DOCSLIB.ORG

Proposed Expansion of Quarry Near Matjiesfontein, Western Cape Province

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Proposed Expansion of Quarry Near Matjiesfontein, Western Cape Province PROPOSED EXPANSION OF QUARRY NEAR MATJIESFONTEIN, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT Ecological Assessment and Wetland Assessment for the proposed expansion of the existing quarry near Matjiesfontein Compiled by JANUARY 2018 Matjiesfontein Quarry: Biodiversity Assessment 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background It is the intention of Concor Infrastructure to expand an existing quarry on the farm Tweedside No.151 RD in the Lainsburg Municipal District, Western Cape Province. The quarry is approximately 13km west of Matjiesfontein. The expanded quarry will be less than 5ha in extent, including crushing facilities. Flori Scientific Services cc was appointed as the independent consultancy to conduct a strategic (desktop) biodiversity assessment, which includes a terrestrial ecological assessment and a wetland assessment, for the study site. No field investigations were conducted by the author of the report, but by other EAPs involved in the project. Location of the study area The study site consists of an existing quarry area and a proposed expansion area for the quarry. The study area is situated approximately 13km west of Matjiesfontein, on the farm Tweedside 151 RD, in the Lainsburg Municipal District, Western Cape Province. The site is just over 1km due north of the N1 National route and is 4,78ha in area. TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY Vegetation Due to the complexity and lack of botanical data, the Fynbos Biome is not divided up into Bioregions in the same way, or sense, as that of Savanna or Grassland Biomes. For simplicity of explanation, the Fynbos Biome currently is divided into three ‘Bioregions’ of Fynbos, Renosterveld and Strandveld, with numerous sub-vegetation units and veldtypes. The study site is situated within the ‘bioregion’ of Renosterveld of the Fynbos Biome and the veldtype unit of Matjiesfontein Shale Renosterveld. AQUATIC ECOLOGY Watercourses in the study area There are no watercourses in the study area. However, due to its close proximity, a small semi-perennial stream (or drainage line) just to the north of the study area was delineated and taken into account. 1 Matjiesfontein Quarry: Biodiversity Assessment Drainage areas Level Category Primary Drainage Area (PDA) E & J Quaternary Drainage Area (QDA) E22A & J12E Water Management Area (WMA) – Gouritz Previous / Old Water Management Area (WMA) – New Breede-Gouritz (as of Sept. 2016) Sub-Water Management Area Groot Catchment Management Agency (CMA) Breede-Gouritz Sensitivity analyses The ecological sensitivity of the study area is determined by combining the sensitivity analyses of both the floral and faunal components. The highest calculated sensitivity unit of the two categories is taken to represent the sensitivity of that ecological unit, whether it is floristic or faunal in nature. Ecological sensitivity analysis Ecological Floristic Faunal Ecological Development community sensitivity sensitivity sensitivity Go-ahead Quarry Low Low Low Go Renosterveld Medium Medium Medium Go-But Watercourse Medium Medium/High Medium/High Go-But 2 Matjiesfontein Quarry: Biodiversity Assessment Sensitivity map Fatal flaws There are no fatal flaws. Priority areas The study area does not fall within any priority areas. Priority areas include formal and informal protected areas (nature reserves); important bird areas (IBAs); RAMSAR sites; National fresh water ecosystem priority areas (NFEPA) and National protected areas expansion strategy (NPAES) areas. The study area does not fall within a demarcated critical biodiversity area (CBA). The study area is not situated within a threatened ecosystem or veldtype. 3 Matjiesfontein Quarry: Biodiversity Assessment CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................... 1 2 ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................... 8 3 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. 9 3.1 Project overview.................................................................................................................................... 9 4 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 10 4.1 Desktop assessment .......................................................................................................................... 10 4.2 Field surveys ........................................................................................................................................ 10 4.3 Floristic Sensitivity ............................................................................................................................ 11 4.4 GO, NO - GO Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 12 4.5 Floral Assessment – Species of Conservation Concern ...................................................... 13 4.6 Faunal Sensitivity ............................................................................................................................... 13 4.7 Faunal Assessment – Species of Conservation Concern .................................................... 14 4.8 Biodiversity Impact Assessment ................................................................................................. 14 4.9 Criteria for the classification of an impact ............................................................................... 14 5 RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................ 17 5.1 Study Site Location ............................................................................................................................ 17 5.2 GPS Coordinates of the Main Landmarks ................................................................................. 17 5.3 Topography .......................................................................................................................................... 19 5.4 Climate .................................................................................................................................................... 19 6 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY .................................................................................. 20 6.1 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................................. 20 6.2 Priority Floral Species ...................................................................................................................... 22 6.3 Conservation status ........................................................................................................................... 22 6.4 Plants identified during field investigations ........................................................................... 25 6.5 Protected tree species identified in the study area .............................................................. 25 6.6 Fauna ....................................................................................................................................................... 25 6.6.1 Mammals ................................................................................................................................................ 25 6.6.2 Avifuana .................................................................................................................................................. 25 6.6.3 Reptiles .................................................................................................................................................... 26 6.6.4 Invertebrates......................................................................................................................................... 27 7 AQUATIC ECOLOGY ....................................................................................... 28 7.1 Wetlands ................................................................................................................................................ 28 4 Matjiesfontein Quarry: Biodiversity Assessment 7.2 Riparian zones ..................................................................................................................................... 29 7.3 Rivers and streams ............................................................................................................................ 30 7.4 Watercourses in the study area ................................................................................................... 30 7.5 Classification of watercourses in the study area ................................................................... 31 7.6 Delineated Watercourses................................................................................................................ 32 7.7 Drainage areas ..................................................................................................................................... 33 7.8 Methodology: Present Ecological State ..................................................................................... 36 7.9 PES of watercourses in the study area ...................................................................................... 38 7.10 Methodology: Ecological Importance and Sensitivity ...................................................... 38 7.11 EIS of watercourses in the study area .................................................................................... 39 8 SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Tulbagh Renosterveld Project Report
    BP TULBAGH RENOSTERVELD PROJECT Introduction The Cape Floristic Region (CFR) is the smallest and richest floral kingdom of the world. In an area of approximately 90 000km² there are over 9 000 plant species found (Goldblatt & Manning 2000). The CFR is recognized as one of the 33 global biodiversity hotspots (Myers, 1990) and has recently received World Heritage Status. In 2002 the Cape Action Plan for the Environment (CAPE) programme identified the lowlands of the CFR as 100% irreplaceable, meaning that to achieve conservation targets all lowland fragments would have to be conserved and no further loss of habitat should be allowed. Renosterveld , an asteraceous shrubland that predominantly occurs in the lowland areas of the CFR, is the most threatened vegetation type in South Africa . Only five percent of this highly fragmented vegetation type still remains (Von Hase et al 2003). Most of these Renosterveld fragments occur on privately owned land making it the least represented vegetation type in the South African Protected Areas network. More importantly, because of the fragmented nature of Renosterveld it has a high proportion of plants that are threatened with extinction. The Custodians of Rare and Endangered Wildflowers (CREW) project, which works with civil society groups in the CFR to update information on threatened plants, has identified the Tulbagh valley as a high priority for conservation action. This is due to the relatively large amount of Renosterveld that remains in the valley and the high amount of plant endemism. The CAPE program has also identified areas in need of fine scale plans and the Tulbagh area falls within one of these: The Upper Breede River planning domain.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Note
    Meetings of the OECD International Network on Financial Education (INFE) and The FSCA-OECD 2019 International Conference on Financial Education INFORMATION NOTE 21-24 May 2019 Cape Town, South Africa Schedule The FSCA-OECD 2019 International Conference on Financial Education will be held back-to-back with the meetings of the OECD/INFE working groups, Advisory Board and Technical Committee. The information contained in this note covers all events. Information specific to OECD/INFE meetings will be sent separately to those concerned. Date and Time Event Participants Meeting of the OECD/INFE Working Group on Standards 09h00-11h00 Evaluation and Implementation Meeting of the OECD/INFE Working Group on Digital Financial 11h15-12h45 OECD/INFE Literacy working Working lunch: OECD/INFE Working Group on the Implications of group 13h00-14h30 21 Ageing Populations and the Needs of Older Consumers members May Meeting of the OECD/INFE Working Group in Financial Education 14h45-16h15 in the Workplace OECD/INFE 16h30-18h30 Meeting of the OECD/INFE Advisory Board meeting Advisory Board 19h00 OECD/INFE Advisory Board working dinner hosted by the OECD members 09h30-17h00 11th meeting of the OECD/INFE Technical Committee OECD/INFE 22 full May 17h30-20h00 Cocktail hosted by FSCA (On19 restaurant, The Westin Cape Town) members* 09h00-17h00 FSCA-OECD 2019 International Conference on Financial Education 23 May 18h00-20h00 Cocktail hosted by FSCA (Old Harbour Lobby, The Westin) All delegates 09h00-13h00 FSCA-OECD 2019 International Conference on Financial Education 24 May 14h00-18h00 Visit to Groot Constantia wine estate * OECD/INFE full associate members, Research Committee members and invited observers may attend the Technical Committee meeting after the closed session.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeological Impact Assessment
    ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Basic Assessment for the Proposed Development of the 325MW Kudusberg Wind Energy Facility and associated infrastructure, between Matjiesfontein and Sutherland in the Western and Northern Cape Provinces: BA REPORT HWC Case Number: 18071105 DEA Number: To be confirmed Report prepared for: Report prepared by: CSIR – Environmental Management Services Katie Smuts – Professional Heritage Practitioner and Archaeological Consultant P O Box 320 PO Box 178 Stellenbosch 7599 Stanford, Western Cape, 7210 South Africa South Africa 31 October 2018 Basic Assessment for the Proposed Development of the 325MW Kudusberg Wind Energy Facility and associated infrastructure, between Matjiesfontein and Sutherland in the Western and Northern Cape Provinces EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Site Name The proposed development is the Kudusberg Wind Energy Facility. Location The development is proposed for an area straddling the border of the Western and Northern Cape Provinces to the west of the R345 that runs between Sutherland and Matjiesfontein. The project falls within the Witzenberg Municipality, Cape Winelands District within the Western Cape, and the Karoo Hoogland Municipality, Namakwa District in the Northern Cape. The affected farm portions are: Western Cape: • Portion 1 of 156 Gats Rivier Farm; • Portion 2 of 156 Gats Rivier Farm; • Remainder of 156 Gats Rivier Farm; • Portion 1 of 157 Riet Fontein Farm. • Portion 1 of 158 Amandelboom Farm; • Remainder of 158 Amandelboom Farm; • Portion 1 of 159 Oliviers Berg Farm; • Remainder of 159 Oliviers Berg Farm; • Portion 2 of 157 Riet Fontein Farm; • Remainder of 161 Muishond Rivier Farm; and • Remainder of 395 Klipbanks Fontein Farm. Northern Cape: • Portion 4 of 193 Urias Gat Farm; • Portion 6 of 193 Urias Gat Farm; • Remainder of 193 Urias Gat Farm; • Remainder of 194 Matjes Fontein Farm; and • Remainder of 196 Karree Kloof Farm.
    [Show full text]
  • A Fine-Scale Conservation Plan for Cape Lowlands Renosterveld: Technical Report
    A Fine-Scale Conservation Plan for Cape Lowlands Renosterveld: Technical Report MAIN REPORT September 2003 Amrei von Hase Mathieu Rouget Kristal Maze Nick Helme Report No. CCU 2/03 Cape Conservation Unit Botanical Society of South Africa Pvt Bag X 10 7735 Claremont www.botanicalsociety.org.za/ccu Key Partners and Sponsors of the Cape Lowlands Renosterveld Project TABLE MOUNTAIN FUND 2 Acknowledgements Many individuals and organizations have contributed generously to the Cape Lowlands Renosterveld Project to whom the Botanical Society and the project team are greatly indebted. We express our appreciation to you in this section and in addition have provided acknowledgement to others in sections of this report where their contribution was relevant. We are particularly indebted to our key project partners, the Western Cape Nature Conservation Board (WCNCB), for putting their full support behind the project from its inception as well as their many contributions to the project. In Scientific Services we especially thank the late Chris Burgers, Helen de Klerk, Ernst Baard, Annelise le Roux, Guy Palmer and Andrew Turner for their guidance in the project planning and initiation stages, particularly on data and GIS matters. We are tremendously grateful to Chris who generously and infectiously shared with us his wealth of knowledge about the lowlands. In Operations we express our appreciation to the business unit managers, extension officers and regional ecologists who played a vital role particularly in shaping the final products of the project. We are especially grateful to Anton Wolfaardt and Chris Martens. Wendy Paisley of the Cape Conservation Unit (CCU) of the Botanical Society provided invaluable administrative and organizational support to the project.
    [Show full text]
  • An Ecological Study of the Plant Communities in the Proposed Highveld Published: 26 Apr
    An ecological study of the plant communities in the proposed Highveld National Park Original Research An ecologicAl study of the plAnt communities in the proposed highveld nAtionAl pArk, in the peri-urbAn AreA of potchefstroom, south AfricA Authors: Mahlomola E. Daemane1 ABSTRACT Sarel S. Cilliers2 The proposed Highveld National Park (HNP) is an area of high conservation value in South Hugo Bezuidenhout1 Africa, covering approximately 0.03% of the endangered Grassland Biome. The park is situated immediately adjacent to the town of Potchefstroom in the North-West Province. The objective of Affiliations: this study was to identify, classify, describe and map the plant communities in this park. Vegetation 1Conservation Services sampling was done by means of the Braun-Blanquet method and a total of 88 stratified random Department, South African relevés were sampled. A numerical classification technique (TWINSPAN) was used and the results National Parks, were refined by Braun-Blanquet procedures. The final results of the classification procedure were South Africa presented in the form of phytosociological tables and, thereafter, nine plant communities were described and mapped. A detrended correspondence analysis confirmed the presence of three 2School of Environmental structural vegetation units, namely woodland, shrubland and grassland. Differences in floristic Sciences and composition in the three vegetation units were found to be influenced by environmental factors, Development, North-West such as surface rockiness and altitude. Incidences of harvesting trees for fuel, uncontrolled fires University, South Africa and overgrazing were found to have a significant effect on floristic and structural composition in the HNP. The ecological interpretation derived from this study can therefore be used as a tool for Correspondence to: environmental planning and management of this grassland area.
    [Show full text]
  • Mangrove Kingfisher in South Africa, but the Species Overlap Further North in Mozam- Bique, and Hybridization May Occur (Hanmer 1984A, 1989C)
    652 Halcyonidae: kingfishers Habitat: It occurs in summer along the banks of forested rivers and streams, at or near the coast. In winter it occurs in stands of mangroves, along wooded lagoons and even in suburban gardens and parks, presumably while on mi- gration. Elsewhere in Africa it may occur in woodlands further away from water. Movements: The models show that it occurs in the Transkei (mainly Zone 8) in summer and is absent June– August, while it is absent or rarely reported November– March in KwaZulu-Natal, indicating a seasonal movement between the Transkei and KwaZulu-Natal. Berruti et al. (1994a) analysed atlas data to document this movement in more detail. The atlas records for the Transkei confirm earlier reports in which the species was recorded mainly in summer with occasional breeding records (Jonsson 1965; Pike 1966; Quickelberge 1989; Cooper & Swart 1992). In KwaZulu-Natal, it was previously regarded as a breeding species which moved inland to breed, despite the fact that nearly all records are from the coast in winter (Clancey 1964b, 1965d, 1971c; Cyrus & Robson 1980; Maclean 1993b), and there were no breeding records (e.g. Clancey 1965d; Dean 1971). However, it is possible that it used to be a rare breeding species in KwaZulu-Natal (Clancey 1965d). The atlas and other available data clearly show that it is a nonbreeding migrant to KwaZulu-Natal from the Transkei. Clancey (1965d) suggested that most movement took place in March. Berruti et al. (1994a) showed that it apparently did not overwinter in KwaZulu- Natal south of Durban (2931CC), presumably because of the lack of mangroves in this area.
    [Show full text]
  • South African Biosphere Reserve National Committee
    SOUTH AFRICAN BIOSPHERE RESERVE NATIONAL COMMITTEE BIENNIAL REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LIMA ACTION PLAN UNESCO MAN AND BIOSPHERE PROGRAMME ICC INTERNATIONAL COORDINATING COUNCIL 31ST SESSION, PARIS, FRANCE 17-21 JUNE 2019 JUNE 2019 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 Coordination of Man and Biosphere Programme South Africa has started participating in the Man and Biosphere (MAB) Programme since 1995 at the Seville Conference in Spain. The South African National Biosphere Reserve Committee (SA BR NATCOM), which is chaired by the National Department of Environmental Affairs coordinates the Man and Biosphere Programme in South Africa. The SA MAB NATCOM is financially supported by the National Department of Environmental Affairs. The SA MAB NATCOM is operational in accordance with the Lima Action Plan and is comprised of representatives from National, Provincial, local, Non-Profit Organisations and research institutions. SA National BR Committee has met once since the previous MAB ICC Session, in June 2018. South Africa is the current member of the MAB International Coordinating Committee (ICC) elected in November 2017 and also a member of the African Network of Man and Biosphere (AfriMAB) Bureau as coordinator for Southern Africa sub-region, elected in September 2017. The provinces supports Biosphere Reserves with operational funding. At the local level, there are Biosphere Reserve Forum, which meets on quarterly basis. These Forums are comprised of Provincial Government, Local Government, Non-Governmental Organizations and Biosphere
    [Show full text]
  • Know Your National Parks
    KNOW YOUR NATIONAL PARKS 1 KNOW YOUR NATIONAL PARKS KNOW YOUR NATIONAL PARKS Our Parks, Our Heritage Table of contents Minister’s Foreword 4 CEO’s Foreword 5 Northern Region 8 Marakele National Park 8 Golden Gate Highlands National Park 10 Mapungubwe National Park and World Heritage site 11 Arid Region 12 Augrabies Falls National Park 12 Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park 13 Mokala National Park 14 Namaqua National Park 15 /Ai/Ais-Richtersveld Transfrontier Park 16 Cape Region 18 Table Mountain National Park 18 Bontebok National Park 19 Agulhas National Park 20 West Coast National Park 21 Tankwa-Karoo National Park 22 Frontier Region 23 Addo Elephant National Park 23 Karoo National Park 24 DID YOU Camdeboo National Park 25 KNOW? Mountain Zebra National Park 26 Marakele National Park is Garden Route National Park 27 found in the heart of Waterberg Mountains.The name Marakele Kruger National Park 28 is a Tswana name, which Vision means a ‘place of sanctuary’. A sustainable National Park System connecting society Fun and games 29 About SA National Parks Week 31 Mission To develop, expand, manage and promote a system of sustainable national parks that represent biodiversity and heritage assets, through innovation and best practice for the just and equitable benefit of current and future generation. 2 3 KNOW YOUR NATIONAL PARKS KNOW YOUR NATIONAL PARKS Minister’s Foreword CEO’s Foreword We are blessed to live in a country like ours, which has areas by all should be encouraged through a variety of The staging of SA National Parks Week first took place been hailed as a miracle in respect of our transition to a programmes.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards Ecological Restoration Strategies for Penisula Shale
    Towards ecological restoration strategies for Peninsula Shale Renosterveld: testing the effects of disturbance-intervention treatments on seed germination on Devil’s Peak, Cape Town by Penelope Anne Waller Dissertation presented in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Science at the University of Cape Town, Department of Environmental and Geographical Sciences Private Bag X3, Rondebosch 7701, Cape Town University of Cape Town Supervisor: Dr Pippin Anderson Co-supervisor: Dr Pat Holmes September 2013 The copyright of this thesis vests in the author. No quotation from it or information derived from it is to be published without full acknowledgement of the source. The thesis is to be used for private study or non- commercial research purposes only. Published by the University of Cape Town (UCT) in terms of the non-exclusive license granted to UCT by the author. University of Cape Town D eclarationeclarationeclaration I, the undersigned, know the meaning of plagiarism and declare that all of the work in the document, save for that which is properly acknowledged, is my own. University of Cape Town Signature: _____________________________ Date: ____________________________ i AAbstractbstractAbstract The ecological restoration of Peninsula Shale Renosterveld is essential to redress its conservation- target shortfall. The ecosystem is Critically Endangered and, along with all other renosterveld types in the Cape lowlands, declared ‘totally irreplaceable’. Further to conserving all extant remnants, ecological restoration is required to play a critical part in securing biodiversity and to meeting conservation targets. Remnants of Peninsula Shale Renosterveld are situated either side of the Cape Town city bowl and, despite formal protection, areas of the ecosystem are degraded and require restoration intervention.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017/ 2022 Integrated Development Plan
    LAINGSBURG MUNICIPALITY 2017/ 2022 INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT PLAN A destination of choice where people come first Draft 2017/18 Review Implementation 2018/19 LAINGSBURG MUNICIPALITY Vision A destination of choice where people comes first “‘n Bestemming van keuse waar mense eerste kom” Mission To function as a community-focused and sustainable municipality by: Rendering effective basic services Promoting local economic development Consulting communities in the processes of Council Creating a safe social environment where people can thrive Values Our leadership and employees will ascribe to and promote the following six values: Transparency Accountability Excellence Accessibility Responsiveness Integrity 0 | P a g e Table of Contents Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................... 1 LIST OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................. 7 FOREWORD OF THE MAYOR .................................................................................................................... 9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE MUNICIPAL MANAGER ........................................................................... 10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 12 1 STRATEGIC PLAN ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Scoping Report Combined Environmental
    DRAFT SCOPING REPORT COMBINED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE UMSINDE EMOYENI WIND ENERGY FACILITY PHASE 1 & 2 AND ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL GRID CONNECTION PHASE 1 & 2 WESTERN CAPE & NORTHERN CAPE Appendix 12.1: Overview of the Study Area for the Scoping Report Social Assessment Draft Scoping Report Umsinde Emoyeni Wind Energy Facility and Associated Grid Connection Phase 1 & 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION This appendix provides an overview of the study area with regard to: The relevant administrative context; The district level socio-economic context; and The municipal level socio-economic context. A small section of the site is located in the Ubuntu Local Municipality within the Northern Cape Province. However, the majority of the site is located within the Beaufort West Local Municipality (BWLM), which is one of three local municipalities that make up the Central Karoo District Municipality (CKDM) in the Western Cape Province. The focus of Section 3 is therefore on the BWLM and CKDM. 2.0 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTEXT The majority of the Umsinde WEF site is located within the Beaufort West Local Municipality (BWLM), which is one of three local municipalities that make up the Central Karoo District Municipality (CKDM) in the Western Cape Province. A small section of the site is also located in the Ubuntu Local Municipality within the Northern Cape Province. The town of Beaufort West is the administrative seat of the CKDM and BWLM. The main settlements in the CKDM include, Beaufort West, Nelspoort, Murraysburg, Prince Albert, Leeu Gamka, Prince Albert Road, Matjiesfontein and Klaarstroom. Beaufort West: Beaufort West is the gateway to the Western Cape as well as the main service and development centre for the area.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7 Plant Diversity in the Hantam
    Chapter 7 Plant diversity in the Hantam-Tanqua-Roggeveld, Succulent Karoo, South Africa: Diversity parameters Abstract Forty Whittaker plots were surveyed to gather plant diversity data in the Hantam-Tanqua- Roggeveld subregion of the Succulent Karoo. Species richness, evenness, Shannon’s index and Simpson’s index of diversity were calculated. Species richness ranged from nine to 100 species per 1000 m² (0.1 ha) with species richness for the Mountain Renosterveld being significantly higher than for the Winter Rainfall Karoo, which in turn was significantly higher than for the Tanqua Karoo. Evenness, Shannon and Simpson indices were found not to differ significantly between the Mountain Renosterveld and Winter Rainfall Karoo, however, these values were significantly higher than for the Tanqua Karoo. Species richness for all plot sizes <0.1 ha were significantly lower for the Tanqua Karoo than for the other two vegetation groups, which did not differ significantly from each other. Only at the 1000 m² scale did species richness differ significantly on the vegetation group level between the Mountain Renosterveld and the Winter Rainfall Karoo. A Principal Co-ordinate Analysis (PCoA) of species richness data at seven plot sizes produced three distinct clusters in the ordination. One cluster represented the sparsely vegetated, extremely arid Tanqua Karoo which has a low species richness, low evenness values and low Shannon and Simpson indices. Another cluster represented the bulk of the Mountain Renosterveld vegetation with a high vegetation cover, high species richness, high evenness values and high Shannon and Simpson indices. The third cluster was formed by the remaining Mountain Renosterveld plots as well as the Winter Rainfall Karoo plots with intermediate values for the diversity parameters.
    [Show full text]