Recovery Action Plan for Grey Box community
Grey Box Woodland State and Transition Model
Yüklə 0,5 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- 1.7.Assigning State to Mapped Remnants
- 1.8.Management Requirements for Different Grey Box Woodland States
1.6.Grey Box Woodland State and Transition ModelPrescott and Turner (2010) developed a State and Transition Model for the Grey Box dominated association that occurs on clay loam to sandy loam soils on the plains and western facing foothills of the southern Mount Lofty Ranges. State and Transition models are a way of documenting understanding of how processes create patterns observed in an ecosystem. They define the different discrete types of vegetation States that occur as a result of a site’s characteristics like climate, soils, history, or disturbances. States vary in their ability to resist change and one state can Transition to another as a result of natural processes - like succession or bushfire, or management practices like grazing or weed removal. The different States of Grey Box woodland are provided below. Appendix D provides a summary of all States, including a new State (1b) prepared as a result of this project. State 0 – Pre-European intact Grey Box woodland State 1 – Remnant intact woodland State 1b – Remnant depauperate woodland State 2 – Woodland impacted by inappropriate fire events State 3a – Woodland with grazing impacts, but no / little added fertiliser State 3b – Woodland with grazing impacts and with nutrients State 4 – Woodland impacted by pasture species understorey State 5a – Woodland impacted by neglect – recoverable State 5b – Woodland impacted by neglect after disturbance –recoverable? State 5c – Woodland impacted by neglect / tree death State 5d – Woodland impacted by neglect / tree death after disturbance with nutrients State 6 – Woodland impacted by Phytophthora root fungus State 7 – Woodland replaced by pasture, without trees State 8 – Woodland lost through alienation State 9 – Woodland reconstructed State 10 – Woodland impacted by climate change State 11 – Woodland best-option conservation surrogate
The State and Transition Model described in Appendix D was used to assign a state to sites where there was known information on current condition. This included information from the following sources: Nield, C. and Sinel, A. (2010). Field Validation of the State and Transition Model for Grey Box Woodlands. Prepared by EBS Ecology for the Department for Environment and Heritage. In this document the authors visited sites and assigned current State by the indicators from the State and Transition Model. Milne, T. (2013). Rapid Assessment of poorly known Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa) remnants in the Southern Mount Lofty Ranges. Prepared by EAC- Ecological Evaluation for the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. In this document, Milne used the BushRAT (DEWNR 2013) assessment methodology to assess and map Grey Box woodland sites. Post hoc review was used to assign these to a State, and the depth of information gathered in each site means this allocation could be made with relative confidence. Brown T (2006) Strategic Plan for the Restoration of Hills Face Zone Grassy Woodlands Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia. Brown assigned a condition value based on the degree of weed infestation in the site. Post hoc review of the data was used to assign state, but given that this assessment focussed on weed infestation, there were many indicators criteria required to assign State that were not assessed. It should also be noted that this assessment was undertaken in 2006, and the State of some sites may have changed due to management intervention. Figure 1.7 shows point source State data for each of these areas assessed. Bearing in mind the points made above, this map should be considered as illustrative rather than definitive. Polygon data could not be mapped, as polygons were not explicitly mapped for each assessment (and thus some polygons had two or more States). The map shows there are many sites yet to be assessed. It also supports the anecdotal observation of Nield and Sinel (2010) that the Onkaparinga Hills and Willunga Basin areas would more commonly have 3b, 4, 5a, or 5b state, whereas the hills face zone sites on steeper slopes with moderate depth soil were mostly 5b, 5c, 5d, 7, 8, and 9. 
Figure 1.7: Location and State of Grey Box patches assessed in the Mount Lofty Ranges 1.8.Management Requirements for Different Grey Box Woodland StatesTurner and Prescott (2010) provided some suggestions regarding the potential management actions for each State of Grey Box woodland in the State and Transition model. These have been reviewed and consolidated, and are included in Table 1.8. This management matrix provides useful information on the degree of management intervention required by State. They range from maintenance (State 1) to full reconstruction (States 7,8). All of the management actions are described in more detail in section 1.9. State 0 – Pre-European intact Grey Box woodland State 1 – Remnant intact woodland State 1b – Remnant depauperate woodland State 2 – Woodland impacted by inappropriate fire events State 3a – Woodland with grazing impacts, but no / little added fertiliser State 3b – Woodland with grazing impacts and with nutrients State 4 – Woodland impacted by pasture species understorey State 5a – Woodland impacted by neglect – recoverable State 5b – Woodland impacted by neglect after disturbance –recoverable? State 5c – Woodland impacted by neglect / tree death State 5d – Woodland impacted by neglect / tree death after disturbance with nutrients State 6 – Woodland impacted by Phytophthora root fungus State 7 – Woodland replaced by pasture, without trees State 8 – Woodland lost through alienation State 9 – Woodland reconstructed State 10 – Woodland impacted by climate change State 11 – Woodland best-option conservation surrogate Table 1.8: Priority Management Actions by State Type: Grey Box Woodlands
1Whilst not a management action per se, this has been included to identify which condition states which, if threats were removed, would be expected to be able to recover structural layers without the need for supplementary planting 2Supplementary planting: to either increase density or diversity of a lifeform that is present but is depauperate compared to State 1 and is unlikely to recover naturally. 3Reconstruction: planting required as the lifeform is no longer present and will not regenerate naturally 4if natural recovery occurs, maximum achievable state may be State 1b. ~ whilst some recovery may occur, it is likely to be limited and supplementary planting may be required to reach maximum state achievable M: Ongoing monitoring and removal as required P: possible that this management intervention may be required, but will require assessment following removal of threats and time for recovery Yüklə 0,5 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|