Category Archives: Fauna & habitat

Bridging the Gaps: Community Created Post-Storm Fauna Crossings

Key words. Wildlife bridge, habitat creation, storm recovery, forest management,  Fauna canopy bridge

Joanne Isaac

Figure 1. Bridge creation workshop at primary school. © ERA

Introduction. In June 2021, severe storms impacted large areas of the state of Victoria, Australia. A number of forested areas important for their biodiversity were damaged including the Yarra Ranges National Park, and Wombat State Forest – much of which is designated to become a national park in 2030.

The strong winds associated with the storms resulted in severe windthrow and wind-snap of trees, with many thousands of trees impacted and large areas of canopy lost across the forests.

The Wombat State Forest has a unique arboreal marsupial fauna, including the most south-westerly population of the endangered Southern Greater Glider (Petauroides volans) in Australia, and other threatened and declining arboreal species including the Brush-tailed Phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa) and Eastern Pygmy-Possum (Cercartetus nanus). In addition, the area is home to more common species, such as Brush-tailed Possums (Trichosurus spp.) and Ring-tailed possums (Pseudocheirus peregrinus) which are important within the food chain for predators including Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua).

Areas of severe windthrow and canopy loss represent a substantial movement barrier to arboreal marsupials, most of whom prefer not to come to the ground where they are at risk of predation by cats and foxes, and potentially also car collision.

One possible temporary solution is fauna canopy rope bridges. Canopy bridges are often used in road projects when a road bisects habitat. Studies across Australia have demonstrated that a wide range of species will utilise these canopy bridges, including Ring-tailed Possums (Pseudocheirus spp.) and Leadbeater’s Possum (Gymnobelideus leadbeateri). Birds are also often recorded using bridges as perches.

However, pre-made canopy bridge can be extremely expensive, and cost prohibitive for many conservation projects which have limited funds available. In this project, we developed a simple technique to create temporary, biodegradable, fauna rope bridges for installation in storm-impacted habitat in the Wombat State Forest. We partnered with the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) and multiple local councils to involve the local community in workshops to create sections of bridge, which were then installed in strategic locations across the forest.

Preliminary works. Our team began by developing a simple method of rope bridge creation based on published accounts of pre-made fauna bridges. Unlike fauna bridges in road projects, these bridges were made to be temporary – to only last as long as it takes for the canopy to re-grow. As such, we chose natural sisal rope, which is biodegradable, but more resistant to ultraviolet light and wet than other natural rope such as manila.

In addition, we developed a method of attachment to standing trees which does not require additional infrastructure, and which also allows easy adjustment of attachment ropes to ensure host trees are not impacted into the future.

A prototype bridge was installed and monitored using a remote wildlife camera in order to test the design for suitability; within one week Krefft’s Glider (Petaurus notatus) were recorded using the bridge, and a number of birds used it as a perch.

Together with local councils, community events were organized in a variety of indoor and outdoor venues for rope bridge making workshops. These were advertised on social media and individual council websites.

Sections of bridge, approximately 10 meters long, were created by the community during workshops using a simple knotting technique (Fig. 1).

Bridges were installed in strategic locations in storm-damaged forest, determined through liaison on with the relevant local council and DEECA. Installations were completed by professional arborists (Fig. 2); sections of bridge were woven together and secured in order to create the required length for the installation site.

Figure 2. Bridge installation. © ERA

In the past year, more than 300m of rope bridge has been created as a result of these projects and four bridges have been installed in the Yarra Ranges area, and four in the Wombat State Forest area (Fig. 3). A number of bridges are being monitored using Reconyx cameras and three cameras on Hepburn Council bridges.

0Figure 3. Bridge following installation in the Wombat State Forest. © ERA.A variety of species have already been recorded using the rope bridges, including Feather-tailed gliders (Acrobates spp.) and Eastern Ring-tailed possums (Fig. 4), and birds including Crimson Rosella (Playcercus elegans) and Laughing Kookaburra (Dacelo novaeguineae) are using them as perches.

Figure 4. Ring-tailed Possum using a bridge in the Wombat State Forest. © ERA.

More bridges are planned for installation in the near future. We are currently also undertaking experiments to determine the lifespan of sisal rope in the environment, and decomposition rates.

Preliminary Results. Calculations estimate that the cost was around $20 per meter of completed rope bridge, as compared to upwards of $200 per meter for pre-made bridge. In terms of community engagement and involvement, a wide variety of individuals and groups attended workshops and made bridges. Local Scout groups and schools and the Youth Justice Centre were also involved. Preliminary results from a questionnaire indicate that participants welcomed the opportunity to contribute to helping the environment, and all participants would attend another workshop in the future.

Stakeholders and Funding bodies. The project has been funded by DEECA, Yarra Ranges and Hepburn Shire Councils. Its partners are Hepburn, Macedon Ranges and Moorabool Shire Councils, and Eco Warriors Australia. Ecology & Restoration Australia is supported by the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action, Yarra Ranges Council, Macedon Ranges Shire Council, Hepburn Shire Council, Moorabool Shire Council, and Eco Warriors Australia.

Contact information. Dr Jo Isaac, Principal Ecologist, Ecology & Restoration Australia, 10 View Street, Avonsleigh, Vic, 0459403286, jo.isaac@eraus.com.au

See also: video made by Yarra Ranges Council who recently promoted the project funded by themselves https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Yc_nqLrdg

Eradicating weeds along the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area coastline

Jon Marsden-Smedley

Figure 1. The project supports multiple bird species including the vulnerable (a) Hooded Plover, (b) Australian Pied Oystercatcher, (c) Sooty Oystercatcher and (c) the critically endangered Orange-bellied Parrot. (Photos J. Marsden-Smedley)

Introduction. The Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA) in the southwest of Tasmania is an important area for conservation. The coastline of this region has high natural integrity and is a major stronghold for a number of shore-nesting and feeding birds including the vulnerable Hooded Plover (Thinornis cucullatus), Australian Pied Oystercatcher (Haematopus longirostris), Sooty Oystercatcher (Haematopus fuliginosus) and the critically endangered Orange-bellied Parrot (Neophema chrysogaster) during its migration (Fig. 1). Three ecosystem-transforming weed species: Sea Spurge (Euphorbia paralias), Marram Grass (Ammophila arenaria) and Blackberry (Rubus fruticosus aggregate) have the potential to transform the coastline’s geomorphic structure and have been identified as major threats to environmental and cultural value. It is estimated that about 425 km of the 850 km coastline in the TWWHA is susceptible to Sea Spurge and / or Marram Grass invasion.

The WildCare volunteer group SPRATS (Sea sPurge Remote Area TeamS) has been undertaking annual weed management works along the TWWHA coastline between Cape Sorell (Macquarie Harbour) and Cockle Creek since 2006 (Fig. 1). SPRATS is a self-managing volunteer group working in partnership with the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service (PWS). The primary goal of the program is to initially control and then eradicate Sea Spurge and Marram Grass from the coastline (Figs 2-4). The secondary goal is to eradicate any Blackberry infestations found and monitor for other weeds.

Figure 2. The SPRATS work area.

Logistics. The SPRATS weeding program has divided the coastline into eight sectors. At the start of each weeding season, detailed maps are prepared showing weeding sites, campsites and walking routes. These data are uploaded into GPS units so that all groups can efficiently and easily locate previously recorded weed sites, campsites and walking routes. Teams of SPRATS volunteers walk each section of the coastline of the TWWHA annually. While undertaking weed control and monitoring, volunteers also record information on rare and threatened shorebird species, assist with research into the ecology of the region (e.g., collection of Tasmanian Devil scats for genetic analysis), record the location of Aboriginal cultural sites (e.g., petroglyphs, stone arrangements, middens and hut sites) and the usage of the area by other groups (e.g., quad bike riders).

Works undertaken. In the first three years of the program, weeding efforts were concentrated in the southernmost susceptible areas. Once these Sea Spurge infestations had been given an initial knock-down, efforts moved to very large infestations along 45 km of coast south of Cape Sorell. Work then expanded to include about 160 km of coastline in Macquarie Harbour.

Trials were conducted in 2009-2010 to compare both the kill rates of target species and impacts on non-target species of different herbicide treatments. These trials identified glyphosate mixed with Pulse® as the best herbicide treatment for Sea Spurge.

Different strategies have been utilised at different stages of the program. Heli-spraying operations have been used to knock down very large Sea Spurge infestations (i.e., infestations of > 250,000 plants) and the subsequent massive seed germination event. Two rounds of heli-spraying reduced the number of Sea Spurge plants by 90% and enabled subsequent hand weeding. The optimum technique identified for treating Marram Grass was to spot spray with Haloxyfop-R methyl ester and penetrant. This is followed up by hand weeding once weed densities are reduced.

A feature of the SPRATS work program is collection of geo-referenced data on all weeds removed,  along with targeted research into the most effective treatment methods. These data are used to demonstrate work effectiveness, plan annual work programs and report back to the PWS and other funding bodies.

A major development in the past two seasons has been testing and spreading the Sea Spurge biocontrol recently developed by the CSIRO. This biocontrol has the potential to provide a long term solution to the issues associated with Sea Spurge. From 2006 to 2022-23, 8504 work days have been completed, most of which has been volunteer effort.

Figure 3. A SPRATS volunteer standing in a patch of Sea Spurge at the Sassy Creek site in 2007. (Photo J. Marsden-Smedley)

Figure 4. The Sassy Creek site in 2021. (Photo J. Marsden-Smedley)

Results to date. Prior to the start of the program it was estimated that the TWWHA region contained about 11.1 million Sea Spurge plants and about 124 000 Marram Grass clumps located in over 700 sites. By 2022-2023 weeds had been mapped from over 850 sites, made up of about 700 Sea Spurge, 150 Marram Grass, four Blackberry, three Great Mullein and one Slender Thistle. To date the SPRATS program has removed over 14.4 million Sea Spurge plants (about 99.7%). In the 2022-2023 weeding season about 2795 clumps of Marram Grass were sprayed representing a 98% reduction on the pre-SPRATS number of marram grass clumps. The region’s known blackberry infestations have been eradicated.

Challenges. A major challenge is missed Sea Spurge sites. In its second year of growth, Sea Spurge produces a large number of seeds which then germinate or replenish seed banks. Seedlings from these reactivated sites are responsible for between a third and half of Sea Spurge plants treated and the rate at which SPRATS is reducing the number of Sea Spurge is slowing. It appears likely that there are an increasing number of Sea Spurge seeds washing in from very large infestations to the north of the TWWHA and also along the east coast of Tasmania. If the Sea Spurge biocontrol is found to be effective, this issue should be addressed by large scale spreading of the biocontrol agent which should reduce these very large infestations. It may also be necessary to do targeted releases of the biocontrol within the TWWHA.  

In the early years of SPRATS operations, treating Marram Grass was rated as a lower priority than Sea Spurge. Marram Grass identification and weeding is also slower, more laborious and difficult than sea spurge weeding. Marram Grass weeding involves spraying, wiping of individual leaves with herbicide or digging out entire clumps. In recent seasons, improved training in Marram Grass identification and the use of the monocotyledon specific herbicides has resulted in a significant increase in the rate of Marram Grass removal.

Stakeholders and Funding bodies:  The SPRATS program has been supported by theTasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service, WildCare, and in the early part of the project, the Australian  government’s Caring for Country program.

Contact information: Jon Marsden-Smedley, SPRATS (M) 0456 992 201 (E) jon.marsdensmedley@gmail.com  / sprats.tas@gmail.com

Shorebird habitat restoration in the Hunter Wetlands National Park

By Tom Clarke

Figure 1. Contractors felling mangrove trees to restore migratory shorebird habitat structure at Stockton Sandspit.

Introduction. Thirty-seven species of migratory shorebirds regularly visit Australia, with all but one spending up to 6 months of each year here. Globally, populations of some migratory shorebirds have declined by 80% over the last 30 years largely due to habitat destruction and disturbance along the East Asian-Australasian Flyway. Within Australia, degradation of feeding and roosting habitats and disturbance are the major threats. Shorebirds need access to safe roosting places. Typically, a favoured roost is close to feeding areas, has a wide-open space and a clear view of the water. A clear view is needed for predator avoidance. A major issue for shorebirds in the Hunter Estuary, indeed for the entire flyway, is having access to several roosts so that alternative sites are available when conditions and levels of disturbance become intolerable at the preferred roost.

In the late 1990s it became obvious that vegetation encroachment was degrading major roost sites in the Hunter Estuary. Of particular concern was the viability of Stockton Sandspit, a shorebird roost site of national importance. Mangrove encroachment along the beachfront was creating a wall of vegetation and effectively blocking the view of the water. Woody weeds were also encroaching on the roost area resulting in a large decline in shorebird numbers using the roost site.

Mangrove encroachment has been documented in several estuaries along the east coast of Australia. Halting encroachment is not an option but managing specific areas that are important for shorebirds is achievable. This project involves the removal of mangroves adjacent to favoured roosting sites to maintain low, open spaces with a clear view of the water, with the intent of maintaining the sites  for shorebirds as long as they keep turning up. The potential recovery of coastal saltmarsh in these sites is an added bonus as saltmarsh is an endangered ecological community.

Figure 2.  Main shorebird habitat restoration sites in Hunter Wetlands National Park.

Works undertaken. Mangroves are normally protected vegetation by law. After it was agreed by various stakeholders that mangroves should be cleared from Stockton Sandspit, a permit to remove mangroves was applied for from Department of Primary Industries (Fisheries). The initial permit allowed for the removal of mature mangroves from an area of less than 1 hectare. This primary work was carried out by contractors (Fig. 1). The funding agreement required matching volunteer effort. Initially, volunteer work involved Hunter Bird Observer’s Club (HBOC) monitoring the shorebirds, but this was quickly augmented by on-ground work to remove woody weeds (including Lantana Lantana camara, Bitou Bush Chysanthemoides monilifera ssp. rotundata and Telegraph Weed Heterotheca grandiflora) and reduce the density of native shrubs (including Acacia spp, Banksia spp. and Leptospermum spp.) from the roost area. Weeding also aimed to remove exotic rushes from a small area of saltmarsh. Following initial success, other shorebird roost sites in the Hunter Estuary with similar threats were added to the program (Fig. 2). These additional areas were selected using data from the shorebird monitoring being conducted by HBOC. At each site, an initial primary effort by contractors is followed up by HBOC volunteers and others. The project has been running continuously since 2002 and represents the HBOC commitment to caring for these endangered birds.

Over 10,900 volunteer hours has been accrued to date through the efforts of over 480 persons and the program is ongoing. Today, the project maintains nearly 150 hectares of shorebird habitat in Hunter Wetlands National Park. From March through to July each year, a program of works is scheduled to take advantage of favourable tides to access work areas. These cooler months are better for working in exposed areas and are when the population of migratory shorebirds is at its lowest. Removal of mangrove seedlings takes up most of the ongoing volunteer effort (Figs 3-6). The level of recruitment of mangrove seedlings varies from year to year and site to site. Factors such as tide height, wind direction and flood levels at the time of seed-drop affect the distribution of the seeds. Seed-drop usually occurs from the end of August through to early November with the majority falling through September. However, over the eighteen months of wet weather following the prolonged drought that ended in early 2020, mangrove seeds were washing up every month of the year. This required a massive effort to clear mangrove seedlings from all the sites in 2022. Thankfully the effort required in 2023 was back at a sustainable level.

Figure 3. Intrepid Landcarers cutting mangroves on Smith Island. (Photo T. Clarke)

Figure 4. Volunteers sweeping the marshes at Stockton Sandspit. (Photo T. Clarke)

Results to date. Removal of fringing mangroves and woody weeds from the roost area had an immediate positive effect. Most of the shorebirds quickly re-occupied Stockton Sandspit. This continues to be the case with Stockton Sandspit being one of the main daytime roosts used in the Hunter Estuary. Similar success has occurred at other sites but has not been quite as outstanding. These sites tend to be used by smaller aggregations of birds but are complementary to the Stockton Sandspit as different shorebird species prefer them. Some of the additional sites are frequently used as back-up roost sites when the preferred site is suffering unusually high levels of disturbance, often due to human activity.

Figure 5. Final sweeps over Milham Pond by Hunter Bird Observers Club volunteers in 2022. (Photo T. Clarke)

Figure 6. Mass drop of mangrove seeds happens every year at Stockton Sandspit and other places. Six months later the surviving seedlings are removed by volunteers. (Photo T. Clarke)

Lessons learned and future directions. Working on the inter-tidal areas has required that we develop an understanding of how the estuary system operates. In the early years lots of tide notes were collected for each site as well as shorebird movements. Utilising favourable tides gives better access and improves efficiency. Understanding certain shorebird behaviours also improves our efficiency. Quite often, a couple of forward scouts in the form of godwit or curlew will fly over a roost site on an inspection loop prior to the main rush of the various flocks. This is the signal for workers that it is time to vacate the site.

Many techniques and a variety of hand tools have been trialled with differing levels of success. Hand-pulling the seedlings has proven to be the most efficient. We have found that it is possible to manage the mangroves without the use of chemicals. Cutting stems lower than the next high tide results in the stumps being immersed and the tree dies. This also works for seedlings that are snapped-off. In situations where the substrate is firm enough, seedlings can be snapped off at ground level using a hoe. However, this method doesn’t work in soft mud as the plant bends away rather than breaking. Where seedling recruitment is dense, a battery-powered brush cutter has been utilised. This method was very useful during the year of continuous seeding.

While the initial work was motivated by a sense of obligation to intervene, the ongoing work provides positive feedback that maintains the energy and brings much satisfaction to the carers. This happens on every occasion that we witness the arrival of the shorebirds to the places that are restored each year, a positive joy. Maintenance of the various roost sites has become a wonderful opportunity to introduce people to shorebirds.

Stakeholders and funding bodies. At each stage of the project an initial effort of primary works was carried out by contractors and funded through various Government programs including the Australian Government’s Caring for Our Country, Envirofund and Threatened Species Recovery Fund.   The following have supported the works in some manner over the last twenty years; Twitchathon, Bird Interest Group Network (BIGNet), Birdlife Australia,  Conservation Volunteers Australia, the NSW Departments of Primary Industries and Fisheries, and Planning and Environment (and their predecessors), Hunter Bird Observers Club, Hunter Catchment Management Authority, Hunter Local Land Services, Hunter Regional Landcare Network, Kooragang Wetlands Rehabilitation Project, NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service, Newcastle Kayak Tours, Newcastle City Council, Newcastle Coal Infrastructure Group, NSW Government, Toolijooa, Trees In Newcastle, University of Newcastle.

The volunteer effort has been led by members of HBOC that make up the core team. Additional contributions have been made from other groups from time to time including: Better Earth Teams, Green Army, International Student Volunteers, TAFE students, Koora Gang, Intrepid Landcare, Worimi Green Team, Stockton Scouts, Raymond Terrace Scouts, Al Gazzali and Rigpa Buddists.

Contact information. For more information contact Tom Clarke thomas.clarke7@bigpond.com and project reports can be viewed on the HBOC website Rehabilitation Projects – Hunter Bird Observers Club (hboc.org.au).

Rewilding lake edges at Sherwood Arboretum, Queensland

Carole Bristow

Figure 1. The site in 2014, 5 years prior to works, showing the lack of wetland fringing vegetation due to it being regularly brushcut. (Photo Friends of Sherwood Arboretum)

Sherwood Arboretum, 15 hectares in size, contains a collection of planted (specimen) Queensland native trees under the supervision of Brisbane Botanic Gardens. Located in the suburb of Sherwood in Brisbane, the Arboretum has the Brisbane River as its western boundary and there are three small watercourses running both into and out of two lakes, providing habitat for wildlife. Before the development of the Arboretum in 1925, the lakes were a single paperbark swamp with small patches of open water. An early city water main ran across the swamp roughly dividing it in two. In 1975 the water main was covered by rocks and soil to form a causeway/walking path, and the swamp was reshaped to form two open lakes containing three islands. Many species of birds use the lakes, the watercourses, and the Arboretum as a whole, gathering and dispersing according to season or changes in management.

Prior to the commencement of regeneration treatments the edges of the lake were relatively barren (Fig 1), kept in this condition by regular mowing and brushcutting which led to occasional collapses of the edges into the lake.  Close inspection found around 14 natives among the weeds being mowed and brushcut; so the idea came that perhaps the natives could be allowed to grow and protect the edge.  This would also form a natural plant community and potential faunal habitat. Twenty weed species were observed, including Signal Grass (Brachiaria decumbens), Green Panic (Megathyrsus maximus var. pubiglumis), Bahia Grass (Paspalum notatum), Slender Pigeon Grass (Setaria parviflora), Blue Couch (Digitaria didactyla), Blue Billy Goat Weed (Ageratum houstonianium), Creeping Indigo (Indigofera spicata).

Works undertaken. In 2019, agreement was reached to discontinue mowing to the edge and brushcutting, and to trial bush regeneration-style weed management along a manageable portion of the lake edge; that is, both sides of the causeway.  The work was carried out by two members of the Friends of Sherwood Arboretum bushcare group, a Habitat Brisbane bushcare group which is supported by Brisbane City Council.   The two volunteers worked on a weekly basis over 4 years, gradually removing weeds to release native plants.  The technique involved weed removal prior to weed seed shed while allowing natives to seed.  The objective was to reduce weed soil seed banks and recharge native soil seed banks over time.

Figure 2. The north-west corner of the causeway in 2021 showing high density natives, particularly Willow Primrose. (Photo Gordon King)

Results to date. As weed cover declined markedly, natives increasingly reappeared, dominating the site within two years.  At the peak of the site’s recovery, 34 native wetland herbaceous species had returned – many of these in high abundance in particular locations Figs 2-7).  These particularly included Tassle Sedge (Carex facsicularis), Emu Foot (Cullen tenax), Narrrow-leaved Indigo (Indigofera linifolia), Common Rush (Juncus usitatus), Willow Primrose (Ludwigia octovalvis), Slender Knotweed (Persicaria decipiens), Spotted Knotweed (Persicaria strigosa) and Poison Pratia (Lobelia concolor).

Water birds that also graze on land have been observed by the regeneration team to be increasingly using the lake edges – including Purple Swamphen (Porphyrio melanotus), Wood Duck (Chenonetta jubata) (Fig 6), Dusky Moorhen (Gallinula tenebrosa) and Intermediate Egret (Ardea intermedia).  The wetland plant insect life has also increased in the recovered areas.  As a result, the Chequered Swallowtail Butterfly (Papilio demoleus) (Fig. 7) is now seen among the Emu Foot, one of its host plants.

Figure 3. General view with White Eclipta (Eclipta prostrata), Slender Knotweed, Willow Primrose, Commelina (Commelina sp.) and Azolla (Azolla sp.) (Photo Gordon King)

Figure 4. Emu Foot. One of the natives tenaciously surviving even when there was a heavy weed presence. (Insets are of the characteristic five leaflets and the inflorescence.) (Photos Gordon King.)

Figure 5. Diversity of native species is high in some places – such as pictured here where Willow Primrose, Common Reed, White Eclipta, Binung (Christella dentata), Sprawling Bluebell (Wahlenbergia gracilis) and Emu Foot occur in close proximity. The waterlily is the introduced Mexican Waterlily (Nymphaea mexicana) and is controlled from time to time. (Photo Gordon King)

Figure 6. Wood Ducks foraging along the regenerating lake edges. (Photo Gordon King)

Figure 7. Insect life has increased including the Chequered Swallowtail butterfly for which Emu Foot is a host plant. (Photo Gordon King)

Changes over time. Composition has proven to be seasonally variable. At one point when the water had reduced to a very low level in the lake, muddy edges appeared, and Bacopa (Bacopa monniera.) emerged and flowered. A few days later there was rain and the water rose and covered the flowering plants – which are unlikely to return until muddy edges reappear. More recently, with heavy rains in February 2022, floodwaters covered all the banks to a depth of over 1m for several days.  Many species were severely affected, particularly Willow Primrose.  However a good recovery of all species is occurring.

A notable result of the work has been that the lake edges are no longer eroding and it is clear that valuable new habitat has been created.  These results provide more positive options for future management of the more extended lake edge should habitat restoration be undertaken in the future. It is an inspiring project to be involved in.

Acknowledgements: Brisbane Botanic Gardens and Brisbane City Council Habitat Brisbane program for agreeing to try this process. The Habitat Brisbane program also helped with occasional contractor support. Also thanks are extended to Gordon King, for his unflagging effort as fellow worker and for the use of his photographs.

Contact: Carole Bristow, bushcare leader, Friends of Sherwood Arboretum bristowc@bigpond.net.au

Holistic regenerative management on a grazing farm, Allendale, Boorowa is leading to more complex native pastures and increased biodiversity

David Marsh

Figure 1. David Marsh among native grasses that naturally regenerated at Allendale (Photo T. McDonald).

Introduction:  When we purchased the 814 ha ‘Allendale” property in the wheat-sheep belt of the Southwest Slopes of NSW in 1966, almost all of the plants that had evolved here over millennia had disappeared although Europeans had only been here for 142 years. All that remained of the woody components were some scattered Yellow Box (Eucalyptus melliodora), Blakeley’s Red Gum (E. blakelyi) , a few White Box (E. albens), a few Apple Box (E. bridgesiana), and very few Hickory Wattle (Acacia implexa). The ground layer, which normally includes most of the biodiversity in grassy woodlands had almost completely disappeared.

During first 18 years (of the 52 years) managing our farm we took a conventional approach to farming, having a largely economic relationship with the land and applying all the latest agronomy to lift yields. In 1989 we began a shift towards a process of ‘recovery grazing’ using Alan Savory’s  Holistic Resource Management approach. This was motivated not only by our values of wanting to leave the local landscape in healthy condition but also by the fact that the conventional mixed farming model was driving our farm  into incrementally increasing debt. We realized that we were attempting to run a fixed enterprises in a variable climate of recurring drought and that wasn’t working.  Training in holistic management with a certified educator in 1999 gave me the confidence to take the process more seriously, as did my enrollment in a Grad Dip. of Sustainable Agriculture followed by a Masters degree in Sustainable Agriculture.

The basis of recovery grazing is to avoid preferential and repeated overgrazing of desirable perennials by using rotational grazing in many small paddocks (to avoid repeatedly grazing recovering plants) rather than set grazing in a few paddocks. This allows longer recovery times for the desirable native perennial grasses and avoids creating conditions best suited to annuals of less value to livestock.  The ecological and economic results of our efforts have been outstandingly positive.

Works undertaken: Our first objective was to get costs under control. Surprisingly, for us this meant discontinuing cropping. Despite intermittent large profits from cropping our analysis showed that it was not profitable overall due to the number of dry years, wet harvests and frosts. We also started managing livestock differently. We created more land divisions using conventional or electrical fencing and, in our case, piping water to each paddock rather than radiating paddocks around the dams. (A trial of the latter showed it would cause too much erosion over time.) The troughs, energiser and solar panels are moved with the cattle, each move taking less than an hour.  Fencing and water cost us $85/ha at the time and was completed in 5 years, which compared favourably to spending $70K a year on fertilisers and pesticides during our cropping phase.  Instead of 12 mobs of cattle and 26 paddocks we now have 104 paddocks (and usually one mob of cattle), running them on an agistment basis that happens to suit us. Each paddock is only grazed for a total of about 10 days per year which gives time for not only existing pasture species to recover but for new species to recruit.

Most of our vegetation restoration approach relies on natural regeneration including both groundcovers and trees.  But we have planted quite a few scattered trees and have also sown some native grass seed – either hand broadcasting after collecting it from roadsides (or where it has recovered on the property) or after mechanized seeding of purchased batches from other farmers interested in the same process.  Cattle are also agents in seed dispersal as they spread it when grazing plants with ripe seed. A technique that we have used occasionally is to intentionally move the mob from a paddock with ripe seed (after they have had a big feed)  to a paddock that doesn’t have much of the species we wish to encourage. Effectively the cattle are harvesting and sowing the seed for us at no cost.

Figure 2. Increase in native grass presence at Allendale over time. (1999 -2020)

Results to date:

Woody vegetation. Tree cover on Allendale has increased from 3% cover in 1966, to over 20% in 2022 (through both tree planting and natural recruitment). Since 2010 – when it rained after a nine-year dry spell – the big remnant trees began to reproduce. The long recoveries from grazing allowed around 800 saplings (with temporary electric tape to protect them from being grazed for a few years), to survive and become trees. This is the first time any native trees have germinated and survived on Allendale in over 100 years.  Wattles (Acacia spp.) were originally direct seeded and are now recruiting.  This increase in woody vegetation and cycling provides the basis for a far more complex ecosystem on Allendale (with more insects, small reptiles, birds and a range of mammals) compared to recent previous decades.

Bird life. With these changes, a whole lot of other ecological shifts are also occurring at no cost. These days there are many thousands of quail (Coturnix sp.), finches (Neochmia spp.) and wrens (Malurus spp.) are present in increasing numbers. Dusky Wood Swallow (Artamus cyanopterus cyanopterus) and White-browed Wood Swallow (Artamus superciliosus ) come nearly every year and breed here; the Rufous Songlark (Cincloramphus mathewsi ), a ground nesting bird that we seldom saw previously, is now frequently observed. Various raptors are constantly here; the Black Shouldered Kite (Elanus axillaris), Nankeen Kestrel (Falco cenchroides), Wedge-tailed Eagle (Aquila audax), Brown Falcon (Falco berigora), Swamp Harrier (Circus approximans), Spotted Harrier (Circus assimilis) and Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) are frequent visitors. To date there have been 128 species of birds identified on the property, and we have observed informally that many of these species (and their abundance) have increased in recent years.

Grasses. Cibolabs analyses have shown that our ground cover levels have been at 100% for many years now and there have been particular increases in native grasses (Fig. 1).  We mapped the native grasses on the property in 1999 and found them present in only 1 ha out of 814 ha and confined to rocky outcrops that could not be ploughed and in a few fence corners. Repeat mapping in 2004/5 showed native grasses covered a larger area (~86ha) – with further increases mapped in 2010 (189ha) and 2020 (440ha) (Figs 2-5).  Indeed, representatives of the warm season perennials that evolved here can now be found in most if not all our paddocks even though too scattered to map.

The grass species include wallaby grasses (Rytidosperma spp.), Common Wheat Grass (Elymus scaber), spear and corkscrew grasses (Austrostipa spp.), Umbrella Grass (Chloris truncata), Kangaroo Grass, (Themeda triandra), Weeping Grass (Microlaena stipoides), Box Grass (Paspalidium distans), Arm Grass (Brachiaria milliformis), Queensland Blue Grass, (Dicanthium sericeum), Red Grass, (Bothriocloa macra), Cotton Panic (Digitaria brownii) and Wild Sorghum (Sorghum leiocladum). All these species have increased markedly in recent years, with the big stand-outs being Arm Grass, Box Grass, the wallaby grasses and Umbrella Grass (See Appendix 1).

While we believe the grasses would have gradually increased over time without sowing, we have accelerated the process by sowing some species in small quantities using a disc seeder in some sites, but mainly broadcasting seed by hand from a quad bike (Figs. 3 and 4 0a.nd Appendix 1).  Seeds were also dispersed by the cattle.

Figure 3. Locations of seed sowing treatments over time at Allendale.

Figure 4 Locations of seed sowing treatments over time at Allendale.

Figure 5. Native grass presence in all Allendale paddocks (with and without sowing) by 2020

Non-natives.  Achieving change has been more difficult in the paddocks where we had previously introduced exotic seed mixes including Cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata) and Phalaris (Phalaris aquatica). These two perennial exotic grasses are highly dominant and can temporarily competitively exclude native grasses (even if the latter may still be present) –  particularly in wet seasons.  Experience suggests that this may  explain why native grass sowings in recent high rainfall years have not yet shown results (Figs 4-5).  These species are still valuable for grazing, however, as is Paspalum (Paspalum dilatatum) – which has increased – and Plantain/Ribwort (Plantago lanceolata) which is considered beneficial to the quality of the pasture.

In general, however, managing ground cover to reduce bare ground has helped managed disturbance-adapted invasive weeds such as Illyrian Thistle (Onopordum illyricum), Patterson’s Curse (Echium plantagineum), Capeweed (Arctotheca calendula) and Amsinckia (Amsinckia spp.); all of which now occur only occasionally. Importantly, we previously had an annual spraying program for some of the problematic annuals but we have not done that for 22 years;  managing ground cover to reduce bare ground goes a very long way to manage the populations of disturbance-adapted species. Any small patches of high-risk weeds (e.g. Rubus sp. and Rosa sp.) have proven manageable by mattocking out.

Lessons learned: Our goal is to live in a landscape increasing in biodiversity and to meet our economic goals. Over 30 years we were expending large amounts of money on contractors while rolling the dice against the weather, with little time for holidays.  We have found that we now usually have perennial native grasses dominating in summer and that this avoids the previous boom and bust cycle. The recovery grazing management (probably combined with reduced nutrient loads) has now resulted in more diverse native perennial pastures and avoids the cost of resowing. This allows time for habitat to develop to increase native fauna and allows us to produce time for recreation.

The benefits we have seen however, required a changed mindset.  It is quite hard for farmers to avoid intervening.  We had lots of weeds for many years because our previous management had pushed succession all over the farm back to an early state due to the creation of bare ground, even though we had sown perennials. A more mature succession took 3-5 years after ceasing sowing, weed control and overgrazing, so it did not occur overnight.  Importantly, all this required quite a philosophic conversion. Quite a lot of the farmers going down this track show a shift in attitude, characterized by patience and a greater willingness to take responsibility for land outcomes.  Such a changed mindset is not yet being entertained by the number of farmers needed to stop the slow but inexorable decline of biodiversity on farmland.   Yet more farmers are thinking about it now compared to in the last 20 years, which is an encouraging sign.

Acknowledgements: Thanks goes to my family (Mary Marsh, Skye Rush, Hugh Marsh and Alice Needham) and to my farming colleagues that have also been going on this journey (Charles Massy, Colin Seis, Martin Royds and Scott Hickman) .

Contact: David Marsh, Allendale, Boorowa NSW, Australia. Email: marsh.allendale1@gmail.com

Appendix 1. The main grass species, treatments and results at Allendale over approximately two decades.

Species Intervention Results
Wallaby grasses (Rytidosperma spp.) Very little seed has been scattered of one variety only Six varieties are now present and appeared within 3-5 years. All are spreading.
Box grass

(Paspalidum distans )

Included in the total of  ~8×40 kg bags of seed purchased from another farmer, Colin Seis, over the years) and hand dribbled in rows about 20m apart from the quad bike.  Also included in the ‘Seis mix’ disc-seeded into paddocks totalling 150ha. In 1999 only found in one or two small patches but now it is every across the property
Umbrella Grass

(Chloris truncata)

Included in the above-described ‘Seis mix’ hand dribbled and disc-seeded Was present in 1999 but now it is widespread as the seed heads are like umbrellas and tumble
Arm Grass  – Brachiaria milliformis Included in the above-described ‘Seis mix’ hand dribbled and disc-seeded Was absent when first came here.  Now it is widespread and increasing all the time.

 

Kangaroo grass – (Themeda   triandra) A total of half a wool pack from nearby roadside has been dispersed by hand from a quad bike over the ~15 years (split over ~four occasions). Was absent when first came here but was present on the roadside. It is not spreading rapidly but is starting to come back.

 

Corkscrew and tall Stipa

(Austrostipa spp.)

 

Pre-existed and not collected. Some was present in uncropped areas. As a pioneer it can now be seasonally abundant.
Red grass (Bothriochloa macra) A little pre-existed was original present  but some is in the ‘Seis mix’ hand dribbled and disc-seeded Some was present in uncropped areas. It is now increasing although quite slowly.
Weeping grass (Microlaena stipoides) Some seed was included in grass culms harvested from a nearby property and ‘blown’ out onto some Allendale paddocks by Owen Whittaker. Some was present in uncropped areas.  It is gradually increasing.
Common Wheat Grass (Elymus scaber)

 

No seed was sown but have collected from Allendale paddocks and distributed by hand a from quad bike. Some was present in 1999 but it is now spreading extensively. The species is relatively insignificant but has a place in a pasture.

 

Lake Bolac Eel Festival and Environmental Forum – 25-26 March 2022

Figure 1. An Environmental Forum is a held at each Lake Bolac Eel Festival to bring to the festival-goers reliable information about the ecology of the region and its potential for improved management. (Photo Tein McDonald)

Introduction. Cultural events are increasingly recognised as critical to cultural change and community awareness building. One outstanding example is the Lake Bolac Eel Festival (Kuyang Lapakira – Plenty Eels), a biennial festival held at Lake Bolac in the western basalt plains of Victoria to celebrate environmental repair and Aboriginal cultural revival (Figs 1-5).

The timing of the festival reflects the season when Kuyang (Shortfinned Eel, Anguilla australis) begins its migration to the sea to spawn and when the First Nations Communities from surrounding areas gathered to harvest the species, trade and hold ceremonies. As such the festival is a significant gathering place for people who care for the environment and respect Aboriginal cultural heritage, promoting the restoration of Lake Bolac and surrounding waterways.

Figure 2. The 2022 Eel Festival’s Welcome to Country was conducted by Traditional Owner Brett Clarke with the assistance of local Indigenous community members. The Festival is a gathering of new generations of people affirming the traditions of past generations who cared for the lands and waters of the Lake Bolac area. (Photo Ayesha Burdett)

Figure 3. The festival is very small but is attended by many locals and those serious about ecological and cultural restoration. In 2022, workshops on topics including tanning Eel leather, Indigenous tools and song-making, and childrens’ craft activities were interspersed among music and dance events. (Photo Tein McDonald)

An Environmental Forum is a regular part of each festival program. At this year’s forum, chaired by freshwater wetland ecologist Michelle Casanova, six presenters including Traditional Owners, Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority representatives, the local Landcare group, local landholders and researchers provided rich information about the significance of the site, the eel and its habitat,  management strategies, and roles of stakeholders.

The Forum commenced with a moving Welcome dance and a smoking ceremony led by Traditional Owner Brett Clarke. The first speakers were Tim Hill and Jileena Cole, Chair and Facilitator respectively from the Beyond Bolac Catchment Action Group, who described the context of the efforts to protect and repair eel habitats in a production landscape. Brett Clarke then spoke movingly on the role of First Nations people caring for Country and culture. The third speaker was Greg Kerr, Senior Ecologist with Nature Glenelg Trust, who focused on exploring the idea of ‘home’ for animals in Lake Bolac, while the fourth speaker, John Sherwood from Deakin University, intrigued the audience with his presentation on recent evidence of the Moyjil archaeological site at Warrnambool Victoria that suggests far earlier habitation of Victoria by Aboriginal people than is conventionally understood.

Damein Bell – member of the Gundtijmara community, CEO of Gunditj Mirring Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation and currently a Board Member with the Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority – spoke engagingly on the long effort to have the Budj Bim Cultural Landscape recognised on the UNESCO World Heritage List in July 2019. This account reinforced the importance of patient and persistent action to effect social change.

Perhaps the most intriguing talk was the presentation by the sixth speaker, Wayne Koster from the Arthur Rylah Institute (DELWP) who regaled us with what is currently known about the migration of the Short-finned Eel. This species is native to the lakes, dams and coastal rivers of south-eastern Australia, New Zealand, and much of the South Pacific, but very little has been historically known about its reproduction or where this takes place. Preliminary results were presented of Waynes’s recent work satellite tracking oceanic migrations of the Short-finned Eel, with migration track to the Coral Sea between New Caledonia and Australia.

Figure 4. The large tent provides the setting for both the Environmental Forum and the later musical events. (Photo Tein McDonald)

Figure 5. The day’s activities culminated in a Twilight ceremony featuring Aboriginal dancers, followed by a concert headlined by local musician and one of the Festival founders, Neil Murray. ( Photo Una Allender).

Stakeholders: The event is managed by the Lake Bolac Eel Festival Committee. Funders include: Grampians Pyrenees Primary Care Partnership, Victorian Regional Arts Fund Community Grants Round 2 2019, Ararat Rural City Council; Regional Arts Victoria, Beyond Bolac Catchment Action Groups, Stronger Communities Programme Round 7 – Wannon, Visit Victoria – Regional Community Events Fund, Glenelg Hopkins CMA, Willaura Lake Bolac Community Bank and NBN Local.

Contacts: Una Allender <uallender@bigpond.com> or Ayesha Burdett <ayesha.burdett@gmail.com> Lake Bolac Eel Festival Committee.  Media contact: Sally Gibson <sgibsonaustralia@gmail.com>

Regeneration of indigenous vegetation at Third Reedy Lake as it has dried over summer and autumn 2022

Damien Cook

Introduction.  Third Reedy Lake is a freshwater wetland in the Kerang region in north central Victoria. It is part of the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site, which means that it is recognised as being of international significance for wetland conservation as it supports threatened plant and animal species and ecological communities and rookeries of colonial nesting wetland birds.

Prior to European occupation this wetland, along with Middle Lake and Reedy Lake, would have been inundated only when floodwaters came down the Loddon River and caused the intermittent Wandella and Sheep Wash Creeks to flow. At that time the wetland experienced a natural wetting and drying cycle, filling up from floodwaters and drying out completely between floods, which occurred on average once every 3 to 4 years.

In the 1920s, however, this natural wetting and drying cycle was discontinued. Third Reedy Lake became part of the Torrumbarry Irrigation Scheme. Water was diverted out of the Murray River at Torrumbarry Weir and made to flow through a series of natural wetlands including Kow Swamp, the Reedy Lakes, Little Lake Charm and Kangaroo Lake to deliver water to irrigate farms. The lakes and swamps became permanently inundated.  While this meant farmers had a reliable supply of water it also profoundly altered the ecology of the wetlands (Fi. 1).

Figure 1. Third Reedy Lake in February 2013 prior to being bypassed. Continuous inundation for around a century had drowned the native vegetation, leaving only skeletons of trees. (Photo D. Cook)

Trees such as River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) and Black Box (E. largiflorens) were drowned, lake bed plants that relied on a drying cycle could no longer grow and the ecological productivity of the wetlands was massively reduced. The density of wetland birds has been found to be positively correlated to wetland productivity and this metric has been used in a variety of ecological studies to compare the use of different habitats by wetland birds. During bird counts conducted in 2018 the highest density of birds on Third Reedy Lake was about 5 birds/hectare. In contrast the naturally intermittent Lake Bael Bael supported over 60 birds/hectare, a density 12 times higher. While Third Reedy Lake supported a maximum of 17 wetland bird species Lake Bael Bael supported a maximum 38 wetland bird species.

Works undertaken

Hydrological works.  Third Reedy Lake was deemed to be inefficient for moving water due to losses caused by evaporation and so it was intentionally bypassed by the irrigation scheme in 2020. The lake therefore dried for the first time in one hundred years over the summer of 2022. Environmental water will be periodically delivered to the wetland in the future to mimic its natural wetting and drying cycle and assist ecological recovery.

Revegetation works. Over 2000 River Red Gum trees and 1000  understorey plants, including Tangled Lignum (Duma florulenta) and Southern Cane-grass (Eragrostis infecunda), have been planted across the centre of the lake where no natural regeneration was likely to occur in the short to medium term. Members of the local Barapa Barapa and Wemba Wemba Traditional owner communities were employed to plant the trees and other plants (Fig. 2). The Barapa Barapa and Wemba Wemba Traditional Owners have a strong interest in the wetland because of its cultural values.


Figure 2. Uncle Trevor Kirby with a Red Gum he has just planted and guarded at Third Reedy Lake April 2022. . Virtually no native vegetation remained visible on the lake bed immediately after the long inundation. (Photo T. McDonald)

The River Red Gum seedlings have been planted next to dead River Red Gum stumps to replicate the original woodland structure of the wetland (Fig  3). Planting next to the stumps has other advantages; they provide shelter from the wind and sun and soil carbon and moisture levels are highest close to the rotting wood.

Figure 3. River Red Gum seedling planted next to an old red gum stump, Third Reedy Lake May 2022. (Photo D. Cook)

Results to date.  In the first 3 months without inundation the lakebed muds dried out, followed by deep cracking (Fig 2). Planted trees thrived as there was still ample moisture in the sub-soil.  Site inspections in May 2022 revealed that substantial natural regeneration of the wetland has begun (Fig. 4).

After 100 years without drying it was not known if any seed bank of the original lakebed vegetation would have survived. However, 46 native species have been recorded growing on the lakebed since the last of the water evaporated from the lake in April 2022. This includes two threatened species: Floodplain Groundsel (Senecio campylocarpus) and Applebush (Pterocaulon sphacelatum) (Fig. 5) . The germination of Applebush is particularly surprising given that this is only the fourth record of this plant in Victoria, the species being more common in the arid centre of Australia. Other indigenous species that have regenerated on the lakebed are shown in Figs 6 and 7.

Figure 4. Lake bed herbs regenerating after the drying phase, at Third Reedy Lake, May 2022 . A total of 46 native species have been recorded as having regenerated on the lakebed since the last of the water evaporated from the lake in April 2020 (Photo D. Cook)

Figure 5. Among the 46 native species regenerating is Applebush (Pterocaulon sphacelatum) which is particularly surprising as it is listed as endangered in Victoria and known to occur in only three other locations. (Photo Dylan Osler)

Figure 6. Spreading Nut-heads (Sphaeromorphaea littoralis), Third Reedy Lake May 2022. This species is uncommon in the Kerang region, the closest records to Third Reedy Lake being from the Avoca Marshes. (Photo D. Cook)

Figure 7. Golden Everlasting (Xerochrysum bracteatum) and Bluerod (Stemodia florulenta) make an attractive display of wildflowers. These species are uncommon at present but if weeds are controlled adequately, they should recolonise much of the wetland floor. (Photo D. Cook)

River Red Gum regeneration has been localised on the bed of the lake and has mainly occurred on the fringes close to where living Red Gum trees have shed seed. The densest Red Gum regeneration has occurred on a sandy rise close to the inlet of the lake, where the trees have grown rapidly (Figs 8 and 9). Many of the seedlings that have germinated on the edge of the lakebed are being heavily grazed by rabbits or wallabies.

Figure 8. Regenerating Red Gums and native grasses and sedges on a sandy rise near the inlet of Third Reedy Lake, May 2022.(Photo D. Cook)

Figure 9. River Red Gum seedling on cracking clay soil that has germinated near the lake edge. Many of these seedlings are being heavily grazed, probably by rabbits or wallabies. (Photo D. Cook)

The young trees will take many years to develop the hollows required by many species of wildlife, but hopefully the old stumps will persist for some time to provide this important habitat feature (Fig 10). When these trees grow large enough, they will provide shady nesting sites for colonial nesting wetland birds such as Australasian Darter (Anhinga novaehollandiae) (Fig. 10) and Great Cormorant  (Phalacrocorax carbo) and replace the dead standing trees as they rot and fall over.

Figure 10. Australasian Darter chicks on a nest in a live River Red Gum in the creek that joins Middle Lake to Third Reedy Lake. (Photo D. Cook)

Stakeholders: Barapa Barapa, Wemba Wemba, Goulburn-Murray Water, North Central Catchment Management Authority and Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site Committee

Contact:  Damien Cook, restoration ecologist, Wetland Revival Trust, Email: damien@wetlandrevivaltrust.org

Biological and cultural restoration at McDonald’s Swamp in northern Victoria, Australia

Dixie Patten (Barapa Wemba Working for Country Committee) and Damien Cook (Wetland Revival Trust.

Introduction. McDonald’s Swamp is a 164-ha wetland of high ecological and cultural significance, and is one of the Mid Murray Wetlands in northern Victoria. The restoration this wetland is part of broader project, led by the Indigenous Barapa Wamba Water for Country Committee in collaboration with the Wetlands Revival Trust, to address the loss of thousands of wetland trees and associated understorey  plants that were killed by poor agricultural and water management that caused prolonged water logging and an elevated the saline water table.

Figure 1. Laura Kirby of the Barapa Wamba Water for Country restoration team beside plantings of two culturally important plants that are becoming well established; Common Nardoo (Marsilea drummondii) and Poong’ort (Carex tereticaulis). (Photo D. Cook.)

The project has a strong underpinning philosophy of reconciliation as it is a collaboration between the Wetland Revival Trust and Aboriginal Traditional Owners on Country – access to which was denied to our people for a long time, disallowing us to practice our own culture and have places to teach our younger generations.  One of the main aims of the project is  to employ Barapa and Wemba people on our own land (Fig 1), not only to restore the Country’s health but also to provide opportunities for a deeper healing for us people. Many of the species we are planting are significant cultural food plants or medicine plants. Indeed it’s actually about restoring people’s relationships with each other –Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians – and maintaining our connection to  Country.

Over recent years the hydrology of many wetlands in the Kerang region has been vastly improved by a combination of drought, permanently improved irrigation practices in the catchment and the delivery of environmental water.  This has restored a more natural wetting and drying cycle that will enable regeneration of some prior species, largely through colonisation from the wetland edges and through reintroduction by waterbirds.

However, supplementary planting is needed to accelerate the recovery of keystone species at all strata and the ~50 ha of the wetland that has been assessed as highly degraded with little potential f or in-situ recovery from soil-stored seedbanks.

Figure 2. Aquatic species planted at McDonald’s Swamp, including Robust Water-milfoil (Myriophyllum papillosum), Common Water Ribbons (Cycnogeton procerum) and the endangered Wavy Marshwort (Nymphoides crenata). (Photo D. Cook)

Works undertaken: To date the project has employed 32 Traditional Owners, planting out and guarding canopy trees to replace those that have died, undertaking weed control, and replanting wetland understorey vegetation.

Over a period of 5 years,, around 60% of the presumed pre-existing species, including all functional groups, have been reintroduced to the site, involving 7000 plants over 80 ha of wetland. This includes scattered plantings of the canopy species River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), Black Box (Eucalyptus largiflorens) and Eumong (Acacia stenophylla).  Dense nodes have also been planted of a wide diversity of herbaceous wetland species including water ribbons (Cycnogeton spp.), Nardoo (Marsilea drummondii) and Old Man Weed (Centipeda cunninghamii). These nodes have been protected from waterbird grazing by netting structures for 3-6 months, after which time they have reproduced and spread their seeds and begun recruiting throughout the broader wetland..

Some areas of the swamp are dominated by overabundant native reeds due extended inundation in the past.  Such reeds – including Cumbungi (Typha orientalis) and Common Reed (Phragmites australis) – will be future targets for burning or cutting followed by flooding by environmental watering to reduce their abundance prior to reintroduction and recolonization by other indigenous species.

Figure 3. Prolific regeneration of the nationally endangered Stiff Grounsel (Senecio behrianus). The species is presumed extinct in South Australia and New South Wales and is now only known only from 5 wild and 6 re-introduced populations in Victoria. (Photo G Little)

Outcomes to date: Very high establishment and growth rates have been attained for the canopy tree species, many individuals of which have flowered and set seed within the 6 years since project commencement.  All the planted understorey species are now recruiting very well – particularly the Water Ribbons (Cycnogeton procerum and C. multifructum), Floating Pondweed (Potamogeton  cheesmannii), Common Nardoo (Marselia drummondii), Wavy Marshwort (Nymphoides crenata), Water Milfoils (Myriophyllum papillosum  and M. crispatum), Forde Poa (Poa fordeana), Swamp Wallaby-grass  (Amphibromus nervosus), River Swamp Wallaby-grass (Amphibromus fluitans) and the nationally endangered Stiff Groundsel (Senecio behrianus) (Fig.  3.).  The important Brolga (Antigone rubicunda) nesting plant Cane Grass (Eragrostis infecunda) has also spread vegetatively.  Where hundreds of individuals were planted, there are now many thousands recruiting from seed, building more and more potential to recruit and spread within the wetland.

After 7 years of a more natural wetting and drying regime, natural regeneration has also occurred of a range of native understorey species including populations of the important habitat plant Tangled Lignum (Duma florulenta), Lagoon Saltbush (Atriplex suberecta) and Common Spike-rush (Elaeocharis acuta) (Fig 4.).

Figure 4. Planted River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) and naturally regenerating Tangled Lignum (Duma florulenta) and a range of other native colonisers and some herbaceous weed at McDonald’s Swamp some6 years after hydrological amendment and supplementary planting. (Photo T McDonald)

Stakeholders:  Barapa Land and Water, Barapa Wamba Water for Country Committee, Parks Victoria, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning and the North Central Catchment Management Authority.

Contact: Damien Cook, Wetland Revival Trust, Email: damien@wetlandrevivaltrust.org

Second trial of watering device design to facilitate seed dispersal into revegetation sites

Amanda Freeman

Figure 1. Watering device on stand with camera above.

Introduction. This summary reports on methods and results of a trial to improve the design of a watering device. (See preliminary trial in EMR summary). This trial drew upon lessons learned In the “Kickstart” pasture conversion project,  (see https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1bhz81L%7EGwOHhQ) where perches and water basins were installed on two private properties in the upper Barron, Queensland, with the aim of catalysing rainforest regeneration.  The seeds of 31 species of bird-dispersed forest trees and shrubs were deposited in water basins, largely due to Pied Currawong (Strepera graculina) using the water to regurgitate seeds. The Kickstart Project demonstrated that there is potential for supplementary water to enhance seed dispersal into revegetation sites; however, the seeds regurgitated into basins in that study were not deposited in sites suitable for germination, limiting the basins’ usefulness as restoration tools.

Our 2016 EMR Project Summary described a watering device designed to overcome this problem of seed being deposited in water receptacles.  The trial was conducted at the School for Field Studies property near Yungaburra, Queensland and this summary reports the results of our trial which aimed to identify whether frugivorous birds would use our watering device. We also assessed the amount of maintenance the watering device required to function effectively.

Figure 2. A Lewin’s Honeyeater (Meliphaga lewinii) at a watering device, May 2017.

Watering Device Trial. In July 2016, three 3 x 3m plots were established in an approximately 120 x 30m area of disused pasture at the School for Field Studies property. The site was located 15m from the edge of primary rainforest on one side and adjacent to a mosaic of scattered trees, restoration plantings and secondary forest on the other three sides. Each plot had a perch, 3-4m high, cut to standard form from Sarsaparilla (Alphitonia petriei) trees. Each plot also had a watering device placed close to the base of the perch. These were commercially available automatic water dispensers used for poultry set on a 1.5m high base with a perch that allowed birds of different sizes to access water from several angles and for expelled seed to fall to the ground (Figs. 1-3).

Motion-activated cameras (Ranger Compact 2 MP) were installed above each watering device to monitor visits to the water. Apart from a total of 37 days when the cameras were removed for maintenance, the three watering devices were monitored from 22 July 2016 to 13 December 2018 when the trial ended. In the analysis, continuous series of images of one or two birds at a watering device were treated as one visit by that species.

The three plots with a perch and watering device were interspersed with plots that only had a perch or had no structures at all. Apart from within the plots and a narrow access track between them, grass and woody vegetation were not controlled in the surrounding disused pasture.

Figure 3. A Victoria’s Riflebird (Ptiloris victoriae) at a watering device, October 2016.

What we found. Eighty-six visits by three frugivorous bird species were recorded across the three watering devices over the course of the trial. Ninety percent of visits were during the late dry seasons (September-November). One watering device was visited much more often than the others, receiving 70% of all visits. The other two watering devices received 20% and 10% of visits respectively (Table 1).

One bird species, the generalist Lewin’s Honeyeater (Meliphaga lewinii), was by far the most frequent visitor to the watering devices, making up 80% of frugivore visits (Fig. 2). Victoria’s Riflebird (Ptiloris victoriae) was the next most frequent visitor (14% of visits, Fig. 3) and Little Shrikethrush (Colluricincla megarhyncha) was the least frequent visitor (6% of frugivore visits). The only other species that used the watering devices was the Olive-backed Sunbird (Nectarinia jugularis) for which five visits were recorded. All species were recorded drinking from the watering devices. Only the Olive-backed Sunbird could bathe in the small water outlets and were recorded doing so on three occasions.

The watering devices required little maintenance over the 2.5yrs they were deployed. Water was replenished when needed at roughly six-monthly intervals and the water outlets, which collected debris and algae, were cleaned monthly. The devices had no noticeable deterioration at the end of the study.

Table 1. Number of frugivorous bird visits to three watering devices in disused pasture, 22 July 2016 to 13 December 2018.

  1 2 3 Total
Lewin’s Honeyeater Meliphaga lewinii 51 8 10 69
Victoria’s Riflebird Ptiloris victoriae 6 0 6 12
Little Shrikethrush Colluricincla megarhyncha 3 1 1 5
Frugivorous bird visits 60 9 17 86

Conclusions. Our watering devices were only used by three frugivorous bird species, most frequently by the Lewin’s Honeyeater a dietary generalist. Generalist avian frugivores tend to move mainly in more open habitats enhancing the dispersal of pioneer or non-forest trees across the landscape rather than carrying seeds from remnant forest into pasture.

Bird use of the watering devices was highly variable and largely confined to the late dry season when rainfall is low, and temperatures are warm to hot. These are poor conditions for germination and plant growth and likely limit recruitment of dispersed seeds.

Despite these limitations, watering devices are a low-cost intervention that may augment perches and attract frugivorous birds, thereby accelerating forest regeneration. The watering devices deployed in this trial did not collect seed, preserving the potential for seed to be dispersed. They required little maintenance and proved suitable for prolonged outdoor use. Watering devices warrant further investigation. 

Acknowledgements. Thanks to William (Bill) Johnson and John Hall for designing the watering device stand and camera attachment and preparing and maintaining the plots. The School for Field Studies funded the trial.

Contact. Amanda N. D. Freeman. Nature North, PO Box 1536, Atherton, Qld, 4883 Australia. The School for Field Studies, Centre for Rainforest Studies (PO Box 141, Yungaburra, Qld 4884 Australia; Tel: +61 (0) 438 966 773; Email: amandafreeman@naturenorth.com.au).

See also EMR project summary on the preliminary trial of this project: https://site.emrprojectsummaries.org/2016/11/02/a-water-point-design-to-facilitate-seed-dispersal-into-revegetation-or-pasture-sites/

Beyond the 1990s, beyond Iluka – koalas and citizen science – UPDATE of EMR summary

Daniel Lunney, Lisa O’Neill, Alison Matthews, Dionne Coburn and Chris Moon

[Update of EMR summary – Lunney, Daniel, Lisa O’Neill, Alison Matthews and Dionne Coburn ( 2000) “Contribution of community knowledge of vertebrate fauna to management and planning. Ecological Management & Restoration, 1:3, . 175-184. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1442-8903.2000.00036.x]

Key words: national parks, SEPP 44, adaptive management, social criteria, extinction, wildlife survey, coastal forests.

Figure 1. Interest in local wildlife among residents and visitors to the north coast village of Iluka was growing in the 1990s, providing an opportunity for community involvement in our wildlife survey designed not only to gain information but to raise awareness. (Photo Dan Lunney 1991.)

Introduction. Our EMR feature published in 2000 reported on research that commenced in 1997 when we set out to identify the species and locations of the vertebrate fauna of Iluka peninsula, at the mouth of the Clarence River NSW, Australia. Much of the peninsula had been damaged by post war sand mining and creeping urban growth. We had recognised that there was a growing interest by local communities in conserving biodiversity (Fig 1), as Iluka had residential areas not far from a magnificent Nature Reserve (Iluka NR) and a National Park (Bundjalung NP). We conducted a community-based survey, sent to every household, which used a large, coloured map of the peninsula and a questionnaire asking respondents to mark the locations of the fauna they had seen. As a result of the survey, we concluded that vertebrate fauna does live on private land, that local knowledge is valuable, and that there is both community concern over declining fauna and support for planning, management and long-term fauna research.

Figure 2. Two junior volunteers learning radio-tracking to locate koalas, Iluka Peninsula. (Photo Dan Lunney 1992)

The rise of citizen science. We were not the first to use a community-based survey for wildlife in NSW. A team (Philip Reed and Dan Lunney) in 1986-87 greatly expanded on some skilled, but tentative, efforts to survey Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) in NSW by the small but effective Fauna Protection Panel. We produced a small questionnaire, which was distributed in 1986, and when we came to analysing the data in 1987, we joined up with CSIRO scientist Paul Walker who had a new tool, GIS, still in its infancy, but which showed great promise. By the time of the Iluka study, GIS was central to our methods.

Over the last 20 years there has been a revolution in the acquisition and application of community knowledge (Figs 2 and 3), a better appreciation of its extent, and limitations, and how to better integrate a greater diversity of disciplines for a more effective planning and management outcome. A Google Scholar search for ‘citizen science’ in July 2019 returned over 2 million results, establishing this phrase in the scientific literature to describe projects that enlist the community for collecting or analyzing scientific data. The rise and success of citizen science undoubtedly stems from the power of the internet and web-based tools that members of the public can use to record species’ locations, providing answers to such questions as: is a species increasing, decreasing or stable? – answers to which increase the capacity for managers and planners to be better targeted in their decisions. Such web-based technology also helps to overcome resource limitations where scale is an important factor. For example, for our 2006 state-wide koala and other wildlife survey we put a major effort into the distribution of the survey, a paper form with a large map. Now, the current 2019 survey is web-based, a procedure we explored in north-west NSW in 2014 where we selected the study area to be 200 by 300 km.

Figure 3. A skilled team climbing a tree to capture a koala for a health check and radio-tracking in a study of the koala population of the Iluka peninsula. (Photo Dan Lunney 1991.)

A further innovation comes from linking sociology to ecology and expanding the term from citizen science to ‘crowd-sourced information’. An example is a study in the four local government areas just north of Iluka, namely Lismore, Byron, Ballina and Tweed. The sociological side, led by Greg Brown, used the threatened koala as a case in point. The study demonstrated a novel, socio-ecological approach for identifying conservation opportunity that spatially connected landscapes with community preferences to prioritize koala recovery strategies at a regional scale. When multiple criteria (ecological, social, and economic) were included in the conservation assessment, we found the social acceptability criterion exerted the greatest influence on spatial conservation priorities. While this is a long way from our 1997 Iluka study, it is in the same lineage and represents two decades of development of what has become a widely accepted approach to regional planning.

Lessons learned and future directions. Looking back at the Iluka story, in one sense, it is a sorry one. When we first started our research on the Iluka peninsula in 1990, there was a visible population of koalas. It dwindled to extinction over the next decade so the locations of koalas in our EMR paper were of recent but fading memories. By defining our study area to a small location, it was possible to identify the cumulative impact of mining, housing, disease, roadkill, dog kill and fire. There have been reports of koalas being back on the peninsula as early as 2002 (Kay Jeffrey, local resident) and there have been subsequent sightings (John Turbill DPIE pers comm August 2019), we presume moving down from such locations as the northern part of Bundjalung National Park

Looking back on our EMR paper, we also see that the Emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae) was one of the most common species recorded by the community on the Iluka peninsula. It has now gone (John Turbill DPIE, pers. comm., August 2019). The coastal Emu population in northern New South Wales is now recognized as being under threat and a citizen science project called ‘Caring for our Coastal Emus’ has been established to collect recent emu sightings from the public using a web-based emu register to pin-point locations on a map. This register is administered by Clarence Valley Council and reflects the shift from the 1990s where the tools and expertise for collecting scientific data for management and planning were beyond the scope of local government. Today, local councils are considerably more engaged in conservation and community education projects.  Indeed, the Clarence Valley Council (2015) has prepared a Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management (CKPoM) for the lower Clarence, which includes Iluka, although it was not adopted beyond council level. The plan recognizes the importance of reducing further clearing and protecting and rehabilitating those areas that remain, and identifies that further studies and monitoring are required to establish the current status of the Iluka koala population.

In the early 1990s, we had prepared a possible plan of management for the koalas of Iluka peninsula but there was no legal incentive to adopt it. Thus, in late 1994, when one of us (DL) was asked by the then NSW Department of Planning and Urban Affairs to help write a SEPP (State Environmental Planning Policy) for koala habitat protection, the potential value of doing so was clear to us. SEPP 44 was written in three days, with a promise to revise it in 1995. SEPP 44 has proved to be valuable, although in recent years, the process of preparing and submitting CKoPMs from councils to the NSW state government seems to have stalled.

In conclusion, our EMR feature was written at the time of an upward inflection in the study of koalas, of fauna survey using crowd-sourced information.  We are now better equipped to use the new techniques from over three decades of what might be described as adaptive management of the ideas in our original EMR paper. We also press the point that research, exploring new ideas, incorporating new techniques and publishing our findings and thoughts make a crucial contribution to conserving not only koalas, but all our wildlife and natural areas, both in and out of reserves.  Such research is therefore vital to the survival of our wildlife.

Stakeholders and Funding bodies: In addition to the funding bodies in our EMR paper of 2000, support for the research supporting the above comments has been extensive, as reflected in the acknowledgements section of each report.

Contact. Daniel Lunney, Department of Planning, Industry and Environment NSW, (PO Box 1967, Hurstville NSW 2220 and the University of Sydney, NSW 2006. dan.lunney@environment.nsw.gov.au).