ERMA New Zealand
Evaluation & Review
Report
Application for Approval to Import
for Release or Release from
Containment any New Organism
(Rapid Assessment)
Application Code: NOR04001
To import for release three palm species
Dictyocaryum fuscum, Dictyocaryum lamarckianum
and Dictyocaryum ptarianum (Family: Arecaceae)
Key considerations
All three species of Dictyocaryum species considered here grow in mountainous areas
on steep, forested slopes. They require copious, regular amounts of rainfall (3500 –
5000 mm per annum) and very high humidity; none of the species is considered frost
tolerant.
Areas of scientific uncertainty stem from a lack of knowledge about the biological
characteristics of the three species of palm genus Dictyocaryum (D. fuscum,
D. lamarckianum, D. ptarianum). The likelihood and magnitude of their potential
adverse effects if released into the New Zealand environment are therefore uncertain.
Although Dictyocaryum species are not known to be invasive, there is insufficient
information to determine with certainty whether or not any of the three Dictyocaryum
species could eventually become invasive in New Zealand.
It is noted that climate match between the natural habitat of a species and a new
environment is not always reliable for determining whether a species will naturalise or
become a weed in the new environment. It is also observed that a few species of semitropical palms have recently been observed to be naturalising in New Zealand, despite
a long history of their presence here.
There is no evidence to suggest that hybridisation between nikau and Dictyocaryum
species can occur. However, since the nikau palm is of cultural significance to Māori
any risk of hybridisation or competition between Dictyocaryum species and nikau
could have potential adverse cultural effects on Māori.
Page 2 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
1
Table of Contents
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................... 3
2
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 6
Aim of the Evaluation and Review Report ........................................................................................... 6
Decision path ........................................................................................................................................... 6
Purpose of application NOR04001 ........................................................................................................ 7
Application receipt and public notification .......................................................................................... 7
Supporting information ......................................................................................................................... 7
Government agencies’ notification ........................................................................................................ 7
Further information .............................................................................................................................. 8
3
TAXONOMY, DESCRIPTION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
ORGANISMS ................................................................................................... 8
Taxonomy ................................................................................................................................................ 8
Distribution ............................................................................................................................................. 9
Habitat requirements ........................................................................................................................... 10
Growth and reproductive characteristics ........................................................................................... 10
Potential Use ......................................................................................................................................... 11
Importation schedule ............................................................................................................................ 12
4
EVALUATION AGAINST SECTIONS 35(2) OF THE ACT ................... 12
Status of the organisms ........................................................................................................................ 12
Adverse effects of the organisms ......................................................................................................... 12
The likelihood that the organisms could form a self-sustaining population anywhere in New
Zealand, taking into account the ease of eradication......................................................................... 13
Seed dispersal
14
Establishment of self-sustaining populations
17
Climatic Effects
19
Ease of Eradication
21
Conclusion
21
Page 3 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
The likelihood that the organisms could displace or reduce valued species .................................... 22
Hybridisation
22
Competition with valued species
23
The likelihood that the organisms could cause deterioration of the natural habitat ...................... 24
The likelihood that the organisms will be disease-causing or be a parasite, or be a vector or
reservoir for human, plant, or animal disease ................................................................................... 25
The likelihood that the organisms will have adverse effects on human health and safety or the
environment .......................................................................................................................................... 26
5
EVALUATION AGAINST SECTIONS 36 OF THE ACT (MINIMUM
STANDARDS) ............................................................................................... 26
The likelihood that the organisms will cause any significant displacement of any native species
within its natural habitat ..................................................................................................................... 26
The likelihood that the organisms will cause any significant deterioration of natural habitats .... 27
The likelihood that the organisms will cause any significant adverse effects on human health and
safety ...................................................................................................................................................... 27
The likelihood that the organism will cause any significant adverse effect to New Zealand’s
inherent genetic diversity ..................................................................................................................... 27
The likelihood that the organisms will cause disease, be parasitic, or become a vector for human,
animal, or plant disease ........................................................................................................................ 28
6
MĀORI CULTURAL EFFECTS ............................................................. 28
Consultation .......................................................................................................................................... 28
Identification of Risks to Māori .......................................................................................................... 29
Assessment of Risks .............................................................................................................................. 29
7
PREVIOUS SIMILAR APPLICATIONS (PRECEDENTS) ..................... 30
8
ASSOCIATED APPROVALS ................................................................ 32
9
INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS ....................................................... 32
10
OVERALL EVALUATION ..................................................................... 32
11
REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 33
Page 4 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
12
APPENDICES ....................................................................................... 35
Appendix 1: Decision path and explanatory notes ............................................................................ 35
Appendix 2: Comments from DoC ...................................................................................................... 39
Appendix 3: Expert advice on the application from Dr Rhys Gardner ........................................... 46
Appendix 4: Weed Risk Assessment from Landcare Research ........................................................ 49
Page 5 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
2
Introduction
Aim of the Evaluation and Review Report
2.1
The aim of this Evaluation and Review (E&R) report is to assist and support
decision-making by the Environmental Risk Management Authority of New
Zealand (the Authority). This is achieved by consolidating information
provided by the applicant and obtained from other sources into a format and
sequence that is consistent with the decision-making requirements of the
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996 (the Act) and
of the HSNO (Methodology) Order 1998 (the Methodology). The
information has been evaluated to provide an opinion on its quality and
credibility and to identify key issues associated with this application. The
E&R Report does not make recommendations, nor direct or prejudge the
decision that the Authority might make on the application.
2.2
The project team consisted of the following ERMA New Zealand staff
members:
2.3
Dr Don McGregor
Applications Advisor (New Organisms)
Dr Abdul Moeed
Senior Scientific Advisor (New Organisms)
Zack Bishara
Māori Advisor (Māori)
This E&R Report was reviewed by Mr Shaun Slattery and Dr Geoff Ridley
and signed out on 15 August 2005 by Dr Libby Harrison, Group Manager,
New Organisms.
Decision path
2.4
The application is required to be made in accordance with section 34 of the
Act and considered in accordance with section 35 of the Act as
Dictyocaryum fuscum, Dictyocaryum lamarckianum and Dictyocaryum
ptarianum are new organisms according to section 2A of the Act.
2.5
The decision path to be used in the consideration of this application is that
for applications to import for release, or release from containment, a new
organism (non GMO) under the option of rapid assessment (application
made under Section 34 and determined under Section 35 of the Act). A copy
of this decision path and explanatory notes are appended to this report (see
Appendix 1). The source of this decision path is the ERMA New Zealand
Protocol on Decision Paths, Protocol 2.
Page 6 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
Purpose of application NOR04001
2.6
The applicant seeks approval to import and release three new organisms:
Dictyocaryum fuscum H. Wendl. 1863, Dictyocaryum lamarckianum (Mart.)
H. Wendl. 1863 and Dictyocaryum ptarianum (Steyerm. 1967) (Family:
Arecaceae), under section 35 of the Act.
2.7
The applicant proposes to grow these three Dictyocaryum species in New
Zealand as ornamental plants, and with a long-term goal of producing seeds
for the local and international markets (refer to Application, section 2.2)
Application receipt and public notification
2.8
The application was assigned application code NOR04001 and was formally
received on 11 March 2005.
2.9
The application was not publicly notified. The Authority is required by
Section 53(1)(b) of the Act to publicly notify applications to be determined
under section 38, but not those to be determined under section 35 of the Act.
Supporting information
2.10
The information provided by the applicant for the evaluation and review of
this application included the application and application summary, copies of
the references cited in the application, and the appendices to the application
listed below:

Weather charts (for the areas where the Dictyocaryum species are
found);

Photographic comparisons between Dictyocaryum palms and nikau
palms;

Responses and replies from the applicant’s Māori national
consultation.
Government agencies’ notification
2.11
The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) Biosecurity New Zealand
and the Department of Conservation (DoC) were notified of the receipt of
this application and provided with the opportunity to comment.
2.12
MAF did not respond with any comments on the application.
2.13
DoC made detailed comments on the application by e-mail on 24 March
2005 (refer to Appendix 2 of this report). The project team notes that under
Page 7 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
section 58(1)(c) of the Act the Authority shall have particular regard to any
submissions made by the Department of Conservation.
Further information
2.14
The project team considered that there were information gaps and areas of
uncertainty with regards to this application. This was primarily due to the
absence of knowledge of these organisms and lack of evidence on their
ecological characteristics and potential adverse effects.
2.15
The Authority therefore sought further information under section 58 of the
Act, specifically independent expert advice on the application from an
independent botanist, Dr Rhys Gardner (see Appendix 3 of this report) and a
weed risk assessment from Landcare Research (see Appendix 4 of this
report). Further specific questions were addressed directly to Dr Andrew
Henderson, New York Botanical Gardens (see 4.14). To obtain this
information the Authority postponed the consideration of the application by
164 working days pursuant to section 58(3) of the Act.
2.16
Information from reports by DoC, Dr Gardiner, and Landcare Research, as
well as further information supplied by Dr Henderson, was considered as
part of the review and evaluation of this application.
3
Taxonomy, Description and Characteristics of the
Organisms
Taxonomy
3.1
The applicant wishes to import and release three species of palm trees:
Dictyocaryum fuscum, Dictyocaryum lamarckianum and Dictyocaryum
ptarianum. Their taxonomic classification is as follows:
Class:
Subclass:
Superorder:
Order:
Family:
Subfamily:
Tribe:
Subtribe:
Genus:
Magnoliopsida
Liliidae
Areciflorae
Arecales
Arecaceae
Arecoideae
Iriarteeae
Iriartenae
Dictyocaryum
Page 8 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
Species:
Dictyocaryum fuscum (H.Wendl. 1863)
Synonyms:
Socratea fusca H.Karst 1860.
Iriartea fusca (H.Karst. 1887)
Iriartea altissima Klotzsch ex Al. Jahn 1908,
Common name:
Palma araque; barrigonia.
Species:
Dictyocaryum lamarckianum (Mart.) H. Wendl. 1863.
Synonyms:
Iriartea lamarckiana Mart 1838.
Deckeria lamarckiana (Mart.) H.Karst 1856.
Dictyocaryum platysepalum Burret. 1930.
Dictyocaryum schultzei Burret. 1930.
Dictyocaryum globiferum Dugand 1940.
Dictyocaryum superbum Burret. 1940.
Common name:
Palma real; barrigonia.
Species:
Dictyocaryum ptarianum (Steyerm. 1967)
Synonym:
Dahlgrenia ptariana Steyerm. 1951
Common names:
bomona paso; pona colorada; basanco.
Distribution
3.2
All three species of the genus Dictyocaryum occur in the rain-cloud forests of
the mountains of northern South America, although D. ptarianum is also
found at lower elevations, down to 200 m. They rarely occur in lowland
forests (Riffle and Craft, 2003).
3.3
D. fuscum is endemic to the mountain range, Cordillera de la Costa, in
northern Venezuela (Henderson et al., 1995; Riffle and Craft 2003).
According to the applicant, this is the northern-most occurrence of the three
species. It grows in rain forest at elevations of 1000 to 1800 m (Henderson et
al., 1995).
3.4
D. lamarckianum is the most abundant and widespread of the three species,
with colonies patchily distributed across six countries from 10° north to 15°
south of the equator, from rain forests of eastern Panama, and north-western
Venezuela, to the high Andes of Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and into western
Bolivia. This species often forms large stands on forested slopes of the Andes
Page 9 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
between 1000 to 2000 m above sea level (Henderson et al., 1995; Riffle and
Craft 2003).
3.5
D. ptarianum is found in four disjunct areas of rain forest in northern South
America (Riffle and Craft, 2003). The largest population of D. ptarianum
occurs on top of a table mountain in southern Venezuela, extending into
adjacent Guyana. Three other small pockets are found in south-eastern
Colombia, north-eastern Peru, and extreme western Brazil. In the Venezuelan
Guyana Highlands and Guyana, the species grows at elevations of 800 to
1700 m, whereas in Colombia, Peru and Brazil, it grows at the lowest
elevation of all three species, down to 200 m (Henderson et al., 1995; Riffle
and Craft, 2003).
Habitat requirements
3.6
All three species grow in mountainous areas on steep, forested slopes
(Henderson et al., 1995). They require copious, regular amounts of rainfall
(3500 – 5000 mm per annum) and very high humidity (from weather charts
provided as an appendix to the Application).
3.7
None of the species are considered frost tolerant although D. lamarckianum
can withstand temperatures near freezing for short periods, but is killed by
short periods of freezing temperatures (Riffle and Craft, 2003). They require
a slightly acidic, non-calcareous soil. When plants of these species are
young they flourish in partial shade, but they require direct sunlight light
when older (Riffle and Craft, 2003).
3.8
The applicant considers that the combination of climatic conditions required
has limited the distribution of each species to their respective natural
habitats.
Growth and reproductive characteristics
3.9
All three species have a central tap root surrounded by a root ball. Further
support is by a dense cone of stilt roots that are visible from early seedling
stage, and prop the stem up to 1 m from the ground. D. lamarckianum is the
tallest of the three species, growing to 25 m tall with a stem diameter of 40
cm. The trunk is swollen, often in the middle (Henderson et al., 1995;
Gibbons 2003; Riffle and Craft, 2003). D. lamarckianum is considered
“stunningly beautiful” (Gibbons, 2003). D. fuscum has a straight trunk and
can grow to 22 m tall with a diameter of 20 cm (Henderson et al., 1995). D.
ptarianum is slightly shorter at 20 m tall, and has a straight, erect 20 cm
diameter trunk (Henderson et al., 1995; Riffle and Craft, 2003).
3.10
Only one leaf is produced each year, with most of the early growth being in
the trunk. Mature leaves are large (3.7 to 4.9 m long), pinnate (compound
Page 10 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
leaves with more than three leaflets) and are 3 to 6 in number (Henderson et
al., 1995). The leaves are erect to horizontal and are held on short petioles
(leaf stalks), with closed sheaths at their base that form a distinct, light green
crownshaft (Henderson et al., 1995). The leaflets are 600 mm long, split
lengthwise into numerous, equal, narrow segments and displayed on many
planes giving a dense plumose effect (Uhl and Dransfield, 1987).
3.11
The applicant states that early growth of the species is relatively fast in palm
terms, however, when the palms get older their growth slows considerably.
All three species take approximately 22-25 years to reach reproductive
maturity. At this stage they produce large, branched inflorescences that
emerge from upward-curving horn-shaped spathes (covering of the
inflorescence) at the base of the crownshaft (Henderson et al., 1995; Riffle
and Craft, 2003). When in bud, inflorescences are either erect and straight or
pendulous and horn-shaped and are covered in numerous deciduous bracts
(branches off the main axis of the inflorescence), the number of which aids in
the identification of the species (Henderson et al., 1995). Flowers are
yellowish white and unisexual, with flowering branches containing both
sexes (Henderson et al., 1995).
3.12
According to the applicant, the palms produce a single crop of approximately
200 drupes (fleshy fruit) per peduncle (main axis of the inflorescence)
annually in summer. Fruits are one-seeded, globose, and are greenish yellow
at maturity and brown when dry (Henderson et al. 1995; Uhl and Dransfield,
1987). They have a thick mesocarp (the middle, usually fleshy layer of the
fruit wall) with an outer layer of sclereids (thick-walled cells) and inner layer
of tannin and fibres surrounds a thin, barely distinguishable endocarp (inner
layer of a fruit wall) (Uhl and Dransfield, 1987). The size of the fruit ranges
from 20 to 35 mm in diameter (fruit diameters: D. fuscum 20-30 mm; D.
lamarckianum 25-30 mm, D. ptarianum 20-35 mm) (Henderson et al., 1995).
3.13
Seeds are light brown with dark brown patterning and are spherical (Uhl and
Dransfield, 1987). The size of seeds varies from 15 to 30 mm in diameter
(seed diameters: D. fuscum 15-25 mm, D. lamarckianum 20-25 mm, D.
ptarianum 15-30 mm) The applicant states that seeds remain viable for 120
days from ripening, and are unusual in that they cannot be rehydrated by
soaking, a common practice applied to imported seed after many weeks in
transit (no reference cited by applicant).
Potential Use
3.14
These species are considered visually very attractive plants. The applicant
considers that “These palms have little prospect of becoming anything more
than a palm collector's ambitious dream”. Eventually, when the palms
mature, the applicant proposes that they become a source of seed for use
Page 11 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
within New Zealand and overseas. The applicant declares that seed would be
of interest to only a very small number of collectors, with the patience,
persistence, and experience, to grow plants as marginal, and ultimately, as
expensive as these. The applicant anticipates that only enthusiasts with
private collections or botanical gardens will grow these species of palm.
3.15
In South America, the stems are used for construction, the wood for
cabinetry and the leaves for thatching.
Importation schedule
3.16
The applicant intends to import seed from Rarepalmseeds.com, Germany. At
present seed is only available from this source once every four to five years,
although it can be obtained more frequently from United States suppliers.
The seeds, from remote parts of South America, would be first sent to
Germany, before re-export to New Zealand. The applicant expects the seeds
to have a low germination rate, possibly 20%, due to their short viability (120
days). From the successfully germinated seeds, the applicant intends to grow
seedlings for a minimum of three years before testing their adaptability and
survival in selected environments.
4
Evaluation Against Sections 35(2) of the Act
4.1
Section 35(1) of the Act allows the Authority to make a rapid assessment of
adverse effects of importing an organism in accordance with section 35(2)
and (3) of the Act.
Status of the organisms
4.2
The project team notes that the three species of Dictyocaryum are new
organisms under the HSNO Act, are not listed as prohibited new organisms
in the Second Schedule of the Act, and are not unwanted organisms as
defined by the Biosecurity Act 1993.
Adverse effects of the organisms
4.3
Section 35(2) states that the Authority may approve the application without
controls if the conditions described in that section of the Act are met. The
following sections of this report contain an assessment by the project team of
potential adverse effects of importing the three Dictyocaryum palm species
into New Zealand, in accordance with section 35(2)(b) of the Act, namely:
“It is highly improbable that the organism, after release,
Page 12 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
4.4
(i)
Could form self-sustaining populations anywhere in New
Zealand, taking into account the ease of eradication; or
(ii)
Could displace or reduce a valued species; or
(iii)
Could cause deterioration of natural habitats; or
(iv)
Will be disease-causing or a parasite, or be a vector for any
human, plant, or animal disease; or
(v)
Will have any adverse effects on human health and safety or the
environment”.
ERMA New Zealand’s Corporate Manual: Item No: 3.2.29, “Rapid
Assessment of Applications for the Importation of New Organisms (Not
Genetically Modified)”, states:
“Section 35(2)(b) requires that it be ‘highly improbable’ that the identified
adverse effects will occur.
The term “highly improbable” is interpreted to mean that there is a very low
probability that the adverse effect will eventuate. However, it does not require
that the adverse event can never happen.
The assertion that the event is highly improbable should be supported by
evidence to show that:
(a) there is a very low probability of any of the identified effects [section
35(2)(b)(i)-(v)] occurring, and
(b) either there is a high degree of certainty about the probability estimates in (a),
or any uncertainty about these estimates is not sufficient to change the
overall estimate of low probability.
There may be several identified adverse effects. As well as ensuring that each of
the individual effects is highly improbable, the effect of cumulative probabilities
should also be considered. In general this will require the existence of a wellestablished body of knowledge about the effects of the organism and the risks of
introducing the organism”.
The likelihood that the organisms could form a self-sustaining population
anywhere in New Zealand, taking into account the ease of eradication
4.5
The applicant contends that the three species of Dictyocaryum could not form
self-sustaining populations anywhere in New Zealand, taking into account
the ease of eradication. This assertion was based on the likelihood of seed
Page 13 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
dispersal, germination, and seedling survival, and the climatic requirements
of Dictyocaryum palms. These assertions are discussed below.
Seed dispersal
4.6
In terms of the likelihood of seed dispersal, the applicant claims that the
fruits of Dictyocaryum species are inedible and unattractive to wildlife. The
applicant reached this conclusion because two other palm species that have
fruit and seed characteristics similar to Dictyocaryum do not attract attention
from birdlife. The applicant also contends that the globular shape of
Dictyocaryum fruit would prevent birds such as the kereru (Hemiphaga
novaeseelandiae, New Zealand pigeon ) from feeding on them, as the kereru
eats fruit such as karaka that are flattened, which assists in swallowing the
fruit. The applicant also suggests that the large seed size of the Dictyocaryum
species would prevent birds or rats from carrying the seeds far into the New
Zealand bush.
4.7
The FAO (1995) does not list the fruit of Dictyocaryum species as edible to
humans or livestock, unlike a number of other palm species from that region.
This however does not establish whether or not they may be eaten by feral
animals or birds in New Zealand.
4.8
Dr Gardner noted that if a cultivated population of Dictyocaryum palms were
to achieve sexual maturity, they could be expected to form fruit. Given the
characteristics of the fruit (fleshy coated and approximately 20 - 35 mm
long) he considered that the most likely animal to disperse Dictyocaryum
fruit is the kereru. He also noted that because this bird usually holds fruit in
its stomach for some time and then regurgitates it, dispersal into the wild
might occur (refer to Appendix 3 of this report).
4.9
The diet of the kereru includes young leaves and fruit of a range of native
and introduced plants including fruits of karaka (Corynocarpus laevigatus),
and nikau (Rhopalostylis sapida) (Falla et al., 1970). The fruit of karaka are
of comparable size to those of Dictyocaryum species: 25-40 mm long and 2030 mm diameter.
4.10
In 2002, seedlings of the Queen palm (Syagrus romanzoffiana), which is
native to coastal forests and woodlands in central and southern Brazil,
Paraguay, Uruguay, northern Argentina and possibly Bolivia, were
discovered adjacent to a public walkway in the Long Bay Regional Park on
Auckland’s North Shore (Cameron et al., 2002). Despite searching, no Queen
palms were found within a 1km radius of the site of the seedlings, so it is
likely the seeds from which they grew came from further afield. Kereru are
known to occur in the area and the seedlings were all under canopy branches
which are favoured perch sites for kereru. Typical fruits of Queen palms are
fat, look like miniature coconuts, have a diameter of 15 – 19 mm and are 20
Page 14 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
– 25 mm long, within the range of fruit sizes ingested by the kereru
(Cameron et al., 2002). Gibb (1970) reported kereru eating plums (Prunus 
domestica) up to 25 mm in diameter.
4.11
The project team compared the seed sizes of the three Dictyocaryum species
(D. fuscum, D. lamarckianum and D. ptarianum), with that of four plant
species found in New Zealand (the phoenix palm, the Queen palm, the
bangalow palm and plums), whose fruit are either known or thought to be
eaten by the kereru (refer to the table below).
Species
Seed (fruit) size
Seed/fruit shape
Reference
Phoenix
canariensis
(Phoenix palm)
25 -37 mm length
Date shaped
Faucon (2001-2003)
Syagrus
romanzoffiana
(Queen palm)
14 -19 mm diameter
Globose
Cameron et al. (2002)
Archontophoenix 9 -12 mm diameter
cunninghamiana
(bangalow palm)
Globose
Cameron et al. (2002)
Prunus 
domestica
(plum)
(Fruit up to 25 mm
diameter)
Globose
Gibb (1970 )
Dictyocaryum
fuscum
Seed: 15 - 25 mm in
diameter.
Globose
fruit/spherical seeds
Applicant, citing Henderson
et al. (1995)
Globose
fruit/spherical seeds
Applicant, citing Henderson
et al. (1995)
Globose
fruit/spherical seeds
Applicant, citing Henderson
et al. (1995)
(Fruit: 20 – 30 mm in
diameter)
Dictyocaryum
lamarckianum
Seed: 20 - 25 mm
length/diameter.
(Fruit: 25 – 35 mm in
diameter)
Dictyocaryum
ptarianum
Seed: 15 -30 mm
length/diameter.
(Fruit: 20 – 35 mm in
diameter)
Page 15 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
4.12
The project team notes that seeds of the three Dictyocaryum species are
within the size range of seeds or fruit eaten (or suspected to be eaten) by the
kereru, although the sizes of the fruits of Dictyocaryum species are at the
upper limit of fruits known or suspected of being eaten by kereru. The
applicant contends that the globose shape of the Dictyocaryum fruit will
prevent kereru from eating it, but the project team notes that the fruit or
seeds of most of the species in the table above are also globose in shape.
However, in the absence of direct observations or feeding trials, the
suggestion that kereru may eat Dictyocaryum seeds or fruit remains an
unsubstantiated conjecture.
4.13
Alternatively, the fruit of Dictyocaryum spp. do not exhibit the typical bird
attracting characteristics of being bright orange, red, purple or black. Rather
they are more typical of bat dispersed fruits where colour is more
inconspicuous shades of green-yellow or dull red brown (Hodgkison et al.,
2003). It was noted that the seed of Dictyocaryum spp. were described as
greenish-yellow with the outer skin splitting to reveal the white flesh within
(Henderson et al., 1995; Gibbons, 2003) or yellow at maturity and dark
bown when dry (Uhl and Dransfield, 1987).
4.14
Dr Andrew Henderson (New York Botanical Gardens, in litt.1) was contacted
and asked the question whether it was known if birds ate the fruit of
Dictyocaryum spp. and if not known, whether or not the fruit is fleshy or
pulpy so likely to be attractive to birds? He responded that the fruit was
pulpy and might be eaten by birds but he felt that it was more likely to be
eaten by bats. This opinion was based on the similarity of the fruit to that of
the closely related palm Iriartea which has bat-dispersed fruit. Dictyocaryum
and Iriartea are two of four genera in the subtribe Iriarteinae (Jones, 1995).
However, Dr Henderson did note that “probably there is a whole suite of
birds and animals that feed on the fruits and disperse them to a greater or
lesser extent”.
4.15
In section 4.10 a presumed relationship between Queen palm (Syagrus
romanzoffiana) and kereru was postulated. It is of note that in Australia
where Queen palm is documented as invasive, it is considered dispersed by
bats (AWC, 1998-2004), although birds may play some role. Another
explanation of the seedling observed in 4.10 is that an individual kereru has
learned to feed on Queen palm and this represents a predilection of an
individual rather than that of the species as a whole but this is difficult to
determine. The lack of efficient dispersal agents may explain why Queen
palms have not become widespread in New Zealand.
1
Correspondence on file.
Page 16 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
4.16
In the event that Dictyocaryum seeds were dispersed into the wild, by
whatever means, germination, seedling establishment and growth to
reproductive maturity would still need to occur in order for Dictyocaryum
palms to form a self-sustaining population, and there is uncertainty about
that, as discussed in following sections.
Establishment of self-sustaining populations
4.17
In their Initial Weed Risk Assessment for the three species of Dictyocaryum,
Landcare Research noted that
“The genus remains poorly known and the literature very sparse. This
makes it particularly difficult to conduct a weed risk assessment”. They
observed that “None of the Dictyocaryum species is known to be invasive
anywhere in the world” but concluded that “Dictyocaryum lamarckianum, D.
fuscium and D. ptarianum are confined to the montane forests of the
Andes. In some respects these environments may match those in New
Zealand but more research is required on this matter. If the species
considers were to be confined to glasshouses because of their climatic
tolerances they would have a very low risk. However, if they can be
grown outside in New Zealand, and they produce viable seed, they have
at least some weed potential. Our recommendation therefore, is that a
more through analysis of their likely tolerances and responses in New
Zealand conditions is required”.
4.18
Cameron (2000) reported that the bangalow palm Archontophoenix
cunninghamiana had begun to naturalise in New Zealand and was exhibiting
all the hallmarks of a potentially aggressive weed. Both blackbirds (Turdus
merula) and kereru have been reported ingesting bangalow palm fruit
(Cameron 2000), the seeds of which are 9-12 mm diameter (Cameron et al.,
2002). The lag phase for this palm, that is the period of time from
introduction of the palm to naturalisation (formation of self-sustaining
populations) and becoming a potential weed, is considered to be over 90
years
4.19
Dr Gardner noted that although long-distance dispersal of Dictyocaryum
seeds might occur, he considered that given the demanding habitat
requirements of these species, establishment to maturity after long-distance
dispersal into native bush would be unlikely. Dr Gardner also noted that the
present worldwide rarity of Dictyocaryum in cultivation suggests that their
habitat requirements are not commonly met with or duplicated outside their
natural range (refer to Appendix 3 of this report).
4.20
In their report on the application, DoC observed that:
Page 17 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
“In general, weed risk assessments of palm species undertaken
approximately a decade ago indicated that this plant type posed little risk.
As a result, a wide variety of palm species were imported, primarily for
ornamental purposes. However, Melanie Newfield2 suggests that ‘the
situation has changed somewhat [and that] we now know of several
invasive palms here and others naturalising’”.
“Palm species that are of particular concern in New Zealand include:
-
-
Trachycarpus fortunei and Phoenix canariensis both being species that
are controlled by the Department;
Archontophoenix cunninghamiana, which is considered invasive but
which exists as wild populations on land not administered by the
Department;
Livistonis australis which was reported as being freely naturalised on
Kawau Island in 1980 (although its present status is unknown); and
Syagrus romanzoffiana, also now naturalised”.
“Melanie Newfield notes ‘the earliest collection of a wild palm was
Trachycarpus in 1959 (not published until 1980 though). Livistonia and
Phoenix were first recorded wild in 1980. Archontophoenix was reported as
naturalising sometime between 1980 and 2000 and Syagrus seedlings were
found only in the last year or two. Overall, the naturalisation rate for
palms is low considering the total number of palm species recorded here.
However, the proportion of invasive species in relation to the total
number of naturalised is very high’”.
“Results from a brief search of the Internet suggest that there are a wide
variety of genera with invasive species. The following are just some of the
species considered to be invasive overseas; coconut palm (Cocos nucifera
Linnaeus), date palm (Phoenix dactylifera L.), Senegal date palm (Phoenix
reclinata jacq.) [Invasive.org (2005b)], queen palm (Arecastrum
romanzoffianum (Cham) Becc.), Seifriz’s chamaedorea (Chamaedorea seifrizii
Burret) [Invasive.org (2005a)], the Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta)
[Gragg, 2001-2003]. We note that at present there is no evidence available
to suggest that the genera Dictyocarpum has the potential to become
invasive. However, the lack of cultivation history, and research
undertaken on these palm species, means that a conclusion on
invasiveness is not possible either way”.
4.21
DoC noted that website information on the cultivation of Dictocaryum
species was conflicting with some sites claiming that D. lanarckianum is
2
Melanie Newfield is a DoC weed ecologist.
Page 18 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
difficult to grow (Maynes, 1998-2004), but two other commercial websites
(Nextharvest.com, no date; Spanner and Gibbons, 1997 – 2005) both claimed
that “Dictyocaryum will thrive in a humid and cool, tropical, subtropical, or warm
temperate climate”. It should be noted that many websites repeat information
gleaned from other websites.
4.22
The project team notes in particular Landcare Research’s assessment of the
weed potential of Dictyocaryum species if grown outside in New Zealand,
that there is uncertainty in determining the weedy potential of these palms
due to insufficient information.
Climatic Effects
4.23
The applicant noted that germination and early seedling growth are
dependent on warm soil temperatures. Dictyocaryum palms are susceptible
to freezing temperatures, which can kill the fragile, solitary growing tip of
the plant. This is supported by reference to Riffle and Craft (2003) who state
that the species are not frost tolerant. Weather charts for the areas in which
the palms naturally occur were provided with the application. These charts
show that average monthly temperatures in these areas do not drop below
9°C at the highest elevation (1859 m), and that these minimum temperatures
coincide with low rainfall at that time of year (a monthly average of only 4
mm). The applicant concludes that because all three species come from areas
restricted by altitude, temperatures, rainfall, and humidity conditions that do
not have a natural parallel in New Zealand, self-sustaining populations
could not establish here. The applicant states: “Dictyocaryum are tropical
highland palms, their own habitat climate sees them only capable of growing
between a narrow 800 metre band, with average temperatures above that of
even the warmest parts of New Zealand. I could not find any firm record of
these palms successfully in cultivation anywhere in the world outside of their
natural range, and believe they couldn't survive in an open environment
unaided”.
4.24
In Dr Gardner’s opinion, the only part of New Zealand that might be able to
support an untended colony would be the mountain ranges north of
Auckland. He considers that any wild colony of Dictyocaryum in such places
is likely to be killed by summer drought during the plant’s long
establishment and sexual maturity phase.
4.25
However, DoC noted that climate match between the natural habitat of a
species and a new environment is not totally reliable for determining
whether a species will naturalise or become a weed in the new environment.
DoC commented:
“... a number of invasive species in New Zealand, even in the South
Island, are frost intolerant. Some tropical, high altitude species have
Page 19 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
become invasive in New Zealand, such as Passiflora tarminiana (northern
banana passionfruit), which is native to the highlands of Colombia,
Venezuela, Ecuador and Peru. A number of species, which are invasive
in New Zealand, have also invaded mountain zones in places such as
Hawaii and Sri Lanka, including wild ginger and gorse. This certainly
does not mean that Dictyocaryum species will naturalise or become
invasive, but it does indicate that species from high altitudes in the
tropics cannot necessarily be dismissed as potential invaders based on
climate.”
4.26
DoC also:
“considers that it is difficult to accurately predict how climate at 15002000 m in tropical South America compares with New Zealand, but we
do believe that the climate has the potential to be similar to some of the
warmer northern areas found in New Zealand. Further, …climate match
is not totally reliable for determining whether a plant will naturalise or
become a weed - some species naturalise and become invasive in climates
that differ from their home range (the South African boneseed
Chrystanthemoides monilifera invading around Wellington for example), and
in some cases even climates that do not exist in their home countries (a
well studied example of this occurs in Australia with the Madagascan
rubber vine Cryptostegia grandiflora). Of the three species D. ptarianum has
the widest altitudinal tolerance from 200m-1700m. This is quite a wide
range, however most of its range appears to be true tropical, so it is
probably the least matched to the NZ climate. D. fuscum and D.
lamarckianum go to 1800 and 2000m respectively. Further information on
the climate match could come from comparing latitude and altitude
ranges for species which have naturalised or become invasive in New
Zealand, with the ranges for the Dictyocaryum species.”
4.27
Landcare Research also noted that other palms from semi-tropical countries
were naturalising in New Zealand only recently, despite a long history of
cultivation here. They considered that:
“Climatic suitability to New Zealand and the extent to which they are
capable of being grown outside are likely to be the main factors
determining the likelihood of Dictyocarpum species naturalising here”.
4.28
On the basis of the above comments, the project team considers that the
potential for naturalisation and eventual establishment of self-sustaining
populations over a long time is possible, but there is a high degree of
uncertainty because of the paucity of information on these three species of
palms.
Page 20 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
Ease of Eradication
4.29
According to the applicant, at every stage of growth, Dictyocaryum palms are
easily distinguishable from the nikau (Rhopalostylis sapida) (refer to the
photographic comparisons provided as an appendix with the application),
aiding in the eradication of Dictyocaryum species should they establish selfsustaining populations. Within the first year of growth, Dictyocaryum species
develop unmistakable stilt roots and a large, bifid (divided into two equal
parts) leaf each year until four to five have formed on a very narrow trunk
Over the same timeframe, nikau develop five to six very long, narrow
divided leaves on a thick petiole with no trunk. Dictyocaryum palms, with
their distinctive plumose leaf form, flashing silver underneath in the breeze,
and large yellow inflorescences should they reach maturity, are recognisable
even at a distance. The applicant states that Dictyocaryum species have no
persistent seedbank and are not capable of vegetative reproduction, making
them easy to eradicate (refer to section 6.2 of the application).
4.30
Dr Gardner agreed with the applicant’s assessment that self-sustaining
populations of Dictyocaryum palms would be easy to eradicate, but noted, as
an exception, that eradication might be difficult if long-distance dispersal by
kereru resulted in single plants establishing in relatively remote localities.
Conclusion
4.31
The project team considers that it is highly improbable that the three species
of Dictyocaryum would initially form self-sustaining populations. However,
there is a possibility that when the palms reach reproductive maturity, the
seeds they produce could give rise to the establishment of self-sustaining
populations, both on initial plantation sites and in the wild, if the seeds are
dispersed to sheltered and moist gullies, by birds such as kereru. In addition,
it is possible that over time, some individuals and populations of the species
might adapt through natural selection to New Zealand conditions, making it
easier for their progeny to establish in the vicinity of plantations or in the
wild. Given the chain of events that would be required, the project team
considers that it would be difficult, but not impossible, for self-sustaining
populations to establish. This leads to the conclusion that the probability of
population establishment is very low and in accordance with the definition of
‘highly improbable’. However, this definition requires a second test and that
is that the estimate of probability should be either have a high degree of
certainty, or where there is uncertainty, this is not sufficient to change the
overall estimate of probability (refer to section 4.4 of this report). This is not
the case with the three species of Dictyocaryum as there is sufficient
uncertainty around population establishment that could, with more
information, alter the level of probability. The project team concludes that
the ‘highly improbable’ test for population establishment, taking account of
the ease of eradication, cannot be met, given the existing level of uncertainty.
Page 21 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
4.32
The project team therefore considers that there is a possibility that selfsustaining populations of Dictyocaryum could establish. However on the
information presently available, the project team is unable to ascribe a level
of likelihood of any of the three species of Dictyocaryum establishing selfsustaining populations in New Zealand.
4.33
The project team considers that if self-sustaining populations did establish,
they are likely to be localised for a significant time and, if detected, could be
easily eradicated. However, early detection and subsequent eradication could
be difficult if populations were established in remote areas. Provided
populations can be detected and destroyed, any adverse environmental effects
are very likely to be temporary and reversible.
The likelihood that the organisms could displace or reduce valued species
4.34
The three species of Dictyocaryum could significantly displace or reduce
valued species if any one species:
a)
Hybridised with native plant species.
b) Competed with and displaced native plant species causing a change in the
vegetation structure or composition or facilitating invasion by weeds.
Hybridisation
4.35
According to the applicant Dictyocaryum palms are too far removed
taxonomically to pose any possible threat of displacing or reducing valued
New Zealand species. New Zealand has only one endemic palm, the nikau,
Rhopalostylis sapida, which grows from the north of the North Island to
Banks Peninsula. On New Zealand’s off-shore islands there are several
'forms' or natural variations of R. sapida, and also other species within the
same genus, such as Rhopalostylis baueri, which is endemic to Norfolk
Island, and its variant on Raoul Island, Rhopalostylis baueri var cheesemanii.
Some would argue that all of these species and variants should be grouped
together as one species, while others consider the differences significant
enough to warrant even wider individual taxonomic recognition. Interspecific hybridisation may have occurred between these species and variants
as they are all widely planted throughout New Zealand (information provided
in the application).
4.36
According to the applicant, there are currently no known reports of any
Rhopalostylis sapida assuming unusual physical appearances that would
suggest that hybridisation with other species had occurred, despite the fact
that the more common members of the same sub-tribe have been offered for
sale since 1873 (Hay's Nursery Catalogue). As many nikau are further
protected by isolation, if any possible threat was considered, the slow growth
Page 22 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
and reproductive cycle, would allow more than enough time for remedial
action
4.37
The applicant notes that palm genera are grouped together by similar traits
into subtribes. Rhopalostylis is a member of Archontophoenicinae subtribe,
along with two species of Actinokentia, six species of Archontophoenix, two
species of Chambeyronia, one species of Hedyscepe and four species of
Kentiopsis. Of these seventeen species, at lease thirteen are present in New
Zealand, with the bangalow palm, Archontophoenix cunninghamiana, alone
being sold in enormous volumes every year. The applicant asserts that if
there was any threat to genetic purity (of nikau), this would come from
within the nikau's own subtribe. The applicant contends that among the 2,340
recognised species of palms, the only known examples of inter-generic
hybridization have occurred within particular sub-tribes and the inter-generic
hybrids are sterile
4.38
Dr Gardner agreed that the taxonomic distance between and Rhopalostylis
sapida makes hybridisation very unlikely. DoC too responded that they had
no concerns about hybridisation as Dictyocaryum is not particularly closely
related to nikau and palms and that palms are not known for inter-generic
hybridisation.
4.39
The project team considers that it is highly improbable that viable hybrids
would form between Rhopalostylis sapida and Dictyocaryum species. It is
considered therefore, highly improbable that valued species could be
displaced or reduced through hybridisation with any of the three species of
Dictyocarum palms.
Competition with valued species
4.40
The applicant commented on the potential for Dictyocaryum palms to
displace or reduce native species through competition for space in the open
environment. According to the applicant, in their natural habitats, all three
species grow amidst a wide spectrum of other plants. They do not threaten
the existence of other plant life in their own natural environment with
optimum climate, so are even less likely to pose competition to the exclusion
of all other life in New Zealand environment. Also, the applicant contends,
the growth structure of these species, including a non-invasive root system,
tight root ball, narrow trunk, and a maximum of six leaves, would allow
other species to co-exist alongside Dictyocaryum palms.
4.41
The applicant also recounts that as Dictyocaryum palms grow older they need
considerable natural light and warmth. To achieve this, in their natural
habitat, they grow to 25 metres tall so that they grow clear of all other
competition. In New Zealand, most of our native trees would overshadow
this height, causing Dictyocaryum to suffer from light deprivation and
Page 23 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
disease, according to the applicant. The applicant also considers that the
Dictyocaryum palms will not compete with native plants because the
seedlings are not hardy enough to survive our winter or spring, so will not
form self-sustaining populations.
4.42
Furthermore, the applicant contends that with Dictyocaryum’s reproductive
cycle of 22-25 years, if growing in competition with Rhopalostylis sapida
which take 15-17 years to reach maturity, the nikau's progeny would have a
7-8 year advantage over its rival, depriving them further of light, leaf litter,
and water. Nikau are shade tolerant and therefore compatible with conditions
within New Zealand bush, but Dictyocaryum will not succeed in the adult
phase if fully shaded. In New Zealand, this may well prove its demise,
according to the applicant.
4.43
The weediness potential of Dictyocaryum has already been considered (refer
to sections 4.17 to 4.28 above). The project team considers it very unlikely
that the three species of Dictyocaryum might displace or reduce valued
species should they establish in New Zealand. However, the project team
notes there is a degree of uncertainty relating to this conclusion, based on the
lack of specific information on how the three palm species may respond
when introduced to the New Zealand environment.
4.44
In the very unlikely event of self-sustaining populations establishing and not
being eradicated, there is a possibility (of unknown magnitude) that
Dictyocaryum plants might grow in similar habitats to those of nikau palms.
The project team notes that the uncertainty relating to this conclusion is due
to the lack of sufficient comparative information on the relevant biological
characteristics of Dictyocaryum and Rhopalostylis.
The likelihood that the organisms could cause deterioration of the natural
habitat
4.45
There is no evidence to suggest that the three species of Dictyocaryum could
adversely affect natural habitats by changing the hydrological regime, fire
regime, nutrient regime, or erosion or deposition of hill slope debris and
alluvium. Their root systems are not invasive, and the applicant contends
that their growth rate is too slow to dominate any area. Their fruit and leaves
have not been reported to carry any toxins.
4.46
The weediness potential of Dictyocaryum has already been examined (refer
to sections 4.17 to 4.28 of this report). While there is a possibility that selfsustaining populations of Dictyocaryum could establish, on the information
presently available, the project team is unable to ascribe a magnitude to this
possibility.
Page 24 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
4.47
The project team also concluded that if self-sustaining populations did
establish, they are likely to be localised for a significant time and, if
detected, could be easily eradicated. However, early detection and
subsequent eradication could be more difficult if populations were
established in remote areas. Provided populations can be detected and
destroyed, any adverse natural habitats are very likely to be temporary and
reversible.
The likelihood that the organisms will be disease-causing or be a parasite,
or be a vector or reservoir for human, plant, or animal disease
4.48
Dictyocaryum species are not parasites and the applicant contends that the
three Dictyocaryum species are not associated with any diseases. The
applicant observed that native Indians have long lived alongside the plants
and European botanists have spent considerable time making an in-depth
study of the differentiations of the three species. Should there have been any
apparent associated diseases, the applicant considers they would certainly
have been brought to light. Most palm leaves are eaten by animals with no ill
effect, and there is no mention of these palms being any different.
Dictyocaryum is also not susceptible to lethal yellowing disease3, and does
not originate from a country affected by cadang-cadang disease4. There is
also no record or suggestion of Dictyocaryum causing allergies, illness or
harm to human, animal or environment. The pulp of the seed does not
contain oxalate crystals, an irritant to skin.
4.49
Dr Gardner considered that there was no reason to suppose that the import of
fruit of even live plants of Dictyocaryum would be likely to introduce
disease to nikau or other plants or animals in New Zealand.
4.50
The project team notes that although the disease status of the three
Dictyocaryum is unknown, it is highly improbable that the three species of
Dictyocaryum would be vectors of plant, animal or human disease. Although
insufficient information has been provided to remove all uncertainty
regarding such risks, the project team considers it is very unlikely that risks
would be significantly higher in this case than any other similar plants
3
Lethal yellowing (LY) is a plant disease that has been known in the Western Caribbean for
over 180 years, and invaded Florida in the 1930s. It is also known from South-east Asia and
central Africa. It infects and kills coconut and 33 other palm species. Planthoppers
(Hempitera) transmit the infective agent (a phytoplasma) between palms (Howard and
Harrison, 2005).
4
Cadang cadang is disease of coconut, date, oil- and some other palm species, caused by a
viriod that can be transmitted by seed or pollen and occurs in almost all parts of infected
plants. It is known from Asia and the Solomon Islands (EPPO, 2004).
Page 25 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
imported into New Zealand. The project team considers that any associated
pathogens or parasites would be unlikely to pass undetected through the
quarantine procedures required by MAF in accordance with an Import
Health Standard issued under the Biosecurity Act 1993.
The likelihood that the organisms will have adverse effects on human
health and safety or the environment
4.51
According to the application, no part of the palms pose a threat to human
health or safety as there is no record or suggestion of these palms causing
allergies, illness or harm to human, animal or environment. The pulp of the
seed does not contain oxalate crystals, an irritant to skin. In his report Dr
Gardner said:
“The possibility that the growth of Dictyocaryum in New Zealand would
have significant effects on human health and safety can be excluded: there
is no morphological feature of these palms, other than the ‘rather blunt’
spines of the prop-roots, that might be threatening”.
4.52
Potential adverse effects on the environment have been considered earlier
(refer to sections 4.45 to 4. 47 of this report). The project team notes there is
no information to suggest that the three species of Dictyocaryum themselves
would have any direct adverse effects on human health and safety.
5
Evaluation Against Sections 36 of the Act (minimum
standards)
5.1
Under section 35(3)(b) of the Act, the Authority may decline an application
or require the applicant to apply under section 38, if the organism is likely to
fail the minimum standards specified in section 36 of the Act. This section of
the report considers the three Dictyocaryum species in relation to the
minimum standards as defined in section 36 of the Act.
The likelihood that the organisms will cause any significant displacement
of any native species within its natural habitat
5.2
The potential for the Dictyocaryum palms to cause any significant
displacement of any native species has been discussed earlier, particularly in
sections 4.34 to 4.44 of this report. The conclusion was that it is very
unlikely that the three species of Dictyocaryum could displace or reduce
valued species. In the very unlikely event of self-sustaining populations
establishing and not being eradicated, there is a possibility (of unknown
magnitude) that Dictyocaryum plants might grow in similar habitats to those
of nikau palms. The uncertainty relating to this conclusion is due to the lack
Page 26 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
of sufficient comparative information on the relevant biological
characteristics of Dictyocaryum and Rhopalostylis (refer to section 4.44 of
this report).
The likelihood that the organisms will cause any significant deterioration
of natural habitats
5.3
The potential for the Dictyocaryum species to cause any significant
deterioration of natural habitats has been considered in sections 4.45 to 4.47
of this report. The project team concluded that there is no evidence to suggest
that the three species of Dictyocaryum could adversely affect natural habitats
by changing the hydrological regime, fire regime, nutrient regime, or erosion
or deposition of hill slope debris and alluvium. The project team also
concluded that if self-sustaining populations did establish, they are likely to
be localised for a significant time and, if detected, could be easily eradicated.
However, early detection and subsequent eradication could be difficult if
populations were established in remote areas. Provided populations can be
detected and destroyed, any adverse natural habitats are very likely to be
temporary and reversible.
The likelihood that the organisms will cause any significant adverse
effects on human health and safety
5.4
The potential for the Dictyocaryum species to cause any significant adverse
effects on human health and safety has been considered in sections 4.51 and
4.52 of this report. No potential adverse effects on human health and safety
were identified.
The likelihood that the organism will cause any significant adverse effect
to New Zealand’s inherent genetic diversity
5.5
The project team notes that the three species of Dictyocaryum could
significantly affect New Zealand’s inherent genetic diversity if they:
a)
reduced any New Zealand species to small, isolated populations, or
caused any species to become extinct; and
b) interbred with one or more native species posing a threat to their genetic
integrity.
5.6
The weediness potential of Dictyocaryum has already been considered (refer
to sections 4.17 to 4.33 of this report). The project team considers it very
unlikely that any of the three species of Dictyocaryum might displace or
reduce any valued species, in particular nikau (Rhopalostylis sapida), and
cause any significant adverse effects on New Zealand’s inherent genetic
diversity, should they establish in New Zealand. However, the project team
Page 27 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
notes there is a degree of uncertainty relating to this conclusion, based on the
lack of specific information on how the three palm species may respond
when introduced to the New Zealand environment, and particularly their
effects on nikau.
5.7
As discussed in section 4.35 to 4.39 of this report, it is highly improbable that
any of the three species of Dictyocaryum would form viable hybrids with
nikau.
The likelihood that the organisms will cause disease, be parasitic, or
become a vector for human, animal, or plant disease
5.8
As noted in section 4.48 of this report Dictyocaryum species are not
parasites. Both the applicant and Dr Gardiner considered there was no
evidence to suggest that they would cause or be a vector for any human,
animal or plant disease. Any associated pathogens or parasites would be
unlikely to pass undetected through the quarantine procedures required by
MAF in accordance with an Import Health Standard issued under the
Biosecurity Act 1993.
6
Māori Cultural Effects
Consultation
6.1
The applicant received consultative guidance and has followed all advice.
6.2
The applicant conducted follow up communication with those iwi that
replied to his initial consultation round.
6.3
Iwi expressed concerns regarding potential hybridisation between nikau
(Rhopalostylis sapida) and Dictyocaryum fuscum, D. lamarckianum and D.
ptarianum.
6.4
Representatives of Te Mana Taiao ō Raukawa asked for a face to face
meeting with the applicant to further discuss their issues and concerns. The
applicant responded to this request but was unable to meet face to face with
that iwi group.
6.5
Te Mana Taiao requested that the applicant funds an independent expert
report on Raukawa's concerns where Te Mana Taiao choose the expert to
provide the report. The applicant has not responded to that request. Te Mana
Taiao ō Raukawa remains opposed to the application until such time as their
concerns are satisfactorily met.
Page 28 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
6.6
Uncertainty regarding risk to taonga species and bio-diversity remains high
for te Mana Taiao over the application for the importation of the exotic palm
species Dictyocaryum fuscum, D. lamarckianum and D. ptarianum.
6.7
The applicant accepts that risk to nikau palm is of great concern to not only
iwi Māori but all New Zealand.
Identification of Risks to Māori
6.8
The results of Māori consultation over this application has identified two
potential risks:
a)
hybridisation between nikau and species Dictyocaryum fuscum, D.
larckianum and D. ptarianum; and
b)
potential for Dictyocaryun palms to adversely affect nikau by
displacing them in the natural New Zealand environment through
competition.
6.9
The nature of the risks are important due to the nikau palm’s unique special
taonga niche within Māori cultural relationships and to their traditional and
contemporary cultural history with the nikau and its place in Māori culture.
6.10
Nikau also shares special recognition of taonga status within Schedule 97 of
Te Rūnanga ō Ngai Tahu’s Settlement Act 1998.
Assessment of Risks
6.11
The project team considered the likelihood of Dictyocaryum and nikau palms
hybridisation and the likelihood of Dictyocaryum palms displacing nikau in
the New Zealand’s natural environment in sections 4.35 to 4.44 and 5.2 to
5.7 of this report. It was concluded that it is highly improbable that
Dictyocaryum species would hybridise with or displace nikau. A low level of
uncertainty remains.
6.12
The project team notes that Te Mana Taiao the environmental representative
group of Raukawa considers that the evidence available for support of this
application is anecdotal and requested experimental evidence that
demonstrates that this risk is negligible.
6.13
Further, Te Mana Taiaio would like the evidence provided by the applicant to
be peer reviewed by an independent expert to be selected by the iwi and have
all costs managed by the applicant. The applicant has thus far not responded
to Te Mana Taiao’s requests and has not managed to meet face to face with
the iwi representatives to discuss the issues raised.
Page 29 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
6.14
Further information gathered by the project team has highlighted the
possibility of bird. Although highly unlikely, the evidence suggests that this
possibility cannot be ruled out as a mechanism for seed dispersal of
introduced palms thereby creating a pathway for palms to establish a
competitive population to native valued plant species such as nikau.
6.15
The nature of this issue makes it difficult to accurately assess the magnitude
of these adverse effects on nikau palm and/or native bio-diversity from a
Māori perspective. However it is sufficient to say that any major magnitude
of adverse impact on a taonga species such as nikau would be considered
highly intolerable by iwi Māori.
6.16
The uncertainty surrounding these two risks can be captured by a range of
magnitude of impact on taonga nikau species as minor to major. The
uncertainty also can be captured in likelihood terms by a range of that
suggests likelihood of risk occurring would be very unlikely to unlikely.
7
Previous similar Applications (Precedents)
7.1
The Chief Executive of ERMA New Zealand has previously considered
under delegated authority only two applications for the release of plant
species in the New Zealand environment, under section 35 of the Act. The
first such application, NOR99005, was for the release of two plant species in
the Xanthorrhoea genus, commonly known as grass trees. The decision on
that application noted that:
“For plants the attribute of most significant risk concern is that of
weediness. ….Accordingly particular attention has been paid to the weed
risk assessments ….Note: The implication is that future assessment of
plants should include a reputable weed risk assessment. If the risk score
is above zero i.e. there is some degree of weediness, then it is more likely
that the application will be declined and/or referred on for a full
assessment under section 38 of the HSNO Act”.
7.2
The second application, NOR00002, was for the release of 11 species of trees
within the genus Agathis, the genus to which the New Zealand kauri
(Agathis) belongs.
7.3
Of particular relevance to the present application is the decision on the
Agathis species application (NOR00002) in relation to section 6(d) of the
Act, namely:
Page 30 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
“All persons exercising functions, powers and duties under this Act shall,
to achieve the purpose of this Act, take into account the following
matters:
(d)
The relationship of Māori. And their culture and traditions with
their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna, and
other taogna;”
On the Agathis species application, the decision-maker remarked:
“The New Zealand kauri (Agathis australis) is an iconic species for
Māori, and is of great significance to other New Zealanders as well. ….
Notwithstanding the finding….. that the risks of the introduced species
displacing or reducing the New Zealand kauri are extremely small, there
is the issue of whether or not there is a cultural dimension that is
nevertheless significant. …. This is not a matter which can be considered
scientifically alone …..Other factors are significant. …
“My view is thus that both the magnitude and the probability of the
cultural dimension of risk are too uncertain for it to be concluded that
the risk, in terms of section 6(d) in particular, is of no significance”. …
In my view, none of the biological and physical risks or the adverse
effects considered above will lead to non-negligible costs. There is,
however, uncertainty over the [non-monetary] costs that might arise
from culturally-based concerns”.
“In this particular case, the biological and physical risks posed by the
application are considered negligible, and in that respect the
requirements of section 35 [criteria for rapid assessment] and section 36
[minimum standards] are met. However there remains one risk (which is
potentially the dominant risk in terms of s35 of the Methodology) which
cannot be negligible on the basis of information available. That is the
risk that might be felt by Māori (in terms of section 6(d) and section 5(b)5
of the Act] to the cultural significance and integrity of the New Zealand
kauri [A. australis]”.
Section 5(b) of the Act says: “All persons exercising functions, powers, and duties under this
Act shall, to achieve the purpose of this Act, recognise and provide for the following principles:
(b) The maintenance and enhancement of the capacity of people and communities to provide
for their own economic, social, and cultural wellbeing and for the reasonably foreseeable needs
of future generations”.
5
Page 31 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
“It is accordingly considered that it would be not in accordance with the
HSNO Act, in its broadest context, to approve the application under s35
of the Act”6.
7.4
The project team notes however, that this decision does not articulate the
exact nature of the cultural risk that might arise from the release of Agathis.
This is important as it could not be based on any biophysical risks to
A. australis as these were all considered to be negligible. Furthermore this
decision is not instructive in terms of distinguishing the nature of the
biophysical relationships that might lead to risks to Māori in terms of their
relationship with the valued kauri and uncertainty on other risks to Māori,
which may be of a more intangible or spiritual nature.
8
Associated Approvals
8.1
The importation of any plants is subject to the requirements of the
Biosecurity Act 1993, including the issue of an import permit by the
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.
9
International Obligations
9.1
The project team is not aware of any international obligations that are
relevant to this application in accordance with clause 9(c)(vi) of the HSNO
Methodology Order 1998 and section 6(f) of the HSNO Act.
10
Overall Evaluation
10.1
In evaluating the potential adverse effects associated with this application,
the project team considers that any adverse effects are very unlikely, but
there are a number of areas of uncertainty (see sections 4 & 5 of this report)
that relate to the lack of knowledge about the biological characteristics of
Dictyocaryum species, and particularly how they might respond to
conditions outside their natural habitats.
Excerpts from “Decision on application to import a new organism – made by rapid
assessment under section 35 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act
1996”, 5 June 2001.
6
Page 32 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
11
References
AWC, 1998-2004. Weeds Australia. Weed Identification. Queen Palm. Australian
Weed Committee. http://www.weeds.org.au/cgibin/weedident.cgi?tpl=plant.tpl&state=&s=&ibra=all&card=T22 Retrieved 26
July 2005
Cameron, EK. 2000. Bangalow palm (Archontophoenix cunninghamiana) begins to
naturalise. New Zealand Botanical Society Newsletter 60:12-16.
Cameron, EK, Sullivan, JJ, Whaley, K 2002. A new palm naturalises in Auckland.
Auckland Botanical Society Journal 57:123-124.
EPPO, 2004. EPPO activities on plant quarantine, Information on pests listed by
EPPO and the EU, viruses, virus-like organisms and viroids. European and
Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO). EPPO A1 and A2 lists of
pests recommended for regulation as quarantine pests approved in September
2004. http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/quarantine.htm Data Sheet on
Quarantine Pest. Coconut cadang-cadang viroid.
http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/virus/Coconut_cadang_cadang_viroid/C
CCVD0_ds.pdf Retrieved 1 August 2005.
Falla, RA, Sibson, RB, Turbott, EG 1970. A field guide to the birds of New Zealand.
Revised Second Edition. Collins..
Faucon, P 2001-2003: Desert-Tropicals.com. Canary Island Date Palm. Phoenix,
Arizona. http://www.desert-tropicals.com/Palm/Phoenix_canariensis.html
Retrieved 26 July 2005.
FAO, 1995. Non-wood forest Products 10. Tropical Palms. Publications Division,
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome. Chapter:
Latin American Region.
http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/X0451E/X0451e
08.htm Retrieved 26 July 2005
Gibb, JA 1970. A pigeon’s choice of plums. Notornis 17: 239.
Gibbons, M 2003. A Pocket Guide to Palms. Chartwell Books: Edison, New Jersey.
Gragg, G 2001-2003. Washingtonia robusta. The Mexican Fan Palm, Skyduster Palm.
Golden Gate Palms & Exotics (Nursery).
http://www.goldengatepalms.com/public_html/nursery.html Retrieved 29 July
2005.
Henderson, A, Galeano, G, Bernal, R 1995. Field Guide to the Palms of the Americas.
Princeton University Press: Princeton, New Jersey.
Page 33 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
Hodgkison, R, Balding, ST, Zubaid, A, Kunz, TH 2003. Fruit bats (Chiroptera:
Pteropodidae) as seed dispersers and pollinators in a lowland Malaysian rain
forest 1. Biotropica 35: 491-502.
Howard, FW, Harrison, NA 2005. Lethal Yellowing of Palms. University of Florida,
Plant Pathology at the Fort Lauderdale Research and Education Center.
http://flrec.ifas.ufl.edu/Hort/Palms/lethal_yellow_facts.htm Retrieved 29 July
2005
Invasive.org, 2005a. Invasive Species. The Source for Information and Images of
Invasive & Exotic Species. Seifriz's chamaedorea. A joint project of The
University of Georgia's Bugwood Network, USDA Forest Service and USDA
APHIS PPQ. http://www.invasive.org/browse/subject.cfm?sub=11668
Retrieved 29 July 2005.
Invasive.org, 2005b. Invasive Species. The Source for Information and Images of
Invasive & Exotic Species. Senegal date palm. A joint project of The University
of Georgia's Bugwood Network, USDA Forest Service and USDA APHIS PPQ.
http://www.invasive.org/browse/subject.cfm?sub=3661 Retrieved 29 July 2005.
Jones, DL 1995. Palms throughout the World. Reed New Holland: Sydney.
Maynes, JL 1998-2004 Virtual Palm Encyclopedia. Chapter 14 - Photo Gallery.
Dictyocaryum lamarckianum. Palm & Cycad Societies of Florida,
Inc.http://www.plantapalm.com/vpe/photos/Species/dictyocaryum_lamarckianu
m.htm Retrieved 29 July 2005.
Nextharvest.com, no date. NextHavest.com Palm Tree Seed List Trademark of
Southern Business Express http://www.nextharvest.com/Welcome.html
Retrieved 29 July 2005.
Riffle, RL, Craft, P 2003. An Encyclopedia of Cultivated Palms. Timber Press:
Portland Oregon.
Roche, S 2005. Popular plants in biosecurity scare. Forest & Bird 315: 10.
Spanner, T, Gibbons, M 1997 – 2005. Rarepalmseeds.com Archive. Dictyocaryum
lamarckianum. http://www.rarepalmseeds.com/pix/DicLam.shtml Retrieved 29
July 2005.
Uhl, NW, Dransfield, J 1987. Gera Palmarum. A Classification of Palms Based on
the Work of Harold E. Moore, Jr. Allen Press: Lawrence, Kansas.
Page 34 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
12
Appendices
Appendix 1: Decision path and explanatory notes
Page 35 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
Page 36 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
NOTES to Figure 6 - Decision path for applications to import for
release, or release from containment, a new organism (non GMO) under
the option of rapid assessment (application made under Section 34 and
determined under Section 35 of the Act)
Items 1, 2 & 3:
Information that should be reviewed includes that in the
application, the E&R Report, and from experts (where
relevant). Review should occur in terms of section 40(2) of the
Act and clauses 8, 15, 16, 20 and 22 of the Methodology.
Additional information may need to be sought under s58 of the
Act.
If the applicant is not able to provide sufficient information for
consideration then the application is not approved. In these
circumstances the Authority may choose to decline the
application, or the application may lapse.
Item 4:
Consider whether the organism is an unwanted organism as
defined in the Biosecurity Act 1993.
Item 5:
The range of risks (and costs) to be identified should be that
covered by section 35(2)(b) and section 36 of the Act. There are
two steps within this part of the process:
Item 6:
Step 1:
The identification of all risks and associated costs.
Step 2:
The elimination of those risks and associated costs
that can be readily concluded to be negligible or
irrelevant, having regard to the characteristics of the
organism and the circumstances of the application.
All potentially non-negligible risks identified in Item 5 should
be assessed in order that the criteria in items 7 & 8 below can be
Page 37 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
determined.
Item 7:
Consider whether the application meets the criteria specified in
Section 36 of the Act (Minimum standards).
Item 8:
Consider whether the application meets the criteria specified in
Section 35(2)(b) of the Act.
Item 9:
If the application fails the rapid assessment criteria as specified
in Section 35(2)(b), the Authority may decide to “not approve”
the application. This is not the same as declining the
application as it may be further considered under Section 38 of
the Act. The applicant has the discretion to decide whether or
not to proceed to full assessment should their application fail
the rapid assessment criteria.
Page 38 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
Appendix 2: Comments from DoC
APPLICATION TO IMPORT THREE PALM SPECIES OF THE GENUS DICTYOCARYUM INTO NEW ZEALAND
TO ADD BALANCE TO A WILDLIFE SANCTUARY AND TO EVENTUALLY ESTABLISH AN ALTERNATIVE
SEED SUPPLY FOR THE SPECIES
APPLICATION CODE:
APPLICANT:
NOR04001
Don Munroe
Welcome Bay, Tauranga
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application. The
Department has the following comments:
This is an application to import into New Zealand three exotic species of palm
within the genus Dictyocaryum. As such the Department’s primary concerns are:
1) Whether these exotic palm species have the potential to naturalise and
become invasive;
2) Whether there is a risk of hybridisation with closely related indigenous palm
species; and
3) Whether these exotic palm species pose any other risks to indigenous flora
and fauna.
Whether these exotic palm species have the potential to naturalise and
become invasive.
The Department notes that it is much more difficult to realistically assess
whether a plant species is likely to naturalise and become invasive when that
species does not have a significant cultivation history. This is further
compounded when there is also a lack of scientific research on the plant species
in question.
Melanie Newfield, weed ecologist for the Department notes ‘the risk of a plant
becoming a weed seems to be inherently unpredictable, based on current knowledge. When we
compare with insects, for example, there is basically no testing that we know how to do that
will give us much idea of how the plant will behave. If we go back and look at previous
introductions, some we can see with hindsight that we should have predicted the weediness of
some species, but not others”. Therefore, the Department has taken a precautionary
approach to the assessment of the risks of the import of these palm species.
Page 39 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
In general, weed risk assessments of palm species undertaken approximately a
decade ago indicated that this plant type posed little risk. As a result, a wide
variety of palm species were imported, primarily for ornamental purposes.
However, Melanie Newfield suggests that “the situation has changed somewhat [and
that] we now know of several invasive palms here and others naturalising”.
Palm species that are of particular concern in New Zealand include:
Trachycarpus fortunei and Phoenix canariensis both being species that are
controlled by the Department;
Archontophoenix cunninghamiana, which is considered invasive but which
exists as wild populations on land not administered by the Department;
Livistonis australis which was reported as being freely naturalised on Kawau
Island in 1980 (although its present status is unknown); and
Syagrus romanzoffiana, also now naturalised.
-
Melanie Newfield notes “the earliest collection of a wild palm was Trachycarpus in 1959
(not published until 1980 though). Livistonia and Phoenix were first recorded wild in 1980.
Archontophoenix was reported as naturalising sometime between 1980 and 2000 and
Syagrus seedlings were found only in the last year or two. Overall, the naturalisation rate for
palms is low considering the total number of palm species recorded here. However, the
proportion of invasive species in relation to the total number of naturalised is very high”.
Results from a brief search of the Internet suggest that there are a wide variety
of genera with invasive species. The following are just some of the species
considered to be invasive overseas; coconut palm (Cocos nucifera Linnaeus), date
palm (Phoenix dactylifera L.), Senegal date palm (Phoenix reclinata jacq.)7, queen
palm (Arecastrum romanzoffianum (Cham) Becc.), Seifriz’s chamaedorea
(Chamaedorea seifrizii Burret)8, the Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta)9. We
note that at present there is no evidence available to suggest that the genera
Dictyocarpum has the potential to become invasive. However, the lack of
cultivation history, and research undertaken on these palm species, means that a
conclusion on invasiveness is not possible either way.
7
http://www.invassive.org/browse/catsubject.ctm?cat=53
8
http://www.invasive.org/seweeds.cfm
9
http://www.goldengatepalms.com/public_html/mexican.html
Page 40 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
The Department has attempted to verify the accuracy of the information
supplied by the applicant and although we do not have access to all the
references cited, we believe that they are generally accurate. We note however
that there are many synonyms for these palm species and common names may
be confused. Our research indicates that Iriartea deltoida is commonly called the
Stilt palm or the Barrigona palm and yet it is not listed as a synonym of D.
lamararckianum10. We also note that the Barrigona palm appears to translate in
Spanish to palma barrigona and that this also has the common name of the big
belly palm11. The Department suggest that Erma may wish to approach the
applicant for clarification of this, as we note that MAF will require a correct list
of synonyms for these species in case they are imported under these alternate
names.
In order to assess the palms species potential to become invasive, the
Department has considered whether New Zealand has a suitable climate for
their establishment and survival. Melanie Newfield considers “the applicant’s
assessment that these species are frost intolerant matches the information I have found.
Nonetheless, a number of invasive species in New Zealand, even in the South Island, are frost
intolerant. Some tropical, high altitude species have become invasive in New Zealand, such as
Passiflora tarminiana (northern banana passionfruit), which is native to the highlands of
Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Peru. A number of species, which are invasive in New
Zealand, have also invaded mountain zones in places such as Hawaii and Sri Lanka,
including wild ginger and gorse. This certainly does not mean that Dictyocaryum species will
naturalise or become invasive, but it does indicate that species from high altitudes in the tropics
cannot necessarily be dismissed as potential invaders based on climate.”
The Department considers that it is difficult to accurately predict how climate at
1500-2000 m in tropical South America compares with New Zealand, but we do
believe that the climate has the potential to be similar to some of the warmer
northern areas found in New Zealand. Further, Melanie Newfield notes “climate
match is not totally reliable for determining whether a plant will naturalise or become a weed some species naturalise and become invasive in climates that differ from their home range (the
South African boneseed Chrystanthemoides monilifera invading around Wellington for
example), and in some cases even climates that do not exist in their home countries (a well
10
http://www.pacsoa.org.au/palms/Iriartea/deltoidea.html
11
http://www.cubatravelusa.com/history_of_cuba.htm
Page 41 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
studied example of this occurs in Australia with the Madagascan rubber vine Cryptostegia
grandiflora).Of the three species D. ptarianum has the widest altitudinal tolerance from 200m1700m. This is quite a wide range, however most of its range appears to be true tropical, so it
is probably the least matched to the NZ climate. D. fuscum and D. lamarckianum go to
1800 and 2000m respectively. Further information on the climate match could come from
comparing latitude and altitude ranges for species which have naturalised or become invasive in
New Zealand, with the ranges for the Dictyocaryum species.”
The Department has also considered the potential for seed dispersal, and ease
of germination of the seeds of these palm species. Melanie Newfield considers
“the seed size of these species would not put them at high risk for animal dispersal. They are
big seeds and from the description [given by the applicant] it does sound as if they are
relatively unpalatable fruits. The palms that have become troublesome in New Zealand have
small, fleshy fruit that are dispersed in large numbers by birds”. The Department notes
however that these seeds, which are unpalatable to birds and animals in their
native range, may not be unpalatable to all bird/animals that occur in New
Zealand. Further, we note that leaf cutter ants have been implicated in the
distribution of palm seeds in Panama12. The potential for dispersal by the larger
ants including introduced species remains unknown.
With regards to germination, the Department notes that opinions appears to be
conflicting, with some sites suggesting that they are difficult to
germinate/grow13 and others suggesting that the are not difficult to grow at all
but just difficult to collect from the native range14. In both instances, the
opinions relate to germination in glasshouses and therefore it may not be
relevant to the palms species ability to germinate in the wild under less
controlled conditions. The Department does note however that the seeds
appear to survive sufficiently well in the wild to produce large stands in their
native range.
Whether there is a risk of hybridisation with closely related indigenous palm
species.
12
http://herb140.bio.au.dk/botany/PersonalPages/JensChrSvenning/svenning_Palms_2002.pdf
13
http://www.plantapalm.com/vpe/photos/Species/dictyocarpum_lamarckianum.htm
14
http://www.nextharvest.com/palm.htm or
http://www.rarepalmseeds.com/pix/DicLam.shtml
Page 42 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
Melanie Newfield indicates that ‘there are no concerns about hybridisation risks as this genus is not
particularly closely related to nikau and palms aren’t known for intergenic hybridisation”.
Whether these exotic palm species pose any other risks to indigenous flora and
fauna.
The Department has no information at present to suggest that these palm species pose
any other risk to indigenous flora and fauna.
The Department has some concerns regarding the applicant’s desire to plant these
species “to add balance to a wildlife sanctuary”. We note that this maybe appropriate in the
instance that the sanctuary is for introduced tropical plant and animals species already
present in New Zealand. However, we would suggest that the planting of exotic palms in
a sanctuary for indigenous wildlife has the potential to result in the inappropriate
education of the public on the role of exotic plants in the wider environment and may
undermine the Department’s goal of protecting our indigenous biodiversity. In this
instance nikau palm, cordyline and native tree ferns are preferable alternatives.
Biosecurity requirements
The Department notes that a person wishing to import these palm seeds will require
biosecurity clearance from MAF. The seeds will be required to meet the standards of the
relevant Import Health Standard in order to mitigate any risk of the inadvertent import
of pest and diseases with the seeds. The seeds are likely to be imported initially into
transitional facilities and maybe assessed for plant diseases including seed borne viruses.
This assessment may require a sample of seeds to be germinated and grown under
quarantine conditions.
Robert Taylor of MAF/BNZ has indicated the following:
“The genus Dictyocaryum would possibly be required to meet the importation requirements stipulated in
the Acrocomia schedule of special conditions for seed and nursery stock. To confirm this MAF will need
to make an assessment on whether this genus would fall under this schedule. We import over 130
different palm genera and there are several schedules for palm in both the seed for sowing:
http://www.maf.govt.nz/biosecurity/imports/plants/standards/155-02-05.pdf
and nusery stock import health standard:
http://www.maf.govt.nz/biosecurity/imports/plants/standards/155-02-06.pdf
The main pests of concern that have been identified is Coconut cadang cadang viriod, lethal yellowing and
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. canariensis and we only permit imports from pest free areas (i.e country
or state freedom). Nursery stock has a requirement for phytosanitary certification and post entry
quarantine where as seed for sowing has only a phytosanitary requirement.”
The potential for a conditional release in situations where their remains
significant scientific uncertainty regarding the risks of a species
The present application is for the full release of these three palm species and as such any
person may import and grow the seeds, as long as they are able to meet the biosecurity
standards set by MAF. Once imported they may then be grown anywhere including as
suggested by the applicant in a wild life sanctuary. The Department considers that the full
release of any new plant species presents a greater risk when the approval is given to a
Page 43 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
species that does not have a history of cultivation and where their remains significant
scientific uncertainty regarding the potential risks of that species.
The Department notes that a recent amendment to the Hazardous Substance and New
Organism Act 1996 now allows for conditional releases for ‘new organisms’. The
Department suggests that some analysis should be undertaken regarding the potential for
such an approval to be used to mitigate unknown risks of a release.
We consider that it may be possible that a conditional approval be given for a plant
species to be imported and grown only in glasshouses/controlled circumstances to
reduce the risk of it naturalising in the wild. Further, the deliberate introduction of an
exotic plant species to areas of conservation interest could be specifically prohibited.
We note that once approval is given under the HSNO Act 1996 for a release such as
requested, the palm species will be no longer considered a ‘new organism’. The unwanted
organism provisions of the Biosecurity Act 1998 provide control of plant species that
become unwanted.
Conclusion
At present we have no information to indicate that these three palm species pose
a risk to indigenous flora and fauna, however whether species within the genera
Dictyocarpum, have the potential to naturalise and become invasive remains
uncertain.
The Department considers that based on climate we cannot discount the
possibility that this species will naturalise or become invasive. The seed size and
reported difficulty in growing suggest that it is less likely to become invasive,
however the information on it being difficult to grow seems to be based on a
relatively limited cultivation history, which increases the uncertainty.
Comments co-ordinated on behalf of the Department of Conservation by
Leanne Perry-Meyer
New Organism Officer
Biosecurity Unit
Wellington
Technical advice provided by
Melanie Newfield
Weed ecologist
Page 44 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
Wellington
Page 45 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
Appendix 3: Expert advice on the application from Dr Rhys Gardner
Botanical advice on Application To Import For Release three species
of Dictyocaryon palms (Application Code NORO4001)
Report to: ERMA
By: Rhys O. Gardner 22 April 2004
INTRODUCTION
1. 1 have read the information on the Dictyocaryon palms supplied by the
applicant to ERMA — three application Form l’s (one form for each of the
three species) and 7 enclosures (6 relating to palm cultivation and
classification, 1 on Columbian climate). I have not gathered additional
written information.
2. There appears to be no critical feature that would prevent the three species
being considered together, and in what follows these organisms are referred
to just as Dictyocaryon. This statement shold be taken to anticipate the first
part of the third service requested of the writer, that is, is the whole genus in
the same risk category ?
SERVICES PROVIDED HERE
1. In my opinion, Dictyocaryon is not likely to cause: a significant
displacement of any native species ... ; any significant deterioration of natural
habitats; any significant effects on human health and safety; any significant
adverse effect on NZ’s inherent genetic diversity; cause disease, be parasitic
or become a vector for human, animal or plant disease.
My reasons are as follows.
The possibility of Dictyocaryon causing a significant displacement of a NZ
native species or deterioration of our natural habitats would be most likely
occur if these plants were to naturalize here. Then, through outcompeting one
or more native species, or through causing some other disturbance to the
ecosystem, a significant displacement might occur.
Suppose a cultivated population of Dictyocaryon were to achieve sexual
maturity in cultivation in NZ. These palms have male and female flowers in
the same inflorescence, and, provided there is no self-incompatibility (no
information is available on this) fruit might be expected to form.
Page 46 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
In the first instance, no doubt, such fruit would be gathered by the
horticulturalist. However, the possibility of fruit being dispersed into natural
environments needs to be considered. The Dictyocaryon fruit is a fleshycoated one of c. 2-3.5 cm long. The most likely animal to disperse such fruit
away from a nursery situation in NZ is the native pigeon. Sometimes this bird
processes the fruit in the tree it is feeding on, but perhaps more usually the
fruits are held in the bird’s stomach for some time, and then regurgitated.
Clearly, dispersal might occur under such circumstances; I can be no more
precise.
The demanding habitat requirements of Dictyocaryon would seem to indicate
that establishment to maturity after such a long-distance dispersal, say into
native bush, would be unlikely. The applicant expects to be able to grow
these palms, presumably at Tauranga and with their special requirements
fufilled, in particular an ensured water supply and high humidity, and
protection from frost. The present world-wide rarity of Dictyocaryon in
cultivation suggests that their habitat requirements are not commonly met
with, or duplicated, outside their natural range. In my opinion, the only part
of New Zealand that might be able to support an untended colony of
Dictyocaryon would be the mountain ranges north of Auckland. However,
any wild colony in such places is likely to be killed by summer drought, at
some time in the long period (c. 20 years, reportedly) it takes for these plants
to reach sexual maturity.
The possibility that there would be any significant adverse effect on NZ’s
genetic diversity has partly been covered above in that I consider it very
unlikely that Dictyocaryon would be able to naturalize in New Zealand.
Another loss of genetic diversity might be considered to be through
hybridization with some native NZ species. The taxonomic distance between
Dictyocaryon and our only native palm, the nikau (Rhopalostylis sapida),
makes this very unlikely.
I see no special reason to suppose that import of fruit or even live plants of
Dictyocaryon would be likely to introduce disease to nikau or other plants or
animals of NZ.
The possibility that the growth of Dictyocaryon in NZ would have significant
effects on human health and safety can be excluded: there is no
morphological feature of these palms, other than the “rather blunt” spines of
the prop-roots, that might be threatening.
2. As discussed above, I consider the likelihood that Dictyocaryon might be
able to establish “an undesirable self-sustaining population” is very low.
Eradication of a wild population would, in most respects, be straightforward:
Dictyocaryon has no special means of vegetative propagation, is not
physically protected apart from its spiny proproots, and would be a relatively
Page 47 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
conspicuous plant in the NZ forest environment. Palm seeds
characteristically do not persist in the soil, so that is not a problem either. The
only feature I could point to as suggesting that eradication might be difficult
is that long-distance dispersal by native pigeon might produce single plants in
relatively remote localities.
3. The third service requested is whether the writer considers the whole genus
to be in the same risk category (answer: yes, as stated in Introduction above),
and also, whether or not the three species considered in this application are
the sole constituents of the genus.
The answer to this latter clause is, yes, these are the sole constituents — see
applicant’s enclosures from “An Encyclopaedia of Cultivated Palms”( 2003)
and from “Field Guide to the Palms of the Americas” 1995. Note that one of
the authors (A. Henderson) of the latter work appears to have monographed
the genus, or at least provided a synopsis of it, in 1990. Thus the uncertainty
present in the authoritative “Genera Palmarum” (1987) over the number of
species in Dictyocaryon has been dispelled.
Page 48 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.
Appendix 4: Weed Risk Assessment from Landcare Research
Page 49 of 49
ERMA New Zealand Evaluation & Review Report: NOR04001: Import for Release or Release
from Containment any New Organism: Rapid Assessment.