Is fencing enough? The short‐term effects of stock exclusion in remnant grassy woodlands in southern NSW

Abstract

Summary Fencing remnant native vegetation has become a widespread activity for arresting declines in biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. However, few data are available on the effectiveness of this approach. The present study investigated the short‐term effects of fencing to exclude livestock on dominant tree and shrub recruitment, plant species cover, litter and soil characteristics in remnant grassy woodlands in southern NSW. Vegetation and soil surveys were undertaken at 47 sites fenced by Greening Australia (NSW) for 2–4 years. Fenced and unfenced areas at each site were compared using split‐plot sampling. Woodlands sampled were dominated by Yellow Box/Blakely’s Red Gum (Eucalyptus melliodora/Eucalyptus blakelyi), Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa) or White Cypress‐pine (Callitris glaucophylla). Significantly higher numbers of tree recruits were found in the fenced sites, with tree recruitment found in 59% of fenced sites compared with 13% of unfenced sites. Fenced sites also had significantly greater cover of native perennial grasses, less cover of exotic annual species and less soil surface compaction. However, outcomes varied among woodland ecosystems and individual sites. Where tree recruitment occurred, there was significantly more tree recruitment where there was greater perennial grass cover and less regeneration where exotic annual grass cover or overstorey crown cover was dense. Few shrubs recruited in fenced or unfenced areas, reflecting the lack of mature shrubs in most sites. Fencing is an important first step for conserving threatened grassy woodlands, but more active management may be needed to enhance woodland recovery, particularly in sites where few or no recruits were found. Key words bush regeneration, fencing, grazing exclusion, rehabilitation, woodland restoration.

Is landscape context important for riparian conservation? Birds in grassy woodland

“…The benefits of stock exclusion for plant species richness, tree and shrub recruitment and grassland composition vary (Scougall et al, 1993, Petit et al, 1995, Prober and Thiele, 1995and Spooner et al, 2002 and many factors including landscape context are likely to play a role in its success. Dramatic recoveries of vegetation and breeding birds have been observed in the south-western United States after four years of stock exclusion (Krueper et al, 2003), however, in Australia few studies document the impact of stock exclusion from riparian habitats on the bird assemblage.…”

The vital role of environmental NGOs: Trusted brokers in complex markets

“…fencing incentive schemes) rather than just planting trees was rigorously promoted to the Australian Government during the 1990s by local Landcare groups and Greening Australia, who had the capacity to lobby government in Canberra. Only later did research organisations test the effectiveness of these fencing programs to protect and enhance remnants of native vegetation (Spooner et al 2002;Briggs et al 2008). …”

Response of the annual biomass production of a typical steppe plant community to precipitation fluctuations

“…The effect of livestock exclusion on grasslands has been studied with a focus on plant diversity, community structure and productivity (Gibson et al 2000;Wu et al 2009;Deng et al 2014). Livestock exclusion has major effects on ecosystem processes, which vary in different grasslands (Pettit et al 1995;Reeves 2000), and consequently the results are difficult to predict (Spooner et al 2002).…”

“…However, fencing and the exclusion of domestic livestock is the most common management tool used for restoring vegetation productivity in degraded grassland throughout the world (Spooner et al 2002;Liu et al 2007). Fencing, as a method of restoring rangelands, has been implemented in many areas in China, including desert steppe (Li et al 2008) and semiarid steppe (Bai et al 2004;Deng et al 2014).…”