Application of land management information to improve the tracking of changes and trends in the extent and

condition of native vegetation

Richard Thackway

Department of Science, Information Technology and InnovationBrisbane

28 October 2015

Outline

• Set the context why land management practice (LMP) information is important?

• How do LMP change vegetation extent and condition• Need for a systems approach to collect LMP data• Case studies at site level – application of LMP• Opportunities to monitor and report and regional scales • Where to from here• Conclusions

Setting the context

• Most changes over time in the extent and condition of native vegetation types can be accounted by changes in LU and LMP

• Obvious changes and trends in the structure, composition and function of native vegetation can be detected using remote sensing

• While environmental models are helpful they must access site data on the effects that LMP have on essential environmental variables

• More subtle changes in native vegetation extent and condition must be measured using ground-based observations of the interactions – Cause and effect of natural processes and LMP

LU = Land useLMP = land management practices

The case for linking LMP and effects on structure, composition & function

• Land management practices (LMPs) are the ‘drivers’ that have been, are, or maybe used to transform landscapes and ecosystem services

• Some threats in reality, are LMPs that are not adequately resourced e.g.– Late dry season wildfire– Invasive native animals– Feral animals – Weeds

• A decision not to use LMP to manage/control or intervene is still a LMP decision that can have an effect on structure, composition & function

• NB: some changes in structure, composition & function are due to natural drives e.g. drought, floods, cyclones, climate change

Modification of sites and landscapes

Indigenous land management

First explorers

Grazing

Degr

ee o

f re

silie

nce/

cond

ition

Tracked vehicles

Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Time

Reference state

Long term rainfall

Long term disturbance e.g. wildfire, cyclones

Revegetation

Condition classes

Weeds Ferals

2015

Prescribed burning

Same ecosystem i.e. vegetation type

Why is native

vegetation extent and condition

important?

Yapp, Walker and Thackway 2010

VAST 1 Residual/unmodified*

VAST II1 Transformed

* Reference

How do management practices change vegetation condition over

time?

How do land managers modify structure, composition & function (i.e. resilience) over time?

LMP that focus on soil

LMP that focus on native 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

LMP = Land Management Practices

Focussing on 10 key criteria

Common interventions designed to influence structure, composition & function

Various interventions: Land management practices (LMP) are used to influence ecological building blocks at sites and landscapes by:

• Modifying …• Removing and replacing …• Enhancing …• Restoring …• Maintaining …• Improving …

Various purposes:Including wood production, biodiversity conservation, water quality, minimize detection To achieve the desired mix of ecosystem services (space & time)

Time series: T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 Land management practices that effect vegetation structure, composition and function i.e. extent and condition

Key criteria that land managers deliberately or inadvertently

change

Restoration and rehabilitation

Growth, maturity and reproduction

Harvest biomass or

productivity

Monitoring health & vitality

No activity

Degrade, extirpate or

remove and/or replace

1. Soil hydrological status (Fn)          2. Soil physical status (Fn)          3. Soil chemical status (Fn)          4. Soil biological status (Fn)          5. Fire regime (Fn)          6. Reproductive potential (Fn)          7. Overstorey structure (St)          8. Understorey structure (St)          9. Overstorey composition (Co)          10. Understorey composition (Co)          

Need a framework for collecting LMP and their effects on extent and condition

Criteria Fn = functionalSt = structuralCo = compositional

LMP = Land Management PracticesLUMIS = Land use and management information system

LUMIS

How does LUMIS work?

LUMIS is a framework • to compile and classify management practices /actions into 6 themes:

– Water– Plants/Vegetation– Animals– Soil– Air– Business

• That focuses on what land managers are managing vegetation for i.e the LMP they are using– Establishing and rehabilitating– Improving and maintaining growth and condition– Harvesting plant products and/or removing waste incl. weeds– Monitoring health, vitality and condition– No activity or interventions– Degrading, extirpating or removing and/or replacing

LUMIS = Land Use and Management Information System

What has all this got to do with assessing the effects that land

management practices on native vegetation condition over time?

Concepts and definitions

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

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

– Vegetation structure– Species composition – Regenerative capacity

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

to a fully natural Reference state

Vegetation condition(a composite index)

Compiling the effects that LMP have on native vegetation condition over time

Species

composition

LMP = Land Management Practices

Effects on attributes, attribute groups and diagnostic attributes

LMPYear

Time

Vegetation structure Regenerative

capacity

Cause

LUM

IS

Year Source: Year

LU & LMP Source: LU & LMP

Effects of land use and management on criteria and

indicators of vegetation condition

Source: Effects

1800

1840

2015

Establish a chronology of data and information of causes and effects /observed & measured responses

LU = Land Use, LMP = Land Management Practices

LUM

IS

WA Wheatbelt BOM rainfall anomaly 1900-2010(modelled 5 km resolution)

Derived from monthly modelled rainfall data obtained from http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/silo/

Rainfall anomaly relative to mean

VAST = Vegetation Assets States and TransitionsNVIS = National Vegetation Information System

VIVIVIIIIII0

Native vegetationcover

Non-native vegetationcover

Increasing modification caused by use and management

Transitions = trend

Vegetation thresholds

Reference for each veg type (NVIS)

A framework for assessing modification of native vegetation condition

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 (classes):• Vegetation structure• Species composition• Regenerative capacity

VAST-2 criteria and indicators Change & Trend

NVIS

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

• Compile and collate effects of land management on criteria (10) and

indicators (22) over time. • Evaluate impacts on the plant

community over time

Transformation site• Compile and collate effects of

land management on criteria (10) and indicators (22)

Reference state/sites

Score all 22 indicators for ‘transformation site’ relative to the ‘reference site’. 0 = major change; 1 = no change

Derive weighted indices for the ‘transformation site’ i.e. regenerative capacity (55%), vegetation structure (27%) and species composition (18%)

by adding predefined indicators

General process for tracking change over time

Components (3)

Criteria(10)

Description of loss or gain relative to pre settlement indicator reference state (22)

Regenerative

capacity

Fire regime Change in the area /size of fire foot prints Change in the number of fire starts

Soil hydrology Change in the soil surface water availabilityChange in the ground water availability

Soil physical state

Change in the depth of the A horizon Change in soil structure.

Soil nutrient state

Nutrient stress – rundown (deficiency) relative to soil fertility Nutrient stress – excess (toxicity) relative to soil fertility

Soil biological state

Change in the recyclers responsible for maintaining soil porosity and nutrient recycling Change in surface organic matter, soil crusts

Reproductive potential

Change in the reproductive potential of overstorey structuring species Change in the reproductive potential of understorey structuring species

Vegetation structure

Overstorey structure

Change in the overstorey top height (mean) of the plant community Change in the overstorey foliage projective cover (mean) of the plant community Change in the overstorey structural diversity (i.e. a diversity of age classes) of the stand

Understorey structure

Change in the understorey top height (mean) of the plant community Change in the understorey ground cover (mean) of the plant community Change in the understorey structural diversity (i.e. a diversity of age classes) of the plant

Species Compositi

on

Overstorey composition

Change in the densities of overstorey species functional groups Change in no.s of indigenous overstorey species relative to the number of exotic species

Understorey composition

Change in the densities of understorey species functional groups Change in no.s of indigenous understorey species relative to the number of exotic species

1

3

10

22

Com

pone

nts

(3)

VegetationTransformation

Score (1)

Crite

ria(1

0)

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)Indicators

(22)

VAST-2 – benchmark scoring of the effects of use and management of native veg (indicators) over time

Case studies using VAST-2

Data and information used to populate the 22 indicators are derived either by direct measure in the field or from expert models or a combination of both

Three sites with different land management histories

Reference plant community type: Sub-tropical rainforest

Source: J.W. Beattie. NSW State Library

Phillip Is, South Pacific

Source: Peter Coyne

Reference

1906

Reference plant community type: Cool temperate rainforest

Source: Forestry Commission NSW

Mount Boss State Forest, NSW

1961

Reference

Source: Ross Peacock

Reference plant community type: Tussock grassland

Regi

onal

eco

syst

em 8

.12.

13a

Regi

onal

eco

syst

em 8

.12.

13bSource: Jeanette Kemp

North Molle, IsReference

2009

Source: Jeanette Kemp

Why do we need to collect data on • land management practices /actions When we already collect• attributes on vegetation structure,

composition and function?

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

1986 ongoing annual

Monitoring Burnt Area and Approximate Day of BurnVAST-2 indicators 1 & 2

MODIS

Landsat

Source: http://www.clw.csiro.au/aclep/soilandlandscapegrid/ViewData-QuickView.html

Available Water CapacityVAST-2 Indicator 3 & 4

BASELINE ONLY

Source: http://www.clw.csiro.au/aclep/soilandlandscapegrid/ViewData-QuickView.html

Bulk density VAST-2 Indicator 6

BASELINE ONLY

Source: http://www.clw.csiro.au/aclep/soilandlandscapegrid/ViewData-QuickView.html

Organic CarbonVAST-2 Indicator 10

BASELINE ONLY

Composites of persistence green cover and ALOS PALSAR HH and HV Source: Richard Lucas

Overstorey height, cover & structural diversityStructural indicators 13, 14 & 15

BASELINE ONLY

Overstorey height, cover & structural diversityStructural 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

BASELINE ONLY

.

Persistent Green Fraction derived from Landsat archive

min

max

mask

Not per

Overstorey foliage coverStructural indicator 14

Source: http://data.auscover.org.au/xwiki/bin/view/Product+pages/Landsat+Fractional+Cover

1986 ongoing annual

0

20

40

60

80

100

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

YearFP

C

Source: Tim Danaher

1986 ongoing annual

Overstorey foliage coverStructural indicator 14

Ground CoverStructural indicator 17

Source: http://data.auscover.org.au/xwiki/bin/view/Product+pages/Landsat+Fractional+Cover

Red areas are bare ground

Green is showing green cover

Blue is showing non-green veg cover

Ground CoverStructural indicator 17

Source: Phil Tickle CRCSI

Monitoring Ground CoverVAST-2 indicator 17

Source: Phil TickleBelconnen naval transmitter station, ACT

Why has the collection and development of LMP been so neglected?

Some reasons why LMP data are neglected

• LMP are regarded as too complex in space and time • Ecologists tend to regard LMP as high noise : signal i.e. social science • Cheaper to collect, classify and interpret post hoc patterns in RS images• Lack of recognised LMP standards: survey, classification & mapping• Knowledge of the effects of LMP on ecosystem structure, composition

and function is held locally• Cheaper not to measure management systems but to assign a code of

practice e.g. public forestry

More work needs to done

• Remote sensing and environmental models of extent and condition of types provide variable answers - definitely not 100%

• Challenge - to systematically collect/compile, site data over time on – effects on LMP on key indicators of vegetation extent and condition

What can land managers do?

• Systematically record, collect and compile land management practices• Develop a capacity to use the LUMIS framework • Develop an understanding of resultant changes & trends in key veg

/ecological attributes i.e. adaptive management – Structure, composition and function of the native vegetation

• Work with public/private land management agencies to develop and implement systems to track outcomes of adaptive management

• Access and use government generated multi-spatial and multi-temporal whole of landscape datasets in day-to-day management & give feedback

Conclusions

• There are many opportunities for public-private partnerships to collect LMP data and the observed effects on vegetation extent and condition

• LUMIS was developed as Commonwealth /state agency partnership but it has not been published and therefore is largely unused

• Compiling and synthesizing site-based LMP data over time provides powerful insights into patterns observed in time series remote sensing

• Ideally we need an information system which informs the survey, classification and mapping and modelling of LMP at various scales

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

assisted in the development of VAST & VAST-2• I gratefully acknowledge the assistance of following researchers for access to, and use of their research:

Peter Coyne (Phillip Island, Norfolk Island Territory, South Pacific); Ross Peacock (ex-mount Boss State Forest compartment 77, Willi Willi National Park, Hastings-Macleay Group of the World Heritage Site Gondwana Rainforests); Keith McDonald (North Molle Island, (northern and central section), Molle Group, Cumberland Islands, Qld)