Post-graduate Thesis-corrected July03

Graziers’ Knowledge of Plants in the
Warrego River Plains Province,
Mulga Lands Bioregion, South West
Queensland
Jayne Thorpe BSc
for
Post-Graduate Diploma in Science
Faculty of Sciences
University of Southern Queensland
Supervisor: Prof. Charlie Zammit
Associate Supervisor: Kris Martin-McDonald
Submitted: October 25, 2002

Abstract
This study sets out to answer the general question “Do graziers
have knowledge of the environments they live and work in?” This
question has been answered with data produced by a suite of
methods drawn from the disciplines of ecology, participatory
research, ethnography and ethnobotany. The research methods are
presented in full detail from site selection to data treatment and
analysis. The study identified 7 main vegetation types based on the
species composition and relative abundance of 225 plants at 21
sites. These vegetation types were defined using two-way indicator
species analysis (TWINSPAN) and detrended correspondence
analysis (DCA). Graziers’ perceptions were collected through
interviews and presentation of plant specimens. Interviews where
analysed using the qualitative methods of narrative analysis and
thematic analysis. Eight interviews produced various themes
relating to primary production and those relating directly to plants
were incorporated into a data sheet. This data sheet facilitated the
collection of knowledge specific to individual species. Three of the
graziers interviewed participated in the identification of 181 dried ,
mounted plant specimens: these graziers were able to identify 80%
of the specimens presented. Of the recognised species, 69% were
considered beneficial and 26% were considered to cause problems.
The key benefits were provision of stock fodder and soil binding.
The key problems included unpalatability, dense shrubs, wool
contamination and prickles in clothing. The study concluded that
graziers are able to identify the majority of plant species on their
properties and have a broad and complex knowledge of both plant
species and vegetation types. Recommendations are suggested to
improve the cohesiveness of the suite of methods required. The
challenge arising from this research is how to provide adequate
opportunities for incorporating this knowledge into all levels of
decision-making that impact at the local scale.
Jayne Thorpe: Graziers’ Knowledge of Plants
i

Declaration
I certify that the work reported in this thesis is entirely my own
effort, except where otherwise acknowledged. I also certify that the
work is original and has not been previously submitted for
assessment in any other course of study at this or any other
institution.
…………………………………… ……………………………………
Signature of Candidate Day Month Year
…………………………
Student Number
Endorsement
Supervisor(s) ………………………………………………
Name
………………………………………………
Position
………………………………………………
Signature
………………………………………………
Day Month Year
ii

Contents Page
Abstract..........................................................................................i
Contents Page..............................................................................iii
List of Figures...............................................................................v
List of Tables...............................................................................vii
Acknowledgements...................................................................viii
Chapter 1 Introduction.................................................................1
Chapter 2 Literature Review........................................................5
2.1 Population ecology................................................................................5
2.1.1 Phase 1: Site selection...........................................................................6
2.1.2 Phase 2: Data collection........................................................................6
2.1.3 Phase 3: Data Analysis..........................................................................7
2.2 Participatory research...........................................................................7
2.3 Ethnobotany...........................................................................................9
2.3.1 Open Interviews......................................................................................9
2.3.2 Visual techniques.................................................................................10
2.3.3 Ethnobotanical research with Australian Aboriginal groups..........13
2.4 Ethnography.........................................................................................13
2.4.1 Phase 1: Sample selection...................................................................15
2.4.2 Phase 2: Qualitative Data Collection..................................................15
2.4.3 Phase 3: Qualitative Data analysis.....................................................16
2.5 Selection of methods to address aim of this research....................17
Chapter 3 Study Area and Methods .........................................20
3.1 Study Area Selection...........................................................................20
3.2 Site Location and Description............................................................20
3.3 Methods................................................................................................23
3.3.1 Part 1: Interview tours..........................................................................23
3.3.2 Part 2: Plant Collections......................................................................27
3.3.3 Part 3: Plant Presentations..................................................................30
Chapter 4 Results.......................................................................32
4.1 Vegetation Survey Results.................................................................32
4.1.1 Indicator Species Analysis (ISA).........................................................32
4.1.2 Correspondence Analysis (CA)...........................................................36
4.1.3 Species-Area Curves for each Vegetation Type................................36
4.2 Graziers’ Perceptions: Results from Interviews and Plant
Presentations ............................................................................................38
4.2.1 Interview Results..................................................................................38
4.2.2 Identification of Plant Specimens by Graziers..................................43
4.2.3 Scores of Beneficial and Problematic Plants Across Growth Forms
.........................................................................................................................47
iii

4.2.4 Beneficial and Problem Species Across Vegetation Types.............48
4.2.5 Additional Results................................................................................49
Chapter 5 Discussion and Conclusions...................................51
5.1 Discussion of results and Research Questions Arising.................51
5.1.1 Discussion of Vegetation survey results...........................................51
5.1.2 Discussion of graziers’ perceptions...................................................52
5.2 Critique of methods used...................................................................54
5.2.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of the Interview Method Used......55
5.2.2 Critique of Plant collections and Vegetation Survey Methods........55
5.2.3 Plant Presentations to Graziers..........................................................56
5.2.4 Recommendations for Changes to Methods Used...........................58
5.3 Overall Conclusions of this Research Project..................................59
References...................................................................................61
iv

List of Figures
Figure 3.1: Location map for the Mulga Lands Bioregion…………… 21
Figure 3.2: Location map for the Warrego River Plains Province… 22
Figure 4.1: Indicator species analysis using TWINSPAN: based on
presence/absence data………………………………………………………………… 33
Figure 4.2: Indicator species analysis using TWINSPAN: based on
importance score as a measure of relative abundance…………………34
Figure 4.3: Correspondence analysis for species importance score
data………………………………………………………………………………………………… 37
Figure 4.4: Species area curves for all vegetation types………………38
Figure 4.5: Number of presented plants identified as benefits or
problems………………………………………………………………………………………… 44
Figure 4.8: Degree of consensus between graziers across categories
of identified plants………………………………………………………………………… 44
Figure 4.9: Categorisation of beneficial plants by graziers. ……… 46
Figure 4.10: Categorisation of problem plants by graziers. ……… 46
Figure 4.11: Categories of plants identified by graziers across plant
growth forms……………………………………………………………………………………47
Figure 4.12: Graziers scores for problem and beneficial plant species
divided across plant growth forms…………………………………… 48
Figure 4.13: Graziers scores for problem and beneficial plant species
divided across plant growth forms and excluding plants that were
scored for both problems and benefits…………………………………48
Figure 4.14: The number of species per vegetation type based on
perception data and vegetation survey data……………………………… 49
Figure E.1: Cumulative number of species per area for the river
frontage vegetation type
Figure E.2: Cumulative number of species per area for the Mitchell
grass vegetation type
Figure E.3: Cumulative number of species per area for the pine
vegetation type
v

Figure E.4: Cumulative number of species per area for the soft
mulga vegetation type
Figure E.5: Cumulative number of species per area for the hard
mulga vegetation type
Figure E.6: Cumulative number of species per area for the
gidyea/swamp vegetation type
Figure E.7: Cumulative number of species per area for the spinifex
vegetation type
vi

List of Tables
Table 2.1: Methods compiled from four relevant disciplines for the
potential application to the Graziers Knowledge of Plants Project…19
Table 4.1: Themes and their definitions taken from transcripts
produced during the Graziers' Knowledge of Plants Project
2001-02……………………………………………………………………………………………41
Table 5.1: Methods compiled from four relevant disciplines for the
potential application to the Graziers Knowledge of Plants Project…57
Table A.1: Theme matrix showing which themes are drawn from
each transcript collected during the Graziers' Knowledge of Plants
Project
Table B.1: Data sheet for collection of data at each vegetation
survey site
Table D.1: Species by site matrix showing importance scores
Table D.2: Site history data
Table E.1: Average cumulative species number for each vegetation
type
Table F.1: Raw data from plant presentations
vii

Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the many people who have assisted me
during this study. Firstly I would like to thank my supervisors Prof.
Charlie Zammit (USQ) and Dr. Kris Martin-McDonald (USQ) for
their advice and assistance throughout the project.
I would also like to thank all of the graziers’ who participated in this
project. Their contributions of time and knowledge have made this
study possible.
I would also like to thank Jenny Sharpe for assistance in
identifying and mounting plant specimens.
Renee Moore and Mark Coleman (Department of Natural
Resources and Mines, Charleville) assisted me by providing location
maps and number of properties in the study area.
Finally I wish to thank Richard and Brooke Thorpe for all their
support and understanding throughout the project.
viii

Chapter 1 Introduction
This research project touches on the current topical issues of
sustainable agriculture, off-park conservation of biodiversity, and
ecosystem services, by focussing on how to access local cultural
knowledge of the environment as an expert source of information
regarding these issues. This issue has been highlighted in
international and national agreements over the past 10 years
(Agenda 21 1999; Commonwealth Government 1992; Mauro and
Hardison 2000). The overall question that is being asked here is
this:
Do graziers (in the study area and elsewhere in Australia)
have knowledge of the environments they live and work in?
If this question can be answered in the affirmative (by this and
other future studies) then a further question must be asked:
Is this source of knowledge being adequately sought after by
decision-makers when making decisions that affect the local
area?
This study will be concerned with the initial question stated above
and will attempt to weave together a solid methodological base
with which to gather the data required to answer such a question.
The anticipated data sets are diverse and cross traditional
disciplinary boundaries, taking methods from quantitative and
qualitative research including the fields of ecology, participatory
methods and ethnography. These broad disciplines are somewhat
integrated within the discipline of Ethnobotany, however a return to
the “parent” disciplines is necessary to ensure that the methods
chosen are carried out in a robust and acceptable way from data
collection through to analysis. The methodological options
presented in the literature will be outlined in Chapter 2
1

There are some standard terms that will be used with specific
meaning throughout this document. The term “local people” will be
used to include community members living in a traditional manner
for long time periods (i.e. indigenous people) and also more recent
communities of people living in rural areas and all relying partly or
wholly on direct interaction with their immediate environment for
their economic activities. “Local knowledge” will be used to cover
the knowledge of the local people in place of the terms used
elsewhere of “traditional ecological knowledge (TEK)” (Cotton
1996; Cunningham 2001; Martin 1995) and traditional ecological
knowledge and wisdom (TEKW)” (Turner et al. 2000). In this case
the local people participating in the research are graziers in south
west Queensland.
The Warrego River Plains Province lies centrally within the Mulga
Lands Bioregion in south-west Queensland and contains a diverse
range of vegetation types on either side of the Warrego River
Catchment (Wilson 1999). This vegetation has been divided into
regional ecosystems based on vegetation associations, topography
and underlying geology (Sattler 1999). All but one of the 15
regional ecosystems in the province has less than 3.3%
representation within protected areas. Open communication with
graziers in this area will assist in the conservation of biodiversity
outside protected areas.
These local people are the major impact on the structure and
function of grazing land and act primarily upon their own
understanding of how the system works (Lynam and Dangerfield
1999). Lynam and Dangerfield (1999) suggest that graziers “have
got it more right than scientists” when it comes to grazing land
management. These views contrast with those expressed by Botha
(1999), who indicates that a difference between local perception
and scientific perception shows the level of local mis-perception. In
2

other words, Botha (1999) considers scientific perception of
environmental condition to be correct and local people are
considered incorrect unless expressing the same views as science.
The extension versus participatory models for communication
between science and local people will be discussed further in
Chapter 2.
There are many methods for communication with graziers
(Campbell 1994; Lawrence, Graham and Clark 1994; Bosch et al.
1996; Waters-Bayer and Bayer 2000; Clark and Coffey 2001).
Waters-Bayer and Bayer (2000) have reviewed consultative and
collaborative research methods with the conclusion that
collaborative research is both useful and necessary in both ‘third
world countries’ and industrialised countries. Collaborative
research has the benefits of:
• Developing landholders own knowledge
• Strengthening local capacities to adjust management to
changing conditions; and,
• Increased likelihood that the research results will be
relevant to landholders.
The ethnobotanical paradigm was selected as the basis for
communication on biodiversity in the area of interest. The
research questions focus on people and plants. The questions
posed in this research are:
• What plant species and vegetation communities exist
at specific sites within the Warrego River Plains
Province?
• What knowledge do graziers have of those plant
species and vegetation communities?
These research questions may be expressed as the following aim.
3

To investigate graziers’ knowledge of plants in the Warrego
River Plains Province of South West Queensland, by
determining the plant species and vegetation communities
present and then determining the knowledge graziers have of
these.
The available literature shows where research of this kind has been
undertaken before and details methods used to adequately answer
these types of questions.
4

Chapter 2 Literature Review
Before beginning it is useful to breakdown the aim of this research
into specific datasets that will be required to answer the questions
posed. The datasets required may be listed as follows:
1. Plant species inventory within the study area.
2. Measure of abundance for each plant species.
3. Identification of vegetation types within the study area.
4. Graziers’ identification of vegetation types within the study
area.
5. Graziers’ identification of categories of plant knowledge.
6. Graziers’ categorisation of plant species collected from the
study area.
With the required data sets defined it is possible to review the
literature to find research that has addressed similar questions or
compiled similar data sets. There was no research located that
addressed all of the data sets identified above and so it was
necessary to delve into various fields or disciplines to cover all
types of data. The relevant fields are:
• Population Ecology
• Participatory research
• Ethnobotany
• Ethnography
2.1 Population ecology
The determination of vegetation types, plant species inventory and
abundance of individual species (datasets 1, 2 and 3 above) may
be achieved by many methods. The methods may be divided into
three phases: site selection, data collection and data analysis.
5

2.1.1 Phase 1: Site selection
The first step is to choose a method of site selection. These may
be randomly (Abbadi and El-Sheikh 2002) or subjectively located
sites (Neldner 1984). Researchers in Queensland have selected
sites in conjunction with landowners on private property due to the
large areas covered and the local knowledge of the location of
different vegetation types (Cooney 1995, Chrichton 1995). In
addition, where research is to be undertaken on private land,
access is the factor most influencing site location and this causes
difficulty in carrying out a random placement of sites.
2.1.2 Phase 2: Data collection
The second step is to choose a method for carrying out plant
inventory and individual species abundance assessments. This has
traditionally been achieved using direct counts and collections of
plants within small quadrats (Abbadi and El-Sheikh 2002, Ali et al.
2000, Cooney 1995, Crichton 1995). Morrison et al (1995)
reviewed the frequency score and importance score methods for
estimating plant (or sedentary) species abundance and compared
these to the traditional direct count method and presence-absence
data.
The main advantages of these methods over direct count are (from
Morrison et al. 1995):
• Less dependence on the subquadrat size due to the use of
geometric or semi-geometric nested subquadrats.
• Improved sampling of less common species resulting in
increased detection of rarer species, which is useful in
biological inventories.
• Much less time required per area of quadrat especially for
the importance score method that takes only a little more
time than presence-absence recording.
6

The minor disadvantages are (from Morrison et al 1995):
• The methods are slightly less reproducible than direct counts.
• Replication of quadrats is required to overcome decreased
reproducibility due to non-random distribution of organisms.
2.1.3 Phase 3: Data Analysis
The third step is identification of vegetation types. Other
researchers (Ali et al. 2000, Abbadi & El-Sheikh 2002, Yibarbuk et
al. 2001) used Two-way Indicator Species Analysis (TWINSPAN)
(Hill 1979) and Detrended Correspondence Analysis (DCA)
(DECORANA) (Hill & Gauch 1980) computer programs to identify
vegetation types.
Ecological methods are sufficient to provide the first three data sets
required to answer the questions posed in this research project
however, methods from other disciplines must be sought for the
graziers’ knowledge datasets (4, 5 and 6 above).
2.2 Participatory research
Participatory research advocates the researcher going to the
community group of interest to determine their perceptions and
level of knowledge around particular topics. This type of method is
in contrast to traditional extension methods in which a scientific
specialist provides technical advice in the absence of any intention
to participate in community group issues and seems to have
developed in response to a perceived problem with traditional
scientific/technology extension (Davies 1999; Clark & Coffey 2002;
van Wyk 2002).
Waters-Bayer and Bayer (2000) along with Clark & Coffey (2002)
are critical of the one-way nature of extension techniques such as
field days, seminars and workshops arguing that they raise
awareness without changing understanding, attitudes or, most
7

importantly, management practices. They recognised that land-
users will interpret scientific research as truth or otherwise
depending on their own individual experience (Waters-Bayer and
Bayer 2000). In other words, understanding landholder
management decisions requires the understanding of truth as
perceived by landholders rather than truth as perceived by
scientific research.
However the change to participatory methods seems to derive from
a wish to tailor education and incentives for behaviour change
(Lawrence et al. 2000) and encourage better acceptance of land
management advice (Davies 1999). This becomes recognisable as
a “door to door selling” of departmental/governmental/scientific
ideas and practices in contrast to the previous “cellar door sales”
method (as in Carmen et al. 1998; Heywood et al. 2000).
The “local best practices” (LBP) version (Clark and Coffey 2002) of
participatory research varies from that described above by
advocating co-learning rather than delivery as the desired outcome
of the process. This is echoed by Quirk (2000) who cites a lack of
connectivity between research, development and producers as a
problem that prevents the proper evaluation of old and new ideas
about grazing land management. Lawrence et al. (1994) used the
LBP technique to determine local definitions of appropriately sized
properties for different vegetation types. Unfortunately, there is
little description among these sources of the actual process of data
collection and subsequent data treatment except to say that group
discussions were undertaken by Lawrence et al. (1994).
Waters-Bayer and Bayer (2000) offer a more thorough practical
assessment of participatory research methods ranging from formal
to informal. These include questionnaires; structured interviews;
on-farm participant record keeping; case studies; and rapid
8

informal methods such as ranking, pair wise comparisons, object
piling and participant mapping.
The following section gives more detail on these methods from the
discipline of ethnobotany.
2.3 Ethnobotany
Toledo (1992) describes the aim of ethnobotany as “ecological
evaluation of the intellectual and practical activities that a certain
human group executes during it’s appropriation of natural
resources”. Although usually applied to traditional communities
they are also applicable to rural producers of the modern world
such as farmers, graziers, foresters and fishers (Toledo 1992,
Berkes-Colding & Folke 2000). In this context sustainability refers
to the ability of a rural community to maintain primary production
through time (Toledo 1992). Accessing the ecological information
of these communities provides an opportunity to learn from the
diversity of locally evolved management systems. Turner et al
(2000) acknowledges this knowledge as fundamental in providing
locally valid models for sustainable living.
This knowledge has been found to include knowledge of plant life
cycles, timing of seasonal occurrences (Turner et al 2000), and
relationships between organisms and groups of organisms along
with the identification of plant uses (Nabhan 2000). It is this
information that is most likely to be of benefit to biodiversity
conservation (Given and Harris 1994).
2.3.1 Open Interviews
Several sources recommend open or semi-structured interviews
that use various methods to prompt discussion (Huntington 2000;
Hanazaki et al. 2000; Lykke 2000). The idea behind this approach
is that even simple questions often include invalid researcher
assumptions and it is impossible to predict in the initial phases of
9

research with a particular group what topics or issues will be
encountered. Huntington (2000) used a list of topics to prompt
discussion while allowing the interview to follow the participant’s
train of thought, while Hanazaki et al. (2000) began with a list of
plant use categories and collected the plants that were quoted in
interviews. Lykke (2000) employed a technique known as free
listing which makes the assumption that people will mention those
species that are most well known or important to them when asked
to list useful plants. In the analysis of this data only plants that
come up more than once are retained in the dataset.
2.3.2 Visual techniques
Cunningham (2001) describes the use of three different open
interviewing techniques in a little more detail: the artefact-
interview; inventory-interview; and walk in the woods methods.
The process, advantages and disadvantages of each of these
techniques are outlined by Cunningham (2001) and will be
discussed below.
The artefact interview technique (Cunningham 2001) involves the
presentation of a particular tool or plant product and a discussion
of the source of raw materials used for the construction or
preparation of this item. This is followed by collection of the plant
species mentioned in the interviews to allow for scientific
identification and possible analysis (chemical, genetic). This
technique has the advantage of requiring little field work but can
leave out a great deal of information regarding more obscure or
culturally seasonal plant uses and other plant knowledge. It does
not allow easy comparisons between different vegetation types
regarding levels of use, benefit or knowledge. To do this would
require separate surveys within each vegetation type to determine
the presence/absence and abundance of each species in each
vegetation type.
10

The inventory interview technique requires taking a plant inventory
usually within a set quadrat area, carrying out scientific
identification of the species and presenting the specimens to local
people for discussion on their role in the culture or economy. This
method has the advantage of allowing comparisons between
different vegetation types, however it can cause a problem with
mis-identification of plant specimens by local people. This is
because they may identify more readily with whole plants or plant
parts other than the fruit, flowers and leaves sample required for
scientific identification (Cunningham 2001).
Finally the walk in the woods technique collects specimens in the
field accompanied by a local person (or people) providing
information on the species encountered while traversing a transect.
A sample of each species commented on is collected for scientific
identification. This overcomes the problem of mis-identification of
plants but still causes problems when attempting to compare
vegetation types. This is because it does not intensively sample
the species present in each vegetation type. This technique also
comes at the expense of additional participant time and input
which may not be available, depending on the time of the year and
the activities of the community.
There are also opportunities to follow a more rigid interview
structure when collecting data on plant species such as those
described by Martin (1995). These are: direct matrix ranking,
triadic and/or pair wise comparisons, and pile sorting.
Direct matrix ranking involves assigning a score or rank to each
species against possible positive and negative categories. This
allows a more detailed comparison of the usefulness or value of a
particular species based on a sum of the scores for uses of that
11

plant rather than a simple number of uses. For example, two plant
species each have two recorded uses the first plant provides a
medium source of bark fibre (score 2 on a scale of 1 to 3) and the
only source of a ceremonial dye from its fruits (score 3). This plant
would have an overall use score of 5. The second plant provides a
medium source of fruit food (score 2) and a poor quality firewood
(score 1). Therefore this species has an overall use score of 3.
The score allows the relative importance of these two species to be
distinguished.
Triadic and pair wise comparisons present all possible combinations
of two or three species and ask the participant to indicate a
hierarchy among the two or three species in each group (Martin
1995). This produces an unbiased ranking of each species based
on the number of times it was placed first, second (or third) in the
hierarchy. This method is only suitable for very small groups of
species as the number of possible combinations of species
increases exponentially or factorially as the number of species
considered increases.
Pile sorting is particularly useful for a larger set of species and
involves the sorting or classification of species into groups based
on similarities identified by participants. These groups can be
broken down into further sub-divisions if relevant, with the
researcher recording the reasoning behind each level of
classification. Specimens (or representations of specimens) can be
duplicated where necessary to allow classification into multiple
groups.
Further visual techniques can be employed such as the use of aerial
photography or local map production. These can be used to
determine spatial distribution of plant species and also spatial
patterns of plant use.
12

2.3.3 Ethnobotanical research with Australian Aboriginal groups
Ethnobotanical research in Australia has been focussed on foods,
medicines and fibres (Goddard and Kalotas 1995; Isaacs 1987),
with some research into impacts of fire management (Yibarbuk et
al. 2001), the barriers to co-management of land (Baker &
Mutitjula Community 1992; Rose 1997) and knowledge of extant
and extinct mammal species (Pearson & Ngaanyatjarra 1997;
Tunbridge 1989). Such research provides a valuable resource for
the development of sustainable natural resource management
practices, the commercialisation of new uniquely Australian
products and in some cases the recovery plans for individual
threatened species.
One of the reasons behind the current research project is to
determine if non-indigenous Australians also have knowledge to
contribute to these same fields of inquiry. The idea being that rural
Australians engaged for generations in introduced agricultural
practices may better understand the impacts and challenges of
maintaining those practices or at least the products of them.
2.4 Ethnography
The ethnobotanical research and participatory methods so far
detailed are somewhat patchy in their description of methods as far
as sample selection and data treatment is concerned. To fill these
gaps it is necessary to return to fundamental qualitative research
methods with an emphasis on ethnography. Ethnography is one of
many broad types of hypothesis-generating research employed by
qualitative researchers (Grbich 1998, Savage 2000). These
hypotheses can be followed up by other methodologies taken from
the disciplines already outlined (Savage 2000).
Ethnography is focussed on understanding how local people see
things from their own perspective (de Lane 1997). Herbert (2000)
13

goes as far as to say that “no other methodology enables a
researcher to explore the complex connections that social groups
establish with the places they inhabit”. Creswell (1998) expands
this by saying that ethnography is the method of choice when
studying cultural behaviour, language or artefacts.
This methodology places importance on research carried out in
natural (de Lane 1997) or ordinary (Creswell 1998) settings and
being true to people’s beliefs, concerns and aspirations (de Lane
1997). This is in contrast to the stimulus response model of
quantitative research (de Lane 1997).
The criteria for good ethnography indicates the type of methods
that should be employed to fulfil the criteria. Creswell (1998) has
summarised these criteria into 9 points:
1) Observations are contextualised.
2) Hypotheses emerge in situ as the research proceeds.
3) Observation is prolonged and repetitive.
4) The local view of reality is obtained through interviews,
observation or other eliciting techniques.
5) Knowledge is elicited from participants in a systematic
fashion.
6) Interview agenda, questionnaires, and research schedules
are generated in situ as a result of inquiry.
7) A transcultured, comparative perspective is often an
unstated assumption.
8) What is implicit to participants becomes explicit in the
research process.
9) The researcher must not predetermine responses by the
kinds of questions asked.
With these criteria in mind, there are three phases of methodology
(similar to those shown in section 2.1 Population ecology). These
14

are sample selection, data collection and data treatment. Each of
these phases is outlined in the sections below.
2.4.1 Phase 1: Sample selection
The sampling strategies used in ethnography are typically non-
probability, non-random techniques aimed at selecting information
rich cases (Grbich 1998). Such information rich cases are termed
key informants by Creswell (1998) and Neuman (1994). Initial
access to research groups is usually through a gatekeeper
(Creswell 1998) who has sufficient trust in or rapport with the
researcher to mediate contact between the researcher and other
members of the interest group. These members may be selected
based on the following techniques described by Grbich (1998):
• Extreme sampling – access outstanding cases to explore
an aspect of the phenomenon in detail.
• Homogenous sampling – sample all members of a
particular group of people.
• Critical case sampling – choosing people who will provide
the most information on the topic.
• Opportunistic sampling – taking account of new situations
that arise during the research process.
• Snowball sampling – word of mouth networks used to
locate people who fit research criteria.
• Convenience sampling – sampling among friends or work
colleagues (regarded as the weakest technique and not
recommended).
These techniques may be used singly or in combination as research
needs emerge.
2.4.2 Phase 2: Qualitative Data Collection
Ethnography rests upon participant observation, where the
researcher spends time observing and interacting with a social
group (Herbert 2000). The methods evolve in design throughout
15

the study with order emerging from the field rather than being
imposed on the field. Ethnography is aimed at making sense of the
actions and intentions of people as knowledgeable agents, with the
choice of small sample size representing a trade off between depth
and breadth in the resulting research (Herbert 2000).
Many researchers agree that the open one-on-one interview is a
sound basis of ethnographic research (Grbich 1998; Creswell 1998;
Herbert 2000; Savage 2000). However these same sources also
advocate “triangulation” of research methods to enhance the rigour
and validity of the research process. This triangulation requires the
use of both qualitative and quantitative methods in a way that
allows information gathered by one method to be verified (or
otherwise) by the other (Grbich 1998; Creswell 1998; Herbert
2000).
The combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis is also
among the techniques recommended by Herbert (2000) to over
come a common criticism of ethnography: that it lacks capacity for
valid generalisation. The other techniques are the selection of
substitutable study sites, comparative analysis between two or
more groups, and evaluation of observations against existing
theory. The use of one or a combination of these provides a
measure of the validity of generalisations.
2.4.3 Phase 3: Qualitative Data analysis
Qualitative data analysis aims to organise words against research
aims (Roberts & Taylor 2002). Thematic analysis and narrative
analysis are recommended by Roberts and Taylor (2002) as
applicable to interview transcripts produced during the course of
ethnography.
16

Thematic analysis involves the removal of extraneous details (um,
but, immediate repetition), dividing the text with thematic
subheadings, collating the sections under the same subheadings,
combining multiple transcripts to find common themes and defining
and describing themes (process adapted from Sobel & Bettles 2000
and Roberts & Taylor 2002). This method of analysis is useful for
projects with exploratory and descriptive aims.
Narrative analysis follows a similar process, involving the deletion
of interviewer words and words that detract from the key ideas of
each sentence or group of sentences. The text is then read though
to ensure that is still makes sense against the original. This
process is repeated until only the essence of the original remains
and all unnecessary utterances are removed. Themes are then
identified from the remaining text and the fragments of themes are
moved together to create a story or series of stories. The resulting
compilation is returned to the participant to check its accuracy and
authenticity. This process is adapted from Emden (1998) and
Roberts & Taylor (2002). Such an analysis is also useful for
research with descriptive aims.
2.5 Selection of methods to address aim of this research.
Table 2.1 summarises the methods considered in the preceding
sections. Those selected for the present study are shown in the
highlighted cells.
As it is not possible to determine in advance where access will be
permitted on private land, the sampling of vegetation types will be
subjective rather than random. The importance score method of
estimating plant species abundance will be used for its improved
time requirement over direct counts and its ability to detect rarer
plant species (Morrison et al. 1995). TWINSPAN indicator species
analysis and detrended correspondence analysis will be used to
17

analyse the data from the vegetation surveys. These ecological
methods will provide the following data sets:
1. Plant species inventory within the study area.
2. Measure of abundance for each plant species.
3. Identification of vegetation types within the study area.
Critical case and snowball sampling will be used to select
participants for gathering graziers’ perceptions. Critical case
sampling means that participants are selected on the basis of
information richness i.e. longer time = more experience of the
subject under enquiry. Snowball sampling involves encouraging
these participants to nominate others (snowball sampling). One-
on-one interviews will be undertaken while driving around the
participant’s property – a modified version of Cunningham’s (2001)
“walk in the woods” method. This will be followed by an inventory
interview involving the collection and discussion of plant species
and direct matrix ranking of plant specimens across grazier defined
knowledge categories. Narrative and thematic analysis will be
applied to bring out the important points in the data collected.
These qualitative methods will produce the data sets below:
4. Graziers’ identification of vegetation types within the study
area.
5. Graziers’ identification of categories of plant knowledge.
6. Graziers’ categorisation of plant species collected from the
study area.
18

Table 2.1: Methods compiled from four relevant disciplines for the potential application to the Graziers Knowledge of Plants Project.
Methodological
component
Discipline
Population ecology Participatory research Ethnobotany Ethnography
Site or sample selection Random Extreme
Homogenous
Subjective Critical case
Opportunistic
Snowball
Convenience
Data collection Direct counts Questionnaire Artefact interview Open one-on-one
interviews
Structured interviews Inventory interview
On farm recording Walk in the woods
Frequency scores Ranking Direct matrix ranking Collection &
discussion of
artefacts
Pairwise comparisons Triadic/pairwise comparison
Importance scores Pile sorting Pile sorting
Participant Mapping Participant mapping
Data Analysis TWINSPAN Thematic analysis
DCA Narrative analysis
Refs. Ali et al 2000; Abbadi & El-
Sheikh 2002; Yibarbuk et al
2001; Morrison et al 1995;
Crichton 1995; Cooney 1995
Waters-Bayer & Bayer 2000;
Lawrence et al. 1994; Quirk
2000; Clark & Coffey 2001;
Lawrence et al. 2000; Davies
1999
Berkes, Colding & Folke 2000; Turner
et al. 2000; Toledo 1992; Lykke 2000;
Huntington 2000; Nabhan 2000; Isaacs
1987; Yibarbuk et al. 2001; Rose
1997; Martin 1995 ;Tunbridge 1989;
Cunningham 2001;Hanazaki et al.
2000
Emden 1998; Roberts &
Taylor 2002; Sobel &
Bettles 2000; Herbert
2000; Cresswell 1998;
Grbich 1998; Savage
2000; de Lane 1997
Jayne Thorpe: Graziers’ Knowledge of Plants 19

Chapter 3 Study Area and Methods
3.1 Study Area Selection
Site selection was based on recommendations in Cunningham
(2001), Martin (1995) and Toledo (1992) that the most appropriate
person to carry out ethnobotanical research is one with training in
social research and botany as well as being a member of the
community of interest. Fulfilment of this criteria indicated the
selection of the Warrego River Plains Province, the area the author
grew up in. This means that the author has some previous
personal knowledge of the landscape, production systems and
people of the study area. The potential for bias has been
minimised by the systematic way in which information was solicited
and sampling sites were selected.
3.2 Site Location and Description
The Warrego River Plains Province is within the Mulga Lands
Bioregion of South West Queensland. (See Figure 3.1 and 3.2)
Wilson (1999) identifies 15 regional ecosystems within this
province with more detailed species lists and vegetation structure
described by Neldner (1984 & 1992).
The area is characterised by river channels, floodouts and drainage
lines fringed by river red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), and
coolibah (Eucalyptus coolabah) or yapunyah (Eucalyptus
orchophloia) woodlands, alluvial clay plains, gidyea (Acacia
cambegei) and some brigalow (Acacia harpophylla) open
woodlands. There is mitchell grass (Astrebla spp.) grassland and
20

Figure 3.1: Location map for the Mulga Lands Bioregion
21

Figure 3.2: Location map for the Warrego River Plains Province

alluvially derived low sand hills with mulga (Acacia aneura), poplar
box (Eucalyptus populnea) and pine (Callitris spp.) woodland
(Wilson 1999).
3.3 Methods
The methods can be divided into 3 parts:
• Interview tours
• Plant collections and ecological surveys; and,
• Plant presentations to graziers.
These parts combine the qualitative and quantitative data collection
methods described in Chapter 2.
3.3.1 Part 1: Interview tours
The selection of interviewees was based on the recommendations
of an initial contact person, termed a gatekeeper in Neuman
(1994). A gatekeeper is ideally a member of the group or culture
of interest to the researcher. The gatekeeper has trust for and is
trusted by the researcher. They are also in a position of trust
among members of the interest group.
The gatekeeper for this research provided a list of potential suitable
interviewees fulfilling the criteria of living and working in primary
production, on property in the local area, for 15 or more years.
This was the equivalent of Cunningham’s (2001) recommendations
to enlist the elders of a village as participants and is a form of
critical case sampling as outlined in Chapter 2. The interviewees
participating were part of a sparsely distributed community and are
likely to have had business and social interaction with each other.
The author, as might be expected when growing up in a small
community, knew of each interviewee as a member of the
community. Of the 15 potential interviewees nominated, 11 were
willing to participate and of those 3 were unable to participate due
23

to the timing of fieldwork. The 8 remaining interviewees were
interviewed between the beginning of August 2001 and the end of
April 2002. These numbers are consistent with the numbers of
participants in other studies in rural areas (Crichton 1995, Cooney
1995, Heywood et al. 2000, Lawrence et al. 1994, Lawrence et al.
2000) and represent contact with 9.32% of the 161 property
owners in the province (Alick and Alick 2000).
These interviewees also voluntarily nominated others whose
contribution would be valuable. Everyone who was nominated
more than once in this selection process was among the final 8
people interviewed. Consistent with the selection criteria each of
the people interviewed were graziers who had been involved in
property management in the region for more than 15 years.
The interviews were conducted while driving around the usual path
used by the interviewee to check stock watering points. This
brought the interviews as close as possible to the vegetation types
and management aspects being discussed. Cunningham (2001)
recommends a “walk in the woods” interview, and a “drive over the
property” simulated this over the far greater distances required in
this study.
Interviews were 1 to 1 ½ hours duration with a semi-structured
open format. A list of interview topics was prepared and this was
referred to during each interview. These topics are indicated by an
asteric in the theme table shown in Appendix A. In most interviews
the topics of interest arose in the conversation naturally. For
example a kangaroo sighting would prompt a discussion of native
and feral animals present on the property.
Interviews were recorded using a portable cassette tape recorder
using only the inbuilt microphone. In most cases the sound quality
24

was found to be reasonable but it may have been improved
through the use of a hand-held microphone.
3.3.1.1 Part 1: Data Treatment
During the interview tour several sets of information were gathered
for their contribution to further methodological phases. Notes were
made regarding the location of suitable sites for Part 2. A
preliminary analysis of the transcripts also assisted in the
development of the data collection sheet for Part 3.
The transcripts were prepared for return to interviewees using the
narrative analysis method described by Emden (1998) and
recommended by Roberts and Taylor (2002). The following steps
were undertaken:
1. Read full interview text several times to grasp its contents.
2. Delete all interviewer questions and comments from the full
interview text.
3. Delete all words that detract from the main idea of each
statement.
4. Read remaining text for sense.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until all extraneous content is eliminated
and check with the full text to ensure that all main ideas are
retained.
6. Identify fragments of themes.
7. Move fragments of themes together and collate under theme
headings.
8. Return the narrative to the participant for corroboration and the
opportunity to correct place names and other words that may
not have been clear on the recording.
This process has many similarities to the processes of thematic
analysis outlined by Roberts and Taylor (2002), and Sobel and
Bettles (2000) with the following addition:
25

9. The themes identified in each transcript were then compared to
each other to find common themes.
It is important to note that Roberts and Taylor (2002),
Cunningham (2001), Cotton (1996) and Martin (1995) all
emphasise that these methods are flexible and should be adjusted
to fit the unique requirements of the specific project aim and the
cultural group involved. It was with this in mind that these two
qualitative methods have been combined for this project.
The expectation was that interviewees would receive a narrative
analysis of the transcribed interviews more favourably than the raw
transcript. Preparation of transcripts required up to six hours for
transcription and four hours for analysis per 1 hour of interview.
The narrative analysis of interview transcripts was returned to each
participant for comment and confirmation that the transcript
reflected their views. Each participant expressed satisfaction with
the transcripts subject to minor alterations. These alterations were
made to the transcripts prior to further analysis.
The participants were also requested to indicate their preference
for storage of transcripts. The options were to make the transcript
available in the University of Southern Queensland library or to
have the transcripts remain in the possession of the interviewer
(Jayne Thorpe) and the participant only. Each participant indicated
that storage of transcripts in the University of Southern
Queensland library was the preferred option. (Interviewer and
participant also retain a copy of the transcript.)
Each of the headings in the data collection sheet (Appendix C) are
specifically derived from quotes in the transcripts. For example the
26

river frontage vegetation type was derived from several quotes
including:
“There is cypress pines, some mulga dispersed through it,
buffel, kangaroo grass. The grass in the river frontage
country is more productive because of the soil it is on.” 6(2)
When quoting from the transcripts this convention will be followed.
The specific source of the quote will be indicated by two numbers,
the first is the transcript number and the second in brackets shows
the page number within that transcript. Therefore the quote shown
above is sourced from transcript 6 page 2.
3.3.2 Part 2: Plant Collections
Of the 8 interviewees participating in Part 1, 3 were able to
contribute further to the research process in Part 2 and 3. These
graziers assisted with the selection of representative sites for each
vegetation community consistent with the methods of Crichton
(1995) and Cooney (1995). Graziers’ were asked to locate
representative sites for each type for country using the following
criteria:
• Avoid fence-lines, yards, dams and other high use or
abnormal use areas.
• Target large areas >1 hectare in order to avoid
sampling within possible edge effects.
The large size of properties (8000 to 20 000ha) presented a
challenge to surveying the vegetation types. The task of locating
of study sites was assisted by individual graziers on each of the
three properties where specimens were collected.
Site history data was also collected from the graziers and the site
data sheet is presented in Appendix B. Site history data included:
• Time of or time since stock presence
27

• Past timber treatment i.e. pushing, pulling, poisoning,
chainsaw, axe.
• Past fire events
• Past flooding events
• Recent rainfall events
•
Each site was marked with fluorescent pink string to enable easy
relocation of these sites. There were 21 sites surveyed across three
properties. In order for participants to remain anonymous the
precise location of these sites cannot be illustrated in this
document. However, access to these sites for further research
may be negotiated between the author and participants on a case-
by-case basis.
Angiosperms, Pteridophytes and Gymnosperms were collected
within a 500m2
quadrat placed subjectively in a representative
area. The importance score (Morrison et al 1995) for each species
was recorded based on the first incidence of each species in
successively larger sub-quadrats. Each sub-quadrat was assigned
an importance score as follows:
• The 5m2
sub-quadrat has the highest importance score
of 6
• 20m2
sub-quadrat – importance score 5
• 50m2
• 100m2
• 200m2
• 500m2
All plants first located in the 5m2
sub-quadrat were given an
importance score of 6. New plants collected in the next largest (20
m2
) sub-quadrat are given an importance score of 5 and so on to
28

the largest (500m2
) subquadrat with the new plants found there
receiving an importance score of 1.
The collected specimens were identified to genus and species level,
where possible, using Cunningham et al. (1981), Stanley and Ross
(1989), Harden (1991), Henry et al. (1995), and Milson (1996).
The identified specimens were dried and mounted on firm (8-10ply)
card and placed within A3 plastic sleeves to be used in Part 3 of the
data collection. The resulting herbarium collection is stored at the
University of Southern Queensland Herbarium.
3.3.2.1 Part 2: Data Treatment
The data gathered was collated into a site (column) by species
(row) matrix showing importance score for each species at each
site. Two multivariate ecological analysis programs, two-way
indicator species analysis (TWINSPAN) and DECORANA were used
and an indicator species analysis (ISA) (Hill 1979) and
correspondence analysis (CA) (Hill & Gauch 1980) was undertaken.
The indicator species analysis uses the site by species matrix to
compare sites based on species composition and relative
abundance (importance score) from each quadrat. This analysis
separates sites into groupings based on species similarity that
show which sites are most similar and which are most different
from each other. These groupings were used to identify or confirm
which sites were replicates of the same vegetation type.
Correspondence Analysis measures the variability among all sites
by arranging the sites in ‘n’-dimensional space along multiple axis.
In most cases the first two or three axes explain the majority of
the variation in the data. In this way sites that are close together
in multidimensional space may be considered more similar than
sites that are far apart.
29

3.3.3 Part 3: Plant Presentations
The graziers participating in Part 2 also participated in Part 3 of the
research process. Mounted plant specimens were numbered in
order of family and species. This number was used to identify the
mounted specimens on the data recording sheet. The original data
recording sheet is presented as Appendix C. The categories in the
data recording sheet were developed from preliminary analysis of
the interview transcripts, except for the season of growth section.
The categories in the season of growth section were taken from
Cunningham (2001) as potentially useful knowledge held by
individuals who rely on plant cycles for their lifestyle. These
categories were then refined during the plant presentation process
to include new categories identified by graziers, and remove
categories that were not relevant to graziers’ knowledge. This
refining of categories was carried out to allow the data sheet to
capture as broad a range of information as possible so that
knowledge was not lost through any deficiency in the collection
process. The final categories used to collect information are also
shown in Appendix C.
Prior to each presentation the plant specimens were randomly
shuffled in the same manner as a deck of cards. The numbering
and shuffling of specimens removed any chances of the interviewer
leading responses. These measures allowed graziers to give
information independently of prompts and prevented potential
skewing of the responses towards the first presented specimens
due to interview fatigue (Martin 1995).
Each section of the data sheet was explained to the respondent and
as each specimen was presented the grazier was first asked if they
recognised the specimen. If the specimen was unrecognised it was
placed in a discard pile. If the specimen was recognised the
30

grazier was then asked 5 main questions corresponding to the
broad sections in the data sheet:
1. Do you recognise the plant from this property or
from another property?
2. What type of country does this plant grow in?
3. Does it have any benefits?
4. Does it cause any problems?
5. Is it annual, perennial or long-lived and in which
season do different parts of the life cycle occur?
During the plant presentations graziers’ placed more or less
emphasis on a benefit or problem for some plants. By mutual
agreement this emphasis was represented in the data sheet by a
scoring system of ½, 1, 2. A higher number indicates a higher
emphasis. This made it possible to rank groups of species for the
benefits and problems they contribute. For example the most
beneficial growth form could be determined by averaging the
scores for individual species with that growth form.
31

Chapter 4 Results
The results are presented in two sections: Section 4.1: Vegetation
Survey Results; and, Section 4.2: Graziers’ Perceptions – Results
from Interviews and Plant Presentations
4.1 Vegetation Survey Results
The vegetation surveys produced site history, species list and
relative abundance of each species for each site. The raw data
from the vegetation surveys is presented in Appendix D. Indicator
species analysis (ISA) and detrended correspondence analysis
(DCA) were performed in order to assign vegetation types to each
site and therefore determine how many times each vegetation type
has been replicated in the study.
4.1.1 Indicator Species Analysis (ISA)
Two separate ISA’s were run on the species and importance score
matrix in Appendix D. The TWINSPAN (Hill 1979) program can be
set to automatically read importance score data as presence
absence data. Using this facility the first analysis was run using
species presence-absence data alone. The resultant site groupings
are shown in Figure 4.1. The next analysis included the importance
scores for each species. The site groupings from this second
analysis are shown in Figure 4.2. In each of the figures the
vegetation type shown in the centre column is the type identified
by graziers. The vegetation type derived from the analyses is
shown in the final column.
32

33

34

In each analysis the spinifex sites are separated first as being
different to all the other sites. These are followed by the river
frontage sites. The remaining mitchell grass sites are the group
which emerge next. This leaves four closely related groups lying
between the spinifex and river frontage extremes.
Each type of vegetation can be described using the site history
data provided by the graziers during the site selection process with
further descriptions identified in the interview transcripts (See
section 4.2.1). The spinifex sites are described as sandy, nutrient
poor soils, that have not been cleared or flooded and were burnt
more than 25 years ago. The mitchell grass plains have clay-based
fertile soils with flooding occurring once or twice since 1990. For
obvious reasons there was no clearing undertaken on the mitchell
grass plains sites. River frontage country shows the same
characteristics as mitchell grass plains except that it has been
flooded twice since 1990. The remaining sites, although separated
into 4 groups in the analysis, are very similar in site history
characteristics.
These remaining sites can be described as having sandy-based
soils with the exception of the gidyea/box swamps which have grey
clay soil and occur in the drainage lines of the mulga country. The
pine is an unlikely inclusion with these groups as it occurs mainly
as scattered sand hills above flood water level, surrounded by river
frontage and mitchell grass plains country. However the dominant
species of the pine vegetation type (Callitris glaucophylla) also
occurs in the mulga sites which are likewise above the flood high
water mark.
35

4.1.2 Correspondence Analysis (CA)
The data matrix in Appendix D was also analysed using
correspondence analysis and this is shown in Figure 4.3. The
species groupings from Figure 4.2 are circled. The distribution of
sites shown in this figure may be due to a number of gradients and
this could be a subject for further research. Soil depth, soil type,
underlying geology or nutrient levels are examples of possible
causal factors that could be investigated further.
4.1.3 Species-Area Curves for each Vegetation Type
The total number of species for each vegetation type was
calculated and the species area curves produced (Figure 4.4). The
error bars are omitted on this diagram for the sake of clarity
however graphs for individual vegetation types are presented in
Appendix E including error bars and raw data.
Figure 4.4 compares all the vegetation types and shows that the
highest number of species was found in the Mitchell Grass Plains
type (38 species). The River Frontage and Spinifex are very close
(33 species) followed by the Gidyea/Swamp type (29 species), Soft
Mulga (21 species) and Hard Mulga (22 species) and finally the
Pine (17 species).
36

37

Species-area curves for each individual vegetation type are shown
in Appendix E. For all types of vegetation except the single Pine
site the species-area curves flatten between 200m2
and 500m2
which indicates that the quadrat size was sufficient to adequately
sample the majority of species in these habitats.
Species-area Curves for All Veg. Types
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 100 200 300 400 500
Quadrat Area in square metres
Cumulativenumberof
species
River Frontage n=3
Mitchell Grass n=3
Pine n=1
Soft Mulga n=5
Hard Mulga n=4
Gidyea Swamp n=2
Spinifex n=3
Figure 4.4: Species area curves for all vegetation types
4.2 Graziers’ Perceptions: Results from Interviews and Plant
Presentations
A wide range of data has been produced by the thematic analysis
of interview transcripts and graziers’ classification of plant
specimens. This data is combined with the vegetation survey data
and summarised in the following sections.
4.2.1 Interview Results
The complete matrix of themes across transcripts is presented as
Appendix A. Not all of these themes were relevant to the specific
questions on plant knowledge that are the focus of this report.
Themes relating to vegetation types, and categorisation of
beneficial and problem plants were used to produce the data
collection sheet for use in plant specimen presentations.
38

Some examples will serve to illustrate the subcategories from the
data sheet. In the beneficial section the soil nutrient category is
typified by this quote:
“You have got to leave all your big trees growing. You
can’t chop any of them down that is totally wrong. They are
your powerhouse for all your nutrients in your soil. They
bring up all the good down in the soil whereas your grasses
are only shallow rooted.”; “These acacias are a legume –
nitrogen fixers. Nature has always got something good up its
sleeve hasn’t it.” 8(6)
From the problem section the category of wool contaminant is
defined by these quotes:
“It (turkey bush) also puts a lot of vegie matter or rubbish in
the necks of your sheep, in the wool when they graze in
amongst it.” 4(6)
“The black spear grass is no good with sheep. It gets into
their wool and their skin and feet.” 8(6)
Graziers modified the Rainfall/Season section of the data sheet
during the plant presentations. The categories were changed from
germination, growth, seeding and drying off to the seasons
(summer, autumn, winter, spring), rainfall (meaning the plant
appears following sufficient rainfall rather than seasonally), and
reproductive strategy divisions of annual, perennial and long-lived.
The long-lived category was used mainly to describe tree species.
Themes of protected species, vegetation responses and
interactions, timber treatment and fire are also of relevance to this
study and the themes regarding these will be discussed in turn.
39

Protected plant species were identified specifically in two of the
interviews however other transcripts were also found to contain
underlying themes of protection for particular species (Appendix
A). The reasons for protecting plants ranged from low incidence of
that species within the property boundary:
“Leopard wood is another one, it is actually edible. We don’t
have much leopardwood, just a few trees here and there.
We have a few kurrajong trees and a few whitewood trees.
Whitewoods grow on black country but there is not many of
them. They are a protected species, on here anyway,
because there is not very many of them and we leave them
alone. If they were there in their hundreds and thousands
you could use them for feed but just as they are you leave
them alone.” 7(4)
to shade:
“There is a belt of gidyea through here, its all heavier soil, its
on clay soil, brown soils, good soils. Its probably a bit thick but we
don’t have big areas of it, only a small area so it can stay as it is.
I’m just dead set against knocking all the trees over. This country
is too hot, got to have trees for the shade. That is why they are
out here. It is very small, a couple of hundred acres, that’s all.”
8(4)
to habitat:
“I will leave all the box trees and some old mulga trees.
Some people flatten everything but I like the box trees. They
are not hurting anyone and besides the birds want
somewhere to roost. I’ll leave those dead timbers on the flat
there…all your little bugs and ants and lizards like living in
them. They have got as much right to live here as we have
when you get down to tin tacks.” 8(3)
Table 4.1 lists the themes used in this study, typical quotes and an
overall definition of each theme.
40

Table 4.1: Themes and their definitions taken from transcripts
produced during the Graziers' Knowledge of Plants Project 2001-02
Theme Typical Quote Theme Definition
River Frontage Right down to the river there is more or
less the same sort of country until you get
right down the bank. There is cypress
pine, some mulga dispersed through it,
buffel, kangaroo grass. The grass on the
river frontage country is more productive
because of the soil it is on. 6(2)
Productive land on black soil.
False sandalwood and pine
may be targeted for removal.
Leopard Wood Identified by grazier during selection of
survey sites
Productive land, interspersed
within river frontage and
mitchell grass plains country.
Sandy Pine There is no nutrients in the soil on
cypress pine country that is why the
buffel is very yellow. 8(1)
Unproductive high sandhills
dispersed throughout river
frontage country.
Swamp/Grey Gidyea This broken gidyea/whitewood country
has clay soils and grows all your
herbages and mitchell grasses. 8(1)
Productive land. False
sandalwood may be targeted
for removal.
Mitchell Grass Plains In the next paddock down we have got
mitchell grass seeding pretty well. In a
good season you see things come up
that no-one can identify. It would be
good if you had 50 000 acres of this sort
of country. It's a lot easier to maintain
than mulga but it isn't as drought
resistent. 6(3)
Highly productive land,
naturally sparsely treed. Fire
may be used to treat wiregrass
invasion.
Spinifex It is a bit different here, there is a patch of
about a thousand acres of spinifex. It's
just natures way, the soil is different -
sandy soil.3(2)
Mixed responses. Some say
soil is nutrient poor and others
say that when seed is ripe it is
excellent fodder.
Soft Mulga This is your sandy mulga country now. It
grows your mulga michell and mulga
oats, neverfail and it will also grow some
wiregrass. 7(1)
Productive, especially due to
drought resistant fodder
storage of high mulga and
capacity for cattle to break back
low mulga throughout dry
times.
Hard Mulga This stoney hill could be described as
hard mulga country. 4(1)
Unproductive country
Feed That is Queensland bluebush, neverfail it
is all edible…Pigweeds and nutgrasses
are all very palatable…Mulga mitchell,
mulga oats, the pasture is in good order,
good heart, got all the palatable mulga
grasses. .... A bit of mitchell grass grows
through it, that is hoop mitchell. 4(6)
There are a wide range of
plants considered valuable for
fodder including members of all
growth form groups.
41

Shelter I'd sooner leave clumps of timber rather
than just scattered trees. Scattered trees
don't give your flora and fauna any
chance at all. A clump of timber can
sustain a natural habitat. 2(2)
Mixed responses. Some leave
large trees and some leave
clumps in the landscape but for
the same purpose - to provide
habitat for flora and fauna
Soil Binding On the mulga country you get a mixture
of well you can't say useless grasses,
everything is useful even if it is just lying
on top of the ground breaking down into
vegetatable matter to hold up moisture.
4(9)
The value of soil cover is
recognised for prevention of
soil erosion, provision of
nutrient cycling and moisture
retention.
Soil Nutrients Buffel grass likes the phosphorus and the
mulch and everything, there is a definate
connection between the box trees and
grass. … Even the native grasses
always grow better under the box trees.
1(9)
Large trees (especially
Eucalyptus populnea) are
recognised as nutrient pumps
from deep soil layers to the
surface through leaf fall.
Acacia sp. are also recognised
as nitrogen fixers.
Fence Posts Bloodwood has been used as posts but it
isn't real good, it rots away. A lot of it has
been used on here and all those wooden
posst have got to be wooden posts have
got to be replaced. If they had have used
gidyea posts or steel posts they wouldn't
have to be replaced. 7(14)
Highlight that different timbers
last for different time periods
depending on the soil type they
are bedded into. A comment
that steel posts do not need
replacing for generations
whereas timber posts must be
replaced by every generation.
Fauna You leave clumps of timber for all your
animals, 'roos and emus and koala bears.
I don't want to kill all them and so they
can live in these clumps. 2(5)
Overall expression that native
fauna has a place and should
be catered for in management
practices.
Flowers That is white fushia, people call it lignum
fushia; eremophila when you look at the
flower. Pretty little fella, sometimes I
used to pick them on the motorbike and
take them home and my wife sticks them
in a vase. 4(9)
Some plants were highlighted
simply as ornamental - vase
flowers.
Good to See I'll take you to what I think is the prettiest
spot on the place over here. Here you
have still got a real mix of grasses,
wiregrass, buffel grass, big carbeens,
pines. 6(2)
Some species were considered
visually pleasing including
Carbeen (Eucalyptus
tesselaris), Wilga (Geijera
parviflora) and Leopardwood
(Flindersia maculosa.).
Poisonous Elangowen pointed out as a poisonous
plant when selecting survey sites.
Plants known to be or thought
to be poisonous to stock
42

Wool Contaminant It gets in the wool that is its major
problem. When you are talking about
reduction in price it is one of the ones
that takes the most off your wool because
when they comb it, it runs in line with the
comb and that makes it harder to comb
out. So, it costs more to process.... 7(4)
Plants that decrease wool value
mainly the mature seed of
Aristida sp. (wiregrasses) and
turkey bush (Eremophila
gillesii) leaf litter.
Unpalatable You can see the rubbish that is taking
over. You have got turkey bush and all
this bridal bush or daisy bush. If you took
all the rubbish out of this country it would
be pretty good again. 7(3)
Refers to plants that are
unpalatable to stock.
Choking Yes once the turkey bush gets
established … The longer it is there the
less pasture grows amongst it. 4(6)
Referring to plants that choke
out ground covering palatable
grasses, herbs and forbs. Most
often turkey bush and false
sandalwood.
Mustering It probably had a proliferation of box trees
when we had that big heap of rain. Just
by the size of them I would give them 10
or 12 years old. … That flat is un-
trafficable. Its not very wide but you have
to go around it you can't go through it.
7(3)
Occurs when the density of a
species physically prevents
access to mustering vehicles.
Transcript numbers are indicated by the first number following the quote.
Page number within the transcript is indicated by the number in brackets
4.2.2 Identification of Plant Specimens by Graziers
Of the 225 species collected and identified in the field, 43 became
unusable because of mould due to continuous high humidity during
field work. Of the 181 plant specimens presented to graziers’ 144
overall were recognised (80%) (See Figure 4.5). Focussing on the
recognised species, 125 were seen as beneficial (69%) and 47
were considered to cause problems (26%). Included in these
figures are 35 plants that were seen to have both benefits and
problems (19%). In addition there were 14 species that were
recognised but were not considered to be either a problem or a
benefit (8%).
43

Number of Presented Plants Identified as Benefits or Problems
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Total Presented
Unidentified Plants
Identified Plants
Beneficial Plants
Problem Plants
Plants Either Problem or Beneficial
Plants Neither Problem or Beneficial
Categoriesof
Identification
Number of Plants
Figure 4.5: Number of presented plants identified as benefits or problems
Figure 4.6 indicates the consensus between the three participating
graziers’ regarding the identification and categorisation of species:
64% of the species were identified by two or more graziers while
75% of the species were considered beneficial by two or more
graziers. Among the plant categories, problem plants, plants that
were either a problem or beneficial and plants that were neither a
problem or a benefit, show the lowest level of consensus with less
than 30% of the plants receiving two or more responses.
Percent of Beneficial and Problem Plants Showing Consensus of
Responses
0 10 20 30 40 50
Identified Plants
Beneficial Plants
Problem Plants
Plants Either Problem or Beneficial
Plants Neither Problem or Beneficial
CategoriesofIdentifiedPlants
%of the total number of plants in each category
1 response
2 Responses
3 Responses
Figure 4.6: Degree of consensus between graziers across categories of identified
plants.
Both the beneficial category and the problem category were sub-
divided further as shown in Figures 4.7 and 4.8. These divisions
44

were characterised and defined using the themes from the
transcripts as described in section 4.2.1.
The beneficial sub-divisions from the data sheet are summarised
from 9 divisions to 6 divisions by combining “fauna”, “flowers” and
“good to see” into “aesthetic” and by combining “fence posts” with
“millable timber”. 95% of beneficial plants were seen to be fodder
plants. Soil binding benefits were provided by 45% of the
beneficial plants. “Aesthetic”, “shelter” and “fence posts and
timber” were gained from 2, 3 and 4% of the beneficial plants
respectively.
Similarly the problem divisions were summarised from 10 down to
6 with the divisions of “prickles in clothing” and “preg. testing
prickles” combined into a “prickles” division (39%); “choking” and
“mustering” combined into the “grows very dense” division (39%)
and “nutrients away” and “kills trees” combined with “indicates
degradation” (13%). The “unpalatable”, “wool contaminant” and
“poisonous” divisions made up 48%, 26% and 4% of the problem
plants respectively.
45

Beneficial plants by category as a % of total
beneficial plants (n=125)
0 20 40 60 80 100
Feed
Shelter
Soil binding
Soil nutrients
Fence posts & Timber
AestheticBeneficialCategories
%
Figure 4.7: Categorisation of beneficial plants by graziers. Note that these
categories are not mutually exclusive i.e. a species may be counted under more
than one category.
Problem plants by category as a percent of the total
number of problem plants (n=47)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Poisonous
Wool contaminant
Unpalatable
Prickles
Grows Very Dense
Indicates degradation
Categories
%
Figure 4.8: Categorisation of problem plants by graziers. Note that these
categories are not mutually exclusive i.e. a species may be counted in more than
one category.
46

4.2.3 Scores of Beneficial and Problematic Plants Across Growth
Forms
Beneficial and problem plants can be divided across plant growth
form to give an indication of which habitat strata are seen to
contribute the most to problems or benefits.
Figure 4.9 divides the grazier identified plants into five growth
forms. It is interesting to note that there were no trees or parasitic
plants (mistletoe) unidentified, and that the Herb/Forb group has
the highest proportion of unidentified species (73%). It is clear that
a higher proportion of the grasses (42%) and herb/forb (43%)
groups are considered to contribute benefits than the trees (7%),
shrubs (6%) or parasites (2%), and that grasses and herb/forbs
also contribute substantially to the problem categories (26% and
45% respectively).
Percent of Beneficial and Problem Plants divided into
Growth Forms
0 20 40 60 80 100
Beneficial Plants
Problem Plants
Plant sEither Problem or Beneficial
PlantsNeither Problemor Beneficial
Un-identif ied Plants
Identified
Categories
% of total Number of Plants in Each Category
Tree n=7
Shrub n=8
Parasites n=2
Herb/Forb n= 52
Grass n=32
Figure 4.9: Categories of plants identified by graziers across plant growth forms.
Figure 4.10 shows species ranking for beneficial and problem
scores in each growth form. These relationships show up with
more clarity in Figure 4.11 where the species that are considered
to contribute both benefits and problem have been excluded. This
figure shows that trees and grasses are overall considered to be of
more benefit than a problem, and the shrubs and herb/forb group
are considered to contribute more to problems than to benefits.
This result is supported in the thematic analysis of transcripts
47

where people refer to retaining large trees and clearing of shrubby
undergrowth (referred to as rubbish or woody weeds).
Beneficial and Problem Scores across Plant
Growth Forms Including Plants that are both
Beneficial and Problematic
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Grass
Herb/Forb
Shrub
Mistletoe
Tree
GrowthForm
Score/Species
Problem Score/Species
Beneficial
Score/Species
Figure 4.10: Graziers scores for problem and beneficial plant species divided
across plant growth forms.
Beneficial and Problem Scores Across Plant Growth
Forms Excluding Plants that are Considered to be Both
Beneificial and Problematic
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Grass
Herb/Forb
Shrub
Mistletoe
Tree
GrowthForms
Score/Species
Problem Score/Species
Beneficial Score/Species
Figure 4.11: Graziers scores for problem and beneficial plant species divided
across plant growth forms and excluding plants that were scored for both
problems and benefits.
4.2.4 Beneficial and Problem Species Across Vegetation Types
It was difficult to assign plant species to habitat types from the
plant presentation data because there was relatively low consensus
between species seen to exist in a vegetation type and species
actually found in that vegetation type during the vegetation
surveys. Figure 4.12 shows the number of species in each
vegetation type from the plant presentation data and the
48

vegetation surveys and also the number of species common to
them both.
The number of Species per Vegetation Type based on Perception Data and
Vegetation Survey Data
0 20 40 60 80 100
Spinifex
Gidyea/Sw amp
Hard Mulga
Soft Mulga
River Frontage
Mitchell Grass Plains
Pine
VegetationTypes
Number of Species
In Common
Veg. Survey
Perception
Figure 4.12: The number of beneficial species per vegetation type based on
perception data and vegetation survey data.
The vegetation types can be compared on the basis of number of
beneficial and problem species in each. Figure 4.12 shows that
Mitchell grass plains and Soft mulga country are perceived to
contain the highest number of beneficial plants. The vegetation
surveys showed that Mitchell grass and river frontage vegetation
types contained the highest number of beneficial plants. Because of
the low number of problem plants it was not considered worthwhile
to graph them across vegetation types however the raw data is
presented in Appendix F.
4.2.5 Additional Results
In addition to the results presented here there is further material
presented as digital appendices. Appendix G contains photographs
of each vegetation survey site and Appendix H contains the full-
analysed transcripts. Much of the information provided by graziers
during the interviews was not strictly relevant to plant knowledge
49

but as it may be of interest to other researchers it is included in
this appendix. These appendices are provided on a digital medium
due to the excessive length of the transcripts (between 10 and 20
pages for each of 8 transcripts) and the ease of accessing and
copying photos on CD.
50

Chapter 5 Discussion and Conclusions
5.1 Discussion of results and Research Questions Arising
This research has implemented a previously untrialed suite of
methods with this cultural group in Australia. The methods used
are given in far more detail than many other studies have provided
(Heywood et al. 2000; Lawrence et al. 1994; Carmen et al. 1998).
The relatively small sample sizes reflect these important issues:
1) The recommendation of various sources to sacrifice
breadth for depth (Herbert 2000; de Lane 1997)
2) The distances covered and sparse distribution of the
human population in the study area.
3) The sheer volume of information collected and the time
required to process raw data (10 –12 hrs per hour of
interview).
4) The trial nature of the research required a small sample to
indicate whether these methods represent an avenue
worth pursuing with other larger groups.
5.1.1 Discussion of Vegetation survey results
The indicator species analysis show only sites 4 & 20 shifting
between hard and soft mulga groupings and Site 15 shifting
between river frontage and mitchell grass groupings when relative
abundances (importance scores) and site history data are added to
the presence/absence data. The correspondence analysis shows a
shift of site 20 from the hard mulga to soft mulga sites. Regardless
of the analysis applied the site relationships remained unchanged
except at the lowest levels.
These results raise questions about what factor may be responsible
for the gradient along which the sites have been separated in the
51

correspondence analysis. This question may be answered through
further literature reviewing and quantitative research methods.
5.1.2 Discussion of graziers’ perceptions
The percentage of beneficial plants has been the focus of much
research with other cultures and has been used to demonstrate the
importance of diverse native vegetation to local subsistence
activities (Cunningham 2001; Cotton 1996). This has had
applications in improving local consultation in government decisions
affecting the local environments of cultural groups. It has led to
the setting up of avenues for real contributions by local people to
decision-making bodies.
The division of beneficial plants into vegetation types allows a
comparison of the number of beneficial species identified by
vegetation surveys and those identified by graziers. The major
differences between these two data sets can be explained in two
ways:
• Mis-identification of specimens by graziers due to the “out
of context” nature of the dried and mounted specimens.
The potential for this problem was highlighted in Chapter
2.
• Lack of detection of species within vegetation types during
the vegetation surveys. This is unlikely given the shape of
the species area curves (Figure 4.6 and Appendix E) but
may have occurred with ephemeral or annual species that
were missed at the time of sampling.
Overall this points to a deficiency in the methods which will be
discussed further in section 5.2 below.
In spite of this the data can serve to illustrate roughly the
perceived importance of each vegetation type to graziers with
52

mitchell grass plains and soft mulga country at the high end of the
scale and spinifex and pine country at the low end of the scale.
The pattern of recognition, perceived problems and perceived
benefits among plant growth forms (Figs. 4.11 - 4.13) indicates an
overall negative perception of the shrub and herb/forb growth
forms. However when this is compared to the transcript data the
majority of discussion centres on action against two species false
sandalwood (Eremophila mitchellii) and turkey bush (Eremophila
gilesii). False sandalwood is cleared and sometimes poisoned in
river frontage and the fringes of mitchell grass plains while turkey
bush is discouraged by allowing grass growth to choke it out and
following up with burning once the fuel load (grass) is established.
This is achieved by removing sheep, as they graze grass up to the
base of turkey bush stems whereas cattle are unable to utilise
grass until it grows clear of the turkey bush.
These two are the only species that are targeted for complete
eradication with false sandalwood pursued with more energy than
turkey bush as the country it invades is of more value (ie grows
better quality grass, carries more stock per acre) and it is easier to
justify the expense involved (Digital Appendix G).
Mulga (Acacia aneura) is also pushed or pulled (timber treatment)
during dry times however in most cases the mulga is considered a
fodder storage resource with the leaf out of reach of stock until
lowered mechanically. Timber treatment is often carried out using
relatively small dozers allowing the operator to avoid box trees
(Eucalyptus populnea) and old mulga trees. This activity is done
on a week-to-week and sometimes day-to-day, needs basis with an
awareness of a variety of benefits indicated in the transcripts
(Digital Appendix G):
• Fodder for stock
53

• Increased light to the ground and increased water
availability leading to increased palatable grass and
herb/forb growth (and presumably increased overall
habitat diversity (compare photos of site L3S3 and site
L3S8 in Digital Appendix H)
• Control of overland flow and improved water infiltration by
pulling across the slope
• Germination of mulga seedlings that remain a fodder
source within reach of stock for some time.
Further studies would be useful to quantify these benefits and the
flow on effects to soil nutrient levels and biodiversity conservation
for example.
The background for these perceptions would also be a subject
worth further investigation. For example at least 3 of the graziers
interviewed mentioned using Cunningham et al. (1981), Henry et
al. (1995) and Milson (1996) as reference tools for identifying
plants and their potential contribution to primary production
activities. In addition, holistic farming and Grazing for profit
training were undertaken or well known by some graziers (Digital
Appendix G. Further research into graziers’ sources of knowledge
would serve to:
• Provide a measure of success for grazier
information/education programs
• Provide a measure of success for the practical application
of grazier information/education programs.
• Separate out knowledge learned by experience and
knowledge gained from external sources.
5.2 Critique of methods used
Each data collection phase will be critiqued and then a
recommended integrated suite of methods will be outlined. This
new suite of methods will be based upon the lessons learned in the
54

course of this research. A comparison and summary of the
methods selected for this study and those recommended for further
studies is shown in Table 5.1. The discarded methods are on a
grey background while the black background indicates
recommended methods. The recommendation of methods is based
on the experiences of the author accumulated during this research.
5.2.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of the Interview Method
Used
Advantages of this drive method was that it allowed the interviewer
to view the characteristics of the country under discussion and
undertake a preliminary site assessment for possible use in further
sampling phases. It was also an advantage to be able to cover
issues that could not have been anticipated by the interviewer by
allowing the passing landscape to generate spontaneous
conversation between the interviewer and interviewee. This has
given a greater depth and diversity to the data collected during the
interviews.
Disadvantages of the drive method were interruptions in the flow of
the conversation due to opening of gates, negotiating difficult
terrain and changing scenery. Vehicle noise on tape was also a
problem in older farm utilities but in newer 4WD vehicles, noise
was minimal.
5.2.2 Critique of Plant collections and Vegetation Survey Methods
During the process of this research it became obvious that most
graziers had detailed maps of their properties, often with
vegetation types (in the form of regional ecosystems and acquired
from the relevant government department as part of the individual
property management planning processes), paddock boundaries,
access tracks, watering points and other infrastructure marked on
them. The use of these maps in conjunction with discussions with
55

graziers may have improved the site selection process and allowed
easier comparison of results to recognised vegetation types.
However this may require more time in the field and more
participant time – issues that will be discussed further in section
5.2.4
The importance score method was considered to be very useful in
collecting information on plant species presence and relative
abundance. The time taken at each site was acceptable and this
method is recommended for use in the vegetation types explored
by this study.
5.2.3 Plant Presentations to Graziers
During this phase of the data collection process it became obvious
that graziers use various cues, in addition to the plant itself, to
identify plant species. These include:
• Soil type (red or black)
• Species association
• Micro-topography
Removing plant parts from their surrounding environmental context
produced some obvious confusion and this is a major flaw in the
suite of methods selected. This can be seen in the low level of
species in common between vegetation surveys and plant
presentations when species are classified into vegetation types. It
is quite possible that an even greater number of plants may have
been identified had a different method of plant presentation been
employed. A potential remedy for this will be outlined in section
5.2.4.
56

Table 5.1: Methods compiled from four relevant disciplines for the potential application to the Graziers Knowledge of Plants Project.
Methodological
component
Discipline
Population ecology Participatory research Ethnobotany Ethnography
Site or sample selection Random Extreme
Homogenous
Subjective Critical case
Opportunistic
Snowball
Convenience
Data collection Direct counts Questionnaire Artefact interview Open one-on-one
interviews
Structured interviews Inventory interview
On farm recording Walk in the woods
Frequency scores Ranking Direct matrix ranking Collection &
discussion of
artefacts
Pairwise comparisons Triadic/pairwise comparison
Importance scores Pile sorting Pile sorting
Participant Mapping Participant mapping
Data Analysis TWINSPAN Thematic analysis
DCA Narrative analysis
Refs. Ali et al 2000; Abbadi & El-
Sheikh 2002; Yibarbuk et al
2001; Morrison et al 1995;
Crichton 1995; Cooney 1995
Waters-Bayer & Bayer 2000;
Lawrence et al. 1994; Quirk
2000; Clark & Coffey 2001;
Lawrence et al. 2000; Davies
1999
Berkes, Colding & Folke 2000; Turner
et al. 2000; Toledo 1992; Lykke 2000;
Huntington 2000; Nabhan 2000; Isaacs
1987; Yibarbuk et al. 2001; Rose
1997; Martin 1995 ;Tunbridge 1989;
Cunningham 2001;Hanazaki et al.
2000
Emden 1998; Roberts &
Taylor 2002; Sobel &
Bettles 2000; Herbert
2000; Cresswell 1998;
Grbich 1998; Savage
2000; de Lane 1997

5.2.4 Recommendations for Changes to Methods Used
The following recommendations are given to improve the
cohesiveness of the methodological phases and the quality of the
subsequent results. A three-day itinerary with the researcher
camping or staying at the home of each participant would be ideal
with some monetary compensation for graziers’ time and
hospitality made available if acceptable to the individual.
The first day would involve an expansion of the interview drive
phase to include an initial examination of available maps with the
grazier. It would be ideal to be able to copy the map or make an
overlay and mark on it potential sampling sites for each vegetation
type and also a route with allows access to each site chosen. This
should be followed by a drive along the marked route with general
discussion of various topics recorded along the way. Complete
circuits around these properties can take up to three hours and
there would be considerable drive time between some sites. At
each site the GPS location, and site history details can be recorded
and 1-2 photographs taken.
The second and third days (as many as required) would involve
vegetation surveys, plant collection and recording of graziers’
perceptions of individual species. This could still be done using the
500m2
nested sub-quadrat apparatus with the grazier acting as the
research partner in searching for plants within the sub-quadrats,
giving them local names and discussing their own knowledge of
each species encountered. A specimen of each species would at
the same time be collected and labelled in such a way as to link it
with the information given by the grazier. Graziers’ knowledge
could be collected through a data sheet (preferably based on
knowledge categories derived from preliminary research) or
58

through extensive taping followed by selective transcribing of
information.
The data analysis for these altered methods would be essentially
the same as those used in this study except for the analysis of
interview tapes. Complete transcription of the tapes would not be
required with only the discussion portions of the interviews
included in the narrative and thematic analysis. In addition, time
should be allocated in the project period for post field-work
literature research.
5.3 Overall Conclusions of this Research Project
The methods used in this research were able to provide data to
answer the questions posed in the introduction. The results show
that graziers are able to recognise almost 80% of plant species on
their property and hold a wide range of knowledge regarding these
species. This includes specific knowledge of plants that are useful
to graziers’ economic activities and those which cause problems in
that production system. The results also show that properties
contain a diverse range of vegetation types. Graziers manage
these in ways that are specific to the characteristics of each
vegetation type.
Further studies of this kind in different grazing communities may
confirm the findings of this study. Following the suggestion by
Herbert (2000) this would improve the ability to generalise
findings.
The final conclusion is in the form of a response and a challenge.
Two general questions were posed in the introduction. The first
was addressed by this research:
“Do graziers have knowledge of the environment they live
and work in?”
59

Post-graduate Thesis-corrected July03

Post-graduate Thesis-corrected July03

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a Post-graduate Thesis-corrected July03

Semelhante a Post-graduate Thesis-corrected July03 (20)

Post-graduate Thesis-corrected July03