Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain has tradition-ally been known in Victoria as West-ern Basalt Plains Grassland. It is listed on the Flora & Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 and has a published Action Statement PDF.

This entity however, is not recogniz-ed under the Planning & Environment Act 1987 in its entirety, although the bulk of the FFG listed vegetation is captured under EVC 132 – Plains Grassland. Plains Grassland is con-sidered to be endangered within the Victorian Volcanic Plain Bioregion. Several benchmarks exist describing the vegetation type including Heavier-soils Plains Grassland PDF, Lighter-soils Plains Grassland PDF and Low-rainfall Plains Grassland PDF based loosely on soil types and rainfall zones.

Being listed on the FFG Act 1988, the threatened ecological community was protected on Public Land but in the absence of a Critical Habitat Determination, remnants on private land continued to be cleared.

In 1989 the foundations for Victoria's Native Vegetation Management: A Framework for Action was establish-ed and in 2002 the 'policy' was finally released. Over the following 6-years various parts of the methodology for identifying vegetation, describing its quality and offsetting its losses were developed, and continue to evolve.

In 2008, the first audit PDF was conducted to document the impact of the framework on the clearance of native vegetation within the state. This study determined that native grasslands are continuing to disappear at a rate of 3,200 hectares each year and the report expressed 'concerns with the protection and management of endangered native grasslands'. Although the report suggests that these declines are due to conversion of native pasture into intensive agriculture, maps provided of losses in the Victorian Volcanic Plains (Page 12) shows clearing primarily along the urban fringe in areas being actively developed for industrial land and new housing

What is a remnant patch under the native vegetation framework?

5Erodium crinitum (Blue Heron's Bill) – a grassland recluse

4How good are you at estimating area? Participate in survey.

3Framework III – Concerns regarding percentage cover estimates

Articles Inside

Eco

Ram

bli

ng

s™B

ota

nic

us

Au

stra

lia

Pty

Ltd

Issue 7

September 2008

ISSN 1834-2442

estates. This correlates with my observations.

The problem, in part, is due to the lack of appreciation of this grassy ecosystems by the general public and their willingness to fight for remnants.

The other problem stems from the lack of grass identification skills and ecological understanding in the group of people conducting 'botanical' assessments to accomp-any planning permit applications within this state. If assessors are unable to distinguish between indig-enous and non-indigenous grasses then all estimates of quality and significance will be out. Of particular concern is large specimens of the the native grass Austrostipa spp. (Spear-grass) being identified as the exotic grass *Nassella neesiana (Chilean Needle-grass).

On 21 June 2008, Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain was listed on the Environmental Protection and Conservation Act 1999 as Critically Endangered. This now means that any grassland rem-nant as small as 0.05 hectares (22m x 22m) is protected under the Act and any activities that will result in a significant impact on the grassland will need to be referred to the federal minister for consideration. Consider-ing the large extent of this veget-ation type and the significant overlay with areas being developed, this is by far the most important and far reaching listing to date in Victoria.

Two questions immediately come to mind. The first is whether this federal legislation is triggered more frequently than the state

The implications of listing of Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain on the Environmental Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

6

Conditional thresholds under the EPBC Act 1999

Criteria 1: The total perennial tussock cover repres-ented by the above mentioned grasses is ≥50%

Criteria 2: If the total cover of the above mentioned grasses is <50%, then the ground cover of indigenous forbs is ≥50% (2a) during the spring-summer period (2b).

Criteria 3: The cover of non-grass weeds in ≤30% of the total vegetation cover at any time of the year.

OK what does this actually mean? Can a block of grassland trigger state legislation but not Commonwealth legislation, or Commonwealth legislation and not state legislation or are both these criteria thresholds triggered as often as each other.

To answer this question I extracted detailed information on 93 sites identified as Western Basalt Plains Grassland, representing 792 hectares of grassland assessed between 2003 and 2007, where enough information was collected to evaluate whether they they trigger the state and the new Commonwealth legislation, and why.

Of the 93 sites all triggered the EPBC Act 1999 but only 77 (83%) triggered the framework. In actual area, this equates to 12% more grassland (i.e. 97 hectares) qualifies as grassland under Commonwealth law compared to State law. So the short answer is that grassland is more likely to trigger the EPBC Act 1999 rather than the Victorian Native Vegetation Management Framework.

You can see from the following summary, sites always qualified due to Criteria 3 “Lack of non-grasses weed” option, but were also triggered 10% of the time due to meeting Criteria 1. Interestingly Criteria 2 was never triggered although in 33% of the sites it would have been necessary to recommend further survey during spring and summer to totally exclude the possibility that a herbaceous element may still be present.

Postscript: For the sake of completeness it is necessary to indicate that the Commonwealth definition also includes EVC 654 Creekline Tussock Grassland PDF, but as stated before although various Acts have different elements included in their descriptions the core entity in its variously encountered successional stages is included. This analysis only compared sites classified as the core entity EVC 132 Plains Grassland in the VVP.

EcoRamblings, Issue 7 2 September 2008

The implications of listing of Natural Temperate Grassland of the VVP, cont'd

EPBC ACT

Number of Assessment SitesCRITERIA 1 2a 2b 3 Total

Qualify 9 (10%) 0 62 (67%) 93 (100%)93No 84 93 31 0

Area of Western Basalt Plains Grassland (hectares)CRITERIA 1 2a 2b 3 Total

Qualify 20 (3%) 0 788 (99%) 792792No 772 792 4 0

legislation, and second, whether it will reduce the rate of clearance.

Whether the federal legislation curbs the on-going decline of this vegetation only time will tell so I am not going to discuss this issue further.

When does a grassland stop being a grassland?

One of the first issues that an assessor confronts when surveying vegetation is when does the vegetation stop being representative of the original vegetation type. This question needs to be answered before you can draw a line around a patch on a map. Historically this was left in the realm of the ecologist and answers varied between (1) the presence of certain structural elements or character species, (2) the presence of variety of species together – i.e. biodiversity, and/or (3) recoverability.

Western Basalt Plains Grassland, in its typical form, is dominated by Themeda triandra (Kangaroo Grass) and has a variety of herbs growing in the inter-tussock spaces. It is usually confined to heavy basalt soils common across the Volcanic Plains. This description however is very simplistic and does not take into account changes in species composition resulting from variation in fire regime or grazing patterns. For example, the elimination of wildfire and the introduction of stock results in a grassland dominated by C3-grasses like Austrodanthonia sp. (Wallaby-grasses) and Austrostipa sp. (Spear-grasses), and in the depletion of the inter-tussock herbs.

In Victoria, conditional thresholds have been specified in the Guide for Assessment of Referred Permit Applications, which defines for all indigenous vegetation types when they should be treated as a 'Remnant Patch' and their removal mitigated and when they should be treated as 'Degraded Treeless Vegetation'. Degraded Treeless Vegetation falls outside the planning system and can be cleared without implication. For grasslands, the only relevant criteria is whether the understorey cover is ≥25% indigenous. For other vegetation types, canopy cover is also considered. The last article in this issue of EcoRamblings provides an easy to follow diagram showing how these criteria interplay.

The EPBC Act 1999 differs in its approach PDF. It specifies a set of conditional criteria specific PDF to the listed entity 'Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plains'. This document specifies that this grassland is (1) associated with Quaternary basalt soil within the Victorian Volcanic Plain IBRA Bioregion, (2) dominated by indigenous grasses in the genera Themeda (Kangaroo-grass), Austrodanthonia (Wallaby-grass), Austrostipa (Spear-grass) and/or Poa (Tussock-grass), and (3) meets one or more of the following conditional criteria. Several other 'key defining attributes' are outlined regarding minimum patch size and the density of trees.

assume this skill is also required to estimate cover for the Neighbourhood Component of the Landscape Context Score, the final habitat score could vary again by up to 10 points! What does this mean? Habitat scores are one of the main parameters used to establish conservation significance, which in turn dictates the potential outcomes for the conservation of the remnant vegetation as explained in Victorian Native Vegetation Management Framework (NRE 2002). A habitat score varying by 46 to 65 points moves an assessment site between the four conservation significance ratings potentially making the value of the habitat quality assessment useless. For a land manager, this could result in significant areas not being appropriately managed or conserved, while for a developer it could result in substantially higher offsets for native vegetation that unavoidably has to be cleared.

How can this problem be addressed? 1. The Department of Sustainability & Environ-

ment (DSE) should develop techniques to minimize the variability in area estimates between observers.

2. DSE should ensure adequate training of assessors in the estimation of percentage foliage cover.

3. DSE should ensure that only those people that have received appropriate training are capable of doing an assessment. This would probably require the development of a suitably monitored accreditation scheme.

4. Assessments should provide all observations and completed field assessment sheets or equivalent, so reviewers can verify that the data matches the current site conditions and that all the sebsequent calculations are correct.

5. DSE should regularly review all assessments to ensure standards are maintained.

REFERENCES

Cheal D. C. (2008) Repeatability of cover estimates?PDF Ecological Management & Restoration 9 (1), 67-68.

DSE (2004) 'Vegetation Quality Assessment Manual - Guidelines for applying the habitat hectare scoring method' Edition 1.3 (Department of Sustainability and Environment: Melbourne).

NRE (2002) 'Victoria's Native Vegetation Management: A Framework for Action'PDF

Edition 1 (The Department of Natural Resources and Environment: East Melbourne).

Parkes D., Newell G. and Cheal D. (2003) Assessing the quality of native vegetation: The ‘habitat hectares’ approach.PDF Ecological Management & Restoration 4 (Supplement), S29-S38.

I have repeatedly argued the need to have people collecting flora and fauna data to provide the raw data on which they based their conclusions. Unfortunately most government agencies allow flora and fauna assessments to get away with just providing the final results. Unfortunately this prevents reviewers from verifying the observers observations and their subsequent calculations.

In Victoria, habitat scores are calculated using a composite indice based around the extent and condition of various enviromental attributes. This methodology is discussed in detail by Parkes, Newell & Cheal (2003) and DSE (2004). In essence, habitat scores are based on the Site Condition Score and Landscape Context Score for a site. The Site Condition Score constitutes 75% of the final habitat score and is based on number/extent and condition of large trees, tree canopy cover, weeds, understorey species/lifeforms, recruitment cohorts/area, organic litter and logs. All except the logs component require the observer to estimate the percentage cover of various components. For example, tree canopy health is broken into >70%, 30-70% and <30%, where as weed cover is broken into >50%, 25-50%, 5-25% and <5% classes. Obviously the ability to accurately estimate cover is an essential skill for assessors.

A recent paper by David Cheal (Cheal 2008), one of the architects of the habitat score system, is of particular interest but has gone largely unnoticed in the broader scientific community. In this assessment, he asked 16 individuals to estimate the projected foliage cover of a relatively easily identified grass using a 10%-interval 10-point scale and the traditional 7-point Braun-Blanquet cover-abundance scale. Surprisingly the observers, most with technical or tertiary biological qualifications and experience in standard field survey, had scores that ranged from 20% to 60% in the 10-point scale and 6% to 75% in the 7-point scale.

If conducting a habitat score for this same area, this diversity of cover values would result is scores that varied considerably between observers. A tentative review of the Vegetation Quality Field Assessment Sheet (DSE 2004) shows that the ranges recorded by Cheal would cover the full gamut of percentage intervals presented in each component making up the Site Condition Score. If an assessor's ability to accurately estimate cover is in doubt then habitat scores could vary up to 36 points in woody ecosystems to 55 points in grasslands [Potential changes in score due to incorrect estimate of plant cover for each component: Large Tree ~2, Tree Canopy Cover ~5, Lack Weeds ~15, Understorey ~10, Organic Litter ~5, Recruitment (Grasslands) ~10 points.]. If we

EcoRamblings, Issue 7 3 September 2008

Framework III - Concerns about the reliability of percentage cover estimates in field assessments, a case for transparent documentation of observations?

"?"

EcoRamblings, Issue 7 4 September 2008

The previous article discusses variability in the results of area estimation within the broader scientific community. I would like to take this issue a bit further by estimating how accurate people actually are at estimating cover in a complex situation.

Consequently, I have created three hypothetical quadrats using ArcView and superimposed the distribution of four separate plants. The exact cover of each species is known.

To the right of this page are 3 quadrats. Individual plants are represented as a series of varying sized circles of different colour, hatching or speckling. A legend showing the symbols used for each species is provided below.

Test your skills at estimating area. Look at each grid and estimate what the percentage cover of each plant species. No 10% intervals or Braun-Blanquet estimations – record an actual percentage cover, that way I can provide some statistics on how close people actually get.

The rules are as follows...

1. No rulers or grids, estimates should be based on estimation by your eyes only.

2. Plants are assumed to have 100% opacity. That is, the visible area represented for each species and the ground layer are mutually exclusive.

3. Each quadrat should take no longer than 5 minutes to complete.

4. Only one estimation should be submitted by each participant.

5. Percentage cover of each species and the ground stratum should be recorded and emailed to me for each grid. Make sure your estimates total to 100% otherwise I will rescaled.

6. In your email with the results include whether you are a natural resource consultant, other industry professional, naturalist or general public. Depending on the number of people in each group I will compare the results of each group.

7. Obvious miscalculations or errors will be obmitted from further anlaysis.

8. All individual results will remain confidential.

The area occupied by each species within the quadrats will be published in the next issue of EcoRamblings along with some statistical analysis of any data sent to me. Good luck.

How good are you at estimating area? Participate in this survey

Erodium crinitum (Blue Heron's Bill) - a grassland recluse

EcoRamblings, Issue 7 5 September 2008

Erodium crinitum (Blue Heron's-bill) is flowering again and this triggered me to take some photographs of this rarely acknowledged species. For the most part this species falls into that group of natives that look and behave like weeds and consequently get overlooked in a lot of biological surveys, but this forb is easily distinguished once you get "your eye in". The following specimen is growing in my backyard among various weeds I have given up trying to eradicate.

Here are some links to some useful web pages with descriptions of this species:

1. Botanic Gardens Trust

2. WA FloraBase

3. NSW Flora Online

Apart from noting that this species is currently flowering I wanted to share some other observations I have found interesting.

Several years ago while having some work done on my house I had a room removed, which resulted in soil covered 40 years earlier being exposed. The soil remained uncovered for several months allowing various weeds to invade. To my surprise Erodium crinitum (Blue Heron's-bill) and Convolvulus angustissimus subsp. omnigracilis (Slender Bindweed) appeared out of nowhere. Although there is a possibility that I 'contaminated' the soil with soil from work boots, I regularly remove soil and seed from my boots between jobs and the debris collected disposed of in the bin. I could only conclude that the plants germinated from seed present in the soil – now that is pretty impressive!

The second observation I would like to share was made during early spring. I spent some time taking some high quality photographs of the Erodium crinitum (Blue Heron's-bill) for my collection. In the morning I had 5-10 plants with 20-30 flowers fully open as shown in the above photograph. The day was very sunny. As the day progressed I went back to see how the plants were going and found that all flowers

has lost their petals. Although the day was very windy I was surprised that all plants, even those with a degree of shelter, had lost their petals. I watched over the next day or so and noted that flowers only appear to last a day, that despite regular visits I never saw pollinators and once the flowers lost their petals the fruit developed very quickly - the central 'stork-bill' present in the flowers I had photographed the day before had shown observable growth. Four days later the 'bill' is almost twice the length of the sepals. This makes me wonder if this species is either self pollinating or able to produce seed without being pollinated.

Further searching have uncovered the following references on the breeding systems of this species or its cogeners:

1. Erodium crinitum – Fiz et al. (2006) PDF records this species as an autogamous monoecious annual. A breeding system commonly expressed in this genus.

2. Erodium aethiopicum – Herrera (1991)PDF

considers the breeding system of this species to be 'facultative autogamy'. That is, it will self pollinate if it is not fertilised by other means (e.g. bees).

In regards to comments of monoecy - on careful inspection of all the flowers on a single plant, and a random sample of 5 flowers collected from other plants within my population, I only found 'typical' hermaphroditic flowers. The anthers had large plump pollen and the ovaries had large plump ovules. If this population was monoecious then some flowers would have been functionally male and some functionally female.

Careful inspection of the flowers show that as the style matures the tips rolled back and touch the anthers resulting in pollen being transferred to the stigmatic surface. Depending on when the stigmatic surface becomes receptive this leaves a short window where insects can effect pollination before the plant sorts things out for itself. In my population plants are facultative autogamous annuals, similar to what Herrera (1991) describes for Erodium aethiopicum.

Image 1: Erodium crinitum flower, bud & leaf. ©Simon Cropper 13/09/2008

Image 2: The centrally located styles can be seen here curling back to touch the anthers on this flower of Erodium crinitum. ©Simon Cropper 13/09/2008

BOTANICUS AUSTRALIA PTY LTDPO Box 160, Sunshine VIC 3020

Phone: 03 9311 5822.

Email: scropper@botanicusaustralia.com.au Internet: www.botanicusaustralia.com.au

What is a Remnant Patch under the Native Vegetation Framework?

Considering you have taken the time to listen to my ramblings I thought it only fair that I let you know a little bit about myself so you can decide for yourself whether my views are legitimate. I have been a professional ecologist since 1985 and have been involved in survey work, the development and implementation of monitoring programs, detailed ecological research and management of both significant species & ecosystems. I also authored the book ‘Management of endangered plants’ published by CSIRO. In 1993, I established the natural resource consultancy Botanicus, which has since serviced a broad range of government and private sector clients, and has conducted numerous flora & fauna surveys throughout Victoria.

EcoRamblings, Issue 7 6 September 2008

ISSN 1834-2442© Botanicus Australia Pty Ltd 2008

The opinions expressed in this newsletter are those of Simon Cropper and have been provided for educational purposes only. Care should be taken in relying on them in specific situations without gaining expert advice regarding your needs. Consequently, no warranty is provided by Simon Cropper or Botanicus Australia Pty Ltd, and both parties disclaim any liability that may arise from you relying on any information published in this newsletter.

Please feel free to distribute this publication to anyone interested in Natural Resource Management. All issues are available on my website. If you would like to be notified by email about the release of future issues, send me an email with SUBSCRIBE ECORAMBLINGS in the subject line to my email address below. If at any stage you wish to discontinue receiving notifications, send me an email with UNSUBSCRIBE ECORAMBLINGS in the subject line.

Please note that numerous links to the Internet have been provided in this document to help direct the reader to supportive documentation or further reading. I have assumed that most people will have broadband and Acrobat® Reader on their system. I apologize if this is not the case. I have marked links pointing to Acrobat® Portable Document Format files with the PDF symbol. The reader can be downloaded from the Adobe Website.

Articles in this document can be cited in the same way as traditional journals, viz. Cropper, S.C. (2006) Heat stress in outdoor workers. EcoRamblings 1: 1-2.

Housekeeping

A diagram showing the primary factors distiguishing Degraded Treeless Vegetation, Scattered Trees and Remnant Patches in Victoria, and how they interplay.

LEGEND DTV = Degraded Treeless Vegetation. ST = Small Tree.MT = Medium Tree.LT = Large Tree.VLT = Very Large Tree.X = Exotic vegetation

REFERENCES DSE (2007) ‘Guide for Assessment of Referred Permit Application’ (Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne)

FOOTNOTES 1. Remnant Patches require calculation of Habitat Score using

Vegetation Quality Assessment Manual (VQAM).2. Any vegetation where the VQAM assessment is not an

accurate representation of the quality of the vegetation (e.g. during a declared drought, dry phase of a wetland, following fire, flooding, slashing or unusually intense grazing) the Default Habitat Score should be used.

3. All wetlands to be treated as a remnant patch. Wetlands without a Terrestrial EVC Benchmark default to a Habitat Score of 0.45.

4. Some regional vegetation plans require scattered small trees to be documented and offset.

Proportion of INDIGENOUS to NON-INDIGENOUS Understorey Plant Cover excluding bare ground, rocks and water

0 <25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%

TR

EE C

AN

OPY C

OV

ER

0 X DTV 2, 3 Remnant Patch (treeless vegetation) 1

<20%

Scattered Trees 2, 3

ST ( ≥25% DBH) 4 MT ( ≥75% DBH)LT ( ≥100% DBH) VLT ( ≥150% DBH)

20-100%100%

Remnant Patch1

(tree stand)

Remnant Patch1

(treed vegetation)

WETLANDS

W

Who is Simon Cropper?