Perunga <strong>grass</strong>hopper Perunga ochracea (Sjöstedt) The Perunga <strong>grass</strong>hopper Perunga ochracea (Sjöstedt) (Acrididae: Catantopinae) is a medium sized, flightless (Farrow 1999), almost wingless <strong>grass</strong>hopper with a narrow distribution in the ACT and neighbouring areas <strong>of</strong> NSW (Rentz et al. 2003). Farrow (1999) found the species at 6 <strong>of</strong> 11 <strong>grass</strong>lands surveyed by sweep netting in the ACT, but only in spring, and considered it to be unusual amongst the <strong>grass</strong>land Orthoptera in being winter-spring active. It occurs in T. triandra (Farrow 1999), Austrostipa and Austrodanthonia <strong>grass</strong>lands, feeds on forbs, overwinters as a nymph and is present as adults during spring and summer (Rentz et al. 2003). In the ACT it has disappeared from areas where it was once common, possibly as a result <strong>of</strong> “encroachment <strong>of</strong> dense cover <strong>of</strong> introduced <strong>grass</strong>es” (Rentz et al. 2003). P. ochracea is <strong>of</strong>ficially declared vulnerable in the ACT (ACT Government 2005). Lewis’s Laxabilla, Laxabilla smaragdina Sjöstedt Lewis’s Laxabilla, Laxabilla smaragdina Sjöstedt (Acrididae: Oxyinae) is a small <strong>grass</strong>hopper with wingless females and fully winged or brachypterous males, found in <strong>grass</strong>lands and “open savannah” from southern NSW to Mackay, Queensland (Rentz et al. 2003). Farrow (1999) noted that it had not been recorded in the ACT for 20 years. <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> N. neesiana on invertebrates Weed invasion can eliminate native host plants and may enhance the spread <strong>of</strong> exotic invertebrates (Yen 1995). Ens (2002a) conducted the only study to date <strong>of</strong> the effects <strong>of</strong> N. neesiana on invertebrates. She studied two endangered ecological communities in New South Wales: the edge <strong>of</strong> remnant Cumberland Plain Woodland (<strong>grass</strong>y woodland) at St Clair and much altered Sydney Coastal River-flat Forest (a coastal swamp forest) at Mt Annan. Pitfall trap and vacuum sampling were undertaken to enable comparison <strong>of</strong> areas dominated by N. neesiana and relatively devoid <strong>of</strong> native ground cover species, and native areas relatively free <strong>of</strong> N. neesiana. Sites had similar distrubance history, geology, topography and proximity to water. Point quadrats were assessed to quantify basal cover <strong>of</strong> N. neesiana, other exotic plants, native plants, bare ground, Eucalyptus litter, <strong>grass</strong> litter and sticks. Tree canopy cover was estimated using charts. Vegetation community structure was assessed by a point-height method with 4 height classes. Temperature and light were also measured above and below foliage, as well as distance to the nearest tree. Ens (op. cit.) reported significant quantitative impact, with a negative effect <strong>of</strong> N. neesiana on Formicidae and 3 Formicidae spp., reportedly “by altering the ground cover composition”, and on mean abundance <strong>of</strong> Thysanoptera and Cicadidae moults, but a beneficial effect (“significant habitat”) on Blattodea and two unidentified Coleoptera spp. Abundance <strong>of</strong> Collembola, Hemiptera, Gastropoda, Lepidoptera larvae and Araneae was significantly reduced in invaded areas. These results were attributed to the altered habitat structure and “change in plant architecture” i.e. the scale, complexity and heterogeneity <strong>of</strong> plants in the invaded community, and “indirect effects on the trophic heirarchy”. Ens (2005) summarised her results as reduced ant abundance and alteration <strong>of</strong> “the entire invertebrate community composition”. However the higher proportion <strong>of</strong> bare ground in the native vegetation explained the effects on Formicidae at one site and an increased cover <strong>of</strong> Eucalyptus bark at the other, neither necessarily related to N. neesiana effects. The effects on one ant species was best explained by the higher weed richness in the native vegetation. Multiple regression analysis failed to reveal a sensible cause for decreased Thysanoptera or inreased Blattodea. The abundance <strong>of</strong> cicada moults was explained by Eucalyptus bark cover, suggesting the native plots were closer to trees, the roots <strong>of</strong> which some Cicadidae nymphs feed upon, however the reduction in bark cover was attributed as an effect <strong>of</strong> N. neesiana (Ens 2002a p. 67) and there was no correlation with the variable ‘distance to nearest tree’. Some cicadas are <strong>grass</strong> feeders, so this may be a host plant influence. Identification <strong>of</strong> the species would have helped resolve this question. A number <strong>of</strong> correlations between environmental variables or higher taxa and other taxa with significantly different abundance in the N. neesiana areas do not make much biological sense e.g. Hemiptera were more abundant in greater litter depths <strong>of</strong> the native areas (?protection from predation), gastropods were more abundant in areas with more sticks (?protected from predation), Araneae with abundance <strong>of</strong> larvae (which they don’t consume) but not larvae with abundance <strong>of</strong> Araneae, but these perhaps await fuller explanation. No trophic cascades or indirect effects on the trophic heirarchy are clear. No attempt was made to distinguish exotic and native invertebrates, pest or beneficial species, or widespread versus rare taxa and no trophic links to N. neesiana were identified. The main effects were attributed to “changes in habitat parameters, cascade effects to higher trophic levels, changes to invertebrate community structure … decreases [in] ground temperature and ground incident light ... [and a] thick layer <strong>of</strong> foliage 10-20 cm above ground when a thick monoculture” (Ens 2005). These however were correlations and may not represent true causative relationships. Dense growth <strong>of</strong> T. triandra appears likely to produce a very similar set <strong>of</strong> effects and alter community structure in a similar way. Grassland restoration Restoration <strong>of</strong> degraded, weed-invaded <strong>grass</strong>lands is difficult. Corbin et al. (2004) advocated an integrated approach utilising all available tools, including traditional weed management techniques, fire, grazing, and reduction <strong>of</strong> soil N availability, along with measures that increase the abundance <strong>of</strong> native seeds and seedlings. Reintroduction <strong>of</strong> the disturbance regimes to which the systems are adapted is usually the first step in restoration (MacDougall and Turkington 2007). But the original functioning <strong>of</strong> the system may not be properly understood, the disturbances may function in different ways because the degraded systems differ from the original ones and there may be substantial risks, especially related to small species populations, and costs (MacDougall and Turkington 2007). “The more degraded the site, the less likely the recovery by native species other than those already present. Supplemental measures targeting dispersal and the survival <strong>of</strong> juveniles are needed in conjunction with treatments that reduce the disturbance-sensitive competitive dominants” (MacDougall andTurkington 2007 p. 270). Preservation <strong>of</strong> native <strong>grass</strong>land remnants has been both politically and ecologically challenging. Simultaneous limited understanding <strong>of</strong> ecology. A critical turning point where most <strong>of</strong> the saveable remnants have been saved or their value appreciated and are being managed conservatively to preserve or enhance their biodiveristy. Future challenge <strong>of</strong> widespread 162
estoration and, if <strong>Australia</strong> follows the European path, <strong>of</strong> extensifying agricultural land back to native <strong>grass</strong>land to achieve biodiversity and ecosystem services goals. Biomass reduction techniques – fire, grazing, cutting and raking, manual removal – shown to have similar effects in removal <strong>of</strong> exotic <strong>grass</strong>es (MacDougall and Turkington 2007). Nutrient reduction technqiues There is good evidence that the ability <strong>of</strong> perennial C 4 (such as T. triandra) <strong>grass</strong>es to outcompete C 3 <strong>grass</strong>es (including Nassella spp.) is enhanced under low soil N conditions (Badgery et al. 2002). Reintroduction <strong>of</strong> species MacDougall and Turkington (2007) compared the effects <strong>of</strong> annual cutting and raking, fire and hand weeding <strong>of</strong> the dominant invasive exotics Poa pratensis and Dactylis glomerata, in the restoration <strong>of</strong> invaded Garry Oak (Quercus garryana) savannah in British Columbia, unburnt for decades. All treatments significantly increased light levels at the ground surface and the amount <strong>of</strong> bare ground, reduced the growth and reproduction <strong>of</strong> the invasive <strong>grass</strong>es, and increased native plant cover and flowering. After four years <strong>of</strong> summer treatments the cover <strong>of</strong> P. pratensis and D. glomerata was reduced on average to
- Page 1 and 2:
Literature review: Impact of Chilea
- Page 3 and 4:
Fire 49 Other disturbances 50 Shade
- Page 5 and 6:
Conventions and standards Botanical
- Page 7 and 8:
neesiana appears to be a habitat ge
- Page 9 and 10:
population densities of existing sp
- Page 11 and 12:
elated plants have similar defences
- Page 13 and 14:
For invasion to occur there must be
- Page 15 and 16:
As yet there appears to be no evide
- Page 17 and 18:
experimental manipulation of specie
- Page 19 and 20:
species tend to be those which tran
- Page 21 and 22:
Taxonomy and nomenclature Stipeae N
- Page 23 and 24:
Vernacular names ‘Needlegrass’
- Page 25 and 26:
to Bouchenak-Khelladi et al. 2009).
- Page 27 and 28:
1 m (Walsh 1994), ca. 90 cm (Verloo
- Page 29 and 30:
Figure 2. Anatomy of the seed of N.
- Page 31 and 32:
are the seeds larger/smaller, longe
- Page 33 and 34:
also based on a misunderstanding of
- Page 35 and 36:
Table 2. Modified Feekes Scale for
- Page 37 and 38:
Argentina, in the provinces of Chac
- Page 39 and 40:
Figure 3. Recorded distribution of
- Page 41 and 42:
1994). Only 3 of 186 exotic grasses
- Page 43 and 44:
According to Morfe et al. (2003) th
- Page 45 and 46:
populations have been found in the
- Page 47 and 48:
(Honaine et al. 2006). The flechill
- Page 49 and 50:
In Australia the altitudinal range
- Page 51 and 52:
Proximity to urban development appe
- Page 53 and 54:
In the southern Brazilian campos of
- Page 55 and 56:
arundinacea (Gardener et al. 2005).
- Page 57 and 58:
al. 2008). Cues for masting may be
- Page 59 and 60:
Approximately 200 alien grass speci
- Page 61 and 62:
Dispersal of seed in contaminated s
- Page 63 and 64:
In New Zealand, Hurrell et al. (199
- Page 65 and 66:
No emergence was observed in undist
- Page 67 and 68:
and high impact (“ability to caus
- Page 69 and 70:
also noted that despite a wide rang
- Page 71 and 72:
a small reduction in seedhead produ
- Page 73 and 74:
Slashing and mowing Slashing can re
- Page 75 and 76:
Themeda re-establishment McDougall
- Page 77 and 78:
species (Lawton and Schroder 1977 p
- Page 79 and 80:
y increased importance of ant grani
- Page 81 and 82:
BIODIVERSITY “Biodiversity ... on
- Page 83 and 84:
According to Woods (1997 p. 61) “
- Page 85 and 86:
2004, Richardson and van Wilgen 200
- Page 87 and 88:
negative depending on the particula
- Page 89 and 90:
Competition with native plants Comp
- Page 91 and 92:
asexual seed production, so local f
- Page 93 and 94:
GRASSLANDS Grasses: “... the most
- Page 95 and 96:
susceptible to N. neesiana invasion
- Page 97 and 98:
Floristic composition, vegetation s
- Page 99 and 100:
proportion of the flora then presen
- Page 101 and 102:
tussock space (Stuwe and Parsons 19
- Page 103 and 104:
Like vascular plant diversity, comm
- Page 105 and 106:
Opinions differ on the nature and i
- Page 107 and 108:
Species Common Name Family Aust ACT
- Page 109 and 110:
in shifting the distribution, exten
- Page 111 and 112: of these systems is largely explain
- Page 113 and 114: pasture. The least understood trans
- Page 115 and 116: tend to benefit more from relaxed c
- Page 117 and 118: Bovids crop their food between the
- Page 119 and 120: are therefore less likely to distur
- Page 121 and 122: esult in a “short-term flush” o
- Page 123 and 124: Fire effects on weeds Moore (1993 p
- Page 125 and 126: Table 8. Typical nutrient levels in
- Page 127 and 128: grasses produced sigificantly more
- Page 129 and 130: Fossorial vertebrates are or were o
- Page 131 and 132: (Rosengren 1999). Approximately one
- Page 133 and 134: Table 12. Areal extent and conserva
- Page 135 and 136: Foreman (1997) investigated the eff
- Page 137 and 138: Willis (1964) considered that the f
- Page 139 and 140: Austrostipa-Enneapogon) from around
- Page 141 and 142: Woodlands and New England Grassy Wo
- Page 143 and 144: Thylogale billardierii), Peramelida
- Page 145 and 146: Its original habitat on the mainlan
- Page 147 and 148: Table 17. Endangered reptile specie
- Page 149 and 150: equirement, but unlike plants and v
- Page 151 and 152: e assigned the same biodiversity sc
- Page 153 and 154: Nematodes are mostly minute animals
- Page 155 and 156: found in all mainland states, O. co
- Page 157 and 158: Keyacris scurra, Melbourne (1993) o
- Page 159 and 160: was once widespread in south- easte
- Page 161: eing sluggish and wingless, and exi
- Page 165 and 166: close to the plant are able to bury
- Page 167 and 168: Species *Chirothrips mexicanus Craw
- Page 169 and 170: Table A2.1 (continued) Species Life
- Page 171 and 172: Table A2.1 (continued) Species *Het
- Page 173 and 174: Table A2.1 (continued) Species Life
- Page 175 and 176: Table A2.1 (continued) Species Life
- Page 177 and 178: Nematodes of grasses and grasslands
- Page 179 and 180: REFERENCES Aceñolaza, F.G. (2004)
- Page 181 and 182: Benson, D. and McDougall, L. (2005)
- Page 183 and 184: Chan, C.W. (1980) Natural grassland
- Page 185 and 186: DNRE (Department of Natural Resourc
- Page 187 and 188: Fuhrer, B. (1993) A Field Companion
- Page 189 and 190: Groves, R.H. and Whalley, R.D.B. (2
- Page 191 and 192: Iaconis, L. (2004) Chilean needle g
- Page 193 and 194: Levine, J.M., Adler, P.B. and Yelen
- Page 195 and 196: McDougall, K.L. (1987) Sites of Bot
- Page 197 and 198: Morfe, T.A., McLaren, D.A. and Weis
- Page 199 and 200: Perelman, S.B., León, R.J.C. and O
- Page 201 and 202: Saunders, D.A. (1999) Biodiversity
- Page 203 and 204: Thellung, A. (1912) La flore advent
- Page 205 and 206: Weiss, J. and McLaren, D. (2002) Vi