SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS AT ANPC FIRST NATIONAL FORUM

SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS AT ANPC NATIONAL FORUM, CANBERRA, APRIL 2007

A wide range of issues was discussed by two discussion groups during the ANPC National Forum. The main points raised are summarised below.

CRYPTOGAM CONSERVATION

This group considered the current conservation status of cryptogams (non-vascular plants) and prospects for advancing that status.

Formal listing of cryptogams under national and state conservation laws

· Non-vascular flora warrant the same level of protection as ‘higher’ plants.

· Cryptogams can be nominated for listing but relatively few are included on current lists.

· The main barrier to species being nominated is poor knowledge.

· Assessment criteria such as estimation of population size can be difficult to apply to cryptogams.

Poor knowledge base about cryptogams

· Few scientists/taxonomists specialising in cryptogams in government institutions (state botanical herbaria, universities, CSIRO, conservation management agencies).

· Lack of tertiary courses in mycology, bryology etc.

· State agencies give cryptogams a low priority when doing surveys.

· There appears to be great potential for community input, such as exemplified by Fungimap, the Perth Urban Bushland Fungi Survey and the Sydney Fungal Studies Group. However, community activities are often catalysed by input from experts and hence limited by their availability.

· Could expand Fungimap to include lichens.

· Scope to raise community awareness of existing resources (such as Fungimap, Australia’s Virtual Herbarium, ANBG fungi website, ABRS publications, Sydney Fungal Studies website etc.).

Other approaches to cryptogam conservation

· There is an assumption that conservation of the vascular plant community acts as an umbrella for the poorly known cryptogams, but this needs to be tested.

· Cryptogamic hot spots could be identified (an example is the community of waxcap mushrooms at Lane Cove, Sydney).

· Raising awareness of cryptogams throughout the general community could assist conservation efforts.

ADDING SOIL BIOTA TO THE REHABILITATION RECIPE

This group discussed how to apply our knowledge of the ecological roles of soil biota to on-ground rehabilitation practice; considered what we can and cannot do; and identified knowledge gaps.

Techniques and provenance for inoculation of microbial taxa in revegetation

· Current use of spores or bacteria for reintroduction is based on small number of species, or elite strains, despite enormous diversity.

· There may be propagules already present in soil, so inoculation not always necessary.

· Is there potential for mixed species inoculations?

· Can mammal faecal pellets be used as source of spores?

· Do not use soil from intact remnants for inoculation (danger of spreading pathogens, and don’t want to disturb the soil in ‘good’ bush).

· Trials are good, but there is also immediate need to integrate methods in large scale restoration (based on whatever knowledge available).

· Need to investigate guidelines for provenance and collecting of soil biota.

Information on using cryptogams in revegetation

· Information is scattered.

· Information needs to be provided both in technical literature and also as practical level knowledge for getting things done on the ground.

· Mine site restoration is one example where not much published.

· Publication of trials needs to be encouraged (even when negative results).

· Trials need to have good experimental design to allow statistical analysis (general advice needed on this).

· Must train the next generation of scientists, through university courses.

· Need workshops and field trips, to transfer knowledge and give key ideas and basics for action at a local level.

· Landholders who adopt use of soil biota in rehabilitation can be influential to their peers.

Importance of research to underpin use of cryptogams in revegetation

· Need to look at the whole system and its interactions rather than individual species or groups of organisms.

· For funding and research try and shift focus to outcomes (such as functioning, diverse and resilient ecosystems) rather than merely outputs (such as trees planted).

· Need to look at question of redundancy - for example, different mosses with different morphology may have similar functional attributes, are the full suite of species required a healthy ecosystem?

· Dormancy of propagules (such as of spores in spore prints) needs investigating.

· What happens with loss of mammals that disperse mycorrhizal truffle spores?

· Need more information about effects of herbicides on cryptogams.

· Work on cryptogams in revegetation needs to be expanded across full range of ecosystems – from grasslands to alpine areas, and include natural environments as well as modified ones.

· Collaboration important, but lack of specialists: ‘taxonomists – we need them!’.

ACTIONS FOR THE AUSTRALIAN NETWORK FOR PLANT CONSERVATION

The following suggested actions for ANPC arose from the two discussion groups at the National Forum.

· Host a Cryptogam Conservation Working Group, as a collaboration between all existing national non-vascular bodies and interested, active local groups, which could develop an updated Conservation Strategy for Australian Cryptogams, with specific objectives.

· Gather and disseminate information on cryptogams and their conservation, and their use in revegetation, such as on the ANPC website and through a regular section in Australasian Plant Conservation.

· Examine the need for guidelines and protocols for use of cryptogams and other microscopic biota in revegetation (such as in relation to gathering and provenance of spores), and, if required, coordinate development of guidelines.