The value of habitat reconstruction to birds at Gunnedah, New South Wales

Martin, Warren K.; Eyears-Chaddock, Melissa; Wilson, Brian; Lemon, John

doi:10.1071/mu02053

Cited by 35 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A wide variety of fauna requires this resource for habitat, including birds, mammals, reptiles and invertebrates (Smith et al 1989;Driscoll et al 2000;Wall 2000;Mac Nally et al 2001;Martin et al 2004;Doerr et al 2006; Barton et al 2009). Coarse woody debris provides directly for the nutrition of detritivores, and indirectly for foraging fauna (Mackensen et al 2003;Bate et al 2004;Doerr et al 2006;Mac Nally & Horrocks 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Modelling fallen branch volumes in a temperate eucalypt woodland: implications for large senescent trees and benchmark loads of coarse woody debris

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fallen branches are a substantial component of coarse woody debris and a key ecological resource.The depletion of stocks of coarse woody debris since European settlement has contributed to the degradation of Australian grassy box woodlands, including the loss of biodiversity. Restoration options for remnant woodlands include the augmentation of coarse woody debris stocks. However, the extensive modification of grassy box woodlands has left few reference sites for establishing benchmarks to guide such restoration. In this paper we demonstrate a method for predicting fallen branch debris loads in the absence of reference sites, using data from a yellow box-red gum woodland. Our methodology is in two stages: first, the total volume of branch debris under individual trees was modelled; and second, these models were applied to groups of trees to predict stand-level loads of fallen branch debris. Although the models were developed for yellow box-red gum woodlands, the methodology would be applicable to other communities that lack reference sites. Predicted benchmark loads of fallen branch debris for yellow box-red gum woodland were between 7.0 m 3 ha -1 and 11.9 m 3 ha -1 . Large senescing trees contributed the bulk of fallen branch debris. Model predictions indicated a 100-cm diameter at breast height (dbh) tree was 10 times more likely to produce debris than a 50-cm dbh tree, and if debris was present a 100-cm dbh tree produced approximately 10 times the volume of branch debris produced by a 50-cm dbh tree. These results highlight the importance of large senescing trees for the production of fallen branch debris and support the keystone role of large trees within remnant woodlands, and the need to conserve these structures. Our results also support the active management of regrowth woodland stands to facilitate the progression of individual trees to maturity and senescence. In particular, thinning of regrowth stands may promote the growth of retained trees, ensuring they contribute to fallen branch debris stocks with a minimum time lag.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Modelling fallen branch volumes in a temperate eucalypt woodland: implications for large senescent trees and benchmark loads of coarse woody debris

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many studies have shown that birds will occupy restored areas in Australia (e.g., Nichols and Nichols 2003;Martin et al 2004;Jansen 2005;Barrett et al 2008) and elsewhere (e.g., Twedt et al 2002). Fewer studies address the specific habitat and site characteristics that might affect avifaunas of restored areas (e.g., Barrett 2000;Twedt et al 2002;Martin et al 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fewer studies address the specific habitat and site characteristics that might affect avifaunas of restored areas (e.g., Barrett 2000;Twedt et al 2002;Martin et al 2004). There is only limited information on the usefulness of specific habitat components or landscape attributes (Bennett and Mac Nally 2004) for encouraging colonisation (although see Mac Nally et al, in press).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Native bird breeding in a chronosequence of revegetated sites

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Restoration of degraded landscapes through replantings of native vegetation has been proceeding in response to habitat loss and fragmentation and plummeting biodiversity. Little is known about whether the investments in ecological restoration have resulted in biodiversity benefits. We evaluated the potential of restored sites to support populations by assessing bird breeding activity. We surveyed 21 revegetated sites of various ages (9-111 years) in the box-ironbark region of Victoria, Australia. Sites differed in landscape context, patch features and in-site characteristics. The latter, including whether sites were grazed, amounts of fallen timber and numbers of remnant trees, were most important in affecting overall bird breeding activity. Patch-configuration (e.g., shape, area) was of secondary importance. Landscape context appeared to have little effect on bird breeding except for one species. While these results suggest that in-site habitat structure is the predominant driver, we caution against dismissing the importance of patch characteristics and landscape context for two reasons. First, the available sites covered a relatively small range of areas (<54 ha), and we could not provide a broad range of landscape-contextual contrasts given that we could only use existing plantings. Second, much of the breeding activity was by bird species known to be tolerant of smaller woodland areas or of the open countryside. We show that there is very little breeding activity in replantings by species that have declined dramatically in rank abundance between large 'reference' areas and fragmented landscapes. It seems likely that most replantings provide habitat configurations unsuited for dealing with declines of species most vulnerable to habitat loss and fragmentation.

show abstract

“…Another focus of conservation work in the temperate woodland regions of southeastern Australia has been on the value areas of deliberately planted native vegetation on farms (e.g., Martin et al 2004;Kavanagh et al 2005). Despite large investments in planting programs, their effectiveness for biodiversity conservation remains poorly known.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%