Key Threatening Process Nomination Form
for amending the list of key threatening processes under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)
2012 Assessment Period
This nomination form is designed to assist in the preparation of nominations of threatening processes consistent with
the Regulations and EPBC Act. The listing of a key threatening process under the EPBC Act is designed to prevent native
species or ecological communities from becoming threatened or prevent threatened species and ecological communities
from becoming more threatened.
Many processes that occur in the landscape are, or could be, threatening processes, however priority for listing will be
directed to key threatening processes, those factors that most threaten biodiversity at national scale.
For a key threatening process to be eligible for listing it must meet at least one of the three listing criteria. If there is
insufficient data and information available to allow completion of the questions for each of the listing criteria, state this
in your nomination under the relevant question.
Note – Further detail to help you complete this form is provided at Attachment A.
If using this form in Microsoft Word, you can jump to this information by Ctrl+clicking the hyperlinks (in blue text).
Nominated key threatening process
1. NAME OF KEY THREATENING PROCESS
Ecosystem degradation, habitat loss and species decline in arid and semi-arid Australia due to the
invasion of buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris and C. pennisetiformis)
2.
CRITERIA UNDER WHICH THE KEY THREATENING PROCESS IS ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING
Please mark the boxes that apply by clicking them with your mouse.
Evidence that the threatening process could cause a native species or ecological
Criterion A
community to become eligible for listing in any category, other than conservation
dependent.
Criterion B
Criterion C
3.
Evidence that the threatening process could cause a listed threatened species or
ecological community to become eligible for listing in another category representing a
higher degree of endangerment.
Evidence that the threatening process adversely affects two or more listed threatened
species (other than conservation dependent species) or two or more listed threatened
ecological communities.
2012 CONSERVATION THEME: Corridors and connecting habitats (including freshwater
habitats)
Is the current conservation theme relevant to this key threatening process? If so, explain how.
Corridors and connecting habitats, including freshwater habitats, are extremely relevant to the nominated threatening
process (referred hereafter as the “invasion of buffel grass”) on a number of levels, including:
Recognised landscape scale corridors.
Biological corridors and connecting habitats.
Physical corridors.
Landscape corridors
Buffel grass is the most significant threat to biodiversity in a number of nationally recognised landscape scale habitat
corridors, as identified in the Draft National Wildlife Corridors Plan), including:
“Trans-Australia Eco-Link”, linking northern and south Australia, and
“East meets West”, linking the shrubland and woodlands between Eastern and Western Australia.
The management of the invasion of buffel grass along these corridors will be a key platform to ensure these corridors
facilitate the maintenance of biodiversity and the provision of resilience against climate change.
Biological corridors
Unassisted invasions of buffel grass typically occur along roads and watercourses. These features are important
introduction pathways whereby buffel grass can spread into new landscapes. Ephemeral watercourses and “desert
rivers”, which are key biodiversity corridors in arid Australia, are the preferred environment for the establishment and
spread of buffel grass in arid Australia (Albrechts and Pitts 1997). In northern South Australia and central Australia, the
initial invasion of buffel grass often occurs along red-gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) lined ephemeral watercourses,
prior to spreading out into the surrounding area (M. Ward pers. obs.). Rivers and creeklines in arid Australia provide
refugia for many plant and animal species due to their enhanced nutrients, water and habitat complexity, and each of
these benefits can be negatively affected by dense buffel grass infestations (Humphries et al. 1993). Furthermore, the
invasion of buffel grass is very detrimental to many plant and animal species which rely on corridors in facilitating their
dispersal. Recently, proposals have been submitted to the Australian Government’s Biodiversity Fund focusing on
managing buffel grass along “desert rivers” in the Finke IBRA region, and across the Alinytjara Wilurara NRM Region.
The impact of Buffel grass on arid ecosystem function is significant. This is because creek lines typically act as
a blockade to the spread of fire, even when dry, because the soils within the creek do not support the growth
of dense, fire-fuelling grasses. Anecdotal evidence indicates that Buffel grass thrives along creek lines in dry
environments (Miller et al., 2010). Thus, a feature that should prevent the spread of fire can now transport it,
effectively acting as the “wick for the fire” (Humphries et al., 1992 as cited in D’antonio and Vitousek, 1992)
and the fear, however sensationalised, is that Buffel grass will transform arid environments such as the
Sonora Desert into African-style savannas (e.g. see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQtIVzSrqZY)
Where it occurs, buffel grass is also filling in much of the usual bare-ground spacing between native grasses,
shrubs and trees. This bare-ground spacing is a feature of most arid and semi-arid Australian ecosystems, in
most years, and helps to stop most wildfires from becoming too extensive and from occurring too often.
Buffel grass is significantly altering this ecosystem feature and enabling more catastrophic fires to occur.
Control of buffel grass along invasion pathways is therefore a priority for preventing colonisation of new regions and for
limiting the ecological impacts of buffel grass both in key connecting habitats and the adjacent broadscale environment.
Invasion pathways
Man-made corridors, including roads, railways and pipelines, are significant pathways for the introduction of buffel grass
(Cenchrus ciliaris and C. pennisetiformis) into un-infested regions. Buffel grass seed is spread by graders and other
earthmoving equipment and the wind created by vehicles along these corridors (Griffin 1993). Disturbed ground within
the corridors, particularly where increased runoff occurs, is able to be rapidly colonised by buffel grass. These corridors
can therefore provide a stepping stone for buffel grass infestation into the wider environment once suitable conditions
are available.
4.
THREAT STATUS
Is the key threatening process listed under State/Territory Government legislation? Is the threat recognised under other
legislation or intergovernmental arrangements?
Although several regional Natural Resource Management (NRM) Boards and Catchment Management Authorities
(CMAs) have identified buffel grass as an important natural resource management issue (South Australian Arid Lands,
Alinytjara Wilurara, Western Australian Rangelands, Northern Territory, Friedel et al. 2006), buffel grass has not been
declared as a registered weed under relevant legislation in any state (Grice et al. 2011). However, recent studies have
demonstrated sufficient common understanding amongst a range of stakeholders that the threats posed by buffel grass
to the conservation estate warrant the development of consistent policy for management of buffel grass (Friedel et al.
2011).
Despite not being listed under any state’s legislation, the threat posed by buffel grass is considered ‘very high’ in both
the arid rangelands and native vegetation land uses of Australia, with 68% of Australia considered suitable to highly
suitable for the establishment of significant buffel grass populations (Lawson et al 2004). As a result, there is currently a
range of plans and strategies which identify and target the risk of buffel grass to EPBC matters of environmental
significant at a more local scale. Examples include:
The Draft South Australia Buffel Grass Strategy 2012-2017 identifies the significant threat of buffel grass,
outlines a range of management zones to facilitate management, and promotes the formation of a state-wide
taskforce to (i) coordinate and facilitate the exchange of information on control initiatives around the State, (ii)
provide a clearer overview and better evaluation of the risk to the State from buffel grass, and (iii) recommend
better coordination of buffel grass policy.
The Draft Alinytjara Wilurara Fire Management Strategy identifies buffel grass as the single biggest risk to
biodiversity (EPBC listed and otherwise), life and property in the Alinytjara Wilurara NRM region which
constitutes about 25% of the land area of the State (Alinytjara Wilurara NRM Board 2012).
A risk assessment performed for the biodiversity of the Olympic Dam region considered the risk posed by buffel
grass to be extreme, resulting in management targets of eradicating all populations in that region (BHPB 2007)
Buffel grass has been identified as a threat to both the natural and cultural values within the Uluru-Kata Tjuta
National Park (UKTNP) and a comprehensive containment and removal policy has been developed for this
World Heritage area (UKTNP 2009).
Buffel grass has been identified as a significant threat in a range of threatened species recovery plans (EPBC
listed or otherwise, see Sections 10 – 15).
Whilst not specific to buffel grass, there are parts of state plans and legislation which can have influence on the threat of
buffel grass. In South Australia, for example:
Section 4(b) (ii) of the SA Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act, 1989, provides legislative basis for
preventing the introduction of non-indigenous plants such as buffel grass in order to “prevent degradation of
the land and its indigenous plant and animal life”.
Also, Goal 4 of the State NRM Plan: Integrated management of biological threats to minimise risks to natural
systems, communities and industry
Description of the key threatening process
5.
DESCRIPTION
Describe the threatening process in a way that distinguishes it from any other threatening process, by reference to:
a. its biological and non-biological components;
b. the processes by which those components interact (if known).
Buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris and C. pennisetiformis) comprises a suite of species and ecotypes originating from Africa
and the Middle East but now rapidly colonising arid ecosystems in Australia and North America. CLIMAX modelling has
shown that 25% of Australia, primarily in central Australia, is highly suitable for buffel grass whilst a further 43% is
suitable for C. ciliaris establishment (Lawson et al. 2004). Jessop et al (2004) report that “Bates considers that C.
pennisetiformis may become a greater threat than C. ciliaris in southern Australia”. Therefore, both species are
considered together in this nomination. Recent evidence suggests that climatic tolerances and hence potential
distribution of buffel grass are increasing as a result of new cultivars (Hacker & Waite 2001) or hybridisation (Friedel et
al. 2006). For example, BIOCLIM modelling predicts that 69.5% of South Australia is highly or very highly suitable, and no
part of the State's land area is entirely unsuitable, for establishment of buffel grass (Marshall and Hobbs 2010).
Buffel grass is a long-lived, deep-rooted and high biomass tussock grass that out-competes native vegetation through a
number of processes. It is characterised by prolonged flowering/fruiting periods, prolific seed production, high seed
dispersal ability, relatively long seed dormancy and tolerance to drought, fire and grazing (Franks 2002; Franks et al.
2000). Unlike many other weeds and native grasses, new buffel grass germinants can grow and set seed in as little as 3
to 6 weeks with sufficient moisture, and re-shooting mature plants can flower within 10 days after a rainfall event
(Puckey and Albrecht 2004), especially after wildfires, as the ashes are reported to make good seedbeds (Paul and Lee
1978). Although buffel grass favours creeks, alluvial plains, calcareous areas and rocky ranges (Albrecht and Pitts 1997),
it easily naturalises on a range of soil types and quickly forms self-sustaining populations under a range of disturbance
regimes (Franks 2002). Buffel grass predominates in areas where summer rainfall ranges from 150-550 mm, winter
rainfall is less than 400 mm, mean minimum winter temperatures rarely fall below 5oC, and soil texture is loamy (Cox et
al. 1988), however, it has been successful in a broad range of soil types and landscapes.
When buffel grass is dense it can dominate light and space, reducing opportunities for native vegetation establishment
(Miller 2003). Even at lower densities, buffel grass reduces soil nitrogen (Humphreys 1967), exhausting the mineral pool
(Cavaye 1991) and also inhibits plant regeneration and growth through allelopathic suppression (Cheam 1984). Buffel
grass aggressively colonises riparian habitats where it forms dense monocultures, displacing native vegetation. These
mesic areas are functionally critical in a landscape where water is limiting to growth. Such mesic areas are also nutrient
sinks and tend to support higher flora and fauna productivity, including endemic or rare species (Humphries et al. 1993).
Although buffel grass monocultures pose a significant threat to native vegetation and adapted biodiversity within their
own right, it is the subsequent risk that buffel grass poses through fire that is of most threat to biodiversity, indigenous
culture, life and property. Buffel grass produces approximately 2-3 times the combustible material of displaced native
grasses, which results in hotter, more intense wildfires (Humphries 1993). Buffel grass threatens plant and animal
communities that are not adapted to fire, by increasing the intensity and frequency of natural fire regimes (Adair and
Groves 1998; NBIIISSG 2005). Unlike most grassy weeds that primarily only affect groundcover vegetation, the invasion
of the canopy shadow of trees by highly flammable buffel grass threatens keystone arid zone trees such as river red
gums (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), corkwoods (Hakea species) and beefwoods (Grevillea striata, Friedel et al 2006) with
flow-on effects to other plants and animals.
For example, the Rare and Threatened Flora Management Plan for the APY Lands of NW South Australia (Paltridge et al.
2009) identifies 12 flora species in that region alone under threat from buffel grass. Buffel grass threatens stands of
long-unburnt vegetation, for example red gum and mulga woodlands, hummock and Triodia grasslands, and the fauna
that rely on these. High species richness of vertebrates including a suite of hollow-dependent birds, mammals and
reptiles is directly threatened by increased fire intensity and frequency in woodland habitats (Neave et al. 2004). Triodia
specialist fauna, including grasswrens (Paltridge et al 2009), spinifex bird, and many reptile species also lose
shelter/nesting sites and food resources when Triodia is displaced by buffel grass. Granivorous birds and rodents such as
delicate mouse, finches and some parrots that do not include buffel grass seeds in their diets declined as the cover of
buffel grass increased (Ludwig et al. 2000; Franks et al. 2000). Other localised populations of threatened species (e.g.
warru (black-flanked rock-wallaby), malleefowl and great desert skink) are also threatened by buffel grass-driven
transformation of their specialised habitats (Paltridge et al 2009). Buffel grass can also affect invertebrates through
changes in habitat structure (Best 1998) and fire regimes (Butler and Fairfax 2003).
These biological processes that make buffel grass such a threat in arid and semiarid Australia closely mirror the effects of
other high biomass and flammable introduced grasses (e.g. Gamba Grass, Mission Grass) that have already been
recognised as a Key Threatening Process in tropical and subtropical regions of Australia. Through its dramatic and
sustained ecological transformation, buffel grass invasion poses a far greater threat than all other invasive weeds of
central Australia. Other arid zone weeds, including those recognised as Weeds Of National Significance, are either largely
restricted to disturbed or fertile patches, are outcompeted by native species in dry seasons, or do not exhibit traits such
as the aforementioned fire feedback loop that cause major ecosystem upheaval.
In summary, buffel grass is considered one of Australia’s worst weeds (Humphries et al. 1991) and a ‘transformer
weed’ of the Australian rangelands (Grice 2006, Bastin et al. 2008) due to its ability to transform the basic attributes
of habitats. It is widely considered to be the most debilitating weed of natural ecosystems in arid and semi-arid
Australia and directly or indirectly displaces and threatens a large percentage of native and endemic plants and
animals of arid and semi-arid Australia (Best 1998; McIvor 1998; Fairfax and Fensham 2000; Franks 2002; McIvor 2003;
Griffen 1993; Latz 1997; Low 1997; Ludwig et al. 2000; Butler and Fairfax 2003; Miller 2003; Puckey and Albrecht 2004;
Clarke, et al 2005; Paltridge et al. 2009; Smythe et al. 2009).
Criterion A: non-EPBC act listed species/ecological communities
6.
SPECIES THAT COULD BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING AND JUSTIFICATION
Provide details and justification of non-EPBC Act listed species that, due to the impact of the key threatening process,
could become eligible for listing in any category, other than conservation dependent. For each species please include:
a.
the scientific name, common name (if appropriate), category it could become eligible for listing in;
b. data on the current status in relation to the criteria for listing;
c. specific information on how the threatening process threatens this species; and
d. information on the extent to which the threat could change the status of the species in relation to the criteria
for listing.
Species /
Community
Scientific Name
Melaleuca
fulgens subsp.
corrugata
Acacia tenuior
Eremophila
willsii subsp.
indeterminate
Common
Name
Wrinkled
Honey Myrtle
Central
Ranges
Wattle
Musgrave
Ranges
Fuschia
IUCN category under
which it could become
listed through ongoing
invasion and threats of
Buffel Grass
Reference /
Information
Warrants a current listing. Ongoing
invasion of Buffel Grass and associated
fires could see a population size
reduction of >50% in next ten years.
Endangered: A.3. B.1.b.i.
APY Rare and
Threatened Plant
Management Plan
(Paltridge et al 2009)
Buffel grass promotes inappropriate
fire regimes. The ongoing invasion of
buffel grass across the Central Ranges
IBRA ranges will not only outcompete
this species but also increase the
frequency and intensity of fires, posing
a threat to small and isolated endemic
plant species.
Warrants a current listing. Ongoing
invasion of Buffel Grass and associated
wildfires could see a population size
reduction of >80% in next ten years.
Critically Endangered:
A.3.B.2.b.i.
APY Rare and
Threatened Plant
Management Plan
(Paltridge et al 2009)
Buffel grass promotes inappropriate
fire regimes. The ongoing invasion of
buffel grass across the Central Ranges
IBRA ranges will not only outcompete
this species but also increase the
frequency and intensity of fires, posing
a threat to small and isolated endemic
plant species.
Warrants a current listing. Ongoing
invasion of Buffel Grass and associated
fires could see a population size
reduction of >50% in next ten years.
Endangered: A.3. B.1.b.i.
APY Rare and
Threatened Plant
Management Plan
(Paltridge et al 2009)
Data on Current status
Specific Information on how KTP
threatens species
Information on the extent to which
the threat could change the status of
the species in relation to the criteria
for listing
Endangered
Endemic to Central Ranges IBRA
region. All populations surveyed
on the APY Lands contain very
few individuals and are under
threat from inappropriate fire
regimes. Total Area of
Occupancy in South Australia is
less than 5km2. Total number of
mature individuals is known to be
less than 2500 individuals
Buffel grass promotes inappropriate
fire regimes. The ongoing invasion of
buffel grass across the Central Ranges
IBRA ranges will not only outcompete
this species but also increase the
frequency and intensity of fires, posing
a threat to small and isolated endemic
plant species.
Critically
Endangered
Currently only two populations of
A. tenuior known, the
combination of small population
size and disjunct population
means that this species is at risk
of extinction form catastrophic
events posed from Buffel Grass
Currently only one population
known from Australia, in APY
Lands.
Category it
could become
listed in
Endangered
Species /
Community
Scientific Name
Calostemma
abdicatum
Common
Name
Everard
Garland Lily
Acacia ammobia
Mount
Connor
Wattle
Goodenia
brunnea
Central
Ranges
Goodenia
Teucrium reidii
Sminthopsis
longicaudata
Showy
Germander
Long-tailed
Dunnart
IUCN category under
which it could become
listed through ongoing
invasion and threats of
Buffel Grass
Reference /
Information
Data on Current status
Specific Information on how KTP
threatens species
Information on the extent to which
the threat could change the status of
the species in relation to the criteria
for listing
Three known populations. Area
of occupancy 0.04km2
Few known populations. Although
known populations have many
individuals, they are highly clumped in
distribution making them vulnerable to
major perturbations. Major buffel grass
fire could see this species negatively
impacted upon.
Warrants a current listing. Ongoing
buffel invasion and associated
inappropriate fire regimes could see
current Area Of Occupancy of less than
2000km2 continue to decline (P. Lanf
pers. comm.)
Vulnerable:B.2.b.
APY Rare and
Threatened Plant
Management Plan
(Paltridge et al 2009)
Vulnerable
Relatively abundant but restricted
to Mt Connor / Uluru district of
the Central Ranges Region
Highly sensitive to fire - killed by the
mildest of fires and populations would
require a fire frequency of less than 25
years. Buffel grass promotes very hot
fires. Ongoing invasion of buffel grass
in Central Ranges, therefore, poses a
threat to this species in the long-term
Ongoing buffel invasion could see
current number of individuals of >30%
over next three generations
Vulnerable: A.3.
APY Rare and
Threatened Plant
Management Plan
(Paltridge et al 2009)
Vulnerable
Limited distribution - endemic to
Central Ranges region. Total
extent of occurrence 27,523km2
Goodenia brunnea is a primary
successional plant following fire. If
Buffel grass becomes the dominant
successional species, it will
outcompete Goodenia brunnea.
Ongoing buffel invasion and
outcompeting Goodenia brunnea could
see Extent of Occurrence to reduce less
than 20,000km2
Vulnerable: B.1.b.i
APY Rare and
Threatened Plant
Management Plan
(Paltridge et al 2009)
Small population sizes and
limited distribution to APY Lands
in Central Ranges region. Total
known population size probably
<5000 individuals nationally
Buffel Grass currently known to be
significantly encroaching on two largest
known remaining populations. Fire
sensitive plant. Inappropriate fire
regimes and competition from Buffel
Grass will significantly affect this
species status.
Ongoing buffel invasion and associated
fire effects could see population size
remain at fewer than 10,000 mature
individuals and an estimated continuing
decline of at least 10% within ten years
Vulnerable: C.1
NATIONAL
RECOVERY PLAN
FOR Olearia
macdonnellensis,
Minuria tridens
(Minnie Daisy) and
Actinotus schwarzii
(Desert Flannelflower)
Very scattered populations
Distribution limited to rocky ranges
where buffel colonises rapidly.
Vulnerable to habitat destruction
through inappropriate fire regimes
Uncontrolled buffel invasion and
associated fire effects could see
population size remain at fewer than
10,000 mature individuals and an
estimated continuing decline of at least
10% within ten years
Vulnerable: C.1
Category it
could become
listed in
Vulnerable
Endangered
Vulnerable
7.
ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES THAT COULD BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING AND JUSTIFICATION
Provide details and justification of non-EPBC Act listed ecological communities that, due to the impact of the key
threatening process, could become eligible for listing in any category. For each ecological community please include:
a. the complete title (published or otherwise generally accepted), category it could become eligible for listing in;
b. data on the current status in relation to the criteria for listing;
c. specific information on how the threatening process threatens this ecological community; and
d. information on the extent to which the threat could change the status of the ecological community in relation
to the criteria for listing.
Common Name
Desert Rivers of
the Central
Ranges and
Finke region
Category it could
become listed in
Vulnerable
Data on
Current status
Specific Information on how KTP threatens
species
Information on the extent to which
the threat could change the status
of the species in relation to the
criteria for listing
IUCN category under which it
could become listed through
ongoing invasion and threats
of Buffel Grass
In a state of
rapid decline
due to invasion
of feral animals
and plants
Desert rivers of the Central Ranges and the Finke
River system are threatened by the invasion of
buffel grass, which initially colonises in the
ephemeral creek beds, from where it spreads out
to surrounding areas. Uncontrolled, hot wildfires
from this buffel grass invasion then destroys
significant Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis
woodlands which are important habitat for birds
and mammals.
Uncontrolled spread of buffel grass will
cause a rapid decline in desert river
systems
Vulnerable
Reference /
Information
Criterion B: Listing in a higher category of endangerment
8.
SPECIES THAT COULD BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING IN A HIGHER CATEGORY OF
ENDANGERMENT AND JUSTIFICATION
Provide details and justification of EPBC Act listed threatened species that, due to the impacts of the threatening
process, could become eligible for listing in another category representing a higher degree of endangerment. For each
species please include:
a. the scientific name, common name (if appropriate), category that the item is currently listed in and the
category it could become eligible for listing in;
b. data on the current status in relation to the criteria for listing (at least one criterion for the current listed
category has been previously met);
c. specific information on how the threatening process significantly threatens this species; and
d. information on the extent to which the threat could change the status of the species in relation to the criteria
for listing. This does not have to be the same criterion under which the species was previously listed.
Species Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Petrogale lateralis
MacDonnell
Ranges Race
Blackfooted
rockwallaby /
Warru
Liopholis slateri
slateri
Liopholis slateri
virgata
Slater's
Skink
Liopholis
slateri
virgata
Current
Listing
Category
Vulnerable
Endangered
Endangered
Category it
could become
eligible for
listing
IUCN category under
which it could become
listed through ongoing
invasion and threats of
Buffel Grass
Reference /
Information
Endangered: A.3
Warru
Recovery Plan
(Read and
Ward 2011)
Reduced food and feeding success in
buffel dominated habitats. Increase in
fire frequency.
Uncontrolled buffel grass invasion
could see population size drop to
fewer than 250 mature individuals
and a continuing decline in numbers
of mature individuals and no
subpopulation estimated to contain
more than 50 mature individuals
Critically Endangered:
C.2.a.(i)
http://www.nt.
gov.au/nreta/w
ildlife/animals/t
hreatened/pdf/
herps/egernia
_slateri_en.pdf
Reduced food and feeding success in
buffel dominated habitats. Increase in
fire frequency.
Uncontrolled buffel grass invasion
could see population size drop to
fewer than 250 mature individuals
and a continuing decline in numbers
of mature individuals and no
subpopulation estimated to contain
more than 50 mature individuals
Critically Endangered:
C.2.a.(i)
Data on Current
status
Specific Information on how KTP
threatens species
Information on the extent to which
the threat could change the status
of the species in relation to the
criteria for listing
Endangered
Declining populations
across its range.
Buffel grass promotes hot wildfires
which can destroy fire sensitive
vegetation on which warru rely, such
as Figs (Ficus) and Spearbush
(Pandorea sp.). Uncontrolled spread of
buffel grass will threaten remaining
populations of warru
Uncontrolled buffel grass
encroachment on warru habitat and
associated negative impacts could
see a population size reduction of >
50% over the next ten years
Critically
Endangered
Very few remaining
populations.
Restricted to alluvial
plains in central areas
of the MacDonnell
region of the Northern
Territory. Total
population thought to
be 200-300
individuals
Critically
Endangered
Only known from four
individuals and not
seen since 1914
National
Recovery Plan
Liopholis kintorei
Tjakura /
Great
Desert
Skink
Vulnerable
Endangered
Seven isolated
populations spread
across WA, NT and
South Australia
totalling
approximately 6000
individuals
Ongoing spread of buffel grass will
change the structure of preferred open
feeding grounds of Tjakura, as well as
promoting frequent wildfires which will
completely change the structure of
preferred vegetation.
Uncontrolled spread of buffel grass
could see a reduction in population
size over >50% over the next ten
years.
Endangered: A.3
http://www.env
ironment.gov.
au/biodiversity
/threatened/pu
blications/reco
very/greatdesertskink/index.ht
ml
Species Scientific
Name
Stipiturs mallee
Notomys fuscus
Croitana aestival
Commo
n Name
Mallee
Emuwren
Dusky
Hopping
Mouse
Desert
Sand
Skipper
Current Listing
Category
Endangered
Vulnerable
Endangered
Category it
could become
eligible for
listing
Data on Current
status
Specific Information on how KTP
threatens species
Information on the extent to which
the threat could change the status
of the species in relation to the
criteria for listing
Critically
Endangered
Few remaining
populations. Extent of
occurrence estimated
at The extent of
occurrence is
conservatively
estimated at 3856 km²
and declining very
rapidly. Estimated
population size 1440
to 2814 mature
individuals and
declining rapidly
Mallee Emu-wrens are restricted to
Triodia and heath of particular age
since fire. The invasion of buffel grass
on the sandy country in which they live
would result in an increase in fire
frequency and replacement of native
vegetation with buffel grass which is
inappropriate for mallee emu-wrens
replacement by buffel will remove
habitat
An uncontrolled infestation of buffel
grass with associated wildfire in the
primary distribution in western
Victoria could see could see
population size reduced rapidly to
fewer than 250 individuals and a
continuing decline with no
subpopulations estimated to contain
more than 50 mature individuals
Endangered
Has a restricted
distribution to refuges
during dry periods.
Critically
Endangered
Four records. The
extent of occurrence
for the Desert Sandskipper estimated to
be less than 100 km²
The refuges of the dusky hoppingmouse are in fire sensitive habitats
which will be destroyed with the large
fires that buffel grass monocultures
can carry. The distribution of the dusky
hopping-mouse corresponds with
highly suitable buffel grass habitat,
particularly along the ephemeral
creeklines of the channel country.
The spread of Buffel Grass (Cenchrus
ciliaris) is expected to have degraded
the habitat at all known locations and it
is believed this will lead to the
continued decline of the species
(Braby et al. 2007; TSSC 2006v)
through loss of their native grass larval
food plants.
The invasion of buffel grass into
refuge habitats and subsequent
negative effects could see an
observed population size reduction of
>50% over a ten year period.
The invasion of buffel grass into
Desert Sand Skipper habitat could
see the area of occupancy reduced to
less than 10km2 and a continuing
decline
IUCN category under
which it could become
listed through ongoing
invasion and threats of
Buffel Grass
Reference /
Information
Critically Endangered:
C.2.a.(i)
http://www.env
ironment.gov.
au/biodiversity
/threatened/sp
ecies/pubs/59
459conservationadvice.pdf
Endangered: A.3
http://www.env
ironment.gov.
au/biodiversity
/threatened/sp
ecies/pubs/12
5conservationadvice.pdf
Critically Endangered:
B.2.b.(ii)
http://www.nt.
gov.au/nreta/w
ildlife/animals/t
hreatened/pdf/
inverts/desert_
sandskipper_
EN.pdf.
Species Scientific
Name
Olearia
macdonnellensis
Minuria tridens
Common
Name
NA
Minnie
Daisy
Current
Listing
Category
Vulnerable
Vulnerable
Category it
could become
eligible for
listing
Data on Current
status
Endangered
Confined to the
MacDonnell Ranges
Bioregion where it is
currently known from
several isolated
populations, mainly in
the central-western
portion of the
MacDonnell Ranges.
Total area of
occupancy is
estimated to be < 20
km2. All populations
are considered
necessary for its longterm survival and
recovery. Buffel grass
listed in Recovery
Plan as key threat.
Endangered
Minuria tridens is
restricted to
approximately 20
scattered populations
on south facing slops
of the MacDonnell
Ranges IBRA region.
Area of Occupancy
less than 2000km2
Specific Information on how KTP
threatens species
Olearia macdonnellensis is likely killed by
fire and recovery time requires low fire
frequencies. The invasion of buffel grass is
likely to increase the threat of fire and these
populations. Once established, buffel-grass
has the ability to negatively affect both M.
tridens and O. macdonnellensis directly
through resource competition. This is likely
to be especially intense at early life stages,
leading to heightened recruitment failure if
germination and establishment requirements
can no longer be met. O. macdonnellensis
would be particularly affected if, like many of
its congeners, it has a light requirement for
germination. Both species are additionally
potentially threatened by increased fire
intensity and frequency in severely affected
sites. Buffel-grass produces large amounts
of biomass which, when dried, represents a
significant increase in site fuel load.
Minuria tridens is threatened by the invasion
of the exotic perennial grass Cenchrus
ciliaris (buffel grass) into core habitat areas.
The Alice Springs Municipality sites are most
severely affected. Once established, buffelgrass has the ability to negatively affect both
M. tridens and O. macdonnellensis directly
through resource competition. This is likely
to be especially intense at early life stages,
leading to heightened recruitment failure if
germination and establishment requirements
can no longer be met. O. macdonnellensis
would be particularly affected if, like many of
its congeners, it has a light requirement for
germination. Both species are additionally
potentially threatened by increased fire
intensity and frequency in severely affected
sites. Buffel-grass produces large amounts
of biomass which, when dried, represents a
significant increase in site fuel load.
Information on the extent to
which the threat could
change the status of the
species in relation to the
criteria for listing
An uncontrolled infestation of
buffel grass within the known
population could see an Area of
Occupancy of less than 500km2
and a continuing decline in
extent of occurrence and area
of occupancy
Uncontrolled buffel grass
invasion could see Area of
occupancy reduce to less than
500 km2 and continuing decline
in extent of occurrence and
area of occupancy
IUCN category under
which it could become
listed through ongoing
invasion and threats of
Buffel Grass
Reference /
Information
Endangered: B. 2. b (i)
http://www.env
ironment.gov.
au/biodiversity
/threatened/pu
blications/reco
very/pubs/dais
ies-flannelflower.pdf
B.2.b.i.ii.
http://www.env
ironment.gov.
au/biodiversity
/threatened/pu
blications/reco
very/pubs/dais
ies-flannelflower.pdf
Species Scientific
Name
Acacia undoolyana
Acacia latzii
Prostanthera
nudula
Thryptomene
hexandra
Common
Name
Sickledleaf wattle
Latz's
wattle
Naked
Mintbush
Palm
valley
Myrtle
Current
Listing
Category
Vulnerable
Vulnerable
Vulnerable
Vulnerable
Category it
could become
eligible for
listing
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Data on Current
status
Endemic to a small
part of the East
MacDonnell Ranges.
A restricted area of
occupancy of <2000
km2. Extent of
occurrence <20 000
km2. A continuing
and inferred decline
due to an increase in
fire frequency
Endemic to the Finke
bioregion where it is
restricted to two areas
about 200km apart.
Total known area of
occupancy <
2000km2
Small number of
remaining populations
endemic to the APY
Lands. Area of
occupancy < 2000
km2
Small number of
remaining
populations.
Specific Information on how KTP
threatens species
Information on the extent to
which the threat could
change the status of the
species in relation to the
criteria for listing
Acacia undoolyana is sensitive to fire and
requires low fire frequencies, and is
therefore threatened by increased fire
intensity and frequency from buffel grass
fires.
Uncontrolled buffel grass
invasion could see Area of
occupancy reduce to less than
500 km2 and continuing decline
in extent of occurrence and
area of occupancy
Acacia latzii is slow growing and sensitive to
fire and requires low fire frequencies, and is
therefore threatened by increased fire
intensity and frequency from buffel grass
fires.
Uncontrolled buffel grass
invasion could see Area of
occupancy reduce to less than
500 km2 and continuing decline
in extent of occurrence and
area of occupancy
Prostranthera nudula is sensitive to fire is
therefore threatened by increased fire
intensity and frequency from buffel grass
fires.
Uncontrolled buffel grass
invasion could see Area of
occupancy reduce to less than
500 km2 and continuing decline
in extent of occurrence and
area of occupancy
buffel invading limited rocky habitat and
increasing fire threat
Uncontrolled buffel grass
invasion could see Area of
occupancy reduce to less than
500 km2 and continuing decline
in extent of occurrence and
area of occupancy
IUCN category under
which it could become
listed through ongoing
invasion and threats of
Buffel Grass
Reference /
Information
B.2.b.i.ii.
http://www.nt.
gov.au/nreta/w
ildlife/animals/t
hreatened/pdf/
plants/Acacia_
undoolyana_V
U.pdf
B.2.b.i.ii.
http://www.env
ironment.gov.
au/biodiversity
/threatened/pu
blications/pub
s/r-gloriamedii.pdf
B.2.b.i.ii.
B.2.b.i.ii.
http://www.env
ironment.gov.
au/biodiversity
/threatened/sp
ecies/pubs/70
91conservationadvice.pdf
http://www.nt.
gov.au/nreta/w
ildlife/animals/t
hreatened/spe
cieslist.html).
9.
ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES THAT COULD BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING IN A HIGHER
CATEGORY OF ENDANGERMENT AND JUSTIFICATION
Provide details and justification of EPBC Act listed threatened ecological communities that, due to the impacts of the
threatening process, could become eligible for listing in another category representing a higher degree of
endangerment. For each ecological community please include:
a. the complete title (published or otherwise generally accepted), category that the item is currently listed in and
the category it could become eligible for listing in;
b. data on the current status in relation to the criteria for listing (at least one criterion for the current listed
category has been previously met);
c. specific information on how the threatening process significantly threatens this ecological community; and
d. information on the extent to which the threat could change the status of the ecological community in relation
to the criteria for listing. This does not have to be the same criterion under which the ecological community
was previously listed.
Criterion C: Adversely affected listed species or ecological communities
10. SPECIES ADVERSELY IMPACTED AND JUSTIFICATION
Provide a summary of species listed as threatened under the EPBC Act, that are considered to be adversely affected by
the threatening process. For each species please include:
a. the scientific name, common name (if appropriate) and category of listing under the EPBC Act; and
b. justification for each species that is claimed to be affected adversely by the threatening process.
Species
Scientific Name
Common Name
Current Category
Listing
Liopholis slateri
slateri
Slater’s Skink
Endangered
Croitana aestival
Desert Sand
Skipper
Endangered
Minuria tridens
Minnie Daisy
Vulnerable
Olearia
macdonnellensis
MacDonnell
Ranges Olearia
Vulnerable
Acacia
undoolyana
Undoolya Wattle
Vulnerable
Leiopoa ocellata
Malleefowl
Vulnerable
Dasycercus
cristicauda
Mulgara
Vulnerable
Justification for each species that is claimed to be affected
adversely by the threatening process
“Total population currently thought to be 200-300 animals. No
threatening processes have been positively demonstrated, although
degradation of its alluvial habitat as a result of invasion by the
introduced buffel grass and associated changes in fire regimes appears
the most likely causes of the species’ decline. In particular, the decline
and disappearance of Slater’s skink is correlated with the introduction
of buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris) into central Australia in the late
1960s. This weed has radically altered the vegetation structure and
species composition of drainage systems in central Australia. Buffel
grass is now the dominant ground cover at the type locality and
surrounding alluvial areas.”
The spread of Buffel Grass (Cenchrus ciliaris) is expected to have
degraded the habitat at all known locations and it is believed this will
lead to the continued decline of the species (Braby et al. 2007; TSSC
2006v) through loss of their native grass larval food plants.
Minuria tridens is threatened by the invasion of the exotic perennial
grass, Cenchrus ciliaris (buffel grass) into core habitat areas. The Alice
Springs Municipality sites are most severely affected.
O. macdonnellensis is threatened by wildfire (Kerrigan et al. 2006).
Buffel-grass is highly abundant in run on areas throughout the
MacDonnell Ranges and is therefore likely to occupy the creek lines
where O. macdonnellensis occurs.
Decline is inferred due to an increase in fire frequency (Soos et al.
1987; Latz 1992; Pitts et al. 1995). Widespread infestations of the
introduced buffel grass Cenchrus ciliaris may detrimentally affect this
species, particularly by increasing fire frequency and intensity in
adjacent alluvial land systems, such that fires can more
readily spread into Acacia undoolyana stands.
Continued invasion of buffel grass into arid woodlands will increase the
fire frequency, removing key food plants and habitat in which they build
their mounds – especially mulga / minyura woodlands and shrublands.
For all these species the invasion of buffel grass will significantly
change the structure and composition of their preferred habitat and
remove key resources through competition and wildfire.
11. ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES ADVERSELY IMPACTED AND JUSTIFICATION
Provide a summary of ecological communities listed as threatened under the EPBC Act that are considered to be
adversely affected by the threatening process. For each ecological community please provide:
a.
the complete title (exactly as listed) and category of listing under the EPBC Act; and
b.
justification for each ecological community that is claimed to be affected adversely by the threatening process.
Threat Abatement
12. THREAT ABATEMENT
Give an overview of how threats posed by this process are being abated by current (or proposed) activities. Identify who
is undertaking these activities and how successful the activities have been to date.
Consultation through this nomination process and previous survey research has demonstrated considerable common
ground across a range of stakeholders and suggestions that a national threat abatement plan should be considered
(Friedel et al. 2011, Grice et al. 2011). This would be very timely, because there are currently only three known buffel
grass management strategies / procedures, etc., and a national threat abatement plan could lead ongoing management
which will no doubt increase in the coming years as the threat of buffel grass continues to spread. Current officiallyrecognised buffel grass management activities in broader are outlined below.
The DENR Alinytjara Wilurara (AW) Region has recognised buffel grass as a significant threat to its unique biodiversity
and cultural assets, and in particular the EPBC listed species which occur within its boundaries. The AW NRM Board are
currently investing in the following management
One Authorised Officer and one dedicated indigenous Buffel Grass Project Officer whose role it is to support
the AW DENR's aspirational goal of eradicating buffel grass from the southern two thirds of the region.
Management activities of these staff primarily exist around mapping and spraying known buffel grass colonies.
AW DENR also support and facilitate training for indigenous land management authorities in order to increase
the capacity to manage buffel grass.
AW DENR is currently preparing a buffel grass operational strategy, which will fall under the South Australian
Buffel Grass Strategy, and outline priorities and workplans to ensure buffel grass is managed strategically within
the region
AW DENR is also supporting research which is investigating better aerial mapping techniques (Marshall 2012).
Overall, there has been good success in the southern part of the AW region, where buffel grass is in low
densities. However, with increasing densities outside the region and on transport corridors leading into the
region, there is a strong need for a broader approach.
The DENR South Australian Arid Lands Region has prepared a draft Buffel Grass Management Plan (Greenfield, 2007)
with the following objectives:
Take steps to prevent further deliberate introductions of buffel grass into the SAAL NRM regions.
Stakeholder awareness of buffel grass and its negative impacts improved.
A measurable reduction in buffel grass distribution in key areas achieved.
The impacts of buffel grass across the SAAL region strategically monitored.
Uluru Kata Tjutja National Park (UKTNP), management efforts have included (UKTNP 2009):
Mapping buffel grass distribution at one or both of the monoliths (1991 and 2003)
An on-going control program utilising Conservation Volunteers Australia (CVA) focusing in the past on Uluru and
Kata Tjuta and lately just at Uluru
Opportunistic control activities by operational rangers targeting infrastructure around Uluru
Removal of buffel grass at the women’s sacred site Pulari.
Overall, there are considerable challenges to the control of buffel grass in northern and central Australia: its
physiological and ecological characteristics; its widespread geographic distribution; the extensive area infested; the land
use present and, the current level of community awareness regarding impacts of this species (Greenfield 2007). In
addition, wind and water can potentially move buffel grass seed many kilometres in a single event. Below is a summary
of the major challenges of buffel grass management:
Once established there is no single control method available for the successful management of buffel grass over
extensive areas (Tu 2002). Prevention is the most cost-effective means of weed control. It is important
therefore to keep currently un-infested areas free of buffel grass, particularly near high value assets.
Information on the distribution of buffel grass, including where control works have been completed, is critical
to support planning. The degree of detail required would vary with the scale and purpose of the planning, for
example planning in eradication areas with scattered plants requires knowledge down to single plant level.
As the current extent of buffel grass in northern and central Australia precludes absolute control, effort needs
to be guided by decision making based on biodiversity values and other assets potentially at risk, logistics, and
available resources.
Chemical and mechanical methods, and in some situations fire can be used in an integrated control program for
buffel grass. All methods may be effective in particular situations depending on the infestation density and
extent, terrain, resources, and the management objectives (e.g. eradication or containment). There is potential
to improve the effectiveness of control methods for some sites and to then disseminate the knowledge to weed
managers and landholders. Control methods should be complementary. Control programs require several years
of follow-up that may increase the cost several-fold; in some situations the long-term costs can make control of
large dense infestations uneconomic.
Buffel grass must be actively growing for effective uptake of herbicides. In arid or semi-arid regions of South
Australia the period of active growth is unpredictable and may be short-lived and timing is therefore very
important for control. Foliar application of select herbicides to young plants or regrowth following rain provides
the best opportunity for success. Simple physical removal of buffel grass may be considered for new, small
infestations particularly where the plants are bearing seed and the plants are not in an active growth phase.
Fire or slashing and herbicides may be integrated to improve foliar uptake and to manage larger infestations.
The high cost of herbicides and associated labour is a hindrance to control. All control programs require several
years of follow-up treatment and monitoring, which further increases the cost. Control and eradication of
infestations must be carried out on all tenures including government and Aboriginal lands.
Given the vast challenges of effective buffel grass management, biological control is considered the single most cost
effective management method for dense areas of buffel grass, particularly at sites where species listed under the EPBC
Act (1999) are located, and matters of national environmental significance. However, as buffel grass is recognised as a
valuable forage species in some parts of Australia, the use of highly mobile biological control agents requires careful
consideration. Less mobile agents may however assist with the control, even eradication of buffel grass from areas
remote from pastoral activities. These areas typically also coincide with the highest conservation value and hence
highest buffel grass risk
13. DEVELOPMENT OF THREAT ABATEMENT PLAN
Would the development of a threat abatement plan be a feasible, effective and efficient way to abate the process?
What other measures could be undertaken?
The nominators and all those consulted through the development of this nomination strongly support the development
of a national threat abatement plan for buffel grass, in order to increase our ability to strategically manage buffel grass
beyond the boundaries of individual parks or NRM regions. This is best summarised by Grice et al. (2011), who suggested
“national recognition of the issues should facilitate interstate collaboration and co-ordination, yield economies of scale
and improve access to Commonwealth resources (e.g., to support research)”. A national approach and strategy is the
only way forward in tackling the deleterious impacts that buffel grass will have on EPBC listed species.
Other measures which will also progress the management of buffel grass and should be considered include
A feasibility study to determine the possibility of localised biological control in Australia
An awareness raising campaign which highlights to community and landholders the deleterious impacts that
buffel grass can have not only on biodiversity, but also the high risk to life, property and indigenous culture (see
below).
A nation-wide landholder survey to rigorously assess the attitudes towards buffel grass.
Support for action in determining the impact that buffel grass has on carbon storage across Australia.
14. ELEMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN A THREAT ABATEMENT PLAN
If the threatening process is recommended for listing under the EPBC Act, what elements could a threat abatement plan
include?
A Threat Abatement Plan for Buffel Grass should include
- A prioritisation of areas for exclusion, elimination and control of buffel grass across Australia.
- Guidelines and stipulations on limiting the spread of buffel grass adjacent to areas of high conservation value
- An outline for support of research into optimal techniques of limiting or removing buffel grass from high value
conservation areas
- Quarantine and Biosecurity measures to ensure that no new varieties/strains of buffel grass are imported into Australia
- Recommendation for the formation of a National Taskforce
15. ADDITIONAL THREAT ABATEMENT INFORMATION
Is there other information that relates to threat abatement that you would like to provide?
Indigenous Values
16. INDIGENOUS CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE
Is the key threatening process known to have an impact on species or country culturally significant to Indigenous groups
within Australia? If so, to which groups? Provide information on the nature of this significance if publicly available.
Because of its distributional overlap with much of central Australia, buffel grass is now distributed across much of the
western desert aboriginal lands of central Australia, including:
Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (APY) Lands (South Australia)
Maralinga Tjarutja Lands (South Australia)
Mamungari Conservation Park (Co-managed with SA DENR)
Nyaanyatjarra Lands (Western Australia)
Central Land Council (Northern Territory)
Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park
In the APY Lands, buffel grass was deliberately introduced in the 1980’s into Kalka community in order to suppress dust,
which was causing health issues. With the benefit of hindsight, the proponents of this strategy now recognise that the
costs of buffel grass introduction (considerably increased fire risk within settlements, obstruction of clear ground used
for hunting, sitting, camping) outweigh the health benefits that could have also been achieved with native, or less
invasive plant species (M. Last pers. comm.). Anecdotal evidence and personal communications in the APY Lands has
indicated that buffel grass is currently, and will also in the future, have a significant impact on a number of traditional
cultural activities, including:
hunting for malu (red kangaroos. as the dense monocultures prevent ease of access and clear spaces for
hunting)
threats and access to mulga woodlands where tjala (honeyants) are gathered
threats and access to ilykuwara (Acacia kempeana) woodlands where maku (witchetty grubs) are gathered
threats to communities and homelands posed by the wildfire risk.
Within UKTNP, buffel grass is recognised as a threat to both the natural and cultural values (UKTNP 2009). Sacred sites
and other significant cultural areas are at risk due to the grasses ability to increase fire intensity and frequency,
damaging rock art and other less tangible cultural assets. Qualitative evidence suggests that this increase in fire intensity
and frequency also poses significant threats to native communities, many of which are fire sensitive. Further, buffel
grass’s ability to out-compete native grasses and form monocultures in the understorey is thought to destroy habitat for
many species of vertebrates and invertebrates within the park (UKTNP 2009).
17. MAJOR STUDIES
Identify major studies that might assist in the assessment of the nominated threatening process.
Butler, D.W. and Fairfax, R.J. (2003). Buffel and fire in a Gidgee and Brigalow woodland: a case study from
central Queensland. Ecological Management and Restoration 4: 120-125.
Friedel, M., Puckey, H., O’Malley, C., Waycott, M., Smyth, A. and Miller, G. (2006). Buffel grass: both friend
and foe. An evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of buffel grass use and recommendations for
future research. Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre, Alice Springs.
Friedel, M., Puckey, H., O‟Malley, C., Waycott, M. and Smyth, A. (2006). The dispersal, impact and
management of buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris) in desert Australia. Proceedings of the 14th Biennial
Conference of the Australian Rangelands Society, Renmark pp 160- 163.
Lawson, B. E., Bryant, M. J., and Franks, A. J. (2004). Assessing the potential distribution of buffel grass
(Cenchrus ciliaris L.) in Australia using a climate-soil model. Plant Protection Quarterly 19, 155–163.
Marshall V. M., Lewis M. M. and Ostendorf B. (2012) Buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris) as an invader and threat
to biodiversity in arid environments: A review. Journal of Arid Environments 78, 1-12.
Miller, G. (2003). Ecological impacts of Buffel (Cenchrus ciliaris L.) in central Australia – does field evidence
support a fire-invasion feedback? Honours Thesis, University of NSW, Australia.
18. FURTHER INFORMATION
Identify relevant studies or management documentation that might relate to the species (e.g. research projects, national
park management plans, recovery plans, conservation plans, threat abatement plans, etc.).
Best, R. (1998). The effect of introduced Buffel (Cenchrus ciliaris L. Poaceae) on the diversity and abundance
of invertebrates in semi-arid central Australia. Honours Thesis, Northern Territory University.
Butler, D.W. and Fairfax, R.J. (2003). Buffel and fire in a Gidgee and Brigalow woodland: a case study from
central Queensland. Ecological Management and Restoration 4: 120-125.
Duguid, A., and Schunke, D. (1998). Final Report on Project 290 Acacia undoolyana (Undoolyana Wattle)
Species Recovery Plan. (Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory, Alice Springs.)
Ford, M. (2009). Foraging ecology, diet and prey availability in a population of the endangered skink,
Egernia slateri ssp. slateri (Squamata: Scincidae), at Owen Springs Reserve. Honours thesis submitted to
Charles Darwin University.
Franks, A. J. (2002). The ecological consequences of buffel grass Cenchrus ciliaris establishment within
remnant vegetation of Queensland. Pacific Conservation Biology 8, 99-107.
Friedel, M., Puckey, H., O’Malley, C., Waycott, M., Smyth, A. and Miller, G. (2006). Buffel grass: both friend
and foe. An evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of buffel grass use and recommendations for
future research. Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre, Alice Springs.
Friedel, M., Puckey, H., O‟Malley, C., Waycott, M. and Smyth, A. (2006). The dispersal, impact and
management of buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris) in desert Australia. Proceedings of the 14th Biennial
Conference of the Australian Rangelands Society, Renmark pp 160- 163.
Friedel, M., Marshall, N., van Klinken, R and Grice, T., (2009) Quantifying costs and benefits of buffel grass.
Defeating the Weed Menace R&D report to the Australian Government.
http://lwa.gov.au/files/products/defeating-weed-menace/pn22410/pn22410.pdf
Friedel, M.H., Grice, A.C., Marshall, N.A and van Klinken R.D. (2011). Reducing contention amongst
organisations dealing with commercially valuable but invasive plants: The case of buffel grass. Environ. Sci.
Policy (2011), doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2011.08.001
Grice, A. C. (2006). The impact of invasive plant species on the biodiversity of Australian rangelands. The
Rangeland Journal 28, 27–35.
Grice, A.C., Friedel, M.H., Marshall, N.A. and Van Klinken, R.D. (2011) Tackling Contentious Invasive Plant
Species: A Case Study of Buffel Grass in Australia. Environmental Management
DOI 10.1007/s00267-011-9781-6.
Griffin, G. F. (1993). The spread of buffel grass in inland Australia: land use conflicts. Proceedings I: 10th
Australian Weeds Conference and 14th Asian Pacific Weed Science Society Conference, pp. 501-504. Weed
Society of Queensland: Brisbane.
Lang, P. J. (2008). Calostemma abdicatum (Amaryllidacaeae), a new species of Garland Lily endemic to the
Everard Ranges, and a comparison of the three species within Calostemma R.Br. Journal Adelaide Botanic
Gardens 22: (2008) 47–56.
Latz, P.K. (1992). Conservation research statement: Acacia undoolyana Leach. ANPWS Endangered Species
programme Project proposal, March 1992. (Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory, Alice
Springs.)
Marshall V. M., Lewis M. M. and Ostendorf B. (2012) Buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris) as an invader and threat
to biodiversity in arid environments: A review. Journal of Arid Environments 78, 1-12.
McAlpin, S. F. (2000). Nomination for listing a native species as a threatened
species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
1999 – Egernia slateri. Submission to Environment Australia.
Miller, G. (2003). Ecological impacts of Buffel (Cenchrus ciliaris L.) in central Australia – does field evidence
support a fire-invasion feedback? Honours Thesis, University of NSW, Australia.
Nano, C. and Pavey, C. 2008 National Recovery Plan for Olearia macdonnellensis, Minuria tridens (Minnie
Daisy) and Actinotus schwarzii (Desert Flannel Flower). Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The
Arts and Sport, Northern Territory.
Paltridge, R. (2010) Final Report on the Loves Creek Slater’s Skink Monitoring Project. Report produced for
the Central Land Council and Threatened Species Network, Desert Wildlife Services, Northern Territory,
Australia.
Pavey, C. R. (2004). Recovery Plan for Slater’s Skink, Egernia slateri, 2005–2010. Northern Territory
Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, Northern Territory Government, Alice Springs,
Northern Territory, Australia.
Pavey, C. (2007). Slater’s Skink Egernia slateri. In J. Woinarski, C. Pavey, R. Kerrigan, I. Cowie and S. Ward
(eds.), Lost from Our Landscape: Threatened species of the Northern Territory, pp. 176–177. Northern
Territory Government, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia.
Paltridge R., Latz P., Pickburn A. and Eldridge S. (2009) Management Plan for Rare and Threatened Flora in
the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands of South Australia. In: Department for Environment and
Heritage, Adelaide.
Pavey, C., Burwell, C. and Nano, C. (in press). Foraging ecology and habitat use of Slater’s Skink (Egernia
slateri): an endangered Australian desert lizard. Accepted for publication in Journal of Herpetology.
Pearson, D. J. (2010). Recovery Plan for five species of rock-wallabies: black-flanked rock-wallaby (Petrogale
lateralis), Rothschild’s rock-wallaby (Petrogale rothschildi), short-eared rock-wallaby (Petrogale brachyotis),
monjon (Petrogale burbidgei) and nabarlek (Petrogale concinna).
Department of Environment and Conservation, Perth.
Pitts, B., Schunke, D., and Parsons, D. (1995). Species recovery plan for Acacia undoolyana – recovery action
2.4: GIS analysis. (Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory, Alice Springs.)
Puckey, H., and Albrecht, D. (2004). Buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris L.) presenting the arid Northern Territory
experience to our South Australian neighbours. Plant Protection Quarterly 19, 69-72.
Puckey, H., Brock, C. and Yates, C. (2007). Improving the landscape scale management of buffel grass
(Cenchrus ciliaris) using aerial survey, predictive modeling, and a Geographic Information System.
Pacific Conservation Biology 13: 1-10.
Read, J. and Ward, M.J. (2011a). Warru Recovery Plan – Recovery of Petrogale lateralis MacDonnell Ranges
Race in South Australia. Warru Recovery Team, South Australia., DENR, Adelaide.
Smyth, A., Friedel, M.D. and O’Malley, C. (2009). The influence of buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris) on
biodiversity in an arid Australian landscape. Rangeland Journal 31:307-320.
UKTNP (2009). Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park Buffel Grass Strategy 2009-2014.
Ward, M.J., Urban, R., Read, J.L., Dent, A., Partridge, T., Clarke, A., vanWeenen, J. (2011). Status of warru
(Petrogale lateralis MacDonnel Ranges race) in the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands of South
Australia. 1. Distribution and decline. Australian Mammalogy 33: 135-41.
19. REFERENCE LIST
Please list key references/documentation you have referred to in your nomination.
Albrecht, D., Latz, P and Westaway, J. (2011) Proposed Changes to Conservation Status of Species in the NT
– Sporobolus latzii. Department of NRETAS, Darwin.)
Best, R. (1998). The effect of introduced Buffel (Cenchrus ciliaris L. Poaceae) on the diversity and abundance
of invertebrates in semi-arid central Australia. Honours Thesis, Northern Territory University.
BHP Billiton Olympic Dam (2007) Weed Risk Assessment. Olympic Dam, South Australia.
Butler, D.W. and Fairfax, R.J. (2003). Buffel and fire in a Gidgee and Brigalow woodland: a case study from
central Queensland. Ecological Management and Restoration 4: 120-125.
Carpenter, G. & J.S. Matthew (1986). The birds of Billiatt Conservation Park. South Australian Ornithologist.
30:29-37.
Carpenter, G. & J.S. Matthew (1992). Western records of the Mallee Emu-wren Stipiturus mallee. South
Australian Ornithologist. 31:125.
Cheam, A.H. (1984). Allelopathy in Buffel (Cenchrus ciliaris L.) Part 1. Influence of Buffel association on
Calotrope (Calotropis procera (Ait). Australian Weeds 3: 133-136.
Clarke, R. (2005). Recovery Plan for the Mallee Emu-wren Stipiturus mallee, Striated Grasswren Amytornis
striatus,Red-lored Whistler Pachycephala rufogularis and Western Whipbird Psophodes nigrogularis
lecuogaster, South Australian Murray Darling Basin. Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide.
Clarke, R. (2007). Surveys for Mallee Emu-wrens Within the Murray Mallee Reserve System, Victoria, Spring
2006. Interim Report - Unpublished report to Department for Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.
Duguid, A., and Schunke, D. (1998). Final Report on Project 290 Acacia undoolyana (Undoolyana Wattle)
Species Recovery Plan. (Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory, Alice Springs.)
Eldridge, M.D.B. (1997). Taxonomy of rock-wallabies, Petrogale (Marsupialia: Macropodidae). II. An
historical review. Australian Mammalogy 19: 113-122.
Fairfax, R. J., and Fensham, R. J. (2000). The effect of exotic pasture development on floristic diversity in
central Queensland, Australia. Biological Conservation 94, 11–21.
Ford, M. (2009). Foraging ecology, diet and prey availability in a population of the endangered skink,
Egernia slateri ssp. slateri (Squamata: Scincidae), at Owen Springs Reserve. Honours thesis submitted to
Charles Darwin University.
Franks, A. J. (2002). The ecological consequences of buffel grass Cenchrus ciliaris establishment within
remnant vegetation of Queensland. Pacific Conservation Biology 8, 99-107.
Franks, A.J., Butler, D. and Fairfax, R. (2000) A weed by any other name. Wildlife Australia 37, 24.
Freeland, W.J., Winter, J.W., and Raskin, S. (1988). Australian rock mammals: A phenomenon of the
seasonally dry tropics. Biotropica 20, 70-79.
Friedel, M., Puckey, H., O’Malley, C., Waycott, M., Smyth, A. and Miller, G. (2006). Buffel grass: both friend
and foe. An evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of buffel grass use and recommendations for
future research. Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre, Alice Springs.
Friedel, M., Puckey, H., O‟Malley, C., Waycott, M. and Smyth, A. (2006). The dispersal, impact and
management of buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris) in desert Australia. Proceedings of the 14th Biennial
Conference of the Australian Rangelands Society, Renmark pp 160- 163.
Friedel, M., Marshall, N., van Klinken, R and Grice, T., (2009) Quantifying costs and benefits of buffel grass.
Defeating the Weed Menace R&D report to the Australian Government.
http://lwa.gov.au/files/products/defeating-weed-menace/pn22410/pn22410.pdf
Friedel, M.H., Grice, A.C., Marshall, N.A and van Klinken R.D. (2011). Reducing contention amongst
organisations dealing with commercially valuable but invasive plants: The case of buffel grass. Environ. Sci.
Policy (2011), doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2011.08.001
Garnett, S.T. & G.M. Crowley (2000). The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2000. [Online]. Canberra, ACT:
Environment Australia and Birds Australia. Available from:
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/action/birds2000/index.html.
Gates, J.A. (2003). Ecology of Threatened Mallee Birds in Billiatt Conservation Park: Baseline Distribution
and Abundance Surveys, 2003. Unpublished report to Wildlife Conservation Fund, Adelaide.
Greenfield, B. (2007). S.A. Arid lands buffel grass management plan. South Australian Arid Lands Natural
Resource Management Board, Adelaide.
Grice, A. C. (2006). The impact of invasive plant species on the biodiversity of Australian rangelands. The
Rangeland Journal 28, 27–35.
Grice, A.C., Friedel, M.H., Marshall, N.A. and Van Klinken, R.D. (2011) Tackling Contentious Invasive Plant
Species: A Case Study of Buffel Grass in Australia. Environmental Management
DOI 10.1007/s00267-011-9781-6.
Griffin, G. F. (1993). The spread of buffel grass in inland Australia: land use conflicts. Proceedings I: 10th
Australian Weeds Conference and 14th Asian Pacific Weed Science Society Conference, pp. 501-504. Weed
Society of Queensland: Brisbane.
Horner, P. (1992). The Skinks of the Northern Territory. Northern Territory
Government Printing Office: Darwin.
Humphries, S.E., Groves, R.H., and Mitchell, D.S. (1993). Plant Invasions: homogenizing Australian
ecosystems. In: Conservation Biology in Australia and Oceania (eds. C. Moritz and J. Kikkawa) pp 149-170.
Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton.
Jessop, J., Dashorst. G.R.M.,& James, F.M. (2006). Grasses of South Australia, An illustrated guide to the
native and naturalised species.
Kerrigan, R. & Albrecht, D. (2006a) Minuria tridens. Threatened species profile at
www.nt.gov.au/NRETAS/wildlife/threatened/pdf/plants/Minuria_tridens_VU.pdf.
Latz, P.K. (1992). Conservation research statement: Acacia undoolyana Leach. ANPWS Endangered Species
programme Project proposal, March 1992. (Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory, Alice
Springs.)
Lawson, B. E., Bryant, M. J., and Franks, A. J. (2004). Assessing the potential distribution of buffel grass
(Cenchrus ciliaris L.) in Australia using a climate-soil model. Plant Protection Quarterly 19, 155–163.
Low, T. (1997). Tropical pasture plants as weeds. Tropical Grasslands 31, 337–343.
Ludwig, J.A., Eager, R.W., Liedloff, A.C., McCosker, J.C., Hannah, D., Thurgate, N.Y., Woinarski, J.C.Z. and
Catterall, C.P. (2000). Clearing and grazing impacts on vegetation patch structures and fauna counts in
eucalypt woodland, Central Queensland. Pacific Conservation Biology 6, 254-272.
Marshall V. M., Lewis M. M. and Ostendorf B. (2012) Buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris) as an invader and threat
to biodiversity in arid environments: A review. Journal of Arid Environments 78, 1-12.
McAlpin, S. F. (2000). Nomination for listing a native species as a threatened
species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
1999 – Egernia slateri. Submission to Environment Australia.
Miller, G. (2003). Ecological impacts of Buffel (Cenchrus ciliaris L.) in central Australia – does field evidence
support a fire-invasion feedback? Honours Thesis, University of NSW, Australia.
Mustoe, S. (2006). Assessment of the Conservation Status of Mallee Emu-wren, Stipiturus mallee , A.J.
Campbell, 1908, Family Maluridae. Unpublished report to Save the Food Bowl Alliance.
Nano, C. and Pavey, C. 2008 National Recovery Plan for Olearia macdonnellensis, Minuria tridens (Minnie
Daisy) and Actinotus schwarzii (Desert Flannel Flower). Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The
Arts and Sport, Northern Territory.
Paltridge R., Latz P., Pickburn A. and Eldridge S. (2009) Management Plan for Rare and Threatened Flora in
the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands of South Australia. In: Department for Environment and
Heritage, Adelaide.
Paltridge, R. (2010) Final Report on the Loves Creek Slater’s Skink Monitoring Project. Report produced for
the Central Land Council and Threatened Species Network, Desert Wildlife Services, Northern Territory,
Australia.
Pavey, C. R. (2004). Recovery Plan for Slater’s Skink, Egernia slateri, 2005–2010. Northern Territory
Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, Northern Territory Government, Alice Springs,
Northern Territory, Australia.
Pavey, C. (2007). Slater’s Skink Egernia slateri. In J. Woinarski, C. Pavey, R. Kerrigan, I. Cowie and S. Ward
(eds.), Lost from Our Landscape: Threatened species of the Northern Territory, pp. 176–177. Northern
Territory Government, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia.
Pavey, C., Burwell, C. and Nano, C. (in press). Foraging ecology and habitat use of Slater’s Skink (Egernia
slateri): an endangered Australian desert lizard. Accepted for publication in Journal of Herpetology.
Pearson, D. J. (2010). Recovery Plan for five species of rock-wallabies: black-flanked rock-wallaby (Petrogale
lateralis), Rothschild’s rock-wallaby (Petrogale rothschildi), short-eared rock-wallaby (Petrogale brachyotis),
monjon (Petrogale burbidgei) and nabarlek (Petrogale concinna).
Department of Environment and Conservation, Perth.
Pedler, R.D. (2007). Bronzeback Legless Lizard and Floodplains Skink Survey: Coober Pedy - Oodnadatta
Area, SA Arid Lands NRM Board, Port Augusta.
Pitts, B., Schunke, D., and Parsons, D. (1995). Species recovery plan for Acacia undoolyana – recovery action
2.4: GIS analysis. (Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory, Alice Springs.)
Puckey, H., and Albrecht, D. (2004). Buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris L.) presenting the arid Northern Territory
experience to our South Australian neighbours. Plant Protection Quarterly 19, 69-72.
Puckey, H., Brock, C. and Yates, C. (2007). Improving the landscape scale management of buffel grass
(Cenchrus ciliaris) using aerial survey, predictive modeling, and a Geographic Information System.
Pacific Conservation Biology 13: 1-10.
Read, J. and Ward, M.J. (2011a). Warru Recovery Plan – Recovery of Petrogale lateralis MacDonnell Ranges
Race in South Australia. Warru Recovery Team, South Australia., DENR, Adelaide.
Read , J.L. and Ward, M.J. (2011b). Bringing back warru: initiation and implantation of the South Australian
Warru Recovery Plan. Australian Mammalogy 33: 1-7.
Rowley, I. & E. Russell (1997). Fairy-Wrens and Grasswrens. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Schlesinger, C.A. & S. Muldoon (2009). Impacts of controlling buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris) on native fauna
in desert Australia Society for Ecological Restoration International World Conference on Ecological
Restoration23-27 August 2009, Perth , Western Australia, Australia.
Schlesinger, C.A. (2011). Research and land management in central Australia – responsiveness, flexibility and
patience. Ecological Society of Australia 2011 Annual Conference 21-25th November 2011, Hobart,
Tasmania., Australia
Silveira, C.E. (1993). The Recovery Plan for Australia's Threatened Mallee Birds - Addressing Fire as a
Threatening Process: Research Phase. Report to Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Canberra.
Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union, Melbourne.
Smyth, A., Friedel, M.D. and O’Malley, C. (2009). The influence of buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris) on
biodiversity in an arid Australian landscape. Rangeland Journal 31:307-320.
Soos, A. Latz, P.K., and Kube, P.D. (1987). Occurrence of two rare plant populations in the eastern
MacDonnell Ranges. Technical Memorandum 87/11. (Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory,
Alice Springs.)
UKTNP (2009). Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park Buffel Grass Strategy 2009-2014.
Ward, M.J., Urban, R., Read, J.L., Dent, A., Partridge, T., Clarke, A., vanWeenen, J. (2011). Status of warru
(Petrogale lateralis MacDonnel Ranges race) in the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands of South
Australia. 1. Distribution and decline. Australian Mammalogy 33: 135-41.
White, M., Albrecht, D., Duguid, A., Latz, P. and Hamilton, M. (2000). Plant species and sites of botanical
significance in the southern bioregions of the Northern Territory. Volume 1: significant vascular plants. A
report to the Australian Heritage Commission. (Arid Lands Environment Centre, Alice Springs.)
Woinarski, J., Fensham, R., Peter Whitehead, P. and Fisher, A. (2000). Developing an Analytical Framework
for Monitoring Biodiversity in Australia’s Rangelands. Background paper 1. A Review of Changes in Status
and Threatening Processes. A Report to the NLWRA by Tropical Savannas CRC
Woinarski, J. C. Z., Milne, D. J., and Wanganeen, G. (2001). Changes in mammal populations in relatively
intact landscapes of Kakadu National Park, Northern Territory, Australia. Austral Ecology 26, 360–370.
20. APPENDIX
Please place here any figures, tables or maps that you have referred to within your nomination. Alternatively, you can
provide them as an attachment.
-
map of Australia distribution
anything else? EPBC search tool maps for listed entities???
21. DECLARATION
I declare that, to the best of my knowledge, the information in this nomination and its attachments is true and correct. I
understand that any unreferenced material within this nomination will be cited as ‘personal communication’ (i.e.
referenced in my name) and I permit the publication of this information.
Signed:
Date:
* If submitting by email, please attach an electronic signature
Where did you find out about nominating items?
The Committee would appreciate your feedback regarding how you found out about the nomination process. Your
feedback will ensure that future calls for nominations can be advertised as widely as possible.
Please tick
 DSEWPAC website
Australian newspaper
 word of mouth
Journal/society/organisation web site or email? if so which one………………………………………………………………….
web search
Other…………………………………………………………………………………..