relinking landscapes - assessing ecological transformations using vast-2
DESCRIPTION
Over the last 20 years in Australia the number and popularity of landscape linkage projects have increased. Arguably these landscape connectivity initiatives represent a good case for social and political transformations however, there the ability to discern whether these initiatives make a contribution to biodiversity outcomes is questioned because of a lack of monitoring reporting. This presentation proposes an accounting approach to track biodiversity outcomes using indicators of regenerative capacity, vegetation structure and species composition. This requires ecologists to engage land managers as equal partners to collect on-ground observations and/measurementsTRANSCRIPT
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