Category Archives: Community involvement

Conserving and restoring biodiversity of the Great Barrier Reef through the Representative Areas Program (RAP)

Key words: Coral reef, no take zones,

The Great Barrier Reef is the world’s largest coral reef ecosystem (344,400 square km) and a World Heritage Area on the north-east coast of Australia. It contains a high diversity of endemic plants, animals and habitats. It is a multiple-use area with different zones in which a wide range of activities and uses are allowed, including tourism, fishing, recreation, traditional use, research, defence, shipping and ports. Components of the ecosystem have been progressively showing symptoms of decline.

TroutBarra3

Coral Trout is one of more than 1625 fish found on the Great Barrier Reef

Existing ecosystems. Coral reefs are like the building blocks of the Great Barrier Reef, and comprise about seven per cent of the ecosystem. The balance is an extraordinary variety of other marine habitats and communities ranging from shallow inshore areas to deep oceanic areas over 250 kilometres offshore and deeper than 1000 metres, along with their associated ecological processes. The abundant biodiversity in the Great Barrier Reef includes:

  • Some 3000 coral reefs built from more than 400 species of hard coral
  • Over one-third of all the world’s soft coral and sea pen species (150 species)
  • Six of the world’s seven species of marine turtle
  • The largest aggregation of nesting green turtles in the world
  • A globally significant population of dugongs
  • An estimated 35,000 square kilometres of seagrass meadows
  • A breeding area for humpback whales and other whale species
  • More than 130 species of sharks and rays
  • More than 2500 species of sponges
  • 3000 species of molluscs
  • 630 species of echinoderms
  • More than 1625 species of fish
  • Spectacular seascapes and landscapes such as Hinchinbrook Island and the Whitsundays
  • 215 species of bird
Crown-of-thorns single injection (C) GBRMPA cropped

Diver injecting Crown of Thorns Starfish

Impacts on the ecosystem. The main threats to the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem are:

  • Climate change leading to ocean acidification, sea temperature rise and sea level rise
  • Catchment run-off of nutrients, pesticides and excessive sediments
  • Coastal development and associated activities such as clearing or modifying wetlands, mangroves and other coastal habitats
  • Overfishing of some predators, incidental catch of species of conservation concern, effects on other discarded species, fishing of unprotected spawning aggregations, and illegal fishing.
4. GBRMPA staff - public consultation(2)

GBRMPA staff meeting to plan and discuss Representative Areas Program (RAP) at Townsville offices

Restoration goals and planning. A primary aim of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) is to increase biodiversity protection, with the added intent of enabling the recovery of areas where impacts had occurred. A strong foundation for this has been achieved through the Representative Areas Program, by developing a representative and comprehensive network of highly protected no-take areas, ensuring they included representative examples of all different habitat types.

The rezoning also provided an opportunity to revise all the zone types to more effectively protect the range of biodiversity.

A further aim was to maximise the benefits and minimise the negative impacts of rezoning on the existing Marine Park users.

These aims were achieved through a comprehensive program of scientific input, community involvement and innovation.

More information on the extensive consultation process is available at http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au.

6. green and yellow zone examples

An example of Green Zones (marine national park) and Yellow Zones  (conservation park)

Monitoring. An independent scientific steering committee with expertise in Great Barrier Reef ecosystems and biophysical processes was convened to define operational principles to guide the development of a comprehensive, adequate and representative network of no-take areas in the Marine Park (Fernandes et al 2005). Science (both biophysical and social science) provided the best available information as a fundamental underpinning for the Representatives Areas Program.

There are currently over 90 monitoring programs operating in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and adjacent catchment. These programs have largely been designed to address and report on specific issues, location or management.

Reef management. GBRMPA’s 25-year management plan outlines a mix of on-ground work, policies, strategies and engagement. The actions include:

  • increasing compliance focus to ensure zoning rules are followed
  • controlling Crown-of-thorns Starfish (Acanthaster planci) outbreaks
  • ensuring cumulative impacts are considered when assessing development proposals
  • setting clear targets for action and measuring our success
  • monitoring the health of the ecosystem on a Reef-wide scale
  • implementing a Reef Recovery program to restore sites of high environmental value in regional areas — regional action recognises the variability of the Reef over such a large area and the variability of the issues and interests of communities and industries in each area.

Benefits of zoning to date. The benefits reef ecosystem health are already occurring including:

  • More and bigger fish: Larger fish are important to population recovery as they contribute more larvae than smaller fish. James Cook University research shows the network of no-take marine reserves benefits species of coral reef fish targeted by fishers (especially Coral Trout), with not only more fish, but bigger fish in reserves — some zones have around twice as much fish biomass compared to zones open to fishing.
  • Improved fish recruitment: Research in the Keppel Islands suggests increased reproduction by the more abundant, bigger fish in reserves. This not only benefits populations within those reserves, it also produces a ‘spill over’ when larvae are carried by currents to other reefs, including areas open to fishing.
  • Improved resilience: The spillover effects also mean the connectivity between reserve reefs is intact. Spatial analysis shows most reserve reefs are within the dispersal range of other reserve reefs, so they are able to function as a network.
  • Sharks, dugongs and turtles: These species are harder to protect because they are slow growing and slow breeding. They are also highly mobile, moving in and out of protected zones. Despite this, available evidence shows zoning is benefiting these species.
  • Reduced crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks: Outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish appear to be less frequent on reserve reefs than fished reefs. This is particularly important as Crown-of-thorns Starfish have been the greatest cause of coral mortality on the Reef in recent decades.
  • Zoning benefits for seabed habitats: Zoning has improved protection of seabed habitats, with at least 20 per cent of all non-reefal habitat types protected from trawling.

How the project has influenced other projects. In November 2004, the Queensland Government mirrored the new zoning in most of the adjoining waters under its control. As a result, there is complementary zoning in the Queensland and Australian Government managed waters within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

The approach taken in the Representative Area Program is recognised as one of the most comprehensive and innovative global advances in the systematic protection and recovery of marine biodiversity and marine conservation in recent decades and has gained widespread national international, and local acknowledgement of the process and outcome as best practice, influencing many other marine conservation efforts.

Stakeholders. As a statutory authority within the Australian Government, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is responsible for managing the Marine Park. However, as a World Heritage Area, management of the ecosystem is complex jurisdictionally.

Both the Australian and Queensland governments are involved in managing the waters and islands within the outer boundaries through a range of agencies. GBRMPA works collaboratively with the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service through the joint Field Management Program to undertake day-to-day management of the Great Barrier Reef, including its 1050 islands, many of which are national parks. The program’s activities include surveying reefs and islands, dealing with environmental risks such as ghost nets and invasive pests, responding to incidents, maintaining visitor facilities, and upholding compliance with Marine Park legislation and the Zoning Plan.

A wide range of stakeholders have an interest in the Great Barrier Reef, including the community, Traditional Owners, a range of industries and government agencies, and researchers. The public, including the one million people who live in the adjacent catchment (around 20 per cent of Queensland’s population), benefit from economic activities. In recent years, the number of tourists carried by commercial operators to the Great Barrier Reef averaged around 1.6 to 2 million visitor days each year (GBRMPA data) with an estimate of an additional 4.9 million private visitors per annum.

Resourcing. The resourcing required for rezoning of the Great Barrier Reef over the five-year period of the RAP (1999–2003) was significant. It became a major activity for the agency for several years, requiring the re-allocation of resources particularly during the most intense periods of public participation. However, the costs of achieving greater protection for the Reef are readily justified when compared to the economic benefits that a healthy Great Barrier Reef generates every year (about AUD$5.6 billion per annum).

Further information: www.gbrmpa.gov.au

Contact: info@gbrmpa.gov.au

All images courtesy Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

 

Dewfish Demonstration Reach: Restoring native fish populations in the Condamine Catchment

Key words: native fish, riparian habitat, fish passage, aquatic habitat, Native Fish Strategy

The Dewfish Demonstration Reach is a 110 kilometre stretch of waterway in the Condamine catchment in southern Queensland consisting of sections of the Condamine River, Myall Creek and Oakey Creek near Dalby. The Reach was established in 2007 with the purpose of promoting the importance of a healthy river system for the native fish population and the greater river catchment and demonstrating how the restoration of riverine habitat and connectivity benefits native biodiversity and local communities. Landholders, community groups, local governments and residents have worked together to learn and apply new practices to improve and protect this part of the river system.

The purpose of the project is to demonstrate how the restoration of riverine habitat and connectivity benefits native biodiversity and promote the importance of a healthy river system for native fish and the greater river catchment. The goal is to restore native fish populations to 60% of pre-European settlement levels and improve aquatic health within the Reach.

Image 3 - Adding structural timber to Oakey Creek

Fig 1. Adding structural timber to Oakey Creek

Image 4 - Installing a fish hotel into Oakey Creek

Fig 2. Installing a fish hotel into Oakey Creek

Works undertaken. A range of activities to improve river health and native fish communities have been undertaken primarily at seven key intervention sites within the Dewfish Demonstration Reach. These include:

  • Re-introduction of large structural habitat at five sites, involving the installation of 168 habitat structures consisting of trees, fish hotels, breeding pipes and Lunkers (simulated undercut banks).
  • Improvement of fish passage (by more than 140 km) with the upgrade of the fishway on Loudoun Weir and the installation of two rock-ramp fishways on crossings in Oakey Creek.
  • Ongoing management of pest fish, involving carp angling competitions, carp specific traps, electrofishing and fyke nets.
  • Rehabilitation of the riparian vegetation over 77 km of the Reach using stock exclusion fencing, off-stream watering points, weed control and replanting of native vegetation. In Dalby, a 1 metre wide unmown buffer was established on the banks Myall Creek.

Twice-yearly monitoring using a MBARCI model (multiple-before-after-reference-control-intervention) was undertaken to detect the local and reach-wide impacts of the intervention activities. Surveys involved sampling of the fish assemblage at fixed sites and assessment of the instream and riparian habitat.

Image 5 - Wainui crossing before the fishway

Fig. 3 Wainui crossing before the fishway

Image 6 - Wainui crossing after installation of the rock-ramp fishway

Fig 4. Wainui crossing after the installation of the rock ramp fishway

Results. The surveys indicated many of the intervention activities had a positive impact. The fish assemblage and riparian habitat improved at all intervention sites in the Dewfish Demonstration Reach since rehabilitation activities commenced.

The fish assemblages at introduced habitat structures were very similar to those found on natural woody debris, suggesting the introduced habitat is functioning well as a surrogate.

There were significant increases in the abundance of larger fish species, including Golden Perch (Macquaria ambigua) (up to 5-fold), Murray Cod (Maccullochella peelii peelii) (from absent to captured every survey), Spangled Perch (Leiopotherapon unicolor) (up to 9-fold) and Bony Bream Nematolosa erebi (up to 11-fold) in intervention sites following re-snagging. Murray Cod and Golden Perch are now consistently being caught from introduced woody structures and local anglers are reporting that the fishing has improved greatly. Despite this increase there is still limited evidence of recruitment in the area. There have also been small increases in Eel-tailed Catfish (Tandanus tandanus) and Hyrtls Tandan (Neosilurus hyrtli) abundances and a limited amount of recruitment has been observed for these species.

The abundance of smaller native fish has improved significantly in response to the intervention activities undertaken, especially where bankside and instream vegetation was improved. In Oakey Creek Carp Gudgeon (Hypseleotris spp.) abundance increased 1200-fold, Murray-Darling Rainbowfish (Melanotaenia fluviatilis) increased 60-fold and the introduced species Mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) increased 9-fold following intervention activities.

Establishment of a bankside unmown buffer on Myall Creek has enabled natural regeneration of vegetation and resulted in significant increases in aquatic vegetation and native trees. This has led to substantial increases in the smaller bodied native fish assemblage, including a 3-fold increase in Bony Bream, 237-fold increase in Carp Gudgeon, 60-fold increase in Murray-Darling Rainbowfish and a 35-fold in the introduced Mosquitofish.

The abundance of pest fish remains low, except for Mosquitofish which have increased in abundance with the improvements in the aquatic vegetation. There is little evidence of Carp recruitment (Cyprinus carpio), suggesting active management may continue to suppress the population and minimise this species impacts in the Reach.

Image 1 - Myall Creek prior to restoration

Fig 5.  Myall Creek prior to restoration

Image 2 - Myall Creek after restoration

Fig 6. Myall Creek after restoration

Lessons learned and future directions. Improvements of the waterway health and ecosystems can lead to positive responses from native fish populations.

  • Targeting rehabilitation activities to specific classes of fish has been very effective.
  • Introducing habitat structures has been effective for larger fish, and
  • Re-establishing healthy bankside and aquatic vegetation has been vital in boosting the abundance of juveniles and smaller species.

Improvements in the extent of aquatic vegetation have unfortunately also resulted in increased numbers of the introduced pest, Mosquitofish. However, the overall benefits to native fish far outweigh impacts from the increase in the Mosquitofish population.

Stakeholders and Funding bodies. A large number of stakeholders have been involved in this project. The project’s success is largely due to the high number of engaged, involved and committed stakeholders. Without this broad network, costs to individual organizations would be higher and strong community support less likely.

Major funding has been provided by the Murray Darling Basin Authority, Condamine Alliance, Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and Arrow Energy.

 

Contact. Dr Andrew Norris, Senior Fisheries Biologist, Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Bribie Island Research Centre, PO Box 2066, Woorim, QLD 4507; Tel (+61) 7 3400 2019; and Email: andrew.norris@daf.qld.gov.au

READ MORE:

Finbox demonstration reach toolbox: http://www.finterest.com.au/finbox-a-demonstration-reach-toolbox/

Native Fish Strategy – first 10 years. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/emr.12090

Demonstration reaches – Looking back, moving forward http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/emr.12092

Monitoring in demonstration reaches https://site.emrprojectsummaries.org/2014/01/25/establishing-a-framework-for-developing-and-implementing-ecological-monitoring-and-evaluation-of-aquatic-rehabilitation-in-demonstration-reaches/

 

Re-introducing burning to Themeda Headland Grassland EEC, Narooma, NSW.

Tom Dexter, Jackie Miles, Deb Lenson

Key Words: Fire management, threatened ecosystem, Kangaroo Grass, weed management, Themeda

Introduction: In 2012, Eurobodalla Shire Council commenced a project to preserve local stands of declining Themeda Headland Grassland on Council managed land on three small headlands north of Narooma, NSW. Themeda Grassland on Seacliffs and Coastal Headlands is an Endangered Ecological Community (EEC) that grows on higher fertility soils and is listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

Burning was trialed at two of the three sites to test whether fire could improve the environmental integrity of these sites. This trial has potential implications for the much larger stands of this EEC in various conservation reserves scattered along the NSW coastline as there are many which are not currently actively managed.

The three sites were slashed annually until 2010. While the dominant grass, Kangaroo Grass (Themeda triandra) was still present on all sites, the sites exhibited some decline in Kangaroo Grass cover and vigour, with weed present on all three sites (Fig 1). Slashing had kept the headlands free from shrubs however windrows of slashed grass suppressed Kangaroo Grass and appeared to encourage weed invasion. One of the sites, which was left unburnt for logistic reasons, was initially in worse condition than the other two due to the presence of an old vehicle track and more extensive weed cover particularly from Kikuyu (Pennisetum clandestinum).

The intensity of a burn is likely to vary on a seasonal basis and is dependent on the build-up of dead thatch and the prevailing conditions on the day. There is basis to believe that the traditional aboriginal burning would have taken place in Autumn and would have been a relatively cool burn. The optimum time to burn when considering the constraints of weed invasion is early spring.

Fig 1. Mowing damage at Duesburys Beach headland

Fig 1. Lines of bare ground indicate the location of windrows of dead grass from a history of mowing at Duesburys Beach headland

Works undertaken: Two successive burns were conducted in early spring on 2 of the 3 headlands, in August 2013 and August 2014 (Fig 2). The burn in 2013 was hotter than the burn in 2014 due to a higher build up of Kangaroo Grass thatch prior to the burn.

Follow-up weed control was implemented after the burns as the fire created gaps between the grasses and allowed targeted chemical control minimizing off target damage to Kangaroo Grass and other native species.

Data were collected on three occasions using ten 1 x 1 m quadrats, established along a 50 m transect spaced at 5 m intervals (one of these for each headland). The initial baseline data were recorded in Nov 2012, prior to the spring burns, and in each successive summer (2013/14 and 2014/15) following the burns.

Fig 2. Dalmeny Headlands burn 2015

Fig 2. Typical burn on the headlands

Results to date: The burnt areas (Figs 3 and 4) showed a significant decrease of annual exotic grasses; especially of Quaking Grass (Briza maxima) and Rats Tail Fescue (Vulpia spp.). The burnt areas also showed vigorous Kangaroo Grass growth and moderate seed production of that species. Two native species -Dwarf Milkwort (Polygala japonica) and Matgrass (Hemarthria uncinata Fig 5) not recorded prior to treatment were found after treatment in the quadrats. The most abundant native forbs, Swamp Weed (Selliera radicans) and Indian Pennywort (Centella asiatica) have persisted on the quadrats but not increased (Fig 6). Some exotic forbs – e.g. Yellow Catsear (Hypochaeris radicata) and Scarlet Pimpernel (Anagallis arvensis) have taken advantage of the removal of grass biomass and have also increased, further future analysis will determine whether this increase will impact on the native forbs. Perhaps the most important finding is the Coast Banksia (Banksia integrifolia) seedlings were killed by the fire allowing the sites to remain grassland.

The unburnt headland continues to deteriorate, with ongoing evidence of continued senescense of Kangaroo Grass, no Kangaroo Grass seed production, and exotic plants continuing to replace Kangaroo Grass in parts of the site. Kikuyu is the main exotic species on this site and is responsible for continued suppression of the native components of the grassland. There is also evidence of shrub invasion beginning to occur. It is anticipated that this site will be burnt in spring 2015.

Fig 2. Duesburys Point just after fire, Sept 2013

Fig 3. Duesburys Point just after burning, Sept 2013

Fig 3. Same site 11 months later, Aug 2014

Fig 4. Same site 11 months later, Aug 2014

What we learned: Kangaroo Grass remains vigorous throughout the burnt sites. The results to date show annual burning to be generally beneficial to the herbaceous components and associated grasses of this EEC. There was a higher success of exotic annual grass control in the first year which is most likely attributed to a hotter fire and perhaps timing. The first year also had accumulated multiple years of thatch which may have assisted fire intensity. Supplementary chemical control was effective, particularly when the fire created gaps between the grasses, allowing for better targeted chemical control.

Future directions: So far the results have shown that an August fire followed by the targeted chemical control of exotic grasses has considerable positive influence on the overall environmental integrity of this ecosystem. The annual burning allows the EEC to remain a grassland by killing off Coast Banksia and Coastal Acacia seedlings. It invigorates Kangaroo Grass growth and reduces the biomass of exotic perennial grasses at least in the short term. This again creates an opportunity in the aforementioned targeted chemical control. The herbaceous composition of the headland also remains intact and future analysis will determine whether burning has either a neutral or positive effect on growth. Kikuyu, Paspalum (Paspalum dilitatum) and annual exotic weeds continue to be the main problem. Increased post-burn selective herbicide application or hand weeding and planting of Kangaroo Grass tubestock may help to restore the grassland more rapidly than use of fire with limited weed control alone. Ongoing funding is being sought to continue the works over coming years and achieve further positive future outcomes.

Acknowledgements: The works were undertaken by Eurobodalla Shire Council with funding from the NSW Environmental Trust. Fire assistance from the NSW Rural Fire Service and cultural advice provided by Elders of the Walbunja people.

Contact: Tom Dexter; Environment and Sustainability Project Officer; Eurobodalla Shire Council (PO Box 99 Vulcan St Moruya 2537, Australia. Email: tom.dexter@eurocoast.nsw.gov.au).

Fig 5. Hemarthria uncinata was more evident after fire. (Duesburys Beach headland.)

Fig 5. Hemarthria uncinata was only evident after fire. (Duesburys Beach headland.)

Fig 5. More forbs among the grass after fire at Duesburys Point – e.g. Sellaria radicans

Fig 6. The forb Sellaria radicans persisted  among the grass after fire.

 

Twelve years of healing: Rehabilitating a willow-infested silt flat – Stormwater Management.

Alan Lane

Key words: urban stream, erosion, siltation, soft engineering, head wall

Introduction: Popes Glen Creek is a small permanent stream rising close to the centre of the township of Blackheath, NSW, Australia. Its upper catchment (10 ha) comprises low-permeability urban development, roadways, shops and parklands.

The funneling of runoff from the low-permeability catchment into the headwaters of Popes Glen Creek resulted in intense and destructive runoff after rain, carrying down large and small debris, depositing sheets of silt, uprooting or burying vegetation, causing erosion of the creek banks and threatening to undermine the head wall of the silt flat downstream. This resulted in the formation of a 1 ha silt flat at the headwaters of the creek, covered with dense infestations of mature Crack Willow (Salix fragilis), Purple Ossier (S. purpurea) and mid-storey and ground-layer weeds. This has been revegetated as a permanent wetland as described in a previous summary (https://site.emrprojectsummaries.org/2015/02/22/)

This summary describes the runoff management aspects of the project, where the aims were:

  1. to reduce the impact of runoff
  2. to reduce the incursion of silt
  3. to remediate the main channel
  4. to stabilise the head wall.
Fig 1: Notched weir diverting water towards sedimentation pond.

Figure 1: Notched weir diverting water towards sedimentation pond.

Figure 2: Sedimentation pond

Figure 2: Sedimentation pond

Works carried out:

1. Diversion of part of the flow and capturing sediment. A diversion channel was constructed with flow regulated by a notched weir in the main stream. This diverts approximately half the volume of the flow into a sedimentation pond were silt is captured, reducing the quantity deposited downstream (Figures 1 and 2).

2. Construction of low-impact detention cells. “Soft engineering” detention cells constructed across the silt flat from coir logs and woody debris found on site retain and slow the release of flow, dispersing it across the silt flat and raising the water table, suppressing weeds and supporting the vegetation of the created wetland (Figures 3 and 4).

3. Elimination of the highly incised main channel. Natural debris falling into the main channel creates a series of small pondages. These retain and slow the flow and allow overflow to disperse across the silt flat. (Figure 5).

4. Protection of the creek banks. Dense plantings of deep-rooted swamp vegetation e.g. Red-fruited Saw Sedge (Gahnia sieberiana) and Black Wattle (Callicoma serratifolia) (Figure 6), and loosely woven structures constructed from woody debris (Figure 7) protect creek banks and silt flat from erosion and scouring.

5. Stabilisation of the headwall. Contractors employed with funds from the Environmental Trust have constructed a major structure with railway sleepers and rock armouring to stabilise the head wall (Figures 8 and 9).

Figure 3: Volunteers building a detention cell from woody debris found on site.

Figure 3: Volunteers building a detention cell from woody debris found on site.

Figure 4: Raised water table enabled wetland sedges (Carex gaudichaudiana and Eleocharis sphacolata) to displace Creeping Buttercup (Ranunculus repens).

Figure 4: Raised water table enabled wetland sedges (Carex gaudichaudiana and Eleocharis sphacolata) to displace Creeping Buttercup (Ranunculus repens).

 

Lessons learned and future directions:  This project is on track to replace the forest of willows with wetland vegetation, transform a highly incised creek and weed-infested silt flat into a healthy Upper Blue Mountains Swamp – an endangered ecological community scheduled under the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

The volunteer group will continue working with Council and contractors to complete the planting program and to monitor the evolution of the site, including its vegetation, water quality and colonisation by macroinvertebrates, birds and frogs.

Stakeholders and funding bodies: This work is supported by a grant from the Government of New South Wales through its Environmental Trust and by the Blue Mountains City Council,  which also oversaw the engineering works. All photographs: Alan Lane and Paul Vale.

Figure 5: A natural pondage formed when debris was allowed to remain in the stream.

Figure 5: A natural pondage formed when debris was allowed to remain in the stream.

Figure 6: Dense plantings of Black Wattle (Calicoma serratifolia) and Gahnia (Gahnia sieberiana) protect creek banks from erosion.

Figure 6: Dense plantings of Black Wattle (Callicoma serratifolia) and Gahnia (Gahnia sieberiana) protect creek banks from erosion.

Figure 7: Volunteers using woody debris to protect the silt flat from scouring.

Figure 7: Volunteers using woody debris to protect the silt flat from scouring.

Figure 8: Part of the original head wall approximately 3 m high and 20 m wide.

Figure 8: Part of the original head wall approximately 3 m high and 20 m wide.

Figure 9:  Part of structure constructed to stabilise the head wall.

Figure 9: Part of structure constructed to stabilise the head wall.

Contact information: Dr Alan Lane, Coordinator Popes Glen Bushcare Group, PO Box 388, Blackheath NSW 2785, Australia. Tel: +61 2 4787 7097; Paul Vale, Deputy Coordinator Popes Glen Bushcare Group, 81 Prince Edward St, Blackheath NSW 2785, Australia. Tel: +61 2 4787 8080; and Ray Richardson, Chairman of Steering Committee, Environmental Trust Grant 2011/CBR/0098. Tel: +61 2 4759 2534.

Slopes2Summit Bushlinks Project

Keywords – landscape, connectivity, restoration, revegetation, NSW southwest slopes

The Slopes2Summit (S2S) Bushlinks project commenced in August 2012 and is in the first stage of implementing on-ground works to build landscape-scale connectivity across private lands in the southwest Slopes of NSW – from the wet and dry forest ecosystems of the upper catchment and reserves to the threatened Grassy Box Woodlands of the lower slopes and plains (Fig 1.).

Fig 1. Map of the S2S area and priority landscapes for Bushlinks

Fig 1. Map of the S2S area and priority landscapes for Bushlinks

The increasing isolation of plant and animal populations in “island” reserves scattered through an agricultural landscape is a recognised threat to the long term viability and resilience of ecosystems under potential impact of climate change. If we can increase the viable breeding habitat through off-reserve remnant conservation, and increase the habitat for dispersal by increasing connectivity, we may be able to influence the trajectory for some of our species – the Squirrel Glider (Petaurus norfolcensis)) and threatened woodland birds in particular.

The S2S Bushlinks Project is attempting to address connectivity issues through the following approaches:

1. Cross property planning. Foster and encourage cross property planning for habitat connectivity between neighbours, community, Landcare and/or subcatchment groups resulting in more integrated on-ground works projects, and raising awareness of the benefits of connectivity for wildlife.

2. On-ground investment in connectivity. The project is partnering with farmers and land managers to support and encourage fencing and revegetation in strategic places in the landscape with the objective of increasing habitat connectivity.  S2S Bushlinks applies scientific principles to the site assessments and evaluation, which then sets the level of investment in a site.  High scoring sites receive the highest rates of rebate, but the provision of low levels of public investment in sites that may not be of high priority is important for fostering participation in revegetation of any sort to encourage the culture of caring for the land.

Site assessment and scoring for funding level uses the following criteria:

  • Connectivity and landscape value – Does the site link to or create new patches of habitat according to principles of habitat connectivity? (Fig 2)  Is there existing vegetation in 1000ha radius around the site in an optimal range of 30-60%?
  • Area : perimeter ratio – Bigger blocks of revegetation are more cost-efficient and better habitat than linear strips of revegetation, and the project scoring encourages landholder to go bigger and wider in order to qualify for a higher level of funding.
  • Habitat Values – Does the site have existing values like old paddock trees, rocky outcrops or intact native ground layer, and therefore become a more valuable site? Is it in the more fertile, productive parts of the landscape and therefore of more productivity benefit for wildlife as well?
  • Carbon value – The scoring is based on the size of the revegetation and rainfall zone. The CFI Reforestation tool is being used to value the collective potential carbon sequestration of the Bushlinks project.

The emphasis on cross-property planning flows through to the implementation of on-ground works. Landholders are encouraged to work with neighbours and the site evaluation system is used to assess site value without the property boundaries – cooperation makes the site bigger and usually increases the connectivity value, and therefore scores higher.

3. Review and adaptive management process. The site assessment is to be reviewed in July 2013 against the objectives – did it work to prioritise sites well – did we invest wisely? The scientists and experts are then able to work closely with Holbrook Landcare to adjust the project eligibility, assessment and evaluation criteria to continually improve the outcomes in subsequent funding years.

4. Monitoring framework. As part of the in-kind contribution to the project, S2S partners Dr Dave Watson, CSU Albury and Dr. Veronica Doerr, CSIRO are working towards a framework for the long-term monitoring of landscape scale connectivity for continental-scale initiatives like Great Eastern Ranges (GER).  As part of a GER Environmental Trust Project in 2013, an expert panel workshop will be convened to begin this process in 2013.

The framework will then be used to pilot a project-scale design for Bushlinks, which will allow us to measure ecological outcomes.

Bushlinks will contribute to the Slope2Summit portal of the Atlas of Living Australia, supported by the Slopes2Summit facilitator. To develop community participation in monitoring and evaluation, participants and the wider community will be encouraged to contribute wildlife sightings and other data to the atlas.

The S2S partnership applied for funds through the Australian Governments Clean Energy Futures Biodiversity Fund in 2011 and was successful in the 2011/12 funding year for a six year project. Holbrook Landcare Network is managing the S2S Bushlinks Project on behalf of the Slopes2Summit and the Great Eastern Ranges Initiative, in partnership with Murray CMA.

Contact: Kylie Durant, Bushlinks Project Officer, Holbrook Landcare Network, PO Box 121 Holbrook, NSW 2644 Australia. Tel: +61 2 6036 3121

Fig 2. Summary of the connectivity model outlined in Doerr, V.A.J., Doerr, E. D and Davies, M.J. (2010) Does Structural Connectivity Facilitate Dispersal of Native Species in Australia’s Fragmented Terrestrial Landscapes? CEE Review 08-007 (SR44). Collaboration for Environmental Evidence: www.environmentalevidence.org/SR44.html

Fig 2. Summary of the connectivity model outlined in Doerr, V.A.J., Doerr, E. D and Davies, M.J. (2010) Does Structural Connectivity Facilitate Dispersal of Native Species in Australia’s Fragmented Terrestrial Landscapes? CEE Review 08-007 (SR44). Collaboration for Environmental Evidence: http://www.environmentalevidence.org/SR44.html

Fig 3. Revegetation in the farming landscape in the Southwest Slopes of NSW

Fig 3. Revegetation in the farming landscape in the Southwest Slopes of NSW

 

 

West Hume Landcare Group – Taking stock, 24 years on

Judy Frankenberg

Key words: agricultural landscape restoration, community involvement, salinity, threatened species

The West Hume Landcare Group was formed in 1989 as a community response to land degradation in the area. Funding to employ a coordinator for three years was obtained in 1990. This enabled a high level of project activity in addition to tree planting, including a roadside vegetation survey, farm planning workshops, demonstration sites for ground water recharge and discharge management, and perennial pasture establishment. In the first 5 years of its existence, the group organised nearly 250 different events, attracted funding of over $500,000 and managed 17 different projects.

The second 5 years saw a period of consolidation – then, from late 1997, the employment of a full time project officer enabled  the development of a Land and Water Management Plan.  By early 2000 the Group had attracted a total of $1,000,000 in project funding over 11 years.

“Taking Charge of Recharge” was the largest project undertaken by the West Hume Landcare Group, commencing in 2001. It involved 80 properties, with a total of 170,009 local trees and shrubs planted on 370 ha.  Some 93 ha of remnant vegetation were fenced over the two years of the project. This project was the climax of a very busy 12 years of the Landcare Group’s life, during which 400,000 trees and shrubs were planted in a wide variety of projects across the landcare area – in addition to direct seeding and natural regeneration.  This revegetation had a variety of purposes, including recharge and discharge management, corridor linkages between remnants, vegetation connections specifically designed to strengthen the local (threatened) Squirrel Glider (Petaurus norfolcensis) population, and livestock shelter.

Many of the planting projects initially involved only small numbers of trees, with a low proportion of shrubs.  They were important in giving landholders confidence that tree planting was a credible farm management activity and in their ability to succeed in species selection and establishment.  The Landcare group provided a lot of support in species selection, and, as the demand for shrubs grew, the nurseries responded by increasing their availability.

Nearly all revegetation in West Hume has used local species, and as far as possible these were grown from locally sourced seed.  The diversity of shrub species used increased over the years as knowledge and availability of the local flora improved.

Roadside survey. Local knowledge was greatly increased following the roadside survey carried out by 38 landholder volunteers.  They surveyed 460 km of road, recording floristics, conservation value and causes of degradation.  A total of 111 native species were recorded, including 28 shrubs, but very few road sections had greater than 50% shrub cover.  Many of the shrubs. grasses and forbs recorded are considered rare in the landcare area.  Knowledge of the whereabouts of these small remnants has allowed seed collection and propagation of some of them in seed production areas on local properties and at the Wirraminna Environmental Centre at Burrumbuttock.  The need for this local source of seed has been emphasised by the observation that in the case of a few acacia species, local forms are different from those growing in neighbouring areas.

Landcare survey. Landholder views about the importance of vegetation was shown in a landcare survey carried out in 1999. A majority of the 60% of respondents considered that dieback of trees and the lack of shrubs, understorey and wildflowers was of concern and there was a clear concern expressed about the decline of native birds in the area.

When the “Taking Charge of Recharge” project was funded in 2001, the response of landholders was enthusiastic.  The group members were eager to take advantage of the high level of incentives available in this project to increase the scale of planting beyond that generally undertaken previously.  While the prime purpose of the funding was for recharge management, members were keen to establish local species in ecologically appropriate sites.  Ecological and botanical skills within the group were able to support the species choices.

This confidence in the value and feasibility of large revegetation projects has been continued in subsequent years when the Murray CMA has offered good incentives for large area plantings.

Contact:  Judy Frankenberg, +61 2 6026 5326, Email: judy@frankenberg.com.au

Fig 1. School student volunteers planting in block AA on ‘Warrangee’ in 1995.

Fig 1. School student volunteers planting in block AA on ‘Warrangee’ in 1995.

Fig 2. Resulting tree and shrub habitats created from 1995 planting on block AA, 2013.

Fig 2. Resulting tree and shrub habitats created from 1995 planting on block AA, 2013.

Fig 3. ‘Corridors of green’ project, 2013, planted in 1994, “Warrangee” .

Fig 3. ‘Corridors of green’ project, 2013, planted in 1994, “Warrangee” .

Holbrook Landcare “Rebirding the Holbrook Landscape” – assessing performance and learning in action

Chris Cumming and  Kylie Durant

Key words: tree dieback, lerps, restoring the agricultural landscape, community involvement, Holbrook Landcare Network

Holbrook producers established Holbrook Landcare Network in 1988.  It was one of the first Landcare groups in Australia, covering initially 171,000 ha of productive agricultural land in the upper reaches of the Murray Darling Basin. The organisation has directly managed grants of more than $6M across more than 85 projects to address NRM and agricultural issues including salinity and erosion control, soil and pasture management the protection of wildlife habitat.

Of the habitat projects, one of the most successful has been the “Rebirding Project”. A recognition of the importance of birds in the landscape occurred in 1994, when there was widespread concern in Holbrook over eucalypt tree dieback and the potential loss of paddock trees in the landscape. Holbrook Landcare commissioned a survey that identified 41% of the trees in the district were showing signs of dieback, and initiated (with support from our own extension staff and Greening Australia) education programs to inform landholders about the causes of dieback, including the link between cycles of lerp and other insect attack exacerbated by the loss of insectivorous birds.

In 1999 the group was successful in gaining funding for the “Rebirding the Holbrook Landscape to mitigate dieback” revegetation program through the Australian Governments Natural Heritage Trust (NHT), with the aim of drawing birds back onto farms and reducing eucalypt tree dieback.

Actions undertaken. Bird surveys were undertaken at 94 study sites in remnant vegetation on hills, flats and along creek lines. Education components succeeded in engaging the community and increased community knowledge and awareness of habitat issues in Holbrook.  The research information was used to recommend specific guidelines for the revegetation component, including ideal patch size (min 6ha), distance to remnant (1km), position in the landscape and habitat values.

The Rebirding on-ground projects (1999 – 2002) achieved 2150ha of remnant and revegetation work and put 475,000 plants back in the landscape across 118 properties – estimated at 80% of the Holbrook landholders.

Outcomes achieved. Measuring success of the program was very important to the community. A partnership with CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems gave rise to a research project measuring bird use of plantings and remnant vegetation on local farms in 2004 to 2006.  This found that a range of bird species rapidly colonised planted areas and showed evidence of breeding activity, a positive message about the early signs of success of the Rebirding project. Tree health monitoring is ongoing by the community. Current ANU research is showing the positive benefit of the revegetation work in the landscape at the site, farm and landscape scale. The science is therefore indicating that yes, “rebirding” of the Holbrook landscape is underway, and HLN will continue to look to science to help us with the longer term outcomes for birds and tree health, and provide the feedback to us to adaptively manage our programs for the best outcomes.

The lessons and recommendations that come from the research are being applied directly to inform the design of subsequent programs such as the current major biodiversity project being managed by Holbrook Landcare – the “Slopes to Summit Bushlinks Project”.

Contacts: Chris Cumming (Executive Officer) and Kylie Durant,  Holbrook Landcare Network, PO Box 181 Holbrook NSW, Australia.  2644 Tel: +61 2 6036 3121, Email: kyliedurant@holbrooklandcare.org.au.

Paddock tree health field day, Holbrook, 2011.

Paddock tree health field day, Holbrook, 2011.

Before planting habitat blocks at Woomargama station, Holbrook.

Before planting habitat blocks at Woomargama station, Holbrook.

Stands of trees and shrubs established at Woomargama station, Holbrook.

Stands of trees and shrubs established at Woomargama station, Holbrook.

Regeneration of Lismore bushland cemetery, north coast NSW.

Key Words: bush regeneration, selective herbicides, transplanting, cemetery management

Since 2006, Lismore City Council’s Lismore Memorial Gardens (LMG) has been restoring and managing a 1.5ha  patch of regrowth Forest Red Gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis) grassy open forest in Goonellabah, north coast NSW – primarily for use as a bushland cemetery.  The site was part of a registered corridor for Koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus) and was in a highly weedy condition prior to the commencement of the project.  The understorey was dominated by Lantana (Lantana camara), constricting Koala movement, and most eucalypts had at least one multi-stemmed Camphor Laurel (Cinnamomum camphora) encircling it.

Bush regeneration works. In 2006 the lantana was mechanically cleared and Camphor Laurels were stem-injected with glyphosate herbicide. After woody weed removal, the ground stratum rapidly responded with a germination flush of herbaceous weeds, mainly Blue Billygoat Weed (Ageratum houstonianum), Farmers Friends (Bidens pilosa) and Broad-leaved Paspalum (Paspalum mandiocanum) although some native herbaceous species were also regenerating, particularly Basket Grass (Oplismenus aemulus), Weeping Grass (Microlaena stipoides) and Kidney Weed (Dichondra repens).

Subsequent detailed spot spraying with herbicides was undertaken; in the first few years on a monthly basis by volunteers, and more recently by a horticulture-trained LMG staff member after some workplace tuition in bush regeneration methods.

1. Resilient areas. Herbaceous weed was systematically sprayed with broad-leaf selective herbicides (Dicamba/MCPA plus surfactant) or glyphosate.  Three larger patches consolidated with native species fairly rapidly, while other areas in poorer condition colonised with fewer species or took longer to convert to native dominance.  There are now 69 species on site that  are characteristic of this ecosystem (including 8 tree species, 15 grasses, 5 sedges, 8 twiners/climbers, 5 ferns and 1 moss).  About 20 of these species have been added to the list since the start of the project and all existing species have vastly increased in cover and density. The intermittent watercourse area regenerated over time with wetland herbaceous species largely including Persicaria spp. and Cyperus exaltatus.

View of central area of the site after control of woody weed. (Camphor chipmulch was initially spread in error then later removed to allow natural regeneration)

Same area two years later, showing extensive regeneration of native grasses and forbs

2. Highly weedy edge.  Standard bush regeneration approaches over at least 2 years in an edge site proved intractable due to high weed contamination and low native richness. A trial was conducted in 2009to see if scalping and revegetation (using transplanting and direct seeding ) could reduce the amount of weed control required and improve native vegetation establishment. This involved removal by a grader of 10 cm of the weedy topsoil, with the remaining subsoil broken up with a backhoe and hand raked. Sods containing multiples of 10 species were taken from the healthier parts of the cemetery and transplanted to the raked site in mid- to late-September 2009, resulting in a total of 145 plants in each of three zones (one transplanted only, one transplanted plus direct seeded with 10 species and one neither transplanted nor seeded). Seven weeks later, when germination from the sods had occurred, it was observed that 17 species (i.e. seven more) had been transplanted (Table 1.) Very few individual transplants died.

Top10cm of weedy topsoil removed and subsoil broken up before transplanting native grass and forb sods

Subsequent monitoring found that all the two scalped and revegetated zones, while requiring monthly weed control initially, had consolidated to a very low weed state by 9 months.  There was little visible difference between them except that the seeded one contained two more species not present in the unseeded site. Within 18 months, both zones had very high cover levels of native vegetation, particularly native grasses, and weed control demand was substantially lower than adjacent edge sites treated with conventional spot spray methods alone.  The non-transplanted or seeded zone remained with low species diversity and was more exposed to weed cover.  It has since become an access track and requires higher weed control inputs than the adajacent revegetated areas.

Nine months after transplanting. With some weed control requirement, natives now well established and commencing a process of steady recolonisation

Lessons learned. The bush regeneration treatments have converted a weed-dominated site to a recognisable Forest Red Gum grassy open forest with a diverse understorey. Cemetery operations are ongoing with the condition of the bushland showing an improvement with each year. Evidence of wildlife use of the habitat is increasing. This is due to ongoing management support, continuing volunteer inputs and the deployment of staff with some training in weed and bushland management.  Although a range of highly problematic weeds (including Asian Copperburr,  Acalypha australis, Prairie Grass, Bromus uniloides, and Hairy Commelina, (Commelina bengahlensis ) were initially not adequately addressed and are now requiring additional treatment; the site is a viable demonstration site for not only restoration techniques but also the district’s grassy understorey species, once so widespread but now rarely conserved .

Contact: Tein McDonald 06 6682 2885 Email: teinm@ozemail.com.au – or Kris Whitney, Manager, Lismore Memorial Gardens, Email:  Kris.Whitney@lismore.nsw.gov.au

Grey Box grassy woodland restoration: Mandilla Reserve, Flagstaff Hill, South Australia

Key Words:  Minimal disturbance, bush regeneration, Eucalyptus microcarpa, volunteer, Bush For Life

The Site:  Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa) Grassy Woodland is listed as an endangered ecological community under the EPBC Act 1999. This ecological community was once widespread on the drier edge of the temperate grassy eucalypt woodland belt of south-eastern Australia. In South Australia, this community occupies less than 3 percent of the area it once did before European settlement. One of the remaining suburban remnants of this community can be found in Mandilla Reserve, Flagstaff Hill, SA. The reserve is surrounded by suburban houses and remains under threat from weed and pest invasion, lack of recruitment of canopy species plus degradation associated with urban encroachment (pollution runoff, rubbish, excessive stormwater). Since 1996 the Bush or Life program together with the City of Onkaparinga have supported community volunteers to care for and manage the bush regeneration work within the reserve. The objective was to restore the highly degraded Grey Box remnant into a woodland community representing the unique diverse vegetation it once housed.

Geoff and Barbara Moss, volunteers at Mandilla Reserve

Works:   Two very dedicated community members adopted the site in 1996 and began visiting on average 3 times per week. They used minimal disturbance bushcare techniques to tackle a carpet of bulb weeds such as Sparaxis (Sparaxis bulbifera), Soursob (Oxalis pes-caprae), Bridal Creeper (Asparagus asparagoides) and Cape Tulip (Moraea flaccida) mixed with highly invasive annual and perennial grass species. In the surrounding degraded areas, some strategic planting was also carried out using Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa), Sticky Hop Bush (Dodonaea viscosa) and Sweet Bursaria (Bursaria spinosa) and local sedge seedlings. Four areas were also hand direct seeded with native grasses to encourage ground cover recruitment and discourage weeds. All seed used was collected on site to ensure local provenance was maintained.

The flourishing Grey Box Grassy Woodland now found on the reserve

Success of the combination of natural regeneration and supplementary plantings

Results After thousands of volunteer hours, extensive regeneration of natives occurred on site. The volunteers’ work has transformed the reserve into a flourishing area of lilies, native grasses and understorey shrubs. Today, the vegetation in the reserve is virtually weed free and even native orchids are beginning to return. In addition, the area that the bushland covers has expanded as a result of the planting and direct seeding. Since these works, natural regeneration has also been observed of native sedges including Senecio, Carex, Juncus and native grasses.

Lessons learned:  Regular follow up for several years is vital to the success of any primary clearance work whether or not minimal disturbance techniques are used. Facilitated regeneration can be successfully used with bush regeneration providing it is strategic and complementary to and considerate of existing natural regeneration processes. Maintenance of the plantings or hand direct seeding is also vital to minimise competition from weeds and ensure their success.

Acknowledgements: This site is owned by the City of Onkaparinga Council and is managed in partnership with Trees For Life who train and support volunteers through its Bush For Life program. Thanks goes to Geoff and Barbara Moss, the site’s main volunteers.

Contact:  Jenna Currie, Bush For Life Regional Coordinator, Trees For Life jennac@treesforlife.org.au

Research Road Restoration, Strathalbyn, South Australia

Key Words: Minimal disturbance, bush regeneration, Eucalyptus fasciculosa, volunteer, Bush For Life.

The Site: In June 1996 Trees For Life (TFL), a community based not-for-profit organisation, established a volunteer bush regeneration site (known as a Bush For Life site) on a 1.4km long, one chain wide roadside remnant on Research Road about 6km south of Strathalbyn, SA.  At this stage the road was still being used as a vehicle track.  The vegetation was a very diverse Pink Gum (Eucalyptus fasciculosa) Open woodland with occasional mallee eucalypts, a shrub understorey, sedge and herbaceous groundcover and native grasses with many locally rare and vulnerable species including the nationally vulnerable Silver Daisy-bush (Olearia pannosa ssp. pannosa ).  The largest weed problem was Bridal Creeper  (Asparagus asparagoides) which blanketed the site in the cooler, wetter months.  Other threats to the understorey diversity included broadleaf weeds typical of the dry, agricultural landscapes of the lower Murray Plains.  These weeds included Pincushion(Scabiosa atropurpurea), Wild Sage (Salvia verbenaca) and Horehound (Marrubium vulgare ).

Diverse grassy understorey found on the site

Works:  Volunteers worked on a section of the 1,400m long, one chain wide road reserve, using minimal disturbance techniques. The regenerators very carefully removed Bridal Creeper, broad leaf weeds and weed grasses; but they had to contend with the continual degradation of the remaining area. It was really only a heavily rutted, two-wheel track suitable for dry weather use only, but was subjected to indiscriminate and illegal use through all seasons, including rubbish dumping, firewood collection and “bush-bashing”.

The Alexandrina Council closed the road to motor vehicles in September 2008 and it has been allowed to recover now for 4 years.  After the road closure, discussions between Council and TFL centred on whether to leave the vehicle track to regenerate by itself or to “rip” the track to fill in the ruts and promote germination. As ripping the track was predicted to have have promoted prolific broadleaf and grassy weed establishment, particularly given the close proximity of weedy agricultural land adjacent to the linear reserve, the BFL principle of minimal disturbance prevailed and the track was left to regenerate without other intervention.

Before road closure

Results: Today there is a proliferation of native species germinating on the track, with native regeneration on the track itself far outweighing the weed regeneration.

The ruts have filled with leaf litter and have encouraged the germination of spear grasses Austrostipa sp.) and wallaby grasses(Austrodanthonia sp.). As the volunteers discover new seedlings they protected them with branches; but regeneration has become so significant that this is no longer practical.  .

Many Mallee Honey-myrtle (Melaleuca acuminata) and Dryland Tea-tree (Melaleuca lanceolata) seedlings have germinated and are thriving in bare patches.  Many other species are also germinating, including: Golden Wattle (Acacia pycnantha), Hakea Wattle (Acacia hakeoides,) Sweet Bursaria (Bursaria spinosa), eucalypts (Eucalyptus spp.), Ruby Saltbush (Enchylaena tomentosa), Climbing Saltbush ( Einadia nutans ssp. nutans), Old Man’s Beard (Clematis microphylla var. microphylla), Australian Bindweed (Convolvulus sp., and New Holland Daisy (Vittadinia sp.). Black-anther Flax-lily (Dianella revoluta, Mallee Blue-flower (Halgania cyanea,),  Rosemary Dampiera (Dampiera rosmarinifolia ) and Quandong ( Santalum acuminatum) are spreading from the sides onto the track. Areas where once a vehicle could drive have now been reduced to a narrow walking track between seedlings.

Native grasses regenerating on the road after closure

Treatment with Bridal Creeper rust (Puccinia myrsiphylli) began in 2004/2005 with wider and more intense applications applied every year from 2008. In the last couple of years rust has established itself over a large proportion of the site with very little flowering and fruiting detected during 2011.  Volunteers carefully treat plants at both ends of the site by ‘tonging’ with glyphosate  (i.e. using tongs with sponge tips as herbicide applicators) which has been very successful.  Through careful and consistent work, most of the broad-leaved weeds have been virtually removed from site, with only isolated germinations being detected and removed. One other weed – : Soursob (Oxalis pes-caprae – is prolific on site; and has yet to be targeted for control.

Rabbits re-entered the site early in 2006 and by mid-2008 had bred up to occupy 15 locations on site. They caused significant damage to the native vegetation until controlled by baiting in March 2010. The increase in native grasses in the areas treated has been significant.

Lessons learned:  Four significant events have had the greatest effect on this turnaround: the road closure, the control of rabbits, the establishment of Bridal Creeper rust and most significantly the consistent hard work of the site’s Bush For Life volunteers.

Acknowledgements:  This site is owned by the Alexandrina Council and is managed in partnership with Trees For Life who train and support volunteers through its Bush For Life program.

Contact:  Sue Bradstreet.  Regional Coordinator, Trees For Life sueb@treesforlife.org.au

Volunteers Maggie Hincks and Dean Mortimer assisting the regeneration