In fact, I probably shouldn’t do it at all. But when I stand in front of a pond full of ducks with a couple of slices of bread in hand, I am transformed from a mature adult to a child again.

I just love seeing them swim around with eager excitement at the prospect of getting a small piece of tasty bread!

There’s a beautiful but secluded pond near my workplace which contains a rather odd assortment of waterfowl including several hardheads (Aythya australis), dozens of Pacific Black Ducks (Anas superciliosa), a hybrid Muscovy (Cairina moschata), Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), a White Mallard and Australian Wood Ducks (Chenonetta jubata) as well as a pair of Black Swans (Cygnus atratus) and a substantial number of moorhens.

I have recently made a habit of walking through the park during my lunch break.

Being cold and wet, I assume that duck food isn’t too plentiful at the moment because it wasn’t too long before I noticed that I was being followed by the assorted waterfowl as I walked past the pond.

So I decided to take them some bread and before I knew it about sixty birds had arrived. Even prior to the first piece of bread hitting the water, there was pandemonium as ducks frantically swam across or flew from the other side of the lake. As interesting as it all was, the arrival of the resident black swans was the most spectacular sight.

What the swans gain in size and power they lose in agility, so when it comes to competing for bread, it’s a fairly even contest between the ducks and swans. Soon the swans realise that looking cute is a more effective method of gaining attention…

With two slices of bread for sixty birds, it doesn’t go far (which is a good thing).

I’ll try and be good and not feed them too often, but I must confess that this simple activity brings a lot of joy. Perhaps I will see if I can take them some more appropriate and healthy food in future.

^{An unidentified Greenpeace vandal destroys an experimental GM wheat crop belonging to CSIRO, an Australian government agency.}

As regular readers of the Grapevine would be aware, I work as a research scientist on the development of genetically-modified pasture grasses for the Australian dairy industry. I am proud of the work that I do and I believe that GM has much to offer Australian agriculture in terms of better nutritive value, increased productivity and reduced environmental impacts.

Having worked in Australian science for a number of years, I can assure you that no-one enters the scientific profession for the money. Rather it is a love of the scientific method, combined with a belief that one is contributing to a larger project and body of work that will ultimately bring benefits for all humankind. In my case, the decision to become a research scientist was also influenced by a passion for molecular biology and a love of and fascination with plants that goes back to my childhood.

Science is a vocation. In the public sector (which employs the greatest number of plant research scientists in Australia) many work long hours for relatively low pay. We do this because we believe in what we’re doing and because we love what we do. We invest more than our time in our work: we invest our soul.

Scientific research is very expensive. One project can cost millions of dollars, easily. Inserting genes into wheat (be it via Agrobaterium-mediation or microprojectile bombardment) is a tricky process at the best of times, as is typical for many monocotyledonous species. To get an experiment to an advanced stage where thousands of seedlings are subjected to field evaluation would have cost CSIRO staff many years of hard work and the taxpayer a lot of money.

Many people don’t realise what happens before GM plants are put into the field for evaluation. In extremely brief terms, suitable plant material needs to be produced before it is subjected to some form of transformation. Only a small number of plants will actually incorporate the transgene, so each seedling must have its DNA checked to see whether the new gene is present as well as being tested for other properties. Finally the plants are transferred to a glasshouse for bulking-up before the field trial commences. It doesn’t stop there, as the plants have to be measured for phenotypic traits (appearance) as well as the trait-of-interest during the trial. After all, there’s no value inserting a gene if it doesn’t work!

When all of that is completed, a classical breeding programme ensues followed by a massive regulatory process. From start to finish, this typically takes more than a decade and involves the contributions of dozens of senior scientists, research scientists, technical officers and PhD or Honours students.

And then in one fell swoop, cowardly Greenpeace vandals enter in the early morning and cut it all down. Just like that.

I don’t work for CSIRO, but I know exactly how the scientists and students whose work this is would feel. Devastated.

And for what?

How does destroying the work of a PhD student, or the achievements of a research scientist convince the Commonwealth Government that GM is “wrong” as Greenpeace ignorantly proclaims? How does wanton vandalism convince the broader Australian community that Greenpeace is a respectable organisation that has legitimate concerns about a scientific project or a new technology?

It doesn’t.

What it shows is that Greenpeace – contrary to their name – aren’t too peaceful at all.

Just because I don’t like something doesn’t give me the right to destroy it.

When I wrote my blog article about GM canola in 2007, I was subjected to all sorts of abuse, pseudoscience, myth and even a death threat. The noisiest opponents of GM are the very people who provide the greatest threat to free speech and democracy by using violence to try to get at those of us who have an opposing view.

Personally speaking, I recognise that GM is not a cure-all. I understand that world hunger is more of an economic and political problem than an agricultural problem and GM alone won’t fix it. I understand that some applications of GM can be risky or even unethical. But that is why we have government-funded scientific trials which evaluate the risks and if necessary, cancel the work. We evaluate, risk-assess, then assist government regulators make a calm, reasoned and intelligent decision about whether a product should be released or not.

Contrary to the propaganda of Greenpeace activists, scientific thought isn’t bought and sold. There isn’t a secret global conspiracy. We’re not all working for, or brainwashed by, Monsanto or any other demonised multinational company. In Australia’s case, most plant scientists work directly for government and earn public sector wages which are directly paid for with grants and recurrent funding.

I don’t believe that genetic modification technology poses any risk to the community whatsoever. But like all technologies, it has to be used appropriately. As Alfred Nobel eventually discovered with dynamite, his invention could be used for good or it could be used for evil. But dynamite itself wasn’t the problem. The same applies with the genetic modification of plants.

My final thought relates to the “dangerous” nature of the technology that Greenpeace condemns.

As we are required to do under the Gene Technology Act 2000 and associated regulations, we scientists take great care in containing and transporting our transgenic plants. They must be transported within double-sealed containers, documented records of movement must be kept and any rubbish destroyed by autoclaving. When the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator permits a trial, it comes with strict conditions to ensure no unintended contamination or spread.

Therefore, it probably goes without saying that violently shredding transgenic wheat plants in an open field with little regard for containment is a very odd approach to take. It would be akin to anti-nuclear protesters breaking into a reactor and spreading uranium everywhere. The logic is flawed.

I hope this episode goes to demonstrate to the broader community the true nature of Greenpeace as an organisation that rejects science and reason. This is a truth that Dr. Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace realised when he eventually left the organisation in 1986.

Science is not infallible and has its faults, but it’s the best mechanism we have to improve our lives and evaluate the risks and benefits of technologies. Without science, we’d be thrown back into the dark ages.

_____________

These views are my own, and do not represent the views of my employer.

Australia needs to take action to reduce CO₂ emissions if climate change is to be limited to a 2°C rise in mean global temperatures by the end of the 21st century.

Of course, this requires the co-operation of the rest of the world and whilst no global consensus has yet been reached on what should be done, many countries have already established emissions trading schemes (ETS) or introduced carbon taxes. In Australia’s case, the carbon tax will morph into an ETS in 2015. Hopefully a global agreement will be reached before then.

I don’t wish to delve into the comings-and-goings of this political issue, which I feel had been one of the most poorly-conducted public debates (both within and outside the Parliament) that I can recall. The discussion has certainly been of the “every man for himself” calibre and I have seen very little forward thinking and community-mindedness on any side of politics. Nevertheless, I have long believed that an Emissions Trading Scheme is the best way for Australia (and the world) to make a real difference.

From an environmental perspective it’s difficult to gauge whether this scheme really goes far enough or not, but my feeling is that it probably does so but with a soft start. Let’s not forget that at the failed Climate Change conference in Bali in 2007, the Australian Government said it supported a 25-40% cut on 1990 emission levels by 2020. Now we are to make a 5% cut on 2000 levels by the same period, although the new long term goal is to cut emissions by 80% by 2050. That is long enough for industry to make necessary adjustments and hopefully enough to prevent catastrophe.

For all the talk, it seems to me that many people don’t understand the point of a carbon tax or ETS. The bleating voices of large sectors of industry demanding “compensation” are becoming tiring.

Make no mistake: I am not anti-business and I understand fully that workers will be the first to suffer in bad economic times. But polluting industries also need to understand that there has to be an incentive for them to change their behaviour. For there will be no business with a dead environment and whilst dirty energy remains cheap, nothing will change. Something has to be done and the absence of a credible alternative, this is the best plan for Australia’s future.

We also need to recognise that every government policy has an impact somewhere. Governmental paralysis would set in if government attempted to guarantee “not one job will be lost” or “no Mum and Dad taxpayers will lose out” et cetera (these are the words of an impoverished debate). The challenge with all policy is to ensure the greatest number of beneficiaries.

From what I can understand, I am reasonably happy with the carbon tax scheme which has been developed jointly by Labor, the Greens and the three independent MPs. It seems to strike the right balance between providing an incentive and not destroying Australian industry. Hopefully this will mark the start of Australia’s green energy transition as carbon tax revenue is used to develop sustainable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal and wave.

The challenge (and the true indicator of whether the scheme will survive the next election) will be to monitor the rise on the cost-of-living. According to the government, a cost increase of $9.90 per week can be expected, which includes a rise of $3.30 for electricity and $1.50 for gas. Whilst I consider this to be a modest increase, it comes on top of massive utility bill increases that have eroded the public’s enthusiasm for any more price rises. An average household will receive $10.10 in compensation which will come in the form of various tax cuts and concessions.

I have not been impressed with Julia Gillard since she became Prime Minister and I have been even more scathing of the Labor Party at the state level who forgot who they represented and selfishly increased the price of electricity for households well beyond inflation. That said, Tony Abbott’s confusing “Direct Action” plan worries me greatly, as does his threat to destroy the carbon tax and ETS. Imagine what that would do for business confidence!

I genuinely hope this new scheme works as intended. I believe it is now Julia Gillard’s job as Prime Minister to convincingly sell this plan to the many doubters within the Australian community. She also needs to demonstrate her leadership skills and lead Australia on a positive campaign for change. Finally, lower income earners and the poor need to see that they aren’t the ones paying.

The poll showed that the number of Australians who agreed with the statement that “Global warming is a serious and pressing problem (and) we should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs” has fallen from 68% in 2006 to 41% in 2011.

When asked “If it helped solve climate change how much extra would you be willing to pay each month on your electricity bill?“, the most popular response is nothing at all (39%), which is up from 21% in 2008.

Only 19% of Australians were prepared to pay even $10 more a month.

This should not come as a surprise to anyone.

Electricity prices in Australia have been steadily rising.

According to research by the Institute of Public Affairs, electricity prices in parts of Australia have increased at nearly four times the rate of inflation over the last 5 years. Between 2005 and 2010, electricity prices rose by 61.3% in Sydney, 56.8% in Melbourne and 50.7% in Brisbane. Perth had the lowest capital city price rise of ‘just’ 35.8% over that period.

Electricity is an essential service and hence in New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory the electricity market is government-owned (with varying degrees of private competion). In the Australian Capital Territory, electricity is semi-privately controlled and is fully privatised in Victoria and South Australia.

There has been much discussion lately about the introduction of a Carbon Tax, following Julia Gillard’s narrow win in the 2010 election. The government believes that in the absence of an Emissions Trading Scheme, a Carbon Tax is the most effective mechanism to provide a commercial incentive for industry to reduce carbon emissions and promote the development of a ‘green electricity’ sector.

Many people recognise that the introduction of a Carbon Tax will lead to energy price rises, including in electricity generation which in Australia is predominantly powered by burning coal. As I write, the details of the proposed Carbon Tax (and associated concessions) are being negotiated between the government, the Greens and the three independents. Nothing is certain.

Yet below the hysteria and the debate, electricity prices have been rising sharply. Many people mistakenly assume that the price rises are the result of the not-yet-introduced Carbon Tax. Others believe that  it reflects the “rising cost of electricity”. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In reality, your State Government is to blame. It’s called deregulation.

In 2007 and again in 2008, the Australian Energy Market Commission recommened that the State Government of Victoria should cease regulating electricity prices as there was “sufficient competition” in the sector. There was quite a push for this to happen, from the Council of Australian Governments to the OECD. Whilst the other states were still developing plans to remove price caps, Victoria’s Labor government under John Brumby deregulated electricity prices in 2009 and from thereon in, it became a free-for-all.

Other states have followed. Yet it need not be.

In most States and territories, the electricity sector is government-owned with a mixture of government and private retailers. In Victoria’s case, the former State Electricity Commission (SEC) was broken-up and privatised. The state’s elecricity industry was transformed from a vertically-integrated state monopoly (the SEC mined the coal, generated the electricity, distributed it across the state and retailed the final product) to a fragmented privately-run affair.

The SEC was profitable, yet it’s agenda was social rather than financial. In the states that have state-owned utilities, most of these are profitable too. Yet politicians speak of a need to “promote investment” in the sector and promote green energy. Yet surely this is no easier than in a profitable industry that the government principally owns and regulates? I am convinced that it is ideological blindness that prevents state governments from using their utilities for community good.

Electricity is an essential service and one cannot feasibly live without it in Australia. The electricity sector is also a natural monopoly. I do not believe that essential services nor natural monopolies should be privately-owned.

But even if you don’t share my social democratic views, surely it is difficult to argue that the Victorian model of a privately-owned sector subjected to price caps was less desirable to a laissez-faire free-for all, if one truly cares at all about the the cost-of-living. As others have validly pointed out, how can governments lament significant rises in the cost-of-living whilst their own companies are primarily responsible?

It really doesn’t matter how competitive an industry is, nor how many competiting companies operate in a sector if the prices for everyone rise at such an alarming rate. Governments have chosen to inflict these price rises on the public. This was done by choice.

The bad news is that prices are forecast to rise evern further now that there are no price caps, and that’s before a Carbon Tax is introduced! No wonder the appetite of the public to pay a carbon tax on electricity is fast disappearing.

I am convinced that we collectively need to address the challenges of climate change, by reducing carbon emissions. I also believe that we need to look after all members of our society by ensuring that essential services are managed for the benefit of all.

The rises in the price of electricity since 2006 have hurt lower income earners and promoted inflation, but done nothing to help the environment. With massive prices rises associated with the rental crisis, the housing affordability problem and petrol prices, one is forced to ask to who’s benefit these reforms were made?

^{Amanita muscaria forms a beneficial relationship with pine trees, and hence the two will often be seen together.}

In a horticultural context, most fungi are either beneficial or harmless in the garden, so I never understand the preoccupation of some gardeners with removing them. Picking toadstools and expecting the fungus to die is no more effective than removing the apples from an apple tree and expecting that to die! This is because toastools are merely the fruiting bodies of the fungus. The rest of the organism is usually hidden underground in the form of strands called hyphae.

Some fungi are saprophytic, meaning that they live on dead or decaying plant matter and return nutrients to the soil. Others are symbiotic, meaning that they form a beneficial and mutual relationship with plants whereby both the plant and the fungus benefit. Within this category, fungi may either be michorrizal (growing in or around the root cells) or endophytic (growing within the leaves and branches).

Unfortunately my mycology (study of fungi) is quite poor, and hence I cannot identify most of the fungi that I see.

^{I have no idea what this species is, but the cluster is pretty.}

This year, the toadstools have been especially prolific in Melbourne, on account of the cold and wet summer which hjad been followed by an early and wet winter. (Autumn seemed to last for a week this year!).

Here are some photographs of some of the specimens I have seen during Autumn 2011. Enjoy!

Amanita muscaria is one of the most-recognised fungi. This species forms a symbiotic relationship with pine or birch trees… which is why you will only find this species growing beneath these species. The fungus helps the tree collect nutrients from the soil, and in return the pine provides the fungus with carbohydrates.

This is Astraeus hygrometricus, a species I’d never noticed before. I have written ‘noticed’ because these look like pebbles until one gets down on one’s hands and knees and takes a close look. Each is about 1.5 centimetres in diameter. This is sometimes called an “earth star” because there’s actually a larger body below the earth’s surface.

Can you see the bird nest fungi (Cyathus striatus) in this photograph? I thought these look more like gumnuts than birds nests but a close inspection reveals the origin of this species’ common name. The spores (“eggs”) are distributed when droplets of rain fall into the “nest” and push the “eggs” out, which split open and release the spores. This species will live off decaying wood matter (mulch, as seen here), faecies or other decaying plant matter.

I believe this is Chlorophyllum hortense, growing in a lawn. A common species, often destroyed in its prime by lawnmowers! I found this i a park, where I initially mistook it in the distance for a piece of litter. A second toadstool is emerging beside the first.

The next three species I can tell you nothing about, because I have not been successful in identifying them. Nevertheless, I thought they looked attractive so I took their photos anyway…

Whilst you’re out and about this Autumn, keep an  eye close to the ground. You never know what you might discover!

Do you work with hazardous chemicals and reagents?

I manage these risks by reading the appropriate Material Safety Data Sheets, using safety equipment and wearing suitable personal protective equipment. I also rely on appropriate chemical labelling and safety signage in the lab and on reagent bottles. Unfortunately, erecting appropriate signage or providing appropriate labelling can sometimes be problematic if the supply of labels, stickers or signs is exhausted or there are specialised labelling requirements.

In response to these challenges, I have designed the free HazChem TrueType font.

Now, safety signage or chemical labelling are just a font-change away!

The HazChem font is ideal for generating OH&S-compliant labels for reagent bottles, writing Material Safety Data Sheets or Standard Operating Procedures as well as general chemical safety labelling around your lab, industrial site or educational facility.

My HazChem font comes with a range of hazmat and hazchem symbols including Cytotoxic, Explosive, Radioactive, Biohazard, Corrosive, Flammable (Solid, Liquid, Gas), Oxidising Agent, Non-Flammable Gas, Cytotoxic, Poisonous, Toxic, Harmful and Ionising Radiation. For convenience, Attention, No Smoking, No Food and Exit glyphs have also been included.

Because there are many regulatory regimes in existence, I have created symbols that work within the Australian/British and USA/Canadian systems. Symbols from the European Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations (CHIP) and Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of CHemicals (REACH) systems have been included, as well as the United Nations’ new Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS).

As a result of these many systems, I have made a handy printable reference sheet that summarises what keyboard characters correspond to each symbol. All symbols can be accessed on a US-Style computer keyboard without having to access the Character Map or “insert special character” functions.

Whilst my HazChem font won’t resolve your chemical safety issues, I trust that it will be an invaluable tool for promoting safety in laboratories, industrial sites and educational institutions.

You can find out more about the HazChem font, access installation instructions and get your free download at http://www.adonline.id.au/fonts/hazchem/

In an election year where voter dissatisfaction with the government is growing, I cannot help but wonder whether this is just another cynical ploy to win votes, rather than consider the future of Melbourne’s water supply.

I care a lot about this issue. As a person with a deep concern for the health of the environment as well as the health of our agricultural sector, water policy is of particular interest. I have written previous blog posts documenting rainfall patterns, El Niño and the drought. Given the importance of water to Australia, the driest inhabited continent, I expect water policy decisions to based on science and data, not politics.

Unfortunately, I have a suspicion that today’s announcement that Stage 3A would be reduced to Stage 3 has a lot more to do with politics than science. Here’s why:

Let’s look at the data. Shown below is a graph illustrating the overall amount of water stored in Melbourne’s reservoirs as a percentage of total reservoir holding capacity at this time of year, for the past decade. The data has been taken from Melbourne Water, who publish weekly statistics in their Weekly Water Report.

^{Melbourne’s total water storage levels as a percentage of capacity on or around 16 March for the past 10 years. The period where “Stage 3A” restrictions have been in place is marked in red. (Data supplied by Melbourne Water Corporation, based on readings from Cardinia, Greenvale, Maroondah, O’Shannassy, Silvan, Sugarloaf, Tarago, Thomson, Upper Yarra and Yan Yean reservoirs.)}

The graph clearly illustrates a drop in Melbourne’s water from 2007, but Melbourne’s water supplies had been dwindling prior to that. As a response (and in accordance with legislation), Stage 1 water restrictions were introduced on 1 September 2006 after that year’s dry winter. As the effects of the drought continued, Stage 2 restrictions were introduced on 1 November 2006, and Stage 3 commenced on 1 January 2007.

Then a curious thing happened.

Just as it appeared Melbourne would head into Stage 4 water restrictions (which would prohibit almost any outdoor water use), the then Premier, Steve Bracks, announced the creation of a new level: Stage 3A. Unlike Stage 4 (which was in place throughout much of the state, and in the city of Geelong), Stage 3A still allowed some watering of plants. But the real change in water policy was not the creation of Stage 3A, but how the restrictions were decided in the first place.

Up until that point, the various government water authorities made a decision about implementing water restrictions as per the Water Industry Act 1994. Whilst each decision about water restrictions had to be approved by the Minister for Water, the actual decision rested with the various water authorities who were at arms-length from government. This is detailed in the Victorian Uniform Drought Water Restriction Guidelines (PDF) which clearly specifies four water restriction levels (ie. Stages 1, 2, 3 and 4).

In 2007, the Premier announced that the government would make the decision about water restrictions in Melbourne in consultation with the water authorities. Suddenly, there was a chance for politics to enter the decision-making process, and suddenly Stage 3A was born.

Look at that graph again. You will notice that water storages were at 33.0% on 15 March 2007, just before “Stage 3A” was announced. Now, three years later, the levels are 34.6% and 3A is to be abandoned for Stage 3.

A paltry 1.6% more water seems to be the difference between Stage 3A and Stage 3. I wonder what threshold was crossed in that small rise? According to Yarra Valley Water’s Drought Response Plan (PDF), no threshold was crossed.

The table below is taken from Schedule 1 (p.8) of Yarra Valley Water’s Drought Response Plan. It shows the “trigger levels” for the four legislated stages of water restriction. You will notice no mention of “Stage 3A” in this document, any other water authority’s Drought Response Plan, in the Victorian Uniform Drought Water Restriction Guidelines or in the Water Industry Act 1994.

What you will note is that the trigger for Stage 3 water restrictions in March is a storage volume of 629 GL (gigalitres). Our current water storage is at 34.6% full, equivalent to 626 GL. Technically, this means we should be on Stage 2 restrictions!

Of course, this can’t really happen. The dams need to re-fill after dry periods, before we can reduce restrictions. We also need to ensure that Victorians learn from the experience of the drought, rather than redeveloping ‘bad habits’.  The Victorian Uniform Drought Water Restriction Guidelines and Water Industry Act 1994 both provide for consideration of these factors.

Those published documents mandate that water authorities must consider how quickly the reservoirs are refilling, patterns of consumer water consumption, recent climate patterns and predictions of future rainfall before reducing restrictions. In addition, the Drought Response Plan for each of Melbourne’s various water authorities actually provides a very sensible scientific evidence-based decision-making process.

Unfortunately this system has been corrupted by a State Government only too keen to use water policy to secure votes.

In its defence, the State Government had cited the commissioning of the (much hated) North-South (Sugarloaf) Pipeline, the ‘success’ of Target 155 and the construction of the Wonthaggi Desalination Plant as reasons to remove Stage 3A restrictions. I don’t wish to make comment on these various policy decisions nor their effectiveness, other than to remind you that there’s been no real change in water storage levels between 2008 and 2010 to justify a change in water restrictions.

The truth is that in Victoria, the setting of water restrictions is a complicated process described variously in Drought Response Plans, the Water Industry Act 1994 and the Victorian Uniform Drought Water Restriction Guidelines. It is my view that the Water Industry Act 1994 should be amended so that: (1) Trigger points are clearly published in law; (2) The decision about the imposition and removal of water restrictions are made independent of government; (3) that government water authorities are given legislative independence from government; (4) environmental considerations and consumption behaviour be considered in the decision-making process and (5) only the Governor of Victoria may revoke decisions.

It is only with these measures that we can have full confidence in the impartiality of water restriction decisions.

As it currently stands with a State election in November, declining government popularity and a government with a recent (alleged) history of corrupting public processes, I have little faith that the removal of State 3A was nothing more than a cynical pre-election ploy.

Water is our most precious resource. We need to start treating it that way at both the consumer and political levels.

The mere thought of a spider is enough to elicit feelings of discomfort for some. The sight of one will induce many into a state of panic.

Personally, I am not too concerned by the presence of spiders, except perhaps for the huntsman (Delena spp.) owing to it’s size and the white tail (Lampona cylindrata) for its potential to cause severe injury. That is the sort of response most people would say was ‘normal’.

What might seem a little more unusual would be to admit that actually like a particular type of spider.

Ever since I have been a child, I have had a mild fascination with Leaf-Curling spiders (Phonognatha graeffei). A native of the eastern states of Australia, these were always a common sight in the garden every summer.

Leaf-Curling spiders are easily identifiable because they build a shelter from a rolled-up leaf, which they place in the centre of their web. (No other spider does this). Because of this, they’re easy to spot and therefore pose no real danger to anyone. (In any case, they’re non-venomous). Should a person disturb their web, their instinct is to withdraw into their leaf rather than confront. However, if an insect lands in the web, they’ll waste no time in rushing out to grab themselves a snack!

The Leaf-Curler is actually quite attractive for a spider, being brightly coloured with yellow and black markings across their over-sized abdomens.

Leaf-Curling spiders belong to the Araneidae order of orb-weavers. Their web is constructed as three-quarters of a circle, with the leaf suspended in the missing section at the top.

The leaf is hauled from the ground by the spider using a silken pulley system and more silk is used to ‘sew’ it together. Leaf-Curlers preferentially choose Eucalyptus leaves, but other plant leaves are sometimes used, or even snail shells!

Oddly for spiders, the male co-habits with the female, even sharing the same leaf. However eggs are laid in a separate curled leaf away from the web. Leaf-curlers are an annual species, and die at the end of summer.

Because of this species’ distinctive shelter, harmless nature, beautiful colours and peculiar life cycle, I welcome the arrival of Leaf-Curlers into the garden each summer. It is always interesting to see where they’ve built their webs or what they’ve decided to use for a shelter.

Have a close look for Leaf-Curling spiders next time you’re in the garden.

________________

_{Image credits:}

_{All images © Adam Dimech, except the last image by Darcy Moore (used under a Creative-C0mmons Licence).}

The Otway Fly consists of a 600 metre long, 25 metre high, elevated tree-top walk which passes through a stand of cool temperate rainforest dominated by Myrtle Beech (Nothofagus cunninghamii), Blackwood (Acacia melanoxylon) and Mountain Ash (Eucalyptus regnans).

The walk commenced with a moderately steep decent into the cool forest, before I arrived at the treetop walk. As I proceeded along the walkway, I quickly found myself amongst the upper canopy of the trees. From this vantage point, I was able to study the epiphytic vegetation that grows on the trees (such as Kangaroo Ferns [Microsorum pustulatum] and various mosses), as well as appreciate the tree canopies and look down to the forest floor below. The view really was quite impressive!

One of the highlights of the Otway Fly is the 45 metre tower (1oo metres above ground), which affords a magnificent view of the forest from the very tops of the trees. I spent quite some time up there, taking in the view!

It must be stated that people who are anxious about heights should be careful. The walking structure is designed to take some sway, and therefore the vibrations of others on the walk can be felt throughout the structure. The tower is accessed by a very narrow spiral staircase which lacks resting points. However, the structure is entirely safe, having been constructed in 2003 and costing $6.5 million to build.

After the tree-top walk, the path took me to the forest floor, where I could explore the terrestrial vegetation including the magnificent tree ferns. There were also some interesting fungi growing when I visited.

The walk back up to the tourist centre was moderately steep, but taken at pace was still quite enjoyable. There is a coffee shop on site, which sells a selection of foods and has a nice outdoor eating area. Entry to the venue is $22.

Here are a few photos from my recent visit:

So I can only conclude that the people of Mount Gambier in South Australia have an easy-going nature and a great sense of humour, because it was there that I recently visited the most peculiar garden I have ever seen in my life: The Umpherston Sinkhole.

Yes, even its name is odd.

But the name is very fitting for a garden that made me laugh at its sheer absurdity and fall in love with its beauty and novelty.

What is the Umpherston Sinkhole?

The Umpherston Sinkhole is named after James Umpherston, who established the garden in 1884. Umpherston purchased a farm property in Mount Gambier in 1864 which contained a large sinkhole (or cave remnant).

Thousands of years ago, the sinkhole had been a cave that had formed because parts of the Mount Gambier limestone had been dissolved. When the top of the cave chamber eventually collapsed, a large open pit (called a sinkhole) was formed. The Mount Gambier district has hundreds of such caves and sinkholes; there are even some in the city centre!

Umpherston used the sinkhole on his property as the basis for his garden, which he named “The Caves”.

Being retired, Umpherson wanted to create for the people of Mount Gambier “a pleasant resort in the heat of summer”. So he set to work clearing the existing vegetation off his property and from within the sinkhole. He carved a path in the side of the rock and erected a set of wooden steps so people could comfortably enter his sunken garden, which he planted with all sorts of ferns, shrubs and flowers.

The garden was an immediate success and became quite famous. People from Mount Gambier and surrounding districts would frequently come and visit. The sinkhole originally had a lake within, and Umpherston even organised boat rides for interested people.

James Umpherston died in 1900, and his garden fell into disrepair in the following years. In 1949, the South Australian Woods and Forests Department purchased the property and established sawmills nearby. As the water table dropped as a result of agricultural activity, the lake disappeared.

By 1976, the garden was nothing more than a ruin and a rubbish dump. It was at this time that staff from the Woods and Forests Department decided to restore Umpherston’s legacy.  Slowly, they removed the rubbish and cleared the weeds. Umpherston’s terraces were still there, and so the staff restored them and planted hydrangeas and other species along each row.

Once again, the garden was a hit with the people of Mount Gambier. In 1994, the South Australian Forestry Corporation (as the Woods and Forests Department had become known) handed the garden over to the City of Mount Gambier, and in 1995, the garden was added to the South Australian Heritage Register.

Visiting the Sinkhole

Visiting the sinkhole is a unique experience. A long ramp provides the initial entry point, which is followed by a set of enclosed steps. It is from here that the first real view of the Umpherston Sinkhole can be seen – and what a view! Being barely a third the way into the sinkhole, it provides a great overview of the entire garden, which beckons below. The sinkhole is round, and from here one can see the various terraces in the garden.

One then descends to the sinkhole floor, where hydrangeas and tree-ferns greet the visitor. The sinkhole ‘walls’ are garnished with a ‘wallpaper’ of hanging ivy, which partially conceals the jagged rocks that surround the garden. Whilst there’s no longer a lake, there is a fountain that operates periodically.

Wandering the terraces offered many different vantage points to appreciate the garden. Children also seemed to enjoy running across the terraces, and it made an excellent location for them to enjoy a game of ‘hide-and-seek’.

After Sunset

As dusk approached, I noticed more and more locals arriving with bags of bread or fruit, and torches as the garden became illuminated. Initially curious, I soon realised what it was all for. Each night, several dozen possums emerge from the shrubs and rock crevices and each night, the locals take food for the possums in the garden.

Everyone seemed to be having a great time hunting for possums with torches, and watching them eat the food provided. Of course, having been so well fed, the possums had become quite particular about what they would and wouldn’t eat!

Umpherston’s Legacy

One one level, this really is the most ridiculous garden I have ever seen. Viewing it with 21st-century eyes, one can only be surprised at this horticultural folly and quite reasonably ask ‘How could anyone ‘destroy’ such a natural wonder, and turn it into this garish pleasure garden?”.

But this isn’t a 21st-century garden. It’s a 19th-century garden, created in a period before conservation laws existed. And perhaps we should be grateful that such laws didn’t exist, or we’d have been deprived of such a wonderful public space.

As a person with horticultural qualifications, I readily acknowledge that this garden lacks botanical interest. There’s nothing particularly special or eye-catching about the common mop-top hydrangeas (Hydrangea macrophylla cv.), tree ferns (Dicksonia antarctica) and ivy (Hedera helix) that dominate the plantings in this garden. But seeing them used in such a creative manner and in such a unique context makes this a most desirable garden to visit.

So what does this garden say about Mount Gambier? This garden showed, above all else, that it is cherished by the people of South Australia’s second-largest city.

Watching parents take their small children along (as their parents had done for them) was a delight, especially given how much the children enjoyed the garden. Teenagers were appreciating the garden too, as were some elderly residents that came out just to see the possums. Tourists from Asia and Europe were astounded at the novelty of the garden and were taking plenty of digital photos to show their relatives back home.

There are few places that will bring all of the diverse sections of a community together, but the Umpherston Sinkhole does just that.

Surely, as James Umpherston looks down from above, he’d be delighted to see that his garden is still enthralling the people of Mount Gambier, 120 years after its creation. As he’s hoped, it is a most special place indeed.

Getting there: The Umpherston Sinkhole is located on the Jubilee Highway East in Mount Gambier, South Australia. Entry is free, and the garden is open from 6am to 1am daily.