable to K.L. Dunn for the Dunn and Dunn butterfly
database (which is operated entirely without government
support). The Victorian Entomologist (Entomological Society of
Victoria) is the most active purveyor of butterfly information
in Victoria and may be an option for publishing more detailed
information and species lists. What is really needed are modern
Wiki databases that enable the build-up of information by
multiple observers over time. However such systems tend to
have quality control issues (notably unreliable observers and
incorrect species identifications) if not strictly overseen. In
all cases the minimal information that should be recorded
includes the date and time of the observation, the locality and
GPS reading, the butterfly species and life stage, the number of
individuals and the details of the habitat.
Long term biodiversity monitoring requires dedication, since
it is not going to be paid for by governments. Ideally what
is required is more than casual observation. Transect or belt
surveys, where the numbers of individual butterfly adults seen
along a defined transect are counted by experienced observers,
are a good method to establish baseline data for a site. Regular
repetition of a survey over a number of years (pre to postreveg)
should enable an assessment to be made of the effects
of the restoration efforts on butterflies. But bear in mind
that some species may require more specialised monitoring
techniques. When planning or undertaking revegetation
work, the particular contexts of the plantings — the other
butterfly habitat factors — need at least to be considered in
terms of what is known about a particular butterfly species’
requirements. It is worth stressing the survival of a particular
butterfly species in a particular locality might possibly be
prejudiced by zealous weed eradication programs or other
features of the rehabilitation program. As is the case with spiny
weeds and small birds, one needs to establish suitable native
habitat plants before eradication takes place.
And finally, much more needs to be known about the
peculiar habitat requirements of butterfly species before a
meaningful prediction can be made about whether a particular
planting will be beneficial. Revegetation efforts that fail to
result in butterfly establishment thus have the potential to yield
lessons for future activity.
References
Braby, M.F. (2000) Butterflies of Australia. Their Identification,
Biology and Distribution. CSIRO, Collingwood.
Braby, M.F. & Berg, G.N. (1987) A preliminary search for Trapezites
symmomus Hubner at Wattle Park, with notes on other species.
Victorian Entomologist 17, 49-51.
Braby, M.F. & Berg, G.N. (1989). Further notes on butterflies at
Wattle Park, Burwood. Victorian Entomologist 19, 38-42.
Braby, M.F. (1989) The butterfly fauna of La Trobe University, Victoria.
Victorian Naturalist 106,118-132.
Common, I.F.B. and Waterhouse, D.F. (1981) Butterflies of Australia.
Revised Edn., Angus & Robertson, Sydney.
Dunn, K.L. and Dunn, L.E. (2006) Review of Australian Butterflies
1991. Annotated Version. (CD-ROM), K.L. & L.E. Dunn, Melbourne.
Faithfull, I. (1989) Two additional Wattle Park butterflies.
Victorian Entomologist 19(5), 86.
Faithfull, I. (1992) Butterflies at Yarra Bend 1983-90.
Victorian Naturalist 109:162-167.
Faithfull, I. (1993) Common Imperial Blue, Jalmenus evagoras
evagoras (Donovan), an additional Wattle Park butterfly.
Victorian Entomologist 23(2), 34.
Shapiro, A.M. (2002) The California urban butterfly fauna is
dependent on alien plants. Diversity and Distributions 8, 31-40.
Yen, A.L. (2011) Melbourne’s terrestrial invertebrate biodiversity:
losses, gains and the new perspective. Victorian Naturalist 128(5),
201-208.
Further reading
New, T.R. (1997) Butterfly Conservation. 2nd Edn., Oxford University
Press, Melbourne.
Samways, M.J. (2005) Insect Biodiversity Conservation. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
INDIGENOTES VOLUME 23 NUMBER 3 5

The wonders of
belly botany
In the bush right now there are
plenty of wondrous signs that
early spring is upon us. The wattles
are flowering profusely, cuckoos
have begun calling, orchids are
in bud and many birds are busily
preparing their nests (while
nervously eyeing off the cuckoos).
But there is one exciting spring
phenomena that is not only overlooked
by most people, but is
rudely stepped upon with little
notice. This, reports Karl Just, is
the tiny world of the ‘inch flora’.
Inch flora makes up a suite of fascinating
species that, as the name suggests, hardly grow taller than
an inch (or 2.54 centimeters to be exact).
Victoria has over 50 species of inch flora, depending on how
you define them. Here I refer to winter-spring active herbs,
fern allies and sedges that usually grow to less than an inch
high. The majority of the group are annuals, although several
are also perennial species that re-shoot from underground
rhizomes each season. The largest diversity are distributed in
the central and western drier parts of the state while they are
rare to absent from denser forest and scrub. This distributional
6
pattern is a reflection of their fascinating ecology.
The inch flora commonly grow in small communities in
suitable habitat, creating a dazzling mix of shapes and colours.
The largest patches are associated with relatively open habitats
growing in beds of moss, often on shallow soil platforms over
rock where the soil is too shallow for larger plants. They are
also found wherever there is plenty of light, moisture and
space in a variety of grasslands and woodlands. Moss cover
appears to be vital for many inch flora, as it captures and
holds moisture as well as securing a thin layer of soil. The
INDIGENOUS FLORA AND FAUNA ASSOCIATION INC

COVER PHOTO
Multiple species of belly flora pictured near Stawell in September 2010
by Brian Bainbridge.
1 A miniature Triglochin growing in the state’s far north-west.
Photo by Damien Cook.
2 Small Wrinklewort, Siloxerus multiflorus, growing amongst the moss
Triquetrella papillata. Photo by Karl Just.
3 A small party of inch flora, showing Small Wrinklewort, Siloxerus
multiflorus, Flannel Cudweed, Actinobole uliginosum, Stonecrop
Crassula sieberiana, Common Bow-flower, Millotia muelleri.
Photo by Karl Just.
local distribution of some members of the group appears to
be influenced by grazing pressure and tree clearing, both of
which open up otherwise dense habitat, allowing greater light
exposure. At our place in Fryerstown I have noticed some
species to only occur in previously cleared areas with high
kangaroo grazing pressure. I also know of a few great inch flora
communities underneath power-line easements where the
vegetation is occasionally slashed.
Like many therophytes (annuals), the inch flora are
extraordinarily well adapted to Australia’s unpredictable
rainfall. Over the hotter months they remain dormant in
seed-form, in the soil or tucked beneath
the moss which is also withered and
inactive. At this time their habitat can
be a harsh place, with extreme surface
temperatures and desiccating winds. As
the seasons change, winter rains kick-start
these ecosystems, as the moss expands
and tiny soaks begin to seep out of the
rocks and soil. In wet years there can be a
mass of germination of inch flora, many
which survive to flower and set plenty
of seed. John Morgan and co. from La
Trobe University have discovered some
fascinating seed traits of many inch flora,
such as the presence of ‘myxospermy’.
This is when the seed is coated in a kind
of dry mucilage that hydrates and swells
rapidly on contact with water. Morgan
has suggested this ‘assists the seed to attach
to the soil, giving the radicle something
to push against as it starts to elongate,
minimizing the risk of pushing the root hair zone away from
the soil surface’. With the return of warmer weather the
population begins to die off, completing the annual cycle.
During dry years the germination and/or persistence of
the inch flora is much reduced. It is possible that many seeds
don’t germinate in dry years, as this would risk depleting the
seed bank. However if good rains are followed by dry weather
later in spring, this can lead to a decline of the population.
If they are lucky they replenish the seed bank during the wet
years – a classic cycle of boom and bust. Further study would
INDIGENOTES VOLUME 23 NUMBER 3 7

Congratulations, Stephen!
The Queen’s Birthday honours, this year, have given Friends
of the Royal Botanic Gardens Cranbourne members reason
to celebrate. Stephen Hopper was awarded Australia’s
highest honour, Companion of the Order of Australia (AC), for
“eminent service as a global science leader in the field of plant
conservation biology, particularly in the delivery of world class
research programs contributing to the conservation of endangered
species and ecosystems”.
Professor Stephen Hopper, FLS, AC, has had an enduring
interest in Australian plants and his many publications include
Threatened Flora and Orchids of Western Australia, 2008. When
he spoke at FRBGC’s annual dinner in May 2003 he was CEO of
Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority, WA, which embraces Kings
Park and Botanic Garden and the indigenous annexe Bold Park.
In 2006 he became the first non-British person appointed
Director, CEO and Chief Scientist, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK.
In October this year he will return to a research position in WA. In
July 2011 he addressed a combined meeting of FRBG Melbourne
and FRBG Cranbourne. His illustrated address Old landscapes
Reveal New Perspectives which derived from his research into the
world’s Oldest Climatically Buffered Infertile Landscapes which is
now known as the OCBIL theory.
An endearing attribute of this extraordinary scientist is his
willingness and ability to engage with anyone interested in plants
or natural history. In 2003 Warren Worboys wrote:
“To spend time with Stephen in the bush is not only a botanical
experience of the highest degree but you are likely to garner plenty
of information on all aspects of natural history. Steve does not
have a narrow focus in biological science. His field journals are
not only crammed with information but they are a work of art
in themselves with many beautiful sketches of plants and other
aspects of his studies”.
It is extremely heartening to see that at long last botany and
ecology are now on the same platform as medicine and other
sciences when Companion of the Order of Australia honours are
awarded.
Alex Smart and Rodger Elliot
INCH FLORA CONTINUED FROM PAGE 7
be very valuable to provide more insight into these population
dynamics.
In Victoria the inch flora diversity is dominated by the
Asteraceae family (one of the most diverse families in the
world). Some of the Asteraceae inch flora include Common
Sunray, Triptilodiscus pygmaeus (affectionately known as Tripto-the-disco
by some), a species that has become pretty rare
throughout basalt grassland around Melbourne, and which is
also found throughout grassy woodlands, grasslands and rocky
outcrops in moss mats. Other species include the Bow-flowers,
Millotia spp., Small Wrinklewort, Siloxerus multiflorus, Sticky
Long-heads, Podotheca angustifolia and Cup-flowers, Gnephosis
spp. I suspect that one reason this family has so successfully
colonised the spring-soak niche is its ability to disperse over
long distances. When your habitat is equally tiny and scattered
in disjunct patches, you need some pretty good dispersal
mechanisms.
The Crassulaceae also has a few tiny members, all within
the Crassula genus, while one of the most surprising members
of the inch flora is Triglochin. Most people would be familiar
with this genus as the robust aquatic macrophyte, but there are
several tiny species that grow in spring-soaks from the coast to
the semi-arid inland.
I have seen a few growing in soaks on sand dunes in the mallee
— a great place for many inch flora.
Pygmy Club-moss, Phylloglossum drummondii, is another
fascinating species. Unlike the majority of more recently
evolved inch flora, it is very ancient, being a member of one of
the most primitive plant families, the Huperziaceae. While its
relatives once grew in the forests and swamps of Gondwana,
Pygmy Club-moss is today found in wet, heathy habitats.
Austral Adders Tongue’s, Ophioglossum spp., is another cool
little ancient member, so called because the spore-bearing stalk
is thought to resemble a snake’s tongue. Apparently it has the
highest chromosome count of any organism (1,262 compared
to humans’ 46 – now there’s a random fact). Then there are
8
the miniature
Stylidiums . . . but
I could go on all
day.
Many of
Victoria’s inch flora
are potentially
threatened by a
range of processes.
At one moss bed
I have monitored
in Eltham for
over six years,
there has been a
noticeable decline
of many species
due to drought
and damage by
bikes, cars and
walkers. Predicted
global climate
change could be
bad news for the
group, as their
The tiny fern ally, Austral Adders Tongue,
Ophioglossum lusitanicum.
Photo by Chris Lindorff, courtesy of
NatureShare.
habitat is highly dependent on adequate rains. Perhaps one of
their biggest problems is their tiny size, as many humans don’t
seem to notice or care for tiny things. But the importance
of the inch flora should not be under-stated. Morgan has
also pointed out that annual plants make up to 40% of
the diversity of some of our most diverse ecosystems – the
woodlands of western Victoria. The inch flora and their
slightly larger annual cousins are therefore a key component of
the biological diversity of these areas.
So next time you’re out in the bush this spring, check out
the moss mats – you never know what you might see. There’s a
whole world down there to be explored.
INDIGENOUS FLORA AND FAUNA ASSOCIATION INC

Biodiverse sustainable revegetation
Where ground is fully
covered by vegetation,
seeds have little
opportunity to become
established plants
because they are unable
to successfully compete
for vital resources.
Jill Dawson looks at this
important attribute of
vegetation and hopes
to prompt further
discussion.
A patch of native vegetation
of high quality has few weeds
and a weedy area has few
native species. If revegetation
can achieve full cover of native
vegetation it will require almost
no maintenance weeding and
thus is a sustainable outcome.
Achieving this depends upon
many factors, one of the most
important being the condition
of the topsoil seed bank. In the
article I discuss some options
in the choice to be made on
whether it is more feasible or
beneficial to recover or smother
the topsoil seed bank.
I also propose that a tree is
planted with all life forms surrounding it to ensure sustainability
through biodiversity in the creation of a healthy ecosystem.
I draw attention to the importance of creating ground level
habitat with woodchip mulch or similar plus rocks and logs if
feasible. The conclusion I propose is that biodiverse sustainable
revegetation should aim to achieve full native vegetation cover in
3 to 5 years.
When I take students or trainees into the bush with
me, I ask them to look at how many weeds there
are. Always, in ‘good bush’, there are few or no
weeds. All the ground space is taken up with plants or leaf
litter. There isn’t room for weeds to invade. This is a stable,
sustainable ecosystem protected from weed invasion. It is
biodiverse. It is also enormously pretty with flowers and
fragrances.
I have spent much time weeding around native plants on
revegetation sites. Weeding is tiresome and expensive. I look
at many revegetation sites, years old, and see trees, shrubs
and weeds. No native grasses, daisies, lilies or orchids. Low
biodiversity. It is the converse of above, as there isn’t room for
natives.
In paddocks I see lone gum trees, hung with pendulous
clumps of mistletoe, dying. There are no trees close by to bring
the possums that graze on mistletoe; no daisies and other herbs
to attract wasps and other invertebrates whose larvae feed on
mistletoe, so this parasite
is uncontrolled. The
ecosystem is unbalanced.
Gum trees live for some
hundreds of years. An
isolated tree may appear
healthy for perhaps 100 or
200 years but eventually
the stress from lack of soil
biota, leaf grazers and their
predators, normally found
in a biodiverse ecosystem,
will have an impact. The
mistletoe – gum-tree
interrelationship shows
that tree death will follow
this ecosystem imbalance.
The life expectancy
and good health of a
tree is dependent on the
biodiversity of its floral
community, especially
ground covers.
What is a successful
revegetation
project?
A successful revegetation
project establishes a
biodiverse ecosystem and
becomes sustainable. An
ecosystem is a complete
community of living
organisms and the
nonliving materials of their surroundings. It includes plants,
animals, and microorganisms; soil, rocks, and minerals as well
as surrounding water sources and the local atmosphere.
A successful revegetation project has few weeds. Planting is
the easy part; volunteers are enthusiastic planters on public or
private land. But who is going to weed? How much money
is available for how many years to keep on weeding? If funds
are limited, then revegetation projects should be designed to
minimise maintenance.
Most weeds come from the topsoil. Seeds accumulate in the
soil over years, commonly millions per cubic metre in what is
called the topsoil seed bank.
In the design of a revegetation project, I look at the state of
that topsoil seed bank. Does it have potential to provide native
plant regeneration, or is it likely to provide continued weed
seed germination and therefore weed cover.
Recover or smother the top soil seed bank?
Where the topsoil seed bank has potential for native plant
regeneration, my preferred management option is to recover
(or re-activate) that seed bank. Methods depend upon size and
state of site. Steps appropriate for large areas such as farms are
to remove grazing, spring burn to remove annual weedy grasses
and stimulate native seed germination, to spot spray or use a
selective herbicide on broad-leaf and perennial grassy weeds
and ‘crash graze’ at appropriate times.
INDIGENOTES VOLUME 23 NUMBER 3 9

Biodiverse sustainable revegetation
Continued from page 9
Native species that regenerate from these treatments
can be increased and added to with broad acre
mechanically assisted or hand direct seeding, along
with some tubestock planting. Fences or tree guards
protect plants from grazing.
In an urban setting, site areas are generally smaller.
Sites have not been grazed in many years and burning
may not be not an appropriate treatment. In parks,
open space areas, and public and private gardens,
weed management is an important environmental and
civic amenity issue.
On many sites, natural regeneration of native
vegetation has been reduced to only a few species that
compete with a high level of persistent weed cover.
The topsoil seed bank is dominated by weed species.
In this case the cost of continued maintenance by
herbicide and slashing would be very high. Ground
treatments with a residual herbicide will stop weed
seed germination for some months but will degrade
soil health. Smothering the seed bank may be the
cheapest and one of the most effective and quickest
ways to achieve a sustainable biodiverse result for a
revegetation project. This method also has less risk
of environmental impact and is more beneficial to
worms than the use of chemical herbicides.
Covering the ground with an organic material that
prevents weed growth will substantially reduce maintenance
requirements. If plantings can provide close to 100% native
vegetation cover on the ground within a few years, then the
plantings will be secure or protected from weed seeds that
arrive by wind or flood. The revegetation will be stable and
require minimal maintenance.
This may require staging revegetation on a site over several
years. Incremental progress that is sustainable and requires
low maintenance is preferable to a project being abandoned
because it is too much work or lacks funding for the level
of maintenance required. It can be done, slowly, bit by bit
without it being ‘lost’ to weeds. This has to be better than not
doing it at all because it seems too ‘hard’.
The best weed control is replacement with
native plants, achieving close to 100%
native vegetation cover as in ‘good bush’
Biodiverse ecosystem establishment
The best weed control is replacement with native plants,
achieving close to 100% native vegetation cover as in ‘good
bush’.
A popular concept is to ‘shade out the grassy weeds by
planting trees and shrubs.’ I have seen that grassy weed cover
is reduced in biomass — height and density — but I have not
seen any of this type of revegetation where the ground level
understorey has regenerated in a weedy setting or that the
revegetation has had more understorey life forms added later.
It can be very difficult for ground cover species like grasses and
herbs to establish beneath mature trees.
Planting trees and shrubs is a good first step in revegetation
but to establish healthy ecosystems, all life forms - ground
hugging spreaders, herbs, grasses, forbs, shrubs, ferns, mosses,
10
fungi etc
— need to
be included
to make a
complete
community
with a variety
of habitats. No
tree should be
planted without
its community
surrounding it.
The health of
trees and shrubs
depends upon
a diversity of
insects that are
attracted to
a diversity of
plant species
and life forms.
Putting in
all life forms
at the same
time is more
effective because
the trees and other plants adapt to the availability of water
and nutrients as they grow. Additional planting of the same
area later will bring weed seeds to the surface and therefore
stimulate weed growth.
Where the topsoil seed bank does not provide potential for
native plant regeneration, an effective method to smother the
seedbank and revegetate is to:
• Slash weeds, add dolomite — this will create food for worms
and other soil fauna,
• Plant — each canopy tree species has a 5-10m radius
surround of understorey with all life forms (except those
which need shade such as some ground-hugging spreaders),
• Cover ground with weed mat or newspapers or similar, and
• Cover mat or material with about 50mm woodchip mulch
to prevent loss of soil moisture through wicking.
To create or enhance a biodiverse ecosystem, providing
habitat at ground level and below is vital. Healthy soil hosts a
range of soil fauna which are likely vectors for dispersing the
essential mycorrhizal fungi throughout the soil. Wood chip
mulch is inhabited by insects and other invertebrates and
attracts soil fauna. It also presents well in an urban or garden
setting. There will be little fire fuel risk with newspaper plus
mulch as it should retain some moisture and there is limited
oxygen available for a ground level fire. Birds and lizards will
be attracted to the insects.
The revegetation method described above will establish a
long-term, low maintenance biodiverse ecosystem patch. It can
be used simply as a small patch or island in a weedy landscape.
In time and with weed control of the surrounds the island
might be joined together with other islands to make a larger
native vegetation patch, wildlife corridor or join with a core
reserve or park. This method is especially useful on sites that
have great variability, with some parts much easier to work
on than others. It is also an effective way to link with existing
native vegetation.
INDIGENOUS FLORA AND FAUNA ASSOCIATION INC

Revegetation materials costs
Most projects include plant guards and stakes for plant
protection at significant additional cost. I suggest that in many
projects guards are not necessary and funds could instead be
used to purchase weed mat and mulch.
Native grasses, ground-hugging spreaders, lilies and many
other ground cover plants are generally not attractive to
grazers and do not require guards unless the site has a very
high population of rabbits, kangaroos or other grazers. In that
case the grazers should be controlled before revegetation is
attempted.
Guards can protect plants from grazing by rabbits or
kangaroos but nurseries can add a gritty deterrent coating to
seedlings to prevent grazing. Guards produce a microclimate
within the guard that shields the plant from wind, however,
plants with strong root development should already have
the resilience to be planted without such protection. This
microclimate may weaken the stem and development of the
support or structural roots of the tree or shrub.
Within the guards is also an ideal environment for increased
weed growth. It is quite difficult to remove these weeds, and
adds to the maintenance cost.
Guards make it easier to spray between plants but if the
topsoil seed bank of weeds has been smothered, then there is
almost no weed growth between plants.
With such reduced maintenance, funds could be allocated
to weed mat and mulch. Many Shires are now producing
weed free mulch available for projects at minimal or no cost.
The other ‘thing’ with guards is that sometimes they don’t
get removed…or in the case of use on creeks and rivers, they
can add to the detritus from flooding.
Thanks to the many people who have shared with me their
concerns on how we revegetate. This article is a compilation
that I hope will prompt further discussion. Special thanks to
Belinda Pearce, Trevor Danger and Tony Marsh.
Editors’ note: Jill’s approach may not suit all environments and
feedback on this article is welcome. Readers who have registered
on the IFFA website and are logged in can leave comments on the
website version of this article
http://www.iffa.org.au/biodiverse-sustainable-revegetation
Indigenous Flora and
Fauna Association
http://www.iffa.org.au
Incorporated Association No: A0015723B
Office Bearers
President: Brian Bainbridge, 7 Jukes Rd Fawkner 3060 (03)
9359 0290(ah) email: president@iffa.org.au
Vice-President: Vanessa Craigie, email: vicepres@iffa.org.au
94973730 (ah).
Secretary: Michele Arundell PO Box 77, Kallista 3791.
(03) 9755 3347 (ah) email: secretary@iffa.org.au
Treasurer: Tania Sloan, 23 Harrison Street Brunswick East 3057,
treasurer@iffa.org.au
Public Officer: Peter Wlodarzyck, 0418 317 725
email: publicofficer@iffa.org.au
Events Coordinator: Fam Charko, activities@iffa.org.au
0402 519 124
Newsletter Editor: Tony Faithfull, (03) 9386 0264 (ah).
21 Harrison St East Brunswick 3057. editor@iffa.org.au
Webmaster: Vacant
Indigenous Nurseries Liaison Officer:
Judy Allen, nurseries@iffa.org.au
Student representative: Karen McGregor, student@iffa.org.au
Fundraising Coordinator: vacant
Ecological Information Coordinator:
Karl Just, email: info@iffa.org.au
Committee members: Liz Henry and Linda Bradburn
Life member
Patricia Crowley
Indigenotes is the newsletter of the Indigenous Flora
and Fauna Association.
The views expressed in Indigenotes are not necessarily those
of the Indigenous Flora and Fauna Association.
Call for articles
Indigenotes is a newsletter by IFFA members for IFFA members.
Stories, snippets, photos and reports from members are always
welcome.
If it’s something you’re doing with flora or fauna or habitat, write it
down and send it to IFFA’s editor at editor@iffa.org.au
Membership
$40 per annum for non-profit organizations,
$50 per annum for corporations,
$25 per annum for individuals, or $20 per annum concession,
$35 per annum for families,
$500 for individual life members or
$700 for family life members.
Membership includes
4 issues of Indigenotes per year,
•
Occasional freebies or discounts
Discount subscription to Ecological Management & Restoration
Journal ($72, inc GST)
Membership applications and renewals should be sent to
21 Harrison St, Brunswick East, 3057
Problems with membership renewals? Please contact
Tony Faithfull on 93860264 or membership@iffa.org.au
INDIGENOTES VOLUME 23 NUMBER 3 11

Wedding Bush, Ricinocarpos pinifolius, is spectacular in
bloom. Masses of honey-scented, starry flowers flung over
shrubs as tall as the best man and as wide as an in-law
lying flat out on the dance floor. Cheering them on will be a
crowd of attendant white-flowering tea-tree.
Wedding Bush is so named because it was the bouquet of
choice in early Melbourne. A wild colonial beau could head
his horse into heathland and happily return with saddle
bags loaded with fragrant decoration. Today it is seen almost
exclusivly at remnant sites and is practically impossible
to propagate. Seed pods usually yield only well-fed bugs,
most cuttings fail and the few seedlings that survive usually
Contents
President’s letter; IFFA excursion invitation;
book review 2
Butterflies and habitat restoration 3-5
Book review 5
struggle struggle. It is the most desired plant in local
indigenous nurseries.
Friends of the Grange Heathland Reserve is hosting an open
day and the marketing department (whose name is Thelma)
has anounced the event is to be known as the Festival of
Wedding Bush.
Saturday October 13, 9am-noon.
Osborne Avenue, Clayton South.
Short walks, short talks, free Sandbelt plant and food.
Enquiries: 0403 587 611
Mick Connolly
The wonders of belly botany 6-8
Biodiverse sustainable revegetation 9-11
Contact us 11
INDIGENOUS FLORA AND FAUNA ASSOCIATION INC