Methodology for assessing the impacts of biological ... · PDF fileMethodology for assessing...

ecology / vegetation / wildlife / aquatic ecology / GIS

Methodology for assessing the impacts of biological control on cat’s claw creeper Report July 2014 CITY OF GOLD COAST

Methodology for assessing the impacts of biological control on cat’s claw creeper ecosure.com.au | i

Contents List of figures ........................................................................................................................ iii

List of tables ..........................................................................................................................iv

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Purpose .................................................................................................................. 5

2 Background.................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Cat’s claw creeper biology ...................................................................................... 7

2.2 Insect biology .......................................................................................................... 8

2.2.1 Jewel beetle ..................................................................................................... 8

2.2.2 Leaf-sucking tingid ........................................................................................... 9

2.2.3 Leaf-tying moth ................................................................................................ 9

3 Baseline assessment method ...................................................................................... 10

3.1 Objectives ............................................................................................................. 10

3.2 Site selection ........................................................................................................ 10

3.3 Site assessment.................................................................................................... 11

3.3.1 Timing ............................................................................................................ 11

3.3.2 Materials ........................................................................................................ 12

3.3.3 Assessment ................................................................................................... 12

3.4 Data compilation and record keeping .................................................................... 15

4 Monitoring methods ..................................................................................................... 16

4.1 Objectives ............................................................................................................. 16

4.2 Preparation ........................................................................................................... 17

4.3 Monitoring methods .............................................................................................. 18

4.3.1 Materials ........................................................................................................ 18

4.3.2 Assessment ................................................................................................... 19

4.4 Timing and approximate costing ........................................................................... 23

4.5 Monitoring schedule .............................................................................................. 24

4.6 Data compilation and record keeping .................................................................... 25

5 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 26

References ......................................................................................................................... 28

Appendix 1 Baseline assessment results ............................................................................ 29

Methodology for assessing the impacts of biological control on cat’s claw creeper ecosure.com.au | ii

1 Site location ................................................................................................................. 30

2 Baseline data ............................................................................................................... 33

2.1 Crane Creek East ................................................................................................. 33

2.2 Crane Creek West ................................................................................................ 38

2.3 Rotaract Park ........................................................................................................ 43

2.4 Clark Way ............................................................................................................. 48

2.5 Deepak Drive ........................................................................................................ 53

2.6 Jacob Wells Road ................................................................................................. 58

2.7 Kerkindale Park..................................................................................................... 63

2.8 Riverpark Drive ..................................................................................................... 68

2.9 Paradise Parklands ............................................................................................... 73

2.10 Alexander Drive .................................................................................................... 78

Appendix 2 Baseline assessment datasheet ....................................................................... 83

Appendix 3 Monitoring datasheet ........................................................................................ 86

Appendix 4 Stylised examples of ground cover proportions ................................................ 89

Methodology for assessing the impacts of biological control on cat’s claw creeper ecosure.com.au | iii

List of figures

Figure 1 Leaves and tendrils of cat’s claw creeper ................................................................ 8

Figure 2 Flowers of cat’s claw creeper .................................................................................. 8

Figure 3 Adult jewel beetle (DAFF, 2014) .............................................................................. 8

Figure 4 Evidence of damage caused by the jewel beetle (DAFF, 2014)............................... 8

Figure 5 Adults and nymphs of the leaf-sucking tingid. .......................................................... 9

Figure 6 Evidence of damage caused by the leaf sucking tingid ........................................... 9

Figure 7 Larvae of the leaf-tying moth ................................................................................... 9

Figure 8 Layout of the monitoring plot ................................................................................. 13

Figure 9 Photo monitoring location and direction of photographs ........................................ 13

Figure 10 Standard baseline plot set up, note that this set up may not be the same for each site depending on the site configuration. ............................................................................. 18

Figure 11 Photo monitoring location and direction of photographs (regular monitoring) ...... 22

Figure 12 Nerang baseline plots ......................................................................................... 31

Figure 13 Pimpama baseline plots ...................................................................................... 32

Figure 14 Crane Creek East baseline plot ........................................................................... 37

Figure 15 Crane Creek west baseline plot ........................................................................... 42

Figure 16 Rotaract baseline plot ......................................................................................... 47

Figure 17 Clarke Way baseline plot ..................................................................................... 52

Figure 18 Deepak Drive baseline plot ................................................................................. 57

Figure 19 Jacobs Well baseline plot .................................................................................... 62

Figure 20 Kerkindale Park baseline plot .............................................................................. 67

Figure 21 Riverpark Drive baseline plot............................................................................... 72

Figure 22 Paradise Parklands baseline plot ........................................................................ 77

Figure 23 Alexander Drive baseline plot .............................................................................. 82

Methodology for assessing the impacts of biological control on cat’s claw creeper ecosure.com.au | iv

List of tables

Table 1 Factors to consider when selecting a biological control release site ....................... 10

Table 2 Attributes measured within each permanent plot .................................................... 14

Table 3 Attributes measured for annual and regular monitoring .......................................... 19

Table 4 Activities and costing breakdown ............................................................................ 23

Table 5 An indicative monitoring schedule that can be adapted based on the release month and the resources available to undertake monitoring .......................................................... 24

Methodology for assessing the impacts of biological control on cat’s claw creeper ecosure.com.au | 5

1 Introduction

Cat’s claw creeper (Dolichandra unguis-cati) is a vigorous weed in Queensland and has been declared a class 3 weed under the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route

Management Act) 2002. In 2012 cat’s claw creeper was also listed as a Weed of National Significance by the Commonwealth of Australia (Australian Weeds Committee 2012).

Cat’s claw creeper infests numerous creek systems throughout the Gold Coast Catchments and has been the target of control along the Nerang River by the City of Gold Coast (CoGC) Natural Areas Management Unit for over eight years. There are two community groups in the area that are actively involved in its control, the Nerang River Keepers and Friends of Crane Creek. The coordinated efforts of the City of Gold Coast in working with these groups have resulted in good control of cat’s claw creeper along most of the creek banks between Fyfes Road and Weedons Crossing along the Nerang River.

The use of biological control in the area has been limited to date and often applied on an ad hoc basis. The leaf-sucking tingid (Carvalhotingis visenda) has been released in the Nerang, Pimpama and Tallebudgera catchments during late 2012 to early 2013. However the outcomes of these releases are not well understood. The most recently introduced (2012) biological control agent, the leaf-mining jewel beetle (Hylaeogena jureceki) has also been released in the region although the extent of its release is not known and it appears that flooding in 2013 may have affected its establishment.

The CoGC encourages the integration of biological control to tackle the cat’s claw problem within the CoGC. The CoGC has contracted Ecosure to develop a methodology for the baseline assessment of cat’s claw creeper and a methodology for monitoring the outcomes of future biological control releases coordinated by the Catchment Management Unit. This will allow a more consistent approach to biological control as well as allowing land managers to actively monitor the outcomes of biological control efforts over future years.

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this report is to provide a best practice method for evaluating the impacts of biological control on cat’s claw creeper. This method has been tailored for assessing the impacts of the jewel beetle; however it can also be used for assessing other biological control agents used against cat’s claw creeper. This report describes processes for:

• identifying suitable release sites that consider the site-specific constraints, the biology of the agent and the condition of the site,

• assessing the extent of cat’s claw creeper at potential release sites and understanding the baseline characteristics of a potential release site, and

• monitoring and evaluating the success of agent establishment (in the short term) and impacts to cat’s claw creeper (in the longer term).

The information in this report is intended to be used by a number of stakeholders, including


the City of Gold Coast council, community groups, schools and other interested members of the public. Consequently the measures have been developed so that they can be clearly understood and implemented by the intended audience.

This document is consistent with a number of the strategic actions in the National Strategic Plan (2012-2017) for cat’s claw creeper (Australian Weeds Committee 2013) including:

• Action 2.2.2: Establish baseline data and undertake or coordinate monitoring activities to determine the long-term effectiveness of containment, outlier management and asset protection programs.

• Action 2.2.4 Support the adoption of best practice and integrated management of cat’s claw creeper, including rearing and distribution of biological control agents, (sub) catchment planning, monitoring and restoration.

• Action 3.2.1 Collate and refine information on existing cat’s claw creeper control options.

• Action 3.2.2 Facilitate and/or contribute to the development of best practice extension information relevant to invasive vine weeds (including a best practice management resources).

• Action 3.2.4 Support the establishment of rearing and release facilities for cat’s claw creeper biological control agents.

• Action 3.2.5 Facilitate and/or contribute to development of support tools including:

– restoration guidelines for riparian systems affected by invasive vines and scramblers,

– biological control rearing and release information,

– monitoring and reporting tools to assess the success of a control program,

– surveillance and containment program guidelines, and

– site management protocols and management plan templates.

• Action 3.2.6 Assess adoption of best practice tools and techniques and identify barriers to uptake.

• Action 3.2.7 Identify and promote novel control techniques which have proven effectiveness.

• Action 3.4.1 Identify knowledge gaps and opportunities for improved weed management.


2 Background

2.1 Cat’s claw creeper biology

Cat’s claw creeper is an invasive weed in eastern Australia, native to tropical America. Currently it is widespread in tropical and subtropical Queensland and New South Wales with the potential to increase its distribution. Its bright yellow trumpet shaped flowers prompted its introduction into Australia nearly 200 years ago as a perennial ornamental (Browne 2001).

The invasive and destructive abilities of cat’s claw creeper are well known, particularly in riparian systems. Cat’s claw creeper reproduces both sexually through seeds and asexually through vegetative growth. Roots will grow from any stem node that comes into contact with the soil and new shoots will subsequently develop. The plant forms thick carpets on forest floors producing dense mats of stolons and root tubers (Raghu et al. 2006). They outcompete shallow-rooted understorey plants and smother native flora (Sparks 1999). This invasive ability is aided by the tuberous roots, which allow for underground resource storage, and ensure that this plant is extremely persistent (Van Der Meijden et al. 2000). Cat’s claw creeper affects all forest strata leading to the eventual collapse of the forest. The seeds of cat’s claw creeper are winged and buoyant, which aids both wind dispersal and water borne invasion downstream. Although the seeds are not persistent, seed production is high and seedlings establish readily (Vivian-Smith 2003). The skototropic claw-like tendrils (Figure 1) and phototropic shoots (Putz 1991) facilitate their climbing of tree trunks and crossing forest canopies, where even the largest of forest trees can be killed under the weight and shade of the creeper (Sparks 1999).

A variant of cat’s claw creeper (commonly referred to as bat’s claw creeper or long-pod cat’s claw creeper) occurs in south-east Queensland in a much more restricted distribution. This form of the plant has larger leaves, longer pods and is generally more hairy (Australian Weeds Committee 2012). Although not as widespread as cat’s claw creeper, bat’s claw creeper has the propensity to invade different vegetation types such as drier forests located away from watercourses.

In efforts to expose weakness in the life cycle of cat’s claw creeper, trials were undertaken to simulate herbivory to different parts of the plant (Raghu et al. 2006). Surprisingly, damage to tubers resulted in the production of more tubers and vigorous tuber growth, which provided insight into which herbivore feeding mechanism is likely to be the most injurious for biological control purposes and which plant part should be targeted. These early simulated herbivory trials suggested that damage to the leaves over long periods would be the best way to target the life cycle because defoliation of aboveground biomass is the most effective way to reduce resource allocation to the underground tubers (Raghu and Dhileepan 2005).


Figure 1 Leaves and tendrils of cat’s claw creeper (photograph courtesy of DAFF 2006 {formerly DPIF})

Figure 2 Flowers of cat’s claw creeper (photograph courtesy of DAFF 2006 {formerly DPIF})

2.2 Insect biology

A number of biological control agents for cat’s claw creeper have been investigated by Biosecurity Queensland for release into Australia. Agents that targeted above ground biomass were preferentially selected based on early herbivory trials. In 2006 and 2007 the leaf sucking tingid and leaf tying moth were released. More recently, the jewel beetle was approved for release and has been the subject of biological control programs.

2.2.1 Jewel beetle

Adult jewel beetles (Hylaeogena jureceki) are small (5 mm) and metallic black in colour (Figure 3). They feed on the leaves of cat’s claw creeper and show a preference for the tender young leaves. Adult beetles can live for more than 5 months (Dhileepan et al. 2012). Eggs are shiny inconspicuous disks that darken with age and are laid along the edges of larger basal leaves (Figure 4). When the eggs hatch, larvae burrow into the leaf where they develop through three larval stages (instar). The third instar larvae form sealed pupal cells as evidenced by apparent circular disks in the leaves before emerging as adults approximately two weeks later (Dhileepan et al. 2012). The jewel beetle disperses well due to its flying ability and has been known to disperse up to 80 m under good conditions (Liz Snow, pers. comm., 2014).

Figure 3 Adult jewel beetle (DAFF, 2014) Figure 4 Evidence of damage caused by the jewel beetle (DAFF, 2014)


2.2.2 Leaf-sucking tingid

The leaf sucking tingid (Carvalhotingis visenda) is a small (2 mm), winged bug (Figure 5) that feeds on the underside leaves of cat’s claw creeper. Adult females lay eggs along the midrib on the underside leaves which appear as small black marks. Eggs emerge and nymphs develop through five nymphal stages (instars) before emerging as adults. Adult females start laying eggs eight days after emergence and can lay up to 187 eggs over their two month life span. The tingid has sucking mouthparts that are highly efficient at extracting the liquid content from plant cells. It feeds on the ventral surface of cat’s claw creeper causing chlorosis in plant tissue. The damaged leaves take on a stippled appearance (Figure 6) and they ultimately senesce.

Figure 5 Adults and nymphs of the leaf-sucking tingid. (photograph courtesy of DAFF 2006 {formerly DPIF})

Figure 6 Evidence of damage caused by the leaf sucking tingid

2.2.3 Leaf-tying moth

The leaf-tying moth (Hypocosmia pyrochroma) is small (1 cm) and dusty orange in colour. Adults generally live for ten days and are active during the night when they lay up to 120 eggs on the undersides of leaves and in secure crevices on the stem. After 10-11 days small larvae emerge and begin feeding on the leaves of cat’s claw creeper. Larvae develop through six stages (instars) over 27 days where they can cause extensive damage to cat’s claw creeper by feeding on all leaves and tying leaves together with silk to form protective tunnels (Figure 7). During the sixth larval instar, larvae move to the soil where they pupate for 28 days. During the winter months (April/May to September/October) pupae undergo diapause (inactive pupae in the soil) (Dhileepan et al. 2007).

Figure 7 Larvae of the leaf-tying moth


3 Baseline assessment method

3.1 Objectives

A baseline assessment is undertaken to establish the benchmark data against which all future monitoring can be compared. Baseline assessments are important as they are a means by which progress can be measured. The objective of undertaking an assessment of cat’s claw creeper at the proposed release site is to:

• establish a permanent monitoring plot so that all future monitoring can be undertaken consistently,

• define the current level of cat’s claw creeper within the plot prior to controls being implemented,

• identify the current level of impact of cat’s claw creeper within the plot,

• identify site characteristics and variables within and in proximity to the plot,

• assess the condition of the site so that comparisons can be made between sites,

• identify other invasive weeds at the site that may gain a competitive advantage if cat’s claw is controlled, and

• allow outcomes to be measured and evaluated.

3.2 Site selection

The selection of suitable release sites is an important part of the planning phase. Some sites may be more suitable than others and may provide a better outcome for establishing the biological control agents. There are a number of influential factors that should be considered when assessing the suitability of a site. Table 1 provides some guidance on factors that may be applicable to a given site however; there may be other aspects specific to a particular location that should also be taken into consideration.

Table 1 Factors to consider when selecting a biological control release site

Site characteristic Description

Outcomes The objectives of the program need to be considered, as well as the project length, timing and resources that can allocated. e.g. should there be an objective to be able to compare monitoring outcomes between sites then locating sites that are more isolated would be favourable (to avoid factors influencing the site as a result of activity at a nearby site).

Weed availability A healthy and large cat’s claw creeper population is more likely to support agent establishment and development.

Sites where good cat’s claw creeper connectivity is evident will better facilitate the dispersal of agents to other infested areas.

Access to site Vehicle access or pedestrian access may affect the way in which releases and monitoring can be implemented.

Easy access can help with the release of the insect and the monitoring of the site (particularly when bulky items need to be carried) or if community volunteers are


Site characteristic Description

involved in biological control programs.

Site features Sites that are more exposed to extreme weather conditions are less likely to provide suitable shelter to protect biological control agents.

Steepness of terrain, rubbish at site and other safety considerations may affect the way in which releases and monitoring can be implemented.

Disturbances Frequent disturbance (such as flooding, frosts in winter, cattle grazing) may adversely affect the establishment of the biological control agent.

As much as possible, a site should be selected where there is little past disturbance.

Current and future activities at the site

Other control methods that are being implemented at the site may affect biological control agents released at the site. E.g. foliar spraying ground infestations may kill biological control agents that come into contact with herbicides.

Other control measures may enhance the management outcomes of the site, for instance the cut, scrape and paint technique may target cat’s claw in the canopy whilst biological control can be targeted to the cat’s claw regenerating the midstorey and ground storey.

Current land-use of the site may affect the outcomes of the project, for instance a public location that is well accessed may encourage community participation and education.

Community participation

Interested landholders may have knowledge of where there are good cat’s claw creeper infestations, particularly on private land and may also be able to assist in the management/monitoring of potential sites.

Selecting sites that can provide education may help to increase awareness in the community including schools.

3.3 Site assessment

Most often, suitable sites will be pre-selected using desktop resources (e.g. distribution maps, tenure maps, talking to land managers). Pre-selected sites would need to be physically assessed to gauge their suitability (as per Table 1 and other site specific considerations including the expansion of ecological restoration works). During the field verification some sites may be considered unsuitable due to the features of the site (e.g. steep banks, poor access). Constraints will need to be considered prior to setting up a monitoring plot.

3.3.1 Timing

The baseline assessments should be timed to coincide with the intended monitoring regime so that comparisons can be made for monitoring assessments undertaken at the same time of year in subsequent years. Seasonality is an important factor to consider when comparing monitoring results because both the weed and the control agents tend to be more productive during the warmer months. Baseline assessments should be undertaken prior to biological control agents being released at the site in order to provide a true baseline record.


3.3.2 Materials

The following materials will be required to undertake the baseline assessment:

• GPS device,

• camera,

• this methodology instruction,

• 50 m and 10 m tape measures,

• 1 m x 1 m quadrat,

• ruler,

• baseline assessment form (hardcopy in Appendix 2),

• flagging tape,

• star pickets and plastic caps (3 per site),

• hammer, and

• plant identification guides.

3.3.3 Assessment

Plot set up

The size of the site will depend on the nature of the infestation. Cat’s claw creeper mostly affects riparian ecosystems and therefore often occurs in narrow strips following creek lines. This may restrict the size of site, and the configuration of the plot should be determined in the field. Use the following steps to establish a permanent monitoring plot:

• Use a 50 m tape measure to mark out the start (0 m) and end (50 m) of the plot.

• Align the tape measure to the features of the site, incorporating as much of the weed infestation as possible as well as landmark canopy trees that are affected by cat’s claw creeper vines.

• Hammer three star pickets at the 0 m, 25 m and 50 m marks.

• Cover the star pickets with plastic safety caps to increase their visibility and for safety reasons.

• Record the location of the star pickets (0 m, 25 m and 50 m marks) using a GPS device.

• Measure 5 m either side of the tape measure and use flagging tape if necessary to mark out the boundaries of the plot, this will establish a 500 m2 monitoring area (Figure 8) however these dimensions may need to be altered slightly to accommodate the variability of a site.

• The centre star picket (25 m) identifies the location of the biological control release point.


Figure 8 Layout of the monitoring plot

Photo-monitoring point

Photo-monitoring is a quick and effective way to illustrate the change in a site over time. To be able to compare photo points, the exact frame must be captured during each monitoring event.

The photo monitoring point of each site is marked by the centre star picket (25 m) and should be captured in the following way (Figure 9):

• Take four photographs from the 25 m star picket in a clockwise direction starting by facing the 0 m star picket and at each 90 degree angle (0°, 90°, 180° and 270°).

• Where possible use features to frame or centre the picture (e.g. a large tree or the star picket if it is visible) as this will make it easier to recapture the same photograph in future surveys.

• Ensure the details of the camera are recorded together with the date using the baseline assessment datasheet (Appendix 2).

Figure 9 Photo monitoring location and direction of photographs

Assessing site features

Table 2 describes the attributes that are to be assessed within the baseline plot and measurement values that should be used. These features are to be recorded on the datasheet (provided in Appendix 2). It is expected that each plot will take 60 minutes to complete the assessment with two appropriately qualified ecologists / botanists in more open ecosystems. In more complex ecosystems, such as riparian gallery rainforest it is likely to take longer, up to 90 minutes.


Table 2 Attributes measured within each permanent plot

Item Category Site features Measurement

1 Site General description Site name, date, co-ordinates, attributes of site, disturbance, other notable features specific to the site

2 Vegetation Native vegetation condition Qualitatively rated as: very good, good, average, poor, completely degraded

3 Species diversity and density of woody vegetation

Number and species of native and exotic woody species within plot

4 Vegetation cover (including cover of cat’s claw creeper)

Percentage ground cover (all cover below 1 m) including native vegetation, exotic vegetation, bare-ground/leaf litter) within ten 1 m2 quadrats placed at each 5 m mark along the transect. Align the centre edge of the quadrat with the mark, commencing on the right hand side and alternating sides: 0 m (right), 5 m (left), 10 m (right) etc.

(see Appendix 4 for a guide on estimating ground cover)

5 Evidence of impact to native vegetation

Qualitatively rated as: very high, high, moderate, low, none

6 Cat’s claw creeper

Development stages Note the stage and proportion of cat’s claw creeper present at the site:

on the ground (generally carpet on forest floor),

in the canopy, including stems up canopy trees.

Proportion measured by percentage of total weed present (60 % ground, 40% canopy)

7 Ground cover As per measurement described for item 3

8 Canopy cover Over the entire plot assess the proportion of cat’s claw creeper canopy cover as: <10%, 10-30%, 30-50%, 50-75%, 75-100%

9 Impacts on canopy species Select a canopy tree, as close to the 25 m mark as possible, record its location using a GPS device and record the number of cat’s claw creeper stems within the following size classes 0-0.5 cm, 0.5-2 cm, 2-5cm, >5 cm (diameter of stem at breast height)

10 Other features Noting if the cat’s claw creeper is seeding or flowering Any other notable features specific to the site (e.g. plant stress, variety of cat’s claw creeper)

11 Other control evident at site i.e. historic control (biological, chemical, mechanical)

Noting and describing whether other controls are evident and the level of impact rated qualitatively as very high, high, moderate, low, none


3.4 Data compilation and record keeping

The information recorded during the baseline assessment should be compiled within a database that is maintained and updated as ongoing monitoring occurs. This will allow for easy comparisons and extrapolations to be made.

Hardcopy datasheets should be scanned and labelled in the following (or a similar) manner to ensure information is easily retrievable:

• Site name_Activity_Year_Month

– E.g. Site2a_BaselineMonitoring_2014_April

Photographs should be stored in a similar manner:

• Site name_Activity_Degree_Year_Month

– E.g. Site2a_BaselineMonitoring_0_2014_April

It would be useful to create a ‘mud map’ of the site based on the outcomes of the baseline assessment to facilitate future monitoring events. The ‘mud map’ would include practical information of the site such as site access, landmarks, layout of plot, photographs and photograph directions. This would assist future monitors to assess the site as consistently as possible with past monitoring.


4 Monitoring methods

Monitoring is the systematic collection, recording and analysis of observations over time. It is important to undertake monitoring to measure the success of the program and to identify actions and outcomes. Monitoring will also contribute to the understanding and knowledge of the biological control of cat’s claw creeper. The monitoring outcomes will help to revise the biological control strategy and improve efficiency and effectiveness of future programs. To assess the success of a program monitoring, should be undertaken over a long period to allow agents to reach their full potential. Terminating a monitoring project too early may provide misleading results and underestimate the success of the program.

4.1 Objectives

Biological control is a long term project and results are often only realised years, sometime decades, from project initiation. It is important to develop both short term (1-3 years), medium term (3-10 years) and longer term objectives (>10 years) for the biological control project so that success can be measured against appropriate milestones.

Short term goals are mostly focused on the establishment of the biological control agent. The newly released agent is particularly vulnerable in the early stages of the project because the release population is small and there may be unexpected or uncontrollable events at the release site (e.g. floods, predation) that affects its establishment. Longer term goals focus on the overall impact of the agent on a cat’s claw creeper infestation. The objectives may be further refined to meet research interests, such as the interaction of different agents at a site or the use of a combination of control measures at a site.

For this project we are limited by the timeframe (1-5 years) and existing landuse activities within the Nerang River Catchment. Objectives for this project have therefore been defined as:

Short- term (1-2 years):

• biological control agents have established at the release sites,

• actions that will improve establishment are identified early,

• biological control agents are reproducing,

• biological control agents are dispersing from the release site, and

• there is preliminary evidence of damage to cat’s claw creeper.

Medium-term (3-5 years):

• biological control agents are well established at the release sites as evidenced by a large population,

• biological control agent population present at release sites and at adjacent non-release sites,


• there is an effective program for monitoring biological control agent behaviour:

- dispersal behaviour (horizontal, vertical)

- preference for feeding, and

• there is evidence of damage to groundstorey and canopy cat’s claw creeper.

To get an understanding of both the short and long term impacts in addition to insect dynamics, two types of monitoring have been designed: regular monitoring and annual monitoring.

Regular monitoring is intended to be undertaken more frequently to be able to assess how well the agent is establishing and what may be impacting the agent. For instance whether the agents are reproducing and how far they have dispersed. This monitoring is mostly undertaken within the established monitoring plot (except for measurements of dispersal).

Annual monitoring is broader than regular monitoring and has been designed to identify possible changes that may be noticeable over a longer time period, for instance a change in species at the site and a change in the proportion of cat’s claw in the understorey and canopy. Annual monitoring extends the assessment beyond the monitoring plot to be able to assess the effects of the biological control agent on the broader site.

4.2 Preparation

Prior to undertaking monitoring activities at the site it is important to become familiar with the configuration of the permanent plot. Use the baseline assessment datasheet, photographs and previous monitoring results to plan the monitoring activities. It may not have been possible to establish a 500 m2 baseline plot due to constraints at the site so it is important that the same area that was previously established is replicated during monitoring activities. Each baseline plot will have three star pickets identifying the 0 m mark, the halfway mark and the end mark. There will also be a marked canopy tree (see mud map and GPS coordinates in Appendix 1) close to the halfway mark. Figure 10 provides an illustration of the standard site set up, however depending on the location, the plot may be shorter and/or narrower.

Monitoring of the biological control agent will be focused within the permanent baseline monitoring plot that has been established. Measures of dispersal will centre on the 25 m star picket (or in instances where the length is shorter, at the halfway mark). This will allow a dispersal distance to be measured as the agent would have been released at or near this point. This search area is likely to change in future monitoring years as the agent disperses further from the release point. Therefore it is important to be familiar with the results of previous monitoring events so that the area can be adjusted where needed to maximise monitoring outcomes. In future years the monitoring area may be several hundred metres from the release site depending on how well the insect has dispersed.


Figure 10 Standard baseline plot set up, note that this set up may not be the same for each site depending on the site configuration.

4.3 Monitoring methods

The methods described in this section are similar (and build upon) the methods undertaken for the baseline assessment. This section has been arranged so that users can follow the monitoring method without needing to refer to the baseline assessment section. As a consequence, there may be some repetition in the methods described in the following sections.

4.3.1 Materials

The following materials will be required to undertake regular monitoring:

• GPS device,

• binoculars,

• camera,

• timer/stop watch (time search activities),

• 50 m tape measure,



• baseline assessment mud map,

• previous photo-monitoring photographs,

• previous monitoring results, and

• monitoring form (hardcopy in Appendix 3).

The following materials will be required to undertake annual monitoring:

• GPS device,

• camera,


• 50 m and 10 m tape measures,



• ruler,

• monitoring assessment form (hardcopy in Appendix 3),

• flagging tape, and

• plant identification guides.

4.3.2 Assessment

Monitoring method

The method has been described in order of implementation to ensure minimal impacts to the site (disturbing insects may cause them to drop/fly). Care must be taken when undertaking monitoring activities to ensure the site is not disturbed, which may affect outcomes of the monitoring. Run the 50 m tape measure from the 0 m star picket to the 50 m star picket (or other length depending on the baseline plot set up) whilst avoiding disturbing the permanent plot too much.

It is important to be familiar with the results of previous monitoring events so that the monitoring area (particularly with regard to dispersal distance) can be adjusted where needed to maximise monitoring outcomes. In years to come the monitoring area may extend several hundred metres from the release site depending on how well the insect has dispersed.

The features in Table 3 will be measured for each site using the baseline plot configuration illustrated in the baseline mud maps (Appendix 1) to assess the success of agent establishment. Many of the monitoring activities for both annual and regular monitoring are similar (with the exception of a few). Table 3 describes the monitoring activities, with those shaded in a light grey indicating annual monitoring only.

Table 3 Attributes measured for annual and regular monitoring

Item Monitoring type

Category Site features Measurement

1 Regular and annual

Biological control agent establishment and development stages

Abundance of adults and larvae in the ground storey within plot

For five minutes starting at the 0 m mark star picket and walking zig-zag across the permanent plot area to the end star picket, count the number of adult jewel beetles and the number of larvae (as evidenced by distinct circular discs in leaves) in the ground storey. Also record any other note-worthy items such as whether larvae are mostly dead or alive, trends in position of agent (leaf location, size etc.). This could be best done using two people, each counting either adults or larvae.

2 Annual Biological control agent establishment and development stages

Abundance of adults and larvae in the ground storey outside plot

As per methods for item 1: take 5-10 random 1 m2

quadrats within the broader site (outside the monitoring plot) and count number of adult jewel beetles and the number of larvae (as evidenced by distinct circular discs in leaves) in the ground storey. Take a GPS location of each quadrat and estimate the distance to the plot.





Biological control agent establishment and development stages

Abundance of adults and larvae travelling up the marked canopy tree

Count the number of adults and larvae identified travelling up the marked canopy tree within the permanent plot. You may need binoculars to help with this task (count only as far as you can see). Estimate the proportion of cat’s claw creeper on the marked canopy tree that is undamaged, evidence of damage (as a result of jewel beetle) or dead. Also estimate the percentage of damage caused by other factors (biological control agents, flooding, weed treatment).

4 Annual Biological control agent establishment and development stages

Abundance of adults and larvae travelling up canopy trees outside plot

As per methods for item 3: count the number of adults and larvae identified travelling up three other randomly selected canopy trees outside the permanent plot. Take a GPS location of each canopy tree and estimate the distance to the plot. Estimate the proportion of cat’s claw creeper as undamaged, evidence of damage (as a result of jewel beetle), dead and the percentage of damage caused by other factors (other agents, flooding, weed treatment).


Agent dispersal

Distance traversed by adult and larvae

Starting from the centre star picket search outwards until you find the last biological control agent or evidence of larvae. Take a GPS point and estimate the distance to the centre star picket. This may need to be repeated in different directions to get the furthest location. This attribute is not restricted to within the monitoring plot as the insect may disperse long distances from its release point.


Agent competition

Agent presence Note the presence of other biological control agents for cat’s claw creeper at the site (present, absent) and their relative abundance as very high, high, moderate, low, none.


Vegetation Vegetation cover (including cover of cat’s claw creeper)

Percentage ground cover (all cover below 1 m) including native vegetation, exotic vegetation, bare-ground) within up to ten 1 m2 quadrats placed at each 5 m mark along the transect. Align the centre edge of the quadrat with the mark, commencing on the right hand side and alternating sides: 0 m (right), 5 m (left), 10 m (right) etc.

(see Appendix 4 for a guide on estimating ground cover)


Cat’s claw creeper

Impact of agent on cat’s claw creeper

Within the above laid quadrat, estimate the proportion of cat’s claw creeper that is undamaged, evidence of damage (as a result of jewel beetle), and dead. Also estimate the proportion of cat’s claw creeper that is shows evidence of damage by other agents such as the tingid. Within the whole monitoring plot assess the proportion of cats claw creeper that shows evidence of impact




<5%, 5-25 %,-50%, 50-75%, 75-100%



Development stages Note the stage and proportion of cat’s claw creeper present within the monitoring plot:

on the ground (generally carpet on forest floor)

in the canopy, including stems up canopy trees

Proportion measured by percentage of total cat’s claw present (60 % ground, 40% canopy)

10 Annual Cat’s claw creeper

Impacts on selected canopy tree in plot

Record the number of cat’s claw creeper stems within the following size classes growing up the marked canopy tree (see mud map for more details) 0-0.5 cm, 0.5-2 cm, 2-5cm, >5 cm (diameter of stem at breast height).



Canopy cover Over the entire plot assess the proportion of cat’s claw creeper canopy cover as: <10%, 11-30%, 31-50%, 51-75%, 75-100%.



Other features Note if the cat’s claw creeper is seeding or flowering or any other notable features about the cat’s claw.



Other control evident at site i.e. historic control (biological, chemical, mechanical)

Noting and describing whether other controls are evident and the level of impact rated qualitatively as very high, high, moderate, low, none.

14 Annual Vegetation Native vegetation condition

Qualitatively rated as: very good, good, average, poor, completely degraded.

15 Annual Vegetation Species diversity and density of woody vegetation

Number and species of native and exotic woody species within plot.


Other site features

Disturbance at the site

Record any evidence of disturbance at the site and estimate the timing of the disturbance (flooding, predation, weed control).


General Site features, weather conditions

Note general features of the site such as preceding weather conditions, date, assessor. Record any other notable features specific to the site.


Follow up actions

Follow up actions Note whether follow up actions are recommended such as further releases required or repairs to the plot (replacement of star pickets etc.).

Photo-monitoring point

Photo-monitoring is a quick and effective way to illustrate the change in a site over time. To be able to compare photo points, the exact frame must be captured during each monitoring event.


The location of the monitoring point is identified on the baseline mud maps and coincides with the halfway mark (50 m mark of the standard layout). The photographs should be taken using the same method that was used to capture the baseline photographs and as described (Figure 11):

• take four photographs from the halfway star picket in a clockwise direction starting by facing the 0 m star picket and at each 90 degree angle (0°, 90°, 180° and 270°),

• using a landscape layout, centre the top of the star picket on the bottom edge of the photograph but focusing on the background, and

• make sure to record all the details of the camera used to take the photograph on the monitoring assessment datasheet (Appendix 3).

Figure 11 Photo monitoring location and direction of photographs (regular monitoring)


4.4 Timing and approximate costing Table 4 Activities and costing breakdown

Activity Frequency and timing Approximate price per site^

Baseline assessment

One assessment prior to biological control agent release. All assessments were completed in April 2014. $660

Agent release Depends on results of monitoring and whether follow up releases are needed. The best time to release agents are in the warmer months when they are more active and develop quicker.

-*

Regular monitoring

Can be implemented as often as preferred and as resources allow. Recommend monthly monitoring for the second and third month post release to assess insect establishment and allow quick follow up releases if necessary to boost population numbers. Quarterly or bi-yearly monitoring thereafter to capture possible seasonal variations.

$450

Annual monitoring

Once a year in April to allow comparisons to be made. $660

* Although agent release is not part of the scope of this document Ecosure can assist with agent release, facilitate a workshop, liaise with NAMU and provide background on the sites selected. ^Based on costing applicable at June 2014 and does not include reporting, database collation and assumes only one mobilisation and demobilisation per monitoring event (i.e. all 10 sites assessed consecutively over 2-3 days).


4.5 Monitoring schedule

The timing and frequency of monitoring may be constrained by the resources available. The recommended monitoring regime provided in Table 5 can be adapted to accommodate the date the insect was first released, future insect releases and the capacity to undertake monitoring. This schedule assumes that insects will be released in May 2014 and ongoing depending on supply from Biosecurity Queensland, although best results are a more likely to be achieved during the warmer months. Emphasis is placed on the first two years when agents are most vulnerable and to ensure that follow up actions are timely applied to increase the likelihood of agent establishment. The monitoring schedule aims to capture possible variability in seasons which should be considered when amending this schedule.

Table 5 An indicative monitoring schedule that can be adapted based on the release month and the resources available to undertake monitoring

Year Month Baseline Agent release Regular monitoring

Yearly monitoring

2014 1 April

2 May and ongoing

4 July

5 August

8 November

11 February

2015 13 April

16 July

19 October

2016 22 January

25 April

29 August

32 December

2017 36 April

40 August

44 December

2018 48 April

52 August

56 December


4.6 Data compilation and record keeping

The information recorded during monitoring should be compiled within a database that is maintained and updated as future monitoring occurs. This will allow for easy comparisons and extrapolations to be made.

Hardcopy datasheets should be scanned and labelled in the following (or a similar) manner to ensure information is easily retrievable:

• Site name_Activity_YearMonth.

– E.g. ParadiseParklands_RegularMonitoring_2014_June.

KerkindalePark_YearlyMonitoring_2015_April.

Photographs should be stored in a similar manner:

• Site name_Activity_Degree_YearMonth.

- E.g. ParadiseParklands_RegularMonitoring_0_2014_June.

KerkindalePark_YearlyMonitoring_180_2015_April.


5 Recommendations

Ten baseline assessments have been completed for this project (Appendix 1). The following actions are recommended for the implementation of this program at these sites:

• Select both release (where agents will be released) and control sites (where agents will not be released):

– Three sites along Crane Creek (Crane Creek East, Crane Creek West and Paradise Parklands) are located only a few hundred metres from each other. None of these sites should be control sites as insects released at any of these sites may influence the other nearby sites.

– Kerkindale Park is already affected by the tingid and should therefore not be a control site.

– Both the narrow leaved and the broad leaved varieties of cat’s claw creeper should be represented within the control sites.

• Three control sites and seven release sites are recommended:

– Release sites where there may be a possible interaction with each other and other forms of control (chemical/mechanical):

Crane Creek East (large leaved variety slightly more dominant in ground layer than canopy layer),

Crane Creek West (large leaved variety even within ground and canopy layers), and

Paradise Parklands (large leaved variety, dominant in ground layer).

– Release site where these would be an interaction with other biological control (tingid):

Kerkindale Park (large leaved variety, mostly in the ground layer).

– Two release sites in Pimpama that have easier accessibility and contain the small leaved variety of cat’s claw:

Clark Way (mostly in ground layer), and

Jacobs Wells Road (mostly in ground layer).

– Release site with cat’s claw predominantly in the canopy layer:

Riverpark Drive (large leaved variety, mostly in canopy layer).

– Three control sites:

Deepak Drive (small leaved variety mostly in ground layer and access that can be difficult),

Rotaract Park (relatively restricted weed infestation of large leaved variety, slightly more dominant in ground layer than canopy layer), and

Alexander Drive (large leaved variety, mostly in ground layer).


• During biological control agent release, it is important to record information that will assist with interpreting monitoring results recorded at a later date:

– release agents near the halfway mark star picket of the plot so that an accurate measure of dispersal distance can be obtained,

– release agents near the marked canopy tree so that measures of movement into the canopy can be made, and

– record important information during the release: an estimate of the number of insects that have been released, the number of releases made at each site, the weather conditions at the time of release, the date and season at the time of release.

• Ensure adequate post release monitoring is undertaken to identify follow-up actions that can be scheduled to encourage agent establishment.

• Compile a database that collates the combined data from each site so that information can be easily compared, interpreted and referenced in preparation for future monitoring.

• Install signage and/or engage with locals to discuss the program, gain support and reduce the likelihood of plot interference (e.g. star-picket removal, the dumping of green refuse and rubbish).

• Review and update this methodology after the implementation of monitoring activities to ensure continual improvement of the process.


References

Australian Weeds Committee (2012). National Management Guide. Reviewed 19 March 2014 at http://www.weeds.org.au/WoNS/catsclawcreeper/docs/WMG_CATS_CLAW_CREEPER-final.pdf

Australian Weeds Committee (2013). Weeds of National Significance, Draft Cat’s Claw Creeper Strategic Plan. Australian Weeds Committee, Canberra.

Browne, L (2001). Combating the cat. Weedshine, pp. 2-3. Wons Factsheet.

DAFF (2014). Photographs sourced from Liz Snow at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

Dhileepan K, Snow E, Rafter M, Treviño M, McCarthy J and Senaratne K (2007). The leaf-tying moth Hypocosmia pyrochroma (Lep., Pyralidae), a host-specific biological control agent for cat’s claw creeper Macfadyena unguis-cati (Bignoniaceae) in Australia. Journal of

Applied Entomology 131(8), 564–568.

Dhileepan K, Taylor D, Lockett C and Treviño M (2013). Cat’s claw creeper leaf-mining jewel beetle Hylaeogena jureceki Obenberger (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), a host-specific biological control agent for Dolichandra unguis-cati (Bignoniaceae) in Australia. Australian Journal of

Entomology 52, 175–181.

DPIF (2006). Photographs sourced from the Department of Forestry and Fisheries (now DEEDI).

Putz F (1991). The biology of vines. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 205 -206.

Raghu S, Dhileepan K (2005). The value of simulating herbivory in selecting effective weed biological control agents. Biological Control 34, 265-273.

Raghu S, Dhileepan K and Treviño M (2006). Response of an invasive liana to simulated herbivory: Implications for its biological control. Acta Oecologica I 29 (3), 335–345.

Sparks HE (1999). The initiation of a biological control programme against Macfadyena

unguis-cati (L.) Gentry (Bignoniaceae) in South Africa. African Entomology 153-157.

Van Der Meijden E, De Boer N and Van Der Veen-Van Wijk C (2000). Pattern of storage and regrowth in ragwort. Evolutionary Ecology 14, 439-455.

Vivian-Smith G and Panetta D (2002). Going with the flow: Dispersal of invasive vines in coastal catchments. Coast to Coast, Australia, pp. 491-494.


Appendix 1 Baseline assessment results

Ten sites were assessed using the baseline methodology described in this report. Three sites are located in the Pimpama region and seven sites are located in the Nerang Catchment (Figure 12 and 13 respectively). The assessment results for each site are included in the following sections.


1 Site location

_̂_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

Alexander Drive

Rotaract Park

Kerkindale Park

Riverpark Drive

Crane Creek East

Paradise parklands

Crane Creek West

Alexander DriveWest Reserve

Crane Crescent

The Avenue

M c le od S tre e t

B e a u d e s e rt - N e ra n g R o a d

Ealing Cou rt

Plum Parade

M c la re n R oa d

C e n tu r io n C rescent

W in de radeen D r ive

N e ra ng R ive r D r iv e

Ta ra V is ta B oulev ard

M oond

a n i D r ive

Byfield Court

The Zenith

Tena

lga St

reet

Alexander Road

In n isfa il R o ad

Wandin Street

Kupara Street

Country Crescent

Josephine Terrace

Fyfes Road

L u ta n a S tre et

W or le y D r ive

W in ch e s ter D riv e

T r is tan iaW

a y

D uga nda n St ree t

Explor

ers W a y

B a l ya n do D rive

B illa b irra C re sc e n t

Oakd

ale

Avenue

K o o la D r iv e

Lawnhill Drive

Yarrimbah Drive

Cut he r o C ourt

B a lo o C resc

ent

BrookfieldC o u rt

Te a s d a le D rive

A4

ECOSURE does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of information displayed in this map and any person using it does so at their own risk. ECOSURE shall bear no responsibility or liability for any errors, faults, defects, or omissions in the information.

Figure 12: Nerang baseline monitoring plotsCity of Gold Coast

Nerang, Queensland

Document

REV BY CHK DESCRIPTION

Approved Project Manager

Job Number: BEBE041_MP14_NerangSiteLocations

Document Path: T:\GIS_BNE\GIS_Client\Gold_Coast_City_Council\BE041_CatsClawCreeper\00_Maps\MXD\BE041_MP14_NerangSiteLocations.mxd

R0 DB MD ISSUED TO CLIENT 30/04/2014

0 250 500125Metres

.

Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56

Projection: Transverse MercatorDatum: GDA 1994

Units: Metre

Scale: 1:18,000 when printed at A4Biological control of cat's claw creeper

_̂ Baseline sitesCadastre City of Gold Coast parksWaterways

Data sourcesCOGC Parks & waterays:COGC 2007; Cadastre: State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines 2012); Imagery: DigitalGlobe, 2012; Baseline sites: Ecosure 2014

30/04/2014DB

DATE

_̂

_̂

_̂

Clark Street

Deepak Drive

Jacob wells Road

Hoth

amC r

eek

R oa d

Wave

rley D

rive

Bella Boulevard

C ra n

b er ri

eC res ce n t

D un rave n D r ive

Overp

ass

Off Ramp

Yawalpah Road

Grantham Road

Creek Street

Cope

land S

treet

S e rv i ce R oa d

O ld Pa c if ic H ig hw a y

Lu m ea h A v e n u e

C la rk W a y

Pacific Springs Drive

B od ac io us T rr ra ce

On Ramp

Access Road

G u a ra G ro v e

M a tth ew s C re sce n t

Armani Avenue

D epo t R o ad

M os s Te r r a ce

Atte

nbor

o ug h

Roa d

K y e w o n g C ou rt

Bull Road

D e e p a k D riv e

A4


Figure 13: Pimpima baseline monitoring plotsCity of Gold Coast

Nerang, Queensland

Document



Job Number: BEBE041_MP15_PimpamaSiteLocations

Document Path: T:\GIS_BNE\GIS_Client\Gold_Coast_City_Council\BE041_CatsClawCreeper\00_Maps\MXD\BE041_MP15_PimpamaSiteLocations.mxd


0 150 30075Metres

.



Units: Metre


_̂ Baseline sites

WatercoursesCadastre

Data sourcesCadastre & waterways: State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines 2012, 2013); Imagery: DigitalGlobe, 2012; Baseline sites: Ecosure 2014

11/04/2014DB

DATE


2 Baseline data

2.1 Crane Creek East Baseline datasheet

Photo monitoring

Site Map


Photo monitoring

Photo facing the 0 m star picket (0° point) 90° photo point (clockwise direction from 0° point)

180° photo point (clockwise direction from 90° point)

Photo facing the end star picket (270° photo point, clockwise direction from 180° point)

_̂ _̂ _̂_̂#00 m 25 m 50 m

Canopytree

Access

Cran

e Cres

cent

A4


Figure 14: Crane Creek Eastbaseline assessment plotCity of Gold Coast

Nerang, Queensland

Document



Job Number: BEBE041_MP16_CraneCreekEast

Document Path: T:\GIS_BNE\GIS_Client\Gold_Coast_City_Council\BE041_CatsClawCreeper\00_Maps\MXD\BE041_MP16_CraneCreekEast.mxd


0 15 307.5Metres

.



Units: Metre


Cadastre City of Gold Coast parksWaterways


13/03/2014DB

DATE


2.2 Crane Creek West Baseline datasheet

Photo monitoring

Site Map


Photo monitoring




_̂_̂_̂_̂ #0

0 m25 m50 m

Canopytree

Access

CraneCr escent

A4


Figure 15: Crane Creek Westbaseline assessment plotCity of Gold Coast

Nerang, Queensland

Document



Job Number: BEBE041_MP17_CraneCreekWest

Document Path: T:\GIS_BNE\GIS_Client\Gold_Coast_City_Council\BE041_CatsClawCreeper\00_Maps\MXD\BE041_MP17_CraneCreekWest.mxd


0 15 307.5Metres

.



Units: Metre



DatasourcesCOGC Parks & waterays:COGC 2007; Cadastre: State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines 2012); Imagery: DigitalGlobe, 2012; Baseline sites: Ecosure Pty Ltd

13/03/2014DB

DATE


2.3 Rotaract Park Baseline datasheet

Photo monitoring

Site Map


Photo monitoring




_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

#0#0

#0

40 m

20 m

0 m

Canopytree

AccessAccess

Access

Waterway

Mooyumbin Creek

Bushmead Street

Balyando Drive

A4


Figure 16: Rotaract Parkbaseline assessment plotCity of Gold Coast

Nerang, Queensland

Document



Job Number: BEBE041_MP18_Rotaract

Document Path: T:\GIS_BNE\GIS_Client\Gold_Coast_City_Council\BE041_CatsClawCreeper\00_Maps\MXD\BE041_MP18_Rotaract.mxd


0 15 307.5Metres

.



Units: Metre




13/03/2014DB

DATE


2.4 Clark Way Baseline datasheet

Photo monitoring

Site Map


Photo monitoring




_̂

_̂

_̂

#0#0

#0

_̂

0 m

40 m

20 m

AccessAccess

Access

Canopytree

Pacific Motorway

Clark Way

Rifle Range Road

Hotham Creek

A4


Figure 17: Clark Waybaseline assessment plotCity of Gold Coast

Nerang, Queensland

Document



Job Number: BEBE041_MP19_ClarkWay

Document Path: T:\GIS_BNE\GIS_Client\Gold_Coast_City_Council\BE041_CatsClawCreeper\00_Maps\MXD\BE041_MP19_ClarkWay.mxd


0 15 307.5Metres

.



Units: Metre


Waterways


13/03/2014DB

DATE


2.5 Deepak Drive Baseline datasheet

Photo monitoring

Site Map


Photo monitoring




_̂_̂̂_

_̂

#0

#0

#0

0 m15 m

Canopytree

30 m

Access

Access

Access

Deepak Drive

Hotham Creek

A4


Figure 18: Deepak Drivebaseline assessment plotCity of Gold Coast

Nerang, Queensland

Document



Job Number: BEBE041_MP20_Deepak

Document Path: T:\GIS_BNE\GIS_Client\Gold_Coast_City_Council\BE041_CatsClawCreeper\00_Maps\MXD\BE041_MP20_Deepak.mxd


0 15 307.5Metres

.



Units: Metre


Waterways


13/03/2014DB

DATE


2.6 Jacob Wells Road Baseline datasheet

Photo monitoring

Site Map


Photo monitoring




_̂

_̂_̂ _̂

#0 Pimpama Jac

obsWell

Road

0 m

15 m30 m

Canopytree

Access

A4


Figure 19: Jacobs Wellbaseline assessment plotCity of Gold Coast

Nerang, Queensland

Document



Job Number: BEBE041_MP21_JacobsWell

Document Path: T:\GIS_BNE\GIS_Client\Gold_Coast_City_Council\BE041_CatsClawCreeper\00_Maps\MXD\BE041_MP21_JacobsWell.mxd


0 15 307.5Metres

.



Units: Metre



13/03/2014DB

DATE


2.7 Kerkindale Park Baseline datasheet

Photo monitoring

Site Map


Photo monitoring




#0

#0

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

Access

Access 0 m

15 m

30 m

Canopytree

Waterw

ay

Nerang River

Ra Stevens Bridge

Koola Drive

A4


Figure 20: Kerkindale Parkbaseline assessment plotCity of Gold Coast

Nerang, Queensland

Document



Job Number: BEBE041_MP22_Kerkindale

Document Path: T:\GIS_BNE\GIS_Client\Gold_Coast_City_Council\BE041_CatsClawCreeper\00_Maps\MXD\BE041_MP22_Kerkindale.mxd


0 15 307.5Metres

.



Units: Metre




13/03/2014DB

DATE


2.8 Riverpark Drive Baseline datasheet

Photo monitoring

Site Map


Photo monitoring




#0

_̂ _̂_̂_̂

Access

0 m30 m

15 m

Canopytree

Waterway

Riverpark Drive

Richfi

eld C

lose

Riverpark Drive

Westche

ster C

ourt

Debbie Way

Gilston R

oad

A4


Figure 21: Riverpark Drivebaseline assessment plotCity of Gold Coast

Nerang, Queensland

Document



Job Number: BEBE041_MP23_RiverparkDrive

Document Path: T:\GIS_BNE\GIS_Client\Gold_Coast_City_Council\BE041_CatsClawCreeper\00_Maps\MXD\BE041_MP23_RiverparkDrive.mxd


0 15 307.5Metres

.



Units: Metre




13/03/2014DB

DATE


2.9 Paradise Parklands Baseline datasheet

Photo monitoring

Site Map


Photo monitoring




_̂_̂ _̂_̂

Canopytree

0 m30 m

15m

Waterway

W

aterway

Waterway

Crane Creek

Beaudesert - Nerang Road

A4


Figure 22: Paradise Parklandsbaseline assessment plotCity of Gold Coast

Nerang, Queensland

Document



Job Number: BEBE041_MP24_ParadiseParklands

Document Path: T:\GIS_BNE\GIS_Client\Gold_Coast_City_Council\BE041_CatsClawCreeper\00_Maps\MXD\BE041_MP24_ParadiseParklands.mxd


0 15 307.5Metres

.



Units: Metre



Data sourcesCOGC Parks & waterays:COGC 2007; Cadastre: State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines 2012); Imagery: DigitalGlobe, 2012; Baseline sites: Ecosure2014

13/03/2014DB

DATE


2.10 Alexander Drive Baseline datasheet

Photo monitoring

Site Map


Photo monitoring




#0

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂Access

0 m

15 m

30 m

Canopytree

Alexander Drive

Gilston Road

Roun

dabo

ut

Alexander Drive

A4


Figure 23: Alexander Drive baseline assessment plotCity of Gold Coast

Nerang, Queensland

Document



Job Number: BEBE041_MP25_AlexanderDrive

Document Path: T:\GIS_BNE\GIS_Client\Gold_Coast_City_Council\BE041_CatsClawCreeper\00_Maps\MXD\BE041_MP25_AlexanderDrive.mxd


0 15 307.5Metres

.



Units: Metre




13/03/2014DB

DATE


Appendix 2 Baseline assessment datasheet

Date: Site: Latitude: LongitudeAssessor:

0 m

25 m

50 m

Canopytree

Site description, features, notes on disturbance

Photo-monitoring point from 25 m mark (or halfway mark if other length)

0 m

50 m

0

90180

270

Native vegetation within plot

Photograph numbers

Camera details0 90 180 270

Type: Resolution: Aspect ratio:

Woody vegetation within plot, * indicates exotic status

Condition very good good average poor completely degraded

Ground cover (ten 1m x 1m quadrats commencing at 0 m)

cat's claw creepernativeother exoticleaf litter

0m (R) 5m (L) 10 m (R) 15 m (L) 20 m (R) 30 m (R) 40 m (R)25 m (L) 35 m (L) 45 m (L)

ground/ other

Pg 1/2

Existing impacts (incl. biocontrol)describe:describe:describe:

very high high moderate low nonevery high high moderate low nonevery high high moderate low none

Species Tally Total Species Tally Total

Date: Site:

Mud map

Assessor:cat's claw creeper within plot

Development stages (proportion of total cat's claw present)

Other notable features

Canopy cover

Describe location of tree in relation to transect:

<10% 10-30% 30-50% 50-75% 75-100%

cat's claw creeper on canopy tree close to halfway star picket (size of stems at breast height)

0-0.5 cm 0.5-2 cm 2-5 cm

Number

>5cm

Pg 2/2

ground canopyProp %


Appendix 3 Monitoring datasheet

Date: Site: Assessor:

Notes: (disturbances, preceding weather, flowering, seeding etc.)

Pg 1/2Weather conditions:

Other agents present

very high high moderate low noneAbundanceName present absent

Distance agent has dispersed from halfway star picketLatitude Longitude

Dispersal distance 1Dispersal distance 1

Distance (m)

Direction to plot

Dispersal distance 1Dispersal distance 1

Proportion of cat's claw in plot showing evidence of damage <5% 5-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%

Adults Larvae

Within plot(5 min)

Canopy tree

Number of insects within plotNotes (mostly dead/alive, position on leaf, size of leaves)

No. Adults

No.Larvae

Quadrate 1Latitude Longitude

Quadrate 2Quadrate 3Quadrate 4Quadrate 5Quadrate 6Quadrate 7Quadrate 8Quadrate 9Quadrate 10

Canopy tree 1Canopy tree 2Canopy tree 3

Metres toplot

Number of insects outside plot in ground storey

Number of insects outside plot in canopy

Proportion cats' calw damaged by jewel beetle (ten 1m x 1m quadrats commencing at 0 m)

UndamagedEvidence of damageDeadOther damage (incl. other agents)


Ground cover (ten 1m x 1m quadrats commencing at 0 m)

cat's claw creepernativeother exoticleaf litter


ground/ other

All items to be completed during annual monitoring.All greyed items to be completed during regular monitoring.

Date: Site: Assessor: Pg 2/2

cat's claw creeper within plot

Development stages (proportion of total cat's claw present)

Canopy cover <10% 10-30% 30-50% 50-75% 75-100%

cat's claw creeper on canopy tree close to halfway star picket (size of stems at breast height)

0-0.5 cm 0.5-2 cm 2-5 cm

Number

>5cm

ground canopyProp %

Native vegetation within plotCondition very good good average poor completely degraded

Existing impacts (incl. biocontrol)describe:describe:describe:

very high high moderate low nonevery high high moderate low nonevery high high moderate low none

Woody vegetation within plot, * indicates exotic status

Species Tally Total Species Tally Total

Photo-monitoring point from 25 m mark (or halfway mark if other length)

0 m

50 m

0

90180

270

Photograph numbers

Camera details0 90 180 270

Type: Resolution: Aspect ratio:

Recommended follow up actions:


Appendix 4 Stylised examples of ground cover proportions

Obtained from Eyre, T.J., Kelly, A.L., and Neldner, V.J. (2011). Method for the Establishment and Survey of Reference Sites for

BioCondition. Version 2.0. Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM), Biodiversity and Ecological Sciences Unit,

Brisbane –source from DERM (2010) Delbessie Agreement (State Rural Leasehold Land Strategy)- Lease land self assessable

workbook (in prep.). Department of Environment and Resource Management, Brisbane.

© Ecosure Proprietary Limited 2014 Commercial in confidence. The information contained in this document produced by Ecosure Pty Ltd is solely for the use of the Client identified on the cover sheet for the purpose for which it has been prepared and Ecosure Pty Ltd undertakes no duty to or accepts any responsibility to any third party who may rely upon this document. All rights reserved. No section or element of this document may be removed from this documents, reproduced, electronically stored or transmitted in any form without the written permission of Ecosure Pty Ltd.

Revision History

Revision No.

Revision date

Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by

00 24/03/2014 Methodology for assessing the impacts of biological control on cat’s claw creeper

Deanna Bayliss Senior Ecologist

Alan House Principal Ecologist

Jen Ford Principal Restoration Ecologist

01 08/07/2014 Methodology for assessing the impacts of biological control on cat’s claw creeper

Deanna Bayliss Senior Ecologist

Alan House Principal Ecologist

Distribution List

Copy # Date Type Issued to Name

1 08/07/2014 Electronic City of Gold Coast Jessica Bourner

2 08/07/2014 Electronic Ecosure Administration

Citation: Ecosure (2014) Methodology for assessing the impacts of biological control on cat’s claw creeper, Report to City of Gold Coast, Publication Location –Brisbane

Report compiled by Ecosure Pty Ltd

ABN: 63 106 067 976

[email protected] www.ecosure.com.au

BE041.RE-Biological Contol of Cats Claw Creeper.FI

Adelaide

PO Box 145

Pooraka SA 5095

P 1300 112 021

M 0407 295 766

Brisbane

PO Box 675

Fortitude Valley QLD 4006

P 07 3606 1030

Gold Coast

PO Box 404

West Burleigh QLD 4219

P 07 5508 2046

F 07 5508 2544

Hobart

PO Box 321

Lenah Valley TAS 7008

P 03 6231 1355

Rockhampton

PO Box 2122 Wandal QLD 4700 P 07 4994 1000 F 07 4994 1012

Sunshine Coast

6/12 Norval Court Maroochydore QLD 4558 P 07 5451 9500

Sydney

PO Box 880 Surry Hills NSW 2010 P 02 9437 6919

Methodology for assessing the impacts of biological ... · PDF fileMethodology for assessing...

Documents

Transcript of Methodology for assessing the impacts of biological ... · PDF fileMethodology for assessing...