Plan to Protect Environmental Assets from Lantana - Weeds Australia

Plan to Protect Environmental Assets from Lantana
Using the first three stages of the WINS process, 1322 native plant species and 158 native
animal species were identified as being threatened by lantana in Australia. The full list of
species found to be threatened by lantana infestations can be found on the website
www.environment.nsw.gov.au/lantanaplan/biodiversityatrisk.htm
Many of the plant species identified as being at risk (38%) were threatened due to their
recruitment being prevented (see Table 2.2). Given that lantana can prevent the regeneration
of native plants and halt succession following disturbance, while lantana is present at a site it
will reduce or remove the resilience of these species and ecological communities. This will
increase the level of threat of other processes, such as climate change, as the ability of the
native vegetation to respond to, or recover from, these other threats will be reduced (for
example see Alps to Atherton Initiative in Appendix 2).
2.4 Ranking plant and animal species
Determining the level of threat lantana posed for each asset was an important step in the
development of this Plan. Stage 4 of the WINS process identified those native species most
likely to increase in threatened status in the next five years (high priority), those that are under
significant threat (medium priority) and those that are likely to persist with limited action in the
next five years (low priority) (Turner et al. 2008a, Turner and Downey in press).
As mentioned above, this Plan aims to minimise the impact of lantana by:
protecting native species and ecological communities listed under the threatened
species legislation
preventing further species and ecological communities from becoming listed under
such legislation.
Therefore, species were prioritised according to the extent that their distribution overlapped
with that of lantana, and also to the species’ threatened status under threatened species
legislation (Commonwealth EPBC Act, NSW TSC Act, or QLD Nature Conservation Act
1992—NC Act —see Appendix 2). Species with a high degree of distributional overlap with
lantana were deemed less likely to survive the impacts of lantana than species with a lower
degree of distributional overlap with lantana. Additionally, if the species was threatened (under
the EPBC Act, NSW TSC Act or QLD NC Act), the likelihood of serious decline was high and
species were classed accordingly (Turner and Downey in press).
2.4.1 High-priority species
High-priority species were estimated to be those most at risk and most likely to change to a
higher threatened status in the near future (for instance, change from vulnerable to
endangered or become eligible for listing). Species were identified as high priority according to
the following criteria:
1. the distribution of the native species at risk had a high degree of overlap with lantana
(that is, 90% overlap) and
2. the native species was listed under the TSC Act, the NC Act, and/or the EPBC Act; or
the native species had the potential to be listed, through being documented in the
workshops as having experienced a decline in numbers due to lantana invasion (code
NP or D—Table 2.2), and had a limited distribution.
There was one exception to this process. Animal species that were classed as a high priority,
but also received a benefit from lantana (see Section 2.6), were placed into the lower medium
category. As these species received both a positive and negative impact, it was thought that
they were unlikely to change to a higher threatened status solely due to lantana in the near
future. However, the Richmond birdwing butterfly (Ornithoptera richmondia) receives a benefit
from lantana only as an adult, by sipping the nectar of lantana flowers, while juveniles are
solely dependant on the native birdwing vine (Pararistolochia praevenosa) as a food source
and cannot progress to metamorphosis without this plant. This native vine is a high-priority
9