Mountain Rush

Freycinetia bauerianaEndl.

Plante

CRLR Monde (IUCN)

Filtrer le graphe par contexte spatialPays · région · aire protégée · écorégion · biome

Chargement du graphe…

Indicateurs du réseau écologique

Comment lire ce graphe

Ce graphe représente les interactions écologiques documentées entre Freycinetia baueriana et d'autres espèces, à partir de la base GloBI (Global Biotic Interactions, agrégation mondiale de la littérature scientifique) — source principale, complétée par d'autres jeux de données d'interactions agrégés par Ontologia. Il faut le comprendre comme une carte du savoir documenté, pas une carte de la réalité écologique exhaustive.

Limites principales

Incomplet. La majorité des interactions écologiques en milieu naturel n'ont jamais été publiées. Une espèce sans liens visibles n'est pas isolée — elle est probablement mal étudiée.
Biais publication pharmaco-agronomique. La littérature des interactions est polarisée par les enjeux économiques et sanitaires : parasitism / pathogen sur-pondéré sur les mammifères (recherche zoonoses, vecteurs), herbivory sur-pondéré sur les insectes phytophages (entomologie agronomique). À l'inverse, mutualisms, commensalisms et interactions sol/microbiote sont sous-cités. Conseil de lecture : sur les hubs mammifères ou les insectes ravageurs de culture, lire les arêtes parasitism / herbivory dominantes relativement au contexte de littérature, pas comme une mesure d'intensité écologique brute. Détails §10.1.
Biaisé vers les espèces étudiées. Quelques espèces (oiseaux communs, abeille mellifère, espèces modèles) concentrent disproportionnellement plus d'interactions documentées. Notre score composite ajoute un malus aux hubs de littérature pour atténuer cette dominance visuelle.
Interactions documentées globalement. Toutes les espèces affichées sont observées en France métropolitaine (les observations sont filtrées sur le territoire métropolitain), mais les interactions entre elles proviennent de la littérature scientifique mondiale. Une interaction documentée à l'étranger peut ne pas se réaliser à l'identique sur votre territoire. Le filtre « restreindre à ma commune » tient compte de la co-occurrence spatiale locale mais ne garantit pas l'interaction effective.
Sans dimension temporelle. Les variations saisonnières (migration, floraison, cycle de vie) ne sont pas modélisées.
Force d'interaction approximative. L'épaisseur des liens reflète le nombre de fois où l'interaction a été rapportée dans la littérature, pas son importance écologique réelle.

Comment nous sélectionnons les espèces affichées

Le graphe affiche au plus 31 nœuds par fiche (1 centre + 15 bulles depth=1 + 15 partenaires depth=2). Le serveur sélectionne intelligemment :

Bulles famille créées si une cascade taxonomique existe ou si ≥3 espèces directement documentées partagent une même famille — les espèces sont absorbées dans la bulle (pas de doublon visuel)
Espèces individuelles uniquement quand <3 dans une famille (sans cascade) — relations directes documentées
Pas d'espèces inférées affichées en doublon — les cascades sont représentées via les bulles famille uniquement
Partenaires depth=2 sélectionnés via algo priorité : candidat partagé par ≥2 docs de la famille (food web central) → reliant entre bulles → top sum_obs en dernier recours
Sous-types GloBI traduits en français au survol de la flèche (chasse, parasite, parasitoïde, mycorhize…)

Le toggle Profondeur 1 ↔ 2 client-side cache ou affiche les partenaires depth=2 sans refetch. Filtres règne, type d'interaction, ordres/familles, patrimoniales et commune recalculent côté serveur (slow path live ~1-2 s).

Indicateurs avancés (mode expert) : Modularité Q (Newman 2006, PNAS), communautés (Louvain, Blondel et al. 2008, J. Stat. Mech.), nestedness NODF (Almeida-Neto et al. 2008, Oikos).

Source : GloBI · TAXREF v18 (INPN/MNHN) · BDC-Statuts · Wikidata

3 partenaires écologiques documentés directement dans GloBI.

Partenaires

Espèces avec interactions documentées

Types d'interactions

Prédation, pollinisation, parasitisme…

Connectance

0.191

Densité des liens dans le sous-graphe affiché

Rang plantae

47 %

Percentile vs ensemble des plantae

Liste rouge IUCN

CR · En danger critiquecritères B1ab(iii,v)↘Décroissante

Évaluation complète

Évaluation: 2016 · v3.1
Altitude: 80 – 250 m
Profondeur: – m

État de la populationTexte officiel évaluation IUCNExpert

There is no information available on the population size but the Mountain Rush is described as uncommon (K. Mills pers. comm. 2016). It has been reported in the past as frequent in forested areas (Turner et al. 1968, Orchard 1994, DNP 2010) and locally abundant in the palm forest vegetation (Mueller-Dombois and Fosberg 1998). In 1792 the naturalist John Doody described this species as growing in "vast quantities about Mount Pitt" and it was also noted by an unknown author that plants were "very abundant in many parts of the island" (Coyne 2011). Male plants are more common than the female plants which are relatively rare (Orchard 1994). In a survey in February 2016 (Mills 2016), only 3.5% of clumps of this species contained female plants. Stands of the Mountain Rush mainly contain older plants and young plants are very rare (Mills 2016). With the lack of recruitment the current population trend is suspected to be decreasing.

Menaces identifiées(6 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)

1_1
Housing & urban areas
UnknownUnknownOngoing
2_3_2
Small-holder grazing, ranching or farming
UnknownUnknownOngoing
8_1_1
Unspecified species
Slow, Significant DeclinesWhole (>90%)Ongoing
8_1_2
Named species
Slow, Significant DeclinesWhole (>90%)Ongoing
8_1_2
Named species
Slow, Significant DeclinesWhole (>90%)Ongoing
8_1_2
Named species
Slow, Significant DeclinesWhole (>90%)Ongoing

Description complète des menacesTexte détaillé évaluation IUCNExpert

When Europeans first discovered Norfolk Island in 1774, the entire island was covered in subtropical rainforest (Mueller-Dombois and Fosberg 1998). By the mid 19th century most of the vegetation on the island had been cleared for agriculture (Mills 2009) and today less than 10% of the original forest remains, mainly in the Mount Pitt section of the Norfolk Island National Park (DNP 2008). Most of the land outside the park is now residential or agricultural, particularly as cattle pasture (Mueller-Dombois and Fosberg 1998), with only a few small nature reserves (DNP 2010). Some areas of the native forest within the national park contain invasive introduced weeds, for example Red Guava Psidium cattleianum and African Olive Olea europaea (Mueller-Dombois and Fosberg 1998, DNP 2010) but there has been some weed removal (Mills 2009). Norfolk Islands is an Important Bird Area (IBA) and in 2014 Birdlife International assessed the IBA as "in danger" due to the very high threat of invasive flora and fauna (BirdLife International 2016). Extreme weather events like cyclones are a potential threat and could result in damage to the native forests (DNP 2010).

The flowers and fruits of the Mountain Rush are eaten by introduced rats which were widespread in the national park area (Turner et al. 1968). Rat control now takes place in the park but there are still some present and although the Mountain Rush flowers are reported to be "readily seen" (Coyne 2011), flowers and fruits continue to be eaten by rats (K.Mills pers. comm. 2016). Studies in New Zealand islands have shown than rats can reduce tree recruitment rates (Campbell and Atkinson 2002) and is suspected that the rats in the Norfolk Islands have a similar effect on the recruitment of the Mountain Rush. The leaves of this species are used by local people for weaving but it is not known in what quantities leaves are used and if this has an impact on the population, therefore monitoring of harvesting is required.

Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)

1_6Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Moist Lowland★
1_9Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Moist Montane★

Mesures de conservation recommandéesStratégies de conservation IUCNExpert

The Mountain Rush is mainly found within the Mount Pitts section of the Norfolk Island National Park which was established in 1986 and covers 460 hectares (DNP 2008). The park has an active management plan for 2008–2018 outlining key activities including natural heritage and visitor management (DNP 2008). The species is also found in the Ball Bay public reserve, but there is very little native vegetation remaining and problems with introduced woody weeds and rats (NIPFS 2003). There are no known ex situ collections of the Mountain Rush (BGCI 2016) and ex situ conservation is recommended.

The Australian Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 lists 46 Norfolk Island plant species as threatened and there is a threatened species recovery plan with management actions outlined for all threatened flora and fauna from the island (DNP 2010). The Mountain Rush is listed in the recovery plan as not threatened (DNP 2010), although it is suggested that this should be reviewed (Mills 2016). The Norfolk Island Administration are actively working to protect threatened species alongside local local people and landowners with activities including weed control, propagation and planting of native trees (Mills 2009, DNP 2010). Extra funding has been provided by the Australian government in 2014 to enhance the rat baiting program in the national park to help threatened parrot species (DE 2014) but this could also benefit plant species like the Mountain Rush. Further research is required to study the population size and the effect of rats on the recruitment of this species.

Actions de conservation (2)Conservation Actions Classification Scheme — IUCNExpert

3_4_1Captive breeding/artificial propagation
3_4_2Genome resource bank

Stress écologiques (10)Stresses Classification — IUCNExpert

1_1Ecosystem conversion
1_1Ecosystem conversion
1_2Ecosystem degradation
1_2Ecosystem degradation
1_2Ecosystem degradation
2_1Species mortality
2_2Species disturbance
2_3_2Competition
2_3_2Competition
2_3_7Reduced reproductive success

Usage & commerce (3)Use & Trade — IUCNExpert

1Food - human
subsistance
12Handicrafts, jewellery, etc.
national
9Construction or structural materials
subsistance

Priorités de recherche (7)Research Needed Classification — IUCNExpert

1_2Population size, distribution & trends
1_3Life history & ecology
1_4Harvest, use & livelihoods
1_5Threats
3_1Population trends
3_2Harvest level trends
3_4Habitat trends

Niche IUCN globaleRealms · Systems · LMEs · Growth forms · FAOs — biogéographie IUCNExpert

Royaumes biogéographiques

Australasian

Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)

Terrestrial

Formes de croissance

Shrub - largeVines

Références bibliographiques (19)Sources scientifiques de l'évaluation IUCNExpert

IUCN. 2016. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-3. Available at: <a href="www.iucnredlist.org">www.iucnredlist.org</a>. (Accessed: 07 December 2016).
BGCI. 2016. PlantSearch. London: Botanic Gardens Conservation International Available at: <a href="www.bgci.org/plant_search.php">www.bgci.org/plant_search.php</a>.
Mills, K. 2016. The Flora of Norfolk Island 19: A review of the Norfolk Island endemic Freycinetia baueriana (Pandanaceae).
BirdLife International. 2016. Important Bird and Biodiversity Area factsheet: Norfolk Island. Available at: <a href="http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sitefactsheet.php?id=23979">http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sitefactsheet.php?id=23979</a>. (Accessed: 9 February 2016).
WCSP. 2016. World Checklist of Selected Plant Families. Facilitated by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Available at: <a href="http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/">http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/</a>.
DE - Department of the Environment. 2014. Norfolk Island rodent control expansion to protect green parrots. Australian Government.
Bachman, S., Moat, J., Hill, A.W., de la Torre, J. and Scott, B. 2011. Supporting Red List threat assessments with GeoCAT: geospatial conservation assessment tool. In: V. Smith and L. Penev (eds) e-Infrastructures for data publishing in biodiversity science. Zookeys 150: 117–126.
Coyne, P. 2011. Norfolk Island's Fascinating Flora. Petaurus Press, Belconnen.
DNP - Director of National Parks. 2010. Norfolk Island Region Threatened Species Recovery Plan. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.
Mills, K. 2009. Plant conservation on a remote oceanic island: the case of Norfolk Island. Australasian Plant Conservation 17(3): 22-24.
DNP - Director of National Parks. 2008. Norfolk Island National Park and Norfolk Island Botanic Garden: Management plan 2008-2018. Canberra.
de Lange, P.J., Gardner, R.O., Sykes, W.R., Crowcroft, G.M., Cameron, E.K., Stalker, F., Christian, M.L. and Braggins, J.E. 2005. Vascular flora of Norfolk Island: Some additions and taxonomic notes. New Zealand Journal of Botany 43(2): 563-596.
NIPFS - Norfolk Island Parks and Forestry Service. 2003. Ball Bay Reserve management plan: Part B, Section 2. Norfolk Island Parks and Forestry Service.
Campbell, D.J. and Atkinson, I.A.E. 2002. Depression of tree recruitment by the Pacific rat (Rattus exulans Peale) on New Zealand’s northern offshore islands. Biological Conservation 107: 19-35.
Mueller-Dombois, D. and Fosberg, F.R. 1998. Vegetation of the Tropical Pacific Islands. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Orchard, A.E. 1994. Flora of Australia: Volume 49, Oceanic Islands 1. Australian Biological Resources Study, Canberrra.
Huynh, K.-L. 1993. Some new distinctive features between Freycinetia banksii Cunn. (Pandanaceae) of New Zealand and F. baueriana Endl. of Norfolk Island. Candollea 48(2): 501-510.
Stone, B.C. 1972. Materials for a monograph of Freycinetia Gaudich. XIV. On the relation between F. banksii A.Cunn. of New Zealand and F. baueriana Endl. of Norfolk Island, with notes on the structure of the seeds. New Zealand Journal of Botany 11(2): 241-246.
Turner, J.S., Smithers, C.N. and Hoogland, R.D. 1968. Australian Conservation Foundation: Report on the conservation of Norfolk Island.