Please click on a letter to list all weeds in archive beginning with that letter.

Abutilon grandifolium
Abutilon grandiflorum
Acacia longifolia
Acacia nilotica ssp. Indica
Acetosa sagttata
Aeschynomene paniculata
African Lovegrass
Agapanthus
Agapanthus praecox ssp orientalis
Aleppo pine
Alianthus altissima
Amyema spp.
Andropogon gayanus
Anredera cordifolia
Apple of Sodom
Aquarium caulerpa
Araujia sericefera
Arctotheca calendula
Arctotheca populifolia
Artemisia verlotiorum
Arum Lily
Arundo donax
Asparagus asparagoides
Asparagus scandens
Asparagus aethiopicus
Asparagus declinatus
Asparagus densiflorus
Asphodelus fistulosus
Athel pine

In assessing some plants recently I've come across an error in the application of an Abutilon name that ends up implicating the wrong Abutilon species as a weed.

The two names that have been swapped around are:

Abutilon grandifolium (Willd.) Sweet. This plant is native to Central and South America and is a well known weed in the Pacific region the USA, New Zealand and Australia. Abutilon grandiflorum D.Don is a native of southern Africa and has no records of weediness that I can find.

Unfortunately several Australian websites have mistakenly used the name Abutilon grandiflorum instead of Abutilon grandifolium which is bloody confusing and just plain wrong.

It seems many people seem to believe that "florum" and "folium" are interchangeable. Well folks they aren't.

Abutilon grandifolium (Willd.) Sweet. is the plant that has naturalised at various locations along the east coast from Melbourne round to Brisbane.

Abutilon grandiflorum D.Don is in cultivation in Australia but has not misbehaved and does not deserve to be considered a weed.

If you see this misapplication of names in a website or text, please alert the authors to this error.

Acacia longifolia - Sydney Golden Wattle
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 22 May 2007
From: gcarr <gcarr@ecologyaustralia.com.au>

A New Zealand friend has requested information on the management/control of Acacia longifolia which infests land where he lives.  I would greatly appreciate any of our New Zealand friends advising me of experiences or useful literature there.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 22 May 2007
From: "Randall, Rod" <RPRandall@agric.wa.gov.au>

The South Africans have a wealth of experience dealing with this species and other Australian Acacia species.

See

Campbell, P. (1993). Wattle Control.  Handbook N°3 Plant Protection Research Institute South Africa
They also have a lot of info online

There is also some good info on woody weed control advice in

Brown, K. and Brooks, K. (2002). Bushland Weeds. A practical guide to their management. With case studies from the Swan Coastal Plain and beyond. Environmental Weeds Action Network Perth, Western Australia.

and a pamphlet is available for download from

http://members.iinet.net.au/~ewan/pdf/woody%20weedsA3.pdf

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 24 May 2007
From: K Voges <pappea@telkomsa.net>

As Acacia longifolia generally does not resprout when cut, removal of larger & mature plants is just by cutting. Follow-up treatment of seedlings is usually with 60 ml triclopyr (480g/l EC, the ester formulation) in 10 litres water + 50 ml of a mineral oil spreader (820g/l; e.g. BP crop oil). Spray to point of run-off, ideally on plants < 1 m high. I have found a wipe application of the same herbicide at a 5 % concentration to be effective and similarily glyphosate (360g/l) at 10 %; in both cases a single to & fro sweep. However these are not registered treatments here, not widely used or tested and merely pointers to potential trials there. An important addition to control efforts here was the introduction of the bud galler Trichilogaster acaciaelongifoliae < 20 years ago, which greatly reduces seed-setting.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002
From: Sam Eddy <sammyseal19@hotmail.com>

What I need To know is:

The Ecology and Biology for example life cycle, seed viability and longevity, mechanisms for dispersal, germination requirements, charactersitics which favour survival, habitat preferences and conditions favoring invasion.

And Impacts on ecosystem elements and processes for example, changes to structure/function/composition of invaded communities, changes to fire regime/light/hydrology, changes to geomorphology (landform), plant interactions - competitor or vacant niche and plant/animal interactions.
For Acacia longifolia var sophorae which is an environmental weed in The Geelong-Victoria region.

If somebody could answer some or even all of these questions that would be fantastic and greatly appreciated. I'm writing a management plan for this particular species.

back to top

Acacia nilotica ssp. Indica - Prickly acacia
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004
From: Sandy Lloyd<slloydagric.wa.gov.au>

Department of Agriculture - Government of Western Australia

Media Statement
3 Baron-Hay Court, South Perth, Western Australia 6151
Tel: (08) 9368 3641 Fax: (08) 9474 2018
www.agric.wa.gov.au
30 January 2004

STRATEGY DEVELOPED TO CONTROL PRICKLY KIMBERLEY WEED

A strategy is being devised to eradicate a declared weed, discovered in the East Kimberley last year.

The Department of Agriculture is working with the local aboriginal community to develop a plan to remove an infestation of prickly acacia, which is one of the 20 Weeds of National Significance.

Department Manager of Plant Pests, Damian Collopy, said it would be a long term plan, which would begin after the end of the wet season, to eradicate a dense infestation over 1500 hectares on the Durack River and scattered plants in the surrounding area.

Mr Collopy said the components of the plan would adhere to the national strategy to eradicate prickly acacia where possible and a submission for funding assistance was currently being considered by the National Prickle Bush Management Committee.

"The Durack River Prickly Acacia Eradication Committee has been established, based at Kununurra, to help develop the strategy and implement the eradication program," he said.

"Department officers have also been consulting with Joorook Ngarni and the Nulla Nulla aboriginal community, as well as the Departments of Conservation and Land Management, Environment and Indigenous Affairs about how best to eradicate this particularly nasty weed."

The strategy will also ensure that the spread of the weed is minimised while the eradication program is undertaken. When the wet season abates a comprehensive herbicide control program will commence, in about April or May, in consultation with the affected communities.

Mr Collopy said the success of the eradication strategy would depend on the commitment of all stakeholders.

"The infestation is particularly large, with scattered plants extending over a 20 kilometre frontage of the Durack River and adjacent bushland," he said. "As a result, it will take a number of years to control and will require ongoing funding and the support of people living in and visiting the East Kimberley."

Media contacts:
Damian Collopy, Manager Plant Pests 9780 6218
Alison Blake, Media Liaison 9368 3641

back to top

Acetosa sagttata - Turkey rhubarb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007
From: <swoolfen@bigpond.net.au>

I am writing a plan of action on controlling dune weeds in sandy beach dunes within the Northern Sydney beaches area. I wonder if anybody on the list has used herbicides on Acetosa sagittata (mature and immature) and dense Asparagus Fern infestations, what were the results? I have concerns about chemicals entering the dune water table environment, but the scale of the multiple infestations is well beyond a manual approach.

Any suggestions, formulations or recommendations?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007
From: Matthew.Springall@environment.nsw.gov.au

You're right to have concerns about spraying on sand dunes. I've used glyphosate at 1:100 on Acetosa to great effect in many situations - best results from spraying as it's beginning to flower. It will reshoot tho from tubers any bigger than about 15-20mm diameter. Mixing up spray treatments with hand weeding reshooting tubers is a good long term strategy. I have killed off asparagus fern with 1:100 glyphosate using repeat sprays but this is not my prefered treatment. Brushoff (metsulfuron) seems to work much better on asparagus but you would certainly not use it on sand. A brushoff spray at Palm Beach has seen deaths of wattles and banksias up to a year following the spray and this is not the first case of this effect from spraying on sand dunes. Others on the list server may have experience with other chems on sand dunes but from my experience i'd steer well clear of chem spraying in this environment.

Without knowing the size of the areas, the time scales being asked to get the infestations under control or the amount of native veg on the dunes I'd be recommending a long term manual approach. Use the basic principles of starting where there's less weeds and working towards the biggers patches. Get the biggest seeders first, then worry about seedlings once seed production has been curtailed somewhat. Considering the amount of asparagus fern and acetosa on the northern beaches there should be no reason why there should be any expectation to have large heavy infestations of these weeds under control within a short period of time. From what I've seen of the asparagus and acetosa around the beaches you'd be looking at a 10 year program at the very least.

Some good comments on strategies of weed removal in the last few days - I haven't had a chance to read them all yet - but can't agree enough about needing to understand the timescales involved in this process. Thing is it's not just the volunteers that need to understand this (tho many do very well), but also the managers, politicians, councilors, ratepayers, voters etc that ultimately provide the funding and expections for this sort of project to be over and done with in just a couple of years or less.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006
From: Lee Andresen <andresen@sydney.dialix.com.au>

Has anyone any experience using industrial-strength suction devices for trapping and removing wind-blown weed seeds such as those from Turkey Rhubarb (Acetosa saggitata)? If a vine's seeds are already ripe when it's discovered, future site control depends crucially on collecting and destroying as many ripe seeds as possible before digging out the tubers, especially if it's on a windy location.

I've experimented with a large domestic vacuum cleaner (mine's a "Vax") which is okay but it seems to need something stronger still to suck up the zillions of seeds on the ground under a seeding Turkey Rhubarb vine, and even stronger still to strip the ripening seeds from the vine itself when it's trailing up through Lantana and understorey trees.

I wonder if anyone has tried those sucking devices some Councils use for sucking up leaves from city streets? Or maybe a reverse-action "leaf blower"?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006
From: David H Mackenzie <davidmackenzie@grapevine.net.au>

We tried a leaf blower/sucker with Turkey Rhubarb some time back at Rosedale on the NSW Far S.Coast. Our experience was pretty much as you describe Lee, with about half the seeds going into the sack, a quarter refusing to leave the plant and the rest blowing off with the wind. We did not bother again.

There may well be stronger machines available but there will still be a lot of seed escape. The physics and design of dust extraction hoods in factories explains it fairly well; the best results are when the suction hood almost completely envelopes the dust source. Consequently, most dust extractors are a compromise and it is no wonder that a point source suction is of little use in this application. If one were to devise a hood to go over the plant it might be worth it but I can think of a lot of bush situations where you couldn’t manoeuvre it into place to be effective. At best this is a temporary holding pattern until tuber grubbing or foliar herbicide application can be effected.

We have yet to discover a suitable herbicide and would welcome any off-label tips from you all out there. Glyphosate is, like leaf suckers, a temporary measure if used pre-flowering to prevent seeding but can’t handle all the tubers, at least not in one go. Brush-off is, for us on a sand plain behind the beach dunes, a bit too risky, our bush is pretty dense there and collateral damage could be unacceptably high.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006
From: Lee Andresen <andresen@sydney.dialix.com.au>

I wondered about that myself, Ricky. The seeds are light, and presumably the winged membrane would burn well. I thought of using my weed "flamethrower" to gently singe the ground everywhere the seeds have rained down under the plant (with water hose handy of course). Can anyone advise whether this would stop the seed from germinating? (assuming that only the wings might actually burn on some seeds but that the remaining seed might nonetheless be heated) - I've heard it claimed that fire tends to hasten or otherwise stimulate germination of some weed seeds (Bitou Bush?), so I'd seek scientific advice on this one before experimenting.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006
From: Peter Sorensen [mailto:psor@bigpond.net.au]

I am the coordinator for Towradgi beach dunecare, a voluntary group at the Towradgi beach sand dunes, we operate under Wollongong City Councils Bushcare organization. I have an enquiry regarding the control of Turkey Rhubarb Acetosa Sagttata, of which there are large infestations in the sand dunes, all along the Wollongong coast. We have been busy digging the tubers out but we have a problem that the dunes are not a stable mound and that in some cases the tubers are buried greater than say 500mm deep and could be up to 2 meters deep, we are not exactly sure. ie. they have been buried as the sand is naturally collected along the dunes. We are also aware that we can also cause some damage to the dunes by the excavation works, particularly if it is say more than 200mm. deep. It would be preferable to poison them, we are conducting a crude experiment by marking out two areas and have scraped and painted the vines, in these two areas with full concentration herbicides. We have used your product Weedmaster Duo ie. 360g/l Glyphosate and Vigilant Herbicide Gel 43g/Kg Picloram.

Our current line of attack on this weed is 1) Disposing the seeds, 2) Dig out the tubers and 3)destroy the growing weed if we can not reach the tuber. I was hoping that someone may be able to advise us on these matters, and in particular if anyone has conducted studies on the eradication of this environmental weed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006
From: Matthew.Springall@environment.nsw.gov.au

The integrated approach your taking - mixing up digging up tubers with stem scraping - is probably the best way to tackle this one. Normally I'd alternate spraying 1:100 glyphosate just as the acetosa is going into flower, with removing tubers but there are some serious concerns about spraying on sand dunes. The biggest tip i could give is to try to avoid it going to seed as much as possible. I had one site on a headland at DeeWhy where i'd just rip of the folliage and seed/flowers to try and contain it over the summer, and alot of it had regrown and was flowering again 4 weeks later. This only seems to happen over the warmer months as the growth rate slows right down over winter. Treating it with herbicide (stem scraping) after removing seed heads will definitely slow up the regrowth if it doesn't kill it, but i find tubers over about 25mm diameter are rarely killed first go with either scraping or spraying. Follow up treatments are always necessary but i have managed to eliminate it from many sites following a program over 2 or 3 years. Of course it depends on the size of your site, the age and amount of the infestation and the amount of time and resources you can use on it.

I've never used vigilant on it - i'd be interested to hear how it goes.

Aeschynomene paniculata - Pannicle joint vetch
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007
From: Mark Anderson <Mark.Anderson@nt.gov.au>

I'm looking to find an effective control of Aeschynomene paniculata, particularly for the tropics. We have a threat emerging that could establish on floodplains south-east of Darwin, prime nesting habitat for Magpie Geese.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007
From: Tim Low <Tim.Low@uq.net.au>

Aeschynome paniculata is a plant that was introduced recently by pasture scientists as a potential fodder plant then found to be unpalatable. In Queensland there have been concerns among pasture scientists and the grazing industry about it becoming a major weed, and it was one of four plants targeted by MOPES (Managing Old Plant Evaluation Sites), a program to eradicate embarrassing plants. It was never released as a pasture plant but has managed to spread very effectively anyway from the sites where it was trialled. The MOPES program found it difficult to kill, especially from one remote site on CY Peninsula where it was trialled and quickly spread, and eradication from Qld is not considered possible, or not given the resources they are willing to invest in it. There will be people in Queensland DPI you can tell you how to treat it. Good luck. .

P.S. The MOPES report can be found on the Meat & Livestock website. It doesn't specify control methods.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007
From: Sheldon Navie <s.navie@uq.edu.au>

Try contacting Chris Gardiner at James Cook University or Dr. Kendrick Cox at DPI&F, Walkamin, who is the Project Leader for the MLA/QDPI Weedy Forages Project.

They may have some more info on this species, as they mentioned it in a recent article in the Summer 2006 edition of the Weed Spotters Newsletter.

Agapanthus praecox ssp orientalis - Agapanthus
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006
From: Jeffrey Triplett <jeff_triplett@yahoo.com.au>

Last time I looked Garlon was not registered for Agapanthus in Australia. Something that does have it on the label is Vigilant (picloram in a wiper bottle). Have not tried it on Agapanthus yet but it works very well for woody weeds.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006
From: Jonathan Boow <Jonathan.Boow@arc.govt.nz>

Vigilant does work very well for some woody weeds, but I've observed (as have others) damage to neighbouring plants when using Vigilant on cut stumps. This may well be an acceptable risk, but its one worth remembering. While it is very handy in terms of application (just grab off the shelf and go), it can be a more expensive option (in terms of chemical cost and time for treatment) when you're dealing with larger infestations.

I don't mean this to sound overly negative towards Vigilant (I do still use it!), but if I had agapanthus to control I'd use triclopyr (if allowed...)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006
From: Michael Neighbour <michael@australianecosystems.com.au>

What about spraying agapanthus with triclopyr or any other chemical? Any thoughts all?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 12:01:25 +1200
From: Chris McKain <chris.mckain@xtra.co.nz>

Vigilant will not be effective against Agapanthus. Jonathan is right with regards to Triclopyr. You Aussies need to be more proactive against the Nasties that threaten your natural areas. You will find that a chemical company will NOT spend a lot of money testing a product to cover all possible plants so it can not be registered for the all plants you wish to control. If you are not prepared to use something that works because it may upset some bureaucrat, then I suggest you are not really serious about the treat the pest poses.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006
From: Francoise Matter and Hugh Paterson <fmatter@bigpond.net.au>

It is a matter of applying for an off label permit.

We need national off label permits for environmental weeds to overcome this problem. 

Some states, regions and agencies have done their own thing.  The current setup is chaotic.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006
From: Alexandra Shackleton <ashackleton@geelongcity.vic.gov.au>

We have been using Vigilent successfully on aggies. Haven't done the bulb injection version yet but have cut and painted fronds and also tried painting the leaves directly. Both worked. So far no neighbouring kills (about 14 months since treatment). Very low rainfall year. This has been done in a coastal area with surrounding veg being dominated by poas, dystichlis, Rhagodia candolleana, Isolepis nodosa. Maybe root depth and nature may play the critical path???

And yes, it is chaotic! A National system set up to deal adequately with regional differences (as in get some decent science behind this stuff) would make a world of difference. A lobby point for the CRC?? A service based with the CRC??

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006
From: Neil Tucker <neilt@pipeline.com.au>

Why is it necessary to register a herbicide FOR A PARTICULAR WEED at all? The worst that could happen is that you could kill it! Of course, herbicides should be registered FOR SPECIFIC CROPS, with residue limits etc etc, and PARTICULAR SITUATIONS eg streamsides, but word about the best & worst herbicides for each weed will soon get around without the need for registration & permits, and scientists / bureaucrats could then use their time more productively.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006
From: Vivien & Charlie Clarke <clarke@nex.net.au>

I have a lady in Toomuc Valley Road Pakenham that has agapanthus growing along the roadside that she wants to eliminate.  Has any one had any success in eliminating Agapanthus besides digging them out which would be impossible along this roadside as she does not have the power or the time.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006
From: Jonathan Boow <Jonathan.Boow@arc.govt.nz>

We use triclopyr (Garlon in Aussie i think), its the most effective chemical. Rate is 60ml/10L  plus 20ml organosilicone. You'll probably need 2 or 3 treatments to take care of bits of regrowth (or new seedlings). Wait until you've done this retreatment before doing any replanting.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006
From: "Randall, Rod" <RPRandall@agric.wa.gov.au>

If the plants are growing on a roadside permission from the relevant authority will be required before any work can be commenced.

Alianthus altissima - Tree of Heaven
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002
From: Tony Rodd <tonyroddisp.net.au>

Does anyone have experience in herbicide treatment of large numbers of Tree-of-Heaven suckers? Our group, Friends of the Colo (in cooperation with the NSW NPWS), have been eradicating willows (nearly all Salix nigra) along the 60+ km of the Colo River that flows through the heart of the Wollemi National Park wilderness. In less than 3 years we have had almost complete success in removing the willows using Roundup, but in the course of our surveys have found several other weeds that are causing us concern. In a number of places we have found extensive patches of Tree-of-Heaven (Ailanthus altissima) each patch consisting of numerous suckers but few mature stems. They tend to be higher up the river banks than the willows and extend deep under the canopy of dense native vegetation.

We have recently treated most of the suckers with neat Roundup using a combination of cut and paint for stems up to about 5 cm, stem scrapes for some smaller stems, and closely spaced chisel cuts for larger stems. However, revisiting some of our earlier attempts makes us somewhat pessimistic about the efficacy of these treatments, as we suspect that TOH is very effective at compartmentalising its root (rhizome?) system. We can only manage follow-up monitoring at infrequent intervals due to remoteness of the sites.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002
From: Peter Symes <Peter.Symesrbg.vic.gov.au>

My personal experience in managing this weed is that Glyphoshate injected through drill holes works very effectively if it is done in warm weather over summer. Any post treatment sucker growth died too. I suspect that introducing a herbicide through drilling so that the plant actually translocates the chemical will work more effectively than "cut and paste". Others may have different experience.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002
From: Kylie Stewart <kstewartnex.com.au>

Here is an email I posted quite a few months ago. Following is the only reply I got. We went ahead with what we worked out from the literature and had very good sucess. Timing appears to be important and I believe we just made it before the plants slow down and go dormant for the colder months.

Naturelinks Feburary 2002
We are currently assisting a private landowner of the Mornington Peninsula with his Tree of Heaven problem. His property is mainly pasture weeds with some areas of Tea-tree forest. Main points are:
The landowner has attempted to control it himself and has unfortunately made the problem worse because his control methods have resulted in a ridiculous amount of suckers appearing probably over an 1/2 - 1 acre sized area. It is quite amazing how many and how widespread the suckers are. The main cause of the suckering was the use of a bulldozer to remove adult trees, these trees stumps/bases were not treated with any chemicals. He has also tried drilling and filling with 100% RoundUp but the trees have recovered. There were some problems with is technique that may have contributed to the lack of success. Drilling was done to a depth of about 8cm (probably way to deep) and was done at chest height and also filling did not occur immediately after drilling. Timing may have also been an issue. I have found the following points of interest in corresponding books Kate Blood - Environmental Weeds
a.. Produces seeds in late summer - air borne.
b.. Reproduction by seed, suckers and root fragments.
c.. Spread by wind, water, birds, farm machinary!
d.. Grows rapidly
e.. Freely suckers from roots(for at least 4 years after tree is cut down), sometimes many metres from parent plant, forming thickets.
f.. Leaf contains allelopathic substances that adversly affect the growth of other plants.
Parsons & Cuthbertson- Noxious Weeds
a.. Tree of Heaven is deciduous
b.. Sucker growth is from shallow lateral roots
c.. Both bark and leaves are thought to be toxic to animals
d.. Direct contact with plant particulary when flowering causes dermatitis in some people
e.. Picloram and triclopyr(Garlon) are more effective than 2,4 D and2,4,5 - T, preferably as basal bark or cut stump treatments
f.. Metsulforon methyl is also effective
g.. Some regrowth can be expected after chemical treatment. Overal spraying of shorter growth is recommended.
Tree of Heaven is list on the Garlon(triclopyr) label using the cut-stump method with diesel 1:60.
Tree of Heaven is list on the Esteem(Metsulfuron methyl) label for hand gun spraying @ 10gm/100L
We are considering making the folowing recommedations and would greatly appreciate any comments anyone may have regarding this.
Spraying suckers with metsulfuron methyl at 10gm/100L + surfactant (Pulse)100ml/100L.
Treating established trees with 1:60 diesel garlon mix using frill fill technique.
Prehaps also trying a RoundUp metsulfuron methly mix for frill fill treatment.

Your recommendations sound pretty good, based on the other info you provided. We had a fairly large Tree of Heaven stand in Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park although none of the plants were over 2m tall. Initially we cut them and treated the stumps with glyphosate - we may as well have fertilised them for all the good it did. We then cut the stumps and treated immediately with Garlon which had a much better success rate - on plants we'd treated before and plants whihc hadn't been cut before. Garlon is definitely a good option.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002
From: Rod Randall <RPRandallagric.wa.gov.au>

For anyone considering woody weed control in environmentally sensitive areas then I suggest they check out the pdf file available at the EWAN web site on just this subject http://members.iinet.net.au/~ewan/info.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002
From: Dominic GD <dominicgdstart.com.au>

My personal experience with another prolificly suckering Meliaceae member Cedrela sinensis (Chinese Toon) is same as Peter Symes (below) Timing seemed to be the key... as the sap moves down early Autumn. I would avoid any of the more health-risky chemicals, stick with glyphosate till timing is worked out.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002
From: Patrick Deasey <pdeaseynaturelinks.com.au>

We have had poor control on a large suckering patch of this weed, with a triclopyr/diesel cut stump and frilling control, that was applied in autumn. There appears to be a lot of re-growth. Has anyone got any good suggestions on other controls? A goat keeps some of the suckers down, and we would be able to remove this animal if needed. In particular is picloram a good option for this weed?

back to top

Amyema spp. - Mistletoe
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007
From: Peter Martin <peter.martin@adelaide.edu.au>

The problem for my family's farm (Central West NSW slopes – Molong Wellington area) is that many of the remnant trees are becoming infested with Mistletoe which is really hastening their deaths. Even much younger trees planted in recent times are being infested. 
 
Even though the Mistletoe Bird is a lovely bird to see and makes a beautiful nest, he is not welcome from the point of view that many of the trees are being overwhelmed with this parasite, even though it has always been part of the landscape.
 
I am writing to ask if you know of any method of control apart from hiring a "bucket truck" (a 12m lift is needed in the old trees) and getting up there with a saw to cut it out.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007
From: Roger Cook <RogerC@hume.vic.gov.au>

Just remember that much mistletoe is indigenous and parasitism can have "good" as well as and "bad" effects. Parasitism, symbiosis, mutualism etc are degrees of dependence or dominance (and I usually forget which are which). In north-western Melbourne where we maintain a wide variety of remnant vegetation and are also involved in considerable revegetation ,we do not really have a problem with Mistletoe because it is generally tends to be in balance with the vegetation community. Many species are specific to a certain genus eg Acacia or Eucalyptus or even certain species eg Allocasuarinna spp. Completely removing the infestation even whole infested branches and burning them can be a solution.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007
From: UBMC <ubmc@urbanbushland.com.au>

How do you work out with a species like mistletoe if it is actually 'in balance' with the environment or not? Just wondering.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007
From: "Randall, Rod" <RPRandall@agric.wa.gov.au>

This sounds more like a symptom of a lack of trees for mistletoe birds to perch than any issue with a native parasite. Be careful you don't do more damage than the mistletoe in attempting to 'remediate' a perceived problem.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007
From: Nathan Kirby <Nathan.Kirby@brisbane.qld.gov.au>

The link to the attached abstract and paper has some information on some of the other issues that may need to be taken into consideration and some previous experiences in mistletoe removal, might be of use

http://live.greeningaustralia.org.au/vegfutures/pages/page133.asp

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007
From: Tim Low <Tim.Low@uq.net.au>

Mistletoe birds fly between clumps of fruiting mistletoe, excreting seeds where they feed. Host trees often build up unsustainable colonies of mistletoe, leading to deaths of the tree and the mistletoe. This only seems to be a problem in paddock and roadside trees, and can be attributed to such factors as lack of fire to kill mistletoe clumps, lack of brush-tail possums to browse on mistletoe, and high light levels that result in trees not shedding their lower (often mistletoe-infested) branches. It can be a serious cause of tree death and removing the mistletoe is definitely justified. I am watching two trees die slowly from mistletoe infestation near my parent's house. It is especially interesting because they are weed trees - Chinese elms (Celtis sinensis) - carrying 3 mistletoe species.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007
From: Roger Cook <RogerC@hume.vic.gov.au>

I must explain as background that I work in an OPERATIONAL local government Parks department based natural landscape management unit managing remnant and revegetation sites. Like many Victorian municipalities in the mid 1990's, we developed a Greening Strategy (now part of a Natural Heritage Strategy)responding to earlier national and state legislation conservation initiatives and lobbying from citizens groups etc. Our unit's role is to protect and enhance large areas of council owned or managed remnant sites (approx 300ha+).

Our first priority was to actually start protecting and enhancing these very vulnerable sites before they disappeared in a sea of weeds and inaction. For ten years we have been doing a lot of the basics ie assessing and prioritising sites, dealing with the most invasive weeds, fencing off sensitive areas, ecological burning, planting, coordinating with land releases from subdivisions, exhorting other council departments and service agencies to respect our sites, etc etc. We have always liaised with and invited support and research from academic institutions and it is gradually increasing although most external research has tended to focus on our nationally threatened grasslands. All of our workforce in Natural Landscape Management and related areas are tertiary as well as practically qualified in the relevant areas (plant identification, herbicide use, chain sawing, ecological burning etc). An innovative independent monitoring/management system of our most significant sites will be reporting its first annual findings very soon on the qualitative and quantitative changes in those sites. Early figures suggest that there have been marked increases in the biodiversity of some key sites over the past year, despite the drought, and we hope to also produce detailed costings of our site management as well. 

Back to Mistletoe - we know that indigenous Mistletoe species exist locally and the assessment by our unit and our arborists from observation and regular monitoring is that Mistletoe is not causing significant problems nor damage to remnant vegetation and that where they are causing damage it is minor, generally aesthetic, and limited to exotic street trees such as Prunus sp and Quercus sp. When we need to know more we consult appropriate reference sources eg Flora of Victoria Volume 4 edited by Walsh & Entwhistle (which coincidently features Drooping Mistletoe Amyema pendula subsp pendula on the cover)and sources such as the interesting Watson and Herring paper of 2006. We respond to Enviroweeds requests because this network thrives on sharing practical experiences as well as soliciting scientific facts or references where known. It makes a good useful mix, I believe. Finally, I am sympathetic to your concern over the term "in balance" as it can be argued that there is never balance or equilibrium always change.

Andropogon gayanus - Gamba grass
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007
From: Tim Low <Tim.Low@uq.net.au>

The Queensland Government subjected gamba grass (Andropogon gayanus) to a weed risk assessment in 2005 and reached the following conclusion:

“If large areas of northern Australia become dominated by gamba grass, the associated fire regime is predicted to transform Australia’s eucalypt-dominated tropical woodlands into tree-free grasslands.”

That report recommended an end to further sale of gamba seeds, an end to further plantings, and the eradication of isolated infestations. But nearly two years have passed and no action has been taken. More than 5 tonnes of gamba grass seed are sold in Queensland each year as a pasture grass, but last year’s sales reportedly rose to 11 tonnes. It is spreading rapidly as a weed.

In an article in the Courier Mail today, Rachel McFadyen, the CEO of the Weeds CRC, and myself both criticise the Queensland government for doing nothing to stop this weed.

 
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22180906-3102,00.html
 
We both consider this plant to be Australia's worst weed, given its potential to kill millions of trees. It is already killing many trees in the Northern Territory. You can read more about it at these sites:
 
Gamba grass on Catalyst: http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1199756.htm

Gamba grass on Earthbeat: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/earth/stories/s41395.htm

The Gamba Action Group N.T.  http://www.gamba.org.au/

The Tropical Savannas CRC: http://savanna.ntu.edu.au/education/natalie_rossiter_phd.html

The Queensland government may make the right decision, but they want to consult first with farmers, which means they may well make the wrong decision, and they will delay making any decision for many months. If you have an opinion about this weed, please relay it to the minister responsible, the Queensland minister for primary industries, the Hon Tim Mulherin, at DPI@ministerial.qld.gov.au

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007
From: Kate Boyd <boydkate@bigpond.net.au>

Is it worth trying to persuade Minister Mulherin to impose a moratorium preventing further Gamba seed sales or planting while he consults about a more permanent ban? That way he clearly has the option of allowing future sales if he concludes after consultation that the benefits exceed the risks, but in the mean time the spread of the monster would be slowed. The moratorium should be of indefinite duration (so that consultation and consideration of submissions can be done properly or never concluded).

Or is it more likely that requests for an immediate permanent ban will succeed without the risks of consultation resulting in a temporary ban being lifted?  I don’t know what the legal requirements are, let alone how the DPI and Ministerial staff can best be persuaded.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007
From: Greg Boyles <gregsplants@eftel.net.au>

Publicise the fact that the grass will almost certainly spread to across the north, including around rural communities, and will result in much worse bushfires. Nothing like the emotive issue of bushfires to turn public and eventually political opinion against these numb skulls.
 
In fact I will post this to "A Current Affair" and "Today Tonight" and see if they will do a story on it.

For what it is worth I have placed a notice at the top of my home page with an email link to the QLD minister. Hopefully some ordinary QLD'ers will be alerted to this issue and take action.

The QLD Govt has the ability through the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act to make an emergency declaration of a pest plant. QLD has a Class 3 pest plant category which bans the sale of the weed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007
From: Tim Low <Tim.Low@uq.net.au>

Yes, this is what should be done - an emergency declaration - and I have asked the government to do this some time ago. There was the earlier suggestion from Kate
Boyd that a moratorium be imposed on the sale of gamba seeds, but that would have to have legal force to work, and I think the only mechanism is an emergency declaration. The company in north Queensland that is selling all the seed (5-11 tonnes each year) is unlikely to stop unless forced to. There may well be panic sales going on right now, ie. farmers seeking to obtain the seed quickly in the fear that it will soon be banned.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007
From: Andreas Glanznig <AGlanznig@wwf.org.au>

Pls note that there is a recent precedent for this type of intervention.
 
In Victoria, former environment minister John Thwaites used his emergency declaration powers under the Catchment and Land Protection Act http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/newmedia.nsf/b0222c68d27626e2ca256c8c001a3d2d/afe44978f36bbcacca2570dc0001c87c!OpenDocument
 
WWF's media release welcoming this decision is at:
http://www.wwf.org.au/news/wwf-welcomes-emergency-ban-on-harmful-grazing-weed/
 
A responsible and timely decision by Queensland to ban the trade of gamba is set to be a litmus test issue for the new Biosecurity Queensland on whether it will seriously take a 'whole of government' approach to biosecurity/invasive species issues.
 
The impacts of gamba on nationally significant native species and ecosystems is detailed in the nomination of gamba for listing as a key threatening process under the EPBC Act at: http://www.ecnt.org/pdf/other_weeds_gamba_epbc.pdf

Date: Monday, 6 August 2007
From: John Rains [mailto:johnr@southedgeseeds.com.au]

What a wonderful modern tool the internet is.  My name is John Rains and as described below I am the General Manager and Managing Director of Southedge Seeds, a legitimate seed production and distribution company based at Mareeba in North Queensland.  Southedge Seeds has been operating in this role for 26 years and has a reputation as a highly reputable company. We supply seed to the domestic market as well as exporting to equatorial countries around the globe. In 2003 the company received the Cairns Regional Agribusiness Award from the Qld State Government.

Following are excerpts from emails that are floating around the traps.

Publicise the fact that the grass will almost certainly spread to across the north, including around rural communities, and will result in much worse bushfires. Nothing like the emotive issue of bushfires to turn public and eventually political opinion against these numb skulls.

In fact I will post this to "A Current Affair" and "Today Tonight" and see if they will do a story on it. (Greg Boyles )

The Queensland government may make the right decision, but they want to consult first with farmers, which means they may well make the wrong decision, and they will delay making any decision for many months. If you have an opinion about this weed, please relay it to the minister responsible, the Queensland minister for primary industries, the Hon Tim Mulherin, at DPI@ministerial.qld.gov.au (Tim Low)

For what it is worth I have placed a notice at the top of my home page with an email link to the QLD Minister for Agriculture. Hopefully some ordinary QLD'ers will be alerted to this issue and take action. (Greg Boyles )

Is it worth trying to persuade Minister Mulherin to impose a moratorium preventing further Gamba seed sales or planting while he consults about a more permanent ban? That way he clearly has the option of allowing future sales if he concludes after consultation that the benefits exceed the risks, but in the mean time the spread of the monster would be slowed. The moratorium should be of indefinite duration (so that consultation and consideration of submissions can be done properly or never concluded).  ( Kate Boyd )

Or is it more likely that requests for an immediate permanent ban will succeed without the risks of consultation resulting in a temporary ban being lifted?  I don’t know what the legal requirements are, let alone how the DPI and Ministerial staff can best be persuaded. ( Kate Boyd )

The company in north Queensland that is selling all the seed (5-11 tonnes each year) is unlikely to stop unless forced to. There may well be panic sales going on right now, ie. farmers seeking to obtain the seed quickly in the fear that it will soon be banned. ( Greg Brown ) Greg Brown

I take great exception to disparaging remarks that hint at dishonesty of my company or myself.  We are the North Queensland company mentioned in emails from members of this group. We legitimately produce, process and market seed of Gamba Grass ( Andropogon gayanus) and have done so for the past 20 years. We process seed to a high degree of cleanliness to ensure environmental weed seeds like Sporobolus are not spread by our product.  We will not and have not for years sold Pensacola Bahia for its invasive and low production traits.

Part of my marketing role over the past 20 years has been travelling extensively across Northern Australia.  I have read and listened to the anti Gamba Grass claims and cannot accept the highly emotive misleading claims that are being made about Gamba grass by ill-informed persons especially from southern states.

Gamba grass is a very productive, highly palatable animal forage grass that is suited to parts of Nth Australia.  There is no other grass that matches it for productivity, drought tolerance and ease of grazing management.

If the intention is to ban the further use of Gamba and to deny the northern grazing industry access to a valuable plant then there is justification for that industry to request alternative species that have the attributes of Gamba eg. ease of establishment, availability of commercial seed, persistence,  productivity and ease of management.

Southedge Seeds is conducting a legitimate business and is doing so with the utmost integrity and to suggest otherwise is bordering on defamation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007
From: Bev & Colin <bevcolin@bigpond.com>

I spent many years in the Northern Territory, firstly in the Weeds Branch of the Primary Industry Department (or whatever they are currently called - they have gone through numerous name changes over the years), then for Parks and Wildlife working on weed control on parks, and one of my chief weed concerns for well over a decade was the devastation caused by Gamba grass when it (inevitably) escaped the heavy continuous grazing pressure required until the end of time to keep the grass from seeding and spreading beyond the boundary fence. When John Rains calls for alternatives to Gamba grass to be provided for the grazing industry if they are not going to be allowed to continue to use it, he is displaying a particular World View that sees the only legitimate value of a patch of land as the amount of livestock that it can carry and the amount of money it can make. The alternative World View is that any patch of land has many potential values and uses other than beef production, and that it is the responsibility of the grazing industry, or any other user for that matter, to utilize the land in a manner that does not permanently, for ever, irretrievably destroy any other value that such a piece of land may have. If they cannot do that, then that land use is not a sustainable land use and should be ceased forthwith. Unfortunately Gamba Grass has been let out of Pandora's Box and is now a permanent fixture in northern Australia, and the entire northern savanna belt of Australia is irretrievable, permanently, for ever the poorer for it. Any other future land use both within and far beyond the areas planted has been precluded. There is no going back. The same can be said for Para Grass, Olive Hymenachne and Buffel grass. All of them have been introduced, promoted and spread widely under the World View that the only legitimate land use for ever is grazing by cattle. They were all introduced with the certain knowledge that they would establish widely, spread aggressively and be here forever. It is the World View of people associated with these actions that we must challenge and change. You cannot call an industry sustainable if it irretrievably degrades the environment not only within the areas subject to that current land use, but also widely across the landscape where other land uses are being precluded and destroyed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007
From: Mulvaney Michael <Michael.Mulvaney@environment.nsw.gov.au>

I wonder whether the seed merchants or northern graziers would be so enthusiastic about this grass if they were responsible for control of this grass as it spreads beyond the areas of planting. It seems another classic case where the supposed benefit of a few is borne by a massive economic and environmental cost of the general community. You would think that after 200 years we would have learned the wrong headedness of this approach.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007
From: Bev & Colin <bevcolin@bigpond.com>

Over many years in the NT as I watched Gamba Grass spreading aggressively through national parks adjacent to pastoral properties (eg: on the Mary River east of Darwin) and throughout the Darwin urban fringe, I was continually told by Pastures Agronomists who were promoting cv Kent that it was non invasive and didn't spread, in spite of the evidence directly in front of their eyes.  Just before I left Darwin 3 years ago, the Chief Pastures Agronomist in the NT admitted to me that he had been wrong about Gamba Grass. Unfortunately this acknowledgement came about 15 years too late, as that is the time scale over which it had been blatantly obvious to me that it was causing and was going to continue to cause severe environmental problems. I proved the ability of Gamba Grass to spread unaided many kilometres through relatively undisturbed national parks with a series of long transects through Mary River National Park monitored over a number of years.
 
My point about the World View of the industry which promotes invasive and ecosystem-altering pasture grasses is this: unless the increase in productivity brought about by their use exceeds the cost of containing these species to the areas they have been planted, and controlling them forever in the areas into which they have spread, then the use of these species is an economic drain on the Australian economy and should be ceased forthwith. The pastoral industry itself might benefit economically, but overall Australia is the poorer. In the NT it is abundantly clear that even the most optimistic estimates of increases in productivity to a very small number of landholders is vastly, astronomically outweighed by the costs borne by the rest of the community in losses through wildfires, control costs, infrastructure losses, biodiversity loss, tourism losses etc etc. What makes the pastoral industry so special that it can profit on everybody else's loss. The biggest problem here is the assumption, unfortunately backed up by law (not justice), that what you plant on your little patch ceases to be your problem the moment it crosses your fence into your neighbour's place. The greatest demonstration that these pasture species actually are the economic bonanza claimed by the pastoral industry would be if the industry offered to control them forever on all lands where they have spread away from deliberate plantings. Of course we all know that this would bankrupt the industry, and thus prove my point that the use of these species is not in Australia's best economic (or social or environmental) interest.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007
From: Don Matthews <don@heathdon.com.au>

I support this view, and the experience that goes with it. It is not a " rant " but an hartfelt concern for our future, it is passionate, and it offends  the promoters of it's use as they cannot produce evidence to support there contention that it does not spread , you only have to visit, and read John Rains email . Remember that the Victorian Government recommended that farmers plant Blackberry's because it was the best known method of controlling erosion after land clearing  , and it worked, until many years latter it spread, and spread, so the government of the time accepted it's responsibility and formed the Lands Department to assist farmers to control the spread. Then the costs kicked in. Now it is a declared weed ,with control costs on the land manager. Have we learned nothing ?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007
From: Bev & Colin <bevcolin@bigpond.com>

"Unfortunately there are some of us who earn a living in our free market society not out of greed but necessity.  If by promoting a productivity view that assists industry viability is a 'World View' then so be it. Totalitarian societies have changed to free market societies for the simple reason they do not work."
 
Apologists for the pastoral industry's unbridled activities frequently drag out the hoary old chestnut of free market forces. The only trouble is that they operate in a very skewed "free market". A truly free market would privatise the profits AND the costs, but they can only thrive in our system where the profits are privatised and the costs are socialised (ie: they pocket the profits and the rest of us pay the much greater costs). Totalitarian systems may not work, but our current system does not work either, at least for the vast majority of us who pay to clean up the mess created by an industry which profits handsomely from its ability to pollute unhindered by regulation. It is exactly analagous to a pulp mill being allowed to pump all of its untreated waste into a river, and for the unfortunates downstream to pay to clean up the water at their own expense. In a truly free market system, the pastoral industry would either run at a lower productivity on non-invasive pasture species, or use highly productive invasives and pay the costs of containing and controlling them. If the market could not afford the higher cost of beef, then the industry would cease to exist and other industries that could pay their own free market way would prevail. That aint how it operates here.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007
From: David H Mackenzie <davidmackenzie@grapevine.net.au>

John Raines, you make a claim that Gamba Grass has spread very little over 30 y, albeit in Qld which is but part only of northern Australia. A brief trawl through the literature does little to support your claim but supports the generally accepted fact that it spreads. It’s well known invasiveness puts it into the weed class in a number of countries and experience in northern Australia is no exception. It seems there is less Gamba grass in N Qld than in the Territory but that’s somewhat irrelevant since the genie is well and truly out of the bottle. Do you have any suggestions John for how to get it back in there?

Further, it’s well known if not well understood that known invasive plants can sit around for up to decades without spreading but some frequently unknown change in conditions triggers off its spread. This sleeper phenomenon engenders complacency; I hope you are not being complacent about the ability of gamba grass to spread. Nor of it’s ability to degrade the natural environment: habitat destruction beyond the pastoral boundary, increase in bushfire intensity, reduction in tree cover, increased soil moisture draw-down and consequent effect on the landscape’s hydrology, among other effects. 

You also state “….if the Nth Australian pastoral industry is to be denied a productive grass like Gamba there is an obligation to recommend alternatives..” I doubt the Nth Australian pastoral industry could ever be denied Gamba, it is undoubtedly a well established and integral part of much of the landscape, both pastoral and otherwise, and yes it does indeed give good liveweight gains. What is relevant however is that we step up measures to reduce its spread and introduce incentives, strong ones if necessary, to support them. Sorry John but this could very well begin with a ban on the trade and movement of seed.

Such measures would not deny the pastoral industry a productive grass, fresh plantings would have to stop but existing stands will remain albeit with an obligation to take stringent measures to stop its further spread. You will never prevent spread since there will always be stands that can’t be fully contained so you don’t knowingly increase the number of stands in the mistaken belief they can be contained; it only takes a few seeds. Thank goodness it doesn’t spread as rapidly as foot and mouth disease. I have been away from the grazing scene too long to discuss suitable alternatives, someone else can take that up but don’t be disappointed if potential replacement species are similarly rejected on grounds of invasive capacity.

If a heavy hand is what it takes, then it must be. Landscapes deliver more than warm feelings and saving a landscape with a heritage several millennia old is responsible behaviour, hardly totalitarianism. Gamba grass isn’t the only threat to our heritage so it isn’t being singled out.

Evidence of non-ranting: I’m not totally a chardonnay sipping and chattering armchair activist delivering platitudes from my comfortable Canberra base. I grew up in a Qld grazing community and had interests in wool growing there until the mid 70s, served as an agrostologist with CSIRO Tropical Pastures, spent time as an agronomist at the former Kimberley Research Station (northern Australia) and finished out my career from a Canberra base with CSIRO Land and Water in Crop Physiology and Bioclimatology, Hydrology and Landscape Ecology. I produced seed of tropical pasture species for CSIRO, albeit some time ago now, and ironically I have lived to see many of them listed as weeds.

Here’s an excerpt from one of the sources I used, I have no cause to doubt its veracity:
Gamba grass reproduces from seeds. It has spread over long-distances as a consequence of being sold and planted as a commercial pasture plant. Other important vectors of spread include transport as hay and possibly road-side slashing machinery and animals. Since the seeds of gamba grass are light (c. 890, 000 seeds/kg), fluffy (Figure 3), and are produced at a height of 2 – 4 m above the ground, they can be spread by the wind. 95% of gamba grass seeds fall within 5 m of the parent plant and 99% within 10 m (Anon. undated).

Encroachment of gamba grass into native woodland has been recorded to occur at a rate of up to 110 m per year (Anon. undated). (Csurhes, S. (2005). Q. Dept. Nat. Res. & Mines http://www.cook.qld.gov.au/news/2006/Gamba%20Grass.pdf)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007
From: "Lloyd, Sandy" <slloyd@agric.wa.gov.au>

For those who are not familiar with gamba grass and interested to learn more, I suggest you obtain a copy of the Catalyst program on it, I think it's about $88, from ABC Program Sales

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1199756.htm

progsales@your.abc.net.au
ABC Video Program Sales
1300 650 587
www.abc.net.au/programsales

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007
From: Nicholas Smith <nelumbo@internode.on.net>

Very well put Colin. Certainly its the same story for Gamba in central Cape York. Unfortunately Gamba is behaving exactly as observed in the NT 10-15 years ago. From personal observations in the Cape I can say that populations are rapidly expanding and show evidence in every location of of spreading into undisturbed bush. Furthermore not much is being done about it. We can in the wet season drive around boggy patches in central Cape York , particularly the main Peninsula Development Road, right through thick 3m high infestations of Gamba. I believe we have lost the fight against this grass already in Cape York.  The horse has bolted long before we have shut the gate. Its spreading too rapidly now and turning up at great distances away from the main infestations. There are also other transformer pasture species present (e.g Calopogonium mucunoides to name one) which compound the problem. It would certainly appear that our natural heritage is being compromised for the gain of so few people. All Australians will end up paying dearly for this as we have in the past through public funded programs such a NHT, NLP, Envirofund etc. to try carry out control and rehabilitation work.

It just might be worth taking a holiday in central Cape York in the next few years before its transformed into an African landscape !

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007
From: Bev & Colin <bevcolin@bigpond.com>

"When I was there last November I went to a place just south of Darwin and was horrified to see full growth Hetropogon and Sorghum, tinder dry and a fuel load similar to Gamba right beside buildings. I left my camera back in the hotel room unfortunately
 
Gamba full season fuel load looks spectacular because it remains erect.  Native Sorghums grow just as high but being annuals fall over at the end of the wet season and give the impression of having less fuel load in fact  there is a higher density of material."
 
I'm sorry John, but you are quite simply wrong in your comparison of fuel loads. A number of published and unpublished studies in the Top End have consistently put the flammable biomass of Gamba Grass at between 5X and 10X the highest biomass recorded in native grasses. Even the figures from the Pastures Branch in the NT will attest to this fact. In fact the only thing which exceeds the flammable biomass of Gamba Grass is Mission Grass (Pennisetum polystachion), another grass that was introduced for pasture but abandoned and allowed to go to seed and spread unchecked as it was considered unpalatable to cattle (oops!). It can contain almost twice the flammable biomass of Gamba Grass.
 
There is a crucial difference between these introduced species and the native grasses. Native speargrass (Themeda spp.) does indeed grow very tall during the wet season, but it sets seed and 'cures' very early in the dry season (usually before the rains have finished) and collapses. At this time of year there is ample moisture around, the winds are generally of low velocity and fires are relatively cool. Gamba Grass remains tall and erect, and with 5-10X the flammable biomass, until it cures late in the dry season, when temperatures are much hotter, humidity is much lower, and winds are much stronger. There is a massive difference between a fire in spear grass in May or June and a fire in Gamba Grass in September or October. Of course there are occasionally destructive fires in native grasses late in the year, but there are always many more and widespread destructive fires every year in Gamba Grass. Gamba grass fires invariably lead to widespread tree deaths, and usually infrastructure damage.
 
Regarding the ability to spread, it always cracked me up how blind the Pastures Agronomists were at Berrimah Farm, the agricultural research station on the outskirts of Darwin. A paddock on the farm was planted to Gamba grass and allowed to go to seed one year in the early 1990s. The next year there were a few Gamba grass plants popping up on vacant blocks and nature strips in the near vicinity, and over the space of not more than 5 years every road and every vacant block and industrial site for many kilometres around Berrimah Farm was a 4metre high wall of Gamba grass. Every day these folks had to drive through several kilometres of Gamba grass tunnel just to get to work, and still they would insist that it couldn't spread. Finally under weight of overwhelming and indisputable evidence they admitted that it could spread along roads aided by grading and slashing (the roads around Berrimah Farm all had guttering and footpaths - ie no grading or slashing), but wouldn't move into the surrounding bush. A published paper from the late 1990s (I forget the full citation) showed Gamba grass along the full length of most roads within about a 50km radius of Darwin. At random intervals they ran transects away from the roads and inevitably found Gamba grass infesting hundreds of metres into the bush. This is not cattle country. This is urban fringe and rural hobby farms and very little Gamba grass has been deliberately planted in this region. Next time you are in Darwin take a spin between Berrimah Farm and the city along Tiger Brennan Drive. It is about a 10km strip of native bushland  between the suburbs and the mangroves and it is totally infested with Gamba Grass. It was not planted, there are no cattle, the area is not graded or slashed, it simply has the misfortune of being adjacent to Berrimah Farm at one end where a crop of Gamba was allowed to go to seed. A very similar story exists at Humpty Doo where a disease resulted in the cattle herd at the research station there being slaughtered and the Gamba grass went to seed. The entire district is now awash with the stuff, and that's the problem. Nobody can guarantee that they can effectively manage it forever (which is an awfully long time!).
 
I think this might be my last Gamba grass rant (unless somebody else gets me stirred up about it).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007
From: "Balding, Greg" <Greg.Balding@environment.gov.au>

As a long-time resident of the rural area near Darwin I can confirm everything that Colin has been saying (except that speargrasses include Sorghum spp as well as Themeda), and add that many people have been trying to control gamba on their blocks because of the fire risk, but on council and crown land around Darwin it is a lost cause. We are all in much greater danger from fire as a result. For views somewhat more informed than that of an interstate visitor stumbling around without his camera, the first from the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service, check:
http://www.drytropics.org.au/weeds_mission_gamba_fire.htm
http://www.cook.qld.gov.au/news/2006/Gamba%20Grass.pdf
http://savanna.org.au/savanna_web/publications/savanna_links_issue10.html?tid=29463
http://savanna.ntu.edu.au/education/natalie_rossiter_phd.html
http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/integrative/fire/case-study-2.html
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1199756.htm
http://learnline.cdu.edu.au/wip/fire2/management/managing.html
http://www.environorth.org.au/windows/all/all_fire_fuel.html
http://www.csiro.au/files/mediaRelease/mr2002/Prgamba.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/earth/stories/s41395.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007
From: Ricky Ward <ecology_66@hotmail.com>

I've just been reading about "Restoring Imperata Grasslands" published by ICRAF.

They recommend flattening out grass once it has got over 1 metre in height, either by slowly walking on it or rolling the body which can be great fun or a metal drum. That slows down its growth dramatically AND by reducing its height from say 1000 mm to 10 mm any fire that starts burns low, does little tree damage and is much easier to control.

In the Northern Territory they talk about "Knock-em down Wind" which flatten the tall Stipa and Themeda grasses and hence reduce fire impact as described above.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, August 14, 2007
From: John Rains

I enjoy balanced debate about any subject. I do read scientific papers and am interested in scientific data. I do also try to form balanced opinion about subjects. The main portion of my experience has been of a practical nature. I developed and ran a family property west of Mareeba in Nth Queensland for almost 50years, part of which was planted to Gamba Grass around 30 years ago. There has been little spread of the Gamba from the original areas and it has been the backbone of the cattle business that was part of the operation. We have a climate similar to the Nth Territory, seasonally wet and seasonally dry.

Over a period of 20 years I travelled extensively over the Nth Territory, Kimberley’s and Nth Queensland. I have seen NT Gamba stands, I have seen 2/3 m tall native Sorghums and Hetropogons, I have seen extensive stands of Mission Grass. Mission Grass did escape from trial plots at both Berrimah and Katherine research stations. It was never released as a pasture plant. It is incidentally a valued grazing plant in India

All productive grasses will product high levels of dry matter, why would anyone plant them if they did not.  I have never stated there is not a serious fire risk with these plants, if they are not managed either by grazing or fuel reduction burning at non critical times of low temperature and high relative humidities there will be just that. What I am saying is there is as high a risk with unmanaged native savannah species.

Because our property had a common boundary with a rugged mountain range that is now a National Park we battled extremely hot fires on a regular basis. We did for many years conduct fuel reduction burning at opportune times early in the season. During this period we had little fire threat. The Qld Fire Service stopped us from doing that as it was claimed to be be interfering with the native flora and fauna habitat. 

The attached photo was taken after a critical fire some four years ago that area did not have Gamba on it but under utilized and under managed native species eg. Hetropogons, Themedas, Bothriochloas etc.. Qld Fire Services in our area now actively encourage landholders to fuel reduction burn as close to the end of the wet season as possible.  The national park people have not heeded this advice for reasons known only to themselves so there will be horrific fires as a product of this lack of action.

I have mentioned previously if the ' Weed Warriors' got fired up about Giant Rats Tail (Sporobolis pyramidalis) I would get excited about the effort and lend support. This weed, which was an accidental introduction in contaminated trial pasture seed from Zimbabwe many years ago because of the ability of its seed to remain viable in the soil for 10 / 12 years and its fast transition from seedling to mature seed production, makes it a candidate to invade the infrequently wet Central Australia.

Did you know that Gamba grass seed loses viability from 80% at seed drop in May/ June to 1% in December. Your references to native spear grass being Themedas. Is this correct? I thought they were Hetropogons. Are you aware of the Carbon sink capabilities of perennial grasses? Gamba is an excellent carbon storage plant. I can send you copy of a research paper that outlines this if you wish. There are alternative view points

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007
From: Bev & Colin <bevcolin@bigpond.com>

When I wrote Themeda I meant to write Sorghum as the most common species around Darwin is a Sorghum, but Heteropogons are also common and also called spear grasses. I apologise for the careless slip, but it doesn't alter the point I was making.
 
If, as you claim, Gamba grass does not spread significantly and has added greatly to the profitability of cattle production, then you and the rest of the industry should have no problem in accepting the moral obligation to eradicate it from the places it has escaped to from deliberate plantings. By your assertion, these places should be quite limited and hence well within your financial capability and would represent a good public spirited gesture to take the heat, as it were, from the debate. After all, every other industry has to pay to clean up its own waste. Pulp mills and power plants can't release wastes into the environment, so why should the grazing industry be able to let unwanted seeds spread onto neighbouring properties with no consequences to itself? As a neighbour to a grazing property, why should it be my financial responsibility to continually pay to control Gamba grass coming through the fence? I can't dump any of my waste on his side of the fence. The costs to the industry should be quite manageable. The area within about 50km of Darwin should be able to be cleaned up for an annual expenditure of just a few hundred million dollars or so (I'm just guessing here), and then there's the national parks on the Mary River east of Darwin, and Kakadu National Park, and the Katherine district, and Queensland.
 
So how about it? All of the public antagonism would be dismissed in one shining public-spirited gesture. You would become true Aussie heroes. You would continue to reap extra profits every year as a result of using these highly productive grasses, and a small proportion of those additional profits would be spent annually on preserving your public image as an environmentally responsible industry. Everybody's a winner under this scheme. You can't lose.
 
Unless of course it turns out that Gamba grass spreads perhaps just a little more readily than you claim, and is just a little more difficult to control and manage effectively. But surely you have the courage of your convictions? I await the announcement with breathless anticipation.
 
PS: the fact that Mission grass escaped from trial plantings and was not deliberately released does not absolve the industry which sponsored its introduction in the first place from blame. What care was taken to prevent its escape? What efforts were made to eradicate it once the escape was discovered?

Anredera cordifolia - Madeira vine
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I own a small weekender on the Lamington National Park road in south-east Queensland, near Kamarun lookout on the ridge above the National Park. Below us to the east is the upper Canungra river valley, all within the National Park. It is regrowth rainforest, because much of the country was logged until the start of the 1900s and the strip immediately below (east of) our weekender was clear-felled for grazing and abandoned around 60 years ago, but it is now full of rainforest trees, birds and other wildlife. Both the National Park and the regrowth forest are surprisingly weed-free, with the main invasive weed being mistflower, found everywhere along the streams and waterfalls as well as on the sides of roads and tracks. Lantana is widespread in the wet sclerophyll woodlands but in the rainforest is only found along roads and clearings. Crofton weed is also confined to roadsides and tracks, and other weeds are found only in cleared grassland areas. So the rainforest in the park is still largely free of invasive weeds.

Walking along the road near my house recently, I noticed a large plant of madeira vine Anredera cordifolia climbing up trees about 3 m off the side of the road. There are no other infestations of madeira vine in this part of the Lamington Range, and I have never seen plants anywhere else in the National Park. The plant was immediately opposite other weekender houses, below the road on the eastern slope on a slight gully which leads down to the Canungra creek. People in these weekender cottages regularly throw their garden waste into the lantana infestations across the road - the gardens are small and there is no rubbish collection, so it is easier to toss garden waste into the bush instead of burning, or chopping and composting it. Almost certainly, the plant originated from a potted plant brought up from Brisbane, where madeira vine is common, either as a weed in the pot, or in mulch material brought with the plant. I have also seen the cock's comb coral tree Erythrina crista-galli, a major environmental weed in wetter areas, growing on the side of the road where pieces from a fallen tree had been thrown.

If unchecked, madeira vine will progressively destroy this National Park. Fortunately, the vine does not produce seed, so spread is relatively slow. However, established infestations produce millions of small aerial tubers from 1 to 5 cm long, and these spread inexorably down-slope, moved by gravity, by ground birds such as scrub turkeys, and by water flow. The fleshy leaves readily detach from the parent vine in response to any stress or disturbance such as hail or strong winds, and each fallen leaf is capable of producing a tuber. Large infestations of madeira vine destroy rainforest by choking and killing even mature trees by the sheer density and weight of their growth, and certainly prevent any regeneration or seedling growth. This infestation at the top of the Lamington National Park road, if unchecked, is capable of infesting much of the upper Canungra valley. For pictures of the plant and infestations, see www.weeds.org.au or www.bfns.org.au or www.weedsbluemountains.org.au.

Of course, I will be getting rid of this madeira vine plant, and checking regularly over the next few years to ensure that no regrowth survives. However, this is just another example of how important it is to educate gardeners not to throw their garden rubbish into the bush, particularly people living on ridges upstream of or close to National Parks or areas of high native conservation value.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006
From: Dorean Hull <Dorean.Hull@brisbane.qld.gov.au>

I'd like to support and stress the need for EDUCATION about dumping, as from experience I can confirm that legislation is extremely difficult and expensive to enforce, even when it's blatantly obvious someone's been dumping straight over the fence!

Brisbane City Council has a 'Good Neighbour' kit developed specifically for our bushland neighbours and the Green Choice Gardening in Brisbane Guide for the general community. The kit is 'limited distribution' but to order a copy of the guide ring the contact centre on 07 3403 8888.

I'd be interested to hear of any new educational tools being developed by other local governments/organisations.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006
From: <matthew.springall@environment.nsw.gov.au>

Further to that i'd be interested to hear of ANY enforcement that is actually working at local or state govt levels.

My previous experience in local govt in Sydney over 7 years i don't recall any effective enforcement/regulatory actions being taken for dumping garden refuse in bushland, even when caught red handed (usually the response is something along the lines "can only do something if you catch them red handed", but then experience begs to differ).

It would be timely to see what reg systems are working and what don't, and why. Education is most important, but it helps so much if there was a big stick we could rely on for those that nod and smile when you talk to them about dumping issues, then just carry on with the same old practices as soon as the back is turned.

Do we have to prove "beyond reasonable doubt", or will "balance of probabilities" suffice? What are people's experiences?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arctotheca calendula - Capeweed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006
From: Vivien & Charlie Clarke <clarke@nex.net.au>

Has anyone had success in spraying out capeweed and reseeding the area with useful pasture seed.  A lady in Nar Nar Goon North has an extensive area of capeweed (Arctotheca calendula) and would like to get rid of it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006
From: Don Matthews <don@heathdon.com.au>

Capeweed is easily controlled by a number of herbicides ,but the best control will  be from IGRAN. Go to either Wesfarmers or Elders and talk to a Pasture Agronomist 0n how to get the best results, there is a seed bank , so you need to learn how to follow a program of Pasture Improvement. IGRAN is the best because it controls ALL stages of growth. Most other herbicides only control Capeweed when it is small.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003
From: Stephen Selden <sseldenwinnet.com.au>

Lawns, playing fields, paddocks, grassy verges and reserves in Canberra this spring have all turned a vibrant golden yellow as Capeweed is covering absolutely everything! Talking to some of my fellow Greening Australian volunteers who have lived in the ACT for many years, they have never seen it this bad. It has also got into the surrounding farmland and as it causes nitrate poisoning in livestock, has become a considerable problem. Such a good year for it would be loading up the seedbank quite nicely for next year. This has caused me to want to find out more about it and if there is anything we can do to reduce its impact. So I would be very thankful if anyone could tell me,

- What is the best way to control this weed?
- Is this proliferation of capeweed widespread? Has anyone else noticed an increase in its abundance?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Rod Randall <RPRandallagric.wa.gov.au>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003

Does Arctotheca calendula really cause nitrate poisoning? As this is what we call capeweed in WA.

This weed is the basis of 90% of Western Australia's pastures and millions of sheep here graze it every day. The only major sympton I'm aware of is a propensity for sheep to get the scoures when grazing very vigorous juicy capeweed pastures.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003
From: Stephen Selden <sseldenwinnet.com.au>

It is Arctotheca calendula over here and according to Kate Blood's "Environmental Weeds - A field guide for south eastern Australia", it can cause nitrate poisoning. A local farmer I have talked to certainly in very strong terms blames it for making horses sick. It does appear however from what I have read, there are ways to manage in order to minimize the risk on affected land. Also references on the net,

Nitrate and nitrite poisoning in livestock
http://www.agric.nsw.gov.au/reader/an-health/a0967.htm

Sudden Death in ruminants caused by Nitrite Poisoning
http://www.olssons.com.au/ed2.html

Capeweed and Erodium in pastures
http://www.nre.vic.gov.au/4A2568B2008332A3/BCView/160EB59CD49B08D6CA256BCF000BBEF5?OpenDocument

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003
From: Stephen Selden <sselden@winnet.com.au>

This goes into my saved messages folder for future reference and I will suggest it to a farmer friend of mine who is trying to control it. I was also interested in what Rod had to say about free nitrate levels. The soil here in the Southern Tablelands - ACT area is not to good either. Does anyone have any idea what areas of the country have soils rich enough in free nitrates to cause problems? - Maybe something else is making my friends horses sick! And maybe capeweed is perfectly good for grazing in much of the country after all.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003
From: Kerensa Greenfield <kerensa.greenfieldadelaide.edu.au>

My father is suffering, his grass free pastures are pure capeweed, the medic having been successfully out competed. He has asked me to ask you, if you know of any potential studies being done or have been done previously regardng the biological control of capeweed (Arctotheca calendula) since a quick look on the net did not appear too promising. He lives on the Eyre Peninsula in SA and wonders if the climate there would affect potential agents.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003
From: Stephen Selden <sseldenwinnet.com.au>

Though I cannot answer your question about Biological control my sympathies go out to your father. You and he have probably gone all out to try and find control methods for this weed but a good site on control is on the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries website at http://www.dpiwe.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/RPIO-4ZZ48E?open#IntegratedManagement

Some of the methods suggest the use of herbicides some of which I don't like very much, but if you are faced with having to use them a very good site for knowing what you are dealing with is provided by the Nature Conservation Council of NSW and is at, http://www.nccnsw.org.au/member/tec/projects/tcye/tox/

Arctotheca populifolia - Beach Daisy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 04 May 2005
From: Wendy Fuller <narrabushcare@yahoo.com.au>

I am on the south coast of NSW and need information on Beach Daisy (Arctotheca populifolia) and Sea Rocket (Cakile edentula & Cakile maritima).

After checking several books and local experts, I am very confused. There is concensus that they are weeds. There the concensus stops. The information I need is:

1. Should they be eradicated?
2. Should they be left in place as stabilisers?
3. If they are eradicated, should they be replaced with something else, eg: spinifex? (There is spinifex on the dune already)
4. If they can be eradicated, is hand-digging the recommended method?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 05 May 2005
From: Lee Andresen <andresen@sydney.dialix.com.au>

On the Far North Coast I think the generally adopted view would be that these all are presumably exotics (not necessarily weeds however) - see Carolin & Clarke's "Beach Plants of S-E Australia" where they mention them being ship ballast introductions.

Surely however, whether they are a weed (and in turn possibly needing eradication) depends on local conditions? On this coast I am unaware of the two Cakiles being invasive. I suspect they generally do a good stabilising job and don't appear to be colonising any space at the expense of local indigenous dune stabilisers (they seem to coexist happily with spinifex, goatsfoot, pigface, pink and yellow beach beans and all). So our policy is to leave them there while that situation persists, but monitor it. That may not be so under other coastal conditions, so a different conclusion might be needed in your case.

On this Far North coast I think the most disputable similar "introduced" item might be American Pennywort (Hydrocotyle bonariensis) which is a very vigorous grower and quite difficult to hand-extract, and does sometimes out-compete indigenous species. I'd like suggestions as to how to get rid of it because it seems to leave deep rhizones (?) in the sand that re-sprout.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 05 May 2005
From: David McKenzie <David.Mackenzie@csiro.au>

From Rosedale on the NSW Far South Coast, about 20 km S of Batemans Bay.

Wendy Fuller's concerns may be well founded. It seems not to be so in every case and Lee Andresen's observations from an environment rather different to that of Rosedale are interesting by way of comparison.

At Rosedale we have American Sea Rocket (Cakile edulenta) and American Pennywort (Hydrocotyle bonariensis), both introductions. [We seem not to have either European Sea Rocket (C. maritima) or the native H. acutiloba.]

Neither seems to be a problem on our beach dunes, indeed the Sea Rocket comes up in alarmingly large numbers and then dies out after seeding. Although we remove it from plant guards where its effective rooting capacity gives it a significant competitive advantage over the planted spp, elsewhere on the dunes we feel its prolific growth provides useful additional protection, albeit rather temporary. This is significant on dunes which appear to be under vegetated and hence more vulnerable to erosion than leaves us feeling entirely comfortable. Fortunately we have no weed problems on our dunes, touch wood.

In a sub-dune area at Rosedale, Pennywort became alarmingly vigorous following the successful spraying of an almost pure stand of buffalo grass (Stenotaphrum secundatum), the legacy of a former dairying enterprise. However, over a period of about 3-4 y Pennywort regressed but did not disappear, giving way to a range of native species. It may well have competed with native spp and other weeds alike, but then the dense thatch of dead buffalo grass would have acted similarly. The outcome has been pleasing.

From the experiences reported from these three locations, it is clear that these introduced species present varying degrees of concern. Our fortunate experience with them does not signify that it is safe to let them rip elsewhere. In fact, they may yet prove to be a problem at Rosedale.

The best advice perhaps is to keep a close eye on things at your location and try to understand the ecology of what is happening. Good luck with it all.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 05 May 2005
From: Jackie Miles <jmiles@acr.net.au>

I'm also on the NSW South Coast, and my take on those two weeds are that sea rocket is so well established that you might as well not waste your time, but as beach daisy is still fairly sparse, why not try to keep it out?

Also beach daisy can build up substantial hummocks, and might have more impact on sand behaviour on the beach. We had a big colony at the mouth of Wallagoot Lake, which NPWS removed, which I suspect could have influenced the lake opening behaviour had it been allowed to persist and spread.

And beach daisy is not so confined to beaches as sea rocket - I have seen it growing among rocks around the base of a headland and I have heard it is invading grassland in western Victoria.

If you only have those two to worry about Wendy, you are doing well - wait till sea spurge arrives. Then you'll really be kept busy. It's on its way - getting quite well established on some far south coast beaches. And I do hear that in West Australia having conquered the beaches it is marching inland.

My weapon of choice for beach daisy is a shovel. Just plunging it into the sand and levering will loosen the sand sufficiently for the beach daisy to be readily pulled out. I then drape it over the top of nearby coast wattle, where I hope it dies, but I must admit I have not been back to check. As an infrequent beach visitor my weed control efforts tend to be one-offs.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 05 May 2005
From: Wendy Fuller <narrabushcare@yahoo.com.au>

I have another concern regarding Beach Daisy and Sea Rocket besides the weed question.

I have been thinking about the type of dune that could eventuate with these plants as stabilisers. The dune system is the long smooth type. But wouldn't a future dune based on these plants develop as a humpy lumpy one? I have no problems with propagating and planting lots of Spinifex if it would ensure the natural build-up of sand.

Thank you to everyone who has replied to my question so far. Your answers are giving me food for thought.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 05 May 2005
From: Wendy Fuller <narrabushcare@yahoo.com.au>

Oh I wish these were the only weeds we have to contend with!!! Our list is long.... Asparagus fern in the hind dune is our worst weed - we are tackling that section by section. Then there is Turkey Rhubarb, Bitou, African Boxthorn, Formosan Lilies, Cape Ivy, English Ivy, etc. But we have a management plan now and that is a huge help.

Thanks for the tip on using a shovel to remove Beach Daisy!

Artemisia verlotiorum - Mugwort
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does anyone have experience with Arundo donax / Giant Reed and how easily it can regrow from removed material.  We currently have large volumes being removed within our shire (Yarra Ranges - E of Melbourne) but are not sure whether this material can be mulched and distributed to landholders as green mulch, or whether the root fragments (or seeds?) could then begin growing in other areas.  We are currently taking the cautious approach of either high temp composting or taking to landfill, however mulching and redistributing to the public has a lot of environmental and financial benefits - as long as the weed will not regrow and cause more problems.

A potential solution may be to remove the above ground material and mulch that, then deal with the roots/rhizomes separately.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Goolsby, John
Sent: Thu 15 May 2008

From our experience in the U.S., Arundo can be used as mulch as long as it is very finely ground.  The grinding/chopping needs to destroy all the nodes and rhizomes.  Arundo donax appears to be clonal worldwide, except in a few areas of the native range.  Therefore, it is unlikely that seed dispersal would be source of new propagules.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Michael.Hansford@dpi.vic.gov.au
Sent: Friday, 16 May 2008
To: Blair David

I don't have very much experience with this species myself, but a while ago, I stumbled upon a website from California that is purely devoted to Arundo donax and its eradication. It contains a lot of information, including a fact sheet that states that the species mainly reproduces and spreads from detached rhizomes and stem pieces.
So, if you are trying to eradicate this species from your area, it sounds like the last thing you would want to do would be to chop up this plant into green mulch and spread it onto gardens. What if some pieces start to grow?
Check out the link to the Californian website: http://teamarundo.org/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Alan.V.Tasker@aphis.usda.gov
Sent: Saturday, 17 May 2008

Aside from the recent email re: grinding and composting previously forwarded from John Goolsby of USDA Ag Research Service, I have heard from others that even a partial node can sprout.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to my press release a couple of weeks ago about weedy biofuels, I have received an enquiry from an organisation with a strong interest in promoting giant reed (Arundo donax) as a biofuel and for other purposes. Giant reed is well-known as a weed, but I am seeking more specific information about its weed potential. Please email me if you can answer any of the following questions.
 
Is giant reed an environmental weed or does it just invade heavily disturbed land? Is it an economic problem? Are its seeds dispersed by the wind? Are its seeds or rhizomes dispersed by water? Is it a fire hazard? Is it altering hydrology or promoting flooding? In which regions and habitats is it a serious problem rather than just a minor weed? Any information, however local, would be gratefully received.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007
From: "Randall, Rod" <RPRandall@agric.wa.gov.au>

Arundo donax is a major weed in temperate climates.
In California they have an organisation called "Team Arundo del Norte"

Team Arundo del Norte is a forum of local, state, and federal organizations dedicated to the control of Arundo donax (giant reed), where it threatens rivers, creeks, and wetlands in Central and Northern California. The organization formed in the summer of 1996 (see TAdN History). The Team meets several times per year in the Sacramento area to explore opportunities for information exchange and partnerships in support of the ongoing work of eradication of this harmful weed. This website is an important part of the Team's mission to facilitate networking. We hope you find useful information and contacts at this site and by joining the discussions on the TAdN email listserv.

URL http://www.ceres.ca.gov/tadn/

The Nature Conservancy also have a download on Arundo available

see the ISSG database

http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=112

and the US forest service fact sheet
http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/arudon/all.html
some of the data from the above site

Seedling establishment/growth: Establishment of giant reed appears to be from fragmented rhizomes that take root [11]. Seedlings have not been observed in the field [25]. In a southern California study, Rieger and Kreager [76] cut an established giant reed community and measured its growth after cutting. Growth rates from established rhizomes averaged 2.5 inches (6.25 cm) per day for in the 1st 40 days and 1 inch (2.67 cm) per day in the 1st 150 days.
Asexual regeneration: Giant reed is well adapted to the high disturbance dynamics of riparian systems since it spreads vegetatively. Floods break up clumps of giant reed and spread pieces downstream. Fragmented stem nodes and rhizomes can take root and establish as new plant clones [11]. A 1949 joint publication by the U.S. Forest Service and the California Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, describing recommended plants for erosion control [44] states pieces of giant reed rhizomes can be buried to establish the plant. A 1988 paper describes giant reed as a planted rhizome which "performs well" as an understory plant in riparian zones in New Mexico [87]. In a greenhouse experiment, Motamed [64] determined giant reed stem fragments rooted throughout the growing season. Rhizomes buried under 3.3 to 9.9 feet (1-3 m) of alluvium readily resprout (R. Dale personal communication in Dudley [25]). SITE CHARACTERISTICS:  Giant reed tolerates a wide variety of ecological conditions. Giant reed is best developed in "poor", sandy soil and in sunny situations [21] but is reported to flourish in all types of soils from heavy clays to loose sands and gravelly soils. It produces most vigorous growth in well-drained soils where abundant moisture is available [70]. Giant reed survives in areas with annual precipitation of 11.8 to 157.5 inches (300-4,000 mm) and pH values between 5 and 8.7 [21].
There is no information about temperature requirements for establishment and growth available in the literature. Giant reed is a hydropyhte, growing along lakes, streams, drains and other wet sites [11]. Giant reed grows well where water tables are close to or at the soil surface [75]. In South Carolina it has invaded abandoned rice fields and grows in water described as "brackish" [82]. It tolerates excessive salinity and periods of excessive moisture [70]. In a greenhouse experiment designed to test the tolerance of giant reed to salt stress, Peck [69] determined giant reed can grow in saline conditions and may be able to invade and persist salt marshes. Giant reed can spread from the water's edge up the banks and far beyond the zone previously occupied by woody riparian vegetation [21,25,98]. In southern California giant reed reaches peak abundance downstream along major rivers in coastal basins. It has generally not spread up the steep, narrow canyons that characterize lower montane areas [83]. It is apparently restricted to low elevations, primarily below 1,640 feet (500 m) [43] and requires "well-developed" soils to become established [83]. However, Perdue [70] reports it grows at altitudes to 8,000 feet (2,438 m) in the Himalayas.

My database lists 110 weed references for this species, and it has naturalised on every continent on the planet creating problems where ever it is planted. It develops huge monocultures excluding all but the most competitive species. Along the Swan river in Perth it has developed massive clumps one at least 100m long and numerous smaller clumps. I have an aerial pic of a river in California and Arundo is present as massive monocultures many 100's of metres long and deep along the river.

Its only real use other than as a biofuel and a soemwhat paper substitute is in making reeds for woodwind instruments. My father used to harvest canes to make his own reeds for his oboe for many years. Its hardly an effective control method though. 

Anyone promoting the use of this species for any purpose is seriously deluded and needs to be informed of the massive impacts the plant has on the environment and riverine systems. There are 1000's of pages of data on this weed online, to much to list.

=======================================================================

Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007
From: gcarr <gcarr@ecologyaustralia.com.au>

I agree with Rod Randall’s notes on Arundo donax as a nasty piece of exotica. In Victoria it is so far a relatively minor weed with smallish populations, mostly in riparian environments. Increase is fairly slow but it is clear that the scale and intensity of infestations is increasing. Reproduction seems to be wholly revegetative. The species should be treated as dangerous.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007
From: Ross Macleay <lizardland@bigpond.com>

Rod's reply is pretty detailed - right down to the dream solution of making googles of oboe reeds.
 
Just some personal experience. Arundo is just another incredible pain in the neck in the already hard enough task of native riverside vegetation restoration and management. Chronicially disturbed, and with catchments of  upsteam weeds these sites are eternal maintenance. Arundo arrives on the main site that I'm familiar with as detached rhizome - especially after heavy floods with high upstream erosion (along with deep layers of silt and debris bearing propagules, seminal  and vegetative, of many species, weedy and native). Have not observed seedlings.

Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006
From: "Virtue, John (DWLBC)" <Virtue.John@saugov.sa.gov.au>

Ben. Best sources of information are at:
http://www.weeds.org.au/WoNS/bridalcreeper/
Have a look at the papers from the National Asparagus Weeds Management Workshop that are on the website.

Lot of experience in Australia with A. asparagoides and glyphosate is most effective in terms of reduction in plant cover (>90%) and root biomass (>50%) after one application at a standard rate plus wetter. But repeated applications are needed in future years and total eradication is a challenge. As for A. scandens - we look to New Zealand for control methods experience....

In a few weeks there will be a best practice guide for asparagus weeds on the same website, with sections on A. asparagoides and A. scandens.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006
From: Benjamin Winder <Benjamin.Winder@gw.govt.nz>

Firstly thank you all who have posted comments! I now have a lot of information to sift through. It does appear that the puccinia rust would be the best option for us at this stage with the range and logistics we have for these plants and the limited resources we have to work with. However, decision is pending on the possibility of distributing this around NZ. We can only but hope.

In regards to herbicide methods it seems to be unanimous that these plants will be controlled by chemicals to a certain degree however does anyone know how many applications/years it may take to completely exhaust the root system. I am guessing this will depend on arrange of factors including size and thickness of roots, amount of foliage, depth etc.Burning off the foliage with chemical does seem to be counter productive when wanting to get chemical to the roots?

With so many variables I am guessing it is near impossible to eradicate!!!!?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006
From: Alexandra Shackleton <ashackleton@geelongcity.vic.gov.au>

Just one lot of last 2-cents' worth.... bulb exhaustion by manual biomass removal (slashing/mowing/bushcutting/pulling it out) is an option - albeit a sometimes impractical one for big infestations. Burning with herbicide obviously has the same effect .... just a possibility if you're in spots that aren't well suited to herbicide application / really small bits. So far we haven't eliminated it from any places except where we have caught the first and only plant - so that's at least 7 years of spraying in some cases. It is certainly reducing but not eliminated. A lot of our infestations are in sandy conditions on the coast which are inherently difficult to spray - which in turn contributes to the scale and effectiveness of eradication (ie we run out of money before we completely get a patch clobbered for the year due to the time-intensive nature of some of the spraying due to the physical demands of the sites).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006
From: Neil Tucker <neilt@pipeline.com.au>

In April and May I sprayed Bridal creeper with Brush-off at 0.1g/lt plus Pulse at 1ml/lt, but neither of the 2 areas have gone off significantly. Any suggestions why? Too early? - the plants were up to 1.5m high at the time.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006
From: Lee Andresen <andresen@sydney.dialix.com.au>

In using Brushoff on Asparagus spp. generally I've found that the upper limit of the permit rate (eg 1.5gm/10lit) is more reliable, and that much depends on the state of growth but also on the actual volume deposited on each plant - we spray literally to saturation or "dripping" point making sure every accessible bit of foliage is wet. Even then, we have failures, generally inexplicable as in your case. Another thing to remember is that (in our experience) yellowing doesn't sometimes occur until 2-3 months after application. In conversation with a professional Weeds person I was told that with recalcitrant species such as Asparagus their practice is to "up the ante" by using well above the recommended surfactant concentrations, on the theory that some plants (or plants at some stages of growth) are harder to penetrate and the herbicide simply doesn't reach target systemically unless you deliberately overdo the penetrant. I've not yet tried that, but you might like to experiment.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006
From: Don Matthews <don@heathdon.com.au>

Don't do this. Pulse is the most effective transmitter of herbicide through the cuticle of plants. If you go over 200 mls per 100 L of water you run the risk of the surface tension being reduced to a level where all the applied spray runs off the leaves, ie you reduce uptake of your herbicide. Most of the other surfactants, and of these BS-1000 is the best, the maximum concentration should be 100mL per 100L water. Think of it as an increasing line on a graph, which then peaks and starts to fall down the other side. As you increase the rate of surfactant, retention is improved but it doesn't go on improving, as the whole point of surfactants is to reduce the surface tension between the herbicide surfactant mix and the waxy cuticle which is the target. Remember that plants' leaves have the best water-proofing system there is. Think of plants that go under water in a creek bed. As long as the water goes down within a few days, all the plants are alive and well. And yet we think we can spray water and chemical on leaves and miraculously penetrate this barrier. I've attached a good article on surfactants - I hope it helps.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006
From: Neil Tucker <neilt@pipeline.com.au>

A summary of the reponses I received, names removed to protect the innocent. The consensus seems to be to wait. A couple of comments of my own: The rate I used was 0.1g/lt, which is the same as 10g/100lt. I sprayed to achieve 100% cover with run-off. Bower spinach has been killed (not so slowly) even where it has not been completely sprayed. I have increased surfactant concentration on some small jobs, esp Watsonias & Freesias, up to 5ml/lt, with excellent results, either because of or despite the increase.

Could be a number of things I wouldn't get to alarmed next year will give you a better result metsulfuron takes awhile to travel through the plant, here on KI it seems to be the following year that good evidence of control and in most cases eradication appears.

In using Brushoff on Asparagus spp. generally I've found that the upper limit of the permit rate (eg 1.5gm/10lit) is more reliable, and that much depends on the state of growth but also on the actual volume deposited on each plant - we spray literally to saturation or "dripping" point making sure every accessible bit of foliage is wet. Even then, we have failures, generally inexplicable as in your case. Another thing to remember is that (in our experience) yellowing doesn't sometimes occur until 2-3 months after application. In conversation with a professional Weeds person I was told that with recalcitrant species such as Asparagus their practice is to "up the ante" by using well above the recommended surfactant concentrations, on the theory that some plants (or plants at some stages of growth) are harder to penetrate and the herbicide simply doesn't reach target systemically unless you deliberately overdo the penetrant. I've not yet tried that, but you might like to experiment.

AND IN RESPONSE TO THIS...

Don't do this. Pulse is the most effective transmitter of herbicide through the cuticle of plants. If you go over 200 mls per 100 L of water you run the risk of the surface tension being reduced to a level where all the applied spray runs off the leaves, ie you reduce uptake of your herbicide. Most of the other surfactants, and of these BS-1000 is the best, the maximum concentration should be 100mL per 100L water. Think of it as an increasing line on a graph, which then peaks and starts to fall down the other side. As you increase the rate of surfactant, retention is improved but it doesn't go on improving, as the whole point of surfactants is to reduce the surface tension between the herbicide surfactant mix and the waxy cuticle which is the target. Remember that plants' leaves have the best water-proofing system there is. Think of plants that go under water in a creek bed. As long as the water goes down within a few days, all the plants are alive and well. And yet we think we can spray water and chemical on leaves and miraculously penetrate this barrier. I've attached a good article on surfactants - I hope it helps.

We always wait till July/August when beginning to bud to spray Bridal Creeper, we use very low dose Metsulfuron methyl and have great results.  It is very slow, it often prevents the plants from continuing the flowering process into fruiting and dies back in Spring.  Returning to many areas where we have repeated this process over several years the results are great, where there was once walls of Bridal Creeper there are just seedlings.  A great article "Evaluation of herbicides for the control of environmental weed bridal creeper" G.H.Pritchard, Keith Turnball Institute.  Was published in Plant Protection Quarterly Vol.17 2002.

Too soon , too cold, just hang in there . When it tries to grow you will see the results. Brushoff works verry slowly, it's both a good [slow = better kill ] and bad thing, it's frustrating waiting.

Brushoff takes a long time to work and may yet do the job. The plant must be actively growing  when sprayed, preferably in full flower. I suspect that your plant would be almost be dormant in May. I use the woody weed rate, 10 grams per 100 lts.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006
From: Blair David <D.Blair@yarraranges.vic.gov.au>

Firstly, what herbicides are effective against Bridal Creeper (just east of Melbourne if that makes a difference). This weed is still at the 'new and emerging' stage for this Shire (Shire of Yarra Ranges) and so are aiming to eradicate and control where possible.

On a side issue, I am getting increasingly frustrated with the lack of information on chemicals suitable for weeds (such as Bridal Creeper) that is available from either State Government (eg Dept Primary Industries) or the Weed CRC.  There is only generic 'use selective sprays' or even better, the Landcare notes for this species which simply state 'there is no registered chemical for Bridal Creeper' (in Victoria).

As a result, every Joe average ends up experimenting with whatever chemicals they have in their shed - often killing off target species, wasting their time and money, putting herbicides into the environment that shouldn't be there, and reinventing the wheel over and over.  Is there nothing that can be done to inject some common sense into herbicide usage and get a standardised usage publication for the best chemicals to use and the prime conditions (seasonal and daily weather) under which these work?  Thankfully at least this forum seems to allow people to speak frankly which is certainly appreciated.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006
From: Margaret Moir <olivehill@wn.com.au>

I can’t help with the big picture query, but as for killing off _small_ bridal creeper infestations, I’ve had success here in Margaret River with weed wiping with 50% glyphosate in early active growth.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006
From: "Randall, Rod" <RPRandall@agric.wa.gov.au>

Note: Only herbicides that are registered for bridal creeper control in that state should be used.

The CRC also has downloads of data I just can't get online at the moment to find the  URLs. None of this data is hard to find, you can also find information on registered herbicides at the following database setup by the APVMA.

http://services.apvma.gov.au/PubcrisWebClient/

Taken from the Bridal Creeper WONS strategy paper. freely available on the web.

To date, herbicides have been the most effective means of bridal creeper control. Recent releases of biological control agents offer good prospects of improved control, particularly where herbicide use is not practical. Physical removal, grazing and firemay be useful in certain circumstances. Records of control activities and their success (e.g., photo points, maps, techniques) need to be kept to chart progress. Herbicides Bridal creeper can be controlled with two herbicides that, with correct use, can be applied safely and with low environmental impact. The two herbicides, metsulfuronmethyl (e.g., Brush-off®) and glyphosate(e.g., Roundup®), have differing advantages and disadvantages. Bridal creeper is susceptible to very low rates of metsulfuron methyl, allowing effective control with little effect on grasses and established trees and shrubs. However, metsulfuron methyl should be applied carefully with a hand sprayer to minimise contact with other plants, especially native herbs, or soil. The volume and speed of application used must avoid run-off from the leaves. Research has found an application rate of 3 grams of active ingredient per 100litres of water was sufficient for control of bridal creeper (this is equivalent to 5 g of product containing 600 g/kg metsulfuronmethyl). Metsulfuron methyl can remain active in alkaline soils for many months. Its repeated use at sites with such soils raises concern for long-term effects on native vegetation. It should be cautiously used where native herbs and seedlings of shrubs and trees are regenerating following bridal creeper control. Glyphosate is generally not persistent in soils, but is active against more types of plants than metsulfuron methyl. Off-target impacts have been a concern where this herbicide has not been applied carefully. Glyphosate is best applied with a hand sprayer, but can be wiped directly onto bridal creeper leaves for greater selectivity. Wiping is time-consuming for large infestations, but may be useful for follow-up control or new infestations. Only herbicides that are registered for bridal creeper control in that state should be used. Check with the relevant state authorities prior to use. The metsulfuron methyl-based herbicide Brushoff® is registered for bridal creeper control in all states. The glyphosate based herbicide Roundup® is registered for general control of "perennial weeds" in all States. NSW has issued a permit for the use of various glyphosate products for bridal creeper control in native vegetation. A permit for glyphosate and metsulfuron methyl products is current in Tasmania for non-crop situations. The same permit applies to Western Australia for metsulfuron-methyl products only. Biological Control its native South Africa bridal creeper is not weedy. It is in fact an uncommon plant that never grows as vigorously as it does in Australia, but is kept in check by its own specific natural enemies, both insects and fungi. Two biological control agents have been released to date for bridal creeper in Australia, the bridal creeper leafhopper (Zygina sp.) and a rust fungus, Puccinia myrsiphylli. These agents were selected and developed by the CSIRO and CRC for Weed Management Systems, with funding from State and Commonwealth governments. All biocontrol agents must pass strict host range studies before being given permission by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service and Environment Australia for release. The bridal creeper leafhopper was released at over 200 sites throughout southern Australia since 1999. Each female lays about 200 eggs over a six-week period, and the insects have multiple generations a year. Hence the bridal creeper leafhopper has the ability to build in numbers quite rapidly, although predation of eggs by a native parasitoid has been observed. Both the adults and immature stages feed on the foliage of the weed, causing the leaves to turn silver. If damage is severe enough, leaf fall occurs. The net result is less photo synthate available for growth, reproduction and tuber storage. Attacked plants in South Africa produce fewer flowers and fruits than unattacked ones. The bridal creeper leafhopper is specific to bridal creeper and has successfully over summeredat release sites. Rearing is straight forward, and schools and community groups have received training to produce bridal creeper leafhoppers for additional local releases. The bridal creeper rust was officially released in 2000, and localised spread has already been observed at release sites. The fungus attacks both leaves and stems, where it produces pustules that are surrounded by yellowing tissue. The fungus causes nutrients to be diverted away from healthy plant tissue, and thus can have a major impact on the level of reserves that would normally be stored in the tubers. Severe attack will also cause leaves to senesce prematurely and drop. The fungus has many generations a year, and produces large amounts of wind-dispersed spores. It should spread within and between bridal creeper infestations efficiently, but spread will be faster with more regional releases of the rust. Several other biocontrol agents are currently being studied in South Africa and in quarantine in Australia. They are a shoot feeding beetle, growth tip galling fly and a fruit-feeding moth. Reductions in the density of bridal creeper populations by the biocontrol agents are likely to take many years, due to the huge reserves stored in the tuber biomass that supports plant growth in Australia. In the meantime, the spread of bridal creeper must be prevented by using various other means of control. Other control methods Simple physical removal of bridal creeper is not effective unless all of the rhizomes are dug up and destroyed. This may be possible for new, small infestations or as a follow-up after several years of herbicidal control of a larger infestation. However, digging is too time consuming and too disturbing to soil in native vegetation to be used as a primary control measure for large infestations. Slashing the stems and foliage may prevent fruit production and slowly deplete root reserves, but will not eradicate an infestation. Fire and herbicides may be integrated to manage larger infestations. Fires in late summer and early autumn can remove all understorey vegetation, thereby improving access for later spraying of bridal creeper. In winter-rainfall areas, bridal creeper often emerges before the first rains in autumn so that herbicides may be applied prior to post fire regeneration of native vegetation. Metsulfuron methyl must be used carefully after fire as some indigenous seedlings maybe killed as a result of its greater persistence than glyphosate in soil, especially in alkaline soils which become even more alkaline after a fire. In addition to assisting herbicide application, fire may be beneficial in destroying bridal creeper seed and the tuber mat. The tuber mat is persistent for many years following herbicide spraying, and an investigation is needed into the use of fire to remove this barrier to regeneration of native plants. Care must be used with fire, and any intentional burns must have permission of appropriate fire management authorities and native vegetation bodies (e.g., Native Vegetation Council in SA). However, any accidental fires must be seen as an opportunity for further weed control. Grazing can provide some control. Tamar wallabies on Garden Island in Western Australia have successfully kept bridal creeper at low levels. Bridal creeper is readily eaten by sheep, and does not persist in grazed paddocks. Sheep grazing may bean option to limit fruit production under trees in remnant vegetation, woodlots and shelter belts. However, sheep grazing can significantly damage native under story plants and tree seedlings in native vegetation, and it is not appropriate for conservation reserves. Revegetation with indigenous plants, whether by natural regeneration or planting, is the final step in a weed management program in natural areas. This tactic usually limits reinvasion of the original weed and new weeds. However, bridal creeper is a weed that readily invades dense vegetation, so revegetation is not a useful control measure for this weed. Control in horticulture Bridal creeper can infest citrus and avocado orchards, with vigorous growth and a long growing season due to fertilisers and irrigation. It is difficult to spray bridal creeper entwined in tree foliage. However, pruning lower limbs to provide access underneath trees, a practice termed "skirting", enables spot-spraying of bridal creeper with glyphosate. Skirting also provides other benefits, such as enhanced snail and weed control, use of under-tree irrigation, frost protection and increased fruit size.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006
From: Peter Martin <peter.martin@adelaide.edu.au>

A few issues here:

1. The Weeds CRC tends not to do research on which herbicides kill which weeds. Most of our control research has been on IWM techniques, the development of herbicide resistance, and biocontrol.

2. There is a large amount of information available about which herbicides to use and how on what plants, both on-label and off-label. Some of it is official, and some not. This advice also varies from state to state, and can also change over time.  For this reason we tend to refer people to the PUBCRIS database (http://services.apvma.gov.au/PubcrisWebClient/welcome.do), which can be regularly updated.  There are also minor use permits available for some weeds for some states, and this information is also available on the APVMA website.

3. The official reluctance to recommend herbicides and use rates seems to stem from fear of litigation. For example, in the contract the Weeds CRC had with NHT that produced the 50 weed management guides, we were specifically asked not to discuss herbicides and use rates. In response we managed to get agreement to at least refer people to the PUBCRIS database. I think that was a good outcome. Perhaps that database could be further developed, in fact, with federal and state collaboration. There is lot to say for having a single authoritative source on herbicide use for environmental weeds.

4. In all states it is illegal to use herbicides contrary to the product label.  Unfortunately, if there is no labelled use in that state, state government personnel are often prohibited from providing off-label information.  This varies a little from state to state, but is strongly enforced in Victoria.  As the CRC has state government agencies as partners, we are also prohibited from providing off-label advice in our publications.  Even if you were provided with off-label advice for a herbicide use, it would still be illegal for you to follow that advice.

So, all in all, a difficult subject to negotiate. Nevertheless, there is some good information available, as I imagine some of the replies to your posting will reveal.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006
From: Glenn Firth <banksiaray@optusnet.com.au>

Bridal Creeper Rust in conjunction with herbicide treatments has had some very positive results. Especially with the overall reduction in biomass. However this integrated approach is still very experimental at present and gathering more data will take a few more growth seasons to validate usefulness.

The (cut and paste) information below may or may not be of interest.

Regards
Glenn

BRIDAL CREEPER BIOLOGICAL CONTROL WORKSHOP
Saturday 5th August 2006 10am - 12pm
Meet at Seaford Foreshore Pier Car Park

An opportunity for the community and land care managers to learn about Bridal Creeper Rust, what it is and see it in action on site.

You may also collect the Bridal Creeper rust from site for redistribution if you wish. Spray methodology of 'spore water' and vegetative distribution of Bridal Creeper Rust will be covered on the day.

I first introduced Bridal Creeper rust to Seaford Foreshore in August 2004. The rust now occupies the whole length of Seaford Foreshore and specifically targets its intended host - Bridal Creeper. Further introductions of Bridal Creeper Leaf Hopper and beetles were conducted in conjunction with Department of Primary Industries 2005. Seaford Primary school students under the Weed Warriors (DPI) program released more leaf hoppers in the same year.

I will need to know if you intend to attend the workshop by Friday 28th July so that I can organize information kits for you. 

All the best and good growing to all
Regards
Glenn Firth
03 9773 5555
E-Mail : banksiaray@optusnet.com.au

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006
From: <Greg.Lefoe@dpi.vic.gov.au>

Peter Martin's reply summed up many of the issues surrounding herbicide recommendations, although off-label herbicide use is not illegal in Victoria within certain limits. The conditions that must be met for off-label use are outlined on the DPI website;

http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/nrenfa.nsf/FID/-922A76232B008E07CA256C760017B259?OpenDocument  

Fortunately though there are now herbicides registered for bridal creeper control in Victoria. This has been achieved only recently; previously there were no herbicides registered for bridal creeper in this State (hence the now out-of-date information you've read). A useful resource is DPI's Chemical Information Service ph: (03) 9210 9379 (Vic only). The Chemical Information Service's role is to "provide accurate information about registered agricultural and veterinary products and the uses for which they are approved in Victoria according to the product label". In other words they can provide you with a list of products registered for bridal creeper in Victoria, and their labels if requested. It's a useful number to keep (along with the APVMA web-site details) as they provide up-to-date information on the registration status of herbicides for different weeds in Victoria; unlike printed documents that can quickly date (as you've f! ound). The Service operates from 9.00am-4.00pm Mon-Friday, is free-of-charge (apart from the cost of a local call), and is manned by trained Chemical Standards Officers.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006
From: Vivien & Charlie Clarke <clarke@nex.net.au>

I walked with a lady today along a roadside which she wants re replant with indigenous plants however there is a range of difficult weeds to eliminate along it.

Masses of bridal creeper, a small patch of monbretia, a small patch of honeysuckle and cape ivy.  Has anyone had success in eliminating these difficult weeds.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006
From: <info@iewf.org>

That sounds like an awful lot of hard work to me and a long term project – how committed is she to doing more than just planting?

For all of these weeds its hands-on – I have had success with bridal creeper and montbretia – digging it out and lots of follow-up, honeysuckle and cape ivy - scraping and painting. When you take the vines out you might find more invasives coming up. I think if it’s near good bushland she should be talking to her local council about getting a volunteer group underway and getting a proper strategy for the area in place.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006
From: <Greg.Lefoe@dpi.vic.gov.au>

The best place to start for bridal creeper Asparagus asparagoides is the WONS (Weeds of National Significance) bridal creeper web-site:

www.weeds.org.au/WoNS/bridalcreeper/

The site has a great deal of information on managing bridal creeper and links to further information. One link is to the CRC's Bridal creeper weed management guide which is a good introduction to managing this weed. Another link is to CSIRO's bridal creeper biocontrol web-site (nb; if you'd like to discuss biocontrol further you can contact me if you're in Victoria, or CSIRO if you're in another State).

Also, I should mention that the bridal creeper WONS co-ordinator, Dennis Gannaway, is currently preparing a detailed manual for managing a range of asparagus weeds, including bridal creeper. This should be up on the WONS web-site in the next couple of months and will be very a useful resource. It will, for example, include advise on how to prepare a weed management strategy for your site, how to prioritise weeds etc.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 May 2002
From: <boul0014flinders.edu.au>

I am hoping that somebody has some information on the distribution of Asparagus scandens within South Africa, New Zealand and Australia, including what the climate/topographical conditions may be in those areas. I know this may be a long shot!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 May 2002
From: Kate Blood <Kate.Bloodnre.vic.gov.au>

A few Victorian locations for Asparagus scandens (asparagus fern; Asparagaceae) below if that helps:

Weedy distribution includes: NSW (Sydney region), Tas (N, King Island), Vic (limited distribution but expanding, medium to large populations incl Mornington Peninsula especially Somers and Red Hill, Blackburn, Vermont, Selby, Phillip Island, Inverloch, Sherbrooke Forest, Dandenong Ranges), NZ.

A good ref for NZ:
Timmins, S. M. and Reid, V. (2000) Article: Climbing asparagus, Asparagus scandens Thunb.: a South African in your forest patch. Austral Ecology (2000)
25, pp. 533-538.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 May 2002
From: Jackie Miles <jmilesacr.net.au>

There is a large infestation of Asparagus scandens in an urban gully in the seaside town of Merimbula on the far south coast of NSW. Haven't seen it anywhere else in the region and assume its origins are from a garden in that town. Climate is sort of maritime temperate, with fairly cool winters but probably no frost on the site. rainfall about 800-1000mm and evenly distributed through the year, summers mild.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002
From: Sean Willmore <willsmornpen.vic.gov.au>

My names Matt Stahmer and im a Ranger at Warringine Heritage park about 60 km south east of melbourne and covers an area of over 500 aceres. A big problem we face during the cooler months is the re emergence of Bridal creeper (Asparagus asparagoides). We have thick infestations along our creek section in the riparion zone and its slowly creeping in to the ajoining Eucalyptus viminalis Open forest with Bursaria-Leptospermum understory. We want to takle the problem using a number of techniques and i was wondering if someone out there knows what is the most effective posion is and also ratios as well as if anyones had success exhausting the corms by pulling the stems out for several years.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002
From: Rod Randall <RPRandallagric.wa.gov.au>

Graeme Pritchard published an article on the "Control of bridal creeper with herbicides" in the plant Protection Quarterly Special "Control of Environmental Weeds" Vol 6 N° 3 1991 more recently, from memory, there is an article in PPQ Vol 17 No 1, 2002 (someone has borrowed that copy so I can't confirm or quote the title). There are over 200 web pages that have the words Asparagus asparagoides and control, these would be worth looking through for details that may be useful to your situation and more contacts. There is a good NRE factsheet at the following url which you will need to paste back together as it is so long

http://www.nre.vic.gov.au/web/root/domino/infseries/infsheet.nsf/1307fdca9f455dac4a25653200176a4b/8c3f49646d6be4154a2567ee001d1a28?OpenDocument

or use the link from
http://www.ssn.flinders.edu.au/geog/weeds/Weedinfo.htm

scroll down to Asparagus ferns (Liliaceae) Asparagus spp. As around 90% of the plants biomass is below ground cutting stems off will only be of use in preventing seed set. Removal of this mass of tubers needs to be very thorough or reinfestation is rapid.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002
From: Rick Roush <rick.roushadelaide.edu.au>

As many of people on this server will know, the Weeds CRC has released a leafhopper and rust as biocontrols of bridal creeper, and has published a best bet management guide. Another source of information for you would be the Keith Turnbull Research Inst at Frankston, some staff of which will surely see this message.

While it is premature to assume that the biocontrol agents will suppress bridal creeper to the point where herbicides are no longer necessary (and even on my own property, I spray any spot infestations I find to slow or stop any further spread of the weed), the agents are very promising and could be a major part of your management effort.

Pulling the plants out is hopeless.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002
From: Michael Norris <menorrisozemail.com.au>

I noticed a recent message saying that pulling out the stems of Bridal Veil Creeper is useless. But in some situations it must be valuable to remove the flowers or drupes to prevent this horror spreading even further?

I have no records of birds eating the fruit but I guess Blackbirds, Silvereyes, Indian Mynas and Starlings would be the main vectors in my local area (NE of Port Phillip Bay, Melbourne). Red Wattlebirds could also be 'guilty'.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002
From: Tim Woodburn <Tim.Woodburncsiro.au>

It's probably true to say that removal of stems is 'next to useless', with the caveat that you will prevent fruiting and seeding. To be effective in stopping spread by seed, you would have to remove all shoots, and from the majority of infestations that I've seen that would be a big task!

The seed is certainly spread by fruit eating birds, which includes those that you mention, as well as 'honey eaters' in general. Bridal creeper, unlike many weeds, has the capacity to invade pristine ecosystems, and birds are the mechanism that allows the seeds to get into these systems.

If the stems are pulled late in the season, you will probably have little to no impact on the build-up of reserves in the underground tubers, which are the power house of this weed.

For information on biological control prospects of this weed, check out the web site at http://www.ento.csiro.au/bridalcreeper/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002
From: Rick Roush <rick.roushadelaide.edu.au>

Tim Woodburn gave an excellent reply to your questions. Pulling the stems up will stop the spread this year, but you'll have to do it again next, and
there after.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002
From: Geoff Portbury <geoffporcnl.com.au>

Birds are the most prevalent means of spread of Asparagus asparagoides. My little infestation, (approximately 1.5ha) has 34 satellite, single plant or small infestations within a kilometer of it. All of them are under fence lines or trees. I suppose an argument could be mounted along the lines that every vine / runner pulled reduces the fruiting capacity of the plant but this is only a tempory measure as new shoots appear from the root ball quickly after defoliation. It's my belief that every tuber in the root ball is a potential new plant. Therefore all the vine pulling in the world won't keep up with the new growth. The infestation mentioned above has been kept back from a home garden by pulling vines for 20 years and the minute the owners stop, more vines appear.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002
From: Virginia Carter <lhabitatalphalink.com.au>

Have to agree with you completely. By pulling out the bulk of the Bridal Veil, it not only reduces seed, but also reduces the mass area to be sprayed, thus reducing amount of chemical used and risk of damage to off target species. This is of benefit even if it does not effect the rhizomes, it certainly assists the bush worker and liberates the plants it smothers. In response to animals spreading the seed, I have watched a swamp rat dilligently chomping the fruit.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002
From: David Bass <David.Bassflinders.edu.au>

A usual cry about common versus latin binomials. The subject line to these messages is A.asparagoides yet the text of the messages mentions bridal veil. In South Australia these are two different entities. From preliminary spray trials the response of A.asparagoides (bridal creeper) is very different to A.declinatus (bridal veil). In order to avoid confusion please use latin binomials.

The fruit of both species is very different. A.asparagoides is small round red fruit. A.declinatus is larger pale green ovoid fruit. Given the habit of both species the seed dispersers are likely to also differ. A.aspargoides which climbs into the shrub and tree layer has smaller fruit and is likely to have smaller birds ingest fruit (Silvereyes, smaller honeyeaters and ground to shrub later visitors). A.declinatus with larger fruit will not have as many small birds. It also has fruit closer to the ground (it doesn't seem to climb as readily into the shrub layer). As a result it would be favoured by ground foraging birds like (blackbirds, currawongs and possibly magpies). There is also likely to be an important ground foraging mammal component like bush rats (evidence from damaged fruit).

The seed dispersal shadow of both species is probably different with some overlap in the mid to large sized bird area. Of course don't forget the whole plethora of other asparagus species (of which taxonomy is at best confusing and variable. In South Australia we also have A.scandens, A.densiflorus (syn A.aethiopicus, A.sprengeri), A.plumosus (syn A.setaceous), and our edible friend. All are variable in fruit size, colour, position above ground, time of ripe fruit and therefore seed dispersers and due to cladode/leaf structure are also possibly variable in response to physical and chemical control. With the establishment and hopeful success of biological control agents for A.apsragoides we should all be on the lookout for other asparagus species. In South Australia there is some concern that biocontrol of A.asparagoides may provide an enormous opportunity for A.declinatus to explode for which there is no adequate and really effective control.

Has anyone got any information on response of any asparagus species to fire?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002
From: Rod Randall <RPRandallagric.wa.gov.au>

I should point out a few misconceptions recently aired about controlling Asparagus asparagoides that could lead to some significant disappointment if followed by weed workers.

In terms of "bulk" roughly 90 percent of the biomass of the plant is below ground. Its this bulk that any herbicide being applied is attempting to kill. By removing the leaf and stem material prior to spraying you are effectively removing the major access route for the herbicide to get down into the tubers.The plant will resprout and resmother the bush requiring yet another control attempt. Hence no result for all that effort and a lot of wasted herbicide. Leaf surface is critical in providing the entry point for translocated herbicides. The more leaf area available when applying the herbicide the greater the amount of herbicide making its way through the plant to the roots and tubers. Every control effort is a disturbance in its own right and a large number of ill conceived control efforts will be more damaging to the bush than a few well planned and executed efforts that result in long term weed removal allowing the bush to bounce back without the continual disturbance of subsequent weeding efforts. We aren't treating the bush like a garden here, we don't want to be weeding forever.

Yes reducing seed set is useful but not at the expense of effectively dealing with the plant itself. If you plan to treat plants before they even set seed this becomes a moot point anyway.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002
From: Tony Rodd <tonyroddisp.net.au>

On 4 June Geoff Portbury wrote, inter alia, "It's my belief that every tuber in the root ball is a potential new plant. therefore all the vine pulling in the world won't keep up with the new growth". I have always rather doubted this, in respect of any of the swollen-rooted S African Asparagus spp. I assumed that the swollen, watery organs were pure root tissue and incapable of resprouting. This leaves the possibility, though, that pulling out the rootstocks may still leave fragments of stem tissue at the proximal ends of roots left in the soil, allowing resprouting. A parallel case might be Dahlia 'tubers', which as gardeners know require a sliver of stem at the top if they are to be sprouted.

Has anyone done any trials to establish whether or not isolated pieces of swollen root will resprout?

In Sydney A. asparagoides is a common enough weed but probably not such a major problem as it seems to be in the southern states. Much worse here, at least in bushland, is A. aethiopicus (or densiflorus, whichever is the correct identification). However I think their rooting behaviour is very similar.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002
From: David Cooke <Cooke.Davidsaugov.sa.gov.au>

I think the comparison with Dahlia tubers is very apt. Asparagus tubers are storage roots attached to a rhizome, and do not have growing points of their own.

I've tried dissecting the underground portion of a small Asparagus asparagoides plant-cutting the tubers from the rhizome and placing them separately on wet filter paper in petri dishes. Although the rhizome is small, even without the water/food reserves stored in the tuber it rapidly produced a shoot from the terminal meristem. However, the detached tubers do not produce any growth. In the field, new shoots always arise from the rhizome, never directly from a tuber.

The same would apply to the other bridal creeper species (Asparagus declinatus) and tuberous-rooted Asparagus spp. in general.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002
From: Gabrielle Viviansmith <Gabrielle.Viviansmithnrm.qld.gov.au>

We are currently doing a small trial to test if tubers of the weedy species, Asparagus aethiopicus (basket asparagus) resprout. The data are preliminary & the trial needs to be repeated during different seasonal conditions to be more robust.

Weekly assessments have so far shown no sprouting from any of the 75 tubers planted in commercial potting mix in an irrigated tunnel. After two months in these conditions, tubers were assessed to see if they were still intact, and we found that only 26% remained undecomposed. The tubers collected contained a small (1cm) segment of root on the end of the tuber that is attached to the plant.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002
From: Nigel Ainsworth <Nigel.Ainsworthnre.vic.gov.au>

I had a student recently looking at survival of bridal creeper rhizomes and tubers in sea water (they wash up on beaches along the Vic coast quite frequently). Survival after 24 hours in sea water was very high, but 7 days immersion achieved a 100% kill. Interestingly some of the small rhizome pieces he used had no terminal bud. These were slower to produce a shoot but eventually grew several shoots per piece from buds along the rhizome. This makes it even more important to avoid spreading contaminated soil around.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 12:02:15 +0930
From: Janine Paynter <lloydya1.com.au>

An Honours student of Dr Chris Preston (University of Adelaide & CRC Australian Weed Management), Emma Yates, investigated the effects of fire and selected herbicides on Bridal Creeper, Asparagus asparagoides. In addition to this and Rod Randall's reply, there is also a best practice management guide for Asparagus asparagoides.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002
From: Tony Rodd <tonyroddisp.net.au>

It's nice to have David Cooke and Gabrielle Vivian-Smith confirm my suspicion, namely that the root-tubers do not sprout when isolated from the rhizomes. But how many bush regenerators are aware of this? I get the impression that most of them firmly believe that every bit of root left in the soil is a potential plant. This could make for a lot of unnecessary work when hand-weeding.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002
From: David Bass <gedabpsy1.ssn.flinders.edu.au>

From both field and glasshouse observations of Asparagus declinatus there is occasional resprouting from detached tubers. This seems only to occur when there is a spur of tissue that must have some rhizomatic tissue still intact. The individual tubers of A.declinatus are about the size of the last joint of your thumb. large plants may have 20-50 tubers and often become entangled with neighbouring plants to produce tuber masses of a square metre consisting of hundreds of tubers. When digigging out a root mass and some tubers become detached they can tear and produce a spur up to 10mm long. I have seen sprouts develop from these spurs. This is a risk factor in situations where the root mass is difficult to dig out (eg rocky shallow soils, between rocks). It may be rare but it does happen. Care again with blanket statements about the genus. If success or failure can be attributed to 5-10 mm then we should give it some attention.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002
From: Tein McDonald <teinmozemail.com.au>

Might be able to reassure you about bush regenerators. At least in NSW, regenerators have been 'crowning' the various Asparagus species for a very long time with no ill effect (i.e. removing the crown or rhizome only, leaving the roots and any underground organs in the ground). The longerst experience (i.e. over 20 years) is with A. aethiopicus. It would be good to have some good empirical data though.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002
From: Lee Andresen <andresensydney.dialix.com.au>

In support of Tein's information, Ballina Shire DuneCarers have been crowning isolated A. aethiopicus successfully for over 12 years. For dense infestation crowing is too labour-intensive and spraying with Brush-Killer (metsulphuron) 1.5gm per 10 litres plus surfactant is preferable and appears to lead to better subsequent natural regeneration. The only drawback is that whereas crowning seems to be totally reliable with 100% success, with spraying the variability of saturation, age and condition of plant, weather, etc all lead to uneven results and some plants may survive, needing follow-up. Novice volunteers have to be restrained (sometimes with dire threats) as they instinctively want to pull the entire root mass and water-sac apparatus out of the ground, sometimes ripping up vast areas of sand and native seedlings in the process. A large plant's root system can cover a square metre, the fibrous roots all entangled with natives. Minimal disturbance - just the very crown where the green ferny shoots emerge from - seems to be all that is necessary for a kill.

We use the trad. bush-knives but have found that seccateurs and loppers can also do the job very cleanly (though they get blunted in the sand). (Someone also told me that a very narrow-gauge 3inch post-hole digger can be used to rip the heart out of really big, old, tough rhizomes the size of a melon).

TAFE Wollongbar in its Bush Regen. courses teaches and recommends Crowning, or alternatively spraying with metsulphuron, to all its students ("There are no renewal buds on water storage organs" "Only the top crown layer of the rhizome has renewal buds that need removing").

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002
From: Peter Dixon <aabrzip.com.au>

Not sure about that, Tony, if you check any of the Bush Regen books or info sheets, they suggest crowning to remove only those parts which can resprout. We always left the root tubers in situ, unless it was easier to remove the lot. This has been general bush regen knowledge for as long as I remember. A canny lot, bush regenerators...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 21:13:14 +1000
From: Hugh Paterson and Francoise Matter <goodbushpnc.com.au>

I was taught exactly what you three have been saying. That is that Asparagus tubers are simply tuberous roots and water storage organs with no ability to resprout. The rhizome is the key. I thought this was long standing common knowledge around bush regenerators. Which bush regenerators are claiming otherwise and on what basis?

Joan Bradley wrote:
"Asparagus Fern also spreads by means of its berries, and although it has tuberous roots, these are only for water storage and do not reproduce."
Bradley, J. 1988, Bringing Back the Bush

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002
From: Hugh Paterson and Francoise Matter <goodbushpnc.com.au>

The label rate for Myrsiphyllum asparagoides (SA only) is 0.5 g per 10 L. Why go to 1.5 g per 10 L? Would that not increase off target kill?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002
From: Rick Roush <rick.roushadelaide.edu.au>

Different Myrsiphyllum/Asparagus species may well require different rates due to their different relative leaf areas and leaf architectures.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002
From: Geoff Portbury <geoffporcnl.com.au>

I originally stated that I "thought" that each tuber was a potential new plant. I wasn't stating this as a fact. I have only recently come into contact with Asparagus asparagoidies in my area and as yet hve not had the time to study up on it. And I'm not a bush regenerator.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 Jun
From: Mark V Robinson <ecorestterrigal.net.au>

Some Asparagus family (Asparagaceae: as per Flora of NSW Vol 4) references on tubers & fruit munchers

Baby Smilax, Bridal Veil Creeper Mrysiphyllum asparagoides (syn. Asparagus asparagoides)

Emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae), the Silvergull (Larus novaholladiae), Spiny-cheeked Honeyeater (Acanthagenys rufoguaris), Singing Honeyeater (Lichenostomus virescens), and the introduced Common Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) (Loyn & French, 1991), Singing Honeyeater (Lichenostomus virescens), Silvereye (Zosterops lateralis) (Loyn & French, 1991; Stansbury, 2001), White-cheeked Honeyeater (Phylidonyris nigra) (Stansbury, 2001)

Climbing Asparagus Fern Protasparagus plumous (syn Asparagus setaceus; Asparagus plumosus)

Silvereye (Zosterops lateralis) (Loyn & French, 1991). A very ugly, not-so-nice Asparagagus "Fern" Protasparagus aethiopicus (syn Asparagus aethiopicus, A. densiflorus, P. densiflorus)

Dispersal

Birds: Pied Currawong (Strepera graculina)(Buchanan, 1989)
Reptiles: Possibly Water Dragons (Physignathus lesuerii)(Bowden & Rodgers, 1996).
Humans: Dumped with garden refuse (Bowden & Rodgers, 1996).
Gravity: Some may roll down hill from parent plant (Bowden & Rodgers, 1996).

Other bits & pieces
a.. Woody rhizome with fibrous tuberous roots (Harden, 1993)
b.. Tuberous roots are 95% water (Bowden & Rodgers, 1996)
c.. Tuberous roots had no evidence of adventitious buds which would permit the tubers to act as vegetative propagules (Bowden & Rodgers, 1996)
d.. White or pale pink flowers (Harden, 1993)
e.. Succulent red berry with black seeds (1 to few seeds)(Harden 1993)
f.. Up to 600 berries on one plant (Bowden & Rodgers, 1996)
g.. Germination requirements are few, with adequate moisture will germinate year round (Bowden & Rodgers, 1996).
h.. Tuberous roots are known to assist seedling survival with drying conditions (Bowden & Rodgers, 1996)
i.. Germination mostly greater than 10 days (Bowden & Rodgers, 1996)
j.. Resprout from rhizome
k.. Some fruit can be available year round (Parsons & Cuthbertson, 1992)
l.. Tolerates lower light
m.. I have observed a Aussie Hungarian couple collect the new growth of this species (it looks like edible Asparagus but skinnier) from a weed infested hind-dune in the Illawarra. The elderly gentleman would happily cook it and eat it but his good wife did not like the tatste of it

Removal

To add my two-bobs worth I have found that digging up the rhizome along with fibrous and tuberous roots also remove many seeds that are tangled in the dense root mass. On rocky shelves & ledges in Hawkesbury Sandstone (Sydney) I found that this species would colonise small pockets and crack with soil. It was easier to remove the whole roots mass and the detritius it would collect (in absence of removal is seemed the detritus would subsequently become germination sites for seedlings or root expansion).

Whilst I do not advocate causing slope unstability by removing the root mass I suspects that a dense root mass would quell germination of some of the native soil seed bank hence I have no hesitation removing it. Sure if there are established native seedlings then do not rip them up, dig up the rhizome & leave the fibrous/tuberous roots (with its Asparagus seed). Mulch, brush-matting & woody debris including slope terracing (using logs) can be used to miminse erosion if the whole root mass is removed.

Yours against Aspargaceae weeds

References

Bowden D. & Rodgers, R.W. (1996) Protasparagus densiflorus: an environmental weed of coastal vegetation reserves, in Pacific Conservation Biology 2 293-98 pp Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton

Buchanan, R.A. (1989) Pied Currawong Strepera graculina: their diet and role in weed dispersal in suburban Sydney, in Proc. Linn. Soc. NSW 111(4) p241-255

Harden, G. (1993) Asparagaceae in Flora of New South Wales: Volume 4 Harden, G. (ed) New South Wales University Press, Kensington, Australia

Parsons, W.T. & Cuthbertson, E.G. (1992) Noxious Weeds of Australia Inkata Press Australia

Loyn, R.H. & French, K. (1991) Birds and environmental weeds in south-eastern Australia, in Plant Protection Quarterly 6(3) 137-149

Stansbury, C.D. (2001) Dispersal of the environmental weed Bridal Creeper Asparagus asparagoides, by Silvereyes Zosterops lateralis in south-western Australia, in Emu 101 pp39-45

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003
From: Peter Symes <Peter.Symesrbg.vic.gov.au>

I am only familiar with this species as a garden plant. I am interested in its real or potential weediness in Victorian habitats. Can any comment on the behaviour of this species?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003
From: Rod Randall <RPRandallagric.wa.gov.au>

Asparagus densiflorus is a significant environmental weed A Google search looking for Asparagus densiflorus and invasive has 154 hits with the with the first lot of the title pages looking like this There are numerous Australian web sites discussing this pernicious weed further down the list.

USE http://www.google.com/advanced_search Asparagus densiflorus in the 'with the exact phrase' cell and invasive in the 'with all of the words' cell
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003
From: Kathryn Batchelor <Kathryn.Batchelorcsiro.au>

I have seen some impressive infestations of A. densiflorus on Kangaroo Island. There us undoubtedly some around Victor Harbour and Goolwa. SA has an Asparagus Weeds Steering Committee which can probably tell you the potential of this species. Contact John Virtue more info.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003
From: David Cameron <David.Cameronnre.vic.gov.au>

I would like to respond to your enquiry regarding the weediness and behaviour of this species in Victorian habitats, partly because it illustrates the importance of keeping a watchful eye on sleeper weeds already established horticulturally and the importance of accurate identification of potential weeds, and partly to champion the contribution which well-maintained databases can make to this important vigilante activity. The corollary to this, of course, is that such databases can only perform this vital function to the extent that they are well supported and earn the confidence of all potential contributors of data and specimens.

Asparagus densiflorus, like most species now referred to Asparagus, has a confusing history of nomenclatural change and until recently was better known as either Protasparagus aethiopicus or Protasparagus densiflorus. It has also been known as Asparagus aethiopicus. Common names include Sprengeri Fern, Sprenger's Asparagus, Emerald Feather, Asparagus Fern and Ground Fern, most of which are quite misleading as the species is related to the better-known Bridal Creeper and Bridal Veil and only superficially resembles the true ferns. Therefore an internet search should at least include the three synonyms under Protasparagus and Asparagus.

Given the confusing diversity of species now referred once again to the large aggregate genus Asparagus, with over 170 species worldwide, and all their superfluous synonyms, it is important to make sure that your species is correctly identified. Make sure you don't confuse this species with Asparagus declinatus which now has a similar-sounding name but which was until recently better known as Myrsiphyllum declinatum and is generally known as Bridal Veil.

Both these species are weakly naturalised in Victoria, although only the latter rates a very minor mention in the Flora of Victoria. Carr, Yugovic and Robinson (Environmental Weed Invasions in Victoria, 1992), however, record the former (under the synonym Protasparagus densiflorus) as a potential threat to heathland and heathy woodland vegetation formations.

This is supported by site records in the Flora Information System, the statewide plant distribution database maintained by the Department of Sustainability and Environment. The species is reliably recorded as naturalised, so far only within metropolitan Melbourne, within weedy remnant stands of coastal heathy woodland and coastal shrubberies on siliceous sands dominated by Eucalyptus viminalis ssp. pryoriana (Coast Manna-gum), Leptospermum laevigatum (Coast Tea-tree), Myoporum insulare (Common Boobialla), Allocasuarina verticillata (Drooping Sheoak), Lepidosperma longitudinale (Pithy Sword-sedge) or L. concavum (Sandhill Sword-sedge). The database includes quadrat and herbarium specimen records for Sandringham, Beaumaris, Seaford and Langwarrin, all within the last twenty years. At each of these sites the species is recorded as rare and at Langwarrin, for example, was recorded only as juvenile plants (David Cheal pers. comm.), presumably bird-dispersed from cultivated plants in nearby gardens. The fact that some of these same sites were already being choked to death by the highly invasive sister species Asparagus asparagoides (Bridal Creeper) gives some comfort that A. densiflorus is clearly not in the same risk assessment league, at least in Victoria. At present the species is not even listed in the current Sixth Edition of A Census of the Vascular Plants of Victoria (2000). I intend to rectify this deficiency by recommending that the species be included as incipiently naturalised in the forthcoming Seventh Edition of the Census which is currently in preparation.

This is no cause for complacency, however, as the alarming trajectory of invasion of similar habitats by Bridal Creeper in recent decades has illustrated only too graphically. I remember distinctly the first time I noted A. asparagoides in the bushland of Warrandyte, 18 km north-east of Melbourne, where I grew up. I saw the plant appearing spontaneously in gullies remote from habitation immediately following the disastrous wildfires of the 1960s which burnt through the district three times within a decade. Since that time, only thirty years ago, the incremental spread of this species throughout the district has been nothing short of catastrophic and the species now ranks alongside Rubus polyanthemos (Blackberry), Allium triquetrum (Angled Onion or Three-corner Garlic) and Pittosporum undulatum (Sweet Pittosporum) as the most invasive transformer species established in the region.

Asparagus densiflorus is native to warm temperate climate zones of Cape Province and Natal in South Africa. It is already considered a serious weed in native vegetation of the Sydney region (Flora of Australia Vol. 45, 1987). As our southern temperate climate zones respond to global warming in future decades we can expect this and other sleeper weeds to follow similar trajectories to that pioneered by Asparagus asparagoides.

I'm happy to provide species lists and schematic profile diagrams from the Flora Information System for these sites if they are required.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003
From: Peter Symes <Peter.Symesrbg.vic.gov.au>

Thanks for your obviously well thought out reply. Following on from my question about Asparagus densiflorus, I would like to pose the question to the wider network of 'weedos' in how we might manage real and potential weeds in the RBG Melbourne.

If any weedy species (and we have many by popular definition) growing here are not a high risk of invading local or wider environments, then is it a problem to grow them? (RBG Melbourne is largely a landscape of exotics that sits amongst a wider zone of greatly modified habitats and poses less risk for 'garden escapes'.)

In addition, there are recognition opportunities to educate and inform visitors by growing these species and many can be managed to prevent recruitment (ie pruning off flowers or fruit).

I am keen to seek your opinion and professional assessment of managing environmental weed risk as this area is an aspect of my role that certainly gets less attention than it deserves!

I find it difficult to understand the breadth of philosophical debate on the growing of plants that have or may become weeds. At times, it seems to be a blend of value and professional judgements and deciphering this into the context of a organisation is a problem. If taken to its extreme, then no potentially weedy species (and maybe all plants can be weeds in the right environment) could be grown anywhere in the world.

The RBG Melbourne obviously wants to meet its environmental obligations and not introduce existing or 'sleeper ' weeds into plant habitats outside the Gardens.

Royal Botanic Gardens Cranbourne have made some significant progress in developing tools for weed risk assessment for their site. However, as much of their management area is comprised of indigenous plant communities, it seems to me the context is easier to grapple with.

Hope to 'hear' your responses on this issue!

back to top

Asphodelus fistulosus - Onion Weed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ramona Morel-Sinclair
Sent: Sunday, 14 October 2007

I have 12 acres in Mansfield, Vic and the weed invasion is chronic. Mainly onion weeds.

How can I get rid of weeds on a large scale? We have cows and it is definitely affecting their feed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Randall, Rod
Sent: Wednesday, 17 October 2007

Onion weed is?
Sorry but this common name can be applied to a number of species. You will need to determine the latin name before we can be of assistance. You can either post a good image of the weed in question (preferably flowering) or send a sample in for ID.

In WA an 'onion weed' is either an Allium species or a Romulea species but other species are also called onion weed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Robin St John-Sweeting
Sent: Wednesday, 17 October 2007

Plant in question may be Asphodelus fistulosus

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: tbelton@doc.govt.nz
Sent: Wednesday, 17 October 2007

Having just spent a week in Victoria I noticed a lot of the species pictured here, Allium triquetrum, in my travels. We have a fair a bit of it on the West Coast of the South Island, NZ as well. Spraying with metsulfuron-methyl at 3gm per 10 litres is the recommened method in NZ, but not much else will survive. Glyphosate is noted as being ineffective and will only give the onion weed more room to expand.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ecotones
Sent: Wednesday, 17 October 2007

I suspect Ramona is referring to Romulea species.  The weed is an emerging problem in the Mansfield region, as it is also becoming problematic in Melbournes outer north-east.  Infestations are potentially being made worse by the drought.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Don Matthews
Sent: Wednesday, 17 October 2007

Read the Brush-off label and it, it must go on at flowering to get the best results.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ian Turnbull
Sent: Wednesday, 17 October 2007

The Mansfield Shire Council website has a weed page on it....http://www.mansfield.vic.gov.au/page/Page.asp?Page_Id=431&h=0#BM1820

I would suggest they may also have a weeds person locally who can assess and advise on the  issue. I believe some local knowledge can be quite useful.

They also have these....

Weed Contacts
 
Department of Primary Industries
128 Highett Street
Mansfield Vic 3722
03) 5733 0120
Customer Service Centre – 136 186
website

Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority
Head Office
168 Welsford Street
PO Box 1752
Shepparton Vic 3632
03) 5820 1100
website

Landcare
Geoff Boyes
Landcare Coordinator Mansfield and District
Shop 3
12-22 Highett Street
Mansfield Vic 3722
03) 5779 1324

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Don Matthews
Sent: Wednesday, 17 October 2007

The common pasture weed in North East Vic is Onion GRASS , Romulea rosea var australis with pink/violet flowers, comes up like grass but no mower will cut it. You will only control it by applying Brush-off as the label at flowering.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: MURPHY Andrew
Sent: Friday, 19 October 2007

Onion grass is very competitive in soils that lack phosphorous, you will find that it is a waste of time trying to beat it with herbicide. I guess it is in a pasture situation so give it a good dose of a phosphate fertiliser (I have used “superperfect” at 250/ha.) and spread a good pasture seed mix. The onion grass will miraculously disappear and you will have a much more profitable pasture. That’s 250Kg per hectare.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005
From: Lisa Feuerherdt <feuerherdt.leah@saugov.sa.gov.au>

I am trying to create a profile of the impacts resulting from onion weed (Asphodelus fistulosus) incursions for a management plan. Any information regarding the type of impacts (including positive), and where the weed occurs, particularly from other states would be very useful and much appreciated.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005
From: Robin St John-Sweeting <Robin.StJohn-Sweeting@tv.tafe.sa.edu.au>

Edward Carter's Master Thesis looked at the biology and ecology of Asphodelus fistulosus (onion weed). I believe David Cooke (Botanist Alias SA Animal and Plant Control Commission) has a copy.

back to top

Athel pine
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Chris Brown <chris.brown@nt.gov.au>
Sent: Thursday, 1 December 2005

Just wondering whether there is a chemical on the market which would be able to sterilise Athel pine trees, (Tamarix aphylla). There are currently a large number of these trees growing in gardens in Alice Springs which could act as the source for further infestation in ephemeral waterways in central Australia. There are also extensive plantings located on Aboriginal communities where there is some reluctance to remove them as they are valued for their shade and shelter qualities. I have heard of what use to be ETSA utilising a chemical "Clipper" to stunt the growth of native and non-native trees growing under powerlines to reduce the fire risk, and I was lead to believe it also prevented flowering etc. Your assistance or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005
From: Rod Randall <RPRandall@agric.wa.gov.au>

Tamarix aphylla is a WONS species, rather than plump for some long term expensive maintenance program trying to keep them from creating more weed problems, just kill them all and replace them with something that won't cause any problems.

That approach will be cheaper, and more sustainable, in the long term.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005
From: Sandy Lloyd <slloyd@agric.wa.gov.au>

I suggest you try local gov't associations, power authorities etc., I remember talk of some "hormone tree pruning" trials in the mid-80s (I was thinking about being a research asistant for the trial) don't remember any of the details.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005
From: Sandy Lloyd <slloyd@agric.wa.gov.au>

Do a search for "tree growth regulator", but will it be worth the cost?????

http://ww1.oppd.com/lib/trees/treeregulators.cfm
http://www.treegrowthregulator.com/
http://www.rainbowscivance.com/Cambistat/index.asp

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005
From: Mary Greenwood <mary.greenwood@studentmail.newcastle.edu.au>

Try checking out some of the USA web sites on invasive specie, as Tamarisk is considered a noxious weed in dry areas and there has been a lot of research on the genera.

back to top