Documenting New Zealand’s cultivated flora:“A supermarket with no stock inventory”

Report from a TFBIS-funded workshop held in Wellington, New Zealand

9th September 2009

Editor: Murray I. Dawson, Landcare ResearchVersion 2, 5 July 2010

1

“Managing the country without knowing everything in the flora is like managing a supermarket without

knowing everything on the shelf”.

Dr K.R. Hammett, 9th September 2009.

2

Contents1 Executive summary..............................................................................................4

1.1 Key issues........................................................................................................41.2 Key recommendations.....................................................................................41.3 Vision statement..............................................................................................5

2 Introduction..........................................................................................................62.1 Background......................................................................................................62.2 Workshop aims................................................................................................72.3 Workshop purpose...........................................................................................72.4 Workshop agenda............................................................................................82.5 Groups represented and sectors involved........................................................8

3 Stakeholder analysis.............................................................................................84 Resource analysis................................................................................................115 Key issues and constraints.................................................................................14

5.1 Lack of knowledge of the cultivated flora.....................................................145.2 Lack of access to information........................................................................145.3 Poor validation of plant names and identifications.......................................155.4 Declining or inaccessible expertise...............................................................165.5 Lack of funding and resources.......................................................................16

6 Recommendations/solutions..............................................................................176.1 Lack of knowledge........................................................................................176.2 Lack of access to information........................................................................176.3 Poor validation of plant names and identifications.......................................186.4 Declining or inaccessible expertise...............................................................186.5 Lack of funding and resources.......................................................................18

7 Range of potential actions..................................................................................198 Acknowledgements.............................................................................................249 References...........................................................................................................2510 Acronyms............................................................................................................2711 Appendices..........................................................................................................28

11.1 Appendix One: Agenda/workshop programme.........................................2811.2 Appendix Two: Workshop participants.....................................................2911.3 Appendix Three: Stakeholder roles, activities and resources....................3111.4 Appendix Four: Presentations....................................................................39

11.4.1 A plant breeder’s perspective.................................................................4011.4.2 Botanic gardens and horticultural perspectives......................................4411.4.3 Research perspectives............................................................................4711.4.4 The Plants Biosecurity Index (PBI).......................................................5011.4.5 Perspectives of the regulatory environment from ERMA......................5411.4.6 The New Zealand Organisms Register (NZOR)....................................5711.4.7 The New Zealand Notable Trees Trust online database........................6311.4.8 BG-BASE for New Zealand botanic gardens..........................................70

11.5 Appendix Five: Cultivated plant names resources.....................................75

3

1 Executive summaryLack 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, post-border 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 9th September 2009. This report collates the issues and potential solutions gathered at the workshop.

1.1 Key issuesThe 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.

1.2 Key recommendations 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 re-

examine 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

1.3 Vision statementThe 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

2 Introduction

2.1 Background

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. 20071), 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 9th 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.

2.2 Workshop aims

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.

2.3 Workshop purposeTo 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

2.4 Workshop agenda

1. Welcome and purpose of workshop2. Clarifying issues and constraints that relate to cultivated plants and application

of their names3. Current resources4. Potential solutions5. Draft vision6. Action plan.

This agenda is incorporated within the workshop programme (Appendix One).

2.5 Groups represented and sectors involvedThe 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.

3 Stakeholder analysisFigure 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

RolesData curators Regulators Researchers Distributors* Data

transfer§Funders

Provider Validator Biocontrol Breeding Naturalisations and weed research

Systematics (botanical research)

Importer Exporter Supplier

Central Government1 DOC, ERMA, MAF, MED

ERMA, (MAF), MED

(DOC), ERMA, MAF, MED

[DOC] DOC DOC ERMA, MAF, MED

DOC, FRST, MAF, (MoRST)

Local Government (City Councils and Regional Authorities)

(Yes) (?Yes) Yes Yes (Yes) Yes Yes (Yes) Yes Yes Yes

Crown Research Institutes (CRIs)2

(AR), LCR, NIWA, PF, SC

(AR), LCR, NIWA, PF, SC

LCR, ?SC AR, PF, SC

AR, LCR, NIWA, PF,?SC

LCR, NIWA, (PF), SC

AR, LCR, PF, SC

AR, PF, ?SC

AR, (LCR), (NIWA), PF, SC

AR, LCR, NIWA, PF, SC

Universities and Polytechnics

(Yes) (Yes) ?Massey (Auckland), Lincoln, Massey

Lincoln, Massey, ?Otago

Auckland, Canterbury, (Unitec), (Victoria)

(Yes) (Yes) Yes

Herbaria and living collections3

Yes (Yes) (Yes) Yes Yes (Yes) Yes Yes

Industry sectors4 (Yes) (?Yes) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (?Yes)Education sector (Yes) YesNGOs and plant societies5

Yes Yes (Yes) (Yes) Yes Yes Yes

Private experts (individuals)

Yes (?Yes) Yes (Yes) (Yes) Yes Yes

Members of the public

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

4 Resource analysisTable 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 Contributing and related resources / source data Comments

NZ Organisms Register (NZOR)

Landcare Research databases:o NZ Plant Names databaseo All NZ Species Database

NIWA databases Te Papa databases other databases (in future)

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.

NZ Virtual Herbarium (NZVH)

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

Herbariumo HD Gordon Herbarium

(WELTU)o Herbarium, Uniteco 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

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.

11

MAF Plants Biosecurity Index (PBI)

ERMA Presence in NZ / new organism assessments

Import permit records (historic) Landcare Research’s All NZ Species

Database (historic)

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.

NZ Plant Finder Stock lists from >180 plant nurseries 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.

New Zealand Nursery Register

>5000 trade companies listed (Australia and New Zealand) from annual questionnaires

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.

RNZIH NZ Plant Collection Register

Arboretao Eastwoodhillo 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 Cropso NZ Herb Federationo Koanga Institute (heritage

garden plants)o NZ Camellia Societyo NZ Rose Societyo NZ Rhododendron Associationo New Zealand Dahlia

Handbook 2008o Hammett Lathyrus/Sweet Pea

seed collection listo Hammett Clivia collection

databaseo Alpine Garden societies

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.

RNZIH cultivar checklists/registers

Nursery catalogues Meg Gaddum’s Plant Finder PVR cultivar data Other horticultural literature

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

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.

PVR/IPONZ – Plant Variety Rights database and register

Applications for protected plant varieties

Reference collectionso Pasture and Cereal seedo Appleso Kiwifruito Roseso National flax (Phormium)

collectiono Zantedeschia

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.

Margot Forde Forage Germplasm Centre (NZ)

Grassland plant data Endangered species seed-bank

(NZPCN)

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/Botanic Gardens plant collections and databases

Auckland Botanic Gardens Hamilton Gardens Pukekura Park Eastwoodhill Arboretum Botanic Gardens of Wellington Christchurch Botanic Garden Dunedin Botanic Garden

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.

Trees and New Zealand Notable Trees Trust

Notable Trees Registrations Related tree lists:

o Arboreta (e.g., Eastwoodhill, Hackfalls, Scion)

o Regional authority protected tree lists

o Marion MacKayo Mike Wilcoxo Penny Cliffino WINTEC student projects

repeating North Island surveys of Bob Burstall’s mensuration reports

o NZ Tree Crops Association

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

5 Key issues and constraints

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 flora2. Lack of access to information3. Poor validation of plant names and identifications4. Declining or inaccessible expertise5. 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.

5.1 Lack of knowledge of the cultivated flora

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.

5.2 Lack of access to information

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 sourceso Variable data formato Fragmented data

14

o Islands of knowledgeo 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.

5.3 Poor validation of plant names and identifications

Issues and constraints Widespread and informal use of plant names

o Earlier synonyms used instead of up to date species nameso No synonymy statedo No author authorities for specieso 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 selectiono 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 collectionso PVR and comparator plantso In producing cultivar checklists and registerso Notable Tree records.

Importation decisions are difficult/expensiveo Vulnerable decisionso Slow decisionso Different expectations of what is valido Conflict – frustration – uncertaintyo 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

5.4 Declining or inaccessible expertise

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 staffo Lack of true plants people that are knowledgeableo 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 knowledgeo Lack of knowing what plant material is in New Zealando 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.

5.5 Lack of funding and resources

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 througho Weed researcho Biosystematics research of native plant specieso 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.

6 Recommendations/solutions

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:

6.1 Lack of knowledge

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 plantso 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.

6.2 Lack of access to information

Solutions Develop an information platform to integrate knowledge on the cultivated flora –

a “big dictionary” approacho Handles static and active datao Includes many links in and out of platformo (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.

6.3 Poor validation of plant names and identifications

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.

6.4 Declining or inaccessible expertise

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 expertiseo Open access to informationo 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.

6.5 Lack of funding and resources

18

Solutions Collective funding applications (e.g., to TFBIS) Wikipedia-like solutions

o Develop methods to achieve thiso 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 baseo 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 noto 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

7 Range of potential actions

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: Investigate ways to strengthen horticulture training to secure the future of plant

knowledge

20

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 allo No vested interests – an “ego free zone”o A common passiono Avoid procrastination – “just do it”!o Keep momentum and motivation goingo Minimise bureaucracyo Avoid off-putting acronyms or jargon.

21

Link/coordinate databases/resources: We need authoritative list(s) of names

o What is in New Zealando Where it iso 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 plantso Imageso Nameso 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 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).

22

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 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

23

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).

8 AcknowledgementsThis 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

9 References

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-of-land-based-industries-nz-economic-growth and www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/profitability-and-economics/contribution-of-land-based-industries-nz-economic-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

10 Acronyms

BGANZ Botanic Gardens of Australia and New ZealandDoC Department of ConservationERMA Environmental Risk Management Authority (New Zealand)FRST Foundation for Research, Science and Technology (to be merged with FRST)GBIF Global Biodiversity Information FacilityHSNO Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (1996 Act)MAF Ministry of Agriculture and ForestryMoRST Ministry of Research Science and Technology (to be merged with FRST)NGIA Nursery & Garden Industry AssociationNZAA New Zealand Arboricultural AssociationNZBRN New Zealand Biodiversity Recording NetworkNZBS New Zealand Botanical SocietyNZNHN New Zealand National Herbarium NetworkNZNTT New Zealand Notable Trees Trust (a trust of the RNZIH)NZOR New Zealand Organisms RegisterNZPCN New Zealand Plant Conservation NetworkNZPPS New Zealand Plant Protection SocietyNZTCA New Zealand Tree Crops AssociationNZVH New Zealand Virtual HerbariumPBI Plants Biosecurity IndexPIAG Plant Imports Action GroupPVR Plant Variety RightsRNZIH Royal New Zealand Institute of HorticultureTFBIS Terrestrial and Freshwater Biodiversity System programme

27

11 Appendices

11.1Appendix One: Agenda/workshop programmeTime Activity9.00-9.30am Welcome & purpose of workshop

introductions key outcomes scope how the workshop will run housekeeping

Morning session: The cultivated plants problem: clarifying the issues9.30-10.10am Identify issues

“What are the issues”?10.10-10.40am Short presentations on issues/constraints: sector perspectives

key stakeholderso 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)

10.40-11.00am Morning tea11.00-11.40am 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 LunchAfternoon session: Resources and Solutions12.30-1.00pm Existing Resources

Review, compare and categorise

1.00-1.30pm 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)

1.30-1.20pm Potential solutions for the top priority issues Policy Funding Research Communication

Databases Standards Informatics infrastructure

2.00-3.00pm Solutions – prioritisation and definition

3.00-3.15pm Afternoon tea3.15-3.30pm Burning issues – “What are the questions/burning issues that haven’t yet be raised”?3.30-4.00pm Draft vision4.00-4.20pm Action Plan – “Who is doing what”?4.20-4.30pm Immediate next steps – “Where to from here”?

28

11.2Appendix Two: Workshop participantsParticipants 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

11.3Appendix Three: Stakeholder roles, activities and resources

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, non-governmental 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

11.4Appendix Four: PresentationsEight 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

11.4.1 A plant breeder’s perspective

Keith Hammett

IntroductionInitially, 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.

UtilityWhy 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/cgi-bin/bioindex/bioindex.pl).

OptionsQuestions 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 implicationsVirtually 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 readingBrockerhoff, 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

11.4.2 Botanic gardens and horticultural perspectives

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.

ReferencesGiven, 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

11.4.3 Research perspectives

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 authoritya. orthography – spelling and usage of namesb. 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 conceptsa. taxonomic treatment being followed

48

b. application of ranksc. species variability.

2. Herbarium voucher specimensa. reference for time and placeb. defines collectors/identifiers application of a namec. authenticated presenced. available for future research.

3. Biostatus – e.g.,a. wildb. endemicc. indigenousd. exotice. naturalisedf. present in captivity/cultivation/culture.

Referencesde 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

11.4.4 The Plants Biosecurity Index (PBI)

Michele Dickson

A brief outline of the regulatory environment – legislation, issues from a regulators perspective

Establishment of the Acts and general backgroundThe two Acts governing the Plants Biosecurity Index (PBI; http://www1.maf.govt.nz/cgi-bin/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 PBIMost 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 xrobusta’.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

11.4.5 Perspectives of the regulatory environment from ERMA

Geoff Ridley

The Environmental Risk Management AuthorityThe 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 optionsWhere 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.

ConclusionThere 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.

ReferenceERMA 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

11.4.6 The New Zealand Organisms Register (NZOR)

Jerry Cooper and Aaron Wilton

IntroductionAll 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 Zealand2. 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 NZORThe 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 OneThe 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 expectationsThe 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 futureWe 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 4D4Life3, managed by Species 20004, and funded to support the completion of the global Catalogue of Life5. 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 (GBIF6) 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 (CBD8). A specific example of the role of NZOR is that it will contribute significantly to New Zealand’s responsibility under the CBD 2010 Biodiversity Targets9 and in particular the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation target

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.9 CBD 2010 Targets: www.cbd.int/2010-target.

59

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.

ReferenceCarver, 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-the-globalpicture.pdf. (An explanation of the global biodiversity information systems landscape, NZOR’s place in this big picture, and its relationship to international initiatives).

10 Global Strategy for Plant Conservation targets: www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=7183.

60

TypeSpecimen

CollectionItem

Usage Concept

Scientif icPublication

Observation

Biostatus(origin and

occurrence)

Presence/Absence

Name

Reference

Taxon Concept

Nomenclature

Taxonomy

UsageConcept

Usage Assertion

ConceptCorrelations

Observation Data(e.g. NVS, NHMS)

Collections Data(e.g. Te Papa's)

Desirability List(e.g BRAD, UOR)

Presence List(e.g PBI)

ThreatClassif ication List

Key

Observations Data

Collections Data

Names / Taxonomy Data

Status Lists

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

End User Systems -loosely coupled

(e.g. PBI, BRAD, UOR,NHMS)

NZORWebSite

End User System -tightly coupled

(e.g. Regional Council)

Biostatus

Dat

a U

ploa

d S

ervi

ces

Dat

a B

row

sing

and

Dow

nloa

d S

ervi

cesTaxonomy

Names

NZO

R D

ata

Dow

nloa

d To

ol

LocalCache

EndUser

Provide Feedback

Download Names Lists

Browse Names

NZOR Admin & Reporting Tool

NZO

R P

rovi

der

Upl

oad

Tool

NZO

R P

rovi

der D

ata

Adm

inis

tratio

n To

ol

ProviderDatabase

ProviderDatabase

ProviderDatabase

Oth

er D

ata

Adm

inis

tratio

n To

ols

(e.g

. Ke

Em

u)

Experts

Experts

International Systems(e.g. GBIF, OBIS,

Species 2000)

WorkingLists

Key

Non NZOR Developed Tool/System/Database

NZOR Developed Tool

NZOR Server

NZOR DatabaseNZOR Mirror

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

11.4.7 The New Zealand Notable Trees Trust online database

Brad Cadwallader

IntroductionNew 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.

BackgroundPioneering 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 NZNTTThe 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 websiteAt 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 systemThe 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.

The integrated management system makes the registrations and associated images much easier to organise, update and access, all directly through the website11. There are currently about 700 records representing approximately 3000 trees. Data held on the website will be viewable on four registers:

11 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.

64

1. The New Zealand Tree RegisterThis 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 nameo Genuso Species, subspecies, variety, forma, cultivar, hybrid

Region (16 regions, such as Auckland – Coromandel, Canterbury, Southland, etc.) Location

o Cityo Towno 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 ZealandTrees 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 ZealandA ranking of the top trees by species.

4. Historical Tree RecordsWhen 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 stepsThe Trust will continue developing the website through uploading further information pages and making further improvements to the database.

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.

FundingThe 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

65

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 Councilo Dunedin City Councilo Far North District Councilo Hastings District Councilo Hutt City Councilo Marlborough District Councilo Queenstown Lakes District Councilo Rodney District Councilo Tasman District Councilo 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.

AcknowledgementWe 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.

ReferencesAllan, 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.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.

66

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

11.4.8 BG-BASE for New Zealand botanic gardens

Tom Myers and Yvonne Etherington

Collections managementEffective 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-BASETM 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).

ModulesThere are seven modules available for BG-BASE; each can be purchased separately:

1. Living Collections2. Preserved Collections3. Conservation4. Education5. Propagations6. 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 GardenThe 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.

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.

* Propagations/Germplasm

Families and Higher Taxa

References

Plants

Accessions

Names

*

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 GroupTechnical 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 Zealand12 (BGANZ) are in the process of establishing a Records Officers group. The role of this group is currently being established.

BG-BASE in other countriesBG-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.

12 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.

AcknowledgementsWe 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

11.5Appendix Five: Cultivated plant names resourcesMajor 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 Federationo Koanga Institute (heritage garden plants: www.koanga.org.nz/)o NZ Camellia Societyo NZ Rose Societyo NZ Rhododendron Associationo New Zealand Dahlia Handbook 2008o Hammett Lathyrus/Sweet Pea frozen seed collection listo Hammett Clivia collection databaseo Alpine Garden societies (NZAGS and OAGG) – annual seedlists

Several botanic gardens, municipal plantings, trustso Hamiltono Pukeiti Rhododendron Trusto National Rose Garden of New Plymoutho Christchurch Botanic Gardenso Timaru District Councilo Invercargill City Council

The nursery catalogue collection held at Mt Albert Research Centre Some tree resources

o WINTEC North Island Tree surveyso 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 DoCo Freshwater Biodata Information System at NIWAo 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 Plantfindero 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

New Zealand Organisms Register

Custodian(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.

Primary contact(s)

Name(s) David Penman, Executive Secretary

Email execsec@nzor.org.nz

Purpose 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.

Brief description(include range of plant groups)

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.

Scope Biostatus(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)

All

Geographic(local, regional, national, world)

National and global where relevant to New Zealand.

Geodata(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)

Evidence for regional presence/absence.

Date range of records 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)

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.

Access Web Names are not yet available – see www.nzor.org.nz

Publications

OtherCurrency, reliability of data

The resource is planned to be accurate, authoritative, comprehensive and continuously updated.

Strengths 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.

Weaknesses/limitations

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.

Relationship to other resources

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) 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

Primary contact(s) Name(s) Network SecretaryEmail secretary@nzherbaria.org.nz

Purpose To provide on-line access to the information managed by herbaria throughout New Zealand.Brief description(include range of plant groups)

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.

Scope Biostatus(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)

All

Geographic(local, regional, national, world)

All. Data from other countries will be included from some herbaria, but the focus is on New Zealand and Australian material.

Geodata(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)

Yes – users will be able to view the records as a distribution map, and download data in a variety of formats.

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) YesCommon/Māori names (Y/N) Yes (where included in the specimen label data).Synonymy (Y/N) No – the data presented are the current specimen identifications.

Size (number of names or size of collection)

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.

Access Web The website (www.virtualherbarium.org.nz) became available in December 2009.

PublicationsOther

Currency, reliability of data

Will become current and reliable.

Strengths 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.

Weaknesses/limitations

Limited to herbarium specimens that have been databased. Not all of the features have been implemented yet.

Relationship to other resources

Uses software developed for the Australian Virtual Herbarium and made available by the Council of Heads of Australasian Herbaria.

77

Name of database/resource

Auckland War Memorial Museum Herbarium (AK) and specimen database

Custodian(s) 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.

Primary contact(s)

Name(s) Ewen Cameron (Curator)Email ecameron@aucklandmuseum.com

PurposeBrief description(include range of plant groups)

The herbarium contains comprehensive collections of all plant groups (except fungi) found naturally in New Zealand.

Scope Biostatus(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)

All

Geographic(local, regional, national, world)

All. With emphasis on the northern half of the North Island and its offshore islands.

Geodata(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)

Yes

Date range of records 1769 to the present day.Botanical names (Y/N) YesCommon/Māori names (Y/N) NoSynonymy (Y/N) Partial

Size (number of names or size of collection)

Angiosperms c. 210,000

Gymnosperms c. 5,200

Pteridophytes c. 30,500

Mosses 22,500

Liverworts 12,500

Algae 23,500

Lichens 26,600

Timber samples c. 1,000

Unaccessioned c. 30,000

Total specimens c. 361,800Includes 10,143 cultivated New Zealand records on the database.

Access Web Vascular type specimens are searchable at http://muse.aucklandmuseum.com/databases/general/AdvancedSearch.aspx?dataset=botany

PublicationsOther Full data from the Specimen Database is available upon request.

Currency, reliability of data

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.

Strengths Good representation of material from the northern North Island and includes images of vascular type specimens.

Weaknesses/limitations

Only type specimens are searchable online.

Relationship to other resources

Member of the NZ National Herbarium Network.

78

Name of database/resource National Forestry Herbarium and specimen database

Custodian(s) ScionPrimary contact(s) Name(s) Chris Ecroyd, Curator

Email chris.ecroyd@scionresearch.com

Purpose Collect and record plant species relevant to forestry in New Zealand.

Brief description(include range of plant groups)

Reference collection specialising in conifers, eucalypts, and species commonly grown as amenity trees. Provides taxonomic information on plantation forestry and indigenous species.

Scope Biostatus(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)

Exotic, indigenous, cultivated and wild.

Geographic(local, regional, national, world)

Local, regional, and national – mainly Bay of Plenty and central North Island.

Geodata(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)

Yes

Date range of records 1899 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)

Currently c. 26,000 pressed and dried herbarium specimens – all databased.

Access Web Limited specimen data is available at: www.scionresearch.com/herbarium

Publications

Other Full data from the Specimen Database is available upon request.

Currency, reliability of data

Continually updated and reliable information.

Strengths Largest reference collection in New Zealand of plant species relevant to commercial forestry and trees generally.

Weaknesses/limitations

South Island endemics

Relationship to other resources

Member of the NZ National Herbarium Network.

79

Name of database/resource

Allan Herbarium (CHR) and Specimen Database

Custodian(s) Landcare ResearchPrimary contact(s)

Name(s) Ines Schönberger (Herbarium Manager)Aaron Wilton (Database Manager)

Email PlantInfo@landcareresearch.co.nz

Purpose Collect and record the flora of New Zealand, and to make this information readily available to researchers, and regional and national authorities.

Brief description(include range of plant groups)

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.

Scope 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.

Geographic(local, regional, national, world)

All

Geodata(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)

Yes

Date range of records Herbarium specimens date back from the 1700s to the present day.

Botanical names (Y/N) Yes

Common/Māori names (Y/N)

Yes

Synonymy (Y/N) No, however the history of identifications is recorded for each specimen.

Size (number of names or size of collection)

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.

Access 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

Continually updated and reliable information.

Strengths Largest herbarium and associated database in New Zealand.Weaknesses/limitations

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.

Relationship to other resources

New Zealand Plant Names database.Member of the NZ National Herbarium Network.

80

Name of database/resource New Zealand Plant Names database

Custodian(s) Landcare ResearchPrimary contact(s)

Name(s) Aaron Wilton (Database Manager)

Email PlantInfo@landcareresearch.co.nz

Purpose 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.

Brief description(include range of plant groups)

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.

Scope Biostatus(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)

All

Geographic(local, regional, national, world)

All

Geodata(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)

No

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)

More than 40,000 scientific names, including synonyms and incorrectly applied names.

Access Web Accessible via Ngā Tipu o Aotearoa - New Zealand Plants databases: http://nzflora.landcareresearch.co.nz (and via a web service).

Publications

Other

Currency, reliability of data

Continually updated and reliable information.

Strengths 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.

Weaknesses/limitations

Cultivars and ornamental species in cultivation are within scope but are poorly represented.

Relationship to other resources

Flora of New Zealand series – electronic version: http://floraseries.landcareresearch.co.nz/pages/index.aspxFlora of New Zealand series – print versions

81

Name of database/resource

All New Zealand Species Database

Custodian(s) Landcare ResearchPrimary contact(s)

Name(s) Aaron Wilton (Database Manager)

Email PlantInfo@landcareresearch.co.nz

Purpose 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.

Brief description(include range of plant groups)

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.

Scope Biostatus(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)

Mainly exotic and cultivated.

Geographic(local, regional, national, world)

National

Geodata(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)

No

Date range of records Last record was added 2000.

Botanical names (Y/N) Yes

Common/Māori names (Y/N) Yes

Synonymy (Y/N) Yes, partial

Size (number of names or size of collection)

28,000 species and 7000 synonyms.

Access Web

Publications

Other Database information available on request.

Currency, reliability of data

Not actively maintained; sources of information for each record varies from unreliable to completely reliable.

Strengths Useful combined list of records on what was said to be present in New Zealand. Strong on cultivated exotics.

Weaknesses/limitations

Largely a historical resource that is not maintained. Mainly records taxa to species level.

Relationship to other resources

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

MAF Plants Biosecurity Index (PBI)

Custodian(s) MAF Biosecurity New ZealandPrimary contact(s)

Name(s) Michele DicksonEmail plantimports@maf.govt.nz

Purpose The primary purpose of MAF’s Plant Biosecurity Index is to support MAF’s plant health requirements.Brief description(include range of plant groups)

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.

Scope Biostatus(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)

All

Geographic(local, regional, national, world)

National

Geodata(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)

No

Date range of records Mostly prior to 1998

Botanical names (Y/N) YesCommon/Māori names (Y/N) NoSynonymy (Y/N) Limited synonymy.

Size (number of names or size of collection)

About 27,000 names.

Access Web www1.maf.govt.nz/cgi-bin/bioindex/bioindex.plPublicationsOther

Currency, reliability of data

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.

StrengthsWeaknesses/limitations

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.

Relationship to other resources

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

New Zealand Plant Finder

Custodian(s) Meg GaddumPrimary contact(s)

Name(s) Meg Gaddum

Email meg@plantfinder.co.nz

Purpose Search tool for locating where to buy plants and seeds within New Zealand.

Brief description(include range of plant groups)

Comprehensive searchable database of plant species and cultivars available in nurseries throughout New Zealand.

Scope Biostatus(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)

Cultivated – exotic and indigenous.

Geographic(local, regional, national, world)

Local, regional and national.

Geodata(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)

No

Date range of records 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.

Botanical names (Y/N) Yes

Common/Māori names (Y/N) Yes

Synonymy (Y/N) Some

Size (number of names or size of collection)

More than 46,600 records, derived from more than 180 plant nurseries.

Access Web www.plantfinder.co.nz

Publications 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”.

Other

Currency, reliability of data

Current and reasonably reliable. Plant names used are largely as provided in nursery catalogues, without extensive cross-checking or validation.

Strengths Probably the most comprehensive listing of the cultivated flora and cultivar names for New Zealand.Weaknesses/limitations

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.

Relationship to other resources

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 CompanyPrimary contact(s) Name(s) Des Snell

Email nreg@nursery.net.nz

Purpose To provide a trade directory of the garden and plant nursery industry.

Brief description(include range of plant groups)

Contact details for companies, people, plants, and products.

Scope Biostatus(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)

Cultivated

Geographic(local, regional, national, world)

Local and National.

Geodata(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)

Addresses of suppliers.

Date range of records Listings produced in book form annually.

Botanical names (Y/N) Yes, but mostly at genus level.

Common/Māori names (Y/N)

Yes, broadly.

Synonymy (Y/N) No

Size (number of names or size of collection)

More than 5000 companies listed, number of plant names not available.

Access Web Database not online.

Publications 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.

Other

Currency, reliability of data

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.

Strengths Authoritative list of plant nurseries in New Zealand (and Australia).Weaknesses/limitations

Weak on plant names but is not intended to be an authoritative list of plant names; instead focuses on the nurseries.

Relationship to other resources

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

RNZIH New Zealand Plant Collection Register

Custodian(s) Royal NZ Institute of Horticulture (RNZIH)Primary contact(s)

Name(s) Philippa Foes-Lamb (also Keith Hammett and David Sole)

Email collections@rnzih.org.nz

Purpose To provide a New Zealand register of living plant collections by genera.

Brief description(include range of plant groups)

Original resource assembled by the Plant Collection Group of the Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture in the 1990s.

Scope Biostatus(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)

Exotic, indigenous, and cultivated.

Geographic(local, regional, national, world)

Local, regional, national.

Geodata(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)

No geodata as such but includes addresses of owners’ of particular collections.

Date range of records 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)

Register of nearly 400, mainly private, plant collections. Currently being updated.

Access Web www.rnzih.org.nz/pages/plantcollectionregister2.html (original register)

Publications Hammett (1993)13

OtherCurrency, reliability of data

Current to 1993 but being updated to the present.

Strengths The only New Zealand wide register of non-commercial plant collections.

Weaknesses/limitations

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.

Relationship to other resources

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

13 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

RNZIH cultivar checklists/registers for New Zealand native genera

Custodian(s) Royal NZ Institute of Horticulture (RNZIH)Primary contact(s)

Name(s) Office Administrator. Also: Lawrie Metcalf (New Zealand Registrar ICRA)

Email office@rnzih.org.nz Purpose To produce authoritative checklists to the cultivars of New Zealand indigenous genera.Brief description(include range of plant groups)

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.

Scope 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) YesCommon/Māori names (Y/N) YesSynonymy (Y/N) Yes

Size (number of names or size of collection)

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.

Access Web Not available online but some cultivar lists are planned at www.rnzih.org.nz for 2011.

Publications Cordyline (Heenan 1991a14) Hebe (Metcalf 200115) Leptospermum (Metcalf 196316) Phormium (Heenan 1991b17).

Other Unpublished: Coprosma Leptospermum (update) Metrosideros Pittosporum.

Currency, reliability of data

Current, authoritative, and reliable up to the date of publication. Data includes descriptions, origins, and synonyms of cultivars.

Strengths 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).

Weaknesses/limitations

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.

Relationship to other resources

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.

14 Heenan, P.B. 1991a: A cultivar checklist for the New Zealand species of Cordyline (Asphodelaceae). Horticulture in New Zealand 2: 8–12.15 Metcalf, L.J. 2001: International register of Hebe cultivars. Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture. 232 p.16 Metcalf, L.J. 1963: Check list of Leptospermum cultivars. Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture (RNZIH) Journal 5: 224–230.17 Heenan, P.B. 1991b: Checklist of Phormium cultivars. Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture. 60 p.

87

Name of database/resource

PVR/IPONZ – Plant Variety Rights database and register

Custodian(s) Ministry of Economic DevelopmentPrimary contact(s)

Name(s) Chris Barnaby, Nancy MoroneyEmail chris.barnaby@pvr.govt.nz

Purpose 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.

Brief description(include range of plant groups)

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.

Scope Biostatus(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)

Exotic, Cultivated, and Indigenous

Geographic(local, regional, national, world)

National

Geodata(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)

No

Date range of records August 1975 to present.Botanical names (Y/N) YesCommon/Māori names (Y/N)

Yes (some)

Synonymy (Y/N) No (some commercial synonyms/trade names are included for information and identification).

Size (number of names or size of collection)

Currently 3731 varieties covering 219 genera and 171 species.

Access Web Limited data fields are available on the web interface at http://202.174.112.149/ – also see www.pvr.govt.nz

Publications 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.

Currency, reliability of data

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.

Strengths 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.

Weaknesses/limitations

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.

Relationship to other resources

International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) Variety DatabasePVRO 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 descriptionsPVRO 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 CollectionsPVR 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

Margot Forde Forage Germplasm Centre (NZ)

Custodian(s) AgResearchPrimary contact(s)

Name(s) Kenyon Moore

Email kenyon.moore@agresearch.co.nz

Purpose The purposes of the Centre are to obtain germplasm, to conserve it, replenish it and distribute it for research and product development.

Brief description(include range of plant groups)

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.

Scope Biostatus(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)

Grassland plants – mainly exotic spp., some indigenous.Endangered Species Seed-bank – indigenous.

Geographic(local, regional, national, world)

Collections from local to world scale (seeds are stored from 100 countries).

Geodata(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)

Yes, but not in all cases.

Date range of records From 1946 to the present.

Botanical names (Y/N) Yes

Common/Māori names (Y/N) Seldom used.

Synonymy (Y/N) No

Size (number of names or size of collection)

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’.Access 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

Continually updated.

StrengthsWeaknesses/limitations

Public web interface uses drop-boxes by genus, species, and other criteria – no free text search fields.

Relationship to other resources

New Zealand Endangered Species Seed-bank – NZ Plant Conservation Network.

90

Name of database/resource

Auckland Botanic Gardens plant collection and database

Custodian(s) Auckland Regional CouncilPrimary contact(s)

Name(s) Jack HobbsYvonne Etherington

Email Jack.hobbs@arc.govt.nz Yvonne.etherington@arc.govt.nz

Purpose 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.

Brief description(include range of plant groups)

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.

Scope 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)

No. Garden beds are currently mapped by hand using paper records. We hope to utilise BG-BASE mapping software when it becomes available.

Date range of records 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 Inventory not available online – see www.aucklandbotanicgardens.co.nz

Publications

Other

Currency, reliability of data

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.

Strengths A very powerful database which is an invaluable resource to the Botanic Gardens.Weaknesses/limitations

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.

Relationship to other resources

ARC, Auckland War Memorial Museum Herbarium, BGANZ, other Botanic Gardens, NZPCN, RNZIH, DOC.

91

Name of database/resource

Botanic Gardens of Wellington plant collection and database

Custodian(s) Wellington City CouncilPrimary contact(s)

Name(s) David Sole

Email treehouse@wcc.govt.nz

Purpose To provide a comprehensive catalogue/inventory of the four gardens plant stock, also library cataloguing available.

Brief description(include range of plant groups)

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.

Scope 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)

Some GPS of plants has been completed such as mature trees in WBG and noteworthy trees at OWB.

Date range of records 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)

Where relevant/available.

Synonymy (Y/N) Some where relevant.

Size (number of names or size of collection)

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.

Access Web Plant inventory not available online – see www.wellington.govt.nz/services/gardens/index.html

Publications

Other

Currency, reliability of data

Data updated annually at Otari and the Botanic Garden.

Strengths 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.

Weaknesses/limitations

Not currently linked to other botanic garden inventories (possibly a long term objective though). Interface not easily picked up by less techno literate staff.

Relationship to other resources

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

Dunedin Botanic Garden plant collection and database

Custodian(s) Dunedin City CouncilPrimary contact(s)

Name(s) Tom MyersEmail tom.myers@dcc.govt.nz

Purpose Living plant collectionTo provide a public space that people can enjoy visiting and learning about plants. DatabaseTo 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.GermplasmSeed 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.HerbariumA 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.OtherWhile 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.

Brief description(include range of plant groups)

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.

Scope 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)

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.

Botanic Garden base maps are maintained by the Dunedin City Council.Date range of records 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.

Botanical names (Y/N) Yes

93

Common/Māori names (Y/N)

Yes

Synonymy (Y/N) YesSize (number of names or size of collection)

Note: this does not indicate validity of names or total number of plantsNames Cultivar namestotal alive total alive

dicot 17045 8155 4516 2627fern 298 57 13 8gymnosperm 491 312 150 101monocot 4130 2172 844 599

 Grand Total 22016 10701 5523 3335

Access Web 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.

Publications

OtherCurrency, reliability of data

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.

Strengths 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.

Weaknesses/limitations

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.

Relationship to other resources

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

New Zealand Notable Trees Trust register and database

Custodian(s) New Zealand Notable Trees Trust (NZNTT), in association with the Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture and the New Zealand Arboricultural Association

Primary contact(s)

Name(s) Brad Cadwallader

Email notabletrees@rnzih.org.nz

Purpose To record the heritage and notable trees of New Zealand

Brief description(include range of plant groups)

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.

Scope Biostatus(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)

Exotic, indigenous, cultivated, and wild.

Geographic(local, regional, national, world)

Local, regional, and national

Geodata(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)

Yes

Date range of records Registrations are from 1973 to the present. Known ages of trees date from 1700 to 1966.

Botanical names (Y/N) Yes

Common/Māori names (Y/N) Yes

Synonymy (Y/N) No

Size (number of names or size of collection)

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.

Access Web 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.

Publications Tree Registration Manual is an associated resource

Other

Currency, reliability of data

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.

Strengths 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.

Weaknesses/limitations

Potential issues of reliability of data from submitters and active maintenance of database records. Heavily reliant on voluntary contributions.

Relationship to other resources

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

Trees of New Zealand – MacKay research data

Custodian(s) Marion MacKayPrimary contact(s)

Name(s) Marion MacKayEmail m.b.mackay@massey.ac.nz

Purpose 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.

Brief description(include range of plant groups)

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.Scope Biostatus

(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)Exotic, cultivated

Geographic(local, regional, national, world)

national

Geodata(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)

Collection location described but not mapped

Date range of records 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)

About 12,000 species records, with perhaps 4-5 times as many associated accessions.

Access Web No

Publications Summary only

OtherCurrency, reliability of data

Varies from data of 1990 to data of 2007

Strengths 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.

Weaknesses/limitations

Genera covered related to research issues of the time, so not comprehensive.Difficulty of transfer of file formats.

Relationship to other resources

Some relationship with the Eastwoodhill Arboretum database.

96

Name of database/resource

Auckland’s Urban Forest

Custodian(s) Mike WilcoxPrimary contact(s)

Name(s) Mike Wilcox

Email mike.wilcox@xtra.co.nz

Purpose To catalogue the cultivated trees and shrubs of Auckland.

Brief description(include range of plant groups)

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).

Scope Biostatus(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)

Exotic, indigenous, and cultivated.

Geographic(local, regional, national, world)

Local and regional (but of national significance)

Geodata(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)

No GPS localities, but general locations recorded, and sometimes street addresses.

Date range of records 1991–2009

Botanical names (Y/N) Yes

Common/Māori names (Y/N)

Yes

Synonymy (Y/N) Yes, where appropriate.

Size (number of names or size of collection)

Database is incorporated into a taxonomic compendium called PlantWorld18. 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).

Access Web No

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.

Currency, reliability of data

Ongoing project and coverage constantly improving as new information comes to hand.

Strengths Methodical and detailed survey of the cultivated trees of the region.Weaknesses/limitations

Large unfunded project relying on the dedication of one person. Not integrated with other resources/data.

Relationship to other resources

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.

18 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 UniversityPrimary contact(s) Name(s) Penny Cliffin, Unitec New Zealand

Email pcliffin@unitec.ac.nz

Purpose A snapshot of species present in 39 collections, and a survey of tree collection management practices used in Auckland.

Brief description(include range of plant groups)

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.

Scope Biostatus(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)

Exotic, indigenous, and cultivated.

Geographic(local, regional, national, world)

Local and regional (but of national significance)

Geodata(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)

No

Date range of records N/A

Botanical names (Y/N) Yes

Common/Māori names (Y/N) Yes

Synonymy (Y/N) No

Size (number of names or size of collection)

39 collections1259 species3452 entries

Access Web No

Publications No

Other Unpublished

Currency, reliability of data

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.

Strengths Regional resource. It has proved useful for Unitec staff and students doing landscape architecture projects.

Weaknesses/limitations

Limited scope and not integrated with other data.

Relationship to other resources

Marion Mackay’s national tree data.

98

Name of database/resource Eastwoodhill Arboretum

Custodian(s) The Eastwoodhill TrustPrimary contact(s) Name(s) Paul Wynen, Curator

Email curator@eastwoodhill.org.nz

Purpose “to foster understanding and appreciation of nature by education, research and enjoyment of our unique plant collection”

Brief description(include range of plant groups)

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.

Scope Biostatus(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)

Exotic, indigenous and cultivated.

Geographic(local, regional, national, world)

Local plant collection of national (and international) importance.

Geodata(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)

Yes

Date range of records 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)

629 genera and c. 3500 taxa (species, varieties, cultivars).

Access Web Plant names can be browsed by genus and then species at: www.eastwoodhill.org.nz/gardens--collection/collection.aspx

Publications

Other

Currency, reliability of data

Records are kept up-to-date, and data is reliable.

Strengths The most extensive living collection of different species of exotic trees in New Zealand.Weaknesses/limitations

Limited funding, small workforce.

Relationship to other resources

Part of the NZ National Herbarium Network.

99

Name of database/resource

The Great Fruit and Nut Search

Custodian(s) New Zealand Tree Crops AssociationPrimary contact(s)

Name(s) M. Denton

Email mdenton@xtra.co.nz

Purpose Preserve names and locations of fruit and nut tree varieties in collections associated with NZTCA.

Brief description(include range of plant groups)

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.

Scope Biostatus(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)

Exotic, cultivated.

Geographic(local, regional, national, world)

National

Geodata(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)

Yes. Locations not accessible to the public.

Date range of records 1980s to early 1990sBotanical names (Y/N) No

Common/Māori names (Y/N) Yes

Synonymy (Y/N) No

Size (number of names or size of collection)

1500 common names, some are synonyms.

Access Web www.treecrops.org.nz/knowl/addgen/greatfnsrch.html

Publications

Other

Currency, reliability of data

True identity of the trees was never confirmed. Has not been updated.

StrengthsWeaknesses/limitations

Lack of formal verification of plant/variety identity.

Relationship to other resources

100

Name of database/resource

Edible Fig Cultivars in New Zealand

Custodian(s) New Zealand Tree Crops AssociationPrimary contact(s)

Name(s) Eric Cairns

Email cairnse@paradise.net.nz

Purpose To identify edible fig strains available in New Zealand. To support a reference collection of fig cultivars.

Brief description(include range of plant groups)

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.

Scope Biostatus(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)

Exotic, cultivated.

Geographic(local, regional, national, world)

National

Geodata(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)

No

Date range of records 1990–2009Botanical names (Y/N) No. (All are Ficus carica cultivars except F. afghanistanica

ssp. johanis)Common/Māori names (Y/N) Yes

Synonymy (Y/N) No

Size (number of names or size of collection)

182 accessions

Access Web Not at present – may be included on NZTCA website in future.

Publications

Other Information available on request to Eric Cairns.

Currency, reliability of data

Up to date. Updated at least yearly as new information comes to hand.

Strengths List estimated to include >95% of cultivated F. carica types in New Zealand.Weaknesses/limitations

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.

Relationship to other resources

Some of the fig cultivars detailed in this resource are listed on the NZTCA Great Fruit and Nut Search.

101

Name of database/resource

National New Zealand Flax Collection

Custodian(s) Landcare Research. Plant Variety Rights Office (a stakeholder of the commercial coloured cultivars)

Primary contact(s)

Name(s) Sue ScheeleEmail scheeles@landcareresearch.co.nz

Purpose Maintaining a nationally significant collection, and research into traditional and new uses of Phormium.Brief description(include range of plant groups)

Living collection of harakeke (NZ flax, Phormium spp.) selections, comprising1. Traditional weaving varieties incorporating the collection of Rene Orchiston of Gisborne.2. Ornamental cultivars as sold in the nursery trade3. Phormium used in commercial milling4. Other provenances of cultural and historic interest (e.g., sub-Antarctic material) 5. Representative wild selections.

Scope Biostatus(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)

Indigenous and cultivated.

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.

Geodata(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)

No

Date range of records Source collection donated by Rene Orchiston in 1986.Botanical names (Y/N) No. Only two species are involved and hybrids between them.

Common/Māori names (Y/N)

Yes, Māori names and locality names after which some plants are known.

Synonymy (Y/N) 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 Information on weaving cultivars: www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/biosystematics/plants/harakeke/

Publications See webpage above for references.Scheele, S. 2005 (3rd 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.).

OtherCurrency, reliability of data

Updated periodically.

Strengths Well defined group of culturally important cultivars. One of the few recognised nationally significant live plant collections in New Zealand.

Weaknesses/limitations

Descriptions of Phormium selections (apart from Orchiston cultivars) are not yet easily accessible.

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 ResearchPrimary contact(s)

Name(s) Sue Scheele

Email NgaTipuWhakaoranga@landcareresearch.co.nz

Purpose To document Māori use of plants in New Zealand.

Brief description(include range of plant groups)

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.

Scope 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)

Yes, particularly Māori names.

Synonymy (Y/N) Yes

Size (number of names or size of collection)

2000 records containing many thousands of items of sourced information.

Access Web http://Māoriplantuse.landcareresearch.co.nz/WebForms/default.aspx

Publications

Other

Currency, reliability of data

Substantial and reliable resource.

Strengths Authoritative database combining information from many individual publications. There is an increasing number of images linked to plant records.

Weaknesses/limitations

Due to concentration on technical upgrade and database integration, a considerable backlog of material needs to be added.

Relationship to other resources

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 New Zealand Poplar and Willow Collection

Custodian(s) Plant and Food Research

Primary contact(s) Name(s) Ian McIvor

Email Ian.McIvor@plantandfood.co.nz

Purpose Living reference collection for identification purposes, phenological and disease observations, and land management and flood protection.

Brief description(include range of plant groups)

Poplars (Populus) and willows (Salix)

Scope Biostatus(exotic, indigenous, cultivated, wild)

Exotic and cultivated.

Geographic(local, regional, national, world)

National

Geodata(locality/mapping/GPS) (Y/N)

No

Date range of records

Botanical names (Y/N) Yes

Common/Māori names (Y/N)

No

Synonymy (Y/N) 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 Not available online – see www.hortresearch.co.nz/index/page/549 and www.hortresearch.co.nz/wprc/

Publications

Other Unpublished list

Currency, reliability of data

Current and reliable list of the collection.

StrengthsWeaknesses/limitations

Databased but not online.

Relationship to other resources

104