The aim of this project is to compile land use and management practices and their observed and measured impacts and effects on vegetation condition. The results provide land managers and researchers with a tool for reporting and monitoring spatial and temporal transformations of Australia’s native vegetated landscapes due to changes in land use and management practices. Following are the details for the Wooroonooran Nature Refuge.
Pre-European benchmark-analogue vegetation: the original vegetation for the site was a complex mesophyll vine forest on basaltic red loams on wet uplands, altitude 720Â m with 4.421Â mm rainfall (av annual records for the period 1993-2011, source: Peter Stanton).
Brief chronology of changes in land use and management:
- 1800: Indigenous management of mesophyll rainforest by Ngadyan people
- 1924: Start of selective logging of high value timber species
- 1930: Finish of selective logging of high value timber species - intent to convert rainforest to pasture
- 1931: Start of land clearing of the previously logged forest - intent to convert rainforest to pasture
- 1938: End of land clearing of the previously logged forest - forest trash burnt
- 1939: Start of intensive soil and pasture management - soil not ploughed - aggressive pasture grasses sown into ash bed
- 1940: Start of grazing - pasture for dairying
- 1958: End of grazing, planted pasture for dairying. Pastures infertile. All livestock removed
- 1959: Start of land abandonment and minimal use
- 1983: Commenced large scale spraying and poisoning and physical removal of lantana
- 1993: Regrowth rainforest (complex mesophyll vine forest) in gullies and on lower slopes - 50% of lot 2
- 1994: Continued large scale spraying and poisoning of lantana and carpet grass
- 2003: Site formally gazetted as Wooroonooran Nature Refuge by WTMA
- 2011: Site continues to be manage for multiple values: timber reserve, biodiversity and habitat values.
Credit
We at TERN acknowledge the Traditional Owners and Custodians throughout Australia, New Zealand and all nations. We honour their profound connections to land, water, biodiversity and culture and pay our respects to their Elders past, present and emerging.
This work was funded by ACEAS, a facility of Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN), an Australian Government National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS) project.
Lineage
Information is compiled by year from published and unpublished sources. It includes qualitative and quantitative observations. It represents a structured narrative. Once compiled this narrative is translated into 22 indicators of vegetation condition which are grouped into three condition components: vegetation structure, species composition and regenerative capacity.
The pdf is a compilation of historical land use management of the site using 12 core attributes which describes the transformation of a native vegetation community relative to its reference state.
The spreadsheet provides the scores on the effects of the land management practices on the 22 indicators. Each indicator is scored from 0 to 1 for each year of the historical record; where 1 represents the reference state for each vegetation and environmental indicator, and 0 is where that vegetation indicator and/or ecological function is absent. The spreadsheet is used to sum and weight the indicators into the respective components of vegetation condition i.e. regenerative capacity, species composition and vegetation structure. The weighted transformation scores are then added to produce a single transformation index of vegetation condition for each year of the historical record. The results could be graphed and annotated to show the response of the plant community under different land use and management regimes.
Data Creation
Step 1. Select a representative site in terms of soil and landscape, and pre-European vegetation community.
Step 2: Locate that site using google earth and record its co-ordinates in the VAST-2 Chronology Datasheet
Step 3: Review relevant literature for the site and region, compiling information on land use history and associated land management practices. Simultaneously record for same year effect and impact of those practices on vegetation condition.
Step 4: Identify a group of specialists with ecological knowledge about the site who can revive, validate and identify gaps in the chronology and the accuracy of the data.
Step 5: Translate the observations from step 4 into 22 separately accessed vegetation condition indicators.
Step 6: Circulate the results of scoring of the 22 indicators and their aggregates including the graphs to the specialists identified in the step 4.
Step 7: Send results to Richard Thackway for incorporation into the ACEAS portal.
Authors
Point of Contact
Publisher