Terrestrial Vegetation of the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth Region

Jellinek, Sacha; Croft, Tim; Te, Thai

doi:10.20851/natural-history-cllmm-3.3

Cited by 2 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fences were permanent and 1.2 m high, consisting of wooden posts with 4–6 electric or plain wires. Sites were sprayed with herbicide at least once a month prior to planting to reduce weed competition (Jellinek et al 2019b). Where possible, rabbits and other herbivores were controlled.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Topographic variation is slight, with a maximum elevation of 180 m on the south-eastern slopes of the Mount Lofty ranges. The natural vegetation is diverse, ranging from wetland-associated habitats, samphire and terrestrial communities including grassland, coastal heathland, mallee, and grassy woodlands (Jellinek et al 2019b). Much of the terrestrial landscape has been cleared since European settlement for agriculture, including livestock grazing, cropping, and viticulture (Berkinshaw 2009).…”

Section: Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Much of the terrestrial landscape has been cleared since European settlement for agriculture, including livestock grazing, cropping, and viticulture (Berkinshaw 2009). As a result, the majority of the landscape is either fragmented or relictual with an average remnancy of 22% (Jellinek et al 2019b).…”

Section: Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Restoration plantings were undertaken within a 5 km area of the Coorong, Lake Alexandrina, and Lake Albert Ramsar wetland (Fig. 1) (Jellinek et al 2019b). Native plant species were planted at selected sites as tubestock in winter (June-August) each year from 2012 to 2015.…”

Section: Plantingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Replanting agricultural landscapes: how well do plants survive after habitat restoration?

Jellinek

Harrison

Tuck³

et al. 2020

Restoration Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Landscape-scale habitat restoration has the potential to return ecosystem functions and services and mitigate the loss of native flora and fauna. However, restoration projects rarely monitor the effectiveness of restoration efforts, such as quantifying the establishment success (survival) of the planted species. We monitored a landscape-scale revegetation program in southeastern Australia that planted 5 million plants representing 35 native species over a 4-year period (2012-2015). We assessed the restoration effectiveness across years to evaluate how different lifeforms survived over time and the factors that influenced the differential survival of lifeforms and individual plant species 3 months (spring) and 9 months (after summer) post-planting. Establishment success varied across years with survival lowest in the 2015 planting season. Survival of different lifeforms after summer were associated with site-level variables (e.g. mean maximum temperature, rainfall, and soil type) with survival generally declining due to high temperatures, low rainfall, and for species planted on sandy or saline soils. Maximum temperature, rainfall, and soil type were the most important predictors of compositional change in the 20 species commonly planted across years, with two saltbush species (Atriplex paludosa) and one eucalypt species (Eucalyptus fasciculosa) having the highest survival, while one sedge species (Juncus kraussii) and two grass species (Poa poiformis and Puccinellia stricta) had among the lowest observed survival. These results highlight the importance of monitoring establishment success through survival to detect changes in the composition of lifeforms and species to guide future re-plantings aimed at returning the desired plant diversity.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Plantingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Replanting agricultural landscapes: how well do plants survive after habitat restoration?

Jellinek

Harrison

Tuck³

et al. 2020

Restoration Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…). Jellinek and Te () further clarified where these sixteen vegetation types were likely to be located in the landscape, using metrics such as soil type (subgroup), landform and management landscape. This study used the six vegetation types identified as priorities, their underlying soil subgroups, and the suites of declining bird species reliant on these habitats in the analysis described below.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using prioritisation tools to strategically restore vegetation communities in fragmented agricultural landscapes

Jellinek¹

2016

Eco Management Restoration

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Restoring native habitats in heavily cleared and fragmented areas such as agricultural landscapes is important to maintain and increase remaining native floral and faunal communities. Identifying priority vegetation types for restoration – as well as the parcels of land where this restoration could take place at a landscape scale – may assist in strategically protecting these biodiversity assets. To prioritise the restoration of terrestrial habitats around an ecologically and culturally significant Ramsar‐listed wetland in South Australia, we used the spatial prioritisation tool Marxan. Originally designed for prioritising the protection of reserve areas, Marxan can also be used to identify parcels of land for restoration purposes. We tested how Marxan prioritised the restoration of four distinct vegetation types around the Coorong and Lower Lakes region of South Australia using the inverse of habitat remnancy as a cost and soil type and distance to ecologically significant bird species as a conservation feature. By prioritising restoration activities around certain landscape features, such as remnant areas, our results indicate that we would be able to strategically restore parcels of native habitat that would maximise biodiversity outcomes. This study highlights the need for robust input data, such as priority vegetation types and bird species associated with these habitats, to ensure informative modelling outputs. It also suggests that other measures, such as the cost of different land types, should be included in future restoration planning. Finally, we illustrate how prioritisation tools such as Marxan can be used by natural resource managers to restore areas within fragmented agricultural landscapes.

show abstract

Terrestrial Vegetation of the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth Region

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Replanting agricultural landscapes: how well do plants survive after habitat restoration?

Replanting agricultural landscapes: how well do plants survive after habitat restoration?

Using prioritisation tools to strategically restore vegetation communities in fragmented agricultural landscapes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About