Rangeland Condition Metrics for the Gobi Desert, Derived from Stakeholder Evaluations
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
RangelandRangeland conditioncondition metrics metrics forfor thethe GobiGobi Desert, Desert, derived derived fromfrom stakeholderstakeholder evaluations evaluations ARI technical Report XXX Otgonsuren Avirmed, Matt D. White, Khorloo Batpurev, Peter Griffioen, Canran Liu, Sergelenkhuu Otgonsuren Avirmed, Matt D. White, Khorloo Jambal, Hayley Sime, Kirk Olson & Steve J. Sinclair Batpurev, Peter Griffioen, Canran Liu, Sergelenkhuu Jambal, Hayley Sime, Kirk Olson & Steve J.Apr Sinclairil 2018 March 2018 Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 289 Photo credit Desert vegetation, near Khanbogd, Mongolia (Steve Sinclair) © The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, 2018 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. You are free to re-use the work under that licence, on the condition that you credit the State of Victoria as author. The licence does not apply to any images, photographs or branding, including the Victorian Coat of Arms, the Victorian Government logo and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) logo. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Printed by Melbourne Polytechnic, Preston ISBN 978-1-76077-030-3 (Print) ISBN 978-1-76077-031-0 (pdf/online) Disclaimer This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication. Accessibility If you would like to receive this publication in an alternative format, please telephone the DELWP Customer Service Centre on 136186, email [email protected], or via the National Relay Service on 133 677 www.relayservice.com.au. This document is also available on the internet at www.delwp.vic.gov.au. Rangeland condition metrics for the Gobi Desert, derived from stakeholder evaluations ARIARI Technicaltechnical ReportReport XXX289 Otgonsuren Avirmed, Matt D. White, Khorloo Batpurev, Peter Griffioen, Canran Liu, Sergelenkhuu Jambal, Hayley Sime, Kirk Olson & Steve J. Sinclair. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning Heidelberg, Victoria Wildlife Conservation Society, Mongolia Country Program Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia April 2018 Acknowledgements This project was funded by Oyu Tolgoi (OT), Mongolia. We thank Samdanjigmed Tulganyam, James Hamilton and Altantsetseg Balt (OT) for their active engagement with the project and useful insights. The project was supported by Wildlife Conservation Society, Mongolia Country Program (WCS), and we especially thank Enkhtuvshin Shiilegdamba (Acting Director) and Dashzeveg Tserendeleg (Extractive Industry Manager) for their support. The work depended on the generosity of over 90 stakeholders, each of whom gave several hours of their time to contribute. We are greatly appreciative of their efforts. The Mongolian field work and workshops were greatly assisted by logistical and expert botanical assistance from Bolor-Erdene Lkhamsuren, Onon Bayasgalan and Tsolmon Jambalsuren (WCS). Discussion with David Wilson (Global Biodiversity Conservation) and Stuart Anstee (Stuart Anstee & Associates) greatly improved our understanding of the context of the project. The video used to facilitate international participation was filmed by Fern Hames (ARI). The project also benefitted from the support of Kim Lowe, Tim O’Brien, Graeme Newell and Matthew Bruce at ARI. Authors Otgonsuren Avirmed Wildlife Conservation Society, Mongolia Country Program POB 485, PO 38, Ulaanbaatar 15141, Mongolia [email protected] Matthew D. White Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research 123 Brown St Heidelberg, 3084, Victoria, Australia [email protected] Khorloo Batpurev Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research 123 Brown St Heidelberg, 3084, Victoria, Australia [email protected] Peter A. Griffioen Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research 123 Brown St Heidelberg, 3084, Victoria, Australia [email protected] Canran Liu Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research 123 Brown St Heidelberg, 3084, Victoria, Australia [email protected] Sergelenkhuu Jambal Wildlife Conservation Society, Mongolia Country Program POB 485, PO 38, Ulaanbaatar 15141, Mongolia [email protected] Hayley Sime LaTrobe University, Department of Ecology, Environment and Evolution Bundoora, 3086, Victoria, Australia Kirk Olson Wildlife Conservation Society, Mongolia Country Program POB 485, PO 38, Ulaanbaatar 15141, Mongolia [email protected] Steve J Sinclair Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research 123 Brown St Heidelberg, 3084, Victoria, Australia [email protected] Report produced by: Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning PO Box 137 Heidelberg, Victoria 3084 Phone (03) 9450 8600 Website: www.delwp.vic.gov.au Citation Avirmed, O., White, M.D., Batpurev, K., Griffioen, P.A., Liu, C., Jambal, S., Sime H, Olson, K. and Sinclair, S.J. 2018. Rangeland condition metrics for the Gobi Desert, derived from stakeholder evaluations Arthur Rylan Institute Technical Report 289. Arthur Rylah Institute and Wildlife Conservation Society Mongolia Country Program, report for Oyu Tolgoi. Contents Summary ........................................................................................................................ viii 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 9 1.1 Background: The need to evaluate ecosystem condition in the Gobi ................................................. 9 1.2 Evaluation of ecological condition ........................................................................................................ 10 1.3 Aims of the current work ........................................................................................................................ 12 1.4 Overview of the approach taken ............................................................................................................ 12 1.5 The ecosystems covered by the metric ................................................................................................ 15 2. Methods ....................................................................................................................... 21 2.1 Definition of condition............................................................................................................................. 21 2.2 Selection of variables to express and measure condition .................................................................. 21 2.3 Field sites ................................................................................................................................................. 26 2.4 Field sampling protocols for Desert systems ...................................................................................... 28 2.5 Expert stakeholders ................................................................................................................................ 30 2.6 Stakeholder evaluation of field sites ..................................................................................................... 30 2.7 Exemplar sites for workshop consultation ........................................................................................... 30 2.8 Data elicitation workshops ..................................................................................................................... 33 2.9 Data cleaning and outlier removal ......................................................................................................... 34 2.10 Modelling to predict condition score from the site variables ........................................................... 36 2.11 Scaling the model predictions ............................................................................................................. 37 2.12 Exploring the relationship between condition and each variable in isolation ................................ 38 2.13 Quantifying the relative importance of the variables ......................................................................... 38 2.14 Presenting the metrics .......................................................................................................................... 38 3. Results ......................................................................................................................... 39 3.1 Testing the utility of the selected site variables ................................................................................... 39 3.2 The utility of the field plot method ......................................................................................................... 41 3.3 The performance of the condition metrics ........................................................................................... 41 3.4 The roles of the individual variables ..................................................................................................... 45 3.5 Application of the metrics to field-based monitoring data.................................................................. 52 3.6 Describing the characteristics of the stakeholders ............................................................................