The wart that affects everybody

Whether you’re new to land management, a long time farmer or a public land manager, no one is immune to the threat of ragwort. Having persisted in high rainfall areas of Victoria since the late 1800’s, ragwort is unequivocally a tough plant to beat. One plant may produce up to 250,000 seeds each year which can then last in the soil for over 10 years. With this in mind, is it worth the fight to control ragwort? The answer is absolutely.

Aside from the productivity impacts of ragwort, (poisons stock, reduces milk, meat and wool production etc.) the social impacts born from a lack of control are equally as significant. Good neighbours do not share ragwort seeds with other landholders. When they do, the social impact is significant. The social impacts of invasive species like ragwort are difficult to quantify yet it is clear that they are considerable. The financial consequences of managing weeds causes stress for farm businesses.  Conflict between neighbours and between sections of the community with differing attitudes to weed control can also be emotionally taxing. 

Therefore by controlling ragwort you, (as a landholder) are not only meeting your legal requirements (CaLP Act 1994) but you will be keeping your neighbours and the local farming community happy.  To learn more about ragwort and discover what local programs are available to assist with its control, come along to a free Ragwort Forum on the 11^th of March 2104 from 10am until 1pm at the Dakers Centre, Leongatha.

Share your experiences, view a range of displays and access weed control advice. Morning tea and lunch provided. For more information or to RSVP for catering purposes, contact Kate Williams at the South Gippsland Landcare Network on Tel: 5662 5759 Mob: 0428 317 928 or Email: katew@wgcma.vic.gov.au.

This forum is part of the ‘Waging War on Invasive Plants through Landcare Network Collaboration’ project funded by the State Government through the Victorian Landcare Grants administered by the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority.

Even blackberries feel the heat...

 

With significant rainfall and cooler temperatures in late spring/early summer, conditions were optimum for blackberry germination and growth.  From September to November young canes emerged from the crown or base of the blackberry bush and grew rapidly at a rate of between 5-8 cm per day.

 

By the end of November and into December plants were in full flower and in early January bushes were full of berries (fruit). As a general rule, in mid-late December the level of control using herbicides is effective as plants are yet to set fruit (seed), they are actively growing and are less likely to be heat stressed than in mid-summer. However its worth noting that if conditions are suitable, herbicide can be applied from flowering right through to fruiting – usually December, January, February and March.

 

In hot, dry periods currently being experienced across South East Australia hold off spraying plants with herbicide if they are showing signs of moisture stress i.e. wilting. Hot conditions during the day (i.e. over 30 °C) can temporarily stress plants and limit uptake or absorption of herbicides. During hot conditions, spray in the morning before 11am or wait until weather conditions are milder.

Angled Onions leaving a sour taste

Angled Onion (Allium triquetrum) has been increasing in recent years along local roadsides, stream banks and bush land areas.  Thriving in damp areas and tolerating windy conditions, Angled Onion, (if left unchecked) has the potential to become even more common in South Gippsland.

For those not familiar with the plant, Angled Onion is a bulbous perennial herb growing 30- 50cm tall. It has bright green, limp, fleshy, pointed leaves with a strong onion smell when crushed and small, white, bell-shaped flowers, clustered at end of long, triangular stems from August to November. Each petal has a middle green line. The fruit is a round green capsule, 4- 6mm diameter, with black, oblong seeds presenting from September to December. 

Without adequate control, Angled Onion is capable of smothering and displacing native grasses and groundcovers by preventing seed germinating and subsequent regeneration. In addition, given that Angled Onion is seasonal and dormant leaving bare ground in summer, it increases the likelihood of soil erosion.  In agricultural situations, Angled Onion imparts a strong onion flavor and an unpleasant odor to dairy products and meat, making them unfit for sale. The weeds seeds are dispersed by water and ants. Seeds and bulbs are also spread by contaminated soil and garden refuse.

In terms of control, plants can be dug out ensuring that all bulbs, corms and rhizomes are removed. Remove small and scattered plants first and then target outer edges of larger infestations. Dispose of removed material by either burning in a very hot fire or seal in strong bags and take to the tip.

For larger infestations, treat using herbicide at the bulb exhaustion stage late winter to early spring as treatments outside this period do not provide the same degree of control. Brush Off and Pulse penetrant is effective (off label use).

If unable to spray, at the very least remove flower heads prior to seed set, using either a lawn mower or brush cutter. It may take several years to exhaust the bulb food supply. Continue cutting new growth and maintaining dense mulch.

Here come the bride

 

Winter in South Gippsland; the air is chilly, the rain is frequent, and Bridal Creeper is growing at a rate of knots!

 

Please be vigilant in controlling new outbreaks; keep a lookout underneath trees where seeds have been spread by birds. All underground tubers need to be removed in order for manual removal to be fully effective. Tubers can grow at some depth under the soil therefore using a small mattock to get leverage is the best way to go. All removed material should be double bagged and disposed of appropriately. Removed tubers have been shown to survive even without light for 2 years, therefore correct disposal is important.

 

For larger infestations, foliar spray using Brush Off (off label* in Victoria) from June to August up until flowering and prior to fruiting. If using Brush Off, care must be taken to avoid killing surrounding native vegetation.

Although Bridal Creeper is relatively common in Victoria, there is still potential for further spread.  Active control will reduce the chance of spread; and protect vulnerable native plants and animals in the process.  Now excuse me, I'm off to kick some (Bridal Creeper) butt!

Off Label * In Victoria off label use (not exceeding the maximum rate on the label) is permitted except for restricted chemicals requiring an ACUP e.g Grazon. Off label permits can be applied for at the DEPI or Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicines Authority. Off label use can be quite complex and it is recommended that enquiries be made in the first instance with the DEPI. The DEPI website does have good info on chemical use rules go to;  http://new.dpi.vic.gov.au/agriculture/farming-management/chemical-use

Kate

Broom taking up all the room?

It's no surprise as this plant prides itself on readily invading native vegetation; roadsides in particular are a favourite spot for broom to take hold.  There are a number of varieties of broom that are problematic to the Australian environment because they are toxic to stock, provide harbour for feral animals and they increase fire fuel loads.  Unfortunately for South Gippslanders we have 3 varieties of broom that fit this description to contend with; Flax Leaf Broom, Cape Broom and English Broom. Each variety has unique characteristics however they all exhibit the same distinct pea shaped flowers in spring that are bright yellow in colour.  There are a number of ways to control broom weeds, they can be pulled out by hand (if small enough), slashed, grazed treated with herbicide yet what is the best approach? To answer this question (and hopefully unearth the best techniques currently available) the Federal Government is hosting a series of workshops titled "Building Best Practice- for Brooms and African Boxthorn" and you're invited.  The workshop in West Gippsland is to be held in Pakenham on Friday the 17^th of May 2013, 10am to 2pm.  RSVP's to National Brooms Coordinator, Matt Springall on 0427 536 138 or email to matthew.springall@environment.nsw.gov.au . Having dealt with broom first hand I will be going. If you are a land manager also dealing with broom or boxthorn then I hope that you will be there too!

Adios Indian Myna birds!

Eighty Indian Myna bird (myna bird) traps available for purchase through the South Gippsland Landcare Network (SGLN) have now been sold to landholders in the district. Making traps available for purchase is part of a campaign, (initiated by SGLN) to reduce myna bird numbers with the aim of protecting native birds and reducing productivity loses. 

 

The response to the campaign has been overwhelmingly positive. If the amount of public interest in myna bird control is anything to go by, myna birds had better look out- their days might be numbered! In the order of 140 calls or emails have been received by SGLN alone since February this year from people wanting to know where they can source a trap.

 

People's motives for myna bird control are diverse. Several fruit growers referred to the damage caused to crops. Those with chickens spoke of the constant battle to stop the blighters from eating all the chook feed.  Another common occurrence is the absence of native birdlife on properties inundated with myna birds.  All of these motives are valid and warrant action to be taken in reducing myna bird numbers.

 

Of those that purchased a trap through SGLN, several people have reported success with trapping which is inspiring to hear. One person in particular has reportedly trapped 27 myna birds, a fantastic effort so far.

 

There are no more myna bird traps are available for sale through SGLN however it's hoped that those who purchased a trap will be sharing theirs with their neighbours, as is already happening.  If you're keen on the idea of building your own trap, a copy of the design can be sent to you free of charge by contacting Landcare Project Officer, Kate Williams on T: 5662 5759 or E: 0428 317 928. Alternatively, myna birds traps can be purchased commercially for $65.00 from Mick at The Green Patch T: 0425 762 487. Servicing Bass Coast & South Gippsland or Raglan Gardens Nursery for $35.00, 7 Raglan Street, Sale T: 5144 4493.

 

The South Gippsland Landcare Network is encouraging those who purchased a trap to share the results of their control efforts. Visit www.feralscan.org.au/mynascan for details or alternatively, email Landcare Project Officer, Kate Williams at katew@wgcma.vic.gov.au to report your numbers trapped. Recording captured numbers is vital to determine the effectiveness of this control program and it inspires healthy competition between other trapping groups.

 

HELP! My neighbour isn’t doing their weeds!!

Good neighbours cooperate on a range of issues of mutual benefit – weeds, pests, fences etc. Coordinated action by neighbours is the most effective way of controlling weeds and pests that reduce the productivity of their land.

 

However, what can be done when your neighbour isn't doing their weeds? There can be many reasons for this. Your neighbour may be ignorant of his/her responsibilities to ensure control of noxious weeds. A simple discussion pointing out problem weeds/pests may be enough to motivate your neighbour to take action. Your neighbour may be an absentee owner and therefore hard to contact – a weeds calendar (available from SGLN office) placed in their letterbox may be a good start to informing them of their responsibilities. Your neighbour may be physically impaired in some way and might not have the resources to deal with their weeds – maybe an offer to assist with a backpack or two of poison may go a long way to developing cooperative relationships with your neighbour. When doing your roadside weeds put up signs that indicate the weeds have been sprayed – that lets everyone know you're on the job and maybe they should be too – lead by example. Be aware that your neighbours are likely to have different values, standards and expectations than you. Also, what you take for granted in managing your land might be completely unexpected for others. So, your first approach to a neighbour whose property has a weed problem is to go softly, softly. Nobody likes being yelled at and there can be a plethora of reasons why they haven't done their weeds.

 

So, you tried being nice and it didn't work? Read on….

 

Have accurate information- know the legal responsibilities for weed control

Weeds including ragwort, thistles and blackberry are plants that are classified as Regionally Controlled noxious weeds under the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994. Under the Act, landowners have a legal responsibility to take all reasonable steps to control and prevent (not eradicate) the spread and growth of these weeds on their land and the roadsides that adjoin their land. However, certain roadsides are exempt (see update on responsibilities for roadsides following this article for details). In general, if the land is being leased, the person/s leasing the land is responsible for the control of these weeds and repair of fences. There is no legislation that governs the control of 'environmental' weeds such as agapanthus. Pointless taking a neighbour to task for a relatively small infestation when there is a massive problem further down the road. Tackle the big weed issues in your neighbourhood first – do not use a minor weed infringement to run personal vendettas, you will most likely NOT get support from enforcement personnel and will only create far bigger long term issues with your neighbour (e.g. getting them offside on weeds means that boundary fence you share that needs replacing may take a lot of time and angst). We don't have to love our neighbours but building mutual understanding and constructive relationships is always the best way to go, it's how rural communities survive and thrive.

 

 

Third party assistance

In situations where your neighbour rarely visits the property and/or you've had no success in contacting them over a period of time, (either because they can't be reached or they are non-receptive) third party assistance is available. A third party could be your local Landcare group or Network, local council or the Department of Primary Industries (DPI).

The DPI are responsible for enforcing weed control under the Act, hence they are often seen as 'the go to' place for reporting a lack of weed control. Yet given that weeds including ragwort, thistles and blackberry are widespread in the region how do they enforce reasonable control on every landowner in the region with the limited resources at their disposal?  The short answer is they can't therefore the DPI's efforts for enforcement must be prioritised. DPI's enforcement for regionally controlled weeds is increasingly being used to support the ongoing efforts of community groups like Landcare, by focusing on landowners who have persistently failed to meet the standards achieved by the concerted efforts of their neighbours.

In other words, a property should only be reported to the DPI once other means of community extension and support have failed to bring about control to a standard set by the community. I'm not suggesting that this is the right or wrong way of bringing about compliance but rather stating that this is the reality of, and rational behind the Departments enforcement programs for regionally controlled weeds.

The South Gippsland Landcare Network (SGLN) is in a position to provide community extension and support. Upon request, SGLN have an information pack that can be sent to your neighbour that contains information on where to get advice, weed identification, control strategies, funding opportunities and details of local weed control contractors. The pack also comes with a letter from the Community Weeds Taskforce (CWT) outlining landowner responsibilities with regard to noxious weed control. The pack comes from SGLN, so you don't have to feel like you've 'dobbed in a neighbour'. A record of each pack sent is kept by SGLN. This record constitutes as evidence for community extension and should the landowner persistently fail to control their weeds, SGLN will notify the DPI for compliance action to be taken.  

Many Landcare groups in the Network have hosted weed control field days and seminars with the aim of engaging and encouraging landowners to actively manage their land. One such day was hosted by the Poowong Landcare group in late 2011 demonstrating the community's willingness to offer support for the control of weeds. The Three Creeks Landcare Group in the Bass Coast Landcare Network area has initiated a program titled 'The Year of the Blackberry'. Events and programs like this demonstrate that the local community are doing their bit to help control weeds and when control doesn't occur in these areas, the DPI are more likely to step in.  

 

Legal action

Only after attempts to engaging, educate, request action and verification that your neighbour has weed issues as bad as any in your area should the matter be escalated to the DPI for legal action. If your neighbour is non-compliant with their obligations regarding regionally controlled weeds (and community support has been demonstrated and recoded) they may be served with a Directions Notice or Land Management Notice (LMN) from the DPI. The Directions Notice or LMN will direct them to take certain actions to control weeds on their property. If they fail to comply with the Directions Notice or LMN they may be liable for a penalty under the CaLP Act. In 2012/2013 the maximum penalty for a single offence involving responsibilities for the management of noxious weeds is approximately $30,000. Using legal action to resolve disputes over weeds is an expensive use of tax payer dollars and time-consuming, it should be seen as the last resort. A court decision is not only costly, but it produces a winner and a loser. The loser may never feel that the issue has been resolved. They have simply been ordered to stop doing whatever it was they were doing, and may still not understand why.

 

In summary

• Be proactive; set a good example on your property and talk to your neighbour - nicely.

• If this fails, seek third party assistance in the form of your Landcare group or Network, local council or the DPI. Think about what field days, workshops or weed related events would be useful in your area and make them happen. It could be as simple as a one hour community lesson on how to calibrate spray equipment- something new landowners might be unfamiliar with.

• If the issue remains unresolved following third party assistance/attempts at community support and extension, the matter may need to be referred to the DPI for legal action.  

 

Update on responsibilities over roadside weeds

A proposed amendment of the CaLP Act 1994 is due to come into effect mid-way through this year that will see:

• Councils responsible for the control of noxious weeds on council and undeclared roadsides in Victoria

• VicRoads remain as the responsible authority for the control of noxious weed on declared roads in Victoria

In the interim, there is still a legal responsibility for landowners to take all reasonable steps to control and prevent the spread and growth of blackberry, ragwort, thistles and other regionally controlled noxious weeds on their land and the roadsides that adjoin their land. This does not apply however to a roadside which is;

(a)  A freeway or an arterial road within the meaning of the Road Management Act 2004; or

(b)  Crown land held under a lease or licence by a person other than the land owner; or

(c)  Land exempted from that subsection by a special area plan; or

(d)  Crown land in a national park or park within the meaning of the

       National Parks Act 1975 or in a protected forest within the meaning

 

For information regarding this article or for third party assistance from the South Gippsland Landcare Network please contact Kate Williams, South Gippsland Landcare Network Project Officer on 5662 5759 or email katew@wgcma.vic.gov.au

 

Article by: Mark Uren, Community Weeds Taskforce- Chiar and Kate Williams, South Gippsland Landcare Network- Project Officer

 

Myna problem

In 2005 Indian Mynas (Acridotheres tristis) won the Australian public
opinion title of 'Most Hated Pest'. Beating cane toads, feral cats
and foxes hands down- now that's saying something. They are also
ranked as one of the 100 species listed as the world's most invasive
by the World Conservation Union. Indian mynas (myna birds) have
spread throughout eastern Australia since being introduced in the
1880's.

With the label of 'Most Hated Pest' what is it about myna birds that
make them so disliked by people and a threat to the environment?
There are many reasons; they are aggressive and territorial in their
quest to out compete native birds and animals for food and habitat.
Using superior numbers they seek out nesting hollows of native birds
and animals and harass them to the point of eviction. Although they
only lay in one nest per year, myna birds build and defend several
nests during the breeding season excluding native birds and animals
from those nesting sites in the process. In rural and agricultural
areas they are increasingly damaging fruit trees, crops, grains and
stock feed. In South Gippsland alone several wineries and orchards
have reported damage to crops caused by myna birds.

Myna birds also pose a health risk to humans from bird mites and
faeces due to their habits of closely associating with human
activities. Nests are built out of sticks, straw and whatever else can
be found including paper, plastic and other waste material. This is a
particular problem when they choose to build nests in roof spaces and
cavities as it presents a fire risk and an entry point for bird mites
into houses.

Many people (myself included) dislike myan birds simply because their
noisy. They congregate to feed at various public places and in doing
so provide a background noise that makes being there all the less
enjoyable. That shrill chirp, chirp, chirp noise when you're about to
eat lunch at an outdoor café is enough to make you throw your hand up
and gesture "GO AWAY BIRD!"

With their 'pest' status justified, what is being done to control
them? In Victoria the myna bird is not a declared pest under the
Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 nor is it a protected species
by law. The Department of Primary Industries does not consider it
reasonable to impose the lawful responsibility of control of Indian
Mynas upon all landowners when it is unlikely to result in the desired
outcome of 'eradicate or control or prevent its spread in the wild'
(the requirements that must be satisfied to be able to declare a
species under the Act) (DPI, 201). Therefore a person (at their
discretion) may capture and/or destroy these birds by appropriate
legal humane methods.

Myna birds are intelligent and can be difficult to control however if
myna control is your beef, the use of cage traps is the most commonly
deployed technique. For information relating to trapping myna birds
visit the Canberra Indian Myna Action Group Inc. website at
www.indianmynaaction.org.au. Keep in mind that in accordance with the
Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Regulation 2008 SECT 35, a
confinement trap (such as a Myna trap) must not be set or used on any
land, except with the consent of the owner or occupier of the land,
or, in the case of Crown land, the manager of the land. Once captured,
the Regulations consider them in your care and you are responsible for
the trapped bird's welfare. Please make sure you provide food, water
and shade for the birds whilst they are in the trap, do not leave them
in the trap overnight and handle them gently when removing them. The
trapped myna bird must be humanely euthanized using methods approved
in Victoria as soon as is reasonably possible.

A control program should also aim to reduce the damage caused by myna
birds, eradicate local isolated populations, prevent opportunities for
myna birds, and reduce their potential to reproduce. Many local
councils and communities throughout Australia are working together to
reduce myna bird populations. Preventing myna birds from colonising
new areas is considered the best approach to contain populations, and
in areas where myna birds are already established, experts recommend
controlling myna birds in key locations and around assets such as
biodiversity values, near roosting sites, and in urban backyards
(Invasive Animals CRC and FeralScan 2011).

Tips for reducing myna bird problems (source: MynaScan, Invasive
Animals CRC and FeralScan 2011)
In most instances, a few simple modifications to our own behaviour and
habits can reduce opportunities for myna birds:
• Plant open canopy species to reduce communal roosting options
• Feed pets indoors or after dark
• Seal off potential entry points to your roof to reduce nesting options
• Cover food and use bins with lids
• Do not leave food scraps unattended in picnic areas
• Remove uneaten pet food and cover food containers
• Plant native vegetation in landscaping, gardens and open spaces.
• Remove access to poultry and stock feed
• Regularly clean outdoor eating areas around shops, restaurants and cafe's
• Keep informed and tell your friends about these simple solutions.

There are various myan bird control programs currently running in West
Gippsland, contact your local Landcare Network to find out whether
there are any formed groups operating in your district. If you live
in the South Gippsland area contact Project Officer, Kate Williams on
5662 5759 or email katew@wgcma.vic.gov.au to find out where you can
source a trap or to share knowledge, skills and experience in
controlling mynas.

Bye for now,
Kate

A Lavender that isn’t so pretty

Coastcare Facilitator for Gippsland, Bruce Atkin has alerted the
Network to a new and emerging weed threat- Sicilian sea lavender
(Limonium hyblaeum). Coastcare hosted a forum last month on Phillip
Island designed to raise awareness amongst agency staff and volunteers
about the weed which poses a significant threat to saltmarsh areas.
Director of consultancy firm Australis Biology, Dr Robin Adair
presented at the forum noting that the weed has the potential to
spread rapidly along the Victorian coastline. Currently the weed can
be found at eight locations west of Port Phillip Bay, including places
like Port Fairy and Port Campbell.

The problem with Sicilian sea lavender is that it can result in the
collapse of saltmarsh vegetation by excluding native species and
preventing regeneration. Posing a major threat to the endangered
orange-bellied parrot that relies on saltmarsh vegetation as a food
source.

Although not found in Western Port Bay yet, Dr Adair and Coastcare
facilitators Bruce Atkin and Denis Cox are urging locals to be
vigilant and report any suspected. Early detection is crucial as hand
removal is the most effective means of eradicating the weed.

The weed is identifiable as a cushion forming perennial with a dense
canopy, broad fleshy leaves and woody rootstock. Purple and white
flowers appear from November onwards.

What to do if you find Sicilian sea lavender:
• Correctly identify it, visit www.australisbiological.com.au
• Record where you found it
• Note the size of the infestation
• Report immediately to Penny Gillespie, Regional Weed and Pest
Program Coordinator: penny.a.gallespie@dse.vic.gov.au or to DSE
Coastcare Victoria Facilitator Denis Cox: denis.cox@dse.vic.gov.au
• Remove the plant/s (if safe to do so)
• Double bag
• Deep burial
• Prevent spillages

Cover photo: Sicilian sea lavender- photo courtesy Dr Robin Adair
www.australisbiological.com.au

Rush Hour

Rushes (Juncus spp.) are common plants of moist areas, and are often
found in swamps and along watercourses throughout the region. After
experiencing 2 years of high rainfall, the boom in rushes comes much
to the dismay or delight of landholders (depending on what they want
to get out of their land).

Juncus species are distinguished as robust tussocks of green steams
with flowers found in clusters on one side of the stem. They are
difficult to tell apart given there are 68 species found in all states
of Australia and that several different species are often found
growing together.

Of the 68 species, 31 are native to Australia and the rest are
naturalised i.e. originated elsewhere in the world but established and
reproducing itself without deliberate human assistance (National
Herbarium of NSW, cited 8, Oct. 2012).

The good news is that of the 68 species, only 1 of is of real concern
from a 'noxious weed' perspective; Juncus acutus or Spiny Rush as it
is commonly known. Currently only found in isolated pockets of South
Gippsland, Spiny Rush is native to Europe, Africa and the Americas. A
large, tough, perennial rush to 150cm tall with extremely sharp
pointed leaf tips-if you accidently poke yourself in the face with
this plant you'll know about, that's for sure!

Spiny Rush tolerates saline soils making it widespread from saline
costal flats to saline inland swamps and irrigation drains. The plant
is classified as a noxious weed in Victoria given its capacity to
exclude preferred pasture species, injure stock and restrict the
movements of animals, machinery and humans.

A couple of rushes you're more likely to see in these parts, (than
Spiny Rush) are Tall Rush (Juncus procerus) and Loose-flower Rush
(Juncus pauciflorus). These species are native, and not listed as
noxious in Victoria.

In spite of these species being native, many farmers consider them a
weed when found growing in a paddock situation. Often asking "How can
I get rid of those pesky rushes that continue to grow in the wet areas
of my paddocks!?' There are herbicides that will kill rushes however
to prevent reinvasion drainage of the site needs to be addressed i.e.
they will return if conditions are favourable.

Other farmers see how the rushes provide shelter and refuge for lambs
and therefore consider them to be more of an asset than a burden.
Rushes growing along gullies or drainage lines are earmarked to be
fenced off and planted out by people who recognise that these areas
are of marginal production value i.e. they may as well be fenced off
because they have limited production value anyway.

From an ecological point of view, rushes can provide food and cover
for animals such as frogs (Sanity & Jacobs, 1994; Anon, 2004) and
nesting sites for birds, and yabbies eat the tender young stems of
some species. Rushes can also out-compete less desirable and more
obstructive plants along the edges of waterways and can act to
stabilise creek banks.

At the end of the day, whether you love or hate them- rushes are here
to stay. On your property, the decision on keeping them or getting
rid of them is yours however I hope this article makes yours an
informed one.

Kate

Fox on clocks on bricks and blocks

Have you heard that roughly 60% of the fox population is comprised of
first year animals, with less than 3% of the population older than 5
years? Therefore, the foxes you see are likely to be part of a large
floating population of first year foxes looking for somewhere to live,
establishing or filling a vacant territory (according to research).
Foxes have been found to establish a new home range in about 24 hours,
travelling up to 11 km from their birth place to do so.

The research study, led by Scientist Alan Robley at the Department of
Sustainability and Environment, Arthur Rylah Institute, Victoria also
found that is reasonable to expect 3-4 foxes per square kilometres in
temperate grazing lands.

The fact that roughly 60% of the population is comprised of first year
animals is cold comfort to the fact that cubs are sexually mature
after 9-10 month i.e. taking an 11month old fox out of the system is
likely to mean there are still 4 (on average) cubs elsewhere.

Irrespective of this, landholders in Victoria have a legal
responsibility to control foxes. Distemper, hepatitis and mange are
known to be widespread among foxes (DPI 2007). They also carry several
species of tapeworms and roundworms that parasitize domestic animals.
Not to mention the obvious impacts on farming and native species.
There are plenty of ways to justify their control- but how is it best
done?

Before I answer that question, you need to ask yourself several questions first;

1. Are foxes the key problem are there other issues? E.g. lamb
starvation, mismothering or exposure
2. Do you have a goal for undertaking fox control i.e. to reduce
the loss of stock? Management options need to be linked to objectives
3. If you commence a fox control program, are you able to
implement it over a sustained period? This is a key question if the
protection of native species is your objective i.e. long term control
is the only practical option
4. Have you thought about how you are going to monitor and
evaluate the program? In terms of operational monitoring e.g. costs
and resources and performance monitoring using performance indicators
i.e. increase in lamb numbers by x%

Now that you have answered those 4 questions it is time for my answer
(which should come as no surprise) – fox control is best done using a
range of techniques, over a long period of time in coordination with
neighbors (the wider the area the better). The Friends of Venus Bay
Peninsula Inc. and Tarwin Landcare group are coordinating respective
fox control programs with success for the protection of stock and
species such as hooded plovers. The Friends of group have been doing
so for the last 6 years with the support of Parks Victoria and the
DSE. Showing that coordinated long term control, over a wide
geographical area, can be done.

To help you determine what techniques suit your needs, local vermin
control contractor, Peter Wright has kindly provided the following
information:

Fox control options

Shooting
Pros: Cheap, can target individual animals, low off target risk, what
you shoot is what you get
Cons: Limited areas, noisy for neighbours, only get the fox you can see
Note: The use of firearm to control foxes must conform to relevant
firearm legislation

Baiting
Pros: Relatively cheap, targets all animals at all times, effective
all year round
Cons: Risk to off target animals, (dogs and cats) caching of baits,
hard to gauge effectiveness, lot of paperwork and regulations
Note: 1080 pest animal bait products can only be purchased by
authorised persons, these being:
· A person holding a valid Agricultural Chemical User Permit
(ACUP) with 1080 endorsement issued under the Agricultural and
Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use Act) 1992
· A person or entity holding a valid Commercial Operator
Licence (COL) with a vermin destroyer endorsement issued under the
Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992, or
the staff listed on the COL who have completed a Course in Minimising
the Risks in the Use of 1080 Pest Animal Bait Products for Vertebrate
Pest Control

Trapping
Pros: Off target animals can be released, results can be seen
Cons: Can be expensive, need specialised equipment so not viable for self use

Exclusion fencing
Pros: Permanent year round protection
Cons: Expensive, doesn't remove foxes

Companion animal
Pros: Year round protection
Cons: Doesn't remove foxes

Fumigation
Pros: Takes out mum and the kids while they are in the den
Cons: Dens are hard to locate, only useful during the breeding season
(spring) and unlikely to control the dog foxes

Fleabane- as seen along a roadside near you!

You can read about in a recent edition of the Weekly Times or see it for yourself- it appears to be everywhere! Fleabane is what it is called. There are three main species of fleabane (Conyza spp.) in Australia, namely tall fleabane, flax-leaf fleabane and Canadian fleabane- they are all considered weeds. Fleabanes are an erect annual herb; single stemmed and can reach 2m in height (tall fleabane, flax-leaf reaches 1m when mature). Stems and leaves are covered with fine hairs.  Leaves are grey green and narrow. Flowers are carried in branched heads with each cluster of tiny flowers being enclosed in a series of narrow green bracts.

Seeds are connected to a parachute of fine hairs and seeds only germinate/emerge from (or near) the soil surface. For this reason, the three closely related species are major weeds in minimal tillage cropping systems where the majority of seed remains in the soil surface. Tall fleabane is the more common fleabane in the Gippsland region found along roadsides, horticultural and non cropping areas.

Fleabane Fast Facts;

·         Tall fleabane is edible to native browsers such as wallabies but rarely eaten if other food is available

·         Crimson Rosellas have been reported eating the flowers of tall fleabane along with deer at the beginning of the flowering period

·         Fleabane is rated as having a medium high level impact on high value native vegetation communities in Victoria namely grassy woodlands and volcanic plain grasslands (DPI Weed Risk Assessment 2007). Dense stands of fleabane can smother native grassy vegetation.

·         Each plant can produce up to 110, 000 seeds of which up to 80% can be viable (Widderick and Wu, 2007)

·         Tall fleabane is the main weed of lemon orchards in Portugal (Economou et al, 2002)

·         Seeds don't possess dormancy, in other words they can germinate anytime throughout the year (whenever temperature and moisture requirements are met)

·         The depth of seed burial affects the seed survival of fleabane

o   When sown on the surface, 5% of the seed remains viable after 12 months

o   When buried at 50mm, 10% of the seed remains viable after 12 months

o   When buried at 100mm, 15% of the seed remains viable after 12 months

As seeds only germinate from (or near) the soil surface this is a true survival mechanism

 

Control

Tackling the problem will require a long term approach based on good agronomy and applying integrated weed management principles in order to prevent or retard fleabane resistance to herbicides i.e. use a variety of chemical and non-chemical tactics.

Given that the plant is an annual, producing thousands of seeds, a control program that prevents seed-set is vital. Crop rotations and planting configurations should be managed to maximise competition against fleabane.

Kate Williams 

Too much Blackberry Jam?

With blackberry infesting roughly 8.8 million hectares of temperate Australia, biological control remains the only viable management option for many infestations (CSIRO, 2011). In South Gippsland there is a great deal of community interest in leaf rust-fungus as a tool for controlling blackberry. Below are some of the frequent questions I'm asked about the biological control agent.

 

What is blackberry leaf rust-fungus?

A defoliating disease host specific to European blackberries approved for use in Australia.  The rust-fungus has fruiting bodies (spores) that damage leaves occasionally green stems, stalks, sepals and unripened fruit and is capable of causing severe defoliation in susceptible species given the right conditions.

 

What are the right/suitable conditions for the leaf rust-fungus to establish?

Light is one of the more important requirements, generally sites that have full sun and or very little shade are suitable.  Sites in open woodland, open creek lines and fence lines etc are preferable.  Shaded sites are typically not suitable.  Rainfall and temperature are the other important factors. Sites receiving an annual rainfall of 800mm or greater with an average maximum daily temperature of about 20°C for the month of January are more likely to be successful (Weeds CRC 2005).   

 

Is the blackberry leaf rust-fungus safe?

Rust spores are not toxic to humans and animals but may cause irritation to people sensitive to pollens and dusts. In such cases, it is recommended to wear safety equipment such as goggles, a respiratory mask and gloves when handling rust spores or infected foliage (CSIRO 2011). Strains of the blackberry leaf-rust fungus (Phragmidium violaceum) were thoroughly tested by the CSIRO before approval was obtained to release it in the environment. They were shown in host-specificity tests to be highly specific towards weedy European blackberries.

 

 

Sounds like a cheap & easy way to solve my blackberry problem! Where can I get some?

You may already have the leaf-rust on your property it's widely established in Australia including in South Gippsland; spores of the blackberry leaf-rust are spread by wind and can travel long distances in relatively short periods of time. Although it can be effective, the leaf-rust will not completely kill a blackberry plant. The leaf-rust relies upon its host to survive, its not going to eat itself out of house and home now is it? Also keep in mind that Biological control will not be effective across the range where blackberry infestations occur and therefore an integrated weed management approach will be necessary if effective control is what you're after.  If effective control is not viable given the size and location of the infestation and costs associated with control etc then the leaf-rust is particularly useful.

 

What if effective/thorough control is viable for me and my situation?

Then don't rely solely on the leaf-rust fungus, use a combination of control measures, (termed integrated control) at an on-going and landscape scale i.e. talk to your neighbours; have a year by year action plan based on resources at your disposal and, (to quote USA sports brand, Nike) Just Do It! True recovery of large areas of land for the production of pasture and the establishment of seedlings in plantation forests should only be expected following this. In areas reserved for conservation of native flora and fauna, control of blackberry infestations is a first step towards achieving an increase in species diversity. Reinvasion by weeds is a recurrent challenge therefore revegetation or pasture improvement strategies should be considered in tandem with any weed control program (CSIRO, 2011).

 

Kate Williams

South Gippsland Landcare Network

Run Rabbit Run!

A visible increase in rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) numbers across south east Victoria has prompted Landcare groups along with the South Gippsland Community Weeds Taskforce to raise the issue.  As were all well aware, rabbits are nothing new to mainland Australia.  Since the late 18^th century they have hopped about the landscape digging warrens, decimating native vegetation, devouring pastures, sustaining fox populations and so on. Rabbits are that common these days that one doesn't bat an eyelid at the sight of bug's bunny peacefully nibbling grass on the roadside edge.

 Is it rabbits 'commonness' that has management efforts falling by the way side? Or is the effort to control rabbits by land managers undermined by the sheer magnitude of the problem? Or rather are we stepping back from the problem and depending on the release of a new biological control agent to save the day? The likely answer is yes to all of these factors.

It's a given that control programs cost money, as a result land managers often rely on once a year poisoning programs. Typically only on their own properties and when rabbit populations are high with no integration/follow up with other control methods. To achieve effective rabbit control effort must be continuous. Therefore it's not the effort that is undermining the result but rather the ineffective methods that are generally used. One needs to be able to; adopt and use integrated rabbit control, kill rabbits at a faster rate than they can replace themselves at all densities, ensure rabbit immigration into your control site is zero, monitor rabbits at low densities and take immediate action if the population increases and maintain a social environment with your neighbours and community that supports the goal of aiming for rabbit free.

The success of the myxomatosis virus released in 1952 was poignant, reportedly wiping out 99.8% of rabbits. However by the 1990's rabbits showed resistance to the virus and their numbers once again climbed back into the millions.  From 1996-1998 the Rabbit Calicivirus Disease (RCD) reduced rabbits by >50% in arid areas however once again, as with the myxo virus, numbers have bounced back.  If the history of biological control agents is anything to go by then we shouldn't depend on it to keep rabbit numbers under control, at least not in the long run.

If we stop tolerating the 'commonness' of rabbits and start to adequately control numbers we stand to win big time. A dairy farmer in Colac, Victoria (similar growing conditions to parts of South Gippsland) increased his milk production by 300% and doubled his fodder harvest over 5 years simply by tackling his rabbit problem. A sheep farmer in Colac, who also managed his rabbits effectively, increased his dry sheep equivalent from 1.75 to 7.75 over a 5 year period.

Whilst researching the topic of the impact on native vegetation from rabbits I came across this insightful quote; 'What's the difference between chainsaws, bulldozers and rabbits? Not much really. Though chainsaws and bulldozers are the preferred tool for clearing land, rabbits are just as effective. They eat tree seedlings so that when the mature trees die there are no young ones to replace them. The net effect is identical, only the time scale differs' (Pickard 1995, Managing Vertebrate Pests; Bureau of Resource Sciences and CSIRO).  Adequate control would give native vegetation a chance to regenerate and ultimately lend itself to providing habitat and food for native wildlife that was previously displaced by rabbits.

It's important to recognise that rabbits do impact us economically, socially and environmentally. We must not wait for the next biological control agent but rather act now to control their numbers using a variety of techniques, continuously and in coordination with our neighbours, (including public land managers) and local community. For further information on rabbit control visit the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) website at www.dpi.vic.gov.au or contact the South Gippsland Landcare Network Project Officer Kate Williams on 5662 5759 or email katew@wgcma.vic.gov.au. To record rabbit sightings in your area visit www.feralscan.org.au. Feral Scan is a citizen science website where you help map feral animals and the damage they cause.

Reference

Bloomfield, T., Paroz, G. Rabbits and Their Impact October 2010, LC0298 Department of Primary Industries, Attwood.

Photo caption: A single pair of rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) can produce 30-40 young a year.

 

 Kate Williams, South Gippsland Landcare Network Project Officer

Wandering jew or trad (Tradescantia fluminensis, syn. T. albiflora) Environmental foe or Chicken delight?

The waterways in South Gippsland are well aquatinted with this weed from South America.  It loves nothing better than shady spot down by the river where it thrives on silty alluvial soils.  It's not a huge fan of being submerged in water but it does tolerate the occasional flood and will put up with being waterlogged ever now and again.

Wandering trad has hairless leaves which are glossy, slightly fleshy and dark green in colour. A distinctive feature of the plant is its stem-clasping leaves at the base. Flowers are white, about 1cm across displayed during spring and summer. Fruit is not formed on the plant in Australia therefore it does not spread by seed but rather by broken off sections of stem taking root.

As the name suggests, it wanders about and forms dense mats that smothers all native groundcover vegetation in its path. Subsequently preventing natural regeneration of trees and shrubs. Over time, (in a stream bank situation) this process causes eventual loss of native tree and shrub cover which can lead to erosion.  This makes wandering trad an unpopular addition to the natural environment in Australia. 

In terms of its control, there are several options (see below). Using a combination of these, (based on site specifics and resources at hand) is the best method.

Manual removal: small infestations can be dug out ensuring that all stem fragments are removed, (if not they will regrow) and disposed of appropriately. 

Solarisation: covering the plants with plastic sheeting for 6 weeks in the warmer months will weaken the plant (sunny situations only, this will not be effective in full shade). After removing the plastic any regrowth can be dug out or sprayed.

Herbicide: spraying with selective or non-selective herbicides, (using a surfactant) will work eventually but repeat treatments will be required. Herbicides registered in Victoria for use on wandering trad can be found on the APVMA website; www.apvma.gov.au.  

Alternative uses: Julie Cave, Blue Mountains City Council Bush Regeneration Team member has made some suggestions for the use of trad which include; turning the plant into liquid fertiliser or compost. Read more on this by visiting http://www.weedsbluemountains.org.au/index.php.

Whilst researching control methods for wandering trad I came across findings that suggest ducks and chickens love the stuff. Apparently Muscovies and chickens consume wandering trad readily with no ill effects (given that the plants have not been sprayed with herbicide). If someone works out how to drive a flock of ducks down to an infested gully for some crash grazing we might have another viable management tool. In a domestic situation, those with chooks (and wondering trad) may have themselves a cheap and useful solution to the problem.

For further information on the identification of wandering trad visit www.southgippslandweeds.com.au or contact Kate Williams, South Gippsland Landcare Project Officer on (03) 5662 5759 or email katew@wgcma.vic.gov.au. Information from this article taken from Wandering jew (Tradescantia fluminensis, sny. T. albiflora)  http://www.esc.nsw.gov.au/site/Weeds/Sheets/herbs/H%20Wandering%20jew.htm, Eurobodella Shire Council, NSW.

Kate

African lovegrass

No love for African Lovegrass (Erogrostis curvula)

 

African lovegrass, or 'ALG' as it's referred to by those who know it,  is a major weed of grazing land throughout mainland Australia. South Gippsland's not immune to invasion by African lovegrass. There has been a recent report of isolated plants as close as 10km from the South Gippsland Shire boundary; it may very well be within the Shire boundary.  Being a tussock grass, its presence is often overlooked; (unlike weeds with bright purple flowers that are easy to spot) it can also be confused with some other native or introduced grasses. Early detection allows early control. What to look for;

·        Perennial tussock grass (forms as a clump)

·        Grows from 30-70cm high with a diameter of 25-35cm at ground level

·        Begins flowering in spring or early summer with erect, open or compact seed heads that are a lead-grey or grey green colour  (see photo below showing the seed heads)

·        Leaves are blue-green, long and narrow with curly tips

·        Has a ring of hairs below the base of the leaf blade

Whilst is can be confused with some native and introduced species, it is clearly distinct from them;

·        Spear and corkscrew grass (Austrostipa sp.) look similar to African lovegrass in the early vegetative growth but have awns on the seed.

·        Other native and introduced lovegrasses often look similar but have different seed heads.

African lovegrass is a problem in an agricultural situation as readily establishes in overgrazed pastures and only produces a limited quantity of green feed during the spring and summer months. Overall carrying capacity is reduced where infestations are dense. Forage quality declines as the plants mature and also with the commencement of frosts. The amount of green leaf dry matter utilised by the animal is at best 65% in early spring and 50% in early summer. Come winter, the amount utilised by the dead material is only 38%. Crude protein of the dead leaf in winter is only 3.6%.  Minimise the risk of seed entry and establishment on your property by paying attention to likely sources of seed import. The movement of fodder is a main cause of weed seed spread in agriculture. If you're looking to purchase hay or livestock from a known African lovegrass area (check with Bob Wilson, DPI Gippsland Coordinator Pest Management to find out general distribution on T: (03) 56 629 930). Supplementary feeding in a smaller 'sacrifice' paddock is a good precautionary measure followed by monitoring.  Be conscious of livestock movements, seeds take up to 7-10 days to pass through livestock and can still be viable for 10 days, as with the fodder keep livestock in a smaller paddock and monitor.

For further information on the identification of African lovegrass contact Kate Williams, South Gippsland Landcare Project Officer on (03) 5662 5759 or email katew@wgcma.vic.gov.au. To find out the general distribution of African lovegrass in Gippsland contact Bob Wilson, DPI Gippsland Coordinator Pest Management on T: (03) 56 629 930). Information from this article taken from Primefacts, February 2010 Edition via www.industry.nsw.gov.au and African lovegrass, May 2009. 3D weed management, Meat & Livestock Australia, Sydney.

Photos of African lovegrass courtesy of Peter Kershaw, VicRoads Eastern Region 2011.

Broadleaf Dock

A recent visit to a farm, (that rears dairy calves) in South Gippsland has prompted me to talk about dock. Several paddocks on the farm were thick with broadleaf dock (Rumex obtusifolius), whilst out on a paddock the farmer asked "why is it growing with such vigour?" and "How can I get it under control without relying on herbicide?"

 

To address the first question one needs to try and understand what that plant is telling us. Docks are a perennial herb with a thick taproot. Plants with taproots are typically found in areas of poor drainage- the plant is trying to correct this problem by penetrating deep into the subsoil to improve drainage and aeration. Why might drainage be poor you ask- In pastures, calcium is a mineral removed in great quantities with the least return in the manure. Calcium is the element which, among other things, causes soil particles to move apart for good aeration and drainage. Soils deficient in calcium are in effect prone to water logging. Therefore even before doing a soil assessment or test we can assume that calcium may be deficient and that drainage is poor. High stocking rates may be another factor for compaction and subsequent poor drainage however the farmer indicated that stocking rates were fairly low and that they haven't even been stocked recently given the amount of water on the place.

Delving deeper, (quite literally!) a soil core sample was taken so that a quick visual assessment of the soils biotic and physical qualities could be made. It was obvious from the sample taken that the soil lacked diversity of microfauna with only earth worms present. A cockchafer grub was also found in the sample. Cockchafers are common pasture pests in Gippsland, affecting shallow rooted pasture species, having minimal impact on deep-rooted plants such as lucerne, cocksfoot, phalaris and dock for that matter. The extent and severity of damage caused by cockchafers varies markedly from year to year and from one property to the next. The main indicators of their presence can be found during a dry spell after the autumn break, when dead pasture is found among areas of green. Dead pasture, unless re-sowed, provides a perfect home for a new dock plant or another broadleaf plant such as capeweed. Perhaps this is another factor contributing to the growth of dock throughout the paddock. Looking at the grass in the sample, (namely the roots) it's clear that they are confined to the top few cm's of soil- yet another indicator that oxygen is poor lower down.

Following the visual assessment a *soil test was taken for chemical analysis. Results of the test found that, as suspected, the available calcium was slightly low. It also revealed that the available potash exceeded the available phosphate- this is characteristic of soil favoured by broadleaf weeds. Available nitrogen was low, (6.1ppm, desired level=26ppm). Nitrogen is the one nutrient that can be hard to manage as it's readily lost through leaching. Soil bacteria play a critical role in converting the nitrogen into amino acids- in this form it is not likely to leach.  The soil test didn't test for the present of soil bacteria yet if it did there would be affair chance they would be in insufficient numbers.

With all the above in mind – finding an answer to the second question can seem overwhelming! I'm not an agronomist- and I don't intent to give specific advice as such- rather I've put together a list of useful resources below that can help you build a picture of ways to correct your specific weed problems.

Remember- you can spray pasture weeds with herbicide until the cows come home yet correcting the health of the soil should be the aim of the game.

McCaman J.L. 1994. Weeds and Why They Grow. Acres Australia www.acresaustralia.com.au

 Department of Primary Industries, Victoria information on soil relevant to agriculture; http://new.dpi.vic.gov.au/agriculture/farming-management/soil-water

Department of Primary Industries, Victoria information on the Red headed cockchafer

http://new.dpi.vic.gov.au/agriculture/pests-diseases-and-weeds/pest-insects/ag1358-the-redheaded-pasture-cockchafer

Primary Industries, NSW information on fertilisers and soil improvement http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/resources/soils/improvement

*It should be said that a plant tissue test is the preferred method for diagnosing trace element status of a pasture rather than a soil test but for the purposes of this exercise a soil test was taken.