Over the last 20 years in Australia the number and popularity of landscape linkage projects have increased. Arguably these landscape connectivity initiatives represent a good case for social and political transformations however, there the ability to discern whether these initiatives make a contribution to biodiversity outcomes is questioned because of a lack of monitoring reporting. This presentation proposes an accounting approach to track biodiversity outcomes using indicators of regenerative capacity, vegetation structure and species composition. This requires ecologists to engage land managers as equal partners to collect on-ground observations and/measurements

1. Relinking landscapes - assessing
ecological transformations using VAST-2
Richard Thackway
Integrating Biodiversity Outcomes with Streamlined Planning
Balancing environmental concerns with reformed approval processes
26th& 27thNovember 2013, Sydney

2. Outline
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Landscape transformation: development and connectivity
Concepts and definitions
VAST framework
Tracking change and trend
Site-based case studies
Potential to account for landscape connectivity outcomes
More information
VAST = Vegetation Assets States and Transitions

3. Land management transforms landscapes
Regulation of hydrological
regime
Generation of food and fibre
Regulation of climate /
microclimate
Generation of raw materials
Recycling of organic matter
Creating and regulating
habitats
Controlling reproduction and
dispersal
Photographs: Alex Lee

4. Process of landscape development and
reconnection
Time
Relictual
Fragmentation
<10% retained
Fragmented
10-60% retained
Variegated
60-90% retained
Intact
>90%
Native
Unmodified
Unmodified
Naturally Bare
Modified
Transformed
Modification
Non-native
Replaced – Adventive,
Destroyed
Replaced – Managed
Removed
Condition classes
defined using VAST

5. Process of relinking landscapes
• Involves learning and adapting:
–
–
–
–
Knowledge to reflect landscape function
Appropriate management interventions to management history
Collection of observations and measurements in landscape settings
Skills and capacities of the land management partnerships

6. 14 Case studies
June 2013
Showing a rapid increase in
number (and popularity) over
20 years
http://www.publish.csiro.au/
pid/6898.htm

7. Aims of linking Australia’s landscapes
• to protect the integrity and resilience of ecosystems
• to maintain and restore large-scale natural landscapes and
ecosystem processes
• to lessen the impacts of fragmentation
• to increase the connectivity of habitats to provide for
species movement and adaptation as climate changes; and
• to build community support and involvement in
conservation
http://www.publish.csiro.au/
pid/6898.htm

8. Linking Australia’s landscapes – a review
On the whole the book Linking Australia’s landscapes focuses on:
• Social process: Partnerships & members
• Participation: Through local & regional events and activities
• Coordinated actions: Plans and planning
• Financial benefits: Multipliers and agreements
• MERI: counting hectares, groups, individuals & events
• Assumed biodiversity gain: connectivity = function = biodiversity
Summary: Grossly inadequate tracking ecological outcomes

9. Starting the process of modification and
fragmentation of indigenous Australia
First contact with
explorers only 130 to
240 years ago
Derived from Cannon Based on Cannon (1987)
Readers Digest (1987)
Remapped into bioregions

10. Development and change
Pre 1750 Vegetation
Present vegetation
Source: ERIN, Department of Environment

11. ~150 years of development and change
Extent of native
vegetation 2004
Source: Thackway et al. 2010

12. Connectivity example - Gondwana Link
Source: David Freudenberger

13. Understanding & classifying modification
Photograph: Andrew Marshall
Photograph: Richard Thackway

14. Understanding & classifying modification
Photograph: Richard Thackway
Photograph: Richard Thackway

15. Understanding & classifying modification
Photograph: Richard Thackway
Photograph: Richard Thackway

16. Understanding & classifying modification
Photograph: Richard Thackway
Photograph: Richard Thackway

17. Understanding & classifying modification
Photograph: Richard Thackway
Photograph: Richard Thackway

18. Understanding & classifying modification
Photograph: Richard Thackway
Photograph: Richard Thackway

19. Conclusions (1)
• Arguably the book Linking Australia’s landscapes presents a
good case for social and political transformations
• Currently there is poor evidence, support, desire and capacity
to track ecological change and trend = biodiversity outcomes
• A consistent national system is needed
• Strong partnerships described in the book offer a real
opportunity for evaluating biodiversity /ecological outcomes

20. Towards an accounting approach
Tracking biodiversity outcomes
associated with managing
landscape connectivity initiatives

21. Environmental accounting - key issues
• How to analyse and report ecological evidence of management
practices (modification and fragmentation)?
• Which conceptual models are ecologically simple and
meaningful to a wide range of key stakeholders?
• Land holder willingness to report intended & inadvertent
outcomes
• Developing IT systems for archiving and accessing long term
ecological and land management data and information
• Cost
• Capacity
• Desire and willingness among NGOs and government partners

22. Proposed solution - compiling and scoring
effects of management practices
Document & score the effects of LMP on
Key Performance Indicators
Time
LMP = Land Management Practices

23. Condition and transformation
•
Change in a plant community (type) due to effects of land
management practices:
–
Structure
–
Composition
–
Regenerative capacity
Vegetation condition
•
Resilience = the capacity of an plant community to recover to
a reference state following a change/s in land management
•
Transformation = changes to vegetation condition over time
•
Condition, resilience and transformation are assessed relative
to fully natural a reference state

24. A spatial/temporal framework for assessing &
reporting modification - VAST
Modification caused by land management
0
I
II
Naturally
bare
Residual or
unmodified
III
Transformed
Modified
IV
V
Replaced Adventive
Replaced managed
VI
Replaced removed
Vegetation
thresholds
Condition states
Reference for
each veg type
(NVIS)
Native vegetation
cover
Transitions = trend
Non-native vegetation
cover
Diagnostic attributes of VAST states:
• Vegetation structure
• Species composition
• Regenerative capacity
Vegetation Assets States and Transitions (VAST) framework
NVIS
Thackway & Lesslie (2008) Environmental
Management, 42, 572-90

25. Spatial modification mapped using VAST
VAST 2009
/ unmodified
Native
/ replaced
Thackway & Lesslie (2008)
Environmental Management, 42, 572-90
Vegetation Assets States and Transitions (VAST) framework

26. 240 years of development and change
Modification of
Australia’s major
vegetation types
http://data.daff.gov.au/VAST/

27. Spatial modification and fragmentation, Bogan Gate, NSW (2005)
Site-based condition classes (VAST)
Landscape Alteration Levels (LAL)

28. Rationale for tracking the effects of land
management practices over time
At the land parcel level the impetus for connectivity initiatives
are driven by on-ground actions aimed at:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Modifying
Removing and replacing
Enhancing
Restoring
Maintaining
Improving
Biodiversity outcomes can be practically tracked and reported
using:
• Key Result Areas and
• Key Performance Indicators

29. VAST
classes
Tracking effects of land management
Reference
Change in vegetation
indicator or index
Anthropogenic change
Net benefit
Relaxation
Occupation
1850
1875
1900
1925
Time
1950
1975
2000
2025
Connectivity
initiative

30. Changing management practices over time
Regenerative capacity/ function
Key Result Areas (KRAs)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Soil hydrological status
Soil physical status
Soil chemical status
Soil biological status
Fire regime
Reproductive potential
Overstorey structure
Understorey structure
Overstorey composition
Understorey composition
Soil
Vegetation
Vegetation structure &
Species composition
Source: Thackway 2012

31. Key Result Areas (10)
Fire regime
Key Performance Indicators (22)
1. Area /size of fire foot prints
2. Interval between fire starts
Soil hydrology
3. Plant available water holding capacity
4. Ground water dynamics
Soil physical state
5. Effective rooting depth of the soil profile
6. Bulk density of the soil through changes to soil structure or soil removal
Soil nutrient state
7. Nutrient stress – rundown (deficiency) relative to reference soil fertility
8. Nutrient stress – excess (toxicity) relative to reference soil fertility
Soil biological state
9. Organisms responsible for maintaining soil porosity and nutrient recycling
10. Surface organic matter, soil crusts
Reproductive potential
11. Reproductive potential of overstorey structuring species
12. Reproductive potential of understorey structuring species
Overstorey structure
13. Overstorey top height (mean) of the plant community
14. Overstorey foliage projective cover (mean) of the plant community
15. Overstorey structural diversity (i.e. a diversity of age classes) of the stand
Understorey structure
16. Understorey top height (mean) of the plant community
17. Understorey ground cover (mean) of the plant community
Overstorey composition
18. Understorey structural diversity (i.e. a diversity of age classes) of the plant
19. Densities of overstorey species functional groups
20. Relative number of overstorey species (richness) of indigenous :exotic spp
Understorey composition
21. Densities of understorey species functional groups
22. Relative number of understorey species (richness) of indigenous :exotic spp
Source: Thackway 2012

32. L4
L3
3
Level 1
Vegetation
Status Scores
10
22
Condition
Components
L2
Key Result
Areas
VAST-2 hierarchy
1
Regenerative
Capacity
(55%)
Fire
Soil
(2)
Structure
(2)
Vegetation
Structure
(27%)
Reprod
potent
Overstorey
(3)
(2)
Nutrients
Biology
(2)
(2)
Species
Composition
(18%)
Understorey
(3)
Overstorey
(2)
Understorey
(2)
Hydrology
(2)
Key Performance Indicators
Source: Thackway 2012

33. General process for tracking changes
VAST-2 system
Transformation site
Reference state/sites
Step 1a
Use a checklist of 22 indicators to compile
changes in LU & LMP* and plant
community responses over time
Step 1b
Evaluate the influence of climate, soil and
landform on the historical record
Step 3a
Literature review to determine the
baseline conditions for 22 indicators
Step 2
Step 4
Document responses of 22
indicators over time
Document the reference
states for 22 indicators
Step 3b
Evaluate the influence of climate, soil
and landform for the reference site
Step 3c
Step 1c
Compile indicator data for 22
indicators for reference site
Evaluate impacts on the plant community
over time
Step 5
Score all 22 indicators for ‘transformation site’ relative to the
‘reference site’. 0 = major change; 1 = no change
Step 6
Derive weighted indices for the three components for the ‘transformation
site’ i.e. regenerative capacity (58%), vegetation structure (27%) and
species composition (18%) by adding predefined indicators
Step 7
Source: Thackway 2013
Add the indices for the three components to generate total transformation
index for the ‘transformation site’ for each year of the historical record .
Validate using Expert Knowledge
* LU Land use
LMP Land management practices

34. Understanding ecosystem dynamics and
biodiversity outcomes
• In managing ecosystems rainfall is assumed to be the main
driver of ecosystem dynamics
• Land managers must have a working knowledge of rainfall
interactions with Key Result Areas & Key performance
indicators
• Generally rudimentary understanding of these interactions
among land managers – but knowledge is improving

35. Site-based case studies

36. Case study 1
• Region:
Credo Station, Great Western Woodlands
(GWW), WA
• Reference state:
Salmon Gum woodland overstorey , saltbush &
bluebush understorey and ground layer
More info: http://www.vasttransformations.com/

37. Salmon Gum reference state
Photograph: Harry Recher

38. Source: Thackway 2013

39. Case study 2
Region:
Taroom Shire, Brigalow Belt South, Qld
Reference state:
Brigalow woodland overstorey , mixed open
shrubland understorey , grassy and forb ground
layer
More info: http://www.vasttransformations.com/

40. Brigalow woodland reference state
Photograph: Griffith University

41. VAST classes
Wanaringa, Taroom Shire, Qld
Source: http://portal.tern.org.au/

42. Tracking and reporting at a
landscape level

43. Tracking Burnt Area and Approximate Day of Burn
Key Performance Indicators 1 & 2
http://data.auscover.org.au/xwiki/bin/view/Product+pages/BurntArea+DoB+MODIS+CDU

44. Tracking Foliage Projective Cover
Key Performance Indicator 14
100
FPC
80
60
40
20
0
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
Source: Tim Danaher
2010

45. Overstorey height, cover & structural types
Key Performance Indicators 13, 14 & 15
Polygons based on Landsat FPC (persistent green) and Allos radar backscatter at 25m
Vertical structure from IceSat . Mantuan Downs, Qld
Source: Peter Scarth

46. Tracking ground cover changes
Key Performance Indicator 17
Source: Tim Danaher

47. What about info for the other indicators?
• Most info for these indicators are not currently
dynamic e.g.
– Most regenerative capacity indicators will require
models rather than remote sensing
– Most species composition indicators will require expert
elicitation modeling of site data

48. What might a report card for biodiversity
outcomes look like?

49. Landscape linkage report card
• Focus on transformation of plant communities as the
reporting unit for national and regional levels
• Use graphs of change and trend in vegetation status and
condition components i.e. regen capacity, veg structure and
species composition
• Use maps showing landscape level examples of connectivity
gains over time i.e. less modification and less fragmentation
• Use case studies of mismatches between expected vs
observed outcomes. Reasons: wildfire, drought, weeds,
feral animals
• Use examples of species-based benefits of changes and
trends in condition in linked landscapes

50. Progress toward a desired target
condition state
2008
VAST
classes
100
Unmodified/
Residual
Reference
80
Modified
60
Target
Transformed
40
Replaced Adventive
20
Baseline
Replaced managed
Replaced removed
0
1800
1825
1850
1900
1925
1950
1975
2000
2025
years
Current land management: Continuous grazing of a mixed native-exotic grassland
Proposed land management change: Time & cell-based grazing on reconstructed grassy
woodland

51. Case study: decreased modification and
decreased fragmentation
VAST classes
Modified
Transformed - A
Transformed - B
Transformed - C
Removed – managed
Removed - replaced
Example: 250 hectare ‘Talaheni’,
Murrumbateman, NSW

52. Reporting trends
Example: 250 hectare ‘Talaheni’,
Murrumbateman, NSW
VAST classes
Modified
Transformed - A
Transformed - B
Transformed - C
Removed – managed
Removed - replaced

53. Conclusions (2)
• Tracking activities and effects of land managers offers a
practical accounting tool for evaluating biodiversity outcomes
• Up-scaling to the landscape scale is increasingly feasible with
ecological modelling and time series remote sensing
• Standardised national Key Result Areas and Key Performance
Indicators have value in developing a report card
• As a tool, VAST helps in ‘Telling the story’ of biodiversity
outcomes attributable to landscape connectivity initiatives

54. More information
http://www.vasttransformations.com/
http://portal.tern.org.au/search
http://aceas-data.science.uq.edu.au/portal/
Acknowledgements
• University of Queensland, Department of Geography Planning and
Environmental Management for ongoing research support
• Many public and private land managers, land management
agencies, consultants and researchers have provided data and information