Relinking landscapes - assessing ecological transformations using VAST-2

Richard Thackway

Integrating Biodiversity Outcomes with Streamlined PlanningBalancing environmental concerns with reformed approval processes

26th& 27thNovember 2013, Sydney

Outline

• Landscape transformation: development and connectivity• Concepts and definitions• VAST framework• Tracking change and trend• Site-based case studies• Potential to account for landscape connectivity outcomes • More information

VAST = Vegetation Assets States and Transitions

Land management transforms landscapesRegulation of hydrological regime

Generation of food and fibre

Regulation of climate / microclimate

Generation of raw materials

Recycling of organic matter

Creating and regulating habitats

Controlling reproduction and dispersal

Time

Photographs: Alex Lee

Modification

Frag

men

tatio

n

Process of landscape development and reconnection

Intact

>90%

Variegated

60-90% retained

Fragmented

10-60% retained

Relictual

<10% retained

Native

Unmodified

Destroyed

UnmodifiedNaturally Bare

Modified

Transformed

Replaced – Adventive, Replaced – Managed Removed

Increasin

g

modification &

fragm

entation

(development)

Time

Decreas

ing

modification &

fragm

entation

(reco

nnection)

Non-nativeCondition classes defined using VAST

Process of relinking landscapes

• Involves learning and adapting:– Knowledge to reflect landscape function – Appropriate management interventions to management history – Collection of observations and measurements in landscape settings– Skills and capacities of the land management partnerships

http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/6898.htm

14 Case studiesJune 2013

Showing a rapid increase in number (and popularity) over

20 years

Aims of linking Australia’s landscapes

• to protect the integrity and resilience of ecosystems• to maintain and restore large-scale natural landscapes and

ecosystem processes• to lessen the impacts of fragmentation• to increase the connectivity of habitats to provide for

species movement and adaptation as climate changes; and • to build community support and involvement in

conservation

http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/6898.htm

Linking Australia’s landscapes – a review

On the whole the book Linking Australia’s landscapes focuses on: • Social process: Partnerships & members• Participation: Through local & regional events and activities• Coordinated actions: Plans and planning• Financial benefits: Multipliers and agreements • MERI: counting hectares, groups, individuals & events• Assumed biodiversity gain: connectivity = function = biodiversity

Summary: Grossly inadequate tracking ecological outcomes

Based on Cannon (1987)

Starting the process of modification and fragmentation of indigenous Australia

Derived from CannonReaders Digest (1987)Remapped into bioregions

First contact with explorers only 130 to

240 years ago

Development and change

Pre 1750 Vegetation

Present vegetation

Source: ERIN, Department of Environment

~150 years of development and change

Extent of native vegetation 2004

Source: Thackway et al. 2010

Connectivity example - Gondwana Link

Source: David Freudenberger

Understanding & classifying modification

Photograph: Andrew Marshall

Photograph: Richard Thackway

Understanding & classifying modification

Photograph: Richard Thackway

Photograph: Richard Thackway

Understanding & classifying modification

Photograph: Richard Thackway

Photograph: Richard Thackway

Understanding & classifying modification

Photograph: Richard Thackway

Photograph: Richard Thackway

Understanding & classifying modification

Photograph: Richard Thackway

Photograph: Richard Thackway

Understanding & classifying modification

Photograph: Richard Thackway

Photograph: Richard Thackway

Conclusions (1)

• Arguably the book Linking Australia’s landscapes presents a good case for social and political transformations

• Currently there is poor evidence, support, desire and capacity to track ecological change and trend = biodiversity outcomes

• A consistent national system is needed• Strong partnerships described in the book offer a real

opportunity for evaluating biodiversity /ecological outcomes

Towards an accounting approach

Tracking biodiversity outcomes associated with managing

landscape connectivity initiatives

Environmental accounting - key issues

• How to analyse and report ecological evidence of management practices (modification and fragmentation)?

• Which conceptual models are ecologically simple and meaningful to a wide range of key stakeholders?

• Land holder willingness to report intended & inadvertent outcomes

• Developing IT systems for archiving and accessing long term ecological and land management data and information

• Cost• Capacity• Desire and willingness among NGOs and government partners

Proposed solution - compiling and scoring effects of management practices

Spp compVeg structure

LMP = Land Management Practices

Document & score the effects of LMP on Key Performance Indicators

LMPYear

Time

Regen cap

Document LMP & Key Result Areas

Condition and transformation

• Change in a plant community (type) due to effects of land management practices:

– Structure

– Composition

– Regenerative capacity

• Resilience = the capacity of an plant community to recover to a reference state following a change/s in land management

• Transformation = changes to vegetation condition over time• Condition, resilience and transformation are assessed relative

to fully natural a reference state

Vegetation condition

Vegetation Assets States and Transitions (VAST) framework

VIVIVIIIIII0

Native vegetationcover

Non-native vegetationcover

Modification caused by land management

Transitions = trend

Vegetation thresholds

Reference for each veg type (NVIS)

A spatial/temporal framework for assessing & reporting modification - VAST

Condition states

Residual or unmodified

Naturally bare

Modified Transformed Replaced -Adventive

Replaced - managed

Replaced - removed

Thackway & Lesslie (2008) Environmental Management, 42, 572-90

Diagnostic attributes of VAST states:• Vegetation structure• Species composition• Regenerative capacity

NVIS

Spatial modification mapped using VAST

Thackway & Lesslie (2008) Environmental Management, 42, 572-90

/ replaced

/ unmodified

VAST 2009

Native

Vegetation Assets States and Transitions (VAST) framework

Modification of Australia’s major vegetation types

240 years of development and change

http://data.daff.gov.au/VAST/

Spatial modification and fragmentation, Bogan Gate, NSW (2005)

Site-based condition classes (VAST) Landscape Alteration Levels (LAL)

Rationale for tracking the effects of land management practices over time

At the land parcel level the impetus for connectivity initiatives are driven by on-ground actions aimed at: • Modifying • Removing and replacing• Enhancing• Restoring• Maintaining• Improving

Biodiversity outcomes can be practically tracked and reported using:• Key Result Areas and • Key Performance Indicators

1925

Occupation

Relaxation

Anthropogenic change

Net benefit

Time

1900 2025 1950

Reference

Tracking effects of land managementCh

ange

in v

eget

ation

indi

cato

r or i

ndex

Connectivity initiative

1850 1875 1975 2000

VAST

cl

asse

s

Changing management practices over time

Soil

Vegetation

Regenerative capacity/ function

Vegetation structure & Species composition

1. Soil hydrological status2. Soil physical status3. Soil chemical status4. Soil biological status5. Fire regime6. Reproductive potential7. Overstorey structure8. Understorey structure9. Overstorey composition10. Understorey composition

Key Result Areas (KRAs)

Source: Thackway 2012

Key Result Areas (10) Key Performance Indicators (22)Fire regime 1. Area /size of fire foot prints

2. Interval between fire starts

Soil hydrology 3. Plant available water holding capacity

4. Ground water dynamics

Soil physical state 5. Effective rooting depth of the soil profile

6. Bulk density of the soil through changes to soil structure or soil removal

Soil nutrient state 7. Nutrient stress – rundown (deficiency) relative to reference soil fertility

8. Nutrient stress – excess (toxicity) relative to reference soil fertility

Soil biological state 9. Organisms responsible for maintaining soil porosity and nutrient recycling

10. Surface organic matter, soil crusts

Reproductive potential 11. Reproductive potential of overstorey structuring species

12. Reproductive potential of understorey structuring species

Overstorey structure 13. Overstorey top height (mean) of the plant community

14. Overstorey foliage projective cover (mean) of the plant community

15. Overstorey structural diversity (i.e. a diversity of age classes) of the stand

Understorey structure 16. Understorey top height (mean) of the plant community

17. Understorey ground cover (mean) of the plant community

18. Understorey structural diversity (i.e. a diversity of age classes) of the plant Overstorey composition 19. Densities of overstorey species functional groups

20. Relative number of overstorey species (richness) of indigenous :exotic spp

Understorey composition 21. Densities of understorey species functional groups

22. Relative number of understorey species (richness) of indigenous :exotic spp

Source: Thackway 2012

1

3

10

22

Cond

ition

Co

mpo

nent

s

VegetationStatus Scores

Key

Resu

lt Ar

eas

VegetationStructure

(27%)

Overstorey

(3)

Understorey

(3)

SpeciesComposition

(18%)

(2)

UnderstoreyOverstorey

(2)

RegenerativeCapacity

(55%)

Fire

(2)

Reprodpotent

(2)

Soil

Hydrology

(2)

Biology

(2)

Nutrients

(2)

Structure

(2) Key Performance Indicators

VAST-2 hierarchy

Level 1

L 2

L 3

L 4

Source: Thackway 2012

Step 7Add the indices for the three components to generate total transformation

index for the ‘transformation site’ for each year of the historical record . Validate using Expert Knowledge

Step 1aUse a checklist of 22 indicators to compile

changes in LU & LMP* and plant community responses over time

Transformation site

Step 1cEvaluate impacts on the plant community

over time

Step 1bEvaluate the influence of climate, soil and

landform on the historical record

Step 2Document responses of 22

indicators over time

Step 4Document the reference states for 22 indicators

Step 3aLiterature review to determine the

baseline conditions for 22 indicators

Step 3cCompile indicator data for 22 indicators for reference site

Step 3bEvaluate the influence of climate, soil and landform for the reference site

Reference state/sites

Step 5Score all 22 indicators for ‘transformation site’ relative to the

‘reference site’. 0 = major change; 1 = no change

Step 6Derive weighted indices for the three components for the ‘transformation

site’ i.e. regenerative capacity (58%), vegetation structure (27%) and species composition (18%) by adding predefined indicators

General process for tracking changes VAST-2 system

* LU Land useLMP Land management practices Source: Thackway 2013

Understanding ecosystem dynamics and biodiversity outcomes

• In managing ecosystems rainfall is assumed to be the main driver of ecosystem dynamics

• Land managers must have a working knowledge of rainfall interactions with Key Result Areas & Key performance indicators

• Generally rudimentary understanding of these interactions among land managers – but knowledge is improving

Site-based case studies

Case study 1

• Region: Credo Station, Great Western Woodlands (GWW), WA

• Reference state: Salmon Gum woodland overstorey , saltbush

& bluebush understorey and ground layer

More info: http://www.vasttransformations.com/

Photograph: Harry Recher

Salmon Gum reference state

VAST

clas

ses

Source: Thackway 2013

Case study 2

Region: Taroom Shire, Brigalow Belt South, Qld

Reference state: Brigalow woodland overstorey , mixed open shrubland understorey , grassy and forb groundlayer

More info: http://www.vasttransformations.com/

Photograph: Griffith University

Brigalow woodland reference state

Wanaringa, Taroom Shire, Qld

VAST

cla

sses

Source: http://portal.tern.org.au/

Tracking and reporting at a landscape level

Tracking Burnt Area and Approximate Day of BurnKey Performance Indicators 1 & 2

http://data.auscover.org.au/xwiki/bin/view/Product+pages/BurntArea+DoB+MODIS+CDU

0

20

40

60

80

100

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

YearF

PC

Tracking Foliage Projective CoverKey Performance Indicator 14

Source: Tim Danaher

Overstorey height, cover & structural typesKey Performance Indicators 13, 14 & 15

Source: Peter ScarthPolygons based on Landsat FPC (persistent green) and Allos radar backscatter at 25mVertical structure from IceSat . Mantuan Downs, Qld

Tracking ground cover changesKey Performance Indicator 17

Source: Tim Danaher

What about info for the other indicators?

• Most info for these indicators are not currently dynamic e.g.– Most regenerative capacity indicators will require

models rather than remote sensing – Most species composition indicators will require expert

elicitation modeling of site data

What might a report card for biodiversity outcomes look like?

Landscape linkage report card

• Focus on transformation of plant communities as the reporting unit for national and regional levels

• Use graphs of change and trend in vegetation status and condition components i.e. regen capacity, veg structure and species composition

• Use maps showing landscape level examples of connectivity gains over time i.e. less modification and less fragmentation

• Use case studies of mismatches between expected vs observed outcomes. Reasons: wildfire, drought, weeds, feral animals

• Use examples of species-based benefits of changes and trends in condition in linked landscapes

1800 1825 1850 1900 1925 1950 1975 2000 2025

100

80

60

40

20

0

Progress toward a desired target condition state

Current land management: Continuous grazing of a mixed native-exotic grassland Proposed land management change: Time & cell-based grazing on reconstructed grassy woodland

Unmodified/ Residual

Replaced - removed

Replaced - managed

Replaced -Adventive

Modified

VAST classes

years

Transformed

2008

Baseline

Reference

Target

Example: 250 hectare ‘Talaheni’, Murrumbateman, NSW

Case study: decreased modification and decreased fragmentation

VAST classesModified Transformed - A Transformed - B Transformed - C

Removed - replaced Removed – managed

Modified Transformed - A Transformed - B Transformed - C

Removed - replaced Removed – managed

Reporting trends

VAST classes

Example: 250 hectare ‘Talaheni’, Murrumbateman, NSW

Conclusions (2)

• Tracking activities and effects of land managers offers a practical accounting tool for evaluating biodiversity outcomes

• Up-scaling to the landscape scale is increasingly feasible with ecological modelling and time series remote sensing

• Standardised national Key Result Areas and Key Performance Indicators have value in developing a report card

• As a tool, VAST helps in ‘Telling the story’ of biodiversity outcomes attributable to landscape connectivity initiatives

More info & Acknowledgements

More informationhttp://www.vasttransformations.com/http://portal.tern.org.au/searchhttp://aceas-data.science.uq.edu.au/portal/

Acknowledgements• University of Queensland, Department of Geography Planning and

Environmental Management for ongoing research support• Many public and private land managers, land management agencies, consultants

and researchers have provided data and information