richness, complexity & condition of remnants in the eastern ......0.54 p0.05). references 1....
Post on 24-Apr-2021
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Introduction
Vegetation remnants in the eastern Darling Downs are highly fragmented and greatly reduced in size. Since 1975 there has been up to a 60% reduction in native vegetation in the region. Little is known about habitat quality and condition of remnant and re-growth vegetation, including endangered ecosystems such as bluegrass grasslands & semi-evergreen vine thickets.
The objective of this research was to compare plant species richness, condition and habitat complexity in remnant vegetation in the study area.
Results & Discussion
• richness =31-83 spp./500m2; habitat complexity = 6-17; condition = 23-31.
• significant patterns in species richness, complexity and condition across vegetation types (Fig. 2).
• grasslands - low complexity, fewer species, high condition.
• Mt Coolibah & Ironbark/Mt Coolibah woodlands - low condition, intermediate richness and complexity.
• richness-complexity strongly correlated (RS= 0.54 P<0.001); richness-condition poorly related (RS= -0. 20 P>0.05).
References
1. Newsome A.E., & Catling P.C. (1979) Habitat preferences of mammals inhabiting heathlands of warm temperate coastal, montane and alpine regions of southeastern Australia. In ‘Ecosystems of the World. Vol. 9A. Heathlands and Related Shrublands of the World’. (Ed. R.L. Specht.) Elsevier, Amsterdam.
2. Ludwig J.A. & Tongway D.J. (1997) A Landscape approach to Rangeland Ecology, In 'Landscape Ecology Function and Management: Principles from Australia's Rangelands.' ( Eds J. Ludwig, D. Tongway, D. Freudenberger, J.C. Noble & K. Hodgkinson) CSIRO, Melbourne.
3. Parkes D., Newell G. & Cheal D. (2003) Assessing the quality of native vegetation: the 'habitat hectares' approach. Ecological Management & Restoration 4: 529-538.
Conclusions
There is a need for simple, robust and meaningful on-ground indicators of the impacts of human activities in remnants.
Methods for habitat complexity have been developed for some time and have been rigorously tested over a range of ecosystems.
However, the notion of habitat condition remains rather vague and largely untested. This is despite a growing acceptance of this attribute as a decision tool by land managers.
Clearly, further development of methods for the accurate quantification of condition is necessary.
Richness, complexity & condition of remnants in the eastern Darling Downs, Queensland Andy Le Brocque, Charlie Zammit & Kate Reardon-Smith Land Use Research Centre, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Qld email: landuse@usq.edu.au Andy Charlie Kate
www.usq.edu.au/lurc
Methods
• 43 sites were sampled across 11 vegetation types in the study area in southern Queensland (Fig. 1).
• Plant species richness was determined in a single 500 m2 quadrat at each site.
• Habitat complexity1 was derived from vegetation structure (FPC of strata, cover of litter, logs etc) and other biophysical attributes (e.g. hollows, stags etc).
• A measure of vegetation condition was derived from the summation of scores for range of attributes (Table 1).
• One-way anova compared attributes across vegetation types; Spearman Rank correlations examined relationships between attributes.
While species richness alone is not a definitive attribute of vegetation, current theory would suggest that richness would be related to condition.
Table 1: Components of Condition Index
Figure 2: Comparison of Species Richness, Habitat Complexity and Condition across vegetation types
Figure 1: Map of north eastern Murray-Darling Basin showing location of study area
Acknowledgements
This project is part of the Land Use Change Project by the Land Use Research Centre and supported by a USQ Project Team Research grant. We thank the many landowners in the eastern Darling Downs for allowing access to properties. Further information: landuse@usq.edu.au
Attributes ranked in field (0-
3: 0=low, 3=high dist) –
inverse rank used to
determine score (ie
0=degraded, 3=healthy)
Recruitment:
Juvenile Density [trees]
(3 classes: <1, 1-3,
>3m ht)
Ground cover:
Litter Cover & Bare
ground Cover
Physical disturbance:
Grazing; Clearing;
Erosion; Weeds; Ferals;
Logging; Epicormic
Growth; Compaction;
Canopy Death
Component Method
Ranked 0=0; 1=1-10; 2=10-
20; 3=>20 individuals
/500m2.
Litter 0=0%; 1=1-10%; 2=10-
30%; 3=>30% cover
Bare ground 0=>20%; 1=10-
20%; 2=<10%; 3=0%
Land Use Research Centre | building sustainable communities & environments
New South Wales
Queensland
Brisbane
Toowoomba
Pittsworth
Murray Darling Basin
0 100
Kilometres
N
Study Area
Developments in assessing soil condition2 and habitat quality3 may prove to work well where there are suitable reference sites; however, broader application of condition indices, particularly in regions that are highly modified, may require considerable internal calibration.
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
Hab
itat
Co
mp
lexit
y S
co
re
a
ab
c c c
bc bc bc
bc
bc bc
Tukey test, P < 0.05
complex
simple
22.0
23.0
24.0
25.0
26.0
27.0
28.0
29.0
30.0
Co
nd
itio
n S
co
re
(un
-weig
hte
d)
a
ab
a
b
ab
ab b
b
b
ab
ab
ab
Tukey test, P < 0.05
‘healthy’
‘degraded’
Casu
ari
na c
rista
ta
(Bela
h)
Wo
od
lan
d
Sem
i-everg
ree
n v
ine
thic
ket
Flo
od
pla
in G
rass
lan
d
Blu
eg
rass
Gra
ss
lan
d
Mt
Co
olib
ah
Wo
od
lan
d
Iro
nb
ark
/Mt
Co
olib
ah
o
pen
wo
od
lan
d
Iro
nb
ark
O/W
oo
dla
nd
Iro
nb
ark
O/w
oo
dla
nd
Mt
Co
olib
ah
O/
Wo
od
lan
d
Mt
Co
olib
ah
/ K
urr
ajo
ng
Mt
Co
olib
ah
// K
urr
ajo
ng
(w
ith
Gra
ss
u/s
Vegetation type
(wit
h S
hru
b u
/s)
(op
en
wo
od
lan
d
(b) Habitat Complexity Score
(c) Un-weighted Condition Index
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Nu
mb
er
of
Sp
ecie
s (
/500m
2)
ab
bc
a
ab
bc bc
bc
c c
ab ab
(a) Plant Species Richness
Tukey test, P < 0.05
top related