th
Editor: Murray I. Dawson, Landcare Research
Version 2, 5 July 2010
1

Dr K.R. Hammett,
9 th September 2009.
2

1 Executive summary .............................................................................................. 4
1.1
Key issues ........................................................................................................ 4
1.2
Key recommendations ..................................................................................... 4
1.3
Vision statement .............................................................................................. 5
2 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 6
2.1
Background ..................................................................................................... 6
2.2
Workshop aims ................................................................................................ 7
2.3
Workshop purpose ........................................................................................... 7
2.4
Workshop agenda ............................................................................................ 8
2.5
Groups represented and sectors involved ........................................................ 8
3 Stakeholder analysis ............................................................................................ 8
4 Resource analysis ............................................................................................... 11
5 Key issues and constraints ................................................................................. 14
5.1
Lack of knowledge of the cultivated flora .................................................... 14
5.2
Lack of access to information ....................................................................... 14
5.3
Poor validation of plant names and identifications ....................................... 15
5.4
Declining or inaccessible expertise ............................................................... 16
5.5
Lack of funding and resources ...................................................................... 16
6 Recommendations/solutions .............................................................................. 17
6.1
Lack of knowledge ........................................................................................ 17
6.2
Lack of access to information ....................................................................... 17
6.3
Poor validation of plant names and identifications ....................................... 18
6.4
Declining or inaccessible expertise ............................................................... 18
6.5
Lack of funding and resources ...................................................................... 18
7 Range of potential actions ................................................................................. 19
8 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................ 24
9 References ........................................................................................................... 25
10 Acronyms ............................................................................................................ 27
11 Appendices .......................................................................................................... 28
11.1
Appendix One: Agenda/workshop programme ......................................... 28
11.2
Appendix Two: Workshop participants ..................................................... 29
11.3
Appendix Three: Stakeholder roles, activities and resources .................... 31
11.4
Appendix Four: Presentations ................................................................... 39
11.4.1
A plant breeder’s perspective ................................................................. 40
11.4.2
Botanic gardens and horticultural perspectives ..................................... 44
11.4.3
Research perspectives ............................................................................ 47
11.4.4
The Plants Biosecurity Index (PBI) ....................................................... 50
11.4.5
Perspectives of the regulatory environment from ERMA ..................... 54
11.4.6
The New Zealand Organisms Register (NZOR) .................................... 57
11.4.7
The New Zealand Notable Trees Trust online database ........................ 63
11.4.8
BG-BASE for New Zealand botanic gardens ......................................... 70
11.5
Appendix Five: Cultivated plant names resources .................................... 75
3

Lack of knowledge and poor cataloguing of which cultivated plants are present in
New Zealand is a major issue – we do not adequately know what is in this country, what it is called or where it is growing. This is like having a supermarket without a stock inventory and these inadequacies represent a significant cost to the
New Zealand economy.
Management of biosecurity is hampered for two main reasons. Firstly, pre-border problems arise for plant breeders and growers trying to import plants but not being able to confirm if those species are already present in New Zealand. Secondly, postborder management of weeds is difficult when we do not know the full range of potential weed escapes from cultivation.
Also hindered is the management of plant biodiversity, including inadequate knowledge and recording of living collections, conservation stock, notable trees, heritage cultivars, and germplasm for plant breeding.
These issues were explored by a diverse range of custodians of cultivated plants and plant names during a workshop held 9 th September 2009. This report collates the issues and potential solutions gathered at the workshop.
The key overarching issues and constraints relating to cultivated plants and plant names, as identified at the workshop are:

Lack of knowledge and poor systems to catalogue the cultivated flora

Lack of access to information

Poor validation of plant names and identifications

Declining or inaccessible expertise

Lack of funding and resources to identify, describe, and catalogue cultivated plants.

Raise the awareness of policy makers and funders so they recognise the importance of and support projects documenting cultivated plants

Encourage more collaboration, cooperation and coordination between groups and individuals who manage cultivated plants and plant names

Address the serious weaknesses in the Plants Biosecurity Index (PBI) and reexamine wider biosecurity legislation

Extend the New Zealand Organisms Register (NZOR) to a wider user base than currently contracted

Develop better systems to manage cultivated plant information. Create a collective information management platform that exchanges plant name data with the NZOR database but with added functionality (e.g., user-defined fields, plant images, integrated mapping) to meet the requirements of numerous plant custodians who share the same need.
4

The vision statement arising from the workshop is:
“Document the cultivated flora so people know the correct names for plants and where they occur; make information readily accessible and allow it to be shared, for cost effective plant importation, coordinated management of living collections, germplasm for plant breeding, biosecurity, weed escapes, and biocontrol.”
5

Lack of knowledge and ineffective cataloguing of which cultivated plants are present in New Zealand severely hampers biosecurity management, both pre- and post-border, as well as effective management of living collections and horticultural practices.
Pre-border problems arise for plant-breeders and growers trying to import plants under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act (New Zealand
Government, 1996). For importation, the MAF Plants Biosecurity Index (PBI) is the database used to determine if a species is already in New Zealand. However, the PBI is incomplete and lists about 27,000 species out of perhaps as many as 40,000 exotic plant species thought to already be in New Zealand. It also lacks the author authorities and synonyms for plant names. These shortfalls mean that importers are faced with trying to prove that a species is already here or else pay for what may be an unnecessary and expensive full environmental risk assessment ($30,000 per species).
As a consequence, the importation of new plant species and germplasm have effectively ceased, severely restricting New Zealand’s abilities to produce new plant cultivars for its agricultural, horticultural and forestry industries. In 2002/2003, exports from these three land-based plant sectors earned the country $18.5 billion
(MAF, 2003). The importation difficulties for plants have been highlighted by several authors (Cave, 2004; Douglas, 2005; Johnson, 2006; Hammett, 2009).
Post-border problems arise because the greatest source of new weeds is not new biosecurity border incursions but plants that are already here “jumping the fence” and escaping from cultivation. Many of these horticultural escapes are through the careless disposal of garden waste, and a rise in the popularity of cottage and herb gardens and wildflower plantings (Heenan et al., 2002). This is a growing problem and every year several species become new weeds. Inadequate knowledge of these potential new naturalisations hampers effective weed management. In 2004/2005, the cost to New Zealand of dealing with weeds was estimated to be $100 million per year
(Local Government and Environment Committee, 2006).
In addition to economic values associated with pre-border biosecurity and post-border weed management, there are significant aesthetic, conservation, cultural, educational, and social values of native and exotic plant collections. As stated by Given et al.
(2006): “Good quality nationally important collections of plants, whether native or exotic, need to be recognised as national treasures just as much as works of art and buildings.” Despite the value of these collections, here too is a lack of up-to-date, well resolved and publicly accessible catalogues of cultivated collections including genus-based collections, ethnobotanical and taonga species, notable trees and heritage cultivars.
6

Despite the recent New Zealand Organisms Register (NZOR) initiative (Carver et al.
2007
1
), there is no authoritative and comprehensive catalogue or database of cultivated indigenous and exotic plants. Furthermore, there is a lack of coordination and no shared information platform(s) between the diverse custodians of cultivated plants and plant names. This lack of coordination results in poor management of collections and plant names, duplication of effort, fragmentary and poorly resourced initiatives, and lower quality outcomes. For example, New Zealand is recognised as an important international repository for cool-temperate exotic biodiversity collections – species and genotypes that may be rare or endangered in their original countries (e.g., Asia, Europe, and North America). However, our knowledge of these exotic species and cultivars and where they are cultivated is remarkably poor and there are no active conservation management strategies for them. These problems are not new; the urgent requirements for better coordination of and an integrated network for plant collections in New Zealand, both indigenous and exotic, have been raised before (Heenan, 1985; Oates, 1999; Brockerhoff et al., 2004; Given et al., 2006; Sole,
2009).
In response to the issues outlined above, the Terrestrial and Freshwater Biodiversity
System (TFBIS) programme funded a workshop held 9 th
September 2009. This workshop, entitled “the cultivated plant names problem: towards a multi-agency solution”, brought together diverse custodians of cultivated plant names who sought practical solutions. The issues and potential solutions arising from the workshop are presented in this report.
1.
Hold a workshop focussing on the lack of knowledge, cataloguing and validation and more effective application of names for our cultivated plants
2.
Prepare a report that includes action plans aimed at addressing these problems and forms the basis for future funding applications
3.
Improve coordination between custodians of names of the cultivated flora in
New Zealand
4.
Explore the potential of NZOR for meeting these needs.
To clearly identify the main stake holders and issues that are affecting their ability to work on the cultivated flora, to define issues and their impact, priorities for resolution, and to seek agreement on practical solutions for more effective management of cultivated plant names.
1 As stated in the summary of this scoping document (p. 6), the first three years will be incorporating names from NIWA, Landcare Research, Te Papa etc., but “It will also include a gap and priority analysis for further building NZOR content through contributions from identified additional providers.
The project will deliver tools to support initial and future data providers and tools to support end users to adopt and integrate NZOR information and services into their systems. It will also provide web based access to allow users to search current taxon concept information and view and download lists of organism names.” Page 29 states that the model accommodates cultivar and trade names. Engaging these additional providers was one of the aims of the workshop.
7

1.
Welcome and purpose of workshop
2.
Clarifying issues and constraints that relate to cultivated plants and application of their names
3.
Current resources
4.
Potential solutions
5.
Draft vision
6.
Action plan.
This agenda is incorporated within the workshop programme (Appendix One).
The workshop had a tight focus and attendees were invited on the basis of their roles
(e.g., database developers, horticulturists, policy managers, private professionals, scientists), organisations (e.g., DoC, Eastwoodhill Arboretum, ERMA New Zealand,
Landcare Research, local government, MAF Biosecurity NZ, Margot Forde Forage
Germplasm Centre, Ministry of Economic Development, MoRST, Plant & Food
Research, Scion, universities and polytechnics), representation of key interest groups
(e.g., BGANZ, NZOR, NZTCA, PIAG, RNZIH) and sectors (e.g., plant breeding, botanic gardens, research, regulatory).
34 participants attended from these wide backgrounds including the workshop facilitator. Appendix Two lists the attendees and their roles and representation.
Section 9 lists the acronyms used throughout this report.
Figure 1 provides a diagrammatic representation of the organisation and stakeholder sector groups, roles and activities, and resources that are related to documenting
New Zealand’s cultivated plant flora. For each group, Table 1 provides a summary and Appendix Three details their roles, activities and resources.
8

Fig. 1 Organisation and stakeholder sector groups, roles and activities, and resources are related to documenting New Zealand’s cultivated plant flora.
9

Table 1 Stakeholder roles in documenting the cultivated flora.
Organisation and
Sector groups
Data curators
Provider Validator
Central Government 1 DOC,
ERMA,
MAF ,
MED
(Yes) Local Government
(City Councils and
Regional Authorities)
Crown Research
Institutes (CRIs) 2
(AR),
LCR ,
NIWA,
PF, SC
Universities and
Polytechnics
(Yes)
ERMA ,
(MAF), MED
(?Yes)
( AR), LCR ,
NIWA, PF,
SC
Regulators
( DOC),
ERMA ,
MAF ,
MED
Yes
Biocontrol Breeding
Yes (Yes)
LCR , ?SC AR , PF ,
SC
Roles
Researchers
Naturalisations and weed research
[DOC]
Yes
AR, LCR ,
NIWA, PF,?SC
Systematics
(botanical research)
DOC
LCR , NIWA,
(PF), SC
Distributors*
Importer Exporter Supplier
Yes
AR ,
LCR,
PF , SC
(Yes)
AR , PF ,
?SC
DOC
Yes
AR,
(LCR),
(NIWA),
PF, SC
(Yes)
Data transfer
§
ERMA,
MAF ,
MED
Yes
AR,
LCR,
NIWA,
PF, SC
Yes
Funders
DOC, FRST ,
MAF,
(MoRST)
Yes
(Yes) ?Massey (Auckland),
Lincoln,
Massey
Lincoln,
Massey, ?Otago
Auckland,
Canterbury,
(Unitec),
(Victoria)
Yes
(Yes)
Herbaria and living collections 3
Industry sectors
4
Education sector
NGOs and plant societies
5
Private experts
(individuals)
Members of the public
Yes
(Yes)
Yes
Yes
(Yes)
(?Yes)
Yes
(?Yes)
(Yes)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
(Yes)
(Yes)
(Yes)
Yes
(Yes)
(Yes)
Yes
Yes
(Yes)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
(?Yes)
Yes
* Movement of cultivated material into (Importers), out of (Exporters) and within New Zealand (Suppliers).
§
Communication of information about the cultivated flora (and related issues) to another audience or sector.
1 Central Government includes: DoC = Department of Conservation (including here their role of administrating the TFBIS fund); ERMA = Environmental Risk Management
Authority (New Zealand); FRST = Foundation for Research, Science and Technology (soon to be merged with MoRST); MAF = Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry;
MED = Ministry of Economic Development (including the Plant Variety Rights Office); MoRST = Ministry of Research Science and Technology (soon to be merged with FRST).
2 CRIs include: AR = AgResearch (including the Margot Forde Forage Germplasm Centre); LCR = Landcare Research; NIWA = National Institute of Water and Atmospheric
Research; PF = Plant & Food Research; SC = Scion (New Zealand Forest Research Institute Limited).
3 New Zealand Herbaria are listed at www.nzherbaria.org.nz
. Living collections include botanic gardens, Eastwoodhill Arboretum, private plant collections etc.
4 Includes the nursery sector, commercial breeders, seed producers, etc.
5 Includes BGANZ, NGIA, NZNHN, NZOR, NZPPS, NZTCA, PIAG, RNZIH, garden societies, etc.
Qualifiers: Bold = major role, normal = minor role, () = potential (i.e., low key or not active).
10

Table 2 summarises in related groups major databases and resources for New Zealand’s cultivated flora. Explanatory comments are provided that highlight strengths, weaknesses, and potential and actual relationships to other resources. Appendix Five profiles these resources.
Table 2 Resources for documenting New Zealand’s cultivated flora.
Resource
NZ Organisms
Register (NZOR)
NZ Virtual
Herbarium
(NZVH)
Contributing and related resources / source data

Landcare Research databases: o NZ Plant Names database o All NZ Species Database

NIWA databases

Te Papa databases
 other databases (in future)
Comments
NZOR has the potential to become the largest source of cultivated plant names and could be a key tool to help validate and contribute to the other resources. Linkages to some other resources have been developed but others have not. Existing contributors
(Landcare Research, NIWA, and
Te Papa) hold relatively weak (or suppressed) records for the cultivated flora. NZOR does not currently have long-term funding.
This collaborative NZ Herbarium
Network (NZNHN) project became online in December 2009. Once all of the features have been implemented, it will become a powerful tool for simultaneously searching and retrieving records from herbaria in
New Zealand and for generating distribution maps.

Auckland War Memorial Museum (AK)

National Forestry Herbarium (NZFRI)

Allan Herbarium (CHR)

14 other Herbaria: o Christchurch Botanic Gardens
(CHBG) o
Dame Ella Campbell
Herbarium (MPN) o Dunedin Botanic Garden o Eastwoodhill Arboretum
Herbarium o HD Gordon Herbarium
(WELTU) o Herbarium, Unitec o Lincoln University Herbarium
(LINC) o Museum of New Zealand –
Te Papa Tongarewa (WELT) o
National Forestry Mycological
Herbarium (NZFRI–M) o New Zealand Fungal
Herbarium (PDD) o
University of Canterbury
Herbarium (CANU) o University of Otago Herbarium
(OTA) o
University of Waikato
Herbarium (WAIK) o Warkworth Museum
11

MAF Plants
Biosecurity Index
(PBI)
NZ Plant Finder
New Zealand
Nursery Register
RNZIH NZ Plant
Collection
Register
RNZIH cultivar checklists/ registers



ERMA Presence in NZ / new organism assessments

Import permit records (historic)
 Landcare Research’s All NZ Species
Database (historic)
Stock lists from >180 plant nurseries
>5000 trade companies listed (Australia and New Zealand) from annual questionnaires

Arboreta o
Eastwoodhill o Hackfalls Arboretum

Botanic Gardens – see BGANZ list

National flax collection

National rose garden (New Plymouth)

NZ poplar and willow collection

Garden societies & private collections o NZ Tree Crops o NZ Herb Federation o Koanga Institute (heritage garden plants) o NZ Camellia Society o NZ Rose Society o NZ Rhododendron Association o
New Zealand Dahlia
Handbook 2008 o Hammett Lathyrus /Sweet Pea seed collection list o
Hammett Clivia collection database o Alpine Garden societies

Nursery catalogues
 Meg Gaddum’s Plant Finder

PVR cultivar data

Other horticultural literature
Limited synonymy, no authority names for taxa, contains outdated plant name data and significant gaps. These deficiencies can create problems for plant importers. Plant names in the
PBI were originally based on Landcare
Research’s now redundant All NZ
Species Database. The PBI is in urgent need of active database linkages to
NZOR and/or other databases.
A comprehensive stock-list of plant names and cultivars currently for sale in New Zealand nurseries. Plant names are largely as supplied by the nursery industry and not validated. Possibly under-resourced being maintained by only one person, Meg Gaddum. Good potential to contribute to other resources but there are no current funding and data sharing arrangements.
An annual publication that is weak on plant names but provides an authoritative list of plant nurseries in
New Zealand. A commercial resource that overlaps and is complementary to the NZ Plant Finder and the RNZIH
NZ Collections Register.
Column two lists example resources that could potentially contribute. The current source data is questionnaires sent in the 1990s and again in 2010. A new online resource will be developed that may have active database linkages to BG-BASE (to make some Botanic
Gardens records available online) and
NZOR (to help validate names).
Funding for database development has yet to be arranged.
Authoritative works that provide descriptions, origins, and synonyms for cultivars of native genera. Allied to the International Cultivar Registration
Authority and important for validating
12

PVR/IPONZ –
Plant Variety
Rights database and register
Margot Forde
Forage
Germplasm
Centre (NZ)
BGANZ/
Botanic Gardens plant collections and databases
Trees and
New Zealand
Notable Trees
Trust

Applications for protected plant varieties

Reference collections o
Pasture and Cereal seed o Apples o Kiwifruit o Roses o National flax ( Phormium ) collection o Zantedeschia

Grassland plant data

Endangered species seed-bank
(NZPCN)

Auckland Botanic Gardens

Hamilton Gardens



Pukekura Park
Eastwoodhill Arboretum

Botanic Gardens of Wellington

Christchurch Botanic Garden
Dunedin Botanic Garden

Notable Trees Registrations

Related tree lists: o Arboreta (e.g., Eastwoodhill,
Hackfalls, Scion) o Regional authority protected tree lists o Marion MacKay o
Mike Wilcox o Penny Cliffin o WINTEC student projects repeating North Island surveys of Bob Burstall’s mensuration reports o NZ Tree Crops Association cultivar names. Draws on horticultural literature and contact with the nursery industry. Relies on very few experts to produce the lists. Limited availability of data in print form and needs to become available online. More rigorous deposition of herbarium voucher specimens is also needed.
Well established process with rigorous plant descriptions and recording of
PVR material. Associated living reference collections are maintained.
Currently poor deposition of herbarium specimens for long-term validation and repository.
Complementary to the RNZIH cultivar checklists/registers.
Limited public database interface. An extensive and important repository of germplasm. The New Zealand
Endangered Species Seed-bank is held in association with the NZPCN.
BGANZ is an association that represents botanic gardens in
New Zealand and Australia. Most
New Zealand botanic gardens use BG-
BASE software to manage their collections but they cannot view each others holdings and there is no publicly accessible view. There is a very good opportunity through
BGANZ and the RNZIH to make botanic gardens and private plant collection records publicly available through a collections register. NZOR could be a valuable tool to help validate the plant names.
Excellent web-based integrated management system. Source data is
Notable Tree Registrations 1974–
2006. New submissions are heavily reliant on voluntary contributions and engagement with interest groups.
Urgent need to engage with contributors of the related tree lists
(column two) to incorporate their records.
13

The overarching issues and constraints that emerged from the workshop, as stated in
Section 1.1, are:
1.
Lack of knowledge and poor systems to catalogue the cultivated flora
2.
Lack of access to information
3.
Poor validation of plant names and identifications
4.
Declining or inaccessible expertise
5.
Lack of funding and resources to identify, describe, and catalogue cultivated plants.
The first three articles in Appendix Four document individual presentations of issues and constraints from group and sector perspectives. Further details for each key issue and their consequences are provided below.
Issues and constraints

What cultivated plants do we have?

Where are they?

What should they be called?

What are the gaps in knowledge?
Consequences

Business as usual – remaining ill-informed

Lost benefits and opportunities.
Issues and constraints

Information on the cultivated flora is scattered and not aggregated

Information may be hidden or inaccessible

Lack of metadata

Who are the best custodians of this information?

Information may be protected and difficult to bring into organism databases

Private collections – how to bring into the public domain?

Data depth and connectivity issues o Insufficient connection or integration with existing sources o Variable data format o Fragmented data
14

o Islands of knowledge o Replication of knowledge

Lack of a common system to integrate knowledge.
Consequences

Restricted trade and research

Negative cost to New Zealand’s economic development

Poor information management.
Issues and constraints

Widespread and informal use of plant names o Earlier synonyms used instead of up to date species names o No synonymy stated o No author authorities for species o Names that do not follow the Codes

International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP)

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN)

The nursery industry are notorious for changing cultivated plant names for marketing reasons o Several cultivar names for the same selection o Species and hybrid names often not stated, just the genus and cultivar

Lack of validated plant identifications

Lack of authenticating herbarium voucher specimens, e.g., o Living collections o PVR and comparator plants o In producing cultivar checklists and registers o Notable Tree records.

Importation decisions are difficult/expensive o Vulnerable decisions o Slow decisions o Different expectations of what is valid o Conflict – frustration – uncertainty o Incorrect importation decisions

False negative

False positive.
Consequences

Confusion on the true identities of cultivated plants that is difficult to resolve

Loopholes in importing plants created over the lax use of plant names

Possible biosecurity risks (false positive)

Lost opportunities of importing plant material (false negative)
 If you don’t have good information, you can’t make good decisions.
15

Issues and constraints

Few New Zealand organisations employ experts on cultivated plants

Positions that are available are difficult to fill – e.g., botanic gardens struggle to employ skilled staff o Lack of true plants people that are knowledgeable o Often have to recruit from overseas
 “Dumbing down” of the nursery industry from valued employees with high skills to employing low paid staff for routine mass production of plants

Lack of succession

Low uptake by New Zealanders of current educational opportunities – results in fewer courses offered at polytechnics and universities

Archival information becomes inaccessible because few know where it is held.
Consequences

Inability to properly manage plant collections and records

Dwindling pool of horticultural botanists

The few remaining experts are aging, in the near future this will lead to o Loss of knowledge o Lack of knowing what plant material is in New Zealand o Unreliable plant identifications

No formal positions to fill the experts gap

Ornamental plant breeding expertise will become less available

Loss of information o Hard copy information will be lost if it is not digitised and made readily available o As expertise declines – links to information can be lost.
Issues and constraints

Limited funding sources for cultivated plant names

Documenting the cultivated flora “falls between the cracks” of ongoing funding – it is not directly funded through o Weed research o Biosystematics research of native plant species o The nursery industry.
Consequences

Current unsatisfactory situation continues
16

o Existing resources continue to be poorly supported and will lack progress or fail o No new well funded initiatives

Plant Biosecurity Index is not actively updated

Lack of affordable access to expertise

New Zealand becomes a “Third world country” in its ability to identify, describe and catalogue plants

Negative economic consequences and loss of opportunities.
The overall recommendations are stated in Section 1.2, and the range of recommendations and solutions relevant to each key issue and constraint follow here:
Solutions

Locate and collate the information we have on the cultivated flora

Recognise and address knowledge gaps – target selected gaps and prioritise o Economic and culturally important plants o Real lists (e.g., of living collections held at botanic gardens) o Historic records (e.g., herbarium records and early nursery catalogues)

Conduct more taxonomic research into priority cultivated genera

Make information widely available.
Outcomes

A well-resolved knowledge of the cultivated flora of New Zealand

Better conservation management

Economic benefits

Resolving many biosecurity and importation issues.
Solutions

Develop an information platform to integrate knowledge on the cultivated flora – a “big dictionary” approach o Handles static and active data o Includes many links in and out of platform o (Partly) open data access with proper acknowledgements.
Outcomes

Easy access and continually updated information on the cultivated flora of
New Zealand
17


Excellent information management.
Solutions

Publish further authoritative cultivar checklists and registers

Encourage best practice in the use of plant names by the nursery sector and other groups

Encourage formal plant identifications of cultivated plants

Encourage more vouchering of cultivated plants in herbaria

Progress NZOR more quickly to use as a tool to help validate cultivated plant names.
Outcomes

More accurate importation and biosecurity decisions.
Solutions

Mentoring and better support of younger staff (e.g., apprentices from botanic gardens) – they are potentially the next generation of experts

Strengthen linkages with existing experts

Make horticultural botany more attractive

Enhance the New Zealand Diploma of Horticulture to make it more attractive and valued

Create new qualifications and opportunities (e.g., better plant identification courses and more employment offered for those skills)

Capture institutional knowledge before it is lost

Make valuable historic records widely available o More expertise o Open access to information o More information custodians to collate and manage resources.
Outcomes

Enhanced botanical collections and better management of them

More trained eyes to document what plants are here and to discover new naturalisations

Increased opportunities for knowledge to be provided or passed on (e.g., through teaching and mentoring)

New ability to breed genetically diverse plants

Easier HSNO approvals through better evidence.
18

Solutions

Collective funding applications (e.g., to TFBIS)

Wikipedia-like solutions o Develop methods to achieve this o Engage volunteers to contribute

Use more high res images for plant identifications

Create better career paths for young people

Policy makers to make coordination of databases a high priority

Move beyond a competition mentality to one of collaboration.
Outcomes

Remove funding issues to: o Establish a knowledge base (people) o Establish an information base o Make resources useful and user friendly (information accessible to interest groups and enthusiasts)

Create an established and unified list that is easily accessible o What’s here, what’s not o Where it is (unless privacy issue) o Biosecurity information

New research capability

Economic benefits (internal and external)

Make advantage of our unique situation

Improved access to genetic material
Discussion of the potential solutions and actions was wide ranging and represents many different viewpoints and groups. The following is the full list of potential action points that emerged through group participation at the workshop:
Policy, legislation, legal:

Sector-wide group to present one voice on cultivated plant issues

One key group or coordinating body to drive project(s)

Educate politicians and lawyers about taxonomy, botany, and plant name issues and their importance to biosecurity, weed management, and crop development

Encourage Treasury and Central Government to recognise importance of sector information to the New Zealand economy

Convince policy makers of importance of cultivated plant issues

Recognise and support essential resources (funding and prioritising)

Coherent legislation to create a more joined up government (to avoid the current situation of different viewing frames)

New legislation that can work at the appropriate taxonomic level for the organism
(especially regarding the PBI)
19


Change Government policy away from what can come in to what can’t be imported

Plants are not inherently hazardous, therefore remove plants from HSNO

Create MORST(/FRST) policy to document what we have

Provide safe ways for data sharing (e.g., resolve any ownership and copyright issues).
Funding:

Prepare strong business case for funding work on cultivated plants (economic cost of not doing so is millions of dollars!)

Emphasise economic cost to New Zealand for having an incomplete plant index

Emphasise the value on work to record plant names

Fund programme(s) for validating what is here, what it is called, where it is

Get long term Government funding (e.g., FRST) for cultivated plants

Establish other ongoing funding

Convince MoRST(/FRST), TFBIS etc. that we need to get a funded dedicated programme

More research funding to include cultivated plants

More funding into the TFBIS Programme

Prepare collective funding applications (to TFBIS etc.)

Strategic pooling of funding by sectors

Engage local government to fund local biodiversity

Funding to digitise cultural collections in herbaria and elsewhere

Funding for enhanced data collection

Adopt and fund NZOR

Assistance for people to adopt NZOR and exchange standards

Sector-sponsored help for the small players who can still make valuable contributions.
Research:

Produce/employ more horticultural taxonomists

More support for nomenclatural, taxonomic, and horticultural research

More research into priority cultivated genera.
Horticulture careers:

Raise status of horticulture

Promote horticulture as a career path

Train horticulture employees and students in data management, nomenclature, and plant identification

Encourage more expertise in horticulture

Develop education resources

Succession planning.
Knowledge, awareness, and marketing:
20


Investigate ways to strengthen horticulture training to secure the future of plant knowledge

Extensive marketing of NZOR and then training for users.
Community engagement:

Promote projects to the community as a way of attracting free labour

Provide linkages and support for enthusiasts with spare time

Direct community engagement (rather than indirect means such as wikis and websites)

Involve public for collection information through relevant publications (e.g., article in NZ Gardener ) and via groups (e.g., the RNZIH New Zealand Gardens
Trust)

Tap into communities for information sources

Identify experts for groups (e.g., genera) of cultivated plants.
Sharing and collaboration:

Agree on a shared vision

Develop common goals

Centrally list all stakeholder groups

Appoint coordinator(s)

Coordinate volunteers and plant societies (and their plant lists)

Foster better cooperation between groups with similar interests (e.g., NZAA,
NZNTT, NZTCA)

Better linkages between groups (e.g., historical societies)

Encourage more collaboration, cooperation and coordination between groups and individuals

Better communication between plant experts and databases

Allocate information resourcing to specialist organisations

Break notional walls between research of indigenous flora, introduced flora, and cultivated flora

Get institutions to work together and compile and constantly update a list of known plants to cultivar level

Have a working group (e.g., representatives from this workshop) to meet annually to discuss/sort out any problems and update on progress

Establish a technical reference/help group to adopt/resolve issues

Multi-organisation committee to develop ideas for funding NZOR and related projects

NZOR consultation to include groups represented at this workshop for data fields

Stakeholder input for NZOR design and revisions

Share knowledge in a conducive environment o Adopt a world view with positive benefits to all o No vested interests – an “ego free zone” o A common passion o Avoid procrastination – “just do it”! o Keep momentum and motivation going
21

o Minimise bureaucracy o Avoid off-putting acronyms or jargon.
Link/coordinate databases/resources:

We need authoritative list(s) of names o What is in New Zealand o Where it is o What is not present

Create a knowledge base for cultivated plants

Wide range of interest groups using a central source for nomenclature data to make communication about plants easier

Locate databases

Create a register of resources (and validation, authority statement, level)

Verification of database listings – who, how

Make better use of existing resources

Increase awareness of available resources

Assemble databases (including those of private plant collections)
 Don’t create yet another database – instead work towards combining several existing ones

Collective information management platform for many groups and societies dealing with plants o Images o Names o Integrated Google maps

Coordination (moderation) of resources with regular (e.g., annual) reviews

De-duplicate effort (focus database custodian on their expertise/domain)

Combine all tree resources

Resource database development

Link common standalone databases (e.g., BG-BASE )

Integrate databases

Connect databases

MAF need to be more proactive in broadening and interlinking their PBI list – it is not public good to wait for individuals to contribute who then perceive barriers.
Deal with data gaps:

Identify gaps in data

Fill gaps in data available

Verify data
 Retrieve “lost” hardcopy records of plant names held in storage and make widely available through digitisation and databasing.
Digitisation and vouchering:

Aim to make herbarium vouchers of all cultivated taxa in New Zealand

Digitise existing herbarium vouchers for cultivated plants

Locate living plants held in collections and elsewhere
22


Voucher new herbarium specimens for cultivated plants

More supporting herbarium voucher specimens for cultivated plants (e.g., for
PVR plants and to validate cultivar checklists and registers).
Data collection:

Identify data sources – where the information is located

Recognise and address knowledge gaps to identify data collection priorities

Develop project to investigate cultivated flora – current institutional databases don’t cover this

Support and mobilise data around names – what, where, when

Focus long term to know what is in New Zealand

Establish a way to bring private collections into the data

Get nurseries and collection holders on board and submitting information – the more the better

Encourage more vouchering of cultivated plants in herbaria – herbarium specimens are an important conduit in the data collection process

Establish an interactive list on the web which combines existing data with the opportunity for updating by both individuals and organisations.
Standards and data validation:

Information sources need to be validated

Establish a formal group interested in cultivated plant names

Designate experts in each plant group to assist checking of nomenclature and identifications

Agree on common data and quality standards

Taxonomic validation of names

Data exchange standards
 Clearly defined “gold standards” (best practices) for validating presence in
New Zealand

Programme of validating what is here (and using herbarium specimens as validation)

Adopt a minimum standard for information requirements.
Infrastructure and databases:

Guidance required on database structure (or access to existing databases)

Set up working group to maintain cultivated plant data into NZOR

Develop platform

Make database infrastructure more readily accessible

Links from all databases enabling them to talk to each other

Options for data integration – Infohub

Offer standardised systems for simple databases to collect individual plant collections

Coordinating plant databases sharing one portal

Supported technical infrastructure
23


Accept different levels of plant identification including experts both professional and amateur as part of the basis of establishing a list
 The “Wikipedia” concept inviting owners of collections to contribute new information and to improve on existing information

Collate information (names of germplasm) from Botanic Gardens

Reactivate the RNZIH New Zealand Plant Collection Register – a good opportunity to develop a model system

Use of trade magazines to communicate requests for information on plant names – of any quality – to be held for future use

Define limits of NZOR and existing systems and how other databases/collections fit in

Use NZOR as the system for recording cultivated plants

Develop NZOR with good coverage and good quality

NZOR with rich data (e.g., photos and accession data) and links out, (e.g., to the
New Zealand Plant Finder).
This workshop and report was fully funded through a contract to Landcare Research from the Terrestrial and Freshwater Biodiversity Information System (TFBIS) Programme .
The TFBIS Programme is funded by the Government to help to achieve the goals of the
New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy, and is administered by the Department of
Conservation.
MAF Biosecurity New Zealand generously made the venue (Meeting Room 3.3) at
Pastoral House, Wellington, freely available. Julian Carver of Christchurch ably facilitated the workshop. The attendees and contributors are thanked for their active engagement and support – before, during and following the workshop.
Murray Dawson is the editor of this report. Julian Carver, Peter Heenan, and Aaron
Wilton contributed to its drafts.
24

Brockerhoff, E.; Given, D.; Ecroyd, C.; Palmer, J.; Burdon, R.; Stovold, T.; Hargreaves,
C.; Hampton, J.; MacKay, M.; Blaschke, P. 2004: Biodiversity: conserving threatened introduced species. Final Report for the Ministry of Agriculture and
Forestry Operational Research 2003–2004, Forest Research Report, Output
No. 37326. 145 p.
Cadwallader, B. 2009: The New Zealand Notable Trees Trust online database.
New Zealand Garden Journal (Journal of the Royal New Zealand Institute of
Horticulture) 12(2) : 15–17. (Available at www.rnzih.org.nz/RNZIH_Journal/Pages_15-17_from_2009_Vol12_No2.pdf
.
Reproduced in Tree Matters (magazine of the New Zealand Arboricultural
Association), 2010, Ed. 45, Vol. 12(1): 11–12).
Carver, J.; Cooper, J.; Vignaux, M.; Wilton, A. 2007: What’s in a name? New Zealand
Organisms Register Scope. (Available at www.biodiversity.govt.nz/pdfs/NZOR_scope.pdf
).
Cave, P. 2004: The 2004 Banks Memorial Lecture: New Zealand needs new plants.
Horticulture in New Zealand (Journal of the Royal New Zealand Institute of
Horticulture) 7(2) : 2–4. (Available at www.rnzih.org.nz/RNZIH_Journal/Pages2-
4_from_2004_Vol7_No2.pdf
).
Cooper, J. and Wilton, A. 2009: The New Zealand Organisms Register (NZOR).
New Zealand Garden Journal (Journal of the Royal New Zealand Institute of
Horticulture) 12(2) : 12–14. (Available at www.rnzih.org.nz/RNZIH_Journal/Pages_12-14_from_2009_Vol12_No2.pdf
).
Dickson, M. 2009: The Plants Biosecurity Index (PBI). New Zealand Garden Journal
(Journal of the Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture) 12(2) : 8–9.
(Available at www.rnzih.org.nz/RNZIH_Journal/Pages_8-
9_from_2009_Vol12_No2.pdf
).
Douglas, J. 2005: Exotic plants are the lifeblood of New Zealand: less regulation is needed to allow more new species into this country. Horticulture in New Zealand
(Journal of the Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture) 8(1) : 2–6. (Available at www.rnzih.org.nz/RNZIH_Journal/Pages2-6_from_2005_Vol8_No1.pdf
).
Given, D.R.; Brockerhoff, E.G.; Palmer, J. 2006: Nationally networked plant collections are a necessity. New Zealand Garden Journal (Journal of the Royal New Zealand
Institute of Horticulture) 9(1) : 15–18. (Available at www.rnzih.org.nz/RNZIH_Journal/Pages_15-18_from_2006_Vol9_No1.pdf
).
Hammett, K.R. 2009: A plant breeder’s perspective.
New Zealand Garden Journal
(Journal of the Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture) 12(2) : 2–3.
(Available at www.rnzih.org.nz/RNZIH_Journal/Pages_2-
3_from_2009_Vol12_No2.pdf
).
Heenan, P.B. 1985: Rare plant conservation in parks departments. Annual Journal Royal
New Zealand Institute of Horticulture 13 : 13–21.
Heenan, P.B.; de Lange, P.J.; Cameron, E.K.; Champion, P.D. 2002: Checklist of dicotyledons, gymnosperms, and pteridophytes naturalised or casual in
New Zealand: additional records 1999–2000. New Zealand Journal of Botany 40 :
25

155–174. (Available at www.royalsociety.org.nz/Site/publish/Journals/nzjb/2002/014.aspx
).
Heenan, P. and Dawson, M. 2009: Research perspectives. New Zealand Garden Journal
(Journal of the Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture) 12(2) : 6–7.
(Available at www.rnzih.org.nz/RNZIH_Journal/Pages_6-
7_from_2009_Vol12_No2.pdf
).
Johnson, N. 2006: Position Paper. Barriers to importation of new plant species, developed for the Plant Imports Action Group. Nov 2006 (revised Dec 2006).
Local Government and Environment Committee 2006. New Zealand House of
Representatives 2004/05: Financial review of the Department of Conservation.
Report of the Local Government and Environment Committee. (Available at www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/74BE2794-67B8-465C-A66D-
FFFA3456E795/15266/DBSCH_SCR_3301_3258.pdf
).
McGregor, D. 2004: ‘Present in New Zealand’: A New Organisms Scoping Study.
Prepared for the Environmental Risk Management Authority. 44 pp. (Available at www.ermanz.govt.nz/resources/publications/pdfs/er-gi-04-01.pdf
).
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2003: Contribution of the land-based primary industries to New Zealand’s economic growth. 54 p. (Available at www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/profitability-and-economics/contribution-ofland-based-industries-nz-economic-growth and www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/ruralnz/profitability-and-economics/contribution-of-land-based-industries-nzeconomic-growth/landbased-primary-industries.pdf
).
Myers, T. and Etherington, Y. 2009: BG-BASE for New Zealand botanic gardens.
New Zealand Garden Journal (Journal of the Royal New Zealand Institute of
Horticulture) 12(2) : 18–20. (Available at www.rnzih.org.nz/RNZIH_Journal/Pages_18-20_from_2009_Vol12_No2.pdf
).
New Zealand Government 1996: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act,
New Zealand Government, Wellington, New Zealand. 252 p.
New Zealand Government 1998: Biosecurity. Reprinted Act (with amendments incorporated), New Zealand Government, Wellington, New Zealand. 199 p.
Oates, M.R. 1999: The role of native plant collections – a blue print for the future.
New Zealand Plants and their Story: Proceedings of a conference held in
Wellington, 1–3 October 1999. (Available at www.rnzih.org.nz/pages/1999ConferenceMikeOates.htm
and www.rnzih.org.nz/pages/NZ-Plants-and-their-Story-71-78.pdf
; reprinted in the
New Zealand Garden Journal 3(2) : 15–21, December 2000).
Ridley, G. 2009: Perspectives of the regulatory environment from ERMA. New Zealand
Garden Journal (Journal of the Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture)
12(2) : 10–11. (Available at www.rnzih.org.nz/RNZIH_Journal/Pages_10-
11_from_2009_Vol12_No2.pdf
).
Sole, D. 2009: Botanic gardens and horticultural perspectives. New Zealand Garden
Journal (Journal of the Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture) 12(2) : 4–5.
(Available at www.rnzih.org.nz/RNZIH_Journal/Pages_4-
5_from_2009_Vol12_No2.pdf
).
26

BGANZ Botanic Gardens of Australia and New Zealand
DoC Department of Conservation
ERMA Environmental Risk Management Authority (New Zealand)
FRST
GBIF
Foundation for Research, Science and Technology (to be merged with FRST)
Global Biodiversity Information Facility
HSNO Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (1996 Act)
MAF Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
MoRST Ministry of Research Science and Technology (to be merged with FRST)
NGIA Nursery & Garden Industry Association
NZAA New Zealand Arboricultural Association
NZBRN New Zealand Biodiversity Recording Network
NZBS New Zealand Botanical Society
NZNHN New Zealand National Herbarium Network
NZNTT New Zealand Notable Trees Trust (a trust of the RNZIH)
NZOR New Zealand Organisms Register
NZPCN New Zealand Plant Conservation Network
NZPPS New Zealand Plant Protection Society
NZTCA New Zealand Tree Crops Association
NZVH New Zealand Virtual Herbarium
PBI Plants Biosecurity Index
PIAG
PVR
Plant Imports Action Group
Plant Variety Rights
RNZIH Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture
TFBIS Terrestrial and Freshwater Biodiversity System programme
27

Time
9.00-9.30am
Activity
Welcome & purpose of workshop
 introductions
 key outcomes
 scope
 how the workshop will run
 housekeeping
Morning session: The cultivated plants problem: clarifying the issues
9.30-10.10am
10.10-10.40am
10.40-11.00am
Identify issues
 “What are the issues”?
Short presentations on issues/constraints: sector perspectives
 key stakeholders o industry and plant breeders (Keith Hammett) o botanic gardens and horticulturists (David Sole) o research (Peter Heenan and Murray Dawson)
 regulatory environment – legislation, HSNO, Biosecurity, issues from regulators perspective, current projects o PBI (Michele Dickson) o ERMA (Geoff Ridley)
Morning tea
11.00-11.40am Consequences:
 “What are the consequences of these issues”?
 “What could we do if these issues were removed”?
11.40-12.00pm Consequences continued – prioritisation
 “Which of the consequences have the largest impact for your professional responsibility”?
12.00-12.30pm Lunch
Afternoon session: Resources and Solutions
12.30-1.00pm Existing Resources

Review, compare and categorise
1.00-1.30pm
1.30-1.20pm
2.00-3.00pm
3.00-3.15pm
3.15-3.30pm
3.30-4.00pm
4.00-4.20pm
4.20-4.30pm
Short presentations on umbrella/model resources that may help

NZOR (Jerry Cooper and Aaron Wilton)

Notable Trees (Brad Cadwallader)

BG-BASE for botanic gardens (Tom Myers and Yvonne Etherington)

NZBRN (Jerry Cooper)

NZVH (Aaron Wilton)

New Zealand Plant Finder (Meg Gaddum)
Potential solutions for the top priority issues


Funding

Policy
Research

Communication

Databases

Standards

Informatics infrastructure
Solutions – prioritisation and definition
Afternoon tea
Burning issues – “What are the questions/burning issues that haven’t yet be raised”?
Draft vision
Action Plan – “Who is doing what”?
Immediate next steps – “Where to from here”?
28

Participants represented key interest groups. The attendee list (name, role, organisation, other representation) is:

Julian Carver , Workshop Facilitator, Seradigm, Christchurch. Other representation: NZOR (Project Manager).

Kenyon Moore , Manager, Margot Forde Forage Germplasm Centre (NZ).

Glen Carter , Arboretum Manager, Auckland Botanic Gardens, Manurewa.

Yvonne Etherington , Botanical Records Officer, Auckland Botanic Gardens,
Manurewa.

David Sole , Manager, Botanic Gardens of Wellington. Other representation:
BGANZ; RNZIH (Chairman).

Tom Myers , Botanical Services Officer, Dunedin Botanic Garden.

Alan White , Biodiversity Funds Manager, DoC, Wellington.

Susie James , TFBIS Fund Coordinator, DoC, Wellington.

Clayson Howell , Weed Ecologist, Research and Development Group, DoC,
Wellington.

Paul Wynen , Curator, Eastwoodhill Arboretum, near Gisborne. American Public
Gardens Association (APGA); BGANZ; International Dendrology Society (IDS);
NZNHN; NZPCN; RNZIH.

Geoff Ridley , Science Manager (New Organisms), ERMA New Zealand,
Wellington.

Aaron Wilton , Herbarium Database Manager, Informatics, Landcare Research,
Lincoln. Other representation: NZOR (Technical Leader), NZNHN.

Ilse Breitwieser , Research Leader, Biosystematics, Landcare Research, Lincoln.
Other representation: NZNHN.

Jerry Cooper , Researcher, Informatics, Landcare Research, Lincoln. Other representation: GBIF (node manager); NZOR (Project Leader); member of the
Global Committee of the Species2000/Catalogue of life project.

Murray Dawson , Research Technician, Biosystematics, Landcare Research,
Lincoln. Other representation: RNZIH (executive member, co-editor, webmaster).

Peter Heenan , Researcher, Biosystematics, Landcare Research, Lincoln.

Barney Stephenson , Senior Adviser (biosecurity of terrestrial plants), Strategic
Science Team, MAF Biosecurity NZ, Wellington.

John Randall , Team Manager – Pests and Pathways, Pest Management Group,
MAF Biosecurity NZ, Wellington.

Melanie Newfield , Senior Adviser, Risk Analysis Group, MAF Biosecurity NZ,
Wellington. Other representation: NZBS (editor).

Michele Dickson , Adviser (Plant products, seeds), Plant Imports and Exports
Group, MAF Biosecurity NZ, Wellington.

Vivian Dalley , Adviser (Nursery Stock), Plant Imports and Exports Group, MAF
Biosecurity NZ, Wellington.
29


Marion MacKay , Senior Lecturer, Landscape Management, Massey University,
Palmerston North. Other representation: Botanic Gardens Conservation
International (London); Global Trees Campaign; International Dendrology
Society; IUCN Species Survival Commission; NZ Institute of Agricultural and
Horticultural Sciences; Rhododendron Association; RNZIH.

Jenny Jebson , PVR Examiner, Agricultural, Plant Variety Rights Office,
Ministry of Economic Development.

Tony Robinson , Senior Adviser, MoRST. Other representation: NZOR
Governance Group, GBIF NZ.

Bruce Smallfield , Plant Breeder, New and ornamental crops, Plant & Food
Research, Invermay. Other representation: PIAG.

Keith Hammett , Plant breeder, ornamentals, private professional, Auckland.
Other representation: Clivia Society, RHS UK; National Sweet Pea Society (UK);
Examiner for Plant Variety Rights Office; National Pest Plant Accord – Technical
Advisory Group; NGIA; NZ National Dahlia Society Patron; Auckland
Horticultural Council; RNZIH.

Meg Gaddum , NZ Plant Finder database, private professional, Te Karaka.

Murray Redpath , National President, NZ Tree Crops Association, private professional, Opotiki. Other representation: Hazelnut Growers Association of
NZ.

Eric Cairns , NZ Tree Crops Association, Wellington branch, private professional, Wellington.

Ian Duncalf , Plant Struck Ltd, Tauranga, NGIA.

Philippa Foes-Lamb , RNZIH Register of Plant Collections, private professional,
Nelson. Other representation: Hardy Plant Society, UK; Hardy Geranium Group,
UK; NZ Trillium Group; NZ Iris Society; Nelson Iris Group; Brightwater
Horticultural Society, Nelson; Coastal Garden Group, Mapua, Nelson.

Brad Cadwallader , New Zealand Notable Trees Trust (NZNTT), Cadwallader
Tree Consultancy, Nelson. Other representation: International Society of
Arboriculture (ISA); NZAA.

Chris Ecroyd , Herbarium Curator, National Forestry Herbarium, Scion, Rotorua.
Other representation: NZNHN.

Penny Cliffin , Senior Lecturer, Department of Landscape Architecture, Unitec,
Auckland. Other representation: Garden Design Society of NZ (GDSNZ);
Landscaping NZ; RNZIH.
30

The following diagrams illustrate the functions of each stakeholder group (Central
Government, Local Government – City Councils and Regional Authorities, AgResearch,
Landcare Research, NIWA, Plant & Food Research, Scion, universities and polytechnics, herbaria and living collections, the plant industry sector, the education sector, nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), plant societies, private experts and members of the public) associated with documenting the cultivated flora.
31

Central Government
Local Government – City Councils and Regional Authorities
32

AgResearch
Landcare Research
33

NIWA
Plant & Food Research
34

Scion
Universities and Polytechnics
35

Herbaria and living collections
Plant industry sector
36

Education sector, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and plant societies
37

Private experts and members of the public
38

Eight workshop presentations were edited into written format and included in this appendix. They were previously published as articles in the New Zealand Garden
Journal , 2009, Vol. 12(2) and online versions are available at www.rnzih.org.nz/pages/NZ_Garden_Journal_index.htm
. See the main references
(Section 8) in this report for the full citations or follow the hyperlinks in the list below to retrieve individual PDFs versions from the RNZIH website.
1.
Sector perspectives on issues and constraints:
A plant breeder’s perspective (Keith Hammett)
Botanic gardens and horticultural perspectives (David Sole)
Research perspectives (Peter Heenan and Murray Dawson)
The Plants Biosecurity Index (PBI) (Michele Dickson)
Perspectives of the regulatory environment from ERMA (Geoff Ridley).
2.
Presentations on umbrella resources:
The New Zealand Organisms Register (NZOR)
(Jerry Cooper and Aaron Wilton)
The New Zealand Notable Trees Trust online database (Brad Cadwallader)
BG-BASE for New Zealand botanic gardens
(Tom Myers and Yvonne Etherington).
The first three presentations discuss issues surrounding plant names from plant breeders, botanic gardens, horticultural, and research perspectives; another two are from regulators viewpoints. The next three presentations outline resources that use plant names – the
New Zealand Organisms Register project, the RNZIH NZ Notable Trees Trust online database, and BG-BASE for managing plant collections.
Since the date of the workshop, progress has been made in updating the RNZIH
New Zealand Plant Collection Register (referred to in Keith Hammett and David Sole’s presentations and profiled in Appendix Five). The original records are actively being updated by Philippa Foes-Lamb and a planning workshop is arranged for July 2010.
Also since the workshop, the New Zealand Notable Trees Trust online database became available online ( www.notabletrees.org.nz
) and the corresponding presentation has been updated to reflect this.
Three further presentations were delivered at the workshop (the New Zealand
Biodiversity Recording Network, the New Zealand Virtual Herbarium, and the
New Zealand Plant Finder) and have not been published. Details of the New Zealand
Biodiversity Recording Network are on their website ( www.nzbrn.org.nz
). Since the workshop, the New Zealand Virtual Herbarium became available online
( www.virtualherbarium.org.nz
) in December 2009. At the workshop, Meg Gaddum provided an impromptu talk about the New Zealand Plant Finder
( www.plantfinder.co.nz
). These and other resources are summarised in Appendix Five.
39

Keith Hammett
Introduction
Initially, let me state that I believe the preservation of biodiversity is a global responsibility. I do not believe that anyone has ownership of germplasm. At best we have custodianship.
I also reject any notion that we should discriminate between indigenous and exotic flora.
New Zealand has in many cases acted as a Noah’s Ark for genotypes and even species lost in their country of origin.
It is also important to remember that it is genetic material that is of prime importance. All too often a great deal of effort goes into cataloguing the names of genotypes that are no longer extant.
In order to fulfil our responsibility of custodianship, it is self evident that we must have a full understanding of the plants that are currently in New Zealand. Managing the country without knowing everything in the flora is like managing a supermarket without knowing everything on the shelf.
I suspect that we have a pretty good idea of the plants in our native flora. However, New
Zealand has a rich heritage of plant importation. Many of the early importations were undocumented. However, it never fails to amaze me, that after the introduction of biosecurity policies, with all the costs and bureaucracy that has and is associated with this, that there is no comprehensive record of what has been introduced legally. This even applies to recent decades following the introduction of computer technology.
It is important to understand that it is often difficult to get an introduced plant to establish in a new environment and that plant collections are dynamic and easily eroded. Each collection needs careful curation and data records of both additions and losses need to be kept up-to-date.
With regard to plants that did establish sufficiently well to be offered for sale, collections of nursery and seed catalogues are an invaluable source of information, especially when trying to pinpoint the date of introduction.
Utility
Why do we need to know which plants exist in New Zealand?
For plant breeders, different forms of a plant are analogous to a box of paints for a painter. For both plant breeders and nurserymen, it is only common sense to establish whether a plant or cultivar is already available within New Zealand as this avoids the
40

costs and risks associated with duplicate importation. This is especially true now that biosecurity regulations have become so Draconian and costly.
In the realm of Plant Variety Rights Protection, it is often very difficult if not impossible to locate plants that are designated as comparators.
In terms of regulatory bodies, it is unacceptable that a taxon should be designated as a new organism simply because our knowledge base is too poor.
With regard to worries about the potential of a plant to be a weed threat, there seems to be a greater willingness to consider data from quite different climates than to check whether that plant has been introduced into New Zealand previously. If a plant has been introduced in the past and has, maybe, even been offered for sale, but we do not know if it is here now, ipso facto it may have little if any weed potential.
It is disturbing to learn that little if any work is being carried out to update plant names on the MAF Plants Biosecurity Index (online at www1.maf.govt.nz/cgibin/bioindex/bioindex.pl
).
Options
Questions surrounding germplasm resources in New Zealand are multifaceted. The essential first step is to identify collections of plants currently existing in New Zealand as well as material offered for sale by nurseries.
An attempt to produce a New Zealand Plant Collection Register was made under the auspices of the Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture, from 1989 to 1993.
However, this Register only got to the stage of producing an index to recognisable collections. The next step was to be the listing of the plant names in those collections.
This would have enabled some assessment of the vulnerability of individual species or cultivars.
In a small way this work was seen to be analogous to the work of the National Council for the Conservation of Plants and Gardens in the UK.
Of course there are many downstream issues such as the correct identification of the plants in the collections and the use of names that conform with the edicts of the
International Codes of Botanical Nomenclature and Cultivated Plants.
Similarly, it would be desirable that herbarium specimens should be made of the various plants held in collections to serve as datum points and for future research.
Practical implications
Virtually all of New Zealand’s plant industry is based on exotic germplasm. With regard to ornamental plants, the New Zealand flora is predominately green and floristically poor, thus offering few opportunities.
41

The use of indigenous flora is further constrained by the notion of Maori ‘ownership’.
For genuine new crops we need to import species and genera that have not been developed previously. There is little point in further stirring a domesticated gene pool that is freely available elsewhere.
To determine the potentiality of developing a new crop, collections consisting of various species from a genus, as well as a number of accessions or genotypes within each species need to be established.
It is often very difficult to introduce species from the wild into cultivation, especially where highly specialised ecotypes are concerned.
Once collections have been established, they need to be actively curated and plants carefully observed to determine any possibility for breeding new crops. This takes a long time.
In my case significant development in the genera Lathyrus and Dahlia have been based on the use of species not previously used for breeding. Fortunately, as part of my breeding work I had imported a range of species prior to 29th July 1998 (the date on which the HSNO Act came into force for plants and other new organisms). To do so now, since the implementation of the HSNO Act, would be impossible, certainly without very deep pockets and a great deal of time and patience to meet the regulatory requirements.
With some large genera such as Cuphea , which has both ornamental and utilitarian species, it is impossible to prejudge the potential of any of the species not already in cultivation.
For these reasons alone, the best we can hope to do is to locate and record exotic germplasm already in New Zealand. Maybe if we are very lucky indeed, we might just find something comparable to the kiwifruit ( Actinidia ), Zantedeschia or Sandersonia , but do not hold your breath.
New Zealand’s door is now firmly closed.
Further reading
Brockerhoff, E.; Given, D.; Ecroyd, C.; Palmer, J.; Burdon, R.; Stovold, T.; Hargreaves,
C.; Hampton, J.; MacKay, M.; Blaschke, P. (2004). Biodiversity: conserving threatened introduced species. Final Report for the Ministry of Agriculture and
Forestry Operational Research 2003–2004, Forest Research Report, Output No.
37326. 145 p.
Cave, P. (2004). New Zealand needs new plants. New Zealand Garden Journal 7(2) : 2–4.
Available at www.rnzih.org.nz/pages/2004_Banks_Lecture.htm
.
Douglas, J.A. (2005). Plant import rules blocking growth. The New Zealand Herald , 18
April 2005.
42

Douglas, J. (2005). Exotic plants are the lifeblood of New Zealand: less regulation is needed to allow more new species into this country. New Zealand Garden Journal
8(1) : 2–6. Available at www.rnzih.org.nz/RNZIH_Journal/Pages2-
6_from_2005_Vol8_No1.pdf
.
Given, D.R.; Eckehard, G.; Brockerhoff, E.G.; Palmer, J. (2006). Nationally networked plant collections are a necessity. New Zealand Garden Journal 9(1) : 15–18.
Available at www.rnzih.org.nz/RNZIH_Journal/Pages_15-
18_from_2006_Vol9_No1.pdf
.
Hammett, K.R.W. (1993). New Zealand Plant Collection Register Update No. 3: 1st
March 1993. Horticulture in New Zealand 4(1) : 18–28.
New Zealand Government (1996). Hazardous substances and new organisms Act, New
Zealand Government, Wellington, New Zealand. 252 p.
New Zealand Government (1998). Biosecurity. Reprinted Act (with amendments incorporated), New Zealand Government, Wellington, New Zealand. 199 p.
NZ Institute of Economic Research (Inc.) (2003). HSNO Act: Impact on costs and innovation. Report to Ministry of Economic Development. 26 p.
Oates, M. (1989). Garden plant conservation. New Zealand Gardener . June 1989, p. 7.
(Letters and plant exchange).
43

David Sole
Here I provide my own views as Manager of the Botanic Gardens of Wellington, member of Botanic Gardens of Australia and New Zealand (BGANZ), and Chairman of the Royal
New Zealand Institute of Horticulture (RNZIH).
The RNZIH’s interest in this workshop largely stems from its involvement with the New
Zealand Plant Collection Register, established 1989–1993 (Hammett, 1993), and currently in the process of being reviewed and updated.
Of necessity at the time, the focus of the previous Plant Collection Register was limited to relatively coarse information – an incomplete list of collections recorded at the genus level only. An online version of this register is at www.rnzih.org.nz/pages/plantcollectionregister2.html
and associated pages. This Plant
Collection Register was never developed as a database.
For the current initiative, we consider that there is a need to capture a finer level of information – ideally, all collections of plants held throughout the country and also, if possible during the process, capture details of individual plants with heritage or cultural values, or which are now rare in cultivation in this country.
Botanic Gardens are and will remain traditional institutions holding plants both common and rare, though with an increasing focus on conservation. Other institutions holding plant collections include universities, Crown Research Institutes, commercial plant nurseries and private gardens.
When considered collectively, there is an invaluable repository of plants widely fragmented throughout the country that few people are aware of and which needs to be recognised and captured before they are lost.
The late David Given (Given et al., 2006) expressed the need for nationally networked plant collections very well:
“Good quality nationally important collections of plants, whether native or exotic, need to be recognised as national treasures just as much as works of art and buildings.”
The importance of recording and correctly identifying plants is listed below (though in no particular order of importance): o There remain latent threats to the environment from non-native plant species as climate change continues. We need to be more aware of the exotic plants already in New Zealand and monitor them for potential invasiveness. Some we can
44

predict, others we can make reasonable guesses about, but there is likely to be an unquantified body of exotic plants that pose a threat to our native flora. o There is a need to maintain genetic diversity – a single plant may not be able to give rise to a sustainable population and within a species there can be numerous different genotypes and cultivars. Maintaining genetic diversity is essential for plant conservation of species and heritage cultivars, as well as providing germplasm for plant breeding. o There has been a drastic loss in the range of species, hybrids, and cultivars in production with mass production of select few cultivars currently ‘in fashion’, the closing of long established and often specialist nurseries, the loss of skilled people from the industry, the dissipation of private collections, and loss of institutional and personal knowledge of plant collections. o In times of financial constraints it is too easy to cut back on plant collections in the vain hope that someone else has them covered. o We don’t all need to be growing the same plants. There needs to be better coordination between public and private gardens – coordination between those who can optimally grow particular species and especially better management of insurance populations either ‘in-’ or ‘ex situ’. We need to work together as one. o Plants have heritage and cultural values. As a nation we need to ensure that these are captured and perpetuated. New Zealand is a young nation. We are still learning and it is only now we are beginning to understand the cultural value of plants which has been recognised for so long in other parts of the world. o Many plants have untapped economic value. One of the founding premises for the establishment of ‘old world’ botanic gardens throughout the Northern Hemisphere was the economic exploitation of plants both directly and indirectly. o Plants have finite lives and material must be actively maintained and propagated – even horticulturists can be caught out and plants lost. o Good plant husbandry – we must not lose the skills fostered by exposure to a wide range of species, hybrids and cultivars, both native and exotic. Diversity stimulates and challenges. o Carelessness – we must all be vigilant about plants, plantsmanship and plant naming especially in public gardens. The credibility of the horticultural industry is particularly dependent on this. o Staff who are skilled in taxonomy or who are trained as botanists are essential. It has been too easy to move away from this in favour of generic horticultural practice. o Disparate and/or stand alone databases. It is difficult to access and review a wide range of databases and plant names lists. Furthermore, despite the Internet age, there remains much valuable information on plants and plant names unavailable online (e.g., held in historic nursery catalogues, books, and authoritative cultivar checklists and registers). Some limited standardisation has begun with botanic gardens using BG-BASE plant data system. There are now five users in New
Zealand and it is my hope that these eventually become linked to form a nationally accessible database of plants held in botanic gardens in New Zealand.
With the appropriate database development, it would be possible to extend this resource out into the public arena.
45

With current database and web delivery technologies, there are exciting opportunities to link databases such as the New Zealand Organisms Register (to act as a central repository of names) with initiatives that have their own unique information such as the forthcoming
RNZIH Notable Trees Trust online database and management system and a new New
Zealand Plant Collection Register.
There is no question that public gardens and organisations such as BGANZ and the
RNZIH have strong roles to play in sustaining the industry and preserving plants and horticultural practice for future generations.
References
Given, D.R.; Eckehard, G.; Brockerhoff, E.G.; Palmer, J. (2006). Nationally networked plant collections are a necessity. New Zealand Garden Journal 9(1) : 15–18.
Available at www.rnzih.org.nz/RNZIH_Journal/Pages_15-
18_from_2006_Vol9_No1.pdf
.
Hammett, K.R.W. (1993). New Zealand Plant Collection Register Update No. 3: 1st
March 1993. Horticulture in New Zealand 4(1) : 18–28.
46

Peter Heenan and Murray Dawson
There are several issues regarding botanical research and the identification and naming of the cultivated flora of New Zealand.
In New Zealand, botanical research is undertaken at universities (University of Auckland,
University of Waikato, Massey University, Victoria University of Wellington, University of Canterbury, Lincoln University, University of Otago), Crown Research Institutes
(especially the Plant Biosystematics group at Landcare Research, to a lesser extent
AgResearch, Plant & Food Research, Scion, and NIWA), other organisations (notably Te
Papa and the Department of Conservation, also polytechnics and institutes of technology) and a few private individuals. Significant research contributions on New Zealand plants are also made by overseas institutions.
Most of the botanical research is conducted on native and (to a lesser extent) naturalised plant species. There are currently 2357 native (indigenous and endemic) vascular plant taxa (genus, species, subspecies, variety, cultivar etc.) described for New Zealand (de
Lange et al., 2006) and biosystematic research aims at describing new taxa and elucidating taxonomic and evolutionary (phylogenetic) relationships between them. This research contributes to our understanding of New Zealand biodiversity and aids in conservation management.
With 2436 vascular plant taxa naturalised in New Zealand (Howell and Sawyer, 2006), there are now more naturalised than native species in New Zealand. Research on these documents new naturalisations and contributes to weed management.
Although native and naturalised plant groups are represented in cultivation, there are a large number of cultivated species that are neither native nor naturalised. In New
Zealand, there may be 25,500 up to 40,000 ‘cultivated only’ plants (cultivars and ornamental species). This group is poorly documented and little studied but may contain future weed escapes ‘jumping the fence’ in New Zealand or house valuable genotypes now rare or absent from other countries.
The correct application of names to plants cultivated in New Zealand is crucial for biosecurity (both pre- and post-border) and the horticultural and agricultural sectors. It is essential to know exactly what plants are growing in New Zealand and what their correct names are. Having the correct name for a taxon provides, for example, access to other names the plant may be known by (synonyms), its relationships to other species, where it originated from, its biostatus (presence and status in New Zealand – cultivated only, naturalised etc.), and its economic uses.
The application of plant names to the cultivated flora of New Zealand is a research area requiring specialised botanical skills and techniques. To competently and accurately
47

identify plants it is also essential to have access to living material in the field and in cultivation, the relevant botanical and horticultural literature, and herbarium specimens
(Heenan, 2008).
Botanical literature is published in New Zealand and international journals and provides the latest treatments for plant groups. Literature includes floras (technical books with detailed plant descriptions and identification keys), revisions (research papers on particular groups of plants), and electronic resources (online databases of names). A herbarium is a reference collection of dried, pressed, and labelled plants and these specimens are crucial to any research on cultivated plants as they are a permanent record of a plant growing at a particular time and place and who collected and identified it. If a plant name changes or an identification is wrong, the identity of the herbarium specimen can be redetermined at a later date. If a plant is only represented on a list as a name, and there is no herbarium voucher, there can be no certainty as to what plant material the person who originally collected and/or identified it was.
There are two main concepts relevant to the application of plant names, nomenclature and taxonomy .
Nomenclature is a system of names and rules used for the naming of plants (and animals).
Botanists use the binomial system of nomenclature developed by Carl Linnaeus in the
18th Century and still in use today. This system combines a genus name with a unique species name to identify an organism. For plants, the International Code of Botanic
Nomenclature (ICBN) is followed and there is a more specialised Code for cultivated plants – the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP).
Nomenclature includes:
1.
The correct name and authority a.
orthography – spelling and usage of names b.
authority – names of researchers who published the plant names. Their surname and initials are associated with each plant name following a standardised author abbreviation.
2.
The correct place and date of publication.
3.
Synonyms a.
homotypic – a synonym created when a taxon gets a new name without being included in another taxon of the same rank or when a new name for a taxon is created without displacing the existing name b.
heterotypic – a synonym created when a taxon is reduced in status
(‘reduced to synonymy’) and becomes part of a different taxon.
Taxonomy is the science of identifying, describing and classifying plants (and animals).
Taxonomic research uses traditional methods and new techniques such as DNA sequence analyses. Taxonomy includes:
1.
Taxonomic concepts a.
taxonomic treatment being followed
48

b.
application of ranks c.
species variability.
2.
Herbarium voucher specimens a.
reference for time and place b.
defines collectors/identifiers application of a name c.
authenticated presence d.
available for future research.
3.
Biostatus – e.g., a.
wild b.
endemic c.
indigenous d.
exotic e.
naturalised f.
present in captivity/cultivation/culture.
References de Lange, P.J.; Sawyer, J.W.D.; Rolfe, J.R. (2006). New Zealand indigenous vascular plant checklist. New Zealand Plant Conservation Network, Wellington. 94 p.
Heenan, P.B. (2008). The 2007 Banks Memorial Lecture: ‘Discovery and description’ of the New Zealand flora: a contemporary perspective. New Zealand Garden
Journal 11(1) : 2–7.
Howell, C.J. and Sawyer, J.W.D. (2006). New Zealand naturalised vascular plant checklist. New Zealand Plant Conservation Network, Wellington. 60 p.
49

Michele Dickson
A brief outline of the regulatory environment – legislation, issues from a regulators perspective
Establishment of the Acts and general background
The two Acts governing the Plants Biosecurity Index (PBI; http://www1.maf.govt.nz/cgibin/bioindex/bioindex.pl
) are the Biosecurity Act (1993) and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO) which replaced the plant restrictions of earlier
Acts. When HSNO was under development a working tool was required to designate taxa acceptable for importation, based on plants deemed to be present in New Zealand. This was prepared with information available at the time, incorporating nursery stock importation records, nursery catalogues and Landcare Research records. Prior regulations existed for importing nursery stock, but there were few for seed, other than for major cereal and legume crops. Nursery stock importation was recorded mostly at the genus level. Apart from a prohibited list any ornamental species of seed could be imported.
An editing provision was built into the PBI and this is used by the Plants Imports Group who manage the index. The PBI is a working tool used primarily as an index for the two
MAF importation standards: ‘Seed for Sowing’ (SS) and ‘Nursery Stock’ (NS). The PBI is not established by statute, but the two import standards are legally binding, being signed by a Chief Technical Officer (CTO) and established under the Biosecurity Act.
The PBI is used worldwide by importers and suppliers to New Zealand, many people within MAF Biosecurity New Zealand (MAFBNZ), and others.
Additions to the PBI are made by MAF, as required by importers or repeat arrivals at the border. Some fairly large lists have been added, via requests through ERMA, with recent examples including cacti lists and further Trifolium species. Additions, amendments or other data improvements to the PBI are made only as current problems or requests arise.
No other attempt to add or amend data should be made in view of future possible linkage(s) to another database (or databases). It is best that information about presence in
New Zealand is captured in other databases and at this stage entries to the PBI be of necessity for importation.
Programming maintenance of the PBI is currently under a contract with an IT company, but there have been no changes to the database structure in recent years.
Plant groups absent from the PBI:

Species present in New Zealand for which information has not been made available. MAF has not actively sought this information, but if species present in
New Zealand are brought to the attention of MAF, a follow up will be made involving ERMA where necessary.
50


Species that have naturalised since 1998 with no record of presence before 29
July 1998 (the date on which the HSNO Act came into effect for plants and other new organisms). These are still considered ‘new organisms’ until assessed under
HSNO.

No lower (non-vascular) plants except the prohibited alga Caulerpa taxifolia , to raise the awareness of this invasive marine seaweed.
Present on the PBI:

Seed plants, ferns and club mosses acceptable for importation.

Approximately 168 species regarded as new organisms, but specifically listed as prohibited. These have been legally determined as unwanted organisms (based on their relationships to other serious weeds and international records). Having them in the PBI also acts as a flag to deter potential importers unaware of the background.
Entries in the PBI
Most plant names are in the binomial form (genus and species). In either column (SS or
NS) of the PBI, an entry of ‘Requires assessment’ signifies that no biosecurity status has been assigned and the taxon cannot currently be imported until a specification is developed. A few entries have ‘Requires assessment’ in both columns, and this generally signifies that the species is not regarded as new (i.e., no further ERMA involvement is required.
Some cultivar and hybrid names are included. A named cultivar or hybrid of a genus may be accepted as present by ERMA even if the full species parentage is not known. In other cases ERMA have approved all named cultivars or hybrids within a genus, e.g.,
Hemerocallis hybrids and some of the orchid genera. Intergeneric and interspecific hybrid names have been prefixed with an ‘x’ before the genus or the species e.g., ‘x
Festulolium braunii
’ and ‘
Malus x robusta
’.
Synonyms. A few synonyms, checked on authoritative databases have been added by
MAFBNZ, but many others have resulted from enquiries to ERMA directly and received an acceptance by ERMA to be a synonym, or a ‘determination of presence (Section 26)’ or a statement of acceptance of presence in New Zealand. For preferred names,
MAFBNZ will follow the Landcare Research plant names databases where possible.
However, for the purpose of the PBI some names preferred in trade must also be used even if they are not the latest botanically preferred names. Not all known synonyms are added to the PBI, but some will be if there are likely to be repeat importations of the same plant under the same synonymy. Only limited synonymy is included in the PBI despite the fact that some plant species have extensive synonymies.
Searching the PBI. The PBI is not case sensitive. Searches can be made on the first character or first few characters of a plant name, or on the SS or NS standards, e.g., see
155.02.05 under Abies ( www.biosecurity.govt.nz/imports/plants/standards/155-02-
05.pdf
), or a search for Entry Prohibited.
Prohibited plants. An organism can be made an unwanted organism if a Chief Technical
Officer (CTO) believes it is capable or potentially capable of causing unwanted harm to
51

any natural and physical resources or human health. The Unwanted Organism Register
(UOR; http://www1.maf.govt.nz/uor/searchframe.htm
) is the reference point for these organisms and is established pursuant to relevant sections of the Biosecurity Act.
In the PBI, there are about 400 entries with the status ‘Entry Prohibited’. Various prohibited taxa are on one or more of the following: the National Pest Plant Accord
(NPPA), the National or Regional Plant Pest Management Strategies (RPMS), unwanted organism register (includes those designated by a DOC CTO) and the 2nd schedule of
HSNO. Prohibited entries also exist for plants under control through the Ministry of
Health and Misuse of Drugs Act (1975), e.g., Catha edulis (khat) which contains an amphetamine-like stimulant.
The situation with contamination in seed lots is governed by international regulations which stipulate that in order for a country to take action against a contaminant seed type, the plant must be under an eradication or total control management strategy or there be another technically justifiable reason. Hence a separate list of about 300 entries for prohibited seed contaminants, known as the regulated weed seed list in the SS standard, is shorter than the total prohibited list, as many plants being monitored only or on the NPPA list are generally not included.
Problems at the border
Seeds

Packets of seeds with no botanical name (MAF has methods for coping with this problem, and developing a level of confidence/trust in the importer and supplier).

Non-commercially packed seeds/hand-collected collections (for important collections a permit could be issued prior to entry).

Seed imported for uses other than sowing, while of lower risk, is most likely to be named with only common names.
Nursery stock

Applications to import hybrid plants are often a problem when insufficient parentage information is given or unknown.

The greatest biosecurity risk is with the plants of economic importance, commercial fruit crops and the seeds of the major arable crops. There are many different cultivars and names in this group, with indeterminate or undeclared species parentage, but identity at genus level is often a sufficient taxonomic level for biosecurity purposes.

Plant identification checks are seldom carried out with nursery stock (that are often imported at an immature stage of growth). However, the biosecurity inspectors of plants in quarantine facilities have a reasonable knowledge of the more commonly imported plant groups. (There may be a possibility of using the quarantine process as a chance to take voucher herbarium specimens and check identifications of plants in some cases.)
52

With both seed and nursery stock MAF places a reliance on official documentation and commercial labelling. Taxonomic inadequacies of the PBI (e.g., lack of full synonymy and no plant authority names) is a major problem, and can potentially provide loopholes for smuggling, although to what extent this might occur is unknown.
Other problems
The PBI entries are used to determine courses of action with viable seed imported for different purposes (pathways) and viable seed as contaminants in other products.
Decisions have to be made on a day-by-day basis by MAF staff, none of whom are career taxonomists who have built life-time knowledge in that field. Consequently databases are mostly relied on at face value, whatever the state of accuracy.
Importers are encouraged to contact Plant Imports with perceived problems before importation as solutions can sometimes be found (email plantimports@maf.govt.nz and see www.biosecurity.govt.nz
for further information and contact details).
The PBI failings:

No online introductory/explanatory notes.

No author references.

No plant families or collection data.

No other background information or links to other databases. Hence the block to provision of such data assistance adds to the frustrations of plant importation.

A few other errors and anomalies exist, and these are being picked up gradually.

Much of the information is outdated.
MAF has always been conscious of the impediment to research and breeding work on developing new plants for new crops, should poor PBI information be involved. A small project was undertaken by MAF policy in 2006 in which consideration was given to assisting the interdepartmental efforts with setting up the New Zealand Organisms
Register (NZOR). The use of unique identifiers in the PBI which would relate to specific information in the NZOR was seen as the way forward. The project identified in conclusion that this would be an enormous task requiring interdepartmental resources.
In the meantime MAF continues to support ongoing work by Landcare Research and other organisations to expand existing databases with additions of cultivated plant names and information whenever possible.
53

Geoff Ridley
The Environmental Risk Management Authority
The Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA New Zealand) is an independent, quasi-judicial authority set up by the Hazardous Substances and New
Organisms (HSNO) Act to decide on applications to introduce hazardous substances and new organisms (ERMA New Zealand, 2006).
ERMA New Zealand is accountable to the Minister for the Environment and to
Parliament. The Minister for the Environment appoints up to eight members to the decision-making committee, the Authority. Members of the Authority must have knowledge and experience in matters likely to come before them.
Under the HSNO Act 1996, anybody who wants to introduce a new organism into New
Zealand must apply to ERMA New Zealand for approval. An application to release a new organism may be with or without controls. If no controls are applied then the organism ceases to be a new organism and is no longer regulated. Although ERMA New Zealand is the decision making body, enforcement of the Authority’s decisions is the responsibility of Biosecurity New Zealand (MAFBNZ).
The HSNO Act and its regulations take a comprehensive, systematic approach to assessing the risks, benefits and costs of introducing new organisms into New Zealand.
At the time that the HSNO Act came into force on 29 July 1998 there was no authoritative list of exotic plants present in New Zealand and to remedy this lack the
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry established the Plants Biosecurity Index (PBI) to facilitate the continued import of plant material. Therefore the PBI is a working list of species present in New Zealand in lieu of more authoritative and comprehensive lists of plant species. New plant species can be added to the PBI if it can be established that the species is not a new organism.
When is a plant a new organism?
Section 2A of the HSNO Act says a new organism is:

An organism belonging to a species that was not present in New Zealand immediately before 29 July 1998;

An organism for which a containment approval has been given; and

An organism that belongs to a species, subspecies, infrasubspecies, variety, strain, or cultivar that has been eradicated from New Zealand.
The HSNO Act also has a schedule of prohibited species which includes 15 species or genera of plants that are not present in New Zealand and, as Parliament has determined that they are not wanted, cannot be the subject of an application.
54

It is important to note that ERMA New Zealand primarily regulates at the species level and as such does not operate at the cultivar level for species already present in New
Zealand. However it does regulate hybrids where any of the parental species meets the definition of a new organism.
How is a species added to the PBI?
Names can be added to the PBI at any time by providing adequate evidence for assessment to ERMA New Zealand. There is no fee for this service. This is not an application to import a new species; it is simply a process to document and substantiate what is already here. If ERMA New Zealand assesses that the species is present and not a new organism then a request is made to Biosecurity New Zealand to add the name to the
PBI. In the future we expect that through the plants in cultivation projects a more definitive list of plant cultivated plants’ will be developed and that this will be facilitated and supported through the New Zealand Organisms Register (NZOR). Such a list would then inform the PBI.
Where the evidence for a species being present in New Zealand is ambiguous a Section
26 to have the Authority make a determination is available. The fee for a determination of the new organism status of a plant by the Authority is currently NZ$1125.
What evidence is needed to establish whether or not a species is a new organism?
Some guidelines on the nature of evidence to support the presence of a species in New
Zealand can be found in our policy Interpretations and Explanations of Key Concepts
( www.ermanz.govt.nz/resources/key_concepts.html
). Evidence in support of the presence of an organism in New Zealand includes import documentation, sales or exhibition catalogues, signed (preferably witnessed) statements from persons in possession of the species, statements from authoritative experts, or published books and scientific papers.
However, in general, we encourage the enquirer to supply whatever information that they have for assessment.
Over the last four years several hundred new names and synonyms have been added to the PBI through this assessment process. Less than 20 have been rejected due to lack of sufficient evidence.
Other options
Where it is clearly known that a species is in New Zealand but there is insufficient information to establish that it was present before 1998 or there is clear evidence that it has become established after 1998 there is a provision under Section 140(1)(ba) to make a regulation through Order in Council to the effect that the species is not a new organism.
To have a species made not a new organism by regulation the species should not be the subject of an eradication operation or be an unwanted organism as defined by the
Biosecurity Act. At this time only one species, a rust fungus, has been made not new by regulation. There is no fee for the development of a regulation.
55

Where a species is a new organism and is not present in New Zealand then an application to import either into containment or for release can be made. However, this is outside of the scope of the cultivated plant names workshop and is not discussed further.
Conclusion
There are a number of avenues available to clarify the new organism status of plants in cultivation in New Zealand. ERMA New Zealand encourages anyone that wants to establish what the status of a plant is under the HSNO Act to contact an advisor in the
New Organism group and discuss the species of concern.
Reference
ERMA New Zealand (2006). A guide to Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act.
ERMA New Zealand, Wellington. 53 p. Available at www.ermanz.govt.nz/resources/index.html
.
56

Jerry Cooper and Aaron Wilton
Introduction
All biodiversity information systems use the names of organisms as a fundamental identifier. Names provide the essential vocabulary by which we discover, index, manage, and share information relating to biodiversity. Access to an authoritative and up to date list of names and their relationships to currently accepted species (taxa) is key to supporting information management and sharing across the conservation, biosecurity, and biotechnology sectors.
There is currently no single, definitive registry of the more than 100,000 organism names relevant to New Zealand
2
. Because of this many agencies currently each maintain their own lists of taxonomic names in isolation from each other, in different formats, and at different levels of depth and quality. The absence of a definitive source of taxonomic names means that resources are wasted through duplication of effort, and there is increased expense to end-users in having to access multiple sources, and increased risk of poor decision making.
What is NZOR?
The New Zealand Organisms Register (NZOR) is a substantial project that aims to address these issues. As stated on the Home Page of the NZOR website
( www.nzor.org.nz
), the project is a “national information infrastructure project to efficiently mobilise, integrate, and share authoritative taxonomic information critical to maintaining New Zealand’s Conservation and Biosecurity decision support systems and processes”.
NZOR will be a digital catalogue of taxonomic data associated with more than 100,000 organism names relevant to New Zealand, and made available on the web with:
 content dynamically and automatically derived from registered, authoritative data providers within New Zealand and globally (and attributed appropriately)
 taxonomic opinion on the preferred scientific name and synonyms according to a cited taxonomic authority
 an accepted taxonomic hierarchy indicating the placement of a species in the ‘tree of life’
 alternate vernacular and Māori species names where they are available
 a statement on the presence or absence of the organism within a geographical region (New Zealand) according to cited evidence.
NZOR will provide:
 web interfaces to NZOR data content
2 Note that the estimate of >100,000 names applies to all organisms groups. The workshop on cultivated plants names, where this presentation was given, focussed on a subset of these names.
57

 web-services to allow end-users to dynamically integrate NZOR content into local databases (to free them from the burden of maintaining the integrity of these data locally)
 web-services to facilitate the checking of species lists for errors and inconsistencies
 secure feedback facilities allowing registered end users to direct queries to individual data providers

Globally Unique Identifiers (GUIDs) to serve as permanent, unambiguous and resolvable links to NZOR data content.
The vision for NZOR
The vision, developed for the project by a multi-agency steering group established in
2006, is:
“to create an accurate, authoritative, comprehensive and continuously updated catalogue of taxonomic names of all New Zealand biota and other taxa of importance to New
Zealand. This catalogue will be electronically available through one or more portals, and will be directly integrated into biodiversity and biosecurity systems used by central government ministries, departments, and agencies, local government, research institutes,
NGOs and the wider community. The catalogue will be based on internationally agreed standards and will include organism names and synonymies, origin and occurrence data
(presence/absence) and where possible alternate and historical synonymies. In the future it will link to information from other sources on aspects such as threats, ecology, distribution, use, management status, published material, keys for identification, and all collections, observation and survey data. As such it will form a key part of New
Zealand’s bioinformatics infrastructure, supporting scientific research and biodiversity and biosecurity management.”
Key NZOR players in Year One
The NZOR project commenced on 1 March 2009. The Terrestrial and Freshwater
Biodiversity Information System (TFBIS) Programme has provided funding for year one, with the possibility of three-year funding depending on the outcomes of the first year.
Landcare Research has been contracted by TFBIS to develop and populate NZOR in collaboration with NIWA, Te Papa, The Department of Conservation, MAF Biosecurity,
ERMA, the Ministry of Fisheries, the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology,
Local Government agencies, museums, universities and NGOs (Non-Government
Organisations).
Landcare Research, NIWA and Te Papa are the nominated consortium of data providers during year one. During this time period, MAF Biosecurity (and another organisation) are the nominated end user partners.
The NZOR Governance Structure has been established, comprising an Executive
Secretary, Steering Group, Advisory Group, and Technology Groups. These governance groups have representatives from the aforementioned organisations.
58

Key NZOR deliverables in Year One

Establish Governance Structure (as above)

Conduct a user needs analysis

Complete data provision and data use agreements

Compile an initial cache of NZOR data from nominated providers

Demonstrate utility with nominated end users

Develop technical infrastructure

Report to the TFBIS Committee for future funding of NZOR.
NZOR limits and expectations
The NZOR project is about mobilising existing public data in compatible formats. NZOR is not currently funded to digitise or develop new data content, and does not have a mandate to impose NZOR on data providers or consumers.
The project will expose gaps where data exists but needs digitising, and where data content does not exist and needs developing.
The gap analysis will inform the prioritisation of developing future NZOR content relevant to consumers, providers and funders.
NZOR in the future
We hope NZOR will become an established and supported national information resource providing services to a variety of end users within New Zealand. However, NZOR also has an international context. Landcare Research, on behalf of NZOR, is a partner in a new EU Framework 7 program called 4D4Life
3
, managed by Species 2000
4
, and funded to support the completion of the global Catalogue of Life
5
. NZOR will be the regional provider for New Zealand. Species 2000 aggregates data from many global taxonomic databases and already maintains a catalogue of 1.2 million organisms, or about half of those so far described. The development of an international network of regional data providers will complete the task. This partnership through Species 2000 establishes
NZOR as one of the many data sources supporting information frameworks such as the
Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF
6
) and the Group on Earth Observations
Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON)
7
. New Zealand is a signatory to the international agreements establishing these initiatives. In turn these global information frameworks were established to support the aims of international conventions such as the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD
8
). A specific example of the role of NZOR is that it will contribute significantly to New Zealand’s responsibility under the CBD 2010
3 4D4Life – Distributed Dynamic Databases for Life: www.4d4life.eu
.
4 Species 2000: www.sp2000.org
.
5 Species 2000 / Integrated Taxonomic Information System Catalogue of Life: www.catalogueoflife.org
.
6 Global Biodiversity Information Facility: www.gbif.org
.
7 Group on Earth Observations: www.earthobservations.org/geobon.shtml
.
8 Convention on Biological Diversity: www.cbd.int
.
59

Biodiversity Targets
9
and in particular the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation target aiming to provide “A widely accessible working list of known plant species, as a step towards a complete world flora.” 10
How can I become involved?
Year one of the NZOR project is limited to Landcare Research, NIWA and Te Papa as initial data providers. Nevertheless we would like to have early discussions with, and feedback from, a broader spectrum of potential future data providers and consumers.
There are a number of ways you or your organisation can engage with NZOR, as:
 a future representative in the Governance structure
 a data provider
 an end user/data consumer
 an interested party who wants to receive the eNewsletter and updates about
NZOR.
Further details are on our website at www.nzor.org.nz/get-involved .
Reference
Carver, J; Cooper, J.; Vignaux, M.; Wilton, A. (2007). What’s in a name? New Zealand
Organisms Register Scope. Available from www.nzor.org.nz
.
Cooper, J. (2009a). Taxa, species, names and strings - What’s it all about? Available at www.nzor.org.nz/documents/NZOR-taxaand-names-whats-it-all-about.pdf
. (A simple explanation of the relationship between names, species, and taxonomy, and the challenges of nomenclatural and taxonomic data management).
Cooper, J. (2009b). The Global Picture of Biodiversity Information Infrastructure. Where does NZOR fit? Available at www.nzor.org.nz/documents/NZOR-theglobalpicture.pdf
. (An explanation of the global biodiversity information systems landscape, NZOR’s place in this big picture, and its relationship to international initiatives).
9 CBD 2010 Targets: www.cbd.int/2010-target .
10 Global Strategy for Plant Conservation targets: www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=7183 .
60

Key
Names / Taxonomy Data
Collections Data
Observations Data
Status Lists
Observation Data
(e.g. NVS, NHMS)
Observation
Desirability List
(e.g BRAD, UOR)
Presence List
(e.g PBI)
Threat
Classif ication List
Usage Concept
Presence/Absence
Taxonomy
Biostatus
(origin and occurrence)
Taxon Concept
Usage Assertion
Concept
Correlations
Ref erence
Name
Nomenclature
Scientif ic
Publication
Usage
Concept
Collection
Item
Type
Specimen
Collections Data
(e.g. Te Papa's)
Fig. 1 Examples of biodiversity data, showing which are within the scope of NZOR
(boxes with dashed border) project. NVS = National Vegetation Survey, NHMS =
Natural Heritage Management System, BRAD = Biosecurity Risk Assessment Database,
UOR = Unwanted Organisms Register, PBI = Plants Biosecurity Index.
61

NZOR Admin & Reporting Tool
Experts
Provider
Database
Taxonomy
NZOR
Web
Site
Download Names Lists
Browse Names
Provide Feedback
End
User
End User System tightly coupled
(e.g. Regional Council)
Names
Experts
Provider
Database Biostatus
Working
Lists
Local
Cache
Key
NZOR Database
NZOR Server
NZOR Developed Tool
Non NZOR Developed Tool/
System/Database
Provider
Database
NZOR Mirror
End User Systems loosely coupled
(e.g. PBI, BRAD, UOR,
NHMS)
International Systems
(e.g. GBIF, OBIS,
Species 2000)
Fig. 2 High level concept diagram showing the data flow from providers (left) via NZOR systems
(centre) to data consumers (right) who may integrate NZOR into their system in different ways. OBIS =
Ocean Biogeographic Information Systems. Other acronyms as in Fig. 1.
Fig. 3 The connectivity of NZOR in the global context. See Cooper (2009b) for key acronym expansions.
62

Brad Cadwallader
Introduction
New Zealand’s tree heritage, both native and exotic, is of national and international importance. New
Zealand’s tree stocks have multiple values; cultural, spiritual, aesthetic, historic, conservation, and scientific.
There is also a wide range of interest groups, including the public, tangata whenua, arborists, regional authorities, local bodies, urban planners, and developers.
Providing a freely available national register of these significant and venerable trees documents our living heritage, and one of the great treasures of Aotearoa New Zealand. Some of these outstanding trees are labelled with plaques that draw public attention and provide a measure of protection.
Many of these trees are coming under threat from urban intensification and rural development and from lack of knowledge about them, including the decline in traditional family stewardship. Many trees are lost because their significance was unknown and there are many more heritage trees needing registration.
Early plantings of our native trees have now matured into outstanding specimens of high amenity value, historical interest and cultural significance. Our native trees also generate international interest and provide tours for overseas tree lovers.
New Zealand has a significant collection of exotic trees that date back to earliest European plantings throughout the country. Because of our cool-temperate climate these plantings have thrived and New
Zealand has long been recognised as an important repository and refuge for European tree species. This repository contributes to an international genetic resource pool and seed bank. Many trees abroad are endangered in their native habitats or no longer exist in the wild state.
On the other hand, information on cultivated species, including exotic trees, is essential when considering what potential weed species are present in cultivation. It is also essential to biosecurity officers and importers to determine if an organism is already legally present in New Zealand.
This article describes the background and formation of the New Zealand Notable Trees Trust (NZNTT) and the redevelopment of the Notable Trees Register and online resources at www.notabletrees.org.nz
.
Background
Pioneering work on documenting the notable tree heritage of New Zealand was carried out by Dr. H. H.
Allan (1940) and later by Bob Burstall, who for more than 30 years surveyed the country to locate and catalogue many of our fine trees (Burstall 1970–1974, Burstall and Sale, 1984).
In 1977/1978 the Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture (RNZIH) established a national register of notable trees for the purpose of cataloguing and registering New Zealand’s tree heritage. For more than
25 years the late Ron Flook of Nelson played a significant role in managing this scheme (Flook, 1984,
1988, 1994, 1996).
63

In 2004, in conjunction with website developer Kieren Simon, the first Notable Trees New Zealand database was launched online to allow public access and wider recognition of New Zealand’s tree heritage. Unfortunately Ron passed away in 2006 (Maloy, 2006) and the associated database became unavailable soon afterwards.
On 24 April 2008, the RNZIH in association with the New Zealand Arboricultural Association (NZAA) established a new charitable trust called the ‘RNZIH New Zealand Notable Trees Trust’ (NZNTT). This trust was established to continue this important work and David Glenn is the first and current Chairman.
On 8 May 2008, the RNZIH organised a symposium ‘Heritage Trees — Our Future Heritage’ that explored issues surrounding documentation of New Zealand’s heritage trees. During that symposium trustee Bryan Gould announced the formation of the NZNTT and its goal to create a freely available online database and integrated management system.
Aims of NZNTT
The initial aims of the new trust are to:
 Redevelop a public database of New Zealand’s notable trees

Utilise existing records and newly submitted listings

Establish a New Zealand national tree registrar network to assist in locating Notable, Veteran and Champion trees nationwide

Populate the database with verified data

Ensure all information is accurate and in a consistent format

Promote NZNTT nationwide to private and public tree owners

Ensure individuals, councils and agencies are aware/supportive.
Whilst most local authorities around New Zealand maintain a list of their own locally significant trees there is currently no centralised register of the data they hold. The NZNTT database is intended to be a valuable resource for this purpose. In addition, the Trust receives a high level of interest from the general public.
The website
At the workshop on cultivated plant names, held on the 9th September 2009 in Wellington, Brad
Cadwallader gave a presentation on the development of the website and database to date
( www.notabletrees.org.nz
). At that time, only the preliminary (static) web pages were online and the integrated management system and database components were not yet available.
These web pages include information about the Trust, guidelines for measuring and recording trees, contact details, a sponsor’s page, and links to related resources.
Online database and management system
The new database and integrated management system went live on 19th November 2009 when it was showcased at the NZ Arboricultural Association Conference held in Blenheim.
64

The integrated management system makes the registrations and associated images much easier to organise, update and access, all directly through the website
1
. There are currently about 700 records representing approximately 3000 trees. Data held on the website will be viewable on four registers:
1. The New Zealand Tree Register
This is the main register and all trees submitted are held here. The general public can view the records here (non-login) or they can create an account to become a registered user to submit new tree records.
Tree records can currently be searched by:

Botanical name o Genus o Species, subspecies, variety, forma, cultivar, hybrid

Region (16 regions, such as Auckland – Coromandel, Canterbury, Southland, etc.)

Location o City o Town o Address

Local Authority (84 listed – Ashburton District Council, Auckland Regional Council, Buller
District Council etc.)
Records are also divided into ‘Verified’ and ‘Unverified’ trees – Verified trees have had their details confirmed by a regional tree expert authorised by the Trust. These experts belong to the regional tree recorder network and may confirm that the tree is still living, re-measure and photograph it. Unverified trees are provisional listings that are currently being processed or require updating because the tree needs to be re-measured.
Other search criteria will be added in the near future along with the remaining three registers which are subsets of the main tree register:
2. Notable Trees of New Zealand
Trees identified as having notable characteristics, i.e., age, tallest, largest, historical, rarity etc. A vetting process determines this notable status.
3. Champion Trees of New Zealand
A ranking of the top trees by species.
4. Historical Tree Records
When a tree on the general register dies, its record will be preserved as a historical record. Historical records of trees not already on the database can also be entered here.
Next steps
The Trust will continue developing the website through uploading further information pages and making further improvements to the database.
1 The information held in the old hardcopy-based notable trees register was difficult for professionals and the public alike to access and became increasingly unwieldy to maintain. The first online database held only some of the information within
Ron Flook’s mostly paper-based notable trees register.
65

The Trust will also establish a regional tree recorder network. This network will be a group of researchers and volunteers willing to provide their time and enthusiasm. They will help to maintain and update records of our notable trees. We also welcome any additional information or corrections for our records.
Funding
The NZNTT operates on a voluntary basis and funding and sponsorship is essential for the Trust to achieve it goals. Initial seed funding was obtained through successful applications to the Lottery
Environment & Heritage Fund and the Peter Skellerup Plant Conservation Scholarship. Individuals and organisations have been very supportive of the project and current funding includes the following sponsors:

Bev McConnell – Ayrlies Garden, Auckland

Greenscene Ltd.

Horttraining NZ Ltd.

Lottery Environment & Heritage Fund

Peter Skellerup Plant Conservation Scholarship

Ralph Ballinger, the vice-patron of the RNZIH

RNZIH - Auckland Branch

SCION Research and the National Forestry Herbarium – for allowing us to use their botanical names database

Specimen Tree Company Ltd.

Treescape Ltd.

Regional authorities: o Auckland Regional Council o Dunedin City Council o Far North District Council o Hastings District Council o Hutt City Council o Marlborough District Council o Queenstown Lakes District Council o Rodney District Council o Tasman District Council o Timaru District Council
Without this financial support, the project could not have been completed to a credible standard, if at all.
Any offers of additional funding or support will be warmly received.
Acknowledgement
We thank Murray Dawson for his work in providing the initial web pages used in the new website, assistance with the seed funding applications (on behalf of the RNZIH and NZNTT) and suggestions and additions in adapting a presentation to the cultivated plant names workshop into this article format.
References
Allan, H.H. (1940). Historic trees in New Zealand. Journal of the Royal New Zealand Institute of
Horticulture 10(1) : 19–27.
Burstall, S.W. (1970–1974). Historic and notable trees of New Zealand. Mensuration reports. No. 16–
23. New Zealand Forest Service, Forest Research Institute. Unpublished.
66

Burstall, S.W. and Sale, E.V. (1984). Great trees of New Zealand. A.H. and A.W. Reed Ltd.,
Wellington.
Flook, R. (1984). Protection of a living heritage – the notable and historic trees scheme. Annual Journal
(Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture) 12 : 81–86.
Flook, R. (1988). A tree evaluation method for New Zealand.
Flook, R. ed. (1994). An introduction to the notable trees of New Zealand. RNZIH. 207 p.
Flook, R. (1996). STEM, a Standard Tree Evaluation Method. 75 p.
Maloy, A. (2006). Ronald Richard Flook AHRIH. 14 September 1932 – 9 January 2006. New Zealand
Garden Journal 9(1) : 20–22. Available at www.rnzih.org.nz/RNZIH_Journal/Pages_20-
22_from_2006_Vol9_No1.pdf
.
Fig. 1 Screen shot of a search of the register (public view, non-login).
67

Fig. 2 Retrieved record showing tree information, measurement details, integrated Google Maps, and image preview.
68

Fig. 3 Retrieved tree record with image view.
69

Tom Myers and Yvonne Etherington
Collections management
Effective management of large botanical collections presents major challenges. Collection managers need to track new plants added to their gardens, where they came from, where and when they were planted, what their current names are, any name changes, and when they die or are removed. Additional to this is the need to generate stock-takes and plant labels.
In our information management age, a database is the obvious solution. Off-the-shelf collections management software has advantages over an in-house system – there is a wider user base, compatibility between records held in different collections, and an independent software development team.
BG-BASE TM is a versatile and powerful system that has been developed over 24 years, having originally been developed for the Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University in 1985 by one of its co-developers
(Kerry Walter). It is “a database application designed to manage information on biological (primarily botanical) collections. It is used in a wide variety of botanic gardens, arboreta, herbaria, zoos, universities, and similar institutions needing to document their collections as well as to maintain other biological information” ( www.bg-base.com
).
Modules
There are seven modules available for BG-BASE ; each can be purchased separately:
1.
Living Collections
2.
Preserved Collections
3.
Conservation
4.
Education
5.
Propagations
6.
DELTA (Descriptors)
7.
HTML (Web)
The Living Collections module relates directly to plant records needed to run a botanic garden. Data is maintained in tables such as NAMES, ACCESSIONS and PLANTS. Where accessions record the arrival of new plants, names and where they are from.
The remaining modules are compiled with specific uses in mind. They make use of common data tables, such as NAMES, but also have their own tables specific to their purpose. So a garden wishing to record its herbarium on BG-BASE would purchase the Preserved Collections module and use its SPECIMENS table. Similarly, the HTML (Web) module offers a ready-made format for providing names to database driven websites, such as the RHS Plant Finder ( http://apps.rhs.org.uk/rhsplantfinder ) and the Royal
Botanic Garden Edinburgh (which makes both its living and preserved collection information available on www.rge.org.uk
). This module could provide a regularly updated list of cultivated plants if required, and is potentially useful to projects such as the New Zealand Organisms Register (NZOR), with its ability to export a list of names in a structured format.
BG-BASE in New Zealand
70

Dunedin Botanic Garden purchased BG-BASE in late 1993, and was the first to adopt this application in
New Zealand. The main reasons BG-BASE was chosen were that it is a relational database, it worked on a standalone PC (and can be networked), and the application came with support.
At that time, other gardens in New Zealand were using a variety of systems including mainframes,
Apple computers, and adapted library databases. However, since then, others have purchased BG-BASE :
1996 University of Auckland
– for managing the plant collections growing in the university grounds.
2003 The Botanic Gardens of Wellington
– for managing collections of all four gardens Wellington Botanic Garden, Otari-Wilton’s Bush, Bolton
Street Memorial Park, and Truby King House and Garden.
2007 Taranaki Regional Council
– for managing plant collections at Hollard Gardens and Tupare. They also have an agreement with the
Pukeiti Rhododendron Trust to use BG-BASE .
2008 Auckland Botanic Gardens
– for managing their plant collections and botanic gardens library.
As at 2009, none of the New Zealand users have their records online via BG-BASE . The application is limited to meeting each group’s individual requirements. Taranaki Regional Council have purchased the
HTML module and plan to use it to drive their Taranaki Plants website ( www.taranakiplants.net.nz
).
Auckland Botanic Gardens have four modules: Living Collections, Conservation, Propagations, and
HTML.
Case-study: BG-BASE at the Dunedin Botanic Garden
The Dunedin Botanic Garden uses BG-BASE to maintain records for its living collection. This includes:
 name changes and common names
 source details and wild collection details
 propagations
 staff details
 orders for plants, shipments, germplasm, and our library.
Routine work using BG-BASE includes:
 extracting data for labels
 area reports
 nursery stock-takes
 apprentice plant identification tests
 responses to external requests for information.
Although BG-BASE has the functionality to do so, Dunedin Botanic Garden does not use the application for:
 managing our small herbarium
 putting our plant names on the internet
 managing our collection of images
 recording wild plants in our bush areas

GIS mapping.
71

Most staff find the database relates well to their daily work. As new plants are brought into the botanic garden they are registered in the ACCESSIONS table, any new plant names are added to the NAMES table, if propagation is required this is managed using the PROPAGATIONS table and, once ready to plant in the ground, a record is created in the PLANTS table.
Accession records provide continuity of information across the system, recording source data, name changes and garden location changes, which make it possible to ascertain if there are living plants of any given name or source. At Dunedin the NAMES table contains about 22,000 names, but only about
11,000 of these are in use for ‘living’ plants. The remaining names are not considered ‘living’, including both synonyms of the names of ‘living’ plants and the names of plants no longer alive in the botanic garden. Figure 1 shows how plant names data relates to living plant records.
Plants
*
Accessions
References
Names
Families and
Higher Taxa
* Propagations/Germplasm
Fig. 1 How plant names underlie the living collection data of BG-BASE . All plant records require an accession; all accession records require a plant name; all germplasm and propagation (*) records require a name but not necessarily an accession; not all names or accessions are currently in use for living plants.
Plant names can take many formats including simple species names, unidentified specimen ‘descriptor’ names, retail names, breeder names, and complex hybrid names.
A screen-shot of the first page of data entry for the NAMES table shows some of the commonly used data fields (Fig. 2). There are nine pages of data entry in all holding data on wild plant distribution range and breeder or introducer information.
72

Fig. 2 Screen-shot of the Names data entry window. The database is relational: the ‘name number’ at the top left hand is the relational link ‘key field’ for this plant name. This number is used in other parts of the database to link to this name. The database uses multivalue fields (fields containing sub-fields).
This can be seen in the subspecies area of the Names entry window. Such multivalue fields need to be treated with caution in data export, as many other systems do not ‘understand’ them; however, BG-
BASE provides various tools to simplify this matter. The top left and right hand corners of the Names entry window show the staff initials and date of record creation and most recent edit.
The BG-BASE Australia and New Zealand Support Group
Technical support for BG-BASE is usually accessed by purchasing annual support agreements with the developers. For questions not of a technical nature users in Australia and New Zealand have recently set up a local support group. This will help with basic questions and queries regarding use of the application.
In an initiative unrelated to the use of BG-BASE or any specific database, the Botanic Gardens of
Australia and New Zealand 1 (BGANZ) are in the process of establishing a Records Officers group. The role of this group is currently being established.
BG-BASE in other countries
BG-BASE has been developed primarily by Mike O’Neal (USA) and Kerry Walter (United Kingdom).
There is a wide user-base – currently 188 institutions from 30 countries are using BG-BASE .
Collectively these sites maintain information on more than one million accessions of living plants as well as hundreds of thousands of herbarium specimens, making BG-BASE the largest distributed plant collection database in the world.
1 See www.bganz.org.au
for general information about BGANZ.
73

Because participating institutions have identical data structures, they can elect to have their data online, on a Multisite Searches page ( http://rbg-web2.rbge.org.uk/multisite/multisite3.php
).
The Royal Horticultural Society (UK) makes extensive use of BG-BASE :

RHS Horticultural Database ( http://apps.rhs.org.uk/horticulturaldatabase/index.asp
) – “to bring together, into a single cohesive structure, as much horticultural information as possible, based around a comprehensive index of garden plant names”.

RHS Plant Finder ( http://apps.rhs.org.uk/rhsplantfinder ) – “more than 70,000 plants compiled from the catalogues of more than 640 nurseries”. Data is derived directly from the RHS
Horticultural Database.

Herbarium and standard specimens of cultivated plants, recorded on the RHS Horticultural
Database.
Acknowledgements
We thank Murray Dawson for his suggestions and additions in adapting a presentation to the cultivated plant names workshop into this article format.
Greg Rine, Regional Gardens Manager, checked that this content reflected the use of BG-BASE by
Taranaki Regional Council. Kerry Walter and Mike O’Neal, the
BG-BASE developers, are also thanked for their comments and suggestions.
74

Major New Zealand cultivated plant name databases and resources
This appendix profiles major New Zealand resources relating to the cultivated flora as well as explaining any broader resource. McGregor (2004) provided an earlier compilation of resources that was useful in compiling this appendix. These profiles were created through feedback from each plant name custodian. Included are current initiatives that may not yet be completed and major plant collections if they have an associated database/inventory. Although some respondents answered
“Yes” to having synonyms in their responses, the degree of synonyms held (full synonymy, partial, or identification histories) was not captured in the profiles. There are several other resources not profiled that include:

Private plant collections, e.g. o Hackfalls Arboretum – Bob Berry’s tree list (including a comprehensive Southern Hemisphere collection of oaks, all named and databased).

Publications and lists maintained by some of the plant societies o NZ Herb Federation o Koanga Institute (heritage garden plants: www.koanga.org.nz/ ) o NZ Camellia Society o
NZ Rose Society o NZ Rhododendron Association o New Zealand Dahlia Handbook 2008 o Hammett Lathyrus/Sweet Pea frozen seed collection list o
Hammett Clivia collection database o Alpine Garden societies (NZAGS and OAGG) – annual seedlists

Several botanic gardens, municipal plantings, trusts o Hamilton o
Pukeiti Rhododendron Trust o National Rose Garden of New Plymouth o Christchurch Botanic Gardens o
Timaru District Council o
Invercargill City Council

The nursery catalogue collection held at Mt Albert Research Centre

Some tree resources o
WINTEC North Island Tree surveys o Regional authority protected tree lists

New Zealand plant names resources that lack a (significant) cultivated component: o Te Kahui herbarium database at Te Papa (WELT) o
Bioweb at DoC o Freshwater Biodata Information System at NIWA o New Zealand Biodiversity Recording Network ( www.nzbrn.org.nz
). o New Zealand Plant Conservation Network ( www.nzpcn.org.nz
) o
The New Zealand Native Orchid Group annual list of New Zealand indigenous orchid species (mostly duplicated in the New Zealand Plant Names database).

International and non-New Zealand plant name databases: o
Australian Plant Name Index (APNI) and the Australian Plant Census (APC) – www.anbg.gov.au/apni/index.html
o Botanic Gardens Conservation International – www.bgci.org
. Includes facility to search for plants as well as submitting a list of all your accessions o International Plant Names Index (IPNI) – www.ipni.org
o Kew’s World Checklist – http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/ o National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) Genbank – www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
o RHS Plantfinder o Tropicos database of the Missouri Botanical Garden – www.tropicos.org/Home.aspx
o Herbarium of Royal Botanic Gardens Edinburgh (includes 1183 specimens collected in NZ, 267 are “types”, isotypes, isosyntypes etc) http://elmer.rbge.org.uk/bgbase/vherb/bgbasevherb.php
75

Name of database/ resource
Custodian(s)
New Zealand Organisms Register
Primary contact(s)
A collaborative project funded by a TFBIS contract to Landcare Research. The participants (as contractors or members of the Governance structure) include Landcare Research, NIWA, Te Papa, The
Department of Conservation, MAF Biosecurity, ERMA, the Ministry of Fisheries, the Ministry of
Research, Science and Technology, Local Government agencies, museums, universities and NGOs.
Name(s) David Penman, Executive Secretary
Email execsec@nzor.org.nz
Purpose
Brief description
(include range of plant groups)
Scope
To create an accurate, authoritative, comprehensive and continuously updated catalogue of taxonomic names of all New Zealand biota and other taxa of importance to New Zealand.
A national information infrastructure project to efficiently mobilise, integrate, and share authoritative taxonomic information critical to maintaining New Zealand’s Conservation and Biosecurity decision support systems and processes. All biota including plants and animals.
It is planned to form a key part of New Zealand’s bioinformatics infrastructure, supporting scientific research and biodiversity and biosecurity management.
Biostatus
(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)
All
National and global where relevant to New Zealand. Geographic
(local, regional, national, world)
Geodata
(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)
Date range of records
Evidence for regional presence/absence.
1753 (following the International Code of Botanical
Nomenclature) to present
Botanical names (Y/N) Yes
Common/Māori names (Y/N) Yes
Synonymy (Y/N) Yes
Size
(number of names or size of collection)
Access
Estimated 100,000+ scientific names of New Zealand biota are planned to be incorporated over three years, as well as vernacular names, biostatus, and literature records.
Web Names are not yet available – see www.nzor.org.nz
Publications
Other
The resource is planned to be accurate, authoritative, comprehensive and continuously updated. Currency, reliability of data
Strengths
Weaknesses/ limitations
Relationship to other resources
Will be the largest resource of names for the New Zealand biota. Will be based on internationally agreed standards. Will provide a unique identifier that can be used for unambiguous data transfer.
Limited data providers in year one of a three year funded project (Landcare Research, NIWA and Te
Papa). During this time cultivated plant names derived from other custodians is out of scope but there is a stated willingness to have discussions with, and feedback from, a broader spectrum of potential future data providers. Long term funding currently not secured.
Landcare Research, NIWA and Te Papa databases, Species2000 New Zealand, and the global Catalogue of Life project. May potentially link to many other resources in the future.
76

Name of database/ resource
New Zealand Virtual Herbarium (NZVH)
Custodian(s)
Primary contact(s)
A collaborative New Zealand Herbarium Network (NZNHN) project. The NZNHN includes:

Allan Herbarium (CHR)

Auckland War Memorial Museum (AK)

Christchurch Botanic Gardens (CHBG)

Dame Ella Campbell Herbarium (MPN)

Dunedin Botanic Garden

Eastwoodhill Arboretum Herbarium

HD Gordon Herbarium (WELTU)

Herbarium, Unitec

Lincoln University Herbarium (LINC)

Museum of New Zealand – Te Papa Tongarewa (WELT)

National Forestry Herbarium (NZFRI)

National Forestry Mycological Herbarium (NZFRI–M)

New Zealand Fungal Herbarium (PDD)

University of Canterbury Herbarium (CANU)

University of Otago Herbarium (OTA)

University of Waikato Herbarium (WAIK)

Warkworth Museum
Name(s) Network Secretary
Purpose
Email secretary@nzherbaria.org.nz
To provide on-line access to the information managed by herbaria throughout New Zealand.
Brief description
(include range of plant groups)
Scope
A collaborative project by the New Zealand National Herbarium Network to provide access to specimen data. The groups covered by specimens include fungi, algae, and higher plants.
All Biostatus
(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)
Geographic
(local, regional, national, world)
Geodata
(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)
All. Data from other countries will be included from some herbaria, but the focus is on New Zealand and Australian material.
Yes – users will be able to view the records as a distribution map, and download data in a variety of formats.
Size
(number of names or size of collection)
Access
Date range of records Herbarium specimens date back from the 1700s to the present day.
Earliest New Zealand specimens date from 1769.
Botanical names (Y/N) Yes
Common/Māori names (Y/N) Yes (where included in the specimen label data).
Synonymy (Y/N) No – the data presented are the current specimen identifications.
More than 600,000 records from herbaria are planned to be online – the total number of plant and fungal specimens held in NZ Herbaria is c. 1.4 million.
Web
Publications
Other
Will become current and reliable.
The website ( www.virtualherbarium.org.nz
) became available in
December 2009.
Currency, reliability of data
Strengths
Weaknesses/ limitations
Relationship to other resources
Funded by TFBIS, uses software developed for the Australian Virtual Herbarium, allows simultaneous search of records from the contributing herbaria in New Zealand, and will include records from the
Australian herbaria via the AVH.
Limited to herbarium specimens that have been databased. Not all of the features have been implemented yet.
Uses software developed for the Australian Virtual Herbarium and made available by the Council of
Heads of Australasian Herbaria.
77

Name of database/ resource
Custodian(s)
Auckland War Memorial Museum Herbarium (AK) and specimen database
Primary contact(s)
Purpose
Brief description
(include range of plant groups)
Scope
Seven territorial local authorities of the Auckland Region under an Act of Parliament (Auckland War
Memorial Museum Act 1996) and governed by a Trust Board.
Name(s)
Email
Ewen Cameron (Curator) ecameron@aucklandmuseum.com
The herbarium contains comprehensive collections of all plant groups (except fungi) found naturally in
New Zealand.
Size
(number of names or size of collection)
Access
Currency, reliability of data
Strengths
Biostatus
(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)
All
Geographic
(local, regional, national, world)
Geodata
All. With emphasis on the northern half of the North Island and its offshore islands.
Yes
(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)
Date range of records 1769 to the present day.
Botanical names (Y/N) Yes
Common/Māori names (Y/N) No
Synonymy (Y/N) Partial
Angiosperms c.
210,000
Gymnosperms c.
5,200
Pteridophytes c.
30,500
Mosses 22,500
Liverworts
Algae
12,500
23,500
Lichens 26,600
Timber samples c.
1,000
Unaccessioned c.
30,000
Total specimens c.
361,800
Includes 10,143 cultivated New Zealand records on the database.
Web Vascular type specimens are searchable at http://muse.aucklandmuseum.com/databases/general/
AdvancedSearch.aspx?dataset=botany
Publications
Other Full data from the Specimen Database is available upon request.
Since 1989 all new accessions have been entered into the database. There have also been ongoing projects, funded by the NZ Lottery Board, to enter backlog records. As of 1 August 2009 more than
215,000 records have been databased which includes all the non–vascular specimens and all the NZ specimens.
Good representation of material from the northern North Island and includes images of vascular type specimens.
Only type specimens are searchable online. Weaknesses/ limitations
Relationship to other resources
Member of the NZ National Herbarium Network.
78

Name of database/ resource
National Forestry Herbarium and specimen database
Custodian(s) Scion
Primary contact(s) Name(s) Chris Ecroyd, Curator
Email chris.ecroyd@scionresearch.com
Collect and record plant species relevant to forestry in New Zealand. Purpose
Brief description
(include range of plant groups)
Scope
Reference collection specialising in conifers, eucalypts, and species commonly grown as amenity trees. Provides taxonomic information on plantation forestry and indigenous species.
Exotic, indigenous, cultivated and wild. Biostatus
(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)
Geographic
(local, regional, national, world)
Geodata
(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)
Date range of records
Local, regional, and national – mainly Bay of Plenty and central North Island.
Yes
1899 to present
Yes Botanical names (Y/N)
Common/Māori names (Y/N) Yes
Synonymy (Y/N) Yes
Size
(number of names or size of collection)
Currently c. 26,000 pressed and dried herbarium specimens – all databased.
Access Web
Publications
Limited specimen data is available at: www.scionresearch.com/herbarium
Other Full data from the Specimen Database is available upon request.
Continually updated and reliable information. Currency, reliability of data
Strengths Largest reference collection in New Zealand of plant species relevant to commercial forestry and trees generally.
South Island endemics Weaknesses/ limitations
Relationship to other resources
Member of the NZ National Herbarium Network.
79

Name of database/ resource
Custodian(s)
Primary contact(s)
Purpose
Brief description
(include range of plant groups)
Scope
Allan Herbarium (CHR) and Specimen Database
Landcare Research
Name(s)
Email
Ines Schönberger (Herbarium Manager)
Aaron Wilton (Database Manager)
PlantInfo@landcareresearch.co.nz
Collect and record the flora of New Zealand, and to make this information readily available to researchers, and regional and national authorities.
The collection was founded in 1928 and is now New Zealand’s largest herbarium including algae, ferns, lichens, liverworts, mosses, and seed plants. The Specimen Database is used to assist with collection management processes and to record the label information for specimens.
Biostatus
(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)
Exotic, indigenous, cultivated, and wild. 66% of the specimens are of indigenous plants with the remainder divided between naturalised, cultivated and foreign specimens.
All Geographic
(local, regional, national, world)
Geodata
(locality/mapping/GPS)
(Y/N)
Date range of records
Yes
Herbarium specimens date back from the 1700s to the present day.
Botanical names (Y/N) Yes
Size
(number of names or size of collection)
Access
Common/Māori names
(Y/N)
Yes
Synonymy (Y/N) No, however the history of identifications is recorded for each specimen.

Herbarium collection – about 600,000 herbarium specimens, with 5000 to 8000 being added annually.

Allan Herbarium Specimen Database – more than 190,000 records, approximately 32% of the specimens in the herbarium.

Estimated to include records for over 13,000 taxa within New Zealand.
Web Limited specimen data is available via “collection search” through the
Ngā Tipu o Aotearoa - New Zealand Plants database: http://nzflora.landcareresearch.co.nz
Publications
Other Full data from the Specimen Database is available upon request.
Currency, reliability of data
Strengths
Weaknesses/ limitations
Relationship to other resources
Continually updated and reliable information.
Largest herbarium and associated database in New Zealand.
Not fully databased, with threatened species, weeds and research groups given highest priority, and low priority to other groups such as cultivated records. Therefore, resources are relatively weak on cultivars and ornamental species in cultivation.
New Zealand Plant Names database.
Member of the NZ National Herbarium Network.
80

Name of database/ resource
Custodian(s)
Primary contact(s)
New Zealand Plant Names database
Landcare Research
Name(s)
Email
Aaron Wilton (Database Manager)
PlantInfo@landcareresearch.co.nz
Purpose
Brief description
(include range of plant groups)
Scope
To record the scientific names relevant to the New Zealand flora, as well as information on associated vernacular names, biostatus, taxonomy, and the associated literature.
Database that records the scientific names of plant taxa in the New Zealand flora. It includes the current names for algae, ferns, lichens, liverworts, mosses, and seed plants.
All Biostatus
(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)
Geographic
(local, regional, national, world)
All
No Geodata
(locality/mapping/GPS)
(Y/N)
Date range of records From the 1700s to the present day.
Botanical names (Y/N) Yes
Common/Māori names (Y/N) Yes
Synonymy (Y/N) Yes, comprehensive synonymy.
Size
(number of names or size of collection)
Access
More than 40,000 scientific names, including synonyms and incorrectly applied names.
Web
Publications
Other
Accessible via Ngā Tipu o Aotearoa - New Zealand Plants databases: http://nzflora.landcareresearch.co.nz
(and via a web service).
Currency, reliability of data
Strengths
Continually updated and reliable information.
Elaborate database architecture that reflects taxonomic rules and structure to manage names of any taxonomic rank and nomenclatural code, as well as vernacular and trade names in any language.
Strong on native and naturalised species.
Cultivars and ornamental species in cultivation are within scope but are poorly represented. Weaknesses/ limitations
Relationship to other resources
Flora of New Zealand series – electronic version: http://floraseries.landcareresearch.co.nz/pages/index.aspx
Flora of New Zealand series – print versions
81

Name of database/ resource
Custodian(s)
Primary contact(s)
All New Zealand Species Database
Landcare Research
Name(s)
Email
Aaron Wilton (Database Manager)
PlantInfo@landcareresearch.co.nz
Purpose
Brief description
(include range of plant groups)
Scope
This database was established to record the reported occurrences of all plant taxa within New Zealand from a range of information sources including nursery catalogues, herbarium records and the some popular literature. It was used to create the species list for the Plant Biosecurity Index until 1999.
The All New Zealand Species Database contains a list of all vascular plant species recorded as being present in New Zealand, and the basis of this occurrence is according to a wide range of sources such as the Allan Herbarium, horticultural societies, nursery catalogues, botanic gardens, arboreta, and published literature.
Biostatus
(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)
Mainly exotic and cultivated.
National Geographic
(local, regional, national, world)
Geodata
(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)
Date range of records
No
Last record was added 2000.
Yes Botanical names (Y/N)
Common/Māori names (Y/N) Yes
Synonymy (Y/N) Yes, partial
Size
(number of names or size of collection)
Access
28,000 species and 7000 synonyms.
Web
Publications
Other Database information available on request.
Currency, reliability of data
Strengths
Weaknesses/ limitations
Relationship to other resources
Not actively maintained; sources of information for each record varies from unreliable to completely reliable.
Useful combined list of records on what was said to be present in New Zealand. Strong on cultivated exotics.
Largely a historical resource that is not maintained. Mainly records taxa to species level.
All of the taxonomic names in this resource have been incorporated, and superseded, by the Plant Names
Database. However, some of these incorporated records still require verification and are therefore suppressed from public view in the Plant Names Database.
82

Name of database/ resource
Custodian(s)
Primary contact(s)
Purpose
Brief description
(include range of plant groups)
Scope
MAF Plants Biosecurity Index (PBI)
MAF Biosecurity New Zealand
Name(s) Michele Dickson
Email plantimports@maf.govt.nz
The primary purpose of MAF’s Plant Biosecurity Index is to support MAF’s plant health requirements.
Lists genus and species of plants recorded as present in New Zealand or approved for importation at some time, and some prohibited species not recorded in New Zealand. MAF’s Plants Biosecurity Index has a number of functions:

Index of what is deemed to be here in New Zealand

Index of what is prohibited

Index of plants prohibited under Misuse of Drugs Act if currently deemed to be present in New Zealand

Reference for Import Health Standards.
Biostatus
(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)
All
Geographic
(local, regional, national, world)
National
No Geodata
(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)
Date range of records Mostly prior to 1998
Botanical names (Y/N)
Common/Māori names (Y/N)
Synonymy (Y/N)
About 27,000 names.
Yes
No
Limited synonymy.
Size
(number of names or size of collection)
Access
Currency, reliability of data
Strengths
Weaknesses/ limitations
Relationship to other resources
Web
Publications www1.maf.govt.nz/cgi-bin/bioindex/bioindex.pl
Other
MAF’s Biosecurity Index has no formal link to Landcare Research’s databases to record changes in taxonomy; there is no regular comparison of databases. MAF makes species additions/alterations only when ERMA has completed a “determination of presence in NZ”, or recommended acceptance of a synonym, or MAF has accepted a synonym (from reputable databases). MAF can not make an addition of a species found present in NZ since 1998 without a full ERMA assessment as a new organism.
Additional species amendments to Landcare’s lists can not be adopted into the PBI without appropriate
ERMA actions. MAF currently will only add synonyms in response to requests or if there is a problem at the border. Requests for synonymy are often prompted by the common usage of names. MAF will not attempt taxonomic changes/updates beyond these two situations until there is a linkage with a Landcare
Research database.
In compiling the Index initially, MAF searched records of old import permits for nursery stock and the very few permits for seeds issued prior to 1998. Some entries can not be substantiated with records/collections and could be removed at a future date when a Landcare linkage is achieved. MAF’s
Index will become increasingly outdated taxonomically without the linkage to Landcare, which would be the reliable method to consistently remain updated and remove the ambiguity caused by the current lack of author reference in the PBI.
Limited synonymy, no authority names for taxa, significant data gaps (some taxa listed on the PBI are not actually present in New Zealand and others that are in New Zealand are not listed). Index is mostly at the species level. Cultivars are included where particular ones have been accepted as present, but the parentage or genus is not necessarily stated. Also cultivars are stated where one only is prohibited.
Subspecies are rarely used at present, but could be for selective prohibition. There are several entries where a genus has a listing of “Genus hybrids”, particularly amongst orchids.
The PBI is an index to the MAFBNZ Import standards for importation of nursery stock and Seed. Some other import standards will use the PBI in a minor way to restrict a particular plant product group if viable material is involved.
83

Name of database/ resource
Custodian(s)
Primary contact(s)
New Zealand Plant Finder
Meg Gaddum
Name(s)
Email
Meg Gaddum meg@plantfinder.co.nz
Search tool for locating where to buy plants and seeds within New Zealand. Purpose
Brief description
(include range of plant groups)
Scope
Comprehensive searchable database of plant species and cultivars available in nurseries throughout
New Zealand.
Cultivated – exotic and indigenous. Biostatus
(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)
Geographic
(local, regional, national, world)
Geodata
(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)
Date range of records
Botanical names (Y/N)
Local, regional and national.
No
Database was first developed in 1995 from nursery catalogues. All plant names are listed with those not currently available from nurseries flagged as such on the online database.
Yes
Common/Māori names (Y/N) Yes
Synonymy (Y/N) Some
Size
(number of names or size of collection)
Access
More than 46,600 records, derived from more than 180 plant nurseries.
Web www.plantfinder.co.nz
Publications
Other
Four books based on the database were published between 1997 and
2001 under the titles “New Zealand Plant Finder”, “Gaddum’s Plant
Finder” and “The Trade Plant Finder”.
Currency, reliability of data
Strengths
Weaknesses/ limitations
Relationship to other resources
Current and reasonably reliable. Plant names used are largely as provided in nursery catalogues, without extensive cross-checking or validation.
Probably the most comprehensive listing of the cultivated flora and cultivar names for New Zealand.
Possibly under resourced as the extensive database is maintained by only one person and funding is a problem. Lacks authoritative synonyms and validated names. Intended to be a current list, so older records of what has been available in the trade (what was growing in New Zealand) are not necessarily available from the database. The most recent print version is out of date.
A more comprehensive listing than the Plant Biosecurity Index of what is present in New Zealand.
Complementary to the non-digitised and extensive historical collection of nursery catalogues held at
Mt Albert Research Centre.
84

Name of database/ resource
New Zealand Nursery Register
Custodian(s) Reference Publishing Company
Primary contact(s) Name(s) Des Snell
Email nreg@nursery.net.nz
Purpose
Brief description
(include range of plant groups)
Scope
To provide a trade directory of the garden and plant nursery industry.
Contact details for companies, people, plants, and products.
Cultivated Biostatus
(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)
Geographic
(local, regional, national, world)
Geodata
(locality/mapping/GPS)
(Y/N)
Date range of records
Local and National.
Addresses of suppliers.
Listings produced in book form annually.
Yes, but mostly at genus level. Botanical names (Y/N)
Common/Māori names
(Y/N)
Synonymy (Y/N)
Yes, broadly.
No
Size
(number of names or size of collection)
Access
More than 5000 companies listed, number of plant names not available.
Web Database not online.
Publications
Other
Nursery Registers are published for both New Zealand and Australia in book form. There is a New Zealand Native Plants Register. See www.nursery.net.nz/industry.asp
.
Currency, reliability of data
Strengths
Weaknesses/ limitations
Relationship to other resources
Updated throughout the year, and with an annual questionnaire to the trade. Plant names are used rather informally and largely as supplied by the nursery trade.
Authoritative list of plant nurseries in New Zealand (and Australia).
Weak on plant names but is not intended to be an authoritative list of plant names; instead focuses on the nurseries.
To some degree overlaps and/or complementary with Meg Gaddum’s NZ Plant Finder and the
RNZIH NZ Collections Register.
85

Name of database/ resource
Custodian(s)
Primary contact(s)
Purpose
Brief description
(include range of plant groups)
Scope
RNZIH New Zealand Plant Collection Register
Royal NZ Institute of Horticulture (RNZIH)
Name(s) Philippa Foes-Lamb (also Keith Hammett and David Sole)
Email collections@rnzih.org.nz
To provide a New Zealand register of living plant collections by genera.
Original resource assembled by the Plant Collection Group of the Royal New Zealand Institute of
Horticulture in the 1990s.
Biostatus
(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)
Geographic
(local, regional, national, world)
Geodata
(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)
Exotic, indigenous, and cultivated.
Local, regional, national.
Date range of records
No geodata as such but includes addresses of owners’ of particular collections.
Mostly derived from a questionnaire circulated in 1991 and currently being updated.
Botanical names (Y/N) Yes. Originally at the genus level but being updated to include cultivars.
Common/Māori names (Y/N) Yes
Synonymy (Y/N) No
Size
(number of names or size of collection)
Access
Register of nearly 400, mainly private, plant collections. Currently being updated.
Web
Publications www.rnzih.org.nz/pages/plantcollectionregister2.html
(original register)
Hammett (1993) 1
Currency, reliability of data
Strengths
Weaknesses/ limitations
Relationship to other resources
Other
Current to 1993 but being updated to the present.
The only New Zealand wide register of non-commercial plant collections.
The original register is out of date but is being actively updated and will be developed into an online database and management system. Funding for this development has yet to be arranged.
It is intended to develop a new online resource with active database linkages to related databases such as
BG-BASE (to make some Botanic Gardens records available online) and the New Zealand Organisms
Register (to help validate names).
Broadly similar resource to the commercially orientated New Zealand Nursery Register.
Similar concept to PlantNetwork – the Plant Collections Network of Britain and Ireland – see www.plantnetwork.org
1 Hammett, K. R. W. (1993): New Zealand Plant Collection Register. Update No. 3: 1st March 1993. Horticulture in
New Zealand (Journal of the Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture) , Vol. 4, No. 1, Summer 1993, pp. 18-28.
86

Name of database/ resource
Custodian(s)
Primary contact(s)
Purpose
Brief description
(include range of plant groups)
Scope
Size
(number of names or size of collection)
Access
Currency, reliability of data
Strengths
Weaknesses/ limitations
Relationship to other resources
RNZIH cultivar checklists/registers for New Zealand native genera
Royal NZ Institute of Horticulture (RNZIH)
Name(s) Office Administrator. Also: Lawrie Metcalf (New Zealand
Registrar ICRA)
Email office@rnzih.org.nz
To produce authoritative checklists to the cultivars of New Zealand indigenous genera.
The RNZIH support the production of native cultivar checklists and are the International Cultivar
Registration Authority (ICRA) for Coprosma , Hebe , Heliohebe , Leptospermum , Phormium and
Pittosporum.
Biostatus
(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)
Indigenous and cultivated.
Geographic
(local, regional, national, world)
National, world. Includes New Zealand native cultivars developed in other countries.
Geodata
(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)
No
Date range of records From first cultivar introductions up to the date of publication.
Botanical names (Y/N)
Common/Māori names (Y/N)
Yes
Yes
Synonymy (Y/N) Yes

Coprosma : 50 NZ spp., c. 130 cv’s

Cordyline : 5 NZ spp., c. 31 cv’s

Hebe : >100 spp., c. 800 cv’s

Leptospermum : 87 spp., c. 150 cv’s. (most from L. scoparium )

Metrosideros : 11 NZ spp., c. 85 cv’s

Phormium : 2 spp., c. 380 cv’s

Pittosporum , 26 NZ spp., c. 107 cv’s.
Web
Publications
Other
Not available online but some cultivar lists are planned at www.rnzih.org.nz
for 2011.

Cordyline (Heenan 1991a 1 )

Hebe (Metcalf 2001 2 )

Leptospermum (Metcalf 1963 3 )

Phormium (Heenan 1991b 4 ).
Unpublished:

Coprosma

Leptospermum (update)

Metrosideros

Pittosporum.
Current, authoritative, and reliable up to the date of publication. Data includes descriptions, origins, and synonyms of cultivars.
Rigorous and complete treatment of cultivated plant names. One of the few resources that provide authoritative treatments for cultivar names. Limited funding currently available for future checklists/registers ( Leptospermum update and Metrosideros – underpinning articles are currently being published in The New Zealand Garden Journal ).
Valuable work but low key with few checklists produced to date. Poorly known and limited availability in print form. Print versions become out of date and there are no online versions yet. Relies on very few available experts to produce them. Limited deposition of supporting herbarium vouchers.
Nursery catalogues and other literature. Related resources are the Mt Albert research library nursery catalogue collection and Meg Gaddum’s PlantFinder. Similarities with the PVR registration process.
1 Heenan, P.B. 1991a: A cultivar checklist for the New Zealand species of Cordyline (Asphodelaceae). Horticulture in
New Zealand 2 : 8–12.
2 Metcalf, L.J. 2001: International register of Hebe cultivars. Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture. 232 p.
3 Metcalf, L.J. 1963: Check list of Leptospermum cultivars. Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture (RNZIH) Journal 5 :
224–230.
4 Heenan, P.B. 1991b: Checklist of Phormium cultivars. Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture. 60 p.
87

Name of database/ resource
Custodian(s)
Primary contact(s)
Purpose
Currency, reliability of data
Strengths
Weaknesses/ limitations
Relationship to other resources
PVR/IPONZ – Plant Variety Rights database and register
Ministry of Economic Development
Name(s) Chris Barnaby, Nancy Moroney
Email chris.barnaby@pvr.govt.nz
To record plant varieties (cultivars) submitted for Plant Variety Rights. Variety names or variety denominations are a key component of plant variety protection, as a requirement of the Plant Variety
Rights Act 1987 and the official record of protected varieties in New Zealand.
This database holds ownership, genera and/or species information and application data for all protected and formerly protected varieties in New Zealand. Varieties are divided into three groups; agriculture and vegetables, fruit crops and ornamentals/forest trees.
Brief description
(include range of plant groups)
Scope
Size
(number of names or size of collection)
Access
Biostatus
(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)
Geographic
(local, regional, national, world)
Geodata
(locality/mapping/GPS)
(Y/N)
Date range of records
Botanical names (Y/N)
Common/Māori names
(Y/N)
Synonymy (Y/N)
Exotic, Cultivated, and Indigenous
National
No
August 1975 to present.
Yes
Yes (some)
No (some commercial synonyms/trade names are included for information and identification).
Currently 3731 varieties covering 219 genera and 171 species.
Web
Publications
Limited data fields are available on the web interface at http://202.174.112.149/ – also see www.pvr.govt.nz
PVR journal published quarterly on the website available in PDF form.
Other Data submitted bi-monthly to the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) for inclusion in the UPOV variety denomination database. Annual statistics are supplied to the World
Intellectual Property Organisation.
Information is constantly updated. Plant Variety Rights Office (PVRO) recording and approval of variety names follow the international variety protection guidelines and the International Code for the
Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants.
The novelty, distinctiveness, uniformity, stability and variety denomination for each variety is critically examined and determined. Records include details of the species, denomination, owner, breeder and address for service of the new variety. Well established system that protects selections made by plant breeders.
Limited to those cultivars with application for Plant Variety Rights. In New Zealand, deposition of supporting herbarium specimens and comparators is not mandatory and seldom done. In Australia, it is compulsory under the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act 1994 for applicants of PVR/PBR to forward a herbarium specimen for varieties of Australian native plants.
International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) Variety Database
PVRO has access to this international database which includes variety name, species and ownership information from national authorities of UPOV member states (including NZ) responsible for variety protection and official registration. Variety listings from OECD are also included.
Variety descriptions
PVRO holds a detailed morphological description for each protected variety in New Zealand. The Office also has descriptive information for a number of non protected varieties. This information is stored on
88

paper, electronically and in ACCESS databases. On a number of occasions, during the course of PVR growing trials, varieties with different variety names have been identified as being one and the same and efforts are made to determine the correct variety name.
Variety Collections
PVR reference collections are maintained on various sites in NZ in association with other organisations such as Plant & Food, Landcare Research and local bodies. Examples include Pasture and Cereal seed at
Lincoln, apples in Havelock North, kiwifruit in Te Puke, roses in Palmerston North, Phormium and
Zantedeschia at Lincoln.
89

Name of database/ resource
Custodian(s)
Primary contact(s)
Purpose
Scope
Brief description
(include range of plant groups)
Margot Forde Forage Germplasm Centre (NZ)
AgResearch
Name(s)
Email
Kenyon Moore kenyon.moore@agresearch.co.nz
The purposes of the Centre are to obtain germplasm, to conserve it, replenish it and distribute it for research and product development.
 New Zealand’s national gene-bank of grassland plants.

New Zealand Endangered Species Seed-bank.
 Australia’s gene-bank for perennial grasses and legumes.
Plant germplasm consists of seeds of genetically diverse plant populations that are conserved for use in plant breeding and to ensure the survival of groups of plants.
Biostatus
(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)
Geographic
(local, regional, national, world)
Grassland plants – mainly exotic spp., some indigenous.
Endangered Species Seed-bank – indigenous.
Collections from local to world scale (seeds are stored from 100 countries).
Yes, but not in all cases. Geodata
(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)
Date range of records From 1946 to the present.
Yes Botanical names (Y/N)
Common/Māori names (Y/N) Seldom used.
Synonymy (Y/N) No
Size
(number of names or size of collection)
Access
More than 65,000 seed samples representing 1,800 spp., 350 genera, and more than 70 plant families.
Included are extensive wild collections of useful species, samples of foreign and domestic cultivars, breeders lines and genetic stocks.
Many of the species are held in containment and are not ‘present in New Zealand’.
Web Overview at www.agresearch.co.nz/seeds/default.aspx
Public part of database available at
. https://secure.agresearch.co.nz/seeds/
Publications
Other
Currency, reliability of data
Strengths
Weaknesses/ limitations
Relationship to other resources
Continually updated.
Public web interface uses drop-boxes by genus, species, and other criteria – no free text search fields.
New Zealand Endangered Species Seed-bank – NZ Plant Conservation Network.
90

Name of database/ resource
Custodian(s)
Primary contact(s)
Auckland Botanic Gardens plant collection and database
Auckland Regional Council
Name(s) Jack Hobbs
Yvonne Etherington
Purpose
Brief description
(include range of plant groups)
Scope
Email Jack.hobbs@arc.govt.nz
Yvonne.etherington@arc.govt.nz
To provide a public space that people can enjoy visiting, learn about plants, and host other events.
Help with the conservation of threatened native plants within the Auckland region.
Plants from temperate to tropical regions are growing in collections organised thematically (geographic, generic, taxonomic, ecological and horticultural display). Collections include: Native plants, Gondwana
Arboretum, Edibles, Perennials, Palms, Shrubs, Camellias, Magnolias, Salvias, Potter Children's Garden,
Herbs, Urban Trees, Rock Garden, African Plants, Spring Blossom Valley, Roses.
Biostatus
(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)
Exotic, indigenous, and cultivated.
Geographic
(local, regional, national, world)
Local collection of native and exotic plants. National and global where relevant to Botanic Garden collections.
Geodata
(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)
Date range of records
No. Garden beds are currently mapped by hand using paper records.
We hope to utilise available.
BG-BASE mapping software when it becomes
Auckland Botanic Gardens was opened in 1982 but the plant records date from 1972.
Botanical names (Y/N) Yes
Common/Māori names (Y/N) Yes
Synonymy (Y/N) Yes
Size
(number of names or size of collection)
Database contains more than 31,000 accessions with more than 30,000 names. The database is still relatively new and requires much work to provide fully accurate records.
Access Web
Publications
Other
Inventory not available online – see www.aucklandbotanicgardens.co.nz
Currency, reliability of data
Strengths
Weaknesses/ limitations
Relationship to other resources
The plants database ( BG-BASE ) is constantly being updated. We hope it will become very comprehensive over the next few months with the addition of images and further information on each accession.
A very powerful database which is an invaluable resource to the Botanic Gardens.
No links to other botanic garden inventories as yet. BG-BASE has the capacity to do this. It will be looked into in the future.
ARC, Auckland War Memorial Museum Herbarium, BGANZ, other Botanic Gardens, NZPCN, RNZIH,
DOC.
91

Name of database/ resource
Custodian(s)
Primary contact(s)
Purpose
Scope
Brief description
(include range of plant groups)
Botanic Gardens of Wellington plant collection and database
Wellington City Council
Name(s)
Email
David Sole treehouse@wcc.govt.nz
To provide a comprehensive catalogue/inventory of the four gardens plant stock, also library cataloguing available.
Wellington city has four botanic gardens:

Wellington Botanic Garden – exotic and native plants

Otari-Wilton's Bush – native plants only

Bolton Street Memorial Park – heritage rose collection

Truby King House and Garden – rhododendron dell
The Council owns and manages the gardens, which are free entry. There is a strong network of volunteers and community organisations who support the gardens and their programmes. On a national scale,
Wellington's botanic gardens have significant rose, conifer and native plant collections.
Biostatus
(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)
Exotic, indigenous, cultivated, and wild.
Geographic
(local, regional, national, world)
Local collections of native and exotic plants. Some exotics are nationally significant..
Geodata
(locality/mapping/GPS)
(Y/N)
Date range of records
Some GPS of plants has been completed such as mature trees in WBG and noteworthy trees at OWB.
Variable. There are good records through documentation though formal accession records at the Botanic Garden did not begin until 1991.
Botanical names (Y/N) Yes
Common/Māori names
(Y/N)
Synonymy (Y/N)
Where relevant/available.
Some where relevant.
Size
(number of names or size of collection)
Access
13,500 total accessions for Botanic Garden and Otari-Wiltons Bush. This includes multiple accessions of the same taxa e.g., different accessions for same species of different provenance. About half of the
Botanic Garden records have been entered into BG-BASE and all of the Otari-Wiltons Bush records.
Web
Publications
Other
Plant inventory not available online – see www.wellington.govt.nz/services/gardens/index.html
Currency, reliability of data
Strengths
Data updated annually at Otari and the Botanic Garden.
Weaknesses/ limitations
Relationship to other resources
BG-BASE is a powerful package that can retain large amounts of information. Has many modules that can be added to it i.e., propagation, mapping. Developed purely for Botanic Gardens.
Not currently linked to other botanic garden inventories (possibly a long term objective though). Interface not easily picked up by less techno literate staff.
Member of BGANZ. Taranaki District Council, Dunedin Botanic Garden, Auckland Botanic Garden and
Auckland University. Looking at being part of establishing national and Australasian user groups.
92

Name of database/ resource
Custodian(s)
Primary contact(s)
Purpose
Brief description
(include range of plant groups)
Scope
Dunedin Botanic Garden plant collection and database
Dunedin City Council
Name(s)
Email
Tom Myers tom.myers@dcc.govt.nz
Living plant collection
To provide a public space that people can enjoy visiting and learning about plants.
Database
To track source, living location, and shipment data of plants in the botanic garden. Our small herbarium list is maintained on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, although as the herbarium grows we will consider moving to the BG-BASE herbarium module.
Germplasm
Seed is collected annually and used as part of an International Seed Exchange programme with Botanic
Gardens around the world. Collections, requests and shipments are recorded on BG-BASE .
Herbarium
A small herbarium is maintained for the purpose of staff use and plant identification. At present this includes c. 1000 specimens, mainly of weeds and local native plants.
Other
While this review relates specifically to cultivated plants, it should be noted that the Botanic Garden includes areas of wild, mostly regenerating, native bush and an aviary. The bush is surveyed for its constituent species. The aviary includes exotic and indigenous birds, managed in a national and international data framework (ISIS). The plant and animal life present in the botanic garden receive regular attention from local Otago University researchers.
Our living collections as listed by our Activity Management Plan are as follows:
Arboretum, Aviary (birds), Camellia Borders, Clive Lister Garden, Geographical Borders, Herb Garden,
Herbaceous Borders, Knot Garden, Lindsay Creek Borders, Native Plant Collection, Otaru Teien,
Rhododendron Dell, Rock Garden, Rose Garden, South African Collection, Specimen trees, Thematic
Border, Water/Bog Garden, Winter Garden
The following is a break-down of our most common cultivated genera (cultivars included):
Rhododendron (638), Rosa (571), Camellia (374), Hebe (157), Iris (118), Penstemon (96), Phormium
(87), Hosta (80), Lilium (78), Fritillaria (77), Eucalyptus (76), Salvia (73), Narcissus (71), Olearia (67),
Pittosporum (67), Euphorbia (66), Gentiana (66), Coprosma (64), Aquilegia (60), Aster (60), Clematis
(58), Hemerocallis (58), Acacia (53), Acer (53), Dianthus (52), Celmisia (51)
We also maintain Propagation and Nursery Facilities, an International Seed Exchange programme and
Herbarium.
Exotic, indigenous, and cultivated. Biostatus
(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)
Geographic
(local, regional, national, world)
Local collection of native and exotic plants. National and global where relevant to Botanic Garden collections.
Geodata
(locality/mapping/GPS)
(Y/N)
At present Living Collection data is text-based only, with plants recorded for over 500 “areas” within the botanic garden.
An ESRI based map link has been under preparation for over 5 years now.
This is being developed by our database provider BG-BASE .
Date range of records
Botanical names (Y/N)
Botanic Garden base maps are maintained by the Dunedin City Council.
1977 to present. Records before this time have been destroyed or removed.
Older material is re-accessed and corrected if further information comes to light. The bulk of living collections originates from the 1980s, so is recorded. The collections most affected by loss of records are the older specimen trees and historic collections such as exotic orchids.
Yes
93

Size
(number of names or size of collection)
Access
Currency, reliability of data
Strengths
Weaknesses/ limitations
Relationship to other resources
Common/Māori names
(Y/N)
Synonymy (Y/N)
Yes
Yes
Note: this does not indicate validity of names or total number of plants
Names Cultivar names total alive total alive dicot fern
17045
298 gymnosperm 491 monocot 4130
Grand Total
Web
22016
Publications
8155 4516
57 13
312 150
2172 844
2627
8
101
599
10701 5523 3335
Plant inventory not directly available online – see: www.dunedin.govt.nz/facilities/botanic-garden
Our living collection records were provided to the Botanic Garden
Conservation International in 2002, and are searchable in an anonymous sense on the BGCI search engine: www.bgci.org/plant_search.php
We have been invited to put our data on web using BG-BASE web export module.
Other
Plant names and location records require continuous work to keep up to date. We have seven curatorial staff updating location information, one staff entering accession and source details, one staff with primary responsibility for entering plant names.
Name changes are tracked and recorded, and original “source” names for plants are kept. Source information, both person/institution name and locality of collection or purchase is recorded.
Problems with plant names or identification are generally found in stocktake, but can also be reported by visitors.
Linking plant source data to living collections gives us the ability to pursue data issues (verifying source information) and to respond to external requests either for material or information. Some plant sources place restrictions on us relating to the international convention on biological diversity. It is possible this may affect the NZOR project at some level.
Database restricts importation of data, so depends heavily on manual input. Therefore much time is spent on manual data entry, and less time of batch updates, corrections or data checking.
There is some data quality loss from not capturing all available information relating to taxonomic authority of names of seed imported from overseas. Usually authority is added later as names are checked when public plant labels are being made. To be fully accurate, authority when available should be recorded from source index semina. These date back to 1977 (and before) and are kept on file if this workload is deemed relevant.
Where names are derived from nurseries and private collections we attempt to verify or correct the name, however the source name is also kept. Un-verified names need to be treated with caution.
Our Living Collection data has been provided to Landcare Research, MAF and ERMA.
The Dunedin Botanic Garden is a member of BGANZ (NZ).
94

Name of database/ resource
Custodian(s)
New Zealand Notable Trees Trust register and database
New Zealand Notable Trees Trust (NZNTT), in association with the Royal New Zealand Institute of
Horticulture and the New Zealand Arboricultural Association
Name(s) Brad Cadwallader Primary contact(s)
Purpose
Brief description
(include range of plant groups)
Scope
Email notabletrees@rnzih.org.nz
To record the heritage and notable trees of New Zealand
Database of notable trees registered in New Zealand. Searchable by tree dimension, botanical name, common name and location. Other search functions will be; names associated with tree, tree age, species ranked by height, spread, girth and national champion tree ranking.
Biostatus
(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)
Geographic
(local, regional, national, world)
Geodata
(locality/mapping/GPS)
(Y/N)
Date range of records
Exotic, indigenous, cultivated, and wild.
Local, regional, and national
Yes
Botanical names (Y/N)
Registrations are from 1973 to the present. Known ages of trees date from 1700 to 1966.
Yes
Common/Māori names (Y/N) Yes
Synonymy (Y/N)
Size
(number of names or size of collection)
Access Web
No
As at 2006, there were 720 records in the database and 223 taxa (hybrids, species, varieties, cultivars) that represent 422 registrations covering some 3000 trees. These numbers are increasing as new records are actively being added.
Publications
Other
The previous database was available online from 2004–2006 and was redeveloped into an integrated management system that went online
(at www.notabletrees.org.nz
) in December 2009.
Tree Registration Manual is an associated resource
Currency, reliability of data
Strengths
Weaknesses/ limitations
Relationship to other resources
For the new database, common and botanical names have been cross-checked against the Landcare
Research Plant Names database, the Scion National Forestry Herbarium botanical names database and other sources.
Project supported by a formal Trust (established 2007/2008) and Trustees rather than a single person
(1977–2006). There is an existing broad range of support from many New Zealand local authorities and a quickly developing subscriber list to the website. Web-based fully integrated management system, with public view and log-on access rights, image management and Google Map functionality. Funded by several grants and sponsorship.
Potential issues of reliability of data from submitters and active maintenance of database records.
Heavily reliant on voluntary contributions.
Several potentially related resources – arboreta tree lists (Eastwoodhill, Hackfalls, Scion), regional authority protected tree lists, Marion MacKay, Mike Wilcox, and Penny Cliffin’s tree lists, WINTEC student projects repeating surveys of trees listed Bob Burstall’s mensuration reports (North Island – see
NZ Garden Journal , Vol. 12, No. 1, June 2009, pp. 4–7).
95

Name of database/ resource
Custodian(s)
Primary contact(s)
Purpose
Brief description
(include range of plant groups)
Scope
Trees of New Zealand – MacKay research data
Marion MacKay
Name(s)
Email
Marion MacKay m.b.mackay@massey.ac.nz
To describe the range and frequency of exotic woody plants in plant collections in NZ, focussing on certain genera that related to the studies undertaken.
Woody tree and shrub species and cultivars mostly, but not entirely, focussed on Abies , Acer , Aesculus ,
Alnus , Betula , Buddleia , Carpinus , Cedrus , Crataegus , Cupressus , Euonymus , Fagus , Fraxinus , Ilex ,
Juniperus , Magnolia , Malus , Nothofagus , Picea , Pinus , Podocarpus , Populus , Prunus , Quercus ,
Sorbus , Tilia , Viburnum .
A more recent study focussed on Rhododendron .
The Eastwoodhill Arboretum collection of 1990 is a subset of the data. Also a subset of the data are those taxa that were imported into NZ for Eastwoodhill but which are no longer in the collection (about
3000 taxa).
Includes private collections, and therefore taxa that are not found in commercial trade.
Biostatus
(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)
Exotic, cultivated national Geographic
(local, regional, national, world)
Geodata
(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)
Date range of records
Collection location described but not mapped
1990-2007
Botanical names (Y/N) Yes
Common/Māori names (Y/N) Yes
Synonymy (Y/N) Yes
Size
(number of names or size of collection)
Access
About 12,000 species records, with perhaps 4-5 times as many associated accessions.
Web No
Publications Summary only
Currency, reliability of data
Strengths
Other
Varies from data of 1990 to data of 2007
Weaknesses/ limitations
Relationship to other resources
Describes species and accessions held in private collections that do not appear to be recorded in other data.
Shows that only about 30% of cultivated taxa are in commercial trade, the majority is not available through commercial sources.
Recent Rhododendron data shows that NZ contains international red-list species, of wild-source origin that may have an important role in international ex-situ conservation. I believe this is also likely for other genera.
Genera covered related to research issues of the time, so not comprehensive.
Difficulty of transfer of file formats.
Some relationship with the Eastwoodhill Arboretum database.
96

Name of database/ resource
Custodian(s)
Primary contact(s)
Auckland’s Urban Forest
Mike Wilcox
Name(s) Mike Wilcox
Purpose
Brief description
(include range of plant groups)
Scope
Email
Biostatus
(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)
Geographic
(local, regional, national, world)
Geodata
(locality/mapping/GPS)
(Y/N)
Date range of records mike.wilcox@xtra.co.nz
To catalogue the cultivated trees and shrubs of Auckland.
Includes a survey of various major tree collections (e.g. Cornwall Park, Unitec campus, Monte Cecilia,
Purewa Cemetery, Mount Richmond, Auckland Domain etc.), street tree surveys, and general tree and shrubs of Auckland catalogues by region of origin (South America, Africa, Australia etc).
No GPS localities, but general locations recorded, and sometimes street addresses.
1991–2009
Exotic, indigenous, and cultivated.
Local and regional (but of national significance)
Botanical names (Y/N)
Common/Māori names
(Y/N)
Synonymy (Y/N)
Yes
Yes
Yes, where appropriate.
Size
(number of names or size of collection)
Access
Database is incorporated into a taxonomic compendium called PlantWorld 1 . This is a Microsoft Word file, with thousands of entries. It covers all plant families, worldwide. New and local information is added as it comes to hand. Auckland Trees is just one part of it. In addition there are separate files documenting Auckland’s trees and shrubs by country of origin. There is a large digital photolibrary to go with it, a private herbarium, and specimens in the Auckland Museum herbarium (AK).
Web No
Currency, reliability of data
Strengths
Weaknesses/ limitations
Relationship to other resources
Publications Some publications about individual species or genera in the Auckland
Botanical Society Journal. Several reports about the trees and shrubs at particular sites (e.g. Cornwall Park, UNITEC campus, Monte Cecilia
Park).
Other At this stage, private only, though snippets are regularly sent out on request to interested people. Information is incorporated into
PlantWorld.
Ongoing project and coverage constantly improving as new information comes to hand.
Methodical and detailed survey of the cultivated trees of the region.
Large unfunded project relying on the dedication of one person. Not integrated with other resources/data.
Complementary resource to Penny Cliffin’s Auckland tree data. Potential links to the Notable Trees
Trust project. Some links to Auckland Botanical Gardens database. Partly incorporates Auckland’s bigger tree collections such as the Auckland University, the Mt Albert Plant & Food campus, and the
Botanic Gardens. Specimens from survey work are deposited in AK Herbarium.
1 Wilcox, M. D. PlantWorld – a compendium of plants of the world. Mangere Bridge, Auckland, New Zealand (unpublished).
97

Name of database/ resource
Urban tree collections of Auckland
Custodian(s) Massey University
Primary contact(s) Name(s)
Purpose
Brief description
(include range of plant groups)
Scope
Penny Cliffin, Unitec New Zealand
Email pcliffin@unitec.ac.nz
A snapshot of species present in 39 collections, and a survey of tree collection management practices used in Auckland.
Tree species data reported for 39 scientific and amenity tree collections in the Auckland region.
Project was initially done as part of a thesis at Massey University.
Biostatus
(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)
Geographic
(local, regional, national, world)
Geodata
(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)
Date range of records
Exotic, indigenous, and cultivated.
Local and regional (but of national significance)
No
N/A
Yes Botanical names (Y/N)
Common/Māori names (Y/N)
Synonymy (Y/N)
Size
(number of names or size of collection)
39 collections
1259 species
3452 entries
Yes
No
Access
Currency, reliability of data
Strengths
Weaknesses/ limitations
Relationship to other resources
Web
Publications
Other
No
No
Unpublished
Data collected in 2000. Incorrect nomenclature of the tree species was a significant problem in the survey. Inaccuracies included outdated botanical names, incorrect spelling, and the use of common names by tree collection managers.
Regional resource. It has proved useful for Unitec staff and students doing landscape architecture projects.
Limited scope and not integrated with other data.
Marion Mackay’s national tree data.
98

Name of database/ resource
Eastwoodhill Arboretum
Custodian(s) The Eastwoodhill Trust
Primary contact(s) Name(s)
Purpose
Brief description
(include range of plant groups)
Scope
Paul Wynen, Curator
Email curator@eastwoodhill.org.nz
“to foster understanding and appreciation of nature by education, research and enjoyment of our unique plant collection”
Eastwoodhill Arboretum is also called the National Arboretum of New Zealand, and encompasses 135 hectares of exotic and native trees, shrubs and climber plantings. A herbarium supports the living collection and both are databased.
Biostatus
(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)
Exotic, indigenous and cultivated.
Geographic
(local, regional, national, world)
Geodata
(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)
Date range of records
Local plant collection of national (and international) importance.
Yes
Records date from the first arboretum plantings in 1914 to the present.
Botanical names (Y/N) Yes
Common/Māori names (Y/N) Yes
Synonymy (Y/N) Yes
Size
(number of names or size of collection)
Access
629 genera and c. 3500 taxa (species, varieties, cultivars).
Web
Publications
Other
Plant names can be browsed by genus and then species at: www.eastwoodhill.org.nz/gardens--collection/collection.aspx
Currency, reliability of data
Strengths
Weaknesses/ limitations
Relationship to other resources
Records are kept up-to-date, and data is reliable.
The most extensive living collection of different species of exotic trees in New Zealand.
Limited funding, small workforce.
Part of the NZ National Herbarium Network.
99

Name of database/ resource
Custodian(s)
Primary contact(s)
Purpose
Brief description
(include range of plant groups)
Scope
The Great Fruit and Nut Search
New Zealand Tree Crops Association
Name(s) M. Denton
Email mdenton@xtra.co.nz
Preserve names and locations of fruit and nut tree varieties in collections associated with NZTCA.
Covers most fruit and nut species grown by NZTCA members in the 1980s and early 1990s. Collected via appeal through NZTCA. Status of recorded trees at present is unknown. It has not been updated.
Biostatus
(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)
Geographic
(local, regional, national, world)
Geodata
(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)
Date range of records
Botanical names (Y/N)
Common/Māori names (Y/N)
Exotic, cultivated.
National
Yes. Locations not accessible to the public.
1980s to early 1990s
No
Yes
Size
(number of names or size of collection)
Access
Synonymy (Y/N) No
1500 common names, some are synonyms.
Web www.treecrops.org.nz/knowl/addgen/greatfnsrch.html
Publications
Other
Currency, reliability of data
Strengths
Weaknesses/ limitations
Relationship to other resources
True identity of the trees was never confirmed. Has not been updated.
Lack of formal verification of plant/variety identity.
100

Name of database/ resource
Custodian(s)
Primary contact(s)
Scope
Purpose
Brief description
(include range of plant groups)
Edible Fig Cultivars in New Zealand
New Zealand Tree Crops Association
Name(s)
Email
Eric Cairns cairnse@paradise.net.nz
To identify edible fig strains available in New Zealand. To support a reference collection of fig cultivars.
Has listings for >180 accessions, from common retail varieties, significant collections (including ex
MAF and DSIR collections) or heritage trees. Many cultivar names are obviously redundant as the same fig may be retailed under different names. Some names reflect the owner or heritage source of the plant.
The accession list is useful for cultivar trials and may eventually be used to help identify which named figs are actually identical. Separate Excel sheets list varieties held by 14 private growers with NZTCA affiliations. Brief descriptions given for most accessions.
Biostatus
(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)
Exotic, cultivated.
National Geographic
(local, regional, national, world)
Geodata
(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)
Date range of records
No
1990–2009
Botanical names (Y/N)
Common/Māori names (Y/N)
No. (All are Ficus carica cultivars except F. afghanistanica ssp. johanis )
Yes
Size
(number of names or size of collection)
Access
Synonymy (Y/N)
182 accessions
Web
No
Publications
Other
Not at present – may be included on NZTCA website in future.
Information available on request to Eric Cairns.
Up to date. Updated at least yearly as new information comes to hand. Currency, reliability of data
Strengths
Weaknesses/ limitations
List estimated to include >95% of cultivated F. carica types in New Zealand.
Many cultivar names redundant. Would require DNA or similar fingerprint technique to distinguish between morphologically similar cultivars. Does not include all fig names from some minor sales outlets.
Some of the fig cultivars detailed in this resource are listed on the NZTCA Great Fruit and Nut Search. Relationship to other resources
101

Name of database/ National New Zealand Flax Collection resource
Custodian(s)

Landcare Research.

Plant Variety Rights Office (a stakeholder of the commercial coloured cultivars)
Primary contact(s)
Name(s)
Email
Sue Scheele scheeles@landcareresearch.co.nz
Purpose
Brief description
(include range of plant groups)
Scope
Maintaining a nationally significant collection, and research into traditional and new uses of
Living collection of harakeke (NZ flax, Phormium spp.) selections, comprising
1.
Traditional weaving varieties incorporating the collection of Rene Orchiston of Gisborne.
2.
Ornamental cultivars as sold in the nursery trade
3.
Phormium used in commercial milling
4.
Other provenances of cultural and historic interest (e.g., sub-Antarctic material)
5.
Representative wild selections.
Biostatus Indigenous and cultivated.
Botanical names (Y/N) No. Only two species are involved and hybrids between them.
Phormium .
(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)
Geographic
(local, regional, national, world)
Local collection, regional, nationally significant. The National Flax Collection is held at Lincoln. However, ARC, Dunedin Botanic Garden, Guthrie Smith
Outdoor Education Centre (Tutira), Havelock North, and Scion (Rotorua) hold duplicate or partial sets of the Orchiston collection. Selected cultivars of the
Orchiston collection have also been freely distributed widely to weavers and community groups.
No Geodata
(locality/mapping/GPS)
(Y/N)
Date range of records Source collection donated by Rene Orchiston in 1986.
Common/Māori names
(Y/N)
Synonymy (Y/N)
Yes, Māori names and locality names after which some plants are known.
No
Size
(number of names or size of collection)
54 cultivars in Orchiston collection; approx 100 other Phormium selections of historic/cultural interest; 60
PVR cultivars (ornamentals); 80 wild provenances
Access Web
Publications
Other
Updated periodically.
Information on weaving cultivars: www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/biosystematics/plants/harakeke/
See webpage above for references.
Scheele, S. 2005 (3 rd ed) Harakeke. The Rene Orchiston Collection. Lincoln,
Manaaki Whenua Press.
Heenan, P.B. 1991. Checklist of Phormium Cultivars. Royal New Zealand
Institute of Horticulture (Inc.).
Currency, reliability of data
Strengths Well defined group of culturally important cultivars. One of the few recognised nationally significant live plant collections in New Zealand.
Descriptions of Phormium selections (apart from Orchiston cultivars) are not yet easily accessible. Weaknesses/ limitations
Relationship to other resources
Detailed historic information on Phormium cultivars in Māori Plant Use database Nga Tipu Whakaoranga: http://maoriplantuse.landcareresearch.co.nz/
102

Name of database/ resource
Ngā Tipu Whakaoranga – Māori Plant Use Database
Custodian(s) Landcare Research
Primary contact(s)
Name(s)
Email
Sue Scheele
NgaTipuWhakaoranga@landcareresearch.co.nz
Purpose
Brief description
(include range of plant groups)
Scope
To document Māori use of plants in New Zealand.
Database containing fully referenced, detailed information on how Māori used plants to survive in New
Zealand, particularly before the arrival of Europeans. Some material relating to later economic uses of native plants is also recorded. Information on fungi and seaweeds is included too.
Biostatus
(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)
Mainly indigenous, cultivated and wild.
Geographic
(local, regional, national, world)
National; also some Pacific plants that have links to Māori culture.
Geodata
(locality/mapping/GPS)
(Y/N)
No
Date range of records Accumulated knowledge since Māori first settled in New Zealand. Includes references to publications from the early literature up to the present day.
Includes information from unpublished ms.
Botanical names (Y/N) Yes
Common/Māori names
(Y/N)
Synonymy (Y/N)
Yes, particularly Māori names.
Yes
Size
(number of names or size of collection)
Access
2000 records containing many thousands of items of sourced information.
Web http://Māoriplantuse.landcareresearch.co.nz/WebForms/default.aspx
Publications
Other
Currency, reliability of data
Strengths
Weaknesses/ limitations
Relationship to other resources
Substantial and reliable resource.
Authoritative database combining information from many individual publications. There is an increasing number of images linked to plant records.
Due to concentration on technical upgrade and database integration, a considerable backlog of material needs to be added.
Contains historical information on weaving cultivars in National New Zealand Flax Collection.
Botanical names link to Nga Tipu o Aotearoa - New Zealand Plants database: http://nzflora.landcareresearch.co.nz/
103

Name of database/ resource
Custodian(s)
Primary contact(s)
Purpose
New Zealand Poplar and Willow Collection
Plant and Food Research
Name(s)
Email
Ian McIvor
Ian.McIvor@plantandfood.co.nz
Living reference collection for identification purposes, phenological and disease observations, and land management and flood protection.
Poplars ( Populus ) and willows ( Salix ) Brief description
(include range of plant groups)
Scope Biostatus
(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)
Geographic
(local, regional, national, world)
Geodata
(locality/mapping/GPS)
(Y/N)
Date range of records
Exotic and cultivated.
National
No
Botanical names (Y/N) Yes
Common/Māori names
(Y/N)
Synonymy (Y/N)
No
No
Size
(number of names or size of collection)
Approximately 100 spp. and hybrids of Populus and 200 spp. and hybrids of Salix
Access Web
Publications
Other
Not available online – see www.hortresearch.co.nz/index/page/549 and www.hortresearch.co.nz/wprc/
Unpublished list
Currency, reliability of data
Strengths
Weaknesses/ limitations
Relationship to other resources
Current and reliable list of the collection.
Databased but not online.
104