Drivers of Land Use Change project

Driver Research Phase Background Report No. 1

Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Department of Sustainability and Environment Department of Sustainability and Environment Department of Primary Industries Department of Primary Industries Authors Jenny Wilson, John Ford, and Tamara Lavis

For more information about this publication contact Dr Jenny Wilson Biodiversity Planner Department of Sustainability and Environment 35 Sydney Road PO Box 124 Benalla 3672 Phone (03) 5761 1577 Email: [email protected]

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank regional agency staff and organisations for their assistance in the development of this report. Earlier drafts of this manuscript were greatly improved by a number of people, including: Kate Bell, Bill Hill, Barry Oswald, Stuart Warner, Philip Newton, Kim Lowe, Anna Ridley, Tim Clune, and Andrew Straker.

The Drivers of Land Use Change (DLUC) project is funded under the Ecologically Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (a joint initiative of the Department of Primary Industries and the Department of Sustainability and Environment).

© The State of Victoria, Department of Sustainability and Environment, September 2004

This publication is copyright. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced, copied, transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical or graphic) without the prior written permission of the State of Victoria, Department of Sustainability and Environment. All requests and enquiries should be directed to the Nominated Officer, Copyright, PO Box 500, East Melbourne, Victoria, 3002.

ISBN 1 74152 100 9

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.

www.dse.vic.gov.au ESAI project 05116 Ecologically Sustainable Agriculture Initiative Drivers of land use change

Driver Research Phase Background Report 1 Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Jenny Wilson1, John Ford2, and Tamara Lavis2 1 Department of Sustainability and Environment 2 Department of Primary Industries

September 2004

i DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

CONTENTS

Summary ...... iv

1. Introduction...... 1

2. Background to the report ...... 2

2.1 Objectives ...... 2 2.2 Method ...... 2 2.3 Biodiversity defined ...... 3 2.4 The study area...... 4

3. Native biodiversity in the study area...... 5

3.1 Remnant vegetation ...... 5 3.2 Fauna species ...... 7 3.3 Waterways and Wetlands...... 8 3.4 Summary...... 8

4. Land uses in the study area ...... 10

4.1 Land uses...... 10 4.2 Enterprises ...... 11 4.3 Farming practices...... 13

5. Discussion ...... 16

5.1 The effects of land use practices on native biodiversity...... 16 5.2 The effects of land use practices on remnant vegetation...... 17 5.3 The effects of land use practices on fauna...... 20 5.4 The effects of land practices on waterway and wetlands...... 20 5.5 Affecting change in native biodiversity outcomes by altering current practices .....21 5.6 The effects of plantations on native biodiversity...... 26 5.7 Minor land use changes to affect large native biodiversity gains ...... 26

6. Conclusions ...... 28

7. References ...... 29

ii DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Appendices Appendix 1. People contacted and provided information for this report...... 36 Appendix 2. Flora list (including conservation status) of the Honeysuckle Creek Study Area.37 Appendix 3. Fauna list (including conservation status) of the Honeysuckle Creek Study Area...... 43 Appendix 4. List of threatened fauna species within the Honeysuckle Creek Study Area, their status, critical habitat requirements and major threatening process...... 48 Appendix 5: Farming practices associated with broadacre cropping ...... 51 Appendix 6: Farming practices associated with grazing ...... 55 Appendix 7: Farming practices associated with intensive cropping/horticulture ...... 59 Appendix 8: Farming practices associated with hardwood and softwood plantations ...... 61 Appendix 9: Farming practices associated with native biodiversity...... 62 Figures

Figure 1. The Honeysuckle Creek study area...... 4 Figure 2. The extent of each Ecological Vegetation Class and status, and the location of wetlands within the Honeysuckle Creek area...... 9 Figure 3. The percentage of land in private ownership and public land types for the Honeysuckle Creek study area...... 10 Figure 4. The relative hectares of the dominant agricultural enterprises in the study area...... 11 Figure 5. Matrix showing relative native biodiversity effects (on-site and off-site) of changes in grazing practices...... 22 Figure 6. Matrix showing relative native biodiversity effects (on-site and off-site) of changes in cropping practices...... 23 Figure 7. Matrix showing relative biodiversity effects of changes in fertiliser and biocide use...... 26

Tables Table 1. A comparison between the current extent and pre-European extent of the Ecological Vegetation Classes identified within the Honeysuckle Creek case study area...... 6 Table 2. Number of remnants (classified by size) or Ecological Vegetation Classes in the Honeysuckle Creek study area...... 7 Table 3. A summary of native biodiversity assets identified in the Honeysuckle Creek Study Area...... 9 Table 4. The number of establishments engaged in each grazing enterprise in the Honeysuckle Creek Study Area...... 12 Table 5. Crop type by area and production level for the Shire of Strathbogie for 2001..12 Table 6. Comparison between fenced, ‘intact’ remnants and grazed remnants for several environmental effects...... 19 Table 7. Eight key opportunities identified in this report that will enhance native biodiversity through minor alterations to farming practices in the Honeysuckle Creek study area...... 27

iii DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Summary

Agricultural land uses, and the management practices associated with them, have had major effects on the richness, diversity and long-term viability of our native biodiversity assets. Although many farmers are changing their practices and investing in conservation management, the effects of past management (often through government incentives) are continuing. It is now widely accepted that changes to land use will need to occur if we are to conserve our native biodiversity. Understanding more about the relationship between farm management practices and native biodiversity outcomes is a vital first step in progressing towards positive land use change. This can then provide the basis for decisions at the farm-level about how to best achieve outcomes that meet both native biodiversity conservation objectives and farm business goals. It can also inform decisions within agricultural supply chains, land markets and government that are targeted at influencing land use. The ‘Drivers of Land Use Change Project’ (DLUC), for which this report has been prepared, is seeking opportunities to do this – the key focus of the broader DLUC project is recognising that management practice change might come by influencing the operation of markets and institutions as much as by seeking to directly influence how farmers manage native biodiversity assets. This report focuses primarily on identifying the farming practices that have the greatest (positive and negative) off-site and on-site effects on native biodiversity assets. It uses a case-study approach to identify the native biodiversity assets and the farming practices of an area and then ascertains which practices have the most significant effect on the identified native biodiversity assets. The approach in this report was to first identify the native biodiversity assets in the case study area: the Honeysuckle Creek Catchment (HSC) in Victoria. Second, to identify the dominant land uses, enterprises and farming practices in the HSC. Third, to ascertain which current land uses and farming practices are having the greatest effect on native biodiversity assets and how practices might change to provide improved native biodiversity outcomes. Honeysuckle Creek is an important area for native biodiversity conservation and for agricultural enterprises. Grazing sheep and beef cattle are the principle enterprises. Cropping is also important in many areas, and is likely to continue to increase in area. Some landowners are planting trees and understorey and there are active Landcare groups in the area. The vegetation is fragmented as a result of clearing for agriculture and is also generally of poor quality due to grazing of remnants and riparian zones. It is estimated that 95% of terrestrial and riparian remnants are grazed, although fencing off of some riparian areas has been achieved through grants. Tree cover is approximately 9% in the area and this may be insufficient to provide habitat for the long-term survival of the majority of species. The size of remnants also has implications for native biodiversity conservation. Currently, only 1.7% of remnants are greater than the 40 ha required for some birds and mammals, and 92% are less than 10 ha in size, which is smaller than that suggested in the scientific literature to maintain viable populations. Remnants are often isolated and this reduces or stops the movement of effective genetic flow through landscapes. There are over 150 native plant species and over 215 native vertebrate fauna species, with many threatened, rare and declining species. Threatening processes associated with threatened species within the HSC are mostly associated with the loss of habitat, and include management practices such as clearing of fallen timber, grazing of any regeneration that might occur within remnants, the loss of understorey, and removal of snags in streams and streambank erosion. Waterways and wetlands are an integral part of the native biodiversity assets and form important ecological functions, but many are degraded through grazing, which causes erosion and stream pollution.

iv DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Different land uses affect native biodiversity in different ways. The ‘where’ and ‘when’ of grazing tends to have the greatest effect on native biodiversity assets. For intensive agriculture (usually cropping in the HSC) the main effect is that it completely alters the vegetation community to a monoculture, providing little habitat for the majority of native species. Cropping enterprises can also have large effects on native biodiversity if land use change to cropping replaces native biodiversity areas (e.g. if native pasture and paddock trees are removed for crops). Cropping is also associated with the use of fertilisers and biocides, and if there are no buffers to protect waterways and remnants from the movement of these chemicals then this can have adverse affects on native biodiversity assets. This report has found that the main farming practices that require attention from a policy perspective are:

• Cropping that replaces, or is too close to, existing native biodiversity assets, including scattered trees, treed remnants and native pasture, wetland areas, fallen timber, rocks and understorey. Incremental loss of trees is a major factor in habitat loss in the agricultural regions (e.g. tree dieback, felling paddock trees for pivot irrigation). • Grazing in riparian zones, which is critical to water quality issues, with revegetation and restriction to stock access essential. • Grazing without rest periods that would allow for the regeneration of native species. • Grazing of areas of high native biodiversity value where anything more than minimal grazing once or a few times a year will lead to loss of diversity. Fencing of treed remnants and the re-establishment of understorey is critical to native biodiversity conservation. • Inadequate weed and feral animal control programs, and allowing introduced grasses and other species to invade areas of high native biodiversity value. • Chemical seepage associated with cropping into riparian zones and remnants.

The outcomes that should be sought from a native biodiversity policy perspective include:

• Prevention of incremental loss of all existing native biodiversity assets, where loss of less significant native biodiversity assets is permitted under the Native Vegetation Framework, then net gain principles should apply. • Promotion of farming practices that both increase productivity and result in improved outcomes for native biodiversity. For example, rotational grazing, and division of land into intensive use areas and conservation areas. • Restrictions on grazing in riparian zones. • Adoption of grazing management. • Fencing of treed remnants and the re-establishment of understorey. • Providing linkages and large remnants throughout the landscape. • Restriction of area within a region that is cropped. No native pastures or wetland areas to be converted to crops. • Concerted weed and feral animal control programs that include a focus on environmental threats. • Regulation of chemical seepage associated with cropping through requirement for buffer strips of minimum width around all riparian zones and remnants. • Integration of native biodiversity principles into shelterbelts and plantations. For example, plantations to include a range of plant species (shrubs, grasses, trees) indigenous to the area as part of the planting component.

v DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

A major finding of the report is that minor alterations to farming practices can result in major gains in native biodiversity outcomes. Changes to farming practices that would benefit native biodiversity include: fencing of riparian zones and treed remnants and managing these primarily for native biodiversity outcomes, changing to more frequent rotational grazing practices, and strategically defining cropping areas so that they do not replace areas of high native biodiversity. This is an important finding as the area given to crops is likely to increase in the near future. Reducing, and being more strategic in, herbicide and pesticide use can result in additional native biodiversity gains. There is some evidence that implementing these changes is also likely to result in increased productivity and a more sustainable future.

vi DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

1. Introduction

This report is one of several produced for the Drivers of Land Use Change (DLUC) project which is funded under the Ecologically Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (a joint initiative of the Department of Primary Industries and the Department of Sustainability and Environment). The aim of the DLUC project is to develop an understanding of the drivers of land use change in agriculture that now affect native biodiversity, or are likely to, and to use that understanding to identify and implement improved ways of maintaining native biodiversity. This project is thus a strategic one in that it provides information to assist in policy development aimed at maintaining and enhancing native biodiversity in the rural landscapes of Victoria, as well as achieving other policy goals related to agriculture. Phase 1 of the DLUC involves the preparing the following background reports (Crosthwaite et al. 2004). Each is the result of a small task that has been undertaken to provide the foundation for the policy phase of the project (i.e. Phase 2):

Special purpose reports 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity 2: Land Use Impact Modelling (LUIM) for native biodiversity risk 3: Methods

‘Core’ driver research 4: Understanding drivers of land use change associated with lifestyle farms 5: Personal drivers – interviews 6: Factors influencing agriculture, agribusiness, landscapes and regions 7: Mega-drivers of land use change – broadacre cropping 8: Mega-drivers of land use change – plantations 9: Land use policy

It is expected that a focus on drivers will result in new approaches for achieving native biodiversity outcomes in agricultural environments being identified, as well as ideas on modifying existing approaches. Policy currently focuses by and large on managing the sites where native biodiversity assets are found, with some exceptions such as Environmental Management Systems (EMS) and education in whole farm planning. The focus of this report is on understanding the land use practices that are occurring, and their effect on native biodiversity, using a case study area. It provides a basis for other phases of the broader DLUC project to identify the most critical drivers of land use change and then to develop policy recommendations. This report’s aim, is to influence policy makers and agencies responsible for land use management to ensure native biodiversity conservation is integrated into all natural resource management programs, policies and strategies dealing with land use change.

1 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

2. Background to the report

2.1 Objectives The objectives specific to this report are:

• To ascertain and describe the native biodiversity assets in the study area • To ascertain the major private land management practices • To discuss how the major management practices may affect native biodiversity assets • To identify how management practices might be altered to affect change in native biodiversity outcomes.

2.2 Method The study has a three-stage method:

Stage one Provides information on the native biodiversity assets of the Honeysuckle Creek (HSC). The assets that are assessed are remnant treed vegetation, the current extent of Ecological Vegetation Classes1, threatened species, waterways and wetlands, and flora and fauna species. The fauna species are limited to birds, mammals, fish, reptiles and amphibians. Biodiversity also concerns genes and ecosystems, however, we do not know all of the interactions and connections between species and ecosystem processes and therefore surrogates are used as indicators of the state of biodiversity assets. Surrogates are usually higher trophic level species as it is assumed that higher level species (e.g. birds) are useful as indicators of the health of other species, ecosystems and biodiversity processes (e.g. Villard et al. 1999; Kitchener 1982; Ford et al. 1992; MacNally et al. 2002). The validity of this approach has been confirmed in some studies, but others have found that it does not hold (see reviews by Watson et al. 2001; Simberloff 1998; Andleman and Fagan 2000; Lindenmayer et al. 2002). For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that the assumption holds.

Stage two Identifies the dominant land uses, enterprises and farming practices. A three-tier method is used for ease of discussion. The first tier is ‘land uses’ and this category gives a broad overview of land tenure. The second tier is ‘enterprises’ which is the businesses associated with agricultural land uses and the third tier is the farming practices, which outlines the major management practices in the HSC within different enterprise types. It is beyond the scope of this study to carry out field sampling of the effects of land use on native biodiversity assets in the HSC study area and therefore generalisations from studies elsewhere were often used. However, the effects of land uses on native biodiversity patterns and processes can also be inferred from the status of native biodiversity assets identified in this report. A range of techniques was used to try and gain as much insight into farming practices and their effect on native biodiversity assets.

1 Ecological Vegetation Classes, described as ‘EVC’s, are plant associations that occur in an inferred environmental niche and can be identified by a typical structure and combination of floristics, life forms and ecological characteristics (Muir et al. 1995). Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVCs) have been identified as entities suitable for strategic planning. 2 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Information on the land uses and native biodiversity assets in the HSC was gained through: • discussions with various relevant staff from: Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE), Department of Primary Industries (DPI) and Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority (GB CMA). (See Appendix 1.) • Knowledge of the relative dominance of each farming enterprise and farming practices was gained from agricultural experts, including extension officers, from DPI. • Peer-reviewed scientific literature, reports, and other documents (as cited) • DSE mapping products and information systems (e.g. Flora Information System, DSE GIS Corporate Library) (as cited).

Stage three Identifies the effect of land uses and farming practices on the native biodiversity assets identified in stage 1.

2.3 Biodiversity defined Flora and fauna biodiversity assets identified and discussed are only native, indigenous species, and refer to the variety of all native life at a particular locality. Native biodiversity is not only found in remnants of native vegetation, but also within agricultural systems. Although exotic species can be seen as ‘biodiversity’ they are not within the scope of this project. This approach is consistent with state and national biodiversity strategies and policies. The term biodiversity was coined from ‘biological diversity’ to describe the complex variety of life. ‘Biodiversity is the variety of all life-forms, the different plants, animals and micro- organisms, the genes they contain and the ecosystems of which they form a part’ (NRE 1997). Biodiversity occurs because there are a range of niches within which different species can live. Species and ecosystem functions interact in complex ways to create ‘variety’. Generally, all biota require the basic resources of shelter, a source of energy and the ability to reproduce. Each species will exist within slightly different ways and so are not subject to competitive exclusion (Levin 1976; Tilman 1982). For example, nutrient concentrations in soils can change over a distance of a few metres, and different plants will exploit the different nutrient concentrations, thus resulting in a variety of plants over a small area. Differences in plant species and structure then provide a range of habitat types for different fauna. Generally, the greater the diversity of habitats available, particularly habitat structure, the greater the number of species that are able to find niches (MacArthur 1972; Rosenzweig 1995). For example, bird species are more prevalent and diverse in the vicinity of areas of accumulated woody debris, shrub cover and tree hollows compared to those areas without these elements (Pickett and Cadenasso 1995; MacNally et al. 2001; Seddon et al. 2003). There are many critical processes associated with biodiversity that result in a functioning system, including the movement of water, soil accumulation, nutrient cycling, pollination and transpiration among many others. Processes continue to change pattern in the landscapes due to disturbance events (e.g. natural events such as storms and treefall or manmade effects such as clearing and fire suppression). Processes affect native biodiversity by changing the abundance and distribution of flora and fauna over time and space (Wiens 1989).

3 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

2.4 The study area The case study area is the dryland areas of the Honeysuckle Creek subcatchment (here termed HSC), which is situated around Violet Town in the Goulburn Broken Catchment of northern Victoria (Figure 1). The communities are enthusiastic supporters of Landcare, and include two of the earliest established groups (Sheep Pen Creek Land Management Group to the north of the Hume Freeway and Warrenbayne Boho Landcare group to the south). In this area there has been much work carried out by landowners, Department staff (DSE and DPI), Goulburn Broken CMA and Non Government Organisations (NGO). The HSC area encompasses a range of biogeographic strata including ranges, hills and plains, across a broad range of soil types and vegetation communities. Mean annual rainfall is between 500 mm in the north west of the HSC to 900 mm in the highest, southern parts of the catchment and 750 mm per annum, generally increasing with proximity to the Great Dividing Range. This area has been the subject of a range of studies, which can provide further details of the area and associated projects (B. Oswald, Heartlands Project, pers. comm. 2003).

Figure 1. The Honeysuckle Creek study area.

Note: the defined area was used to assess biodiversity assets but that land uses and enterprise data encompasses a wider area.

4 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

3. Native biodiversity in the study area

3.1 Remnant vegetation The extent, pattern (how remnants are distributed across a landscape), the size of remnants and the quality of remnants can all have significant effects on biodiversity patterns and processes (e.g. Forman 1995; Bennett 1999). It is these aspects of remnants that will be detailed. Information is from the DSE Geospatial Data Library unless otherwise cited. More than 200 native plant species have been recorded in the HSC (see Appendix 2). There are four threatened plant species (two rare, one vulnerable and one endangered) (DSE Flora Information Systems data). Dominant tree species include Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa), River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) and Buloke (Allocasuarina leuhmannii) which is considered vulnerable to extinction. Dominant shrubs include several wattle species, including Golden Wattle (Acacia pycnantha), and other shrubs (e.g. Sweet Bursaria Bursaria spinosa) and small shrubs (peas, guinea flowers and rice-flowers), native grasses and lilies, herbs and orchids (NRE 1997). There are few areas where the majority of a vegetation community is intact, and weeds have infiltrated nearly all sites to some degree, with more than 60 exotic species being recorded in the area (Appendix 2). For example, Onion Weed (Romulea rosea var. australis) is ubiquitous. Blackberries (Rubus fruticosus aggregate), Patterson’s curse (Echium plantagineum) and capeweed (Arctotheca calendula) are among the most widespread and difficult to control weeds.

Extent In the HSC, 9.4% of the extent of pre-European treed vegetation remains (Table 1). This is a relatively large amount of remnant native vegetation in comparison to other agricultural- dominated areas within the Goulburn Broken Catchment (e.g. in many areas between 3% and 5% of native vegetation remains within the plains region of the Catchment). Prior to clearing, the area consisted of a mosaic of vegetation types, which have been cleared to a varying extent depending on the suitability of the underlying soils for agriculture. Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVC) of the woodland type in particular have been heavily cleared, especially in the plains region of the HSC (Table 1). For example, only 1.7% of Plains Grassy Woodland EVC remains and this compares to 52% for Herb-rich Foothill Forest EVC of the dry, relatively unfertile hilly areas. Additionally, there are two EVC that are locally extinct. Most remaining EVC are considered to be endangered, vulnerable or depleted (Figure 3). The majority of remnant vegetation that remains is in public ownership (4336 ha or 70% including road reserves, river frontages and railway sidings). Production forests are a large part of this public land accounting for 52% of public remnant vegetation.

Pattern The vegetation that remains in the sub-catchment is generally highly fragmented, with many isolated small remnants within a matrix of farmland (Table 2). The majority of remnant vegetation exists on roads and waterways as thin, linear strips, which are obvious on the map (Figure 2). There are some native pastures, and pastures with varying percentages of native grasses. Paddock trees are also important remnants, and there are many large old scattered trees. There are approximately 890 km of roads within the Honeysuckle Creek and many of these are associated with remnant vegetation. Roadsides are important remnants within the HSC, sometimes providing the only examples of complete vegetation communities, as existed prior to European settlement. Roadside vegetation varies in width from 5 m to 40 m and occasionally more.

5 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Table 1. A comparison between the current extent and pre-European extent of the Ecological Vegetation Classes identified within the Honeysuckle Creek case study area.

Total Pre 1750 % EVC description extant total extant (ha) (ha) Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland 7.2 476.6 1.5 Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland/ 3.2 153.7 2.1 Creekline Grassy Woodland Mosaic Box Ironbark Forest 653.4 8646.3 7.6 Creekline Grassy Woodland 224.2 2031.5 11.0 Grassy Dry Forest 3041.3 5737.6 53.0 Grassy Woodland 229.0 9678.4 2.4 Heathy Dry Forest 52.0 368.5 14.1 Herb-rich Foothill Forest 776.9 1389.9 55.9 Low Rises Grassy Woodland/Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland 7.9 156.5 5.1 Mosaic Plains Grassy Wetland 38.3 110.5 34.7 Plains Grassy Woodland 472.8 38781.8 1.2 Plains Grassy Woodland/Gilgai Plains Woodland/ 1.2 38.4 3.2 Wetland Mosaic Red Gum Wetland 103.5 284.4 36.4 Red Gum Wetland/Plains Grassy Wetland Mosaic 14.0 59.2 23.6 Rocky Outcrop Shrubland/Herbland Mosaic 3.1 3.1 100.0 Valley Grassy Forest 741.4 1907.7 38.9 Wetland Formation 221.8 572.2 38.8 Total 6591.4 70396.4 9.4

Derived from: DSE Geospatial data layer ‘EVC–1750’ and ‘EVC extent’

Size The number of remnants in each size class (<1 ha, 1–10 ha, >10–40 ha and >40 ha) for each EVC, were identified for the HSC (Table 2). This shows there are few large remnants and that the vast majority of remnants are less than 10 ha in size. Fifty-two percent of remnants are less than 1 ha in size and 92% of remnants are less than 10 ha. The majority of large remnants occur in the Grassy Dry Forest EVC, which occurs in the hills to the south of the HSC. Four EVC types (excluding mosaics) have no remnants larger than 10 ha in size, and nine do not have a remnant greater than 40 ha (although note that some EVC types may naturally have a tree cover less than 10%, which is a limitation to the tree cover mapping). Large remnants rarely occur on private land, with only four remnants greater than 40 ha on private land in the HSC (which is 19% of the total number of remnants of this size). There are only 16 remnants between 10 and 40 ha on private land. Therefore, the majority of private land contains a scattering of small remnants. The majority of large (>40 ha) remnants are in public land and in production forests (81%).

6 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Table 2. Number of remnants (classified by size) or Ecological Vegetation Classes in the Honeysuckle Creek study area.

Ecological Vegetation Class Remnant size classes (%) <1 ha 1 - 10 ha >10 - 40 ha >40 ha Total Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland 4 (66.7) 2 (33.3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 6 Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland/Creekline Grassy Woodland 9 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 9 Mosaic Box Ironbark Forest 50 (40.7) 57 (46.3) 15 (12.2) 1 (0.8) 123 Creekline Grassy Woodland 73 (50.3) 70 (48.3) 2 (1.4) 0 (0) 145 Grassy Dry Forest 56 (42.4) 55 (41.7) 9 (6.8) 12 (9.1) 132 Grassy Woodland 63 (57.8) 42 (38.5) 4 (3.7) 0 (0) 109 Heathy Dry Forest 4 (50.0) 2 (25.0) 2 (25.0) 0 (0) 8 Herb-rich Foothill Forest 32 (45.1) 28 (39.4) 9 (12.7) 2 (2.8) 71 Low Rises Grassy Woodland/Alluvial 2 (40.0) 3 (60.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0) 5 Terraces Herb-rich Woodland Mosaic Plains Grassy Wetland 0 (0.0) 4 (80.0) 1 (20.0) 0 (0) 5 Plains Grassy Woodland 294 (67.3) 137 (31.4) 6 (1.4) 0 (0) 437 Plains Grassy Woodland/Gilgai Plains 9 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0) 9 Woodland/Wetland Mosaic Red Gum Wetland 2 (12.5) 11 (68.8) 2 (12.5) 1 (6.3) 16 Red Gum Wetland/Plains Grassy Wetland 0 (0.0) 2 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0) 2 Mosaic Rocky Outcrop Shrubland/Herbland Mosaic 0 (0.0) 1 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0) 1 Valley Grassy Forest 42 (39.6) 44 (41.5) 16 (15.1) 4 (3.8) 106 Wetland Formation 12 (40.0) 12 (40.0) 5 (16.7) 1 (3.3) 30 Total 652 (53.7) 470 (38.7) 71 (5.8) 21 (1.7) 1,214

Note: Percentages are in parentheses

Quality It is estimated that approximately 90% of remnants in the HSC are of poor quality, with no or very few understorey plant species, and are dominated by annual weeds (D. Robinson, DSE Benalla, K. Stothers DPI Benalla, pers. comms. 2003). The overstorey of most remnants remain, with eucalypts having varying degrees of dieback.

3.2 Fauna species In the HSC there are approximately 185 native bird species, 24 native mammals, numerous reptiles, frog and fish species (Appendix 3) and probably thousands of invertebrate species for which there is little information. A list of threatened and declining species and their critical habitat requirements are given in Appendix 4. There are 21 species classified as ‘threatened’ and ‘insufficiently known’. There are also many declining species, particularly woodland bird species, and their particular habitat is also considered threatened (as in Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (1988). Roadsides often contain large, hollow bearing trees, which are critical habitat elements for a range of fauna, including threatened species such as Squirrel Glider and Brush-tailed Phascogale.

7 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

3.3 Waterways and Wetlands Waterways and wetlands support high levels of native biodiversity and perform essential ecological functions and so are important assets to identify. Native vegetation within the riparian zone acts as a buffer strip by filtering sediment, pasture effluent and chemicals, provides in-stream habitat (e.g. fallen logs, leaves etc.) and with aquatic vegetation forms the major source of nutrients critical in the aquatic food chain (Koehn and O’Connor 1990). Shade provided by trees and shrubs is important for reducing stream temperatures in summer and providing habitat areas for species avoiding direct sunlight (Koehn and O’Connor 1990). Riparian zones are disproportionately important landscape elements as they contain species that both occur only within the riparian zone and more terrestrial species, and are often structurally and floristically distinct from adjacent habitat (Knopf and Sampson 1994). In the Honeysuckle Creek there are approximately 173 kms of rivers and streams, and it is estimated that approximately 95% of these waterways are degraded (K. Stothers, DPI Benalla, pers. comm. 2003, B. Nicoll, GB CMA Benalla, pers. comm. 2003). This seems a reasonable figure because in Victoria it has been found that the vast majority of the riparian zone on private land is in moderate, poor or very poor condition (Mitchell 1990, Wilson et al. 2003). There are 78 wetlands recognised within the HSC (Figure 2). These encompass four wetlands types:

1. Freshwater Meadow 2. Permanent Open Freshwater 3. Shallow Freshwater Marsh 4. Swamp.

These different types of wetlands have different flora and fauna species associated with them and their diversity is critical to species diversity. The wetlands provide critical habitat for several waterbirds associated with these wetlands (e.g. Bailleons Crake and Brolga), frogs, some reptiles, and aquatic invertebrates.

3.4 Summary A summary of the native biodiversity assets identified in the HSC is given in Table 3. This summarises several key points. First, of the 70 400 ha in the HSC, 6591 ha have tree cover (9.4%). Second, the vast majority of remnants are very small (<10 ha), degraded and lack structural diversity. Additionally, there was once a wide variety of vegetation communities in the HSC, which is reflected in the 17 different EVCs (Table 1). However, the majority of EVCs (59%) have less than 15% vegetation cover, which is the target adopted in the GB CMA Vegetation Management Strategy (GB CMA 2000). This means that there are many habitat types that are unlikely to support the original full diversity of species, given the lack of overall vegetation cover and the small size and fragmented nature of remnants. Waterways and wetlands are a feature of the native biodiversity assets of the area (Table 3) and their value in ecosystem function, habitat provision and protection of clean water supply is being recognised. The many flora and fauna species of the area attest to the wealth of biological diversity supported in the HSC.

8 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Figure 2. The extent of each Ecological Vegetation Class and status, and the location of wetlands within the Honeysuckle Creek area.

Table 3. A summary of native biodiversity assets identified in the Honeysuckle Creek Study Area.

Asset Total Area 70 400 ha Waterways 173 km Wetlands (of 4 types) 78 Ecological Vegetation Classes 17 Ecological Vegetation Classes with <15% cover 10 Native flora species 150+ Threatened flora 4 Remnant Treed Vegetation 6591 ha % of remnants <10 ha 92.4 % of remnants >40 ha 1.7 % of remnants degraded and lacking middle storey (e.g. shrubs) 95 Native fauna species identified 215+ Threatened fauna (including insufficiently known) 21

9 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

4. Land uses in the study area

Only the major agricultural-based land uses and farming practices in the HSC will receive detailed discussion, and minor land uses will be given passing reference. Here, three tiers of land uses are used, and defined as:

1. Land uses: refers to broad categories, such as agriculture, reserves, forests, etc. 2. Farming enterprises: refers to the business e.g. wool, fat lambs, beef cattle 3. Farming practices: refers to the actual methods used to carry out the enterprise, e.g. rotational grazing, planting of shelter belts, etc.

Land use can affect native biodiversity because it indicates how much land is within reserves and identifies how many native biodiversity assets are in land that is utilised to produce goods for human consumption. Different enterprises may vary in their effects, and degree of impact, on native biodiversity assets, and this needs to be recognised. In general, however, it will be the farming practices that are likely to have the greatest effect on native biodiversity and these are given the greatest attention. Farming practices are varied and complex, and therefore only the practices adopted by the majority of farmers and those that are likely to affect native biodiversity patterns and processes will be given detailed attention.

4.1 Land uses Private land (freehold) occupies 96.3% of the HSC (Figure 3). In the remaining public land (3.7%), state forests are dominant (41%) (Figure 3). Crown-land reserves are associated with most rivers and streams, the majority of which are leased and grazed. The width of public land, from river to bank, varies across the area from 0 m (the top of the bank) to 30 m from the bank (Knights 1996) There does not appear to be a typical width of riparian zone subject to public control (see Knights 1996). Other minor land tenures are township land, and water production reservoirs. Only 0.2% of land is in ‘strict’ conservation reserves.

Public Land

State Forest

Plantations

Reserves

Water frontage (leased)

Water frontage (reserved)

Private Land

Other

Figure 3. The percentage of land in private ownership and public land types for the Honeysuckle Creek study area.

10 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

4.2 Enterprises Livestock activities dominate in the HSC, with 528 out of the 605 (87%) of agricultural establishments in the Strathbogie Shire area, and all but three of these are in traditionally extensive grazing activities. (Note that the Strathbogie Shire area differs to that analysed for native biodiversity assets, but the point to be made is of the importance of cropping to agricultural production in the general area, which presumably would not be very different to HSC.) The majority of private land in the HSC is used for agriculture. Agriculture plays a very important role in the local economy: $80 000 000 of income (Shire of Strathbogie, ABS 2001). The dominant enterprise is dryland grazing of modified pastures, with some cropping (Figure 4). (Note that the DSE Geospatial data layer from which statistics were analysed does not separate cropping and grazing, but does have some data on cereal crops). Softwood and production forestry are the next dominant, though minor enterprises, and these can occur on public and private land. Softwood (exotic) and native plantations cover an area of approximately 800 ha within the HSC. Minor land uses include horticulture (fruits and nuts), and intensive agricultural industries (Figure 4). Farm forestry is also becoming an important land use, with farmers encouraged to plant woodlots for firewood (B. Oswald, GB CMA, pers. comm. 2003).

Grazing modified pastures/Cropping Softwood Plantation

Production forestry

Cereals

Intensive animal production

Oil seeds and oleaginous fruit

Tree fruits

Tree nuts

Plantation forestry

Figure 4. The relative hectares of the dominant agricultural enterprises in the study area.

Source: DSE Corporate Spatial Library (Land Uses Heartlands).

Sheep and beef are the main grazing enterprises, however, horse studs are increasing in number in the area (Table 4). There are relatively few dairy, deer, alpaca and other grazing enterprises, although these may be growing in number. Many landowners run both sheep and cattle, but sheep are the dominant, grazing animals, although numbers change depending upon markets, climate variations, etc. The majority of sheep grazing enterprises are associated with wool production. However, a number of sheep-related enterprises can occur on one property, which can be dependent on the commodity prices, and/or whether a property has good quality perennial pastures. On properties with a significant proportion of marginal land, wool growing often with wethers, is usually the dominant enterprise.

11 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Table 4. The number of establishments engaged in each grazing enterprise in the Honeysuckle Creek Study Area.

Enterprise Number of estimates Grain-Sheep and Grain-Beef Cattle Farming 54 Sheep-Beef Cattle Farming 127 Sheep Farming 176 Beef Cattle Farming 123 Dairy Cattle Farming 13 Poultry Farming (Meat) – Poultry Farming (Eggs) 3 Pig Farming 2 Horse Farming 28 Deer Farming 1 Livestock Farming 1 Total 528

Source: Strathbogie Shire Council.

In 2001, sown crops covered an area of nearly 15 000 ha in the Strathbogie Shire area (Table 5) with 67 of the 605 agricultural establishments reported cropping practices on the Agricultural Census. They were divided into 54 mixed farms and 13 farms which only cropped. Dryland cropping is dominant within the HSC (c.f. Irrigated cropping). Crops include cereals such as wheat, barley, oats and triticale, canola and other oilseeds, and pulses such as lupins (Table 5). Hay, silage and triticale are used for animal feed and are often part of a grazing enterprise.

Table 5. Crop type by area and production level for the Shire of Strathbogie for 2001

Crop type Crop Hectares Cereals Oats 2706 Triticale 6073 Wheat 4200 Barley 192 Sorghum – Maize – Sub-total 13 171 Oilseeds Canola 1545 Pulses Soybeans – Lupins – Hay Hay 539 Total 15 255 Total (excl. hay) 14 716

Source: ABS 2001 Agricultural Census.

12 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Other enterprises

Shelterbelts Planting of shelterbelts is likely to increase in the HSC study area. Currently, these are often only one or two trees wide and therefore have few native biodiversity benefits. More landowners are becoming aware of the need for wider shelterbelts, with trees and shrubs, to provide better shelter and have a greater biodiversity benefit (Barrett 2000; Taws 2001).

Plantations Plantations occur on private land and public land in the HSC Study Area. Farm forestry is increasing, and is being encouraged through the use of grants (B. Oswald, GB CMA, pers. comm. 2003). Grants encourage some indigenous plantings as well as a commercial crop (B. Oswald, GB CMA, pers. comm. 2003). Tree plantations are a monoculture, and generally native species are used, but not indigenous, and pine plantations are still occurring. Generally, sowing is similarly to growing of any crop, with ploughing and herbicides a feature. The time between harvests is 10 to 30 year rotations.

Vineyards/Horticulture Farming practices associated with vineyards and horticulture include high water use, usually from large, on-property dams. Some of these dams are at the top of catchments and therefore compromise flows to creek systems. Such large dams may change the hydrology of associated creeks by reducing flows, which may be critical in times of below average rainfall. Dams with large surface areas are also subject to high rates of evaporation. Horticultural farmers tend to use micro-irrigation systems, with fertilisers commonly part of the irrigation water, and there can be a high use of fungicides. Therefore there is the potential for off-site effects from these chemicals. Drainage systems are usually in place (e.g. tile drains). Mulch application is becoming more common, and this is to reduce water loss and suppress weed species. Pasture is usually planted in between rows to maintain soil structure, and this is mechanically harvested or sheep may be put in to graze. Machinery is driven down the same rows each time the crops require attention (e.g. herbicide use, harvesting, insecticide spraying, etc.). Ripping may occur only once (e.g. in preparation for the planting of vines or fruit trees). Harvesting can be by hand or mechanical means and contractors are usually employed to undertake most practices.

4.3 Farming practices Two dominant enterprises have been identified in the HSC: grazing of livestock and dryland cropping. The farming practices associated with these dominant enterprises, will be discussed in detail, with some attention given to other minor land uses.

Grazing The ‘when’ and ‘where’ of grazing practices is likely to have the greatest effect on native biodiversity assets and so these factors will receive detailed discussion. Farmers undertake many practices in the course of managing their farms, and this could include fox control, ploughing firebreaks, fencing, and weed control, among others. Set stocking, tactical grazing, rotational and cell grazing are all methods of managing livestock. Most farmers within the HSC use tactical grazing, where stock can remain in the same paddock for a few months at a time (S. Warner, pers. comm. 2003). Set stocking can be used for stock that have low monetary return (usually wethers) and these are often set to graze in rocky areas that have relatively low pasture productivity and can be dominated by native grasses (S. Warner, pers. comm. 2003). Generally, the grazing system used is linked to enterprise type with stud animals often rotationally grazed to ensure they have the ‘best’ feed (S. Warner, pers. comm. 2003). 13 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Rotational grazing has been adopted by some landowners in the HSC in beef and sheep enterprises. The concept of rotational grazing is to maintain maximum pasture growth for as long as possible throughout the year and maximise the amount of energy harvested by animals In rotational systems there is potential for shelterbelts to be planted between paddocks. The season of calving or lambing affects how pastures are utilised as it determines when the peak stocking rates are in the pasture-growing season. The peak stocking rate for autumn lambing and calving is in late autumn/early winter when both available pasture and pasture growth are at their annual low. This can result in paddocks denuded of grass cover, resulting in erosion at a time of year when rainfall may be high. In contrast the peak stocking rate for spring lambing and calving is in mid spring when available pasture and pasture growth is at its annual peak. Spring lambing lowers the stocking rate in winter and therefore has the potential to reduce the risk of erosion. In addition, sheep productivity can be greater by using spring lambing without the need for increased use of inputs (S. Warner, pers. comm. 2003). Grazing occurs over the majority of land. The vast majority of terrestrial remnants are grazed, as are riparian zones and wetland areas (e.g. Gilgai Plains). Wethers are often run in areas that contain native pastures, which in turn often occur on rocky or steep areas that are not conducive to ploughing or seeding. Pasture can either be sown, naturalised or native. In the HSC there are large variations in pasture composition within and between farms. Most of the grazing in the HSC occurs on introduced pasture, sown down to species such as sub clover and phalaris (Jim Shovelton, pers. comm. 2003). Sparsely scattered throughout the HSC are small areas dominated by native grasses (i.e. >50% cover in autumn) (J. Wilson, unpublished data, DSE GIS layer Benalla).

Broadacre cropping Most farmers crop the same paddocks every year and rotate crops between wheat, triticale, oats, barley, canola and lupins. Some years, farmers may rotate between cereals and legumes or incorporate a fallow, with the aim of using legumes to replace some of the nitrogen removed by the previous crop. Therefore, there may be lower rates of nitrogen fertiliser applied in legume crop rotations. Canola and lupins require different sorts of herbicides and insecticides than other crop types but fertiliser application is similar for each crop. There are four major phases to cropping: ploughing, seedbed preparation, planting and harvesting. Each of these stages can include herbicide, fertiliser and insecticide application. The majority of farmers use stubble burning in spring as part of seedbed preparation for the next crop. Many farmers crop within the canopy of scattered paddock trees and to the edge of streambanks.

Future trends The trend in cropping within the HSC is an increase in the area under cropping. Over the 4 years from 1997 to 2001, the area under crop in the Strathbogie Shire, excluding hay, has increased by 7 %, from 13 801 ha to 14 716 ha (ABS statistics 1997-2001). For more land to be cropped efficiently and effectively farmers will need to adopt waterlogging management techniques such as intercropping with perennials or raised bed cropping. Raised bed cropping is becoming more widely used in the HSC study area, and as the aim is to prevent waterlogging it can occur in wetland areas (Paul Lavis, pers. comm. 2003). Therefore, wetlands could be destroyed by the use of this practice. Additionally, raised bed cropping requires an increase in drainage lines. The use of Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and yield mapping from harvesters to pinpoint areas of farm that are under yielding or have high yields is becoming more common which results in targeted application for better management (Paul Lavis, pers. comm. 2003). This could allow for the identification of areas that may be better suited to low intensity use or environmental plantings. Direct drilling in collaboration with stubble retention is the ideal practice in terms of protecting our soil resource. 14 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Fertiliser and biocide use Fertilisers and biocides are commonly used in the HSC study area. Fertilisers are mostly associated with grazing; fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides with cropping; and fertilisers and insecticides with more intensive horticulture. Residual herbicides such as Sulfonylurea used to control weeds can remain within the root zone for extended periods of time and influence the growth of non-target species acidification. Roundup® is the most commonly used herbicide. This inhibits a specific enzyme that is present in higher plants to inhibit production of necessary acids. However, the enzyme is also present in many other organisms that are representative of typical soil microorganisms. The degradation of this herbicide is reliant on microbial activity. Therefore, if microbial activity is reduced due to environmental conditions, there is the potential for this substance to persist with the possibility of non-target effects. Surfactants are added to make this substance dispersible in water, which can result in toxicity to other animals and microorganisms (e.g. can affect frog and tadpole respiration) (Daryl Nelson, DPI Rutherglen, pers. comm.).

Environmental works In the HSC study area there has been much work carried out by landowners, department staff (DSE and DPI), catchment management authorities (GB CMA) and NGOs, in fencing off waterways, tree planting, regeneration and other environmental works. Landowners have made significant contributions to the HSC environment either through cost-sharing arrangements or on their own, and this has resulted in some remarkable changes in the area. For example, many kilometres of roadsides have been widened into private properties to aid in the conservation of the Grey-crowned Babbler, a threatened bird species. Increasing numbers of landowners do not rely on farm incomes and some are aiming to convert previously grazed land into something representative of original vegetation.

15 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

5. Discussion

Agriculture generates much wealth for the HSC and continues to have important lifestyle benefits for many Victorians. It has also created major problems in the form of dryland salinity, land degradation and loss of biological diversity (here termed biodiversity). Much of the degradation has occurred through Government policies, incentives and regulations (e.g. subsidised land clearing in the early to mid 1900s). Other factors have contributed to land degradation, and continue to do so, including a limited understanding of the systems people are farming (e.g. using European farming methods on soils very different to those found in Europe) and the inability to deal with a variable climate. There are many challenges that farmers, and the wider community, need to address if we are to have a sustainable future.

5.1 The effects of land use practices on native biodiversity There are two concurrent effects of agriculture on native biodiversity. First, there are the continuing threats associated with previous actions, e.g. cleared native vegetation, introduced weeds and feral animals. Second, there are the effects of current land management. In this report, the focus is on the effects of current land management on the conservation of native biodiversity, however the effects of previous actions are ongoing and are addressed where appropriate. Disturbance is natural in native ecosystems and includes wind and fire. Some disturbance is an important process in maintaining native biodiversity as each succession stage has associated, characteristic species (Rozdilsky et al. 2001). However, agriculture results in disturbances that occur more regularly, over much larger scales and generally more intensively, than would occur in natural systems. This disturbance results in the majority of land remaining in the early sequence of ecological succession (Altieri 1999). Many introduced plants that are considered to be environmental and/or agricultural weeds are early successional species, and therefore benefit from the continual early successional stage. Additionally, many weeds come from areas that have a long history of association with human disturbance, which is testament to their ability to survive large and frequent disturbance events. Further, few native species are likely to have the ability to adapt to such large and frequent disturbances that alter ecosystem processes. A number of tables have been prepared to outline the major farming practices associated with broadacre cropping (see Appendix 5), grazing (see Appendix 6) and the primary and secondary effects that each operation is likely to have on native biodiversity. Broadacre cropping can generally be associated with land clearing, and this can include trees as well as grassland areas. This almost complete change in vegetation cover and type of vegetation results in several negative effects for native biodiversity including hydrological changes, salinisation and the loss of native flora and fauna among others (Appendix 5). Grazing can result in:

• a change from native grass cover to dominance of annual exotic grass and herb species • erosion and soil compaction • the loss of plant recruitment, among other negative effects (Appendix 7).

Crops and modified pastures lack diversity in structure and therefore provide no habitat for the majority of species, and limited habitat for a restricted number of native animals that can adapt to crop conditions for at least part of the cropping cycle. For example, some birds may feed on seeds at sowing times, invertebrates may survive in the soil prior to ploughing, and spiders and snakes may occur within the crop until it is harvested or among introduced grass species. Crops and improved pasture areas can be a barrier to the movement of some animals for fear of predation, and/or lack of shade or food (see also Appendix 7).

16 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Plantations can result in a change in soil structure, stream sedimentation and increased weed invasion, and therefore disrupt natural processes and effect native biodiversity assets (Appendix 8). When land is managed for native biodiversity values then system processes can move towards stability such that there is improved water quality, healthier populations of plants and animals and improved soil health as well as aesthetic appeal (Appendix 9). In northern parts of the catchment, shallow groundwater is considered a major threat to farmland and native biodiversity assets (B. Oswald, pers. comm. 2003). Cropping and annual pastures result in reduced rates of evapotranspiration and therefore do not ameliorate salinity risk as native vegetation would (Hall 2000). Careful planning is required in the selection of crop varieties, the spatial positioning of cropped paddocks and the amount of area that is cropped in a region if salinity risks are considered (Hall 2000). Annual species also alter patterns of water flow through the soil, raise maximum temperatures, reduce night time-low temperatures and increase frost frequency and severity compared to native vegetation (McFarlane et al. 1993; CSIRO 2001). These changes in biodiversity processes are likely to have major effects on all areas within the HSC, and therefore any increases in cropped area should be given careful consideration.

5.2 The effects of land use practices on remnant vegetation

Extent Vegetation extent is probably one of the most important factors affecting species richness within a landscape (Hargis et al. 1998; MacNally 1999). Approximately 9.4 % of the pre- European treed vegetation remains in the HSC: but the extent of vegetation recommended if we are to conserve the majority of species has been suggested to be between 10% and 30% (Bennett and Ford 1997; Garnet and Crowley 2000; Barrett 2000; Reid 2000). Models have shown that with decreases in native vegetation extent species are lost, and even at 10% many species are unlikely to survive (Bennett and Ford 1997; Reid 2000). In addition, around 30% of a farm put into less intensive uses can greatly benefit native biodiversity (Bennett and Ford 1997; Barrett 2000; Reid 2000) and increase production for at least some farming enterprises (Walpole 1999; Straker and Platt 2002).

Pattern The change from continuous cover of native vegetation to small fragments in an agricultural- dominated matrix, as has occurred in the HSC, brings with it important consequences for the remnant vegetation, including the effects of reduced area and increased isolation of populations, and changes in physical, chemical and biotic flows (Commissioner for the Environment 1991). The pattern of vegetation may be just as important in mitigating the effects of habitat loss and it could enhance population persistence in fragmented landscapes (With and King 2001). The majority of remnants in the HSC are isolated fragments of previous vegetation. Isolated and highly fragmented remnants can result in some species being unable to move between remnants. Isolation can reduce or prevent gene exchange between remnants, and this, added to stochastic events within remnants, can result in species becoming extinct in individual remnants, and ultimately extinct from much larger areas. Extinction is a process that happens over time as populations successively disappear and the overall status and distribution of the species declines (Bennett 1997). (For more information on this refer to ‘Metapopulation Theory’ and ‘Landscape Ecology’ and see e.g. Gilpin and Hanski 1991; Bennett 1999.)

17 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Size There is now a wealth of evidence that shows that smaller areas support fewer species than larger areas of the same vegetation type for a number of species and taxa, e.g. woodland birds (Galli et al. 1976; Opdam et al. 1984; McCollin 1993; MacNally and Horrocks 2002), mammals (Kitchener et al. 1982; Bennett 1987), reptiles and amphibians (Kitchener et al. 1980; Laan and Verboom 1990), invertebrates (Shreeve and Mason 1980) and plants (Margules et al. 1988; Burgman et al. 2001). One of the reasons for this is that larger remnants generally have a greater diversity of habitats than do smaller remnants (Bennett 1997). There is some evidence that remnants that are greater than 40 ha have the greatest number of species and below this size species start to be ‘lost’ from the remnant (Loyn 1987; Bennett 1990; and see Wilson and Lowe 2003). Within the HSC study area there are few remnants greater than 40 ha and not all vegetation types have at least one remnant larger than 40 ha suggesting that the full compliment of species cannot continue to exist. The few large remnants that remain in the HSC are precious, and likely to be resilient in the long-term if protected. The vast majority of remnants in the HSC are less than 10 ha (Table 3). Small remnants <10 ha are unlikely to provide habitat for the majority of species, particularly ‘interior’ species and are subject to deleterious edge effects, such as wind throw, weed invasion and increased levels of competition (Bennett 1999; Freudenberger and Drew 2002). Below 10 ha, ecological processes begin to break down (e.g. plant regeneration, effects of aggressive species) (Clarke and Schedvin 1997; Burgman et al. 2001). This suggests that, as the majority of remnants in the HSC are <10 ha, that the majority of remnants are not likely to be viable in the long term unless protection (e.g. fencing, weed control, fox control) and revegetation to increase their size are part of management strategies.

Quality Grazing occurs in the majority of remnants in the HSC and this affects remnants in several important ways. It removes understorey vegetation, alters soil structure, increases nutrient levels and weed invasion, and prevents regeneration of dominant species (Scougall et al. 1993; Norton et al. 1994). If unrestricted stock access continues, there can be a total lack of regeneration of trees and shrubs, and their extinction is inevitable (Cheal 1993). These effects are evident in the HSC. The loss of understorey is a major threatening process for the threatened Grey-crowned Babbler, and four declining woodland species: Speckled Warbler, Diamond Firetail, Red-capped Robin, Jacky Winter found in the HSC (Appendix 4). Grazing of remnants increases edge effects because of the more open and disturbed nature, and these effects may ultimately result in its decline and loss (Table 6). Edge effects are particularly critical in small remnants (i.e. the majority of remnants within the HSC) where there may be no ‘interior’ to the remnant and therefore species that require ‘interior’ habitat will not be found in that remnant (Bennett 1997). In contrast, a fenced ‘intact’ remnant is likely to be able to function and remain healthy if it is large enough to have a core area that remains unaffected by edge effects (see Lovejoy et al. 1986; Laurance 1991; Bierregaard et al. 1992; Malcolm 1994). In comparison to fenced remnants, non-fenced remnants have been found to have less litter, increased numbers of dead trees, moister, denser soils and elevated levels of soil nutrients, reduced shrub and tree abundance, lower species richness, reduced height and cover of plant species and a greater abundance of non-native herbs (Scougall et al. 1993). Therefore, a functioning remnant is likely to persist and maintain its native biodiversity values, whereas a remnant that is subject to unrestricted stock access will not persist. It should be noted that some grazing may need to occur at appropriate times within fenced remnants. DSE and the GB CMA utilise guidelines to this effect (termed CAMS). Fencing out can result in increased problems with weeds if the area was weedy initially. Generally, it is suggested that landowners do not put any stock in for the first two to five years to allow revegetation to grow, and then lightly graze the area just until the height of weeds are reduced (e.g. grazing the area for a few days in spring) (B. Nicoll, pers. comm. 2003).

18 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Native pastures are also part of the native biodiversity assets identified in the HSC, and the majority of these have been modified. However, native pastures can provide many benefits, as they are drought resistant and require less fertilisers than exotic pastures, among other benefits. An ideal pasture species is persistent and provides ground cover while producing dry matter for livestock production (Simpson and Langford 1996). In recent years there has been increased interest in the role of native grasses in agriculture (Garden et al. 2000). Many species are potentially useful, productive, of moderate to high quality, and have good drought tolerance (Lodge and Whalley 1985). Many native grasses are perennial, deep-rooted and tolerant of acidic soils, and they may play a role in helping to solve the problems of water erosion, induced soil acidity and dryland salinity (Mitchell et al. 2000). The dominant grass species in native grass pastures vary from year to year, depending on the rainfall, temperature, stocking rate, fertiliser application and other factors. Management may also alter the composition of native grass pastures (Garden et al. 2000). Native pastures are generally less tolerant of high fertiliser applications (Garden et al. 2000). There are several publications that provide useful guidelines on the management of native grass pastures (see Simpson 2000).

Table 6. Comparison between fenced, ‘intact’ remnants and grazed remnants for several environmental effects.

Environmental factor Fenced Grazed Edge effects Microclimate Edge effects potentially over entire remnant Core area OK Edge effects Weed invasion Potentially invade entire remnant Core area OK Predation Reduced Raised Tree blowdowns Reduced Increased Edge effects Nest parasitism Increased over entire remnant Core area OK Forest ‘interior’ species Present Absent Canopy damage Edges Further into remnant Far into remnant Aggression by ‘edge’ natives Edges Fewer birds/fewer species Far into remnant Competition from ‘edge’ species Edges Fewer birds Fertiliser and chemical drift Edges Further into remnant Change at edges, Parasites and hosts Change over entire remnant Core area OK

Source: Adapted from Bennett (1999).

Tree dieback is evident in the majority of remnants in the HSC. This is of major concern because it is part of the incremental loss of native tree cover. There are many causes of eucalypt dieback and other native tree decline. Remnant vegetation cannot cope with the consequences of the intensification of land use, such as arable farming and grazing activities, salinisation, weeds, disease and insects. In the absence of any or inadequate understorey, young trees cannot become established to replace the older ones. There is little regeneration from these isolated trees and therefore trees are suffering dieback and early death (Heatwole and Lowman 1986). Rural tree decline is becoming one of the most serious problems in many parts of Victoria, for both agriculture and biodiversity decline (Landsberg 1990). Paddock trees formed part of the native biodiversity assets in the HSC. Paddock trees are important for shade and shelter for stock and reducing erosion (Gibbons and Boak 2002). Single, dead and alive, paddock trees provide valuable habitat for birds and bats (Gibbons and Boak 2002). Bats can eat thousands of insects in an evening, including moths, beetles, bugs, spiders, mosquitoes, grasshoppers and crickets, with some species having been recorded eating up to 600 mosquitoes in an hour (Lumsden and Bennett 2003). Their role in 19 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity controlling insects (including pest species) is likely to be particularly important around isolated trees because there are few insect-eating birds in these situations (Lumsden and Bennett 2003). In addition, large, old trees in paddocks and roadsides in the HSC, provide many habitats not available on smaller trees (e.g. hollows, peeling bark, dead branches, flowers) and provide more habitat area than smaller trees (Wilson and Bennett 1999; Wilson 2002; Gibbons and Boak 2002). Roadside vegetation is an important part of native biodiversity assets in the HSC. Roadside vegetation is of major ecological significance, functioning as conduit, habitat, source and sink (Bennett 1991, 1999; Forman 1995; van der Ree 2000). The width of roadsides is important, and generally the wider the better. For example, in a study in eastern NSW, it was found that in general, wider roadsides (>24 m in width) had healthier trees and shrubs, a higher proportion of native plants, greater recruitment and more habitat elements than paddocks and thinner roadsides (<10 m in width) (Schabel and Eldridge 2001).

5.3 The effects of land use practices on fauna There is an abundance and wealth of flora and fauna in the HSC. However, there have been great changes in the abundance and richness of flora and fauna since European settlement. The number of threatened flora and fauna attest to the great changes that have taken place in land use since settlement. Threats include the loss or removal of habitat, in the form of hollow-bearing trees, (usually formed in trees >100 years old and often >250 years old) (Soderquist 1999) and fallen logs and litter, the removal of fallen timber, habitat loss, fox predation, loss of understorey and weed invasion (Table 4). Some species have benefited from increased farmland (e.g. Eastern-grey Kangaroo, Magpies and Corellas). However these increases have altered natural processes and threaten other species that have not benefited from human-dominated landscapes. For example, kangaroos have evolved adaptations to survive drought by not reproducing at these times. Now that there is a reliable supply of water (i.e. dams) they can reproduce continuously and survive in large numbers. The large increase in numbers of kangaroos, coupled with domestic stock grazing, greatly increases grazing pressure. This, in turn, disadvantages rarer species such as bandicoots, which have reduced shelter (grass tussocks) and feed, and may be more susceptible to predation. It also opens up larger areas of soil to erosion than is likely to have been the case prior to European settlement. Similarly, magpies and ravens have increased in number and these are known predators of nests of a range of other bird species. Additionally, hollow-nesting species (e.g. Galahs and Cockatoos) have increased in range and abundance due to an increase in food supply (crops) and therefore reduce the number of hollows available for other, rarer species.

5.4 The effects of land practices on waterway and wetlands The majority of riparian zones in the HSC are associated with poor quality vegetation with little habitat structure, due to the associated effects of grazing and weed invasion. Grazing and cropping within riparian areas alters system processes, as native vegetation surrounding a stream is essential for the health of the aquatic ecosystem (Koehn and O’Connor 1990). Grazing results in degradation of streams and streambanks, erosion, degradation of aquatic values, including water quality and sedimentation, and loss of habitat, (OCE 1988) trampling of vegetation, soil compaction, increased levels of nutrients and an increase in weeds resulting in a decline in the condition of aquatic and associated terrestrial habitat (Jansen and Healey 2003; GB CMA 2001) (Appendix 5). Pugging and compaction within streamsides occurs due to weight and hoofs, resulting in soil compaction and erosion. Non-native vegetation can result in increased sedimentation, changes in nutrient cycling, loss of habitat, and reduced water quality (GB CMA 2001). Increased stream sediment reduces habitat availability for species that require deep pools (e.g. the endangered trout cod Maccullochella macquariensis and the rare river blackfish Gadopsis marmoratus) (GB CMA 2001). A

20 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity comprehensive literature review of the effects of grazing on riparian zones in the Goulburn Broken Catchment can be found in GB CMA (2001). Frogs are known to be sensitive indicators of environmental change and frog communities, species richness and individual species of frogs decline with increased grazing intensity (Jansen and Healey 2003). Additionally, changes to the wetting and drying cycle of wetlands results in reduced species richness and abundance of frogs (Pechmann et al. 1989; Hazell et al. 2001). Studies elsewhere have shown that riparian condition declines significantly with increased stocking rates (Wilson et al. 2003). However, grazing can be used as a management tool in wetlands invaded by exotic pasture grass weeds (Wetlandcare Australia und.). There is a trend toward increases in cropped area within the HSC. Increases in cropped area would result in increased pressure to remove paddock trees and change hydrological processes, the loss of wetlands and increases in algal blooms. The building of dams, drains and channels has large effects on soil structure and water tables. However, these types of cropping systems may also have the potential to increase production and profits in ‘high intensity use’ areas, which has the potential to offset the costs of native biodiversity conservation in other areas of a farm. The areas in which intensive cropping systems are placed and the remedial management of off-site effects would require careful planning so as not to add to sustainability problems (e.g. salinity, soil acidity, water quality, etc.).

5.5 Affecting change in native biodiversity outcomes by altering current practices The focus of this section is to identify ways to affect changes in native biodiversity outcomes through altered farming practices. This aims to identify practices that require little change in a practice but result in large changes to native biodiversity conservation. Using a land use change classification system set out as a matrix can identify the effect of changing practices on native biodiversity assets (adapted from Farmar-Bowers 2002). Four graphs are produced for grazing, cropping and fertiliser and biocide. The horizontal axis concerns on-site native biodiversity, with positive outcomes to the left and negative to the right. The vertical axis concerns on-site and off-site effects, where practices that result in high containment of on- site and off-site effects (i.e. ‘good’) are at the bottom and practices that result in low containment of on-site and off-site effects at the top (i.e. ‘bad’). The aim of the figures is to provide an easy to interpret way of determining where major gains in native biodiversity conservation can be made and identify the farming practices that, if changed, provide the greatest native biodiversity benefit.

Altered grazing practices The key changes in farming practices associated with grazing that could have the greatest effect on native biodiversity are shown in Figure 5, and are:

Change 1: From unrestricted grazing of remnants/riparian areas to grazing for native biodiversity values The arrow shows a positive result for native biodiversity and containment of off-site effects. This land use change has the potential to result in major gains in vegetation condition on- site, and also reduced erosion, increased water quality (when associated with a riparian area), and provide a buffer for farm chemicals. Remnants that have had little grazing history may be of particular native biodiversity value as they are likely to have higher species diversity than those that have been subject to higher fertility rates due to grazing (Prober et al. 2002). The addition of a shrub layer and other habitat features (e.g. fallen logs, native grasses, leaf litter, a diversity of species to reflect original EVC type) is likely to greatly enhance the native biodiversity value of treed remnants. Paddock trees would benefit from fencing to allow some regeneration and the removal of factors that cause dieback, such as stock trampling and camping increasing

21 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

nutrients, and the lack of understorey. The addition of understorey species attracts birds, which may then reduce the effects of dieback. Due to the disproportionate native biodiversity values of riparian zones and wetlands, riparian areas managed primarily for native biodiversity conservation have the potential to provide large, positive gains in the maintenance of native biodiversity and system processes. The protection of remnants in and near the riparian zone and revegetating to provide wide linkages (preferably to 50 m see Bennett et al. (2000)), would be of great benefit when combined with other stream stabilisation works.

Change 2: From set-stocking to rotational grazing This change, from set-stocking to rotational grazing, could result in some gains in vegetation condition as grasses would have a chance to recover from grazing. It could have a large, positive effect on containment of off-site effects through a reduction in sheep camps and other factors that result in baring of ground. Set-stocking selects for annual species, resulting in the decline and eventual extinction of perennial native grasses vulnerable to disturbance (Garden et al. 2000). Rotational grazing may also affect native vegetation if grazing occurs at times when native species are setting seed or regenerating. A trial at Broadford (central Victoria) compared rotational grazing to set-stocking, and found that sheep producers can increase profits and improve environmental outcomes when changing from set-stocking to rotational grazing (Warn 2003). In rotationally grazed systems sheep camps have less of an impact and grass content can be maintained without the heavy use of fertilisers which can result in an increase in clover cover and therefore bare ground by mid-summer. For native grasses, the timing of grazing is likely to be crucial to regeneration.

Low

Change 2

Change 3

Change 1 Containment Containment of on-site off-site and effects

High

High Low Biodiversity value

Change 1 : Change from unrestricted grazing of remnants or riparian areas to grazing for biodiversity values. Change 2 : Change from set stocking to rotational Change 3 : Chani ge from native perennial dominated to exotic annual dominated pasture.

Figure 5. Matrix showing relative native biodiversity effects (on-site and off-site) of changes in grazing practices.

Source: Adapted from Farmar-Bowers 2002 22 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Change 3: From native perennial dominated pasture to exotic annual dominated pasture This could result in a direct loss of native biodiversity in terms of genetic variation, loss of fauna reliant on native pastures, and a possible reduction of those fauna that view exotic pastures as a barrier to movement. Additionally, there would be an increase in negative off-site effects such as weed invasion of native remnants, increased runoff and erosion, and higher rates of recharge leading to an increased risk of salinity.

Altered cropping practices. As for grazing systems, the key practices that can affect change in native biodiversity outcomes have been identified and are shown in a matrix (see Figure 6). The changes identified are:

Change 1: Replacement of areas of high native biodiversity with crops The associated arrow shows that this land use change would result in a large negative effect on native biodiversity and greatly reduce the containment of off-site effects. Crops will have a significant, negative effect on native biodiversity and system processes if planted in areas that replace perennial native pasture or treed remnants, pose a threat to waterways, wetlands or paddock trees. Seedbed preparation lowers the microbial biomass in the soil, which in turn affects its structure and ecological processes, such as decomposition and nutrient cycling, and increases erosion because soil organisms that help to bind soil particles together are lost (State of the Environment Advisory Council (SEAC) 1996).

Low

Change 2

Change 3

Change 1 Containment of on-site and off-site effects off-site and on-site of Containment High

High Low Biodiversity value Change 1: Replacement of areas of high biodiversity value with crops . Change 2: Increasing the distance between the crop edge and stream banks and paddock trees (eg. providing a buffer zone) Change 3: Shift to stubble burning from stubble retention.

Figure 6. Matrix showing relative native biodiversity effects (on-site and off-site) of changes in cropping practices. In addition (see Appendix 5 for discussion):

23 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

• cultivation results in a loss of vegetation cover and reduces water quality. • management includes fertiliser and biocide use, which alters soil structure and changes ecological processes • harvesting results in a loss of soil nutrients and deterioration of soil structure • minimum tillage with direct seeding is a practice that has been adopted by some landowners to reduce soil disturbance.

Change 2: Increasing buffer zone between crop edge and streams banks/paddock trees This has a positive native biodiversity and containment outcome. However, compared to changing from native vegetation to crops (Change 1) there are relatively low off-site containment effects (given overall reduction in crop area is small). Potentially, positive effects for native biodiversity could occur if regeneration or planting occurs within the buffer zones.

Change 3: Shift from stubble retention to stubble burning Stubble burning has a negative effect on containment, as soil runoff after a rainfall event is likely to increase. Stubble burning can have major effects on soil and tree health. Stubble burning followed by cultivation increases deleterious effects on native biodiversity processes as soil is exposed, trees are burnt and can die resulting in habitat loss. There is general removal of fallen timber in cropping areas, as well as the removal of live trees that impede sowing and harvesting. These are important habitat elements that require preservation, even if this requires moving dead timber to other remnant areas or streamsides.

Altered fertiliser and biocide use The use of fertilisers and biocides has important implications for biodiversity processes. Fertiliser use may increase the number of arthropods in paddocks, revegetation and plantations (Major et al. 2001). This increase could be seen as a change in system functioning. For example, a greater abundance of arthropods feeding on trees results in dieback, particularly in areas where there are no shrubs to provide habitat for birds that control arthropod numbers. Trees become increasingly unhealthy and die – a sign of system decline and dysfunction (Jones et al. 1990; Landsberg 1983, 1988). Fertiliser use has disturbed many soil and aquatic ecosystems by increasing nutrient levels and thus disadvantaging native species adapted to low nutrient levels and advantaging exotic species, resulting in a loss of native biodiversity (SEAC 1996; Prober et al. 2002). This is consistent with the ecological theory that fertile soils lead to greater productivity and dominance of competitive species, resulting in lower species richness (Huston 1979). Herbicides used to kill unwanted farm weeds can also kill some native plants (SEAC 1996). Fertiliser use results in residues remaining in the soil, as well as moving through the system in water. Many herbicides and surfactants are toxic to aquatic and riparian plants and animals, and should never be used in the immediate vicinity of a waterway or wetland (Noble 2002). Additionally, the effects of accumulation of a range of chemicals in soils and waterways are largely unknown but the potential effects have serious consequences for native biodiversity (Munn and Gilliom 2001). Pesticides used to spray crops can threaten beneficial species, such as Honeybees, which are important for pollination (CSIRO 2001). Spraying after dusk may reduce the effect of sprays on honeybees if the bees have shelter away from the sprayed area. Pesticide residues may enter the soil and aquatic ecosystems and may be ingested by organisms, with the harmful effects magnified up the food chain (SEAC 1996).

24 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

The application of herbicides and biocides without controlling off-site effects, can result in decreased water quality, changes in soil biota, invertebrate populations and disturbance to ecological processes (OCE 1988). Aerial spraying of crops can result in spray drift that can effect neighbouring remnants and isolated trees within paddocks. Figure 7 shows the land use change matrix for fertiliser and biocide use. This shows two changes:

Change 1: From no fertiliser/biocide use to the application of fertilisers/biocides This would have the effect of greatly reducing containment of off-site effects as fertilisers and biocides would become air-, soil- and water-borne particles. This change also acts negatively on native biodiversity, through changes in soil fertility, microbes, invertebrates and vegetation patterns.

Change 2: From no buffers to providing adequate buffers around native remnants/wetlands/riparian zones. This ameliorates off-site effects and increases native biodiversity values by the provision of habitat and increases in stream and vegetation health. Thresholds for fertiliser use are obviously reached when blue-green algae blooms are present, but thresholds for some species tolerances to pollution occur before the obvious signs of blue-green algae (Land and Water Australia salt sensitivity database). The precautionary principle would suggest that aiming for minimisation in the use of fertilisers and biocides and creating buffers to protect streams and remnant vegetation is likely to protect the majority of species regardless of tolerances.

Low Change 2

Change 1

High Containment of off-site and on-site effects on-site and off-site of Containment

High Low Biodiversity value

Change 1: from no fertiliser and biocide use to the application of fertilisers and biocide Change 2: from providing no buffers to providing adequate buffers around native remnants, wetlands and riparian zones

Figure 7. Matrix showing relative native biodiversity effects (on-site and off-site) of changes in fertiliser and biocide use.

25 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

5.6 The effects of plantations on native biodiversity The value of plantations for native biodiversity may be affected by the position of the plantation within the landscape. There can be native biodiversity benefits to farm forestry, such as:

• farm forestry could be used to provide ‘stepping stone’ habitat for bird species, • be used to buffer existing remnants, and • ameliorate pressures on native forests to provide firewood and timber products. • The placement and size of the plantation will effect its native biodiversity. If it is used to ameliorate the effects of salinity then this can have beneficial off-site effects. • Provide shelter and some habitat for bird species (Gepp 1986).

However, plantations cannot replace native vegetation planted to EVC type, and do not provide as much benefit for biodiversity as natural vegetation communities. In summary, the basic principles of conservation biology suggest that farm forestry provides fewer benefits for native biodiversity than native plant communities because:

• the habitats are not complex but uniform and often single-aged • many resources are not available, such as nectar and hollows • ecosystem functions, such as regeneration, are non-existent or suppressed • often non-indigenous species are utilised, further reducing the number of species that have adaptations to the plantation species • the introduction of non-indigenous species may disrupt the breeding capabilities of indigenous trees • functions that maintain species, such as insect control by birds and bats may not occur in plantations, resulting in an unbalanced system (e.g. tree dieback) • any habitat values provided by particular trees are lost when the crop is harvested (Suckling et al. 1976; Woinarski 1979; Gepp 1986; Green 1986).

5.7 Minor land use changes to affect large native biodiversity gains This report has identified some minor changes that if they were to occur, would result in large gains in native biodiversity outcomes (see Table 7). Ultimately, these changes should result in more sustainable farming systems and therefore there are benefits to production, aesthetics, and continued gains in land prices.

26 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Table 7. Eight key opportunities identified in this report that will enhance native biodiversity through minor alterations to farming practices in the Honeysuckle Creek study area.

1. Protection and enhancement of existing native biodiversity assets through:

• retention of all remnants including paddock trees and native pasture

• retention of fallen timber

• strategic regeneration and revegetation activities

• improving the quality of remnants (buffering, shrub layer, reducing tree dieback and controlling weed invasions).

2. Restricted stock access to riparian zones and wetlands

3. Restricted stock access to treed remnants

4. Retention of pasture with some conservation values

5. Restriction of area given to crops

6. Management of off-site effects of farming practices (e.g. vegetated buffers to ameliorate fertiliser and biocide use, stream and remnant buffers, and a buffer zone for scattered paddock trees)

7. Reduction in the use of fertilisers and biocides

8. Integration of native biodiversity principles into shelterbelts and plantations

27 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

6. Conclusions

This report has identified the native biodiversity assets, land uses and management practices in the HSC, and has found an often negative relationship between management practices and native biodiversity exists. The native biodiversity assets include flora and fauna species, and threatened species in particular, the extent and size of remnants, the extent of each EVC, waterways and wetlands. The HSC is an important area for native biodiversity conservation, as it has relatively extensive areas of native vegetation, but these are often degraded. Waterways and wetlands form an important part of the native biodiversity, and are extensive, though often of poor quality. There are many threatened and declining species and the threats to those species could largely be addressed through the retention and enhancement of existing habitats and feral plant and animal control. The current private land uses in the HSC have in the past affected biodiversity assets, and continue to do so. The major private land management practices in the HSC are dryland farming of sheep and cattle, usually with cropping a part of farming enterprises. The amount of area under cropping is likely to continue into the future. Additionally, with changes in demographics and other factors, the planting of shelterbelts, farm-forestry and intensive uses, such as vineyards and olives, are likely to continue to increase in area in the future. The incremental loss, degradation and isolation of habitat (e.g. scattered paddock trees lost due to dieback and clearing, removal of fallen timber, lack of regeneration, loss of movement pathways) are primarily a result of past and continued management practices. Few farms appear to have areas set aside for conservation, resulting in direct and indirect effects of grazing and cropping practices on native biodiversity assets. The outcome of this is generally poor health of remnants, waterways and wetlands. Grazing and cropping in areas of high native biodiversity values (e.g. remnants, streamsides) further degrades these assets. Management practices identified that could be altered to affect change in native biodiversity outcomes include identification of the positive gains in changing from tactical grazing to rotational grazing, changing from unrestricted grazing of remnants and riparian areas to grazing for native biodiversity values. A negative change would be seen if there were changes from native, perennial dominated pasture to exotic annual dominated pasture. Changing areas of some native biodiversity values to crops (e.g. raised bed crops on Gilgai wetland areas, or over native pastures) would result in a decline in native biodiversity values. The provision of a buffer zone to filter the off-site effects of cropping, and changing from stubble burning to stubble retention would result in positive outcomes for native biodiversity. Large increases in the use of fertilisers and biocides would result in negative outcomes for native biodiversity. A major conclusion of this report is that great benefits can be made in terms of native biodiversity conservation with minimal alteration to land uses, enterprises and farming practices. Ultimately, it is the individual farmers that can make large and significant contributions to native biodiversity conservation through effective management of farming practices and native biodiversity assets. While there has been much work carried out in the HSC to this end, much more land will require revegetation, and more landholders will need to be involved in planning for the protection and enhancement of our native biodiversity assets. However, there is also a need for ‘visions’ of future catchments based on a more holistic approach on a large scale, and consideration of ecosystem functioning. These broader objectives may be able to be met through more broadly targeting users and providers of farm products.

28 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

7. References

ABS (2001). Agricultural Census. Unpublished data provided to the Department of Primary Industries, Victoria. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. Altieri, M.A. (1999). 'The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems.' Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, Vol. 74 (1), pp. 19–31. Andleman, S. J. and Fagan, W.F. (2000). ‘Umbrellas and flagships: efficient conservation surrogates or expensive mistakes'. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 97 (11) pp. 5954–9. Barrett, G. (2000). 'Birds on farms – Ecological management for agricultural sustainability. Supplement 2.' Windspan, Vol. 10 (4). Birds Australia, Hawthorn. Bennett, A., Kimber, S. and Ryan, P. (2000). Revegetation and wildlife – A guide to enhancing revegetated habitats for wildlife conservation in rural environments. Bushcare National and Research and Development Program, Melbourne. Bennett, A.F. (1987). 'Conservation of mammals within a fragmented forest environment: The contributions of insular biogeography and autecology', In D.A. Saunders, G.W. Arnold, A.A. Burbidge and A.J.M. Hopkins (Eds.), Nature conservation: The Role of remnants of native vegetation. Pp. 41–52. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton, NSW, Australia. Bennett, A.F. (1990). Habitat corridors; Their role in wildlife management and conservation. Department of Conservation and Environment, Melbourne. Bennett, A.F. (1991). 'Roads, roadsides and wildlife conservation; a review', In D.A. Saunders and R.J. Hobbs (Eds.), Nature conservation 2: The role of corridors. Pp. 99–118. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton, NSW, Australia. Bennett, A.F. (1999). Linkages in the landscape. The Role of corridors and connectivity in wildlife conservation. IUCN, Cambridge, UK. Bennett, A.F. and Ford, L.A. (1997). ‘Land use, habitat change and the conservation of birds in fragmented rural environments: a landscape perspective from the Northern Plains, Victoria, Australia.’ Pacific Conservation Biology, Vol. 3 (3), 244-261. Bierregaard, R.O., Lovejoy, T.E., Kapos, V., Augusto dos Santos, A. and Hutchings, R.W. (1992). ‘The biological dynamics of tropical rainforest fragments.’ Bioscience, Vol. 42 (11), pp. 859–66. Blakers, M., Davies, S.J.J.F. and Reilly, P.N. (1984). The Atlas of Australian Birds. Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne. Burgman, M.A., Possingham, H.P., Lynch, A.J.J., Keith, D.A., McCarthy, M.A., Hooper, S.D., Dury, W.L., Passioura, J.A. and Devries, R.J. (2001). ‘A method for setting the size of plant conservation target areas.’ Conservation Biology, Vol. 15 (3), pp. 603–16. Cheal, D.C. (1993). ‘Effects of stock grazing on the plants of semi-arid woodlands and grasslands.’ Royal Society of Victoria, Vol. 105 (1), pp.57–65. Clarke, M.F. and Schedvin, N. (1997). ‘An experimental study of the translocation of noisy miners Manorina melanocephala and difficulties associated with dispersal.’ Biological Conservation, 80 (2), 161-167. Clunie, P. (1994). Flora and Fauna Guarantee Action Statement: White-bellied Sea-Eagle, Haliaeetus leucogaster. Threatened Flora and Fauna Program, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, East Melbourne. Commissioner for the Environment. (1991). Agriculture and Victoria's environment. 1991 State of the environment report. Office of the Commissioner of the Environment, Melbourne.

29 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Coventry, A. J. and Robertson, P. (1991) The snakes of Victoria. Department of Conservation and Environment, East Melbourne. Crosthwaite, J., Callaghan, J., Farmar-Bowers, Q., Hollier, C. and Straker, A. (Eds.) (2004). Driver research phase overview report - Land use changes, their drivers and impacts on biodiversity. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems. (2001). Natural assets. An inventory of ecosystem goods and services in the Goulburn Broken Catchment. CSIRO, Canberra. Earl, G., Stelling, F., Titcumb, M. and Berwick, S. (Eds.) (2001). Revegetation guide for the Goulburn Broken Catchment. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Benalla. ECC (1997). Box-Ironbark forests and woodlands investigation resources and issues report. Environment Conservation Council, Fitzroy. Farmar-Bowers, Q. (2002). ‘Trying to understand why people change land use.’ In Crosthwaite, J., Farmer-Bowers, Q. and Hollier, C. (eds.). Land Use Change—Yes!—But will biodiversity be OK? Proceedings of a conference at Attwood, Victoria, August 2002. Ford, H.A., Barrett, G., Howe, R. W. (1992). 'Effect of habitat fragmentation and degradation on bird communities in Australian eucalypt woodland.' In Functioning and dynamics of natural and perturbed ecosystems. Proceedings of the 6th European Ecological Congress, September 1992, Marseille. Lavoisier Intercept limited, UK. Forman, R.T.T. (1995). Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Freudenberger, D. and Drew, A. (2002). Optimising conservation of on-farm woodlands. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Canberra. Galli, A., Leck, C. and Forman, R. (1976). ‘Avian distribution patterns in forest islands of different sizes in central New Jersey.’ Auk, Vol. 93, pp 356-64. Garden, D.L., Lodge, G.M., Friend, D.A., Dowling, P.M. and Orchard, B.A. (2000). ‘Effects of grazing management on botanical composition of native grass-based pastures in temperate south-east Australia.’ Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, Vol. 40 (2), pp. 225–45. Garnet, S. and Crowley, G. (2000). The action plan for Australian birds. Environment Australia, Canberra. GB CMA (2000). Goulburn Broken native vegetation plan. Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority, Shepparton. GB CMA (2001). Demonstration and evaluation of riparian management. Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority and Land and Water Australia, Shepparton. Gepp, B.C. (1986). 'Birds in pine forests in South Australia.' In H.A. Ford and D.C. Paton, The synamic partnership: Birds and plants in southern Australia. Pp. 140–9. The Flora and Fauna of South Australia Handbooks Committee, South Australia. Gibbons, M. and Boak, M. (2002). ‘The value of paddock trees for regional conservation in an agricultural landscape.’ Ecological Management and Restoration, Vol. 3 (3), pp. 205–10. Gilpin, M. and Hanski, I. (1991). Metapopulation dynamics: Emperical and theoretical investigations. London, Academic Press. Green, R.J. (1986). 'Native and exotic birds in the suburban habitat.' In H.A. Ford and D.C. Paton, The dynamic partnership; birds and plants in southern Australia. Pp. 130–9. The Flora and Fauna of South Australia Handbooks Committee, South Australia Hall, D.M. (2000). Impact of high yielding cropping systems on crop water use and recharge. Grains Research and Development Corporation, Agriculture Western Australia, Perth.

30 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Hargis, C. D., Bissionette, J. and David, J.L. (1998). ‘The behaviour of landscape metrics commonly used in the study of habitat fragmentation.’ Landscape Ecology, Vol. 13 (3), pp. 167–86. Hazell, D., Cunningham R., Lindenmayer, D., Mackey, B. and Osborne, W. (2001). ‘Use of farm dams as frog habitat in an Australian agricultural landscape: Factors affecting species richness and distribution.’ Biological Conservation, Vol. 102, (2), pp. 155–69. Heard, G.W. (2001). Aspects of the distributional ecology of the inland carpet python (Morelia spilota metcalfei) in the Warby Ranges, North-east Victoria. Hons Thesis. Department of Environmental Management and Ecology, LaTrobe University, Wodonga. Heatwole, H. and Lowman M. (1986). Dieback death of an Australian landscape. Reed Books, Frenchs Forest, NSW. Humphries, R. and Seebeck, J. (1997). Flora and Fauna Guarantee Action Statement: Brush- tailed Phascogale Phascogale tapoatafa. Threatened Flora and Fauna Program, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, East Melbourne. Huston, M. (1979). ‘A general hypothesis of species diversity.’ American Naturalist, Vol. 113, pp. 81–101. Jansen, A. and Healey, M. (2003). ‘Frog communities and wetland condition: relationships with grazing by domestic livestock along an Australian floodplain river.’ Biological Conservation, Vol. 109 (2), pp. 207–19. Jones, D., Davies, H. and Sinden, J.A. (1990). ‘Relationships between eucalypt dieback, land, and land use in southern New England, New South Wales.’ Australian Forestry, Vol. 53, (1), pp. 13–23. Kitchener, D. (1982). ‘Predictors of vertebrate species richness in nature reserves in the Western Australian wheatbelt.’ Australian Wildlife Research, Vol. 9, pp. 1–7. Kitchener, D., Chapman, A., Dell, J., Muir, B. and Palmer, M. (1980). ‘Lizard assemblage and reserve size and structure in the Western Australian wheatbelt - some implications for conservation.’ Biological Conservation, Vol. 18 (2), pp 179-207. Kitchener, D., Dell, J., Muir, B. and Palmer, M. (1982). ‘Birds in Western Australian wheatbelt reserves - implications for conservation.’ Biological Conservation, Vol. 22 (2), pp 127-163. Knights, P. (1996). Rivers and their impact on cadastral boundaries. Office of the Surveyor General, Melbourne. Knopf, F. and Sampson, F. (1994). ‘Scale perspectives on avian diversity in western riparian ecosystems.' Conservation Biology, Vol. 8 (3), pp. 669–76. Koehn, J. and O'Connor, W. (1990). Biological information for management of native freshwater fish in Victoria. Freshwater Fish Management Branch, Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Conservation and Environment, Melbourne. Laan, R. and Verboom, B. (1990). ‘Effects of pool size and isolation on amphibian communities.’ Biological Conservation, Vol. 54 (3), pp. 251–62. Landsberg, J. (1983). ‘Water stress, leaf nutrients and defoliation: a model of dieback of rural eucalypts.’ Australian Journal of Ecology, Vol. 8, pp. 27–41. Landsberg, J. (1988). ‘Dieback of rural eucalypts: Tree phenology and damage caused by leaf-feeding insects.’ Australian Journal of Ecology, Vol. 13, pp. 251–67. Landsberg, J. (1990). ‘Dieback of rural eucalypts: Does insect herbivory relate to dietary quality of tree foliage?’ Australian Journal of Ecology, Vol. 15, pp. 73–87. Laurance, W.F. (1991). ‘Edge effects in tropical forest fragments: application of a model for the design of nature reserves.’ Biological Conservation, Vol. 57 (2), pp. 205–19.

31 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Levin, S.A. (1976). ‘Population dynamic models in heterogeneous environments.’ Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 7, pp. 287–311. Lindenmayer, D., Manning, A., Smith, P.L., Possingham, H.P., Fischer, J., Oliver, I. and McCarthy, M.A. (2002). ‘The focal-species approach and landscape restoration: a critique.’ Conservation Biology, Vol. 16 (2), pp. 338–45. Lodge, G.M. and Whalley, R. (1985). ‘The manipulation of species composition of natural pastures by grazing management on the northern slopes of New South Wales.’ Australian Rangeland Journal, Vol. 7 (1), pp. 6–16. Lovejoy, T.E., Bierregaard, R.O., Rylands, A.B., Malcom, J.R., Guirtela, C.E., Harper, L.H., Brown, K.S., Powell, A.H., Powell, G.V.N., Schubart, H.O.R. and Hays, M.B. (1986). 'Edge and other effects of isolation on Amazon forest fragments.' In M.E. Soule, Conservation biology. The science of scarcity and diversity. Pp. 257–85. Sinaeur Associates, Sunderland. Loyn, R.H. (1987).'Effects of patch area and habitat on bird abundance, species numbers and tree health in fragmented Victorian forests' In D.A. Saunders, G.W. Arnold, A.A. Burbidge and A.J.M. Hopkins (Eds.) Nature conservation: The role of remnants of native vegetation. Pp 65–77. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton, New South Wales. Lumsden, L. and Bennett, A. (2003). ‘The value of scattered paddock trees in rural landscapes as foraging habitat for insectivorous bats in south-eastern Australia.’ Australian Mammal Society Newsletter, October 2003, p. 24. MacArthur, R.H. (1972). Geographical ecology. Harper and Row, New York, USA. MacNally, R. (1999). 'Habitat fragmentation and habitat loss: Secondary, cascading effects and predictability.' In P. Temple-Smith and A. Martin (Eds.), Genetics, conservation and habitat fragmentation. Pp 138-151. Royal Melbourne Zoological Gardens, Australian Institute of Biology. MacNally, R., Horrocks, G. and Bennett, A.F. (2002). ‘Nestedness in fragmented landscapes: birds of the box-ironbark forests of south-eastern Australia.’ Ecography, Vol. 25, (6), pp. 651–60. MacNally, R., Parkinson, A., Horrocks, G., Conole, L. and Tzaros, C. (2001). ‘Relationships between terrestrial vertebrate diversity, abundance and availability of coarse woody debris on south-eastern Australian floodplains.’ Biological Conservation, Vol. 99 (2), pp. 191–205. Major, R.E., Christie, F.J. and Gowing, G. (2001). ‘Influence of remnant and landscape attributes on Australian woodland bird communities.’ Biological Conservation, Vol. 102 (1), pp 47-66. Malcolm, J.R. (1994). ‘Edge effects in central Amazonian forest fragments.’ Ecology, Vol. 75, pp. 2438–45. Margules, C.R., Nicholls, A.O. and Pressey, R.L. (1988). ‘Selecting networks of reserves to maximise biological diversity.’ Biological Conservation, Vol. 43 (1), pp. 63–76. McCollin, D. (1993). ‘Avian distribution patterns in a fragmented woodland landscape (North Humberside, UK): the role of between-patch and within-patch structure.’ Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters, Vol. 3, pp 48-66. McFarlane, D. J., George R.J. and Farrington, P. (1993). 'Changes in the hydrological cycle.' In R.J. Hobbs and D.A. Saunders, Reintegrating fragmented landscapes. Chapter 6. Springer-Verlag, New York. Menkhorst, P. (1993). Flora and Fauna Guarantee Action Statement: Regent Honeyeater Xanthomyza phrygia. Threatened Flora and Fauna Program, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, East Melbourne.

32 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Mitchell, M.L., Koen, T.B., Johnston, W.H. and Waterhouse, D.B. (2000). ‘LIGULE1: An evaluation of indigenous perennial grasses for dryland salinity management in south- eastern Australia. Part 2. Field performance and the selection of promising ecotypes.’ Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, Vol: 52, 351-365. Mitchell, P. (1990). The environmental condition of Victorian streams. Department of Water Resources Victoria, Melbourne. Muir, A., Edwards, S.A. and Dickens, M.J. (1995). Description and conservatuion status of the vegetation of the Box-Ironbark ecosystem in Victoria. Flora and Fauna Technical Report 136. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Melbourne Munn, M.D. and Gilliom, R.J. (2001). Pesticide toxicity index for freshwater aquatic organisms. US Geological Survey, California. Noble, M. (2002). Guideline for safe and effective herbicide use near water. Water and Environment, Department of Primary Industries, Tasmania. Norton, D.N., Hobbs, R.J. and Atkins, L. (1994). ‘Fragmentation, disturbance and plant distribution: mistletoes in woodland remnants in the Western Australian wheatbelt.’ Conservation Biology, Vol. 9 (2), pp. 426–38. NRE (1997). Victoria's biodiversity strategy: Directions in management. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, East Melbourne. NRE (2002). Managing your patch of bush. (Ed. M. Titcumb). State of Victoria, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, East Melbourne. OCE (1988). State of the environment report 1988, Victoria's inland waters. Office of the Commissioner for the Environment, Melbourne. OCE (1991). 1991 State of the environment report. Agriculture and Victoria's Environment, Office for the Commissioner for the Environment, Melbourne. Opdam, P., van Dorp, D. and Ter Braak, C.J.F. (1984). ‘The effect of isolation on the number of woodland birds in small woods in the Netherlands.’ Journal of Biogeography, Vol. 11, pp. 473–78. Pechmann, J.H.K., Scott, D.E., Gibbons, J.W. and Semlitsch, R.D. (1989). ‘Influence on wetland hydroperiod on diversity and abundance of metamorphosing juvenile amphibians.’ Wetlands Ecology and Management, Vol. 1 (1), pp. 3–11. Pickett, S.T.A. and Cadenasso, M.L. (1995). ‘Landscape ecology: Spatial heterogeneity in ecological systems.’ Science, Vol. 269, pp. 331–4. Prober, S. M., Lunt, I. and thiele, K.R. (2002). ‘Determining reference conditions for management and restoration of temperate grassy woodlands: relationships among trees, topsoils and understorey flora in little-grazed remnants.’ Australian Journal of Botany, Vol. 50 (6), pp. 687–97. Reid, J.R.W. (2000). Threatened and declining birds in the New South Wales sheep-wheat belt: II Landscape relationships - modelling bird atlas data against vegetation cover. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Canberra. Robinson, D. (1994). Research plan for threatened woodland birds of southeastern Australia. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, East Melbourne. Robinson, D. (unpub.) Draft: Biodiversity action planning, users manual. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Benalla. Robinson, D. and Johnson, G. (1997). Flora and Fauna Guarantee Action Statement: Bush Stone-curlew Burhinus grallarius. Flora and Fauna Guarantee Branch, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, East Melbourne.

33 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Rosenzweig, M.L. (1995). Species diversity in space and time. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Rozdilsky, I.D., Chave, J., Levin, S.A. and Tilman, D. (2001). ‘Towards a theoretical basis for ecosystem conservation.’ Ecological Research, Vol. 16, pp. 983–95. Schabel, J. and Eldridge, D.J. (2001). A comparison of roadside and paddock vegetation in the box woodlands of eastern Australia. School of Geography, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW. Scougall, A., Majer, J.D. and Hobbs, R. (1993). 'Edge effects in grazed and ungrazed Western Australian wheatbelt remnants in relation to ecosystem reconstruction.' In D.A. Saunders, R.J. Hobbs and P.R. Ehrlich, Nature conservation 3: Reconstruction of fragmented ecosystems. Pp. 163–78. Surrey Beatty and Sons Chipping Norton. Seddon, J.A., Briggs, S.V. and Doyle, S.J. (2003). ‘Relationships between bird species and characteristics of woodland remnants in central New South Wales.’ Pacific Conservation Biology, Vol. 9 (2), pp. 95–119. Shreeve, T.G. and Mason, C.F. (1980). ‘The number of butterfly species in woodlands.’ Oecologia, Vol. 45, pp. 414–18. Simberloff, D. (1998). ‘Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: Is single-species management passe in the landscape area?’ Biological Conservation, Vol. 83, (3), pp. 247–57. Simpson, P. (2000). ‘Balancing pasture development options for landscape diversity.’ In: T. Barlow and R.Thorburn (Eds.), Balancing conservation and production in grassy landscapes. Proceedings of the Bushcare Grassy Landscapes Conference. Environment Australia, Clare, South Australia. Simpson, P. and Langford, C. (1996). Managing high rainfall native pastures on a whole farm basis. New South Wales Agriculture, Orange, NSW. Soderquist, T.R. (1999). Tree hollows in the Box-ironbark forest. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria. State of the Environment Advisory Council (SEAC) (1996). Australia, State of the Environment 1996. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria. Straker, A. and Platt, S. (2002). Living systems resource kit - Biodiversity in property management planning. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, East Melbourne. Suckling, G.C., Backen, E., Neumann, F.G. and Heislers, A. (1976). The flora and fauna of radiata pine plantations in north-eastern Victoria. Forests Commission of Victoria, Melbourne. Taws, N. (2001). Bringing birds back. Greening Australia, ACT and SE NSW. Tilman, D. (1982). Resource competition and community structure. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. van der Ree, R. (1999). Barbed wire fencing as a hazard for wildlife. The Victorian Naturalist, Vol. 116, no. 6, Dec. 1999, p. 210-217. van der Ree, R. (2000). Ecology of arboreal marsupials in a network of remnant linear habitats. PhD thesis, School of Ecology and Environment, Deakin University, Melbourne. van der Ree, R., Soderquist, T. R., and Bennett, A. F. (2001). Home-range use by the brush- tailed phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa) (Marsupialia) in high-quality, spatially limited habitat. Wildlife Research, Vol. 28, 517-525. Villard, M., Trzcinski, M.K. and Merriam, G. (1999). 'Fragmentation effects on forest birds: relative influence of woodland cover and configuration on landscape occupancy.' Conservation Biology, Vol. 13 (4), pp. 774–83.

34 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Walpole, S.C. (1999). ‘Assessment of the economic and ecological impacts of remnant vegetation on pasture productivity.’ Pacific Conservation Biology, Vol. 5 (1), pp. 28–35. Warn, L. (2003). Grazing management for productive hill country pastures - The Broadford grazing experiment 1998-2002. Department of Primary Industries, Broadford. Watson, J., Freudenberger, D. and Paull, D. (2001). ‘An assessment of the focal-species approach for conserving birds in variegated landscapes in southeastern Australia.’ Conservation Biology, Vol. 15 (5), pp. 1364–73. Webster, A. (2002). Flora and Fauna Guarantee Action Statement: Swift Parrot Lathamus discolor. Parks, Flora and Fauna Division, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, East Melbourne. Webster, A., Humphries, R. and Lowe, K. (1999). Flora and Fauna Guarantee Action Statement: Powerful Owl Ninox strenua. Flora and Fauna Guarantee Branch, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, East Melbourne. Wetlandcare Australia. (und.). Grazing and wetlands. Wetlandcare Australia, Ballina, NSW. Wiens, J.A. (1989). The ecology of bird communities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Wilson, A., Jansen, A., Curtis, A. and Robertson, A. (2003). Understanding landholder management of riparian zones in the Goulburn Broken catchment. Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW. Wilson, J.A, and Bennett, A.F. (1999). 'Patchiness of a floral resource: Flowering of Red Ironbark E. tricarpa in a box and ironbark forest.' The Victorian Naturalist, Vol. 16 (2), pp. 48–53. Wilson, J.A. (2002). 'The flowering ecology of a eucalyptus community in Box-Ironbark forest.' PhD Thesis, School of Ecology and Environment, Melbourne, Deakin University. Wilson, J.A. and Lowe, K.W. (2003). ‘Planning for the restoration of native biodiversity within the Goulburn Broken catchment, Victoria, using spatial modelling.’ Ecological Management and Restoration, Vol. 4 (3) pp. 212–19. With, K.A. and King, A.W. (2001). ‘Analysis of landscape sources and sinks: the effect of spatial pattern on avian demography.’ Biological Conservation, Vol. 100 (1), pp. 75–88. Woinarski, J.C.Z. (1979). ‘Birds of a eucalyptus plantation and adjacent natural forest.’ Australian Forestry, Vol. 42, pp. 243–7.

35 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Appendix 1. People contacted and provided information for this report.

Name Job Title Institution

Kim Lowe Principle Policy Analyst Department of Sustainability and Environment

David Donehue Property Officer Department of Sustainability and Environment

Tim Clune Agronomist Department Primary Industries

Stuart Warner Agronomist Department Primary Industries

John Hunter Agronomist Department Primary Industries

Darryl Nelson Microbiologist Department Primary Industries

Mary Titcumb Native Vegetation Officer Department Primary Industries

Thom Sloan Planning Coordinator Department Primary Industries

Barry Oswald Goulburn Broken CMA

Gaye Furphy Native Vegetation Officer Goulburn Broken CMA

Rebecca Nicoll Waterways Officer Goulburn Broken CMA

Paul Lavis Private Agronomist I.K. Caldwells Ltd.

Darren Baldwin Murray Darling Freshwater Research Centre

Gavin Rees Murray Darling Freshwater Research Centre

36 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Appendix 2. Flora list (including conservation status) of the Honeysuckle Creek Study Area.

Status: * Introduced species, e = endangered, v = Vulnerable, r = rare. (capitals indicate its national status, lower case indicates Victorian status) Family Status Species Common Name Adiantaceae Cheilanthes austrotenuifolia Green Rock-fern Cheilanthes sieberi ssp. sieberi Narrow Rock-fern Aspleniaceae Pleurosorus rutifolius s.l. Blanket Fern Ophioglossaceae Ophioglossum lusitanicum Austral Adder's-tongue Monocotyledons Anthericaceae Arthropodium minus Small Vanilla-lily Arthropodium spp. (s.s.) Vanilla Lily Arthropodium strictum s.l. Chocolate Lily Thysanotus patersonii Twining Fringe-lily Asphodelaceae Bulbine bulbosa Bulbine Lily Colchicaceae Burchardia umbellata Milkmaids Wurmbea dioica Common Early Nancy Cyperaceae Carex appressa Tall Sedge Carex breviculmis Common Grass-sedge Carex tereticaulis Hollow Sedge * Cyperus eragrostis Drain Flat-sedge Eleocharis acuta Common Spike-sedge Eleocharis pusilla Small Spike-sedge Eleocharis spp. Spike Sedge Lepidosperma laterale Variable Sword-sedge Schoenus apogon Common Bog-sedge Hypoxidaceae Hypoxis glabella s.l. Yellow star Hypoxis glabella var. glabella Tiny Star Iridaceae * Romulea minutiflora Small-flower Onion-grass * Romulea rosea Onion Grass * Romulea spp. Onion Grass Juncaceae Juncus amabilis Hollow Rush Juncus flavidus Gold Rush Juncus holoschoenus Joint-leaf Rush Juncus semisolidus Plains Rush Juncus spp. Rush Juncus subsecundus Finger Rush Luzula spp. Woodrush Juncaginaceae Triglochin multifructum Northern Water-ribbons Liliaceae Liliaceae spp. (sensu lato) Lily Orchidaceae e Arachnorchis sp. aff. concolor (Violet Town) Violet Town Spider-orchid Calochilus robertsonii Purple Beard-orchid Cyanicula caerulea Blue Fairy Diuris pardina Leopard Orchid Glossodia major Wax-lip Orchid Microtis spp. Onion Orchid Microtis unifolia Common Onion-orchid Petalochilus carneus sensu Willis (1970) Pink Fingers Pterostylis nana Dwarf Greenhood

37 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Family Status Species Common Name Pterostylis nutans Nodding Greenhood Thelymitra spp. Sun Orchid Phormiaceae Dianella longifolia Pale Flax-lily Dianella longifolia var. longifolia Pale Flax-lily Dianella revoluta s.l. Black-anther Flax-lily Tricoryne elatior Yellow Rush-lily Poaceae * Aira cupaniana Quicksilver Grass * Aira elegantissima Delicate Hair-grass * Aira spp. Hair Grass Amphibromus macrorhinus Long-nosed Swamp Wallaby-grass Aristida ramosa Cane Wire-grass Austrodanthonia bipartita s.l. Leafy Wallaby-grass Austrodanthonia fulva Copper-awned Wallaby-grass Austrodanthonia racemosa var. racemosa Striped Wallaby-grass Austrodanthonia setacea Bristly Wallaby-grass Austrostipa densiflora Dense Spear-grass Austrostipa nodosa Knotty Spear-grass Austrostipa scabra Rough Spear-grass Austrostipa scabra ssp. falcata Rough Spear-grass Austrostipa scabra ssp. scabra Rough Spear-grass Austrostipa spp. Spear Grass * Avena fatua Wild Oat Bothriochloa macra Red-leg Grass * Briza maxima Large Quaking-grass * Briza minor Lesser Quaking-grass * Bromus diandrus Great Brome * Bromus hordeaceus ssp. hordeaceus Soft Brome * Bromus madritensis Madrid Brome * Bromus rubens Red Brome * Critesion hystrix Mediterranean Barley-grass * Critesion murinum Barley-grass * Cynosurus echinatus Rough Dog's-tail Danthonia s.l. spp. Wallaby Grass Deyeuxia quadriseta Reed Bent-grass Dichelachne sciurea spp. agg. Short-hair Plume-grass Dichelachne sieberiana Rough Plume-grass * Ehrharta longiflora Annual Veldt-grass Elymus scaber var. scaber Common Wheat-grass Eragrostis infecunda Southern Cane-grass * Holcus lanatus Yorkshire Fog Joycea pallida Silvertop Wallaby-grass Lachnagrostis aemula s.s. Leafy Blown-grass Lachnagrostis filiformis Common Blown-grass * Lolium perenne Perennial Rye-grass * Lolium spp. Rye Grass Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides Weeping Grass * Paspalum dilatatum Paspalum * Phalaris aquatica Toowoomba Canary-grass * Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canary-grass 38 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Family Status Species Common Name * Poa annua Annual Meadow-grass Poa labillardierei Common Tussock-grass Poa morrisii Soft Tussock-grass Poa sieberiana Grey Tussock-grass Poa sieberiana var. hirtella Grey Tussock-grass Poaceae spp. Grass * Rostraria cristata Annual Cat's-tail Themeda triandra Kangaroo Grass * Vulpia muralis Wall Fescue * Vulpia spp. Fescue Xanthorrhoeaceae Lomandra filiformis Wattle Mat-rush Lomandra filiformis ssp. coriacea Wattle Mat-rush Lomandra multiflora ssp. multiflora Many-flowered Mat-rush Dicotyledons Apiaceae Daucus glochidiatus Australian Carrot Eryngium ovinum Blue Devil Hydrocotyle laxiflora Stinking Pennywort Asteraceae * Acroptilon repens Creeping Knapweed * Arctotheca calendula Cape Weed * Aster subulatus Aster-weed Asteraceae spp. Composite Brachyscome basaltica var. gracilis Woodland Swamp-daisy Brachyscome perpusilla Rayless Daisy Calocephalus citreus Lemon Beauty-heads * Carduus spp. Slender Thistle Cassinia aculeata Common Cassinia Cassinia arcuata Drooping Cassinia Cassinia longifolia Shiny Cassinia Centipeda cunninghamii Common Sneezeweed Chrysocephalum apiculatum s.l. Common Everlasting Chrysocephalum semipapposum Clustered Everlasting * Cirsium vulgare Spear Thistle * Conyza spp. Fleabane Cotula australis Common Cotula Craspedia glauca spp. agg. Common Billy-buttons v Craspedia paludicola Swamp Billy-buttons Cymbonotus preissianus Austral Bear's-ear * Dittrichia graveolens Stinkwort Euchiton collinus s.s. Creeping Cudweed Euchiton involucratus s.s. Star Cudweed Euchiton sphaericus Annual Cudweed Helichrysum scorpioides Button Everlasting * Hypochoeris glabra Smooth Cat's-ear * Hypochoeris radicata Cat's Ear Lagenophora huegelii Coarse Bottle-daisy Leptorhynchos squamatus Scaly Buttons Microseris scapigera spp. agg. Yam Daisy Millotia perpusilla Tiny Bow-flower

39 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Family Status Species Common Name Ozothamnus obcordatus Grey Everlasting Podolepis jaceoides s.l. Showy/Basalt Podolepis Pseudognaphalium luteoalbum Jersey Cudweed Senecio glomeratus Annual Fireweed Senecio hispidulus Rough Fireweed Senecio hispidulus var. dissectus Rough Fireweed Senecio quadridentatus Cotton Fireweed Senecio tenuiflorus Slender Fireweed Solenogyne dominii Smooth Solenogyne * Sonchus asper s.l. Rough Sow-thistle * Sonchus oleraceus Common Sow-thistle Stuartina muelleri Spoon Cudweed Triptilodiscus pygmaeus Common Sunray Boraginaceae Cynoglossum spp. Hound's Tongue Cynoglossum suaveolens Sweet Hound's-tongue Brassicaceae Cardamine paucijuga s.l. Annual Bitter-cress * Lepidium africanum Common Peppercress Brunoniaceae Brunonia australis Blue Pincushion Campanulaceae Isotoma fluviatilis ssp. australis Swamp Isotome Lobelia concolor Poison Pratia Wahlenbergia spp. Bluebell Wahlenbergia stricta Tall Bluebell Caryophyllaceae * Cerastium glomeratum s.l. Common Mouse-ear Chickweed * Moenchia erecta Erect Chickweed * Petrorhagia velutina Velvety Pink * Stellaria media Chickweed * Stellaria pallida Lesser Chickweed Casuarinaceae Allocasuarina littoralis Black Sheoak Allocasuarina luehmannii Buloke Allocasuarina verticillata Drooping Sheoak Chenopodiaceae Einadia hastata Saloop Einadia nutans ssp. nutans Nodding Saltbush Clusiaceae Hypericum gramineum Small St John's Wort * Hypericum perforatum St John's Wort Convolvulaceae Dichondra repens Kidney-weed Crassulaceae Crassula colorata Dense Crassula Crassula decumbens var. decumbens Spreading Crassula Crassula peduncularis Purple Crassula Crassula sieberiana Sieber Crassula Crassula spp. Crassula Dilleniaceae Vv Hibbertia humifusa ssp. erigens Euroa Guinea-flower Hibbertia obtusifolia Grey Guinea-flower Hibbertia sericea s.l. Silky Guinea-flower Droseraceae Drosera glanduligera Scarlet Sundew Drosera macrantha Climbing Sundew Drosera peltata Pale Sundew Drosera peltata ssp. auriculata Tall Sundew Drosera peltata ssp. peltata Pale Sundew

40 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Family Status Species Common Name Epacridaceae Brachyloma daphnoides Daphne Heath Lissanthe strigosa ssp. subulata Peach Heath Melichrus urceolatus Urn Heath Euphorbiaceae Poranthera microphylla Small Poranthera Fabaceae Bossiaea prostrata Creeping Bossiaea Daviesia ulicifolia Gorse Bitter-pea Dillwynia cinerascens s.l. Grey Parrot-pea Dillwynia sericea s.l. Showy Parrot-pea Eutaxia microphylla var. microphylla Common Eutaxia Glycine clandestina Twining Glycine Hardenbergia violacea Purple Coral-pea * Medicago polymorpha Burr Medic Pultenaea humilis Dwarf Bush-pea Pultenaea largiflorens Twiggy Bush-pea Pultenaea prostrata Silky Bush-pea Swainsona procumbens Broughton Pea r Templetonia stenophylla Leafy Templetonia * Trifolium angustifolium var. angustifolium Narrow-leaf Clover * Trifolium subterraneum Subterranean Clover Gentianaceae * Centaurium spp. Centaury Geraniaceae * Erodium botrys Big Heron's-bill * Erodium moschatum Musky Heron's-bill Geranium retrorsum s.l. Grassland Cranesbill Geranium solanderi s.l. Austral Cranesbill Goodeniaceae Goodenia geniculata Bent Goodenia Haloragaceae Gonocarpus tetragynus Common Raspwort Haloragis heterophylla Varied Raspwort Lauraceae Cassytha glabella Slender Dodder-laurel Loranthaceae Amyema miquelii Box Mistletoe Amyema spp. Mistletoe Muellerina eucalyptoides Creeping Mistletoe Lythraceae Lythrum hyssopifolia Small Loosestrife Malvaceae Gynatrix pulchella s.l. Hemp Bush Mimosaceae Acacia acinacea s.l. Gold-dust Wattle Acacia aspera Rough Wattle Acacia dealbata Silver Wattle Acacia difformis Drooping Wattle r Acacia flexifolia Bent-leaf Wattle Acacia genistifolia Spreading Wattle Acacia implexa Lightwood Acacia pycnantha Golden Wattle Acacia verniciflua Varnish Wattle Myrtaceae Calytrix tetragona Common Fringe-myrtle Eucalyptus albens White Box Eucalyptus blakelyi Blakely's Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis River Red Gum Eucalyptus goniocalyx s.l. Bundy Eucalyptus goniocalyx s.s. Bundy

41 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Family Status Species Common Name Eucalyptus macrorhyncha Red Stringybark Eucalyptus microcarpa Grey Box Eucalyptus polyanthemos Red Box Eucalyptus polyanthemos ssp. vestita Red Box Eucalyptus viridis Green Mallee Onagraceae Epilobium hirtigerum Hairy Willow-herb Oxalidaceae Oxalis perennans Grassland Wood-sorrel Oxalis spp. Wood Sorrel Pittosporaceae Bursaria spinosa ssp. spinosa Sweet Bursaria Plantaginaceae Plantago gaudichaudii Narrow Plantain Polygonaceae Rumex brownii Slender Dock * Rumex conglomeratus Clustered Dock * Rumex crispus Curled Dock Primulaceae * Anagallis arvensis Pimpernel Proteaceae Grevillea alpina Cat's Claw Grevillea Ranunculaceae Ranunculus pumilio Ferny Small-flower Buttercup Ranunculus sessiliflorus Annual Buttercup Ranunculus sessiliflorus var. sessiliflorus Annual Buttercup Rhamnaceae Cryptandra amara s.l. Bitter Cryptandra Rosaceae Acaena echinata Sheep's Burr * Aphanes arvensis Parsley Piert Aphanes australiana Australian Piert Rubiaceae Asperula conferta Common Woodruff Galium gaudichaudii Rough Bedstraw * Galium murale Small Goosegrass * Sherardia arvensis Field Madder Santalaceae Exocarpos cupressiformis Cherry Ballart Scrophulariaceae Derwentia perfoliata Digger's Speedwell * Mimulus moschatus Musk Monkey-flower * Veronica arvensis Wall Speedwell Solanaceae * Solanum elaeagnifolium Silver-leaf Nightshade * Solanum nigrum sensu Willis (1972) Black Nightshade Stackhousiaceae Stackhousia monogyna Creamy Stackhousia Thymelaeaceae Pimelea linifolia Slender Rice-flower Pimelea spp. Rice Flower

42 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Appendix 3. Fauna list (including conservation status) of the Honeysuckle Creek Study Area.

Status: * Introduced species, e = endangered, v = vulnerable, c = conservation dependant, i = insufficently known, x = extinct. (capitals indicate its national status, lower case indicates Victorian status) Family Status Common Name Latin Name Mammals Canidae - Dogs/Foxes * Red Fox Canis vulpes Dasyuridae - Dasyurids v Brush-tailed Phascogale Phascogale tapoatafa i Fat-tailed Dunnart Sminthopsis crassicaudata Yellow-footed Antechinus Antechinus flavipes Felidae - Cats * Cat (feral) Felis catus Leporidae - Rabbits/Hares * Brown Hare Lepus capensis * European Rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus Macropodidae - Kangaroos/Wallabies Black Wallaby Wallabia bicolor Eastern Grey Kangaroo Macropus giganteus Molossidae - Freetail-bats Freetail Bat (eastern form) Mormopterus sp. EG Southern Freetail Bat (long penis) Mormopterus sp. 1 White-striped Freetail Bat Tadarida australis unidentified Mormopterus Mormopterus sp. Muridae - Rats/Mice * House Mouse Mus musculus Water Rat Hydromys chrysogaster Petauridae - Possums/Gliders e Squirrel Glider Petaurus norfolcensis Sugar Glider Petaurus breviceps Phalangeridae - Brushtail Possum Common Brushtail Possum Trichosurus vulpecula Phascolarctidae - Koala Koala Phascolarctos cinereus Potoridae - Potoroos x Rufous Bettong Aepyprymnus rufescens Pseudocheiridae Common Ringtail Possum Pseudocheirus peregrinus Tachyglossidae - Echidnas Short-beaked Echidna Tachyglossus aculeatus Vespertilionidae - Small Bats Chocolate Wattled Bat Chalinolobus morio Gould's Long-eared Bat Nyctophilus gouldi Gould's Wattled Bat Chalinolobus gouldii Inland Broad-nosed Bat Scotorepens balstoni Large Forest Bat Vespadelus darlingtoni Lesser Long-eared Bat Nyctophilus geoffroyi Little Forest Bat Vespadelus vulturnus l Southern Myotis Myotis macropus Birds Accipitridae - Eagles/Hawks/Kites Black Kite Milvus migrans Brown Goshawk Accipiter fasciatus Collared Sparrowhawk Accipiter cirrhocephalus Little Eagle Hieraaetus morphnoides Swamp Harrier Circus approximans Wedge-tailed Eagle Aquila audax Whistling Kite Haliastur sphenurus e White-bellied Sea-Eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster Anatidae - Ducks/Swans v Australasian Shoveler Anas rhynchotis Australian Shelduck Tadorna tadornoides Australian Wood Duck Chenonetta jubata

43 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Family Status Common Name Latin Name Black Swan Cygnus atratus Chestnut Teal Anas castanea Grey Teal Anas gracilis v Hardhead Aythya australis vMusk Duck Biziura lobata Pacific Black Duck Anas superciliosa Pink-eared Duck Malacorhynchus membranaceus Anhingidae Darter Anhinga melanogaster Apodidae - Swifts White-throated Needletail Hirundapus caudacutus Ardeidae e Great Egret Ardea alba White-faced Heron Egretta novaehollandiae White-necked Heron Ardea pacifica Artamidae Australian Magpie Gymnorhina tibicen Dusky Woodswallow Artamus cyanopterus Grey Butcherbird Cracticus torquatus Pied Butcherbird Cracticus nigrogularis Pied Currawong Strepera graculina White-browed Woodswallow Artamus superciliosus Burhinidae - Stone-curlews e Bush Stone-curlew Burhinus grallarius Cacatuidae - Cockatoos Cockatiel Nymphicus hollandicus Galah Cacatua roseicapilla Gang-gang Cockatoo Callocephalon fimbriatum Little Corella Cacatua sanguinea Sulphur-crested Cockatoo Cacatua galerita Campephagidae - Cuckoo-Shrikes Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike Coracina novaehollandiae White-bellied Cuckoo-shrike Coracina papuensis White-winged Triller Lalage sueurii Caprimulgidae - Nightjars Spotted Nightjar Eurostopodus argus Charadriidae - Plovers/Dottereals Banded Lapwing Vanellus tricolor Black-fronted Dotterel Elseyornis melanops Masked Lapwing Vanellus miles Climacteridae - Tree-creepers Brown Treecreeper Climacteris picumnus White-throated Treecreeper Cormobates leucophaeus Columbidae - Pigeons/Doves Common Bronzewing Phaps chalcoptera Crested Pigeon Ocyphaps lophotes Diamond Dove Geopelia cuneata Peaceful Dove Geopelia striata Coraciidae - Rollers Dollarbird Eurystomus orientalis Corcoracidae - Mud-nesters White-winged Chough Corcorax melanorhamphos Corvidae - Ravens/Crows Australian Raven Corvus coronoides Corvid Corvus sp. Little Raven Corvus mellori Cuculidae - Cuckoos Fan-tailed Cuckoo Cacomantis flabelliformis Horsfield's Bronze-Cuckoo Chrysococcyx basalis Shining Bronze-Cuckoo Chrysococcyx lucidus Dicaeidae - Flowerpeckers Mistletoebird Dicaeum hirundinaceum Dicruridae - Flycatchers/Fantails Grey Fantail Rhipidura fuliginosa Magpie-lark Grallina cyanoleuca

44 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Family Status Common Name Latin Name Restless Flycatcher Myiagra inquieta Satin Flycatcher Myiagra cyanoleuca Willie Wagtail Rhipidura leucophrys Falconidae - Falcons e Black Falcon Falco subniger Brown Falcon Falco berigora Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Fringillidae - Finches * European Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis Halcyonidae - Inland Kingfisher Laughing Kookaburra Dacelo novaeguineae Sacred Kingfisher Todiramphus sanctus Hirundinidae - Swallows/Martins Fairy Martin Hirundo ariel Tree Martin Hirundo nigricans Welcome Swallow Hirundo neoxena Laridae - Gulls/Terns Silver Gull Larus novaehollandiae Maluridae - Fairy-wrens Superb Fairy-wren Malurus cyaneus Meliphagidae - Honeyeaters/Chats Black Honeyeater Certhionyx niger Black-chinned Honeyeater Melithreptus gularis Blue-faced Honeyeater Entomyzon cyanotis Brown-headed Honeyeater Melithreptus brevirostris Eastern Spinebill Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris Fuscous Honeyeater Lichenostomus fuscus Little Friarbird Philemon citreogularis Noisy Friarbird Philemon corniculatus Noisy Miner Manorina melanocephala v Painted Honeyeater Grantiella picta Red Wattlebird Anthochaera carunculata Ec Regent Honeyeater Xanthomyza phrygia White-eared Honeyeater Lichenostomus leucotis White-fronted Chat Epthianura albifrons White-naped Honeyeater Melithreptus lunatus White-plumed Honeyeater Lichenostomus penicillatus Yellow-faced Honeyeater Lichenostomus chrysops Meropidae - Bee-eaters Rainbow Bee-eater Merops ornatus Motacillidae - Wagtails/Pipits Richard's Pipit Anthus novaeseelandiae Muscicapidae - Thrushes * Common Blackbird Turdus merula Neosittidae - Sittellas Varied Sittella Daphoenositta chrysoptera Oriolidae - Orioles Olive-backed Oriole Oriolus sagittatus Pachycephalidae - Whistlers Crested Shrike-tit Falcunculus frontatus Gilbert's Whistler Pachycephala inornata Golden Whistler Pachycephala pectoralis Grey Shrike-thrush Colluricincla harmonica Rufous Whistler Pachycephala rufiventris Pardalotidae - Pardalotes/Thorbill Brown Thornbill Acanthiza pusilla Buff-rumped Thornbill Acanthiza reguloides Chestnut-rumped Thornbill Acanthiza uropygialis Southern Whiteface Aphelocephala leucopsis Spotted Pardalote Pardalotus punctatus Striated Pardalote Pardalotus striatus Striated Thornbill Acanthiza lineata

45 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Family Status Common Name Latin Name Weebill Smicrornis brevirostris Western Gerygone Gerygone fusca White-throated Gerygone Gerygone olivacea Yellow Thornbill Acanthiza nana Yellow-rumped Thornbill Acanthiza chrysorrhoa Passeridae - Sparrows/Grass-firetail Diamond Firetail Stagonopleura guttata *House Sparrow Passer domesticus Red-browed Finch Neochmia temporalis Zebra Finch Taeniopygia guttata Pelecanidae - Pelicans Australian Pelican Pelecanus conspicillatus Petroicidae - Robins Eastern Yellow Robin Eopsaltria australis Flame Robin Petroica phoenicea Hooded Robin Melanodryas cucullata Jacky Winter Microeca fascinans Red-capped Robin Petroica goodenovii Scarlet Robin Petroica multicolor Phalacrocoracidae - Cormorants Little Black Cormorant Phalacrocorax sulcirostris Little Pied Cormorant Phalacrocorax melanoleucos lPied Cormorant Phalacrocorax varius Phasianidae - Pheasants/Quails i Brown Quail Coturnix ypsilophora Stubble Quail Coturnix pectoralis Podargidae - Frogmouths Tawny Frogmouth Podargus strigoides Podicipedidae - Grebes Australasian Grebe Tachybaptus novaehollandiae Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus Pomatostomidae - Babblers e Grey-crowned Babbler Pomatostomus temporalis White-browed Babbler Pomatostomus superciliosus Psittacidae - Parrots/Lorikeet Australian King-Parrot Alisterus scapularis Budgerigar Melopsittacus undulatus Crimson Rosella Platycercus elegans Eastern Rosella Platycercus eximius Little Lorikeet Glossopsitta pusilla Musk Lorikeet Glossopsitta concinna Purple-crowned Lorikeet Glossopsitta porphyrocephala Red-rumped Parrot Psephotus haematonotus Ee Swift Parrot Lathamus discolor Rallidae - Rails/Crakes/Swamphens Dusky Moorhen Gallinula tenebrosa Eurasian Coot Fulica atra Purple Swamphen Porphyrio porphyrio Strigidae - Hawk Owls e Barking Owl Ninox connivens Southern Boobook Ninox novaeseelandiae Sturnidae - Starlings/Mynas * Common Myna Acridotheres tristis * Common Starling Sturnus vulgaris Sylviidae - Warblers Brown Songlark Cincloramphus cruralis Clamorous Reed Warbler Acrocephalus stentoreus Little Grassbird Megalurus gramineus Rufous Songlark Cincloramphus mathewsi Threskiornithidae - Ibis/Spoonbuills Australian White Ibis Threskiornis molucca Straw-necked Ibis Threskiornis spinicollis

46 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Family Status Common Name Latin Name Yellow-billed Spoonbill Platalea flavipes Turnicidae - Button Quails i Little Button-quail Turnix velox Painted Button-quail Turnix varia Tytonidae - Barn Owls Barn Owl Tyto alba Zosteropidae - Silvereyes Silvereye Zosterops lateralis Reptiles Agamidae - Dragons Eastern Bearded Dragon Pogona barbata Tree Dragon Amphibolurus muricatus Chelidae - Side-necked Tortoise Common Long-necked Tortoise Chelodina longicollis Elapidae - Elapid Snakes Eastern Brown Snake Pseudonaja textilis Red-bellied Black Snake Pseudechis porphyriacus Gekkonidae - Geckoes Marbled Gecko Phyllodactylus marmoratus Wood Gecko Diplodactylus vittatus Pygopodidae - Snake-lizards Olive Legless Lizard Delma inornata Scincidae - Skinks Bougainville's Skink Lerista bougainvillii Boulenger's Skink Morethia boulengeri Garden Skink Lampropholis guichenoti Southern Rainbow Skink Carlia tetradactyla unidentified grass skink Pseudemoia sp. unidentified scincid Scincidae sp. Typhlopidae - Blind Snakes Gray's Blind Snake Ramphotyphlops nigrescens unidentified blind snake Ramphotyphlops sp. Varanidae - Goannas i Tree Goanna Varanus varius Frogs Hylidae - Tree Frogs Peron's Tree Frog Litoria peronii Plains Brown Tree Frog Litoria paraewingi Myobatrachidae - Southern Frog Bibron's Toadlet Pseudophryne bibronii Common Froglet Crinia signifera Plains Froglet Crinia parinsignifera Sloane's Froglet Crinia sloanei Southern Bullfrog Limnodynastes dumerilii Spotted Marsh Frog Limnodynastes tasmaniensis Fish Galaxiidae - Galaxiids i Mountain Galaxias Galaxias olidus

47 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Appendix 4. List of threatened fauna species within the Honeysuckle Creek Study Area, their status, critical habitat requirements and major threatening process. * = listed as threatened species and # = declining species Species Status Remnant size Connectivity Home range Major Farming Commonly Reference (VROTS) size threatening practices that associated process result in the with EVC(s) threatening process Mammals *Brush-tailed Phascogale v Connected 285 m 5–100 ha (dependent Loss of Hollow-bearing Clearing Plains Grassy Van der Ree et al. Roadsides/ (maximum upon habitat quality) trees Woodland 2002; forest blocks recorded) Box-Ironbark Humphries and Seebeck 1997 (FFG Action Statement No. 79 Insectivorous Bats Paddock trees 10 km Increase with higher Dieback of paddock and Stubble burns, Forests and Lumsden and Bennett density of trees- streamside trees woodlands 2003 Forest Blocks (max. recorded Grazing, Clearing flight) >20–30 large trees per ha \ *Squirrel Glider v Connected <25 m 3–10 ha. Loss of hollow-bearing Clearing Plains Grassy van der Ree 1999 Roadsides^^ trees Woodland

Birds (terrestrial) *Grey-crowned babbler e 40 m width < 500 m 10 ha Loss of understorey Grazing Plains Grassy Robinson 1994 (roadsides)^^ (short term) Woodland Clearing 100 ha connected ‘Cleaning up’ (long term) fallen timber *Bush Stone-curlew e Tolerant < 1 km ? Removal of fallen timber Clearing Plains Grassy Robinson and Johnson Woodland 1997 ‘Cleaning up’ (FFG Action Statement fallen timber No. 78) *Swift Parrot e Tolerant Requires a network Highly mobile Loss of nectar-feed trees Clearing Yellow Gum Webster (in prep) of foraging sites Woodland Grazing, (FFG Action Statement) Fertiliser, Box-Ironbark Forest *Regent Honeyeater e Tolerant Requires a Highly mobile Loss of nectar-feed trees Clearing, Yellow Gum Menkhorst 1993 network of Woodland (FFG Action Statement Fertilisers foraging/nesting Box-Ironbark No. 41) sites Grazing Forest

48 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Species Status Remnant size Connectivity Home range Major Farming Commonly Reference (VROTS) size threatening practices that associated process result in the with EVC(s) threatening process *White-bellied Sea-Eagle e ? Wide ranging ? kms Degradation of riparian Grazing of Riverine Grassy Clunie 1994 habitat riparian areas Woodland (FFG Action Statement No. 60) Painted Honeyeater v Large blocks rather ? Nomadic Clearing Clearing Box-Ironbark Garnett and Crowley than linear strips 2000 Inland slopes Dry forests and Robinson 1994 woodlands *Powerful Owl e Forested Areas ? 400–1500ha Clearing- loss of prey Clearing Potentially all Webster et al. 1999 items EVC’s (FFG Action Statement >100 ha Dependent on prey Grazing No. 92) densities Fertilisers # Speckled Warbler v >100 ha connected 10 ha. Loss of understorey Grazing Woodland Garnett and Crowley 2000; Understorey dependent Blakers et al. 1984 # Diamond Firetail >25 ha < 1 km ? Loss of understorey/ Grazing Plains Grassy Garnett and Crowley habitat degradation Woodland 2000 (Manage at least 15% of the pre- Box-Ironbark Robinson (unpub) European area) Yellow Gum Woodland # Red-capped Robin >10 ha <1 km ? Degradation and clearing Grazing Plains Grassy Robinson (unpub) of large blocks Woodland Box-Ironbark Yellow Gum Woodland # Jacky Winter >10 ha <2 km ? Degradation and clearing Grazing Box-Ironbark Robinson (unpub) of large blocks Plains Grassy Woodland #Brown Treecreeper 50 m wide <500 m Densities, 1 bird per Loss and degradation of Grazing of Creekline Grassy Garnett and Crowley creeklines 2–25 ha riparian habitat riparian zones Woodland 2000 300 ha Red Gum Robinson (unpub) Wetlands Birds (aquatic) Baillons Crake Swamps, reedbeds N/A 2 birds/ha Loss/Degradation of Grazing/ Wetlands Blakers et al. 1984 wetlands Draining of swamps 49 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Species Status Remnant size Connectivity Home range Major Farming Commonly Reference (VROTS) size threatening practices that associated process result in the with EVC(s) threatening process Brolga Swamps, shallow N/A N/A Loss/Degradation of Wetlands, Blakers et al. 1984 lakes wetlands particularly associated with Murray River Reptiles *Carpet Python e Remnants with Will move across Related to Loss of habitat Grazing, Victorian Coventry and Robertson structural diversity farmland rabbit/prey Riverina: Granitic 1991; Loss of trees, (litter, rocks, logs) abundance? Woodland Loss of hollow- Heard 2001; Black Box bearing trees, ECC 1997. Woodlands clearing River Red Gum Woodlands Woodland Blind Snake v Complex substrates Highly connected ? Loss of habitat Habitat clearance ECC 1997 (litter, logs, etc.) Pasture improvement Grazing Insecticides Ploughing Amphibians Frogs Swamps, wetlands, N/A N/A Loss of habitat: Insecticides Various wetlands, logs, litter, dams Fertilisers marshes Clearing Grazing Fish Rivers and streams, N/A N/A Loss of breeding habitat, Insecticide N/A Inability to breed/move, Herbicide Erosion Fertiliser use, Grazing of streambanks, dams Habitat removal

50 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Appendix 5: Farming practices associated with broadacre cropping (listing primary and secondary environmental effects)

Broad Acre Cropping Enterprise Primary Environmental Effects Secondary Environmental Effects (General) Source Farming practice (General) Land clearing 1. Loss of vegetation cover On-site effects (Environment 1991) • Hydrological changes • Changes in watertable depth • Dryland salinisation • Reduced water quality • Wind and water erosion • Changes in diversity, distribution and abundance of native flora and fauna • Increased presence of weeds and pest fauna • Change from diverse plant assemblages to monoculture with (often environmental and crop) weeds. • Remaining vegetation subject to dieback through lack of protection (e.g. wind and solar irradiance) • Reduced habitat for insectivorous species that can potentially control pest crop and pasture invertebrate populations • Reduced soil health Off-site effects • Hydrological changes • Changes in watertable depth • Dryland salinisation • Reduced water quality Cultivation 1. Loss of vegetation cover On-site effects (Environment 1991)

2. Wind and water erosion • Loss of soil nutrients • Increased weed invasion 3. Deterioration of soil structure Off-site effects • Stream sedimentation • Suspended solids in streams • Loss of aquatic habitat

51 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Broad Acre Cropping Enterprise Primary Environmental Effects Secondary Environmental Effects (General) Source Farming practice (General) Fertiliser use 1. Surface water pollution On-site effects (Environment 1991) (pers. comm. Darryl 2. Groundwater pollution • Change in soil structure Nelson - DPI) • Stream sedimentation 3. Soil residues (pers. comm. Baldwin • Reduced water quality and Rees - MDFRC) 4. Changes to soil biota with reduced species richness • Reduction in native plant species • Impact on other native species e.g. amphibians, fish 5. Surface water pollution • Change in ecological processes 6. Groundwater pollution Off-site effects • Stream sedimentation • Reduced water quality • Impact on other native species e.g. amphibians, fish • Change in ecological processes Biocide Use 1. Changes to soil biota with On-site effects (Environment 1991) reduced species richness • Changes to invertebrate populations (Darryl Nelson, DPI, pers. comm. ) 2. Residues • Reduced genetic diversity in soil biota and invertebrate populations • Off-site effects • Impact on other native species e.g. amphibians Harvesting On-site effects (Environment 1991) • Deterioration of soil structure (Paul Lavis, private agronomist, pers. comm. • Loss of soil nutrients ) Livestock Management 1. Loss of vegetation cover On-site effects (Environment 1991)

2. Deterioration of soil structure • Weeds • Erosion 3. Increased nutrient levels • Soil compaction 4. Increased nutrient levels • Loss of recruitment • Reduced water quality Off-site effects • Reduced water quality

52 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Broad Acre Cropping Enterprise Primary Environmental Effects Secondary Environmental Effects (General) Source Farming practice (General) Stubble Burning 1. Loss of soil nutrients On-site effects (pers. comm. Paul Lavis – private agronomist) 2. Loss of soil structure • Loss of vegetation cover/tree death

Stubble Retention 1. Reduced disturbance On-site positive effects (pers. comm. Paul Lavis – private agronomist) 2. Improved rainfall infiltration • Provision of some habitat through retained vegetative cover • Retain soil structure 3. Increased organic matter and 6. improved soil structure • Decreased soil loss • Stabilisation of soil invertebrates and microbes Minimum tillage 1. Reduced soil loss On-site positive effects (pers. comm. Paul Lavis – private agronomist) 2. Improved soil structure • Stabilisation of soil invertebrates and microbes • Decreased soil loss • Reduced weed invasion Raised Beds 1. Soil disturbance On-site and off-site effects (pers. comm. Paul Lavis – private agronomist) 2. Increased run-off • Changes in water table depth (pers. comm. Baldwin • Dryland salinisation 3. Decrease in habitat of wetland and Rees – MDFRC) and swamp areas • Reduced water quality

4. Increased run-off • Stream sedimentation • Changes in ecological processes Soil amelioration 1. Changes in soil structure On-site effects (pers. comm. Paul Lavis – private agronomist) • Change in soil structure • Stream sedimentation • Reduced water quality • Impact on other native species e.g. amphibians, fish • Change in ecological processes Off-site effects • Stream sedimentation • Reduced water quality • Impact on other native species e.g. amphibians, fish • Change in ecological processes

53 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Broad Acre Cropping Enterprise Primary Environmental Effects Secondary Environmental Effects (General) Source Farming practice (General) Irrigation 1. Vegetation loss On-site and off-site effects (pers. comm. Paul Lavis – private agronomist) 2. Increased surface run-off • Hydrological changes • Changes in watertable depth 3. Increased water logging and water table depth • Dryland salinisation

4. Increased surface run-off • Reduced water quality • Stream sedimentation 5. Increased water logging and water table depth

Winter Cleaning 1. Reduction in grassy weed On-site and off-site positive effects (pers. comm. Paul Lavis – private agronomist) species • Reduced risk of spread of grassy weed species to neighbouring remnants 2. Loss of nutrients • Increased nitrogen levels in soils • Reduced tillage • Stabilisation of soil invertebrates and microbes • Decreased soil loss Perennial Crops 1. More efficient water use On-site and off-site positive effects (Dept Natural Resources and Environment, 2002) • Reduced water table depths • Reduced risk of dryland salinisation • Reduced tillage • Loss of vegetation cover • Loss of nutrients Ploughing of firebreaks 1. Soil disturbance On-site effects (Dept Natural Resources and Environment, 2002) 2. Increased weeds • Removal of top soil • Soil disturbance results in increased weed species present 3. Removal of native species • Reduction of native species, in particular on roadsides ‘Cleaning Up’ of fallen 1. Removal of habitat for ground On-site positive effects (Dept Natural Resources timber and Environment, 2002) dwelling species • Provision of habitat for ground dwelling species such as Bush Stone-curlew and amphibians • Increase in soil health On-site and off-site effects • Increased risk of fire spread

54 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Appendix 6: Farming practices associated with grazing (listing primary and secondary environmental effects)

Grazing Enterprise Primary Environmental Secondary Environmental Effects (General) Source Farming practice Effects (General) Land clearing 1. Loss of vegetation cover On-site effects (Environment 1991) • Hydrological changes • Changes in watertable depth • Dryland salinisation • Reduced water quality • Wind and water erosion • Changes in diversity, distribution and abundance of native flora and fauna • Increased presence of weeds and pest fauna • Change from diverse plant assemblages to monoculture with (often environmental and crop) weeds. • Remaining vegetation subject to dieback through lack of protection (e.g. wind and solar irradiance) • Reduced habitat for insectivorous species that can potentially control pest crop and pasture invertebrate populations • Reduced soil health • Reduced provision of shade and shelter for stock Off-site effects • Hydrological changes • Changes in watertable depth • Dryland salinisation • Reduced water quality Grazing of introduced 1. Spread of exotic pasture On-site effects (Dept Natural Resources pasture species and Environment, 2002) species • Weeds 2. Loss of vegetation cover • Erosion 3. Deterioration of soil structure • Soil compaction

4. Increased nutrient levels • Loss of recruitment Off-site effects • Reduced water quality

55 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Grazing Enterprise Primary Environmental Secondary Environmental Effects (General) Source Farming practice Effects (General) Fertiliser use 1. Surface water pollution On-site effects (Environment 1991) (Generally consists of (pers. comm. Paul Lavis 2. Groundwater pollution • Change in soil structure application of phosphorus, – private agronomist) • Stream sedimentation nitrogen and sulphur) 3. Soil residues (pers. comm. Darryl • Reduced water quality Nelson – DPI) 4. Changes to soil biota with reduced species richness • Impact on other native species e.g. amphibians (pers. comm. Baldwin • Change in ecological processes and Rees - MDFRC) • Increased weeds • Tree dieback Off-site effects • Stream sedimentation • Reduced water quality • Change in ecological processes Biocide use 1. Changes to soil biota with On-site effects (Environment 1991) reduced species richness • Changes to invertebrate populations (pers. comm. Darryl Nelson – DPI) 2. Residues • Reduced genetic diversity in soil biota and invertebrate populations Off-site effects • Impact on other native species e.g. amphibians Perennial pastures 1. More efficient water use On-site positive effects (Dept Natural Resources and Environment, 2002) • Reduced water table depths

• Reduced risk of dryland salinisation

• Reduced tillage

• Reduced grazing levels

• Improved soil structure

• Loss of vegetation cover Off-site positive effects • Reduced water table depths

• Reduced risk of dryland salinisation

56 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Grazing Enterprise Primary Environmental Secondary Environmental Effects (General) Source Farming practice Effects (General) Irrigation 1. Vegetation loss On-site and off-site effects (Dept Natural Resources and Environment, 2002) 2. Increased surface run-off • Hydrological changes

3. Increased water logging and • Changes in watertable depth water table depth • Dryland salinisation

• Reduced water quality

• Stream sedimentation

Preventing Seed Set 1. Reduction in annual and On-site and off-site positive effects (Dept Natural Resources perennial weeds and Environment, 2002) • Reduced risk spread of weeds for neighbouring remnants 2. Improved soil fertility

Winter cleaning 1. Reduction in grassy weed On-site positive effects (pers. comm. Paul Lavis – private agronomist) species • Increased nitrogen levels in soils 2. Loss of vegetation • Reduced tillage • Stabilisation of soil invertebrates and microbes • Decreased soil loss • Some compaction Off-site positive effects • Reduced risk of spread of grassy weed species to neighbouring remnants Block or cell grazing 1. Improved conditions for native On-site positive effects (Dept Natural Resources and Environment, 2002) species • Habitat for threatened species 2. Increased recruitment • Reduced tillage • Reduced grazing levels • Improved soil structure Set stock grazing of native 1. Reduction of native pasture On-site effects (Dept Natural Resources pasture and Environment, 2002) species • Weeds 2. Loss of recruitment • Erosion • Soil compaction • Loss of recruitment Off-site effects • Reduced water quality

57 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Grazing Enterprise Primary Environmental Secondary Environmental Effects (General) Source Farming practice Effects (General) Rotational grazing of 1. Increased habitat On-site positive effects (Dept Natural Resources native pasture and Environment, 2002) 2. Increased recruitment • Increased representation of threatened vegetation communities • Improved longevity of species through regeneration • Habitat for threatened species Ploughing of firebreaks 1. Soil disturbance On-site effects (Dept Natural Resources and Environment, 2002) 2. Increased weeds • Removal of top soil

3. Removal of native species • Soil disturbance results in increased weed species present • Reduction of native species, in particular on roadsides

‘Cleaning Up’ of fallen 1. Removal of habitat for ground On-site positive effects (Dept Natural Resources timber dwelling species and Environment, 2002) • Provision of habitat for ground dwelling species such as Bush Stone-curlew and amphibians

• Increase in soil health On-site and off-site effects • Increased risk of fire spread

58 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Appendix 7: Farming practices associated with intensive cropping/horticulture (listing primary and secondary environmental effects)

Intensive cropping/horticulture Enterprise Primary Environmental Secondary Environmental Effects (General) source Farming practice Effects (General) Land clearing 1. Loss of vegetation cover On-site effects (Environment 1991)

2. Wind and water erosion • Hydrological changes • Changes in watertable depth 3. Deterioration of soil structure • Dryland salinisation • Reduced water quality • Wind and water erosion • Changes in diversity, distribution and abundance of native flora and fauna • Increased presence of weeds and pest fauna • Change from diverse plant assemblages to monoculture with (often environmental and crop) weeds. • Remaining vegetation subject to dieback through lack of protection (e.g. wind and solar irradiance) • Reduced habitat for insectivorous species that can potentially control pest crop and pasture invertebrate populations • Reduced soil health • Reduced provision of shade and shelter for stock Off-site effects • Changes in watertable depth • Dryland salinisation • Reduced water quality Cultivation 1. Surface water pollution On-site and off-site effects (Environment 1991) Generally consists of (pers. comm. 2. Groundwater pollution • Stream sedimentation application of phosphorus, Paul Lavis – private nitrogen and sulphur 3. Soil residues • Suspended solids in streams agronomist) • Loss of aquatic habitat

• Loss of soil nutrients

• Increased weed invasion

59 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Intensive cropping/horticulture Enterprise Primary Environmental Secondary Environmental Effects (General) source Farming practice Effects (General) Fertiliser use 1. Changes to soil biota with On-site effects (Environment 1991) reduced species richness • Change in soil structure (pers. comm. Darryl Nelson – DPI) 2. Residues • Imbalance of soil invertebrates and microbes • Increased weeds • Tree dieback • Change in ecological processes Off-site effects • Change in ecological processes Biocide use 1. Increased surface run-off On-site and off-site effect (Environment 1991) (pers. comm. 2. Increased water logging and • Changes to invertebrate populations Daryl Nelson – DPI) water table depth Irrigation On-site and off-site effects (Dept Natural Resources and Environment, 2002) • Hydrological changes • Changes in watertable depth • Dryland salinisation • Reduced water quality • Stream sedimentation Harvesting On-site effects (Environment 1991) • Deterioration of soil structure • Loss of soil nutrients

60 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Appendix 8: Farming practices associated with hardwood and softwood plantations (listing primary and secondary environmental effects)

Hardwood and Softwood Plantations Enterprise Primary Environmental Secondary Environmental Effects (General) Source Farming practice Effects (General) Planting 1. Surface water pollution On-site and off-site effects (Dept Natural Resources and Environment, 2002) 2. Groundwater pollution • Stream sedimentation • Suspended solids in streams 3. Soil residues • Loss of aquatic habitat • Loss of soil nutrients • Increased weed invasion Fertiliser Use 1. Changes to soil biota with On-site effects (Dept Natural Resources and Environment, 2002) reduced species richness • Change in soil structure 2. Residues • Imbalance of soil invertebrates and microbes Off-site effects • Change in ecological processes Biocide and other 1. Removal of timber On-site effects (Dept Natural Resources chemical use and Environment, 2002) • Native tree dieback On-site and off-site effects • Changes to invertebrate populations • Increased weeds Harvesting and thinning 1. Increased genetic resource On-site effect (Dept Natural Resources and Environment, 2002) 2. Increased habitat through • Loss of habitat for ground dwelling species increased vegetation cover

61 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Appendix 9: Farming practices associated with native biodiversity (listing primary and secondary environmental effects)

Biodiversity Enterprise Primary Environmental Secondary Environmental Effects (General) source Farming practice Effects (General) Natural regeneration 1. Increased habitat through On-site and off-site positive effects (Dept Natural Resources increased vegetation cover and Environment, 2002) • Increased representation of pre-European vegetation

• Increased water use efficiency

• Improved water quality

• Reduce risk of wind and water erosion

• Improved connectivity throughout landscape, improving abundance of native flora and fauna

• Increased protection of remaining vegetation

• Improved soil health

• Maintaining the distinctive Australian landscape

Revegetation/Direct 1. Protection of remnant On-site and off-site positive effects (Dept Natural Resources seeding of shrubs vegetation and Environment, 2002) • Increased water use efficiency 2. Grazing management • Improved water quality 3. Improved habitat • Reduce risk of wind and water erosion

• Improved connectivity throughout landscape, improving abundance of native flora and fauna

• Increased protection of remaining vegetation

• Improved soil health

62 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Biodiversity Enterprise Primary Environmental Secondary Environmental Effects (General) source Farming practice Effects (General) Fencing remnants 1. Improved water quality On-site positive effects (Dept Natural Resources and Environment, 2002) 2. Protection of remnant • Increased chances of recruitment vegetation • Increased water use efficiency • Reduce risk of wind and water erosion • Improved soil health • Provision of habitat for threatened species • Improved tree health Off-site positive effects • Improved water quality through filtration • Improved connectivity throughout landscape, improving abundance of native flora and fauna • Maintaining the distinctive Australian landscape Fencing of waterways 1. Improved habitat for native On-site positive effects (Dept Natural Resources and Environment, 2002) species • Removal of grazing during seed set 2. Increased regeneration • Improved habitat capacity • Increased chances of recruitment • Reduce risk of wind and water erosion • Improved soil health • Provision of habitat for threatened species Off-site positive effects • Increased water use efficiency • Improved water quality through filtration and removal of grazing • Improved connectivity throughout landscape, improving abundance of native flora and fauna Weed control 1. Reduction of competition and On-site positive effects (Dept Natural Resources and Environment, 2002) predation pressure Reduction of invasive weeds Reduction of harbour for pests Pest control 1. Reduction/control of perennial On-site positive effects (Dept Natural Resources and Environment, 2002) and broad leaf weeds • Increased success rates of regeneration and revegetation 2. Improved quality of native • Reduction in soil disturbance vegetation • Increased chances of breeding success for ground dwelling species e.g. Bush Stone-curlew

63 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

Biodiversity Enterprise Primary Environmental Secondary Environmental Effects (General) source Farming practice Effects (General) Strategic burning On-site positive effects (Dept Natural Resources and Environment, 2002) • Encouragement of natural regeneration • Reduction of weed seed loads • Maintenance of open spaces for regeneration of native plants

64 DRIVERS OF LAND USE CHANGE Driver Research Phase Background Report 1: Land use impacts on native biodiversity

www.dse.vic.gov.au 66