Adaptation to climate change in restoration practices and management strategies across the Wet Tropics of Far North Queensland Jacqueline Delie April 2010 The School for Field Studies Centre for Rainforest Studies PO Box 141,Yungaburra, Qld 4884, Australia Franklin University of Switzerland Advisor: Rohan Wilson; Research Assistant: Monica Pakstas Research Partners: Jordan Reed, Kevin Stanskey, Alex Melman, Annie Gilmore, Sherry Martin, Julia Jackson, Katherine Cai, Kathleen Kasper
Transcript
Adaptation to climate change in restoration practices and management strategies across the Wet Tropics of Far North Queensland
Jacqueline DelieApril 2010
The School for Field StudiesCentre for Rainforest Studies
PO Box 141,Yungaburra, Qld 4884, Australia
Franklin University of Switzerland
Advisor: Rohan Wilson; Research Assistant: Monica Pakstas
Research Partners: Jordan Reed, Kevin Stanskey, Alex Melman, Annie Gilmore, Sherry Martin, Julia Jackson, Katherine Cai, Kathleen Kasper
Abstract
Global warming has become more definitive both in scope and credibility, and the potential changes in climate are likely to have important regional consequences for biota and ecosystems. Ecological restoration, including revegetation and rehabilitation of degraded land, is seen amongst restorationists and practitioners as one of the most important responses to mitigate or adapt to climate change. This study was designed to assess local-scale decision-making tools and current restoration methodologies in the tablelands, and if community restoration groups include planning for change (i.e. climate change). Research was done through semi-structured interviews with local governmental or non-governmental officials, as well as private institutions and/or individuals that plan, finance, and coordinate ecological restoration projects. For quantified data a community survey was conducted in Atherton and Malanda. To best illustrate how small scale restoration practices and theories build the resilience of an ecosystem, the study further analyzes the Peterson Creek Revegetation Project in far North Queensland.
Overall, the results show that there are practitioners and researchers who advocate the potential benefits of incorporating climate change scenarios into planning and implementation. However, small scale restoration groups are not coordinating plans to accommodate the effects of climate change. Several obstacles including a lack of baseline data, funding and the scientific uncertainty in forecasting with precision on the local effects of climate change, are delaying landholders from investing and practitioners from obtaining a proactive approach to address the probable consequences of climate change. Communities want short-term results, such as biodiversity increase and water quality, and are quick to condemn a long-term plan. The study suggest that even in the face of inevitable environmental change and ecological novelty, restoration practices can build the resilience of an ecosystem through alternative restoration techniques (such as a trait based approach). There needs to be consideration and planning for climate change in restoration practices in the Wet Tropics of far North Queensland.
By the 1980s, growing awareness of the effects of tropical rainforest degradation and
subsequent impacts on biodiversity from fragmented remnants stimulated conservation
efforts of degraded lands in the Wet Tropics of Australia (Emtage 2008). The Wet
Tropics of Queensland came under World Heritage1 status in 1989 with the independent
organization the Wet Tropics Management Authority (WTMA 2009). Managed by the
Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (QPWS), community boards, commonwealth
government agencies or jointly managed with Aboriginal Traditional Owners, the
WTMA fosters community support for involvement in decision-making and develops
strategic direction in management planning of the World Heritage region (WTWHA
2009).
Outside of the reserve system clearing of native vegetation in Australia has been
undertaken for the purpose of expanding agriculture. While broad-scale clearing has been
reduced in the state following the passing of the Queensland Vegetation Management Act
1999, the development of housing and associated infrastructure has the potential to
further degrade remnant vegetation areas (VMA 2010). The response from communities
and government agencies to the degradation of natural vegetation led to an integrated
Natural Resource Management (NRM) body in the wet tropics. Across Australia the
boards of regional NRM bodies are the Australian government and state government’s
primary tool to involve the community in the decision-making process about natural
resources (FNQ NRM Ltd. & rainforest CRC 2008). They are ideally placed to meld top
down strategy with bottom up approach to evaluate the wider social, economic and
environmental impacts on the conditions of natural resources. Use and management of
1 World Heritage is the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) that seek to encourage the preservation and conservation of cultural and natural heritage around the world that are considered to be of outstanding value to humanity. The Wet tropics WH protect 9,000 sq km of rainforest (WH 2010).
April 2010, Delie 3
the natural resource assets follow the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development
(ESD)2 recognizing all levels of practitioners and restorationists (FNQ NRM Ltd. &
rainforest CRC 2008). With climate as the driver for almost every natural resource
management issue being tackled by regional NRM bodies (vegetation, water quality,
biodiversity, etc.) adaptation strategies to climate variability should be considered. Many
climate change responses are ‘no regrets’3 measures and various programs such as
Managing Climate Variability (MCV), Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO) and Center
for Australian Weather and Climate Research (CSIRO) are committed to understanding
key drivers of climate change in Australia and provide reliable climate data for the public.
In 2008, the Australian Government Land and Coasts (AGLC) responded
decisively to climate change and water quality issues through the Caring for our Country
business plan (AGLC 2010). Under a streamlined system the government will fund local
communities, covering the Natural Heritage Trust4 and the National Landcare
Environmental Stewardship5. In the first five years Caring for our Country intends to
provide $2 billion in funding to regional NRM bodies, Landcare groups, land managers,
Indigenous groups and communities (AGLC 2010). The objectives of the plan are to
invest in single and multi-year projects for environmental protection, natural resource
management and sustainable agriculture across Australia.
The Peterson Creek Revegetation Project in far North Queensland is a good
example of a non-government organization that is undergoing restoration of a degraded
2 National Strategy for Ecological Sustainable Development is a guiding principle for the development of a sustainable social system. It is the idea of conserving and enhancing the community’s resources so that ecological processes are maintained for future generations (FNQ NRM Ltd. & rainforest CRC 2008). 3 No regrets options by definition reduce Green House Gas emissions because they generate direct or indirect benefits that are large enough to offset the cost of implementing a good or service (IPCC 2007). 4 National Heritage Trust of Australia is a non-governmental organization that works at the federal level to conserve national and Indigenous heritage sites across Australia and develop policies regarding state territory issues (ANT 2008). 5 National Landcare Environmental Stewardship will purchase environmental services from land owners that will contribute to the long-term rehabilitation or improvement of a natural resource. For example purchasing land to re-plant the edge of a creek and this can assist in water quality (AGLC 2010).
April 2010, Delie 4
farmland. In 1998, the Peterson Creek project became a joint initiative between
landholders, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, TREAT (Trees for the Evelyn and
Atherton Tablelands) members, and Landcare groups to plant native vegetation along
Peterson Creek. TREAT controls the revegetation of upper Peterson Creek connecting
Lake Eacham corridor with the Curtain Fig State Forest and the community landcare
group maintains the lower river catchment. Through active management and local
planning over 61,000 trees of native riparian vegetation have been planted with
approximately 1.5 to 2 hectares of land planted yearly (TREAT 2010). This study
discusses the revegetation site to asses whether restoration guidelines are applicable in
practice and if they include planning for change (i.e. climate change).
The global consensus in the scientific community is that climate change is a real
threat that will be characterized by shifts in global weather patterns and climate regimes
(Department of Climate Change 2008). At large scales, global climate models have
shown some consistency in predicting changes such as:
Increase in frequency of extreme events, such as powerful cyclones
Increase mean temperatures
Increase water demand and irrigation requirements
Sea level rise and increased storm surge levels
Increase extinction rate
Changes to rainforest habitats, tree species and vegetation quality
At a biogeographic scale, the rainforests of North-East Queensland are a complex
mosaic of environments supporting many forest types as described by a structural
environmental typology (Tracey & Webb 1975; Webb 1978). Different classes of
rainforest and landscapes vary in their environmental relationships, with some more
sensitive to temperature variation. A study conducted by Hilbert et. al. (2001) modeled
April 2010, Delie 5
the sensitivity for 15 structural forest types in Queensland in 10 climate scenarios that
include warming up to 1ºC and altered precipitation from -10% to 20%. Estimates of the
stress to present forests with relatively minor climate change indicated that in the short
term, forest ecosystem function is likely to be altered and plant demographic processes
changed. In the long term, climate changes will directly affect the spatial distribution of
the wet tropics environmental mosaic and the suitability of local environments to
particular forest types. This has been linked with the decline in populations of endemic
vertebrate species and altered rainfall patterns. The intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC 2007) attributed most of the warming observed over the last 50 years to
human activities. Both maximum and minimum temperatures have increased across
Queensland since 1957 by 1.5ºC and are expected to increase by a further 0.3 to 5.2ºC by
2070 in the wet tropic region. Regional scale modeling is advancing, yet less certainty
exists for changes in seasonality and knowledge of how, where and when the climate of
the humid tropics will change is general (Hilbert et. al. 2001; Suppiah et. al. 2007). The
direction and extent of change on a regional basis poses significant challenges for
restoration and ecosystem management. Reducing the impacts of climate change relies on
building the resilience6 of an ecosystem through the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions, increases in carbon sinks and the development of clear adaptation strategies
for each region (FNQ NRM Ltd. 2008).
Ecosystems processes are dynamic with multiple characteristics such as plant
species, biodiversity, ecosystem function, resistance and resilience all of which can be
altered by changing abiotic and biotic conditions (Meinke & Stone 2005; Young 2007).
Direct (for example, land conversion) and indirect (for example, long-range
transportation of pollutants) human activities have played a significant role in alternating
6 Resilience refers to the ability of a system to withstand or recover following a disturbance. Resilience in social systems has the added capacity of humans to anticipate and plan for the future (Commonwealth of Australia 2010).
April 2010, Delie 6
the composition and/or function of ecosystems (Hobbs et. al. 2006; Hobbs et. al 2009).
Communities are now confronted with the almost inevitable consequence of changing
species distributions and environmental conditions through altered disturbance regimes,
the introduction of non-native species and variability of climate patterns. These new
systems have been described as ‘novel’ ecosystems, which are composed of new
combinations and relative abundances of species with the potential for changes in
functional traits under new abiotic conditions (Hobbs et. al. 2006; Seastedt et. al. 2008).
The term novel ecosystems was first used by Chapin & Starfield (1997) to refer to the
response of ecosystems to current and future climatic events, but has recently been
discussed in terms of restoration and management (Seastedt et. al 2008; Hobbs et. al.
2009; Hobbs et. al. 2006). In these terms it questions the range of situations in which
novel ecosystems can develop (for example, extensive pastroalism) and the services
either provided by or lost from particular types of ecosystems.
Ecological restoration of degraded agricultural land is seen as one of the most
important responses to mitigate or adapt to climate change (Campbell 2008; Watson & et.
al. 2001; Harris et. al. 2006). Ecological concepts emphasize ideas such as “ecosystem
health” and “ecosystem integrity” when articulating restoration goals and justifying
objectives, which coincide with theoretical discussion on the “right” practices to
ecological restoration. The most widely accepted definition of ecological restoration is:
The process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been
Located at 720 m asl the region receives an average rainfall of 2000 mm annually and
experiences warm summers and cool winters (max warmest month Dec = 16 29°C, min
coolest month July = 10°C; Atherton Shire Council, BOM 2009).
Figure 1: Ariel view of Peterson Creek Corridor (17°17'31.53"S 145°) in far north Queensland (TREAT 2010). Curtain Fig National Park (17° 17′ 9″ S, 145° 34′ 25″ E) to the left and Lake Eacham section of Crater Lake National Park (17° 17′ 7.8″ S, 145° 37′ 30″ E) to the right.
April 2010, Delie 11
Figure 2 (Tucker, 2000): Scaled map of the habitat linkages in the Atherton Tableland region. Location of Peterson Creek Corridor between Curtain Fig State Forest and Lake Eacham National Park.
Results
Interview Results
The five participants (restoration practitioners, management groups, local participants,
community members) who were interviewed responded to several questions in the same
manner. Table 1 illustrates the common themes from questions asked with all
interviewees agreeing, disagreeing or creating a mixed response. Overall, the participants
acknowledged that “the practice is difficult to keep up with the science and what local-
community groups can do is plant more trees and create larger remnants” (anonymous
interviewee three, 2010). Restoration projects are not acclimatizing new techniques to
mitigate predicated climate changes because of the uncertainty associated with where,
how and when local climate predictions will affect the area. Regional groups are aware of
April 2010, Delie 12
Peterson Creek Corridor
climate change, but the current scale of reforestation is insignificant in comparison to a
large-scale project that could increase the resilience of a site to abiotic disturbances (i.e.
climate change) in the wet tropics. This would require a much larger investment and
strategic restoration designs (anonymous interviewee one 2010). There is a high level of
collaboration between community groups and landholders to execute small projects
throughout the tablelands region, but without sufficient funding there can be no
subsequent monitoring or maintenance. The consensus is to apply on-going maintenance
to contain significant growth and canopy closure of mabi forest within 3-4 years of seed
germination. There are mixed responses with some restorationists in disagreement on
restoration aims. Different interests and goals included those interested in active
regeneration, allocating money for research, building viable corridors and securing
fragmented forest.
Interview Question Response to question
What are the general steps to restoring a degraded landscape?
5 agree
1. Landholders agreement and collected funding2. Fencing in the area to be restored 3. Site preparation; clearing of grass or weeds, fertilizing soil 4. Plant seedlings; work with volunteers 5. Maintenance; clearing of invasive species or weeds
What is a restoration project’s anticipated timeline?5 agree
Agree: Within 3-4 years there can be significant growth and canopy closure of mabi forest, but does require a long-term maintenance plan. Without a maintenance plan the revegetated site can “fail” to re-establish its former ecosystem processes and functions.
Sample responses: “A three year commitment to maintenance after last planting site and then our group goes back every five years to the revegetation site.”
April 2010, Delie 13
What are the key restoration goals?
4 agree
1 disagree
Agree: Maintenance is the key to successful restoration. Controlling weed invasion allows native seeds to spread and for canopy closure to accelerate. Research and money would be the second most important goal. Need to have sufficient funds to do maintenance work. Disagree: Connectivity and securing remnants along creek lines is the most important. If you have viable corridors then species can migrate and disperse seeds.
Sample responses:“Viable corridors and keeping an eye on our re-vegetated sites, so maintenance. Also, see how far you can connect remnant patches. If you help a couple landholders you end up with a corridor.”
What groups are most concerned with which element of the restoration process?
5 agree
Agree: Funding from the government and cooperation from the farmer are the two most important groups to confront on restoration. Have to get the landholders to agree to plant on their land and then have to find the volunteers to help plant.
Sample responses: “Landholders are the most difficult to get negotiations with, but once you have their participation the project is in action.”
Is a novel ecosystem a suitable case for restoration or worthwhile target of restoration?
2 agree
3 mix response
Agree: A novel ecosystem provides historic reference and is a long-term goal that can be achieved by planting more trees. To one individual, the term ‘novel’ ecosystem was new, but agrees to restore a land prior to a state with little to no invasive species. Two participants replied that it depends on what the goal is, restoring to a rehabilitation level or restoring ecological functions?
Sample responses: “Get back to the way it was by planting trees and then nature can work itself out.” “We are planting what we think grew there
April 2010, Delie 14
originally and restoration is based on goals so are goal is to connect remnants.”
What specific types of vegetation make a site resilient to an abiotic disturbance?
5 agree
3 side opinion
Agree: Planting a mix of mabi forest to create a diverse composition of trees will restore low level and high level forest. Plant the seeds that are prevalent around the restoration site.
Side opinion: Additionally restoration sites should seed source over various distances and plant a mixture of trees with different functional traits. Nature can sort itself out and evolve to withstand abiotic disturbances in the area. However, an emerging field in restoration is applying a trait-based approach to maximize the genetic species and functional trait diversity of flora species.
Sample responses: “The answer is no always more trees, but the types of trees that suit the already established rainforest. If we seed source over a distance then nature can sort the rest out.” “This is a context dependent question that is dependent on the type of disturbance. But, plant species that have characteristics that are more resilient to abiotic disturbances such as high wood density, low SLA, slow growth rate.”
Are methodologies of restoration adapting to predicted climate change models?
5 agree
Agree: No. Climate change is not clearly defined in the wet tropics and there is little research for its direct effects on revegetated sites. Groups are aware of climate change, but short term options need to be taken into consideration with a limited budget plan such as connecting corridors. In the long-term planting designs should include climate change and allocate funding towards a large-scale reforestation plan.
Sample Responses: “Climate change is not clearly defined and we should be looking to restore a site to a stable state. We have human settlement
April 2010, Delie 15
here now and we have agriculture profits that we can not disregard.” “The community organization has limited resources and what we can do as a local group is plant more trees. Only recently are there research projects to look at re-vegetation techniques, but there is no coordinated approach between practitioners.” “No, research is starting to investigate with the improved technology, but the time and money is an issue.”“No, we are sticking to the book and we are small project that is encouraging other to do the same. We are planting.”
Is climate change the most significant aspect to restoration? YES or NO
4 No
1 Yes/ No
No:Edge effect and fragmentation need to be dealt with now. The practice is difficult to keep up with the science and all we can do for now is plant more trees to connect corridors and create more habitat. Climate change is vague and unpredictable.
Yes/ No: Yes in the big picture scenario we need to adapt techniques to approach climate change now. Short-term we need to work at a landscape scale and connectivity is essential. Planting as many trees as possible
Sample responses: “No, we should be worried about our own locale economy because there are a lot of assumptions in the climate models.”
How can we use the adaptability and behaviors of human economies to assure they meet their own welfare needs as well as the needs for preservation of a healthy ecosystem?
5 agree
Agree:Have to first ask what interests of the community are. Community values, biodiversity and conservation of our wet tropics are essential issues, but again enough funding can be difficult. Without skills, technology or the money we can not restore a degraded landscape.
Sample responses: “We have to ask the landholders; are you interested? However, there is an economic restraint on investing land into a long-term
April 2010, Delie 16
climate mitigation project because a landholder wants to gain profit”
What types of public participation efforts and activities do you think are needed for this planning process and why?
4 agree
1 disagree
Agree: Community involvement is critical for a successful restoration project and the farmers consent to restore an area of his land.
Disagree: Community support is vital for a bottom-up approach, but more importantly restoration groups need money from government. As well, communication between all levels of administration.
Sample responses: “You need a bottom-up approach for local involvement and management, but can only happen on private and public lands. Then restorationists need a top-down approach for the advantage of large scale strategic plans, but takes time and there are multiple processes. Ideally both are needed in restoration.”
Table 1: Interview questions (n = 9) and the themed response generated from the interviews. All 5 participants agreed with each other, disagreed or answered in a mix response to current rainforest restoration methodologies in the tablelands region.
Workshop Results
Funding bodies and revegetation practitioners (such as NRM, CSIRO, Terrain, TREAT,
Cairns Regional Council, Wildlife Parks and Services) identified key restoration
components and/or knowledge that are missing in rainforest restoration projects. Table 2
presents a list of recognized “gaps” in current rainforest restoration projects. There is a
consensus that restoration falls into three cohesive roles; practitioners, managers and
researchers, but there is a need for collaboration in addressing the questions presented
today. It is understood that restoration options can recover to a ‘novel’ state, be designed
for future scenarios or utilized for their specific service (such as a timber plantation or
forestry plot to sequester carbon). However other complexities such as social values and
predicted climate regimes, should be accounted for in practice and implemented in a
April 2010, Delie 17
restoration plan that outlines both short-term and long-term goals. Overall the cost, on-
going maintenance and baseline data are the limiting factors to rainforest restoration.
Progressive monitoring needs to be a priority in restoration projects to show whether
revegetated sites are progressing towards target conditions, in terms of composition,
canopy closure, biodiversity or migration of fauna and flora species.
Main “gap” of knowledge Components within the main “gap”
Cost effectiveness
Need to take on an entrepreneurship approach to restoration and weigh the cost and benefits to restoring a degraded landscape. Funding is an issue, but there is a need to allocate money towards research, long-term maintenance and cheaper yet effective methods in restoration. As well, participating in carbon markets, possibly generating a profit from the revegetated site (for example, forestry plot).
Regrowth
Do not only want natural regrowth there needs to be maintenance funding built into restoration plans. This can accelerate canopy closer and exclude invasive weeds. Natural regrowth is a passive mechanism, which can be assisted with planting trees based on plant functional traits. Planting a mix of tree species can account for various disturbance regimes (fires, droughts, cyclones, etc.).
Monitoring
Monitoring will show whether revegetated sites are progressing towards target conditions in terms of habitat structure or biodiversity. There needs to be an establishment of baseline data to record on-ground work and maintenance activities. Not enough farmers use the monitoring “toolkit” in observing forest structure, but an ongoing monitoring system can document what works and does not work. Also, monitoring begins to execute plant design as a strategic restoration technique.
Need an efficient and effective system to store knowledge and collected data. There
April 2010, Delie 18
Instructural information
are “diaries” of information that are not accessible or organized into a system. Through websites, blogs, updated newsletters or any other communication means that keeps the public informed and information between all participants of the community. This needs to be a system that can be facilitated over an extended period of time.
Low-scale resilience
Low-scale includes planting pioneer species because of their ability to germinate quickly, which then establishes ground vegetation and canopy closer. Secondary species will follow and grow to a stable forest structure that requires little to no maintenance. Need to work on a scale that is adaptive to land use with a long-term aim for resilience against predicted climate variability. Also, important to understand the human capacity of an area for what can be fixed, how and where.
Water Quality
Water quality is one of the many services gained in restoring a degraded riparian forest.
Planting along creek lines creates a natural filtration and can be beneficial to a community.
Need research and quantified data that justifies to a farmer that revegetation is a good thing.
Table 2: List of knowledge “gaps” created by participants in the Building Restoration Knowledge workshop held at the Cairns Regional Council Chambers. The gaps conceptualize key areas in restoration that are important components to effectively and efficiently restore a degraded rainforest to a desired state (closed canopy, forestry plot or a ‘historic’ condition).
Survey Results
A total of 79 surveys were conducted and when asked to select what issue is the most
important to them from a list of environmental properties (question 2 in the survey;
Appendix B) water quality was the most important with 28 respondents. Climate change
(21) followed, then natural resources (16), all the above (9), with soil quality and none of
the above the same (2) (Figure 1).
April 2010, Delie 19
21
28
16
9
22
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Environmental properties
Num
ber o
f peo
ple
Climate Change
Water Quality
NaturalResourcesSoil Quality
None of theabove
All the above
Figure 1: Importance of environmental properties. People personally found water quality as the most important environmental property.
People’s personal ranking on their knowledge of climate change shows no
significant difference between those who have participated or worked with local
management or restoration organizations (yes) and the people who replied they have not
(no) (Figure 2; p < .1322542). Figure 2 shows the average ranking was 3 on a scale; 1 =
never heard of climate change, 5 = very knowledgeable. Although there is no significant
difference, there is a small difference in mean values (yes = 3.42; no = 3.18) of how
people ranked their knowledge on global climate change.
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
1
Ave
rage
rank
ing
Yes No
Figure 2: People’s personal ranking on knowledge of global climate change indicates no significant difference between the two averages of those who have participated or worked with local management or restoration organizations (yes) and the people who replied they have not (no) (Figure 2; p < .1322542).
April 2010, Delie 20
When asked if global climate change was the most significant aspect to
restoration, on average there was a significant difference in groups of people who have
worked with local management and restoration organizations and the people who have
not (Figure 3; p < .00666264). Figure 3 shows the people who have worked with a local
management or restoration groups marked climate change as the most important attribute
to restoring a degraded land. People that do no think climate change is the most important
to restoration state their reasoning or list other environmental issues (such as biodiversity)
that should be addressed (as shown in table 3).
00.20.40.60.81
1.21.41.61.8
1
Ave
rage
Yes No
Figure 3: In response to global climate change as the most significant aspect to restoration, on average there was a significant difference in groups of people who have worked with local management and restoration organizations and the people who have not (Figure 3; p < .00666264).
“To maintain biodiversity, save endangered species, link remnant areas and maintain genetic health” “Don’t believe climate change is happening the way they tell us it is happening” “Have to convince me that climate change is going to affect us now, I can not see it destroying the rainforest anytime soon.” “Currently, institutional decision makers are not sure how, when, and where climate change-related impacts might emerge in the region.”“Put all the trees back and nature will do the rest” “Human-development is short-term, climate change is long-term project” “Humans have to become sustainable”
Table 3: Examples of indicative statements to what people think is the most significant aspect to restoration instead of climate change (see Appendix B; table A for complete list of responses).
April 2010, Delie 21
People’s personal ranking on knowledge of global climate change indicates no
significant difference between the average response of people who said yes to global
climate change as the most significant aspect to restoration and people who said no
(Figure 4; p < .10682359). There is a small difference in the mean values (yes = 2.927;
no = 3.37) on how people rank their knowledge on climate change between the two
respondent groups.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
1
Ave
rage
rank
ing
Yes No
Figure 4: People’s personal ranking on knowledge of global climate change indicates no significant difference between the two averages of people who responded global climate change is the most significant aspect to restoration (yes) and those who said no (Figure 4; p < .10682359).
Case Study
As an on-ground volunteer organization, the Peterson Creek Revegetation Project has
received continuing support from the community and funding agencies. The project
received $600,000 in funding from 1998 to 2008 (TREAT 2010). With the funds 15 ha
($40,000 per ha) have been revegetated linking a series of habitats, facilitated by active
planting and adaptive management. Over 162 species of native riparian vegetation have
been planted with no strategic plant design (anonymous interviewee three 2010). The
restoration methodologies applied at the site are not responding or implementing in
practice predicted climate change scenarios. The site has been undertaken for research to
better understand the development and functioning of wildlife corridors. Research is the
April 2010, Delie 22
main component of data collection and subsequent monitoring of the colonization and
movement of fauna species. Results show that a successional trajectory toward increasing
species diversity and a self-sustaining community is progressing at the site (Freeman et.
al. 2009).
Landcare networks foster new ways of communicating across a regional
catchment. Using local icons such as the cassowary and tree kangaroo, the project has
increased community awareness of threatened species and encouragement for habitat
plantings. The Landcare group holds a rainforest revegetation meeting at least once a year
with various stakeholders (as shown in table 4) to discuss regional plans and future aims
within the project (anonymous interviewee three 2010).
Stakeholder Involvement
Trees for the Evelyn and Atherton Tablelands Inc. (TREAT)
Technical support, plant production, tree planting and monitoring assistance
Queensland Parks and Wildlife - Restoration Services
Technical support, project management, plant supply, site preparation, maintenance and site monitoring
Tablelands Community Revegetation Unit Technical support, plant supply, site supervision and contract labor
North Johnstone and Lake Eacham Landcare Association
Site preparation, tree planting and maintenance
Department of Primary Industries and Forestry
Technical support and labor, plant supply
James Cook UniversityUCLA BerkeleyUniversity of QldGriffith University
Monitoring and technical support
Landholders Provision of planting sites, assistance with planting and maintenance, covenant agreements
Table 4 (TREAT 2010): List of stakeholders and their involvement in the Peterson Creek Revegetation Project.
April 2010, Delie 23
Discussion
The data show that climate change is not implemented into restoration practices
but, there is a growing contingent of restorationists and community members who
advocate the potential benefits of incorporating climate change scenarios into planning
and implementation. These practitioners and researchers argue that to ignore or discount
the potential for future abiotic disturbances on any given project is going to be costly and
accelerate disruption within an ecosystem. They acknowledge the unlikelihood of
forecasting with precision the local effects of climate change, denoting to land managers
and restoration planners that they can incorporate measures into conservation and
restoration projects that would be independent of the local specifics of temperature or
precipitation changes.
Currently, the scale of most restoration projects in the Atherton Tableland region
is smaller than the landscape scale at which climate change is currently modeled. Larger
areas, like national parks, can sustain high species diversity and have more potential to
serve as buffers against climate change (Meinke et. al. 2005). Where large sites are not
available, a high priority amongst restoration and conservation groups is to increase the
connectivity within the landscape and reduce fragmentation rates, which are critical
climate mitigation strategies. Small patches of habitat provide refugia for secondary
species, and by creating and/or protecting migratory corridors, restoration practices can
assist species migration and adaptation as environmental conditions change (Tucker
2000). Small scale restoration efforts such as the Peterson Creek Revegetation Project
have been made to match flora species to local environmental conditions, particularly soil
type, rainfall and altitude. In the case of restoration plantings, this is to ensure that species
are planted within their former range to enhance the dispersal of fauna and flora species
across a fragmented landscape (Seastedt et. al. 2008). These small scale restoration
April 2010, Delie 24
projects are preserving the integrity of existing natural areas and rehabilitating degraded
land but, in anticipation of altered climatic patterns, are not coordinating plans to
accommodate the effects of a changing climate.
Several obstacles including a lack of baseline data, funding and the scientific
uncertainty related to variations in local climate change, are delaying landholders from
investing and practitioners from obtaining a proactive approach to address the probable
consequences of climate change. People are quick to condemn long-term restoration plans
that do not show short-term results (such as a return yield in profit from established
forestry plots) (anonymous interviewee 2010). As the data show, the community ranks
water quality (as shown in figure 1) as the most important environmental property in
restoration, with some people who think conserving biodiversity or connecting corridors
is the most important to restoration over climate change (responses in Appendix B). With
sufficient funds allocated to on-ground restoration projects, such as Landcare and
TREAT, the budget goes towards achieving a wildlife conservation outcome by planting
a high density of native riparian trees (5,000-10,000/ ha). Provided by project proponents
and within Peterson Creek database report, the costs of tree-planting (estimated $40,000/
ha) are driven by the expenses of seed-collection, germination and seedling maintenance.
Good results for rapidly achieving native riparian vegetation structure, in which canopy
closure occurs in 3-4 years, are obtained by using a range of planting strategies and
modifying practices to enhance the resilience of riparian ecosystems to climate change.
One modification the Peterson Creek Revegetation Project has shown to be successful in
has been accelerating the restoration of private lands by taking an active regeneration
approach over a passive regeneration approach.
Early restoration models are based on a passive regeneration method that relies on
the transitory nature of weeds in the early stage of succession, while active regeneration
April 2010, Delie 25
implies intervention and seeks to bypass the first stages of succession and accelerate the
recruitment of native plants from a range of successional stages (Tucker 2009).
According to Kanowski, guest speaker and participant at the Building Restoration
Knowledge workshop, planting late successional species in combination with a large
diversity of species creates a higher chance of maximizing the availability of wildlife
resources and establishing a stable habitat fragment. In light of altered climatic events, a
secure and balanced habitat in combination with a high diversity of species is more
resilient against abiotic disturbances (such as fires, droughts, cyclones).
Under ‘novel’ conditions, interactions with landholders and restorationists have
revealed that maintenance and monitoring become the main components in rehabilitating
the processes and functions of a former rainforest ecosystem. Carefully targeted
management actions may be able to influence the rate and pathway of succession within
the restoration site, so that rainforest-like biota develops more rapidly and unwanted
dominance by either introduced species or excessively dominant native species is reduced
(Schmidt 1991). While it may be possible for community groups to monitor
comprehensively a couple of projects, such intensive effort may not be sustainable where
these small groups are implementing multiple projects and where cost is an issue for on-
going maintenance. In the case of Peterson Creek Revegetation Project, monitoring has
been completed through research funds and from an anonymous interviewee the Landcare
group only plants what they can maintain. Subsequent data collection can confirm
whether revegetated sites are progressing towards target conditions and maintenance
assist with the process.
A logical approach, one in the emerging field of restoration practices on the
Atherton Tablelands, would be to apply a trait based approach to ensure resilience and
adaptability of an ecosystem to climate change. The concept is to maximize genetic
April 2010, Delie 26
diversity among and within species and functional traits to increase the viability of
communities and ecosystems under certain climatic regimes (workshop 2010). Bruce et.
al. (2008) conducted a study that showed there was a higher incidence oMf severe
damage after cyclone Larry in revegetated and remnant sites due to the higher proportion
of pioneer species. The physical and biological traits of pioneer species (such as low
wood density, fast-growing, low specific leaf area) were more susceptible to wind
damage. As an anonymous interviewee stated, “restoration designs should consider plant
species that have characteristics (such as high wood density, high specific leaf area and
slow growth rate) that are resilient to abiotic disturbances.”
Clearly, even as restorationists build resilience and adaptability into local and
regional ecosystems, there is a growing consensus amongst managers and practitioners to
apply different revegetation practices with repeatable experiments across the landscape,
and if such small areas are established within a sponsored revegetation design. Future
restoration planning should continue to support on-ground restoration projects (i.e.
planting trees) that can continue restoring foundational processes (nutrient cycles, soil
accretion), but need to be a component of a large-scale restoration project, which is
quantitatively monitored for biodiversity, vegetation composition and other outcomes.
Even in the face of inevitable environmental change and ecological novelty,
restoration practices need to set alternative, single goals for restoration with multiple
trajectories for the variability of climate predications in the wet tropics. Preventing
damage is more cost effective than trying to repair damage (anonymous interviewee two
2010). As research is more fully communicated between scientific researchers and land
managers, and as the ecological community grapples with the uncertainty of climate
change in the wet tropics, there are restorationists and ecologists who find ecological
restoration as one of the most important responses to adapting to climate change (Harris
April 2010, Delie 27
et. al. 2006). The wet tropics of far north Queensland need to consider planning for future
climate change scenarios for success in restoring and preserving rainforest processes and
functions.
Limitations of this study influenced the validity of this data. Primarily, time was a
limiting factor. Surveys and interviews were conducted within a small time frame, thus
the research had a small sample size. In the survey results, although there was no or little
significant difference, there was a small difference in the means between the two
responding groups and possibly with a larger sample size the values would become
significant. I do not know if other rainforest revegetation or restoration projects outside
the Atherton Tablelands are mitigating for climate change. A larger study would be
valuable in identifying whether or not the gap in planning for future abiotic disturbances
is universal across reforestation projects, and whether the constraints to mitigating
climate change are common amongst community groups. The study did not incorporate
information on how local restoration groups are choosing their restoration sites. Finding
the how, could be beneficial in knowing where restoring degraded land would be vital for
the migration of species in a changing climate.
April 2010, Delie 28
Acknowledgments
I would like to extend an appreciation to Rohan Wilson for his guidance and important
contributions and to Monica Pakstas for her support and assistance. I thank Kathleen
Kasper, Annie Gilmore, Julia Jackson, Jordan Reed, Kevin Stanskey, Alex Melman,
Sherry Martin and Katherine Cai for support and assistance with field work and data
collection; Julia, Annie and Kathleen assisted with collecting survey data. Special thank
you to Landcare members, TREAT and three anonymous interviewees who provided
insight and valuable information pertaining to the Peterson Creek Revegetation Project
and current restoration practices in the tableland region. I thank Regional Landscape
Repair and Resilience Working Group for hosting the Building Restoration Knowledge
workshop and for allowing me to actively engage. I acknowledge the logistical support of
The School for Field Studies, Centre for Rainforest Studies.
April 2010, Delie 29
References
Allen, E. 2003. New directions and growth of restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology; 11:1-2.
Anonymous interview one. 12 April 2010.
Anonymous interview two. 15 April 2010.
Anonymous interview three. 16 April 2010.
Australian Government Land and Coasts (AGLC). 2010. Caring for Our Country; Business Plan 2010-2011. Commonwealth of Australia. http://www.nrm.gov.au/business-plan/10-11/
Bruce, C., Kroon F., et. al. 2008. Cyclone damage sustained by riparian revegetation sites in the Tully-Murray floodplain, Queensland, Australia. Austral Ecology; 33: 516-524.
Bureau of Meteorology (BOM). 2009. Monthly mean weather data for Atherton Shire Council. http://www.bom.gov.au/weather/qld. Accessed: 5 September 2009.
Campbell, A. 2008. Managing Australian Landscapes in a Changing Climate: A climate change primer for regional Natural Resource Management bodies. Report to the Department of Climate Change, Canberra, Australia.
Chapin S., and Starfield, A. 1997. Time lags and novel ecosystems in response to transient climatic change in arctic Alaska. Climatic Change; 35: 449–461.
Department of Climate Change (DCC). 2008. State and Territory Greenhouse Gas Inventories 2006. Australian Government, p. 1-36. Retrieved April 7, 2009 from www.climatechange.gov.au/inventory.
Emtage, N., Meadows, J. and Herbohn J. 2008. The management of forests, plantations and remnant vegetation patches for biodiversity conservation. School of Natural and Rural Systems Management, University of Queensland.
Farber, S., and Bradley, D. 2008. Ecological Economics. http://www.fs.fed.us/eco/s21pre.htm. Accessed: April 16, 2010.
Fleetwood, R., Means, K. and Stannard M. The contribution of policy analysis to the resolution of conflict over the future of Australian rainforest. Griffith University, Brisbane. chap. 26: 244-254.
Freeman, A. Freeman A., and Burchill S. 2009. Bird use of revegetated sites along a creek connecting rainforest remnants. Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union; 109 (4): 331-338.
Hilbert D., Ostendorf, B., & et. al. 2001. Sensitivity of tropical forests to climate change in the humid tropics of north Queensland. Austral Ecology; 26: 590-603.
Harris, J., Hobbs R., Higgs, E. and Aronson J. 2006. Ecological restoration and Global climate Change. Restoration Ecology; 14 (2): 170-176.
Hobbs, J., and Norton, D. 1996. Toward a conceptual framework for restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology 4:93–110.
Hobbs, R., Arico, S., & et. al. 2006. Novel ecosystems: theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order. Global Ecology and Biogeography; 15, 1-7.
Hobbs, R., Higgs, E., Harris, James H. 2009. Novel ecosystems: implications for conservation and restoration. Trends in Ecology and Evolution; 24 (11): 599-605.
Jackson, S. and Hobbs, R. 2009. Ecological Restoration in the Light of Ecological History. Science; 325; 356-357.
Kanowski, J., Catterall, C., et. al. 2008. Impacts of cyclone Larry on the vegetation structure of timber plantations, restoration plantings and rainforest on the Atherton Tableland, Australia. Austral Ecology; 33: 485-494.
Meinke, H. and Stone R. 2005. Season and inter-annual climate forescasting: The new tool for increasing preparedness to climate variability and change in agricultural planning and operations. Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Queensland Australia; 70: 221-253.
Meehl, G.A., T.F. Stocker, W.D. Collins, et. al. 2007. (IPCC) Global Climate Projections. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Natural Resource Management (FNQ NRM Ltd). 2008. Sustaining the Wet Tropics; A regional plan
National Trust of Australia (ANT). 2008. http://www.nationaltrust.org.au. Accessed: 20 April, 2010.
Seastedt T., Hobbs R., and Suding K. 2008. Management of novel ecosystems: are novel approaches required? Front Ecology Environment, 6(10): 547-553.
Schmidt, R.C. Rainforset Regeneration and Management; Tropical Rain Forest Management: A Status Report. Parthenon Publishing. 8; 181-207.
Suppiah, R., Macadam, I. and Whetton, P. H. 2007. Climate Change Projections for the Tropical Rainforest Region of North Queensland. Unpublished report to the Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility. Reef and Rainforest Research Centre Limited, Cairns: 38.
Tracey G. and Webb J. 1975. Vegetation of the Humid Tropical Region of North Queensland. CSIRO Australia Long Pocket Labs.
Tracey, G. 1982. The Vegetation of the Humid Tropical Region of North Queensland.23 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Melbourne.
TREAT. 2010. Trees for the Evelyn and Atherton Tableland Inc. 2007. www.Treat.net.au. Accessed: 24 March 2010.
Tucker, N. 2009. Restoration in North Queensland: Recent Advances in the Science and Practice of Tropical Rainforest Restoration. In: Living in a Dynamic Tropical Forest Landscape. Stork, N. and S. Turton (eds). Blackwell publishing Ltd; 39: 485-493.
Tucker, N. 2000. Linkage restoration: Interpreting fragmentation theory for the design of a rainforest linkage in the humid Wet Tropics of north-eastern Queensland. Ecological Management and Restoration; 1 (1): 35-41.
Vegetation Management Act 1999 (VMA). 2009. State of Queensland, Australia. Reprint 3C.
Watson, R. T., and the Core Writing Team, editors. 2001. Climate change 2001: synthesis report. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.
Webb L. J. 1978. A general classification of Australian forests. Australian. Plants 9, 349-63.
Wet Tropics World Heritage Area (WTWHA). 2009. Managing Australia’s Tropical Rainforest. The State of Queensland. www.wettropics.gov.au.
World Heritage. 2010. United Nations; education, scientific and cultural organizations. http://whc.unesco.org/en/about. Accessed: April 11, 2010.
Young, Choi. 2007. Restoration Ecology to the Future: A call for New Paradigm. Restoration Ecology; 15 (2): 351-353
Yungaburran Landcare Inc. 2010. Queensland, Austrlia.
http://www.petersoncreek.org.au. Accessed; April 15, 2010.
Zweig, C. and Kitchens, W. 2010. The Semiglades: The collision of Restoration. Social Values and the Ecosystem Concept. Restoration Ecology; 18 (2): 138-142.
APPENDIX A
THE SCHOOL FOR FIELD STUDIESEnvironmental Field Studies Abroad
Location of interview: Date: Time start: Time end:
When did you first start restoration project(s)?
What are the stages to restoring a landscape?
What are the key restoration goals? And what goals are not important?
What is the current stage in your restoration site?
Who are/or were your participants in the project?
Are there specific groups that should be consulted at particular points in the restoration planning process? If so, what groups are most concerned with which elements of the process?
What is the project’s anticipated timeline?
What specific types of vegetation are being planted?
Are your methodologies of restoration adapting to predicted climate change models? Elaborate, if yes how?
Is climate change the most significant aspect to restoration? YES or NO. If no what is the most important aspect to restoration?
Can ecological science and conservation address the effects of global climate change on species and ecosystems?
How would you rank your personal knowledge of global climate change 1-5 (1 = low, 5= high)?
How can we use the adaptability and behaviors of human economies to assure they meet their own welfare needs as well as the needs for preservation of a healthy ecosystem?
What types of public participation efforts and activities do you think are needed for this planning process and why?
Is a novel ecosystem a suitable case for restoration or worthwhile target of restoration?
When or how do we know we have restored a degraded land to its original state?
How does a ‘group’ assess the vulnerability of a region or sector to climate change?
Do you agree with the current state management policies and legislative policies today in the Atherton tablelands?
April 2010, Delie 33
APPENDIX B
THE SCHOOL FOR FIELD STUDIESEnvironmental Field Studies Abroad
We are students from the School for Field Studies conducting a sociological survey on residents of the Atherton Tablelands. We are you using this for research purposes and will not reveal any personal information gathered. We greatly appreciate your help.
1. How would you rank your personal knowledge of global climate change on a scale of 1-5 (1 = never heard of climate change, 5 = very knowledgeable)? ______
2. Which is more important to you? a. Climate changeb. Water quality c. Natural resources d. Soil quality e. None of the abovef. All the above
3. Have you participated or worked with a local management or restoration organization group? (i.e. TREAT) If so, please list who.
4. Is climate change the most significant aspect to restoration? YES or NO? If NO, what is the most important aspect to restoration?
Table A: complied survey results
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Response to Q4
Response to Q3
Respondents
How would you rank your personal knowledge of global climate change? 1 = never heard of climate change, 5 = very knowledgeable
Which issue is more important to you?
Have you participated or worked with local management or restoration organizations? Yes or No. If yes who? (yes = 1; no = 2)
Is climate change the most important aspect to restoration? Yes or No? If no what is the most important aspect to restoration? (yes = 1; no = 2)
