Category Archives: Ecosystem services

Peniup Ecological Restoration Project

Justin Jonson

Key words: reconstruction, planning, direct seeding, monitoring, innovation

Introduction. The Peniup Restoration Project was initiated in 2007, when Greening Australia and Bush Heritage Australia jointly purchased a 2,406 hectare property as a contribution to the conservation and restoration objectives of Gondwana Link. The property has an average annual rainfall of approximately 450mm per year and had previously been farmed in a traditional broad acre sheep and cropping rotation system. The site is located within a highly diverse mosaic of varying soils and associated vegetation associations across Mallee, Mallee Shrubland, and Woodland type plant communities.

Planning and 2008 Operational Implementation. In 2008, Greening Australia’s Restoration Manager Justin Jonson developed a detailed ecological restoration plan for 950 hectares of cleared land on the northern section of the property. Information and procedures applied for that work are detailed in the EMR Journal article Ecological restoration of cleared agricultural land in Gondwana Link: lifting the bar at ‘Peniup’ (Jonson 2010). Further information is also available for the specific vegetation associations established via the Peniup Restoration Plan, with species lists according to height stratum, including seedlings planted by hand which were nitrogen fixing or from the Proteaceous genera. Funding for the initial 250 hectares of restoration were raised and the project implemented in 2008 (Fig.1).

Figure 1. Map showing the 2008 operational areas at Peniup with replanted communities replanted by direct seeding, and GPS locations of permanent monitoring plots (n=42), patches of hand planted seedlings (n=31) and seed (n=61), pre-planning soil sampling sites (n=115) and contour oriented tree belts to ensure establishment across the site (direct seeded understory consistently here).

Figure 1. The 2008 operational areas at Peniup showing communities replanted by direct seeding, and GPS locations of permanent monitoring plots (n=42), patches of hand planted seedlings (n=31) and seed (n=61), pre-planning soil sampling sites (n=115) and contour oriented tree belts to ensure establishment across the site.

Figure 2: Map showing GPS locations of permanent monitoring plots established at Peniup.

Figure 2. Location of 42 Permanent Monitoring Plots established in 2008 Peniup Ecological Restoration Project. Recruits from the direct seeding were measured 5 months after implementation, and then annually to assess persistence and long term development

Monitoring. A total of 42 monitoring plots were laid out across seven of the nine plant communities established (Fig.2). Details of the methodology, results and ongoing evaluation have been published (Jonson 2010; Hallet et al. 2014; Perring et al. 2015).

Results to date.  Monitoring indicates approximately 3.8 million plants were re-established by the direct seeding across the 250 hectare project area.  The numbers established in each plant community are shown in Fig.3 and represent the majority of plant species in each reference model. After 8 years it is clear that the project’s objectives are on track to being achieved, considering: a) absence of agricultural weeds; b) nutrient cycling through build up and decomposition of litter and other detritus;  seed-rain by short-lived nitrogen-fixing Acacia shrubs, c) diverse structural development of re-establishing species; and,  d) presence of many target animals using the site. Peniup’s progress in terms of recovery of the National Restoration Standards’s 6 ecosystem attributes is depicted and tablulated in Appendix 1.

Figure 3: Chart showing per hectare estimates of plant establishment counts by restoration plant community.

Figure 3. Per hectare estimates of Peniup plant establishment counts by restoration plant community.

Figure 4. Photo of riparian/drainage Tall Yate open woodland community with mid and understory shrubs and mid-story trees.

Figure 4. Riparian/drainage Tall Yate open woodland community at Peniup – with mid and understory shrubs and mid-story trees.

Innovation. As an adaptive management approach, small, discrete patches of seedlings of the proteaceous family were hand planted to make best use of small quantities of seed. Planting of these 5,800 seedlings in small patches, termed ‘Nodes’, provided further resource heterogeneity within relatively uniform seed mixes (by soil type). The impetus for this approach was to create concentrated food sources for nectarivorous fauna, while increasing pollination and long-term plant species viability (Jonson 2010).

Figure 5. Map showing distribution of Proteaceous Nodes.

Figure 5. Distribution of Proteaceous Nodes.

Lessons learned. Continuity of operational management is a critical component to achieving best practice ecological restoration. Project managers must be involved to some degree in all aspects of works, because flow on consequences of decisions can have high impact on outcomes. Detailed planning is also needed with large scale projects; otherwise the likelihood of capturing a large percent of site specific information is low. Finally, the use of GIS software for information management and site design is an absolute necessity.

Figure 6. Photo showing Banksia media and Hakea corymbosa plants with seed set.

Figure 6. Banksia media and Hakea corymbosa plants with seed set after 5 years.

Figure 7. hoto showing bird nest built within re-establishing Yate tree at Peniup within 5 years.

Figure 7. Bird nest within 5-year old Yate tree at Peniup.

Figure 8. Photo showing ecological processes in development including, a) absence of agricultural weeds, b) nutrient cycling and seed-rain deposition by short-lived nitrogen-fixing Acacia shrubs, c) diverse structural development of re-establishing species, and d) development of leaf litter and associated detritus for additional nutrient cycling.

Figure 8.  Five-year-old vegetation is contributing to a visible build up of organic matter and decomposition is indicating cycling of nutrients.

Stakeholders and Funding bodies. Funding for this Greening Australia restoration project was provided by The Nature Conservancy, a carbon offset investment by Mirrabella light bulb company, and other government and private contributions.

Contact information. Justin Jonson, Managing Director, Threshold Environmental, PO Box 1124, Albany WA 6330 Australia, Tel:  +61 427 190 465; jjonson@thresholdenvironmental.com.au

See also EMR summary Monjebup

See also EMR feature article Penium project

Watch video: Justin Jonson 2014 AABR presentation on Peniup

Appendix 1. Self-evaluation of recovery level at Peniup in 2016, using templates from the 5-star system (National Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration in Australia)

Fig 9. Peniup recovery wheel template

Evaluation table2

Brady Swamp wetland complex, Grampians National Park, Victoria

Mark Bachmann

Key words: wetland restoration, Wannon River, hydrology, drainage, Gooseneck Swamp

A series of wetlands associated with the floodplain of the Wannon River (Walker, Gooseneck, and Brady Swamps), situated approximately 12 km north east of Dunkeld in western Victoria, were partially drained from the 1950s onwards for grazing purposes (Fig 1). A portion of these wetlands was later acquired and incorporated into the Grampians National Park (and other peripheral reserves) in the mid-1980s, managed by Parks Victoria. However, the balance of the wider wetland and floodplain area remained under private ownership, creating a degree of uncertainty surrounding reinstatement of water regime – an issue that was left unresolved for over two decades.

Many years of planning work, including modelling studies and biological investigations by a range of organisations, never quite managed to adequately resolve the best way to design and progress wetland restoration work in this area. To address the impasse, at the request of the Glenelg Hopkins CMA in early 2013, Nature Glenelg Trust proposed a staged restoration trial process which was subsequently agreed to by landowners, neighbours, government agencies, and local community groups.

Figure 1. Image from the present day: showing artificial drains (red lines/arrows) constructed to drain Walker, Gooseneck and Brady Swamps, as it operated from the 1950s–2013.

Figure 1. Image from the present day: showing artificial drains (red lines/arrows) constructed to drain Walker, Gooseneck and Brady Swamps, as it operated from the 1950s–2013.

Trials and permanent works undertaken.

Initial trials. The restoration process began in August 2013 with the installation of the first trial sandbag weir structure to regulate the artificial drain at Gooseneck Swamp. Its immediate success in reinstating wetland levels led to similar trials being initiated at Brady Swamp and Walker Swamp (Fig. 2) in 2014.

Figure 2. The volunteer sandbagging crew at the artificial drainage outlet from Walker Swamp - August 2014.

Figure 2. The volunteer sandbagging crew at the artificial drainage outlet from Walker Swamp – August 2014.

Permanent works were ultimately undertaken to reinstate the breached natural earthen banks at Brady and Gooseneck Swamps (Figure 3), implemented by Nature Glenelg Trust in early 2015.

Figure 3a. Trial Structure on the Brady Swamp outlet drain in 2014

Figure 3b. The same view shown in Figure 3a, after the completion of permanent works in 2015

Results. The works have permanently reinstated the alternative, original watercourse and floodplain of the Wannon River, which now activates when the water levels in these wetlands reach their natural sill level. This is predicted to have a positive impact on a wide range of flora and fauna species.

Monitoring is in place to measure changes to vegetation and the distribution and status of key fauna species, such as waterbirds, fish and frogs. Due to drought conditions experienced in 2015, to is too early to describe the full ecological impact of the works at this time.

4. Gooseneck Swamp in Sept 2014: the second season of the restoration trial, just prior to the implementation of permanent restoration works

Figure 4. Gooseneck Swamp in Sept 2014: the second season of the restoration trial, just prior to the implementation of permanent restoration works

Lessons learned. The success of these trials has been based on their tangible ability to demonstrate, to all parties involved, the potential wetland restoration outcome for the sites; made possible by using simple, low-cost, impermanent methods. To ensure the integrity of the trial structures, the sandbags used for this purpose are made of geotextile fabric, with a minimum field service life of approximately 5 years.

The trials were critical for building community confidence and collecting real operational data for informing the development of longer-term measures to increase the depth and duration of inundation.

A vital aspect of the trials has been the level of community participation, not only at the sandbagging “events”, but also the subsequent commitment to ecological monitoring, for helping evaluate the biological impacts of hydrological reinstatement. For example, the Hamilton Field Naturalists Club has been undertaking monthly bird monitoring counts that are helping Nature Glenelg Trust to develop a picture of the ecological value of these wetlands and their role in the wider landscape, including the detection of international migratory species.

Acknowledgements. Project partners include Parks Victoria, Hamilton Field Naturalists Club, the Glenelg Hopkins CMA, Macquarie Forestry and other private landholders. Volunteers from several other groups have also assisted with the trials. Grant funding was generously provided by the Victorian Government.

Contact. Mark Bachmann, Nature Glenelg Trust, PO Box 2177, MT GAMBIER, SA 5290 Australia. Tel +61 8 8797 8181, Mob 0421 97 8181; Email mark.bachmann@natureglenelg.org.au. Web| www.natureglenelg.org.au

See also:

Long Swamp EMR short summary

Picanninnie Ponds EMR short summary

Defining reference communities for ecological restoration of Monjebup North Reserve in Gondwana Link

Justin Jonson

Key words: reconstruction; reference ecosystem; planning; ecosystem assemblage; monitoring

Introduction. Bush Heritage Australia’s (BHA) Monjebup North Reserve is a property that directly contributes to the conservation, restoration and connectivity objectives of Gondwana Link – one of Australia’s leading landscape scale restoration initiatives. Building on a solid history of revegetation projects implemented by collaborators from Greening Australia and individual practioners, the BHA management team initiated and funded a $40K Ecological Restoration Planning Project for 400 hectares of marginal farmland in need of restoration.

The specific aim of the Monjebup North Ecological Restoration Project was to 1) plan and 2) implement a ‘five star’ ecological restoration project as defined by the Gondwana Link Restoration Standards. Overarching goals included the re-establishment of vegetation assemblages consistent with the surrounding mosaic of plant communities, with a specific focus on local fauna and the restoration of habitat conditions to support their populations.

Figure 1: Map showing GPS locations of soil auger sampling locations.

Figure 1: Map showing GPS locations of soil auger sampling locations.

Planning and identification of reference communities for restoration of cleared land. The Monjebup North Ecological Restoration Project began with a third party consultancy contract to develop the Monjebup North Ecological Restoration Plan. This work began with the collection of detailed field data, including 120 soil survey pits collected to define the extent and boundaries between different soil-landform units occurring on the site (Fig.1). In the absence of previously defined and/or published information on local plant communities, an additional vegetation survey and report, The Vegetation of Monjebup North, was developed, which included 36 vegetation survey sites widely distributed across the surrounding vegetation (Fig.2). A total of 10 primary vegetation associations were defined within remnant vegetation on and around the site from this work (Fig.3). Additional soil survey pits were established within these defined plant communities to develop relationships between observed vegetation associations and soil-landform units. Cross referencing this information to the 400 hectare area of cleared land resulted in the delineation of seven core reference communities to guide the restoration project. These restoration communities ranged from Banksia media and Eucalyptus pluricaulis Mallee Scrub associations on spongelitic clay soils, to Eucalyptus occidentalis (Yate) Swamp Woodland associations located in low-lying areas where perched ephemeral swamps exist.

Figure 2: Map showing GPS locations of flora survey sampling sites.

Figure 2: Map showing GPS locations of flora survey sampling sites.

Figure 3: Output map of dominant vegetation associations at Monjebup North Reserve.

Figure 3: Output map of dominant vegetation associations at Monjebup North Reserve.

Figure 4: Mosaic of plant communities replanted at Monjebup North in 2012 using direct seeding and hand planted seedlings. A tractor fitted with GPS unit enables real time seeding passes, as shown on the map.

Figure 4: Mosaic of plant communities replanted at Monjebup North in 2012 using direct seeding and hand planted seedlings. A tractor fitted with GPS unit enables real time seeding passes, as shown on the map.

Figure 5: Mosaic of plant communities replanted at Monjebup North in 2013 using direct seeding and hand planted seedlings. A tractor fitted with GPS unit enables real time seeding passes, as shown on the map.

Figure 5: Mosaic of plant communities replanted at Monjebup North in 2013 using direct seeding and hand planted seedlings. A tractor fitted with GPS unit enables real time seeding passes, as shown on the map.

Seed sourcing. Seed from approximately 119 species were collected on and around the site for the restoration works. Seed collections for some species were collected from a number of geographically separate sub-populations, however these were never located further than 10 kilometers from site. Collections were made from at least 20 individuals for each species, and preference was made in collecting from populations which had 200+ individuals.

The primary on-ground works were initiated across four years from 2012 to 2015, starting with a 100 ha project area in 2012 (Fig.4), and a 140 ha area in the following year (Fig.5), both by Threshold Environmental Pty Ltd. A combination of direct seeding and hand planted seedlings treatments were employed, where seed mixes were developed to achieve the bulk of plant recruitment across each of the soil-land form units, and nursery grown seedlings were planted by hand for species found to be difficult to establish from direct seeding or for which stocking densities were to be more closely controlled. This work involved 13 communities and 148 species.

A number of innovative operational treatments were employed. These included grading 5 kilometers of contour banks and spreading chipped vegetation and seed pods, and 180 in situ burning patches where branch and seed material from fire-responsive serotinous species were piled and burned (Fig.6 before, Fig.7 after). Seedlings for rare, high nectar producing plant species were also planted in 203 discrete ‘node’ configurations. Habitat debris piles made of on-site stone and large branch materials were also constructed at 16 locations across the 2012 project areas.

Fig.6 In situ burning of serotinous branch and seed material

Figure 7: Photo of Dryandra nervosa juvenile plants establishing from one of the in situ burn pile locations. Other species used for this technique included Dryandra cirsioides, Dryandra drummondii, Hakea pandanicarpa, Isopogon buxifolius, and Hakea corymbosa.

Figure 7: Photo of Dryandra nervosa juvenile plants establishing from one of the in situ burn pile locations. Other species used for this technique included Dryandra cirsioides, Dryandra drummondii, Hakea pandanicarpa, Isopogon buxifolius, and Hakea corymbosa.

Monitoring. Monitoring plots were established to evaluate the direct seeded revegetation, as presented in the Project Planting and Monitoring Report 2012-2013. Fauna monitoring has also been undertaken by BHA using pit fall traps, LFA soil records, and bird minute surveys.

Results to date. Monitoring collected from post establishment plots in from the 2012 and 2013 areas (2 years after seeding) showed initial establishment of 2.4 million trees and shrubs from the direct seeding (Fig.8 and Fig.9). Results of faunal monitoring are yet to be reported, but monitoring at the site for vegetation and faunal is ongoing.

Figure 8: Graphic representation of monitoring results from 2012 and 2013 operational programs showing scaled up plant counts across the plant community systems targeted for reconstruction.

Figure 8: Graphic representation of monitoring results from 2012 and 2013 operational programs showing scaled up plant counts across the plant community systems targeted for reconstruction.

Figure 9: Photo showing 3 year old establishment and growth of a Banksia media/Eucalyptus falcata Mallee shrub plant community with granitic soil influence from the 2012 Monjebup North restoration project.

Figure 9: Photo showing 3 year old establishment and growth of a Banksia media/Eucalyptus falcata Mallee shrub plant community with granitic soil influence from the 2012 Monjebup North restoration project.

Lessons learned and future directions. The decision to develop a restoration plan in advance of undertaking any on-ground works was a key component contributing to the success of the project to date. Sufficient lead time for contracted restoration practioners to prepare (>12 months) was also a key contributor to the success of the delivery. Direct collaboration with seed collectors with extensive local knowledge also greatly benefited project inputs and outcomes.

Stakeholders and Funding bodies. Major funding for the project was provided by Southcoast Natural Resource Management Inc., via the Federal Government’s National Landcare Program and the Biodiversity Fund. Of note is also Bush Heritage Australia’s significant investment in the initial purchase of the property, without which the project would not have been possible.

Contact information. Justin Jonson, Managing Director, Threshold Environmental, PO BOX 1124, ALBANY WA 6330 +61 427 190 465; jjonson@thresholdenvironmental.com.au

See also EMR summary Peniup

 Watch video: Justin Jonson 2014 AABR presentation

Subtropical rainforest restoration at the Rous Water Rainforest Reserve, Rocky Creek Dam, 1983 – 2016

Key words: Lowland subtropical rainforest, ecosystem reconstruction, drinking water catchment, continual improvement process.

Introduction. Rous Water is actively engaged in ecosystem reconstruction within the drinking water catchment areas it manages on behalf of the community. The aim of these activities is to improve the functioning of essential natural processes that sustain water quality. The methodology used for rainforest restoration by Rous Water has evolved over time through an ‘adaptive management’ process at Rocky Creek Dam. This adaptive management approach has demonstrated that effective large scale sub-tropical regeneration at Rocky Creek Dam is achieved through complete removal of competing plants. The technique has become known as the Woodford Method and is now being applied at other Rous Water restoration sites.

The Rous Water Rainforest Reserve at Rocky Creek Dam is set in the northern headwaters of the Richmond River catchment, on the southern rim of the Tweed shield volcano. Basalt flows from the volcano have produced nutrient rich Red Ferrosol that supported diverse sub-tropical rainforest ecosystems across the region, until the rainforest was largely cleared for agriculture in the late 19th century. The Rocky Creek Dam site is adjacent to the Big Scrub Flora Reserve, the largest remaining remnant subtropical rainforest in the region. This reserve acts as a reference site for the restoration project (Fig 1).

Figure 1. Detail of the regeneration areas at Rocky Creek Dam, showing the areas treated and the year of the initial works

Figure 1. Detail of the regeneration areas at Rocky Creek Dam, showing the areas treated and the year of the initial works

Clearing of land in the vicinity of Rocky Creek Dam by early settlers commenced in the 1890s, with the cleared lands used for the establishment of dairy farms and a sawmill. In 1949, following acquisition of the site by Rous County Council (now Rous Water) for the construction of a water supply dam, this former farmland had reverted to weedy regrowth characterised by a mosaic of native/exotic grass, Lantana (Lantana camara) and Camphor Laurel (Cinnamomum camphora) which supressed any expansion or recovery of scattered rainforest remnants. Transformation of the site commenced in 1983 when Rous Water became actively engaged in ecosystem recovery by systematically removing weeds that suppressed rainforest regeneration, a practice that continues today.

Rainforest restoration methods. The practices and management tools used in rainforest restoration at the site have been previously described by Woodford (2000) and Sanger et al. (2008). The work method typically involves the systematic poisoning and slashing of weeds to promote recruitment of rainforest plants from the soil seed bank and then to facilitate the growth of suppressed rainforest plants, providing a structural framework for further seed dispersal by wind and, particularly, flying frugivores and thus further colonisation by later phase rainforest trees.

Since 1983, an area of approximately 70 ha has been progressively treated in 1-2 ha blocks using this methodology (refer Fig 1), with progressively diminishing amounts of follow-up treatment needing to be conducted in the treated areas over subsequent years to secure successional progression of the rainforest species.

Use of this method means that, due to recruitment from the seed bank and the use of stags (from dead camphor laurel) as perches for seed dispersing birds, very limited planting has been required on the site. This has preserved the genetic integrity of the Big Scrub in this location.

Results. A total of approximately 70 hectares of weed dominated regrowth has been treated at the Rous Water Rainforest Reserve since commencement in 1983 (Figure 1). This is approximately 35 ha since the report previously published in 2000 and represents approximately 30 % of the Rous Water property at Rocky Creek Dam.

This progressive treatment of compartments of weedy regrowth at Rocky Creek Dam has continued to lead to rapid canopy closure by shorter lived pioneer and early secondary tree species, with a gradual progression to higher proportions of later secondary and primary species with increasing time since treatment. All tree species that are listed as occurring in the reference site are not only now present in the restoration area, but informal observations suggest that most, if not all, are increasing in abundance over time (Figs 2-6)

Figure 2. Treated regrowth at the Rous Water Rainforest Reserve, Rocky Creek Dam After 1 year (foreground)

Figure 2. Typical regeneration of rainforest species 1 year after Lantana removal at the Rous Water Rainforest Reserve, Rocky Creek Dam (foreground).

Figure 3. Same photopoint after 6 years

Figure 3. Typical recovery after 6 years

Figure 4. Same photopoint after 12 years

Figure 4. Typical recovery after 12 years

Figure 5. Same scenario after 20 years

Figure 5. typical recovery after 20 years

Figure 6. After 30 years

Figure 6. Typical recovery after 30 years

The structure of the older treated regrowth areas sites appears to be converging on rainforest conditions, as noted by Kanowski & Catterall (2007). Thackway & Specht (2015) depict how 25 ha of systematically treated compartments that were covered almost entirely with lantana are progressing back towards the original Lowland Subtropical Rainforest’s composition, structure and ecological function (Fig 7). Overall the vegetation status in this area was assessed at between 85% and 90% of its pre-clearing status.

This process is, at its oldest 33 years old and in some locations much younger. So it is clear that the development of the subtropical vegetation still has many decades, possibly centuries, to go, before it approaches the composition, structural and habitat characteristics of a primary forest. Notwithstanding the large areas of natural regrowth that are yet to be worked, it is evident that a large proportion of the assisted regeneration areas progressively worked by Rous over the past 33 years now requires only a low level of ongoing maintenance. This shows that these sites are maturing over time and have largely reached a self-organising state, and in the fullness of time will achieve a high degree of similarity to the reference state.  (A recovery wheel for one subsite is shown in Fig 8)

Fig 7, Thackway fig rocky creek dam1

Figure 7. Assessment of change in indicators of vegetation condition in a 25 ha area. This depicts the degree of recoveery of Lowland Subtropical Rainforest found at Rocky Creek Dam, Big Scrub, NSW against a pre-clearing reference. (Graph reproduced with permission. The method used to generate the graph is described in Thackway, R. and Specht, A., (2015). Synthesising the effects of land use on natural and managed landscapes. Science of the Total Environment. 526:136–152 doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.04.070. ) Condition indices for transition Phase 4 were derived from prior reports including Sanger et al. 2008 and Woodford 2000. Metadata can be viewed at http://portal.tern.org.au/big-scrub-rocky-queensland-brisbane/16908 .

Lessons learned. Using this method of harnessing the natural resilience processes of the rainforest, we have been able to progress the recovery of an important water catchment area, restoring very high biodiversity conservation values in a landscape where rainforest was, and remains, in serious decline., The ability of the high resilience sites at Rocky Creek Dam to respond to the Woodford Method is clearly demonstrated, but there is ample evidence that application of this and similar resilience-based rainforest restoration methods can harnessed resilience at other sites in the Big Scrub that are at greater distances from remnants.

Figure 8. Distribution of management intensity classes across the Rous Water Rainforest Reserve at Rocky Creek Dam.

Figure 8. Distribution of management intensity classes across the Rous Water Rainforest Reserve at Rocky Creek Dam. (Legend for this map is in Appendix 1)

Current work and future directions. Work continues at the site and management is supportive of-site evaluation to assess the extent to which the treated areas are undergoing successional development using a range of available assessment tools.

To assist future planning, and in order to address the issue of how to best estimate and plan for restoration works and associated costs, Rous Water has adapted the methodology developed on the Tweed-Byron Bush Futures Project, where each restoration site/area was assigned a Management Intensity Class (MIC) based on a generalised assessment of site condition, weed composition and cover and other management requirements. (Fig 8) The MIC describes the frequency of restoration work required to restore the site to a minimal maintenance level and how many years this would take to achieve. The MIC aims to describe the extent of management intervention necessary to restore the site to a minimal maintenance level. For this analysis this equates to the establishment of a self sustaining sub-tropical rainforest buffer zone. Each management intensity class is associated with a particular restoration trajectory/cost per hectare, based on visitation frequency by a standard 3 person team and expressed in terms of number of visits required to control / manage weeds. Appendix 1 below shows details of the MIC classification, showing for each class, relevant site criteria, and the estimated level of bush regeneration resources required to bring each class to a low maintenance level.

Contact: Anthony Acret, Catchment Assets Manager,  Rous Water. Tel: +61 (0) 2 6623 3800, Email: anthony.acret@rouswater.nsw.gov.au

Rocky Creek Dam recovery wheel adjacent to Forest Edge

Appendix 1. Legend for Management intensity classes used in Fig 8. (From Tweed-Byron Bush Futures)

Appendix 1. Legend for Management intensity classes used in Fig 8.

Learning from the Coreen TSRS – and scaling up biodiversity recovery works at hundreds of sites in the Riverina, NSW.

Peter O’Shannassy and Ian Davidson

Key words: Travelling Stock Routes and reserves, grazing management, rehabilitation, direct seeding, Biodiversity Fund.

Introduction. The travelling Stock Routes and Reserves (TSRs) in NSW comprise a network of publically owned blocks and linear routes that were set aside between 100-150 years ago in New South Wales (NSW) to allow landholders to move their livestock from their grazing properties to markets. They occur in prime agricultural land and remain under management by the state of New South Wales’s system of Local Land Services organisations (LLSs).

Since trucking of cattle is now the norm, rather than droving, the use of TSRs has gradually changed to more occasional grazing. Considering the concurrent gradual decline in biodiversity of many private properties in the same period this means that the remnant grassy woodland patches and corridors represent the most important habitats in the Riverina region and contain dozens of Threatened species and five Endangered Ecological Communities variously listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act 1995) and the Commonwealth EPBC Act 1999. A general recognition of the high biodiversity value of the TSRs (and need to counter degradation on many of them) has resulted in a shift in local policy and practice towards improving the condition of biodiversity in the reserves.

Fig. 1

Fig. 1. Coreen Round Swamp TSR 2005.

Fig. 2

Fig. 2.  Coreen Round Swamp TSR at the same photopoint in 2015. (Note the increase in Bullloak recruitment from improved grazing management.

Works undertaken at Coreen Round Swamp and Oil Tree Reserve

Managed grazing has been applied to a number of Travelling Stock Reserves in the Riverina over a 10 year period – particularly two reserves: Coreen Round Swamp and Oil Tree reserve in the Coreen area. In 1998, condition of Coreen Round Swamp was ranked high conservation quality and Oil Tree TSR medium-high. In general, both TSRs contained tree species at woodland densities, but there was a low density of regenerating palatable trees (e.g. Bulloak and White Cypress Pine), with most species where present recorded as having sparse natural regeneration. The sites contained few regenerating shrubs (again rating sparse or absent) and exotic annual grasses were common in parts, with native grass swards patchy. Weed forbs were common

Restoration works commenced at Coreen Round Swamp and Oil Tree Reserve in 2004 and focused on:

  • Manipulating the timing of grazing with selected sets of livestock at specific times to disrupt the life cycle of, particularly, annual exotic grasses to reduce these undesirable species and to prepare the way for native perennial grasses.
  • Weed control – which involved multiple visits to the site throughout the year to control the various species as they emerged and prior to seed set. Spraying of herbaceous species with knockdown herbicide continued until the balance tipped and began to move towards a stronger native composition. Woody weeds such as Olive and Pepper trees were removed by hand cutting and painting with systemic herbicides.
  • Reduction of grazing impacts: Livestock were camped in the TSR’s holding yards rather than under the trees at night. This was carried out to reduce physical damage to shrubs, trees and the ground layer and reduce fertility inputs to the soils under the trees; fertility levels that are known to favour weed species invasion of such areas.

Results. Monitoring using standard proformas and photopoints showed dramatic changes in both reserves; with sites previously devoid of recruitment now developing a layer of tree and shrub saplings including Bulloak and White Cypress Pine. Where once 20-30% of the Coreen Round Swamp TSR was highly degraded, being dominated by herbaceous and grass weeds, this degradation class has now reduced to less than 10%; with the remaining 90% being of high quality. Similarly Oil Tree TSR had around 30-40% in a similarly degraded condition, which has now been reduced to 10-15% of the area; with 80% being in moderate-high condition and moving towards high as the shrub layer improves. (See Figures 1-5).

Fig 3.

Fig. 3. Oil Tree TSR in 2005 where a mix of native grass (spear grasses) and exotic annual grasses (Wild Oats, Bromus and Rye Grass) are visible.

Figure 4


Fig 4.  Same photopoint at Oil Tree TSR in 2015 showing a sward now dominated by native grass (spear grasses) and Curly Windmill Grass (Chloris truncata).

Coreen Recovery Wheel (a) prior to works and (b) after 10 years (Courtesy Ian Davidson.)

Expansion of the program to hundreds of TSRs in the Riverina

Building on the success of the work at the Coreen Reserves, a five year program is well underway, funded by the Australian Government’s Biodiversity Fund in 2012. In the first for four years, 251 sites have been assessed and interventions have taken place at 102 of these sites; with a further 18 sites to be worked during the remaining funded period.

Works to date include grazing management, weed and pest species management and 960 ha of direct seeding on 70 sites. The sites are being monitored using 250 permanent photopoints located to track key vegetation structural changes, as well some transect counts of regeneration and seedling success (recruitment). Approximately 108 assessments, using the original proformas plus plot counts, are being conducted on a subset of key sites including untreated sites. Initial results of the grazing management and direct seeding are encouraging. Very successful seedling germination has occurred in the direct seeded lines on most of the seeded sites (although germination on some of the drier Boree sites took longer). Some sites have had additional seeding done in subsequent years to provide a mix of age classes. The seedlings have now developed to a range of heights, with some older seedlings up to 2 m high, while some seed continues to germinate. Some of the more mature plants have seeded in the last 12 months and the expectation is that a soil seed bank will now be starting to form.

As aggressive exclusion of birds from woodland and forest habitat by abundant Noisy Miners is listed as a Key Threatening Process (KTP) in NSW and the Commonwealth – culling of Noisy Miner (Manorina melanocephala) is being undertaken to benefit woodland bird populations. This is being done at a scale not attempted before. Baseline bird surveys have been conducted on 80 sites established over 70 reserves including on sites with and without Noisy Minor culling; and sites with shrubs and without shrubs within a range of vegetation types. The seasonal benchmark surveys have been undertaken on 8 occasions but because only one post-culling survey (spring) has been undertaken to date, it is premature to identify whether changes in bird populations have occurred yet. The surveys will continue till Autumn 2017.

Lessons learned. The results of works at the Coreen reserves are clearly a direct response to the manipulation of the timing and intensity of grazing pressure to reduce weed and allow rest for recovering native species. Achieving the desired grazing management required a paradigm shift for managers and clients. The close management of grazing, direct seeding and burning also relies on a high level of understanding and commitment by the TSR manager.

Acknowledgements. We thank Rick Webster for his seminal rapid assessments of TSRs in the late 1990s throughout southern NSW. Norman Wettenhall a visionary philanthropist and a friend of TSRs funded much of the early assessment work. The more recent funding provided by the Australian Government’s Biodiversity Fund. A number of LLS staff / Biosecurity officers are involved in the works, including Peter O’Shannassy, Michael Mullins, Stuart Watson and Roger Harris. Ian Davidson, Regeneration Solutions P/L is undertaking the vegetation assessments, Chris Tzaros, Birds, Bush and Beyond, is undertaking the bird surveys and Phil Humphries provided the mapping

Contact: Peter O’Shannassy, Murray Local Land Services (74 Short St Corowa NSW 2646, 0427010891 peter.o’shannassy@lls.nsw.gov.au) and Ian Davidson Regeneration Solutions P/L (15 Weir Street Wangaratta, 0429 662 759, ian@regenerationsolutions.com.au).

Restoration at Numinbah Conservation Area, City of the Gold Coast, Queensland

Key Words: assisted regeneration, restoration planning, conservation

Introduction: Numinbah Conservation Area, located in the hinterland of the Gold Coast in south-east Queensland, is one of many natural areas managed by City of Gold Coast’s Natural Areas Management Unit (NAMU). The 598 ha property contains 12 Regional Ecosystems (REs) ranging from sub-tropical and dry rainforest to dry and wet sclerophyll types; and include riparian zones, steep areas, gullies and rocky outcrops. Its conservation value is heightened by the fact that it connects to other reserves including the World Heritage areas of Springbrook.

Condition ranges from large degraded areas (i.e. pasture) to native vegetation that contains both regrowth and remnant areas. All areas were impacted by weeds due to previous disturbance from logging and subsequent cattle grazing. More than 35 weed species impact the site at varying levels with the most notable species across the site being Lantana (Lantana camara). Edges are impacted by exotic vines such as Glycine (Neonotonia wightii), the understorey by many herbaceous weeds such as Mistflower (Ageratina riparia) and rainforest zones by persistent weeds such as Coral Berry (Rivina humilis) and Passion Vines (Passiflora spp.) to name a few. Approximately 60 hectares of open area are dominated by pasture grasses and other weeds.

The aim of the project is to restore, to the extent possible, the structure, function, dynamics and integrity of the pre-existing vegetation and the sustaining habitat that is provided. Our goals are to:

  • Improve the health of vegetation and habitat types across the site
  • Improve connectivity for flora and fauna
  • Reduce fuel levels in fire prone ecosystems and the risk of hot fires sweeping through the site and wider landscape
  • Increase the resilience of the site
  • Improve water quality
  • Increase the health, populations and distribution of threatened species – flora and fauna
  • Reduce the need for weed control maintenance over time i.e. to a level of minimal maintenance
  • Provide nature based recreational opportunities and environmental education along this section of the Gold Coast Hinterland Great Walk

Planning. An ecological restoration plan was developed after detailed site assessments and the site was divided into precincts, zones and sub-zones to assist directing works. Information in the plan included species lists, weed control information, maps and detail on how to restore each area and progressively link zones. A detailed fire management plan was also developed for the site that took into account wildfire mitigation, restoration zones, the location of threatened species, site objectives, REs including their recommended fire regimes, and the capacity of areas to regenerate.

Works to date. Works over the last 9 years have covered more than 190 ha. The main approach to restoration has been via assisted regeneration consisting mainly of large scale weed control and the fencing of areas to reduce the impact of cattle. Further works have involved planting a section of creek to assist stability and connectivity across a section of the site; and the propagation and translocation of four threatened flora species (details not disclosed for security reasons).

Where low intensity fuel reduction burns were conducted in dry sclerophyll vegetation, timely follow up weed control was applied to ensure re-shooting Lantana, Molasses Grass (Melinis minutiflora) and other weeds did not fill gaps and to support the colonisation and growth of native vegetation. In remnant and regrowth vegetation, systematic weed control using a range of techniques has been applied. E.g. large areas of Lantana were controlled using three techniques: cut, scrape and paint where it was in close proximity to native plants; over-spraying after isolating infestations; and, spot-spraying when it germinated or was re-shooting. Weed species were continually suppressed to ensure native species germinated and grew to a point where most gaps have been filled with native vegetation. As each area developed and maintenance reduced, efforts were put into continually expanding the work fronts.

A propagation and translocation project was also implemented in partnership with Seqwater. More than 1150 individuals (four species) have been propagated, planted into their particular niche and have been monitored and reported on annually. This will continue until all species are considered to be self-sustaining i.e. flowering, fruiting and reproducing.

(a)NCA8n_20080502

(b)NCA8n_20080827

(c) NCA8n_20090716

(d)NCA8n_20100625

(e)NCA8n_20110630

(f)NCA8n_20151130

Figure 1, (a-f) represents an annual sequence of recovery after control of Lantana and subsequent weed at one photopoint from 2008 to 2011, with the last photo taken in 2015. The results reflect accurate and timely weed control to support the recovery of native vegetation. (Photos: City of Gold Coast)

Results to date. As of July 2015, weeds have been significantly reduced across the 190 ha treated area to a point where maintenance is being applied, with some areas requiring little to no maintenance. In a number of areas this reduction of weed has also significantly reduced fuel levels.

Increased abundance and diversity of native vegetation has occurred across a range of ecosystem and habitat types within the reserve. Open areas once dominated by dense Lantana have taken approx. 3 years to naturally regenerate with a range of pioneer, early secondary and later stage rainforest species (Figs 1-3). Many of those areas now include continuing recovery of later stage species and contain a large diversity of seedlings, groundcovers and ferns. More diverse communities have recovered with a large range of species (depending on the ecosystem / ecotone) and support a diversity of fauna species. Works in four of the larger precincts have now joined up and weed control works are continuing to expand all regenerating areas.

More than 7000 plants installed along the open riparian stretch are establishing with native species regenerating amongst the planting. After approx. 7 years the average height of the planted canopy is approx. 5-7m tall.

Ongoing works: All current work zones are being continuously extended ensuring progress made is maintained. The open area (e.g. paddock) is being reduced over time as vegetation is encouraged to expand (i.e. by continuing to control weeds to past the drip lines of all native vegetation). Fences that currently contain cattle (i.e. to assist managing open areas for access, fire management and to ensure funds are spent in more resilient areas) are being moved to continue to reduce the size of highly degraded areas. Fire management, large scale weed control and the monitoring and evaluation of threatened species, together with fauna surveys, is continuing.

Stakeholders and funding bodies: Natural Areas Management Unit (NAMU), City of Gold Coast and Seqwater. Contact Information Paul Cockbain, Team Leader Restorations +61 7 5581 1510

 

Donaghy’s Corridor – Restoring tropical forest connectivity

Key words: tropical forest restoration, habitat connectivity, small mammal recolonisation, ecological processes, community partnerships.

Introduction. Closed forest species are considered especially susceptible to the effects of forest fragmentation and habitat isolation. The Wet Tropics of north Queensland contains many forest fragments between 1ha and 500ha, mostly surrounded by dairy and beef pastures, and crops such as maize, sugar cane and bananas. Larger blocks are often internally fragmented by roads and powerlines. The Lake Barrine section of Crater Lakes National Park is a 498ha fragment that is 1.2km distant from the 80,000ha Wooroonooran N.P, and ecologically isolated since the 1940s with detectable effects on genetic diversity of rainforest mammals.

In 1995 the Qld Parks and Wildlife Service, along with landholders and the local ecological restoration group TREAT Inc., began riparian forest restoration along Toohey Creek to re-connect the Barrine fragment to Wooroonooran and to document colonisation by small mammals and native plants typically associated with rain forest environments (Fig 1).

AERIAL VIEW

Fig 1. Donahy’s Corridor, Atherton Tablelands, linking Crater Lakes NP and Wooroonooran NP, Qld (Photo TREAT).

Connectivity Works. Prior to works commencement, small mammal communities (e.g. Rattus spp. and Melomys spp.) along and adjacent to Toohey Creek were sampled, along with a full vegetation survey, to determine base-line community composition and structure. Permanent stock exclusion fencing was erected and off-stream stock watering points established.

A 100m wide corridor of vegetation was established over a four year period using local provenances of 104 native species comprising around 25% pioneer species, 10% Ficus spp., and the remainder from selected primary and secondary species. In total, 20,000 trees, shrubs and vines were planted along the creek, and a three-row shelterbelt was planted adjacent to the corridor to reduce edge effects. Species were selected on a trait basis, including suitability as food plants for targeted local fauna e.g. Cassowary (Casuarius casuarius johnsonii).

Ecological furniture (e.g., rocks, logs) was placed prior to planting. On completion, the 16ha Donaghy’s Corridor Nature Refuge was declared over the area, recognising the Donaghy family’s significant land donation and the corridor’s protection by legislation. A three year monitoring program, conducted quarterly, commenced on completion of planting.

TREAT2012Donaghy'sCorridor22

Fig. 2. Developing rainforest in Donahys Corridor (Photo Campbell Clarke)

Monitoring. Flora monitoring was conducted along transects bisecting the four annual plantings (1995/96/97/98), and small mammal colonisation in 11, 20m x 20m plots located in the plantings, adjacent open paddocks, and in forests at either end. Small mammal sampling included mark-recapture and DNA studies, to determine colonisation and movement patterns and genetic effects.

Results. Three years after establishment, over 4000 native plants were recorded – representing 119 species from 48 families. This included 35 species naturally dispersed from the adjacent forest (Figs 2 and 3). Small mammal sampling showed 16 long-distance movements by Rattus species and the appearance of an FI hybrid Bush Rat (Rattus fuscipes) in the central section of the corridor in the third year of the study. The rainforest rodent Fawn-footed Melomys (Melomys cervinipes) had established territories in the second year of the study. A study of wood-boring beetles (Coleoptera)in ecological furniture showed 18 morpho-species in a three year period. Many other orders/families were also recorded.

Water quality in Toohey Creek was not studied but has continued to increase since the replacement exotic grasses with woody vegetation, and the exclusion of cattle from accessing the stream. There is increased shade available for stock and less pressure on the limited number of existing paddock shade trees.

TREAT2012Donaghy'sCorridor18

 Fig. 3. Indicators of rainforest structure (species and layering) and functions (habitat providion, nutrient cycling, recruitment) are now highly evident. (Photo Campbell Clarke).

What we learned.

  • Plant colonisation was rapid, dominated by fleshy-fruited species (10-30mm diameter), of which a proportion are long-lived climax species
  • Plant colonisation was initially highest in the interior, close to the creek margin, but has become more even over time
  • Vegetation structural complexity and life form diversity have continued to increase since establishment
  • Small mammal communities changed in response to habitat structure, grassland species dominate until weeds are shaded out when they are replaced by closed forest species
  • Many long distance mammal movements occurred that were only detected by genetic analysis
  • Monitoring showed small mammals used the new habitat to traverse from end to end until resources were worth defending: at that time long distance movements declined and re-capture of residents increased
  • Partnerships between government, research bodies, community groups, and landholders are essential if practical solutions to fragmentation are to be developed and applied

Acknowledgements: Trees for the Evelyn and Atherton Tableland acknowledges and appreciates the support of all the volunteers involved in this project, staff from the Qld Parks and Wildlife Service-Restoration Services, , James Cook University, University of Qld, Griffith University and UCLA Berkely. In particular we would like to acknowledge the Donaghy family.

Contact: TREAT Inc. PO Box 1119, Atherton. 4883 QLD Australia. http://www.treat.net.au/

SEE ALSO:

Global Restoration Network Top 25 report: http://www.treat.net.au/projects/index.html#donaghy

Watch the video on RegenTV – presented by Nigel Tucker

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thiaki biodiversity-ecosystem functioning and restoration experiment

P1010852-Gabriela-small

Fig 1. Research students measuring planted Queensland Maples for modelling studies

Noel Preece

Key words rainforest reforestation, carbon sequestration, cost-effectiveness, old fields, weeds

Introduction. Restoring agricultural landscapes to forest is time-consuming, expensive and often hit-and-miss. Trees take years to show survival and growth rates and effects of planting methods and maintenance. World-wide, there are few large-scale reforestation experiments designed to test the effectiveness of and functional responses to reforestation, especially in the tropical regions for biodiversity and carbon benefits.

In the wet tropics of Australia, far north Queensland, the Thiaki Restoration Research project was established to examine aspects of reforestation (Figs 1-3). The reference model for the project is ‘Simple to complex notophyll vine forest of cloudy wet highlands on basalt, Regional Ecosystem 7.8.4’. Three fully-replicated experiments were established in 2010, 2011 and 2013 to examine different approaches to reforestation. The experimental plots are all replicated, with control plots, to examine different aspects of reforestation. Plot size varies from 25 m square up to 50 m square, and we now manage 90 experimental plots over more than 30 hectares of planted land.

Experimental design. The first experiment is examining the effect of different planting methods; the second is researching three combinations of native rainforest species and two treatments (high and low planting densities); and the third is examining the effects of two different herbicide treatments (blanket spraying and strip spraying). One of the major emphases of the experiments is to analyse planting practices for their cost-effectiveness for the carbon sequestration industry. Reducing establishment and maintenance costs for carbon sink forests is essential, as published and anecdotal costs of establishing forests in the region and elsewhere has been so high as to make the carbon economy unreachable for environmental planting practitioners to ‘make a buck’ from carbon farming. We will publish these findings in the near future, as most of the plantings have reached an (almost) self-maintaining height and size.

Current work, which will be published from the experiments, includes:

  • examination of field-based measurements compared with national modelling tools;
  • effects of herbicide spraying and grass suppression practices; rates and patterns of natural recruitment;
  • functional responses of trees to soil nutrients and characteristics (such as compaction, moisture and organic content); functional responses of dung beetles and mammals to restoration;
  • responses of ants to restoration and remnant patches and proximity to remnant forests; and
  • the functioning of barriers to recruitment by rainforest fauna.

Weeds also present a significant research component, and examination of the effects and faculty of weeds to restoration is being conducted. We are also examining the effects of different planters on survival rates, which is of vital interest to restorationists.

P1020070-sml

Fig. 2. Sampling soils and roots to study functional responses of tree families.

Results to date. The experiments have resulted in important findings which affect reforestation success, and publications which have contributed some of the first replicated experimental results on: planting methods; allometrics for young trees; functional responses of several taxa to restoration; young tree root:shoot ratios; improved wood density data on young trees; and cost-effectiveness of planting methods. Some of the related research has contributed to better Australian models of carbon sequestration in the tropics.

Lessons learned and future directions. Top priority lessons include the preparation and planting stage, as all else follows and mistakes made at this point ramify later. Vital considerations are: site preparation, especially early weed control; selecting species which will survive the harsh exposed conditions; nurturing and sun-hardening seedlings; ensuring that the soil is very wet and that seedlings are soaked immediately before planting; and, ensuring that planters plant in ways that don’t damage the seedlings.

Collaborators. Charles Darwin, James Cook, Adelaide, Lancaster (UK), and Queensland Universities. Funding: Australian Research Council Linkage project LP0989161, Biome5 Pty Ltd, Terrain NRM, Greening Australia, Stanwell Corporation, Biodiversity Fund.

Contact. Dr Noel Preece, Director, Biome5 Pty Ltd, PO Box 1200, Atherton Qld 4883, +61407996953; email: noel@biome5.com.au. Website www.biome5.com.au.

Read also: https://site.emrprojectsummaries.org/2011/09/16/thiaki-creek-cost-effective-rainforest-restoration-for-carbon-biodiversity/

 

 

 

 

 

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/