Summary The involvement of Indigenous people in the national conservation effort is increasingly being acknowledged and valued in Australia. Ecological research can play an important role in reinforcing the efforts of Indigenous land managers; and interest from Indigenous and non‐Indigenous ecologists and land managers to work together on ecological issues of common concern is increasing. Although there are many examples of successful collaborations there are also many instances where expectations, particularly of the Indigenous partners, are not met, and this is less frequently communicated. This paper, written from the perspective of an Arrernte researcher in partnership with his non‐Indigenous colleague, outlines a range of challenges including the need for Indigenous people to have more control of what is done and why it is done on their country and to define and prioritise their own objectives for land management, which may or may not align with mainstream conservation agendas. Currently, Western conservation paradigms play the dominant role in how Natural Resource Management is practiced and how broader policy is set, and ecological research on Indigenous land is still most often led by the Western ecologists. This can leave out the ideas of Indigenous people and does little to address underlying inequitable power relationships. Indigenous Australians do not want to become spectators in the research process, giving away knowledge, or labourers to Western conservation agendas. They want to be active partners in developing better understandings of the environment and implementers of management that reflects shared agendas. Open discussion of these issues within the mainstream ecological literature is an important step towards change and will create better opportunities for both Indigenous and non‐Indigenous ecological practitioners and Indigenous people dealing with land management policy.
The spread of buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris) in semi‐arid Australia in recent decades has substantially increased ground cover and fuel loads, particularly in open woodland vegetation communities. The resulting alteration of fire regimes may be the most significant impact of buffel invasion on ecological communities in these areas. Broad scale management of buffel grass is currently not an option in Australia but it is becoming increasingly relevant to assess the benefits of restoring areas of native vegetation where preventing buffel grass invasion is no‐longer possible. We managed buffel grass in a series of experimental plots from 2008–2012. In June and August 2011, two unplanned fires burnt through the plots providing a unique opportunity to compare the outcome of wildfire, including the spatial pattern of fire, and the effect on ground vegetation and on a long‐lived, perennial overstorey species, in replicated managed and unmanaged plots. The area of ground that remained unburnt was much greater in managed plots (with predominantly native vegetation) than unmanaged (predominantly buffel grass) plots and where the managed plots did burn the fire was more patchy. This had direct implications for the richness of ground layer plant taxa following fire and the extent to which overstorey trees were exposed to fire. Fire increased pre‐existing differences in the number of taxa in the ground level vegetation, an effect that persisted for the duration of our study, suggesting that fire accelerates direct negative competitive effects between buffel grass and native grasses and forbs. Hakea divaricata (fork‐leafed corkwood) trees in unmanaged buffel grass sites suffered higher burn intensities, and their long‐term viability at this location is likely to be threatened if fires fuelled by buffel grass continue. Our results demonstrate clear benefits of removing fire‐enhancing invasive plants from areas of high conservation value.
Pitfall traps are commonly used to capture terrestrial vertebrates, but it is not known whether differences in vegetation structure affect the efficiency of these traps. Studies that investigate the effects of fire, grazing or vegetation rehabilitation on faunal populations usually compare sites that differ in vegetation structure and the validity of using pitfall traps to sample populations under these circumstances is open to question. This study tests whether vegetation structure affects the rate at which lizards are captured in pitfall traps by cutting ground vegetation in a controlled experiment conducted in field enclosures. The study was undertaken in an area of mulga (Acacia aneura) shrubland in central Australia. Ground cover, consisting of grasses and forbs, was reduced from ~27% to 10% in treatment enclosures. These levels of cover correspond broadly to the range of ground covers encountered in this habitat, including areas with high and low levels of grazing. No difference was detected in the rate at which lizards were captured in enclosures where grass was cut compared with the control enclosures or rates of capture before grass was cut. These results indicate that pitfall trapping is a valid technique for comparing lizard populations in arid mulga shrublands within the range of vegetation covers used in this study, including areas that are subject to different levels of grazing.
Reptile and terrestrial beetle populations were sampled within adjoining mallee communities of similar botanical composition, but differing in fire history and vegetation structure. Studies were aimed at determining whether there were any major differences between faunal communities in sites with different fire histories. While the number of beetle species captured was significantly higher in the two most recently burnt sites, overall abundance of beetles did not differ significantly between various fire histories. Captures of Carenurn interiove were highest in a site burnt seven years prior to the study whereas captures of Tvichocarenum sp. were most common in the two most recently burnt areas. The number of reptile species captured did not differ significantly between sites but the relative abundance of nocturnal and diurnal reptiles was found to be significantly related to time since last fire. The number of geckos captured at the oldest fire site (burnt 18 years earlier) were significantly fewer than at the more recently burnt sites whereas captures of diurnal lizards did not differ. These patterns of reptile abundance are consistent with those found in other fire studies undertaken in similar habitats. This preliminary study confirms that both reptiles and beetles may be usefully incorporated in future management systems designed to monitor biological diversity in mallee ecosystems. Key words: fire, mallee, porcupine grass, nocturnal and diurnal reptiles and beetles
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.