1 / 16

Natural Area Weed Management:

Natural Area Weed Management:. a framework for cost-efficient resource allocation. Framework for cost-efficient resource allocation. Allocation of budget based on reserve size Systematic weed survey, planning and monitoring methodology. Biosecurity Approach. Focus of this project.

brandi
Download Presentation

Natural Area Weed Management:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Natural Area Weed Management: a framework for cost-efficient resource allocation

  2. Framework for cost-efficient resource allocation • Allocation of budget based on reserve size • Systematic weed survey, planning and monitoring methodology

  3. Biosecurity Approach Focus of this project (DSE, 2007)

  4. Wipe-Out-Weeds:Background • The Wipe Out Weeds Program (WOW) aims to protect Brisbane’s biodiversity from the impacts of weeds. • WOW program has been operating since 2001-02 FY. • Site nominated by relevant staff • Site prioritisation was based on: • Weed characteristics/threat: • Site values (environmental and social) • Location within landscape

  5. Findings from Evaluations • Condition and location greatest determinants of successful outcomes. • Success = a self-sustaining ecosystem where the assemblage, structure and function reflects that observed in a reference ecosystem • Size Matters!!! • Sites within the largest reserves tended to achieve greatest success for least cost • Larger reserves also have higher environmental value – ability to maintain sustainable populations of native species

  6. Conclusions • Observer Bias towards sites: • With heavy weed loads • Smaller in size in more urban areas (i.e. with higher visitation / visibility) • Need to allocate money based on environmental value and likelihood of achieving successful outcomes • Need for systematic survey to: • Plan intervention at a whole of reserve level • Allow for objective measure of outcomes

  7. Tiering Process • The reserves have been tiered according to size: • Tier 1: >150ha; • Tier 2: 50ha-150ha; • Tier 3: <50ha. • Review of existing program found: • Funding disproportionally allocated to Tier 3 and smaller sites • Cost per hectare over 3x greater in Tier 3 than in Tier 1 • Funding is now allocated proportional to area within each tier.

  8. Systematic Weed Surveys • Systematic surveys are essential: • Remove observer bias (people tend to report very weedy sites) • Early detection/rapid response (survey picks up scattered infestations of high threat weed species) • Allows for development of whole of reserve, site specific weed management plans • Provides exceptional maps that allow for visualisation of weed impacts and vectors across an area • Acts as ‘before’ snap shot, allowing for objective measurement of site outcomes

  9. Survey Methodology • Define survey area • Position a 50x50m grid across the survey area • Record all exotic species within each grid on a 6 point scale: Absent; Scattered; Low; Medium; High; Very High • Record a number of structural indicators per grid: % canopy cover; shrub cover; ground cover etc.

  10. Karawatha - North Survey 2013

  11. Karawatha high threat species

  12. Boondall Re-survey • Original survey undertaken in 2010 (pilot site) • Polygons defined by veg and weed communities (similar to Blue Mountains survey methodology – Blue Space) • Weed densities only recorded on a 4 point scale: scattered; low; medium; high. • Re-surveyed in 2013: Has been able to objectively show success of work

  13. Pilot (polygon) Vs Grid Survey • Time cost associated with defining polygons in the field • Observer issues with different sized polygons (i.e. more difficult to accurately defined percent cover per polygon • Statistical analysis (all grids are equal size, different sized polygons makes it hard for statistical analysis) • Vegetation can change over time (e.g. woodland expanding into grassland – do we change polygon?)

  14. Results • Implementing this framework has shifted our activities toward core natural areas. • These areas tend to have: • High conservation value • Lower cost per hectare of management • Increased likelihood of successful outcomes

  15. Conclusions • Area under management has increased from about 300ha in 09-10 to over 1,000ha in 12-13. • The survey methodology allows for rapid and cost-effective survey of large areas. • Results from the surveys provides critical information to plan weed management activities. • Re-surveys provide an objective measure of the outcomes of intervention and are a critical link in the adaptive management framework.

  16. Recognitions • Consultants that have undertaken survey work: • PSP Consulting – Steve Priday • Technigro – Dr Sheldon Navie • Ecosure – Jen Ford et al • Blue Mountains City Council: The original pilot survey was an adaptation of a weed survey methodology developed by Blue Mountains City Council. • Dr Jane Catford for advice on analysis of the survey data.

More Related