Acacia Phlebophylla listed as a Weed!

[whitewind]

I dislike the insinuation that people who take drugs, or are involved in growing plants which the government disapproves, should somehow not get themselves involved in the politics of society or their interest in ecology when it comes to determine how we treat our plants.

Folias I know - he knows a lot about Acacias and if he flags an issue it's worth looking in to.

The initial responses are a bit fobbing off in my opinion; the more people who raise this subject with CRC the better, I'm sure it would only amount to a few but I would like to see links to the research claimed before I feel comfortable in letting this issue lie.

If you want to know how low key my attitude is, I posted the original post in an email to my friend with the following statement:

I am sure it’s a mistake, but I wondered if you had any further information as to whether A. phlebophylla has become weedy outside of it’s range?

His reply:

Thanks, always interested in these issues. P.

Perhaps you are right; lets not go nuts about this, but we need to ask the questions, otherwise nothing will happen.

[Seldom]

yeah unless you work for csiro i think the best thing to do is follow occidentalis's advice. all the reply i got means is that there is 1 maybe more populations outside its natural range. all it is is a recognition of this by the people in charge of managing weeds. bringing more attention to it won't help unless it's your job to conduct botanical surveys, and you happen to have evidence demonstrating that that isn't the case

Edited June 14, 2012 by bulls on parade

[shruman]

"all the reply means is that there is 1 maybe more populations outside its natural range. best to leave it at that"

No it doesn't, it means there is possibly 1 maybe more populations out of its natural range. A simple error has not been ruled out, simply the line of inquiry has shifted. Until there is firm evidence (much more than this hearsay) I think it should be just that, hearsay, the onus is on them to prove it.

Who the hell is CRC Weed Management?

"Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs) are key bodies for Australian scientific research. The Cooperative Research Centres Program was established in 1990 to enhance Australia's industrial, commercial and economic growth through the development of sustained, user-driven, cooperative public-private research centres that achieve high levels of outcomes in adoption and commercialisation. The program emphasises the importance of collaborative arrangements to maximise the benefits of research through an enhanced process of utilisation, commercialisation and technology transfer. It also has a strong education component with a focus on producing graduates with skills relevant to industry needs.^[1] Most CRCs offer scholarships for postgraduate students.^[2]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_Research_Centre

So as far as I can tell they are no official government body that has anything to do with legislation, seem like some kind of research grant scheme for academic wankery that are now defunct?, correct me if I'm wrong.

Here is the most comprehensive (fully comprehensive?) list of legislated weeds that I know of & I'm sure you will all be glad to hear that phleb does not appear:

http://www.weeds.org.au/docs/weednet6.pdf

Nor does Loph, although I have heard people refer more than a few times that Loph does appear as a weed in WA although I have not seen any proof.

Althoug I would love to hear that phleb has established itself somewhwere outside of its natural range.

[shruman]

Maybe Lophs got their bad name from this WA weed risk assessment report that lists them as a non weed?

http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/internnsf/Attachments/SWEN-7S82HM/$FILE/WA%20Weed%20Risk%20Assessment%20REPORT.pdf

[Seldom]

"all the reply means is that there is 1 maybe more populations outside its natural range. best to leave it at that"

No it doesn't, it means there is possibly 1 maybe more populations out of its natural range.

champ what organisation is going to include a plant based on the possibility of its establishment outside its native range. nonsense.

A simple error has not been ruled out, simply the line of inquiry has shifted. Until there is firm evidence (much more than this hearsay) I think it should be just that, hearsay, the onus is on them to prove it.

 

the email i got said

"[name removed] from NSW

Agriculture provided that data and I do trust his citation as he is

scrupulous in his identification and reporting of naturalised flora, both

native and exotic."

the person i emailed's address is @agric.wa.gov.au. it's not

some kind of research grant scheme for academic wankery that are now defunct?

 

Edited June 14, 2012 by bulls on parade

[shruman]

Maybe read what I wrote again mate?...

"No it doesn't, it means there is possibly 1 maybe more populations out of its natural range. A simple error has not been ruled out"

I did not make the asertion that it was included on a possibility. I was simply qualifying your statement.

The CRC went defunct 4 yrs ago, was Randall working for NSW ag then?

Edited June 14, 2012 by shruman

[whitewind]

yeah unless you work for csiro i think the best thing to do is follow occidentalis's advice. all the reply i got means is that there is 1 maybe more populations outside its natural range. all it is is a recognition of this by the people in charge of managing weeds. bringing more attention to it won't help unless it's your job to conduct botanical surveys, and you happen to have evidence demonstrating that that isn't the case

 

It would be nice to have a bit more information, I appreciate you can accept that these guys words are enough, but for me I'm not so sure it isn't a mistake. From what I understand from people who actually grow this plant, that it isn't easy to raise to maturity under any circumstances, so if there truly is an extant population I would like to know where and how it got there! I'm happy to push for further information even if you're not, but I promise I will do it in the most sensitive manner.

[Darklight]

What the fuck are they going to do - destroy an endangered native plant because of highly theoretical drug misuse?

Two words- Mitragyna speciosa. Banned by TGA as S9 plant, plant parts, constituents and by association any relevant compounts- because of perceived future potential as a drug of misuse ( and aided by inaccurate web data from misidentified related species ). Preventing further research being undertaken in Australia into it's possible clinical applications

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity. Hopefully the phleb error will be caught in time for it to be nipped in the bud before the reference proliferates through other govt docs and future legislation

The political fallout would be enormous.

I'm sorry Whitewind, you know I love and greatly respect you and your work, but I'm laughing really hard at that. What are we going to do as a group- f we dont focus our rebuttal of this argument to a professional level it will be just a bunch of hippies discussing going to Canberra and threatening to give them the chakra cleaning of their lives.

Enormous political fallout at short notice isn't one of our present capacities, though this has been improving over the last few years, especially wrt last year's AG proposed scheduling

Just be polite, be reasonable and don't mention the content of the leaves.

Yup. And know your audience. Frame your rebuttal in terms that they can understand. Otherwise it's too easy to have valid points in your case dismissed by the weight of what is, to them, ineffable garbage

[Seldom]

just for clarity it was Randall who stated that the source of the information was a person within NSW Ag., he himself was with the CRC as stated in the .pdf

[whitewind]

^^ Darklight

Good points. I forget sometimes the sheer weight of what we are up against. That's a good reason for going softly softly.

Alright, I'll do what I can without raising any alarm bells. My guy is okay I think, if I go through him we won't have any problems with the substance issue, and he's pretty well respected as a scientist so if anyone can get a response I should think he would. Other than that, I will leave it alone - but I really think that A. phlebophylla shouldn't be on that list, and I reckon just a couple of people asking questions would be enough for Randall to re-check - if he's a decent scientist, which I have no doubt he is, and he has the time to do so, which is maybe less likely.

[Seldom]

posting this in the interest of people who despite the advice given, intend to pursue this further, to enable them to make a more informed judgement about what's happened. this is a copy of an email recieved today from the source which the author of that document cites, John Hosking. it's in response to an email i sent immediately after recieving the email from Mr Randall, prior to changing my mind about how wise it is to have people going after this.

Hi Rory

I maintain a list of species that have been reported to have naturalised in

Australia and this list includes Australian native species that have

naturalised outside their native range. The list only includes species

backed by specimens in herbaria. Acacia phlebophylla is native to Victoria

and was considered to have naturalised outside its native range in that

state (according to Ross, J.H. (2000) A census of the vascular plants of

Victoria p. 122 - I suspect this is the source but cannot check it at

present (the publication is at home)). It appears that it is no longer

considered to be naturalised outside its native range, at least according

to http://www.rbg.vic.g...ist/a/index.htm

Naturalisation outside the native range for endangered species (although in

this case it is supposedly not endangered, just rare - according to the

list on the previous website) depends on ones point of view. It is easy to

argue either way. The list that I maintain does not argue that a species is

a weed or not. Many naturalised species are present in only small areas and

appear not to be spreading and are of no real concern. Whether you wish to

call such species a weed depends on ones definition of a weed.

Regards

John

Edited June 15, 2012 by bulls on parade

[occidentalis]

Interesting. It seems things have been taken out of context all over the shop. But great that you have got that info.

Regarding the conservation status of phleb, what system does the Victorian government use to rank species? I have seen phlebophylla listed as 'Threatened' before, but not rare... while in that document linked it specifically says rare but not threatened!

[Torsten]

Many council weed lists include Papaver somniferum, Cannabis sativa AND Erythroxylum coca at the highest reporting level. While the first two might go weedy in some areas, coca certainly would not becme a weed in south western NSW for example. It appears that weed laws were used to control drug plants long before drugs laws were so complex and widespread.

There has also been discussion in this thread about the WA ban on Lophs. All you need to do is look at the online permitted/prohibited list to see that Lophs are declared weed in WA. No paranoia, just fact.

I just wanted to mention these two things because it shows that weed laws were indeed used to suppress drug plants. However, having said that, it is important to note that these laws are pretty wimpy in comparison to today's drug laws, so it is safe to assume that there is little or no such interest these days.

The phleb thing is a scientific issue and should be left to scientists to sort out [as long as there are scientists who will take it up]. It is good that it was mentioned here because there are lots of scientists here or people who are connected to scientists, which has caused quite a wave of interest in this issue. I think Rod Randall will be sick of this species in a very short space of time as people with much higher scientific pedigree have kicked his tyres on this one.

[IndianDreaming]

That's really good info Torsten - It's great to learn how our rules and regulations came about. Some of them seem so strange unless you can trace the history of their formation.

I think another bit of wisdom when dealing with the authorities is to leave the letter writing to the wordsmiths. Speeling mistakes, emotional outbursts, heartfelt cries for justice and derogatory abuse are not helpful when trying to build a case against a policy or law.

You'll catch more bees with honey than vinegar, and your arguments won't be taken seriously 'if u rite like this an expect them to do wat u want b'cos u think its rite and their wrong' - fine for a forum, not fine when debating a legal issue.

I really hope we can weed out some of these ridiculous laws one day, I think a good history lesson is a great place to start if people want to help make changes.

[folias]

My first thought was that perhaps this document contains Phlebophylla as a weed *because* it contains DMT! As I could not help but note that many alkaloid rich Acacias are on that list. And it does look like a good list for researchers to take note of!

Acacia Pycantha, Australia's flora emblem is also on that list! Funnily enough, I recently met a couple from Malawi, who said they extracted 0.3% DMT from Pycantha they found growing in Malawi! :-)

Julian.

[Torsten]

If 'THEY' wanted it on a weedlist to control it's spread as a drug plant then why put it on a weedlist that has no legal standing and not much of a real world application other than scientific wankery and possibly some suggestive power? if you know Rod Randall's background then you'd know why he is doing what he is doing and what his motivations are. The drug war is not one of them, especially where it could damage the other major priority - himself.

[phyllode]

bulls on parade quoted:

Acacia phlebophylla is native to Victoria

and was considered to have naturalised outside its native range in that

state (according to Ross, J.H. (2000)

There was a botanical survey around 2000 which found A. phlebophylla at two additional locations in victoria, and concluded there were around 6-8000 adult plants at each of the two additional locations. Maybe this survey what is being referred to. If this is "naturalised outside its native range" then this isn't due to human hands.

[folias]

Interested to know where this location is!

[phyllode]

They are within 100km of Mt. Buffalo. This is why NPWS didn't consider the bushfires such a disaster for the species. Its still not very common, so giving further detail would not be good.

[whitewind]

My contact said he looked in to the issue and he said it’s the nature of the codes used – assuming that it has naturalised outside of it’s natural habitat, then the coding will show that. Acacias also have a tendency to become weedy in areas other than their own – they are well known for colonising disturbed areas, which include almost anywhere humans have activity. He also mentioned that many Acacias have become nightmare weeds overseas, especially in South Africa.

So if there is any problem it is with the nature of the codes used within the document – it seems that it is not sensitive enough to determine whether something is rare and threatened, or even how weedy it is if it does naturalise.

So in my thinking, there is so much data not recognised by this document it’s essentially worthless, except as a very generalised guide. It’s not very helpful, I know, but unless we are enthusiastic enough about weeds ourselves and can offer Rod Randall some specific ways he can improve his method of determining potential weediness – such as rare and threatened status, extent of natural habitat, etc. there is very little we can do apart from notify him and hope he does something about fixing up these little problems - which he probably won't as it would involve one hell of a lot more research.

It's really up to us to keep an eye on what we are growing, whether it is likely to become a problem or is becoming a problem, we can make these decisions by using these publications as a guide - not a rule. Since we know Acacia phlebophylla isn't a weed, we should have no issues growing it. In fact, because it is endangered we probably should be growing it.

The main problem with weeds usually comes from farmers and even more so from the idiots who grow shit unthinkingly bought from criminal retail nurseries who import and grow the easiest to propagate plants and are only interested in making profit.

Edited June 26, 2012 by whitewind

[Darklight]

Intriguing- I'd love to see a justification from the OP's document authors of the selection process used to decide phlebs are weedy- and whether there will be a retraction. What are the chances?

It would be funny if the allegedly conclusively ID'd larger colony of phlebs were the original stand and the Mt Buffalo plants are the outliers

[Darklight]

How many people can we count who have successfully raised this species to sexual maturity and reproduction?

Given the difficulty most of us seem to have getting it to an age where it can set viable seed, the very last thing it should be called is weedy...

Edited June 26, 2012 by Darklight

[spunwhirllin]

We'll know in a month or two if my plant produces seed.

In the proper conditions I'm sure phleb could indeed become weedy,as they're very aggressive growers once established.However the special circumstances required for germination could keep the populations under control.

[kadakuda]

In Australia, if a governemnt funded/written document is blatently wrong (ie. those weed status of various plants like Lophohpora), can the general public do anything to hold them accountable? inlcuding reimbursement for any possible losses (say you had a farm of plants that they deemed weedy adn had destroyed onyl to find out they arent weeds).

I love OZ, but you guys get some pretty funky legal BS!

[Savage Gardener]

......let's keep the speculation to a minimum and keep our tinfoil hats off until we get replies

 

Hilarious!