VegMachine - putting pastoralists in the picture

Australia’s rangelands are the extensive arid and semi-arid grazing lands that cover approximately 70% of the Australian continent. They are characterised by low and generally variable rainfall, low productivity and a sparse population. They support a number of industries including mining and tourism, but pastoralism is the primary land use. In some areas, the rangelands have a history of biological decline (Noble 1997), with erosion, loss of perennial native grasses and incursion of woody vegetation commonly reported in the scientific and lay literature. Despite our historic awareness of these trends, the establishment of systems to measure and monitor degradation, has presented numerous problems. The size and accessibility of Australia’s rangeland often mitigates development of extensive monitoring programs. So, too, securing on-going commitment from Government agencies to fund rangeland monitoring activities have led to either abandonment or a scaled-down approach in some instances (Graetz et al. 1986; Holm 1993). While a multiplicity of monitoring schemes have been developed for landholders at the property scale, and some have received promising initial uptake, relatively few have been maintained for more than a few years on any property without at least some agency support (Pickup et al. 1998). But, ironically, such property level monitoring tools can contribute significantly to local decisions about stock, infrastructure and sustainability. Research in recent decades has shown the value of satellites for monitoring change in rangelands (Wallace et al. 2004), especially in terms of tree and ground cover. While steadily improving, use of satellite data as a monitoring tool has been limited by the cost of the imagery, and the equipment and expertise needed to extract useful information from it. A project now under way in the northern rangelands of Australia is attempting to circumvent many of the problems through a monitoring system that allows property managers to use long-term satellite image sequences to quickly and inexpensively track changes in land cover on their properties

A scientific approach to agent selection

The prioritisation of potential agents on the basis of likely efficacy is an important step in biological control because it can increase the probability of a successful biocontrol program, and reduce risks and costs. In this introductory paper we define success in biological control, review how agent selection has been approached historically, and outline the approach to agent selection that underpins the structure of this special issue on agent selection. Developing criteria by which to judge the success of a biocontrol agent (or program) provides the basis for agent selection decisions. Criteria will depend on the weed, on the ecological and management context in which that weed occurs, and on the negative impacts that biocontrol is seeking to redress. Predicting which potential agents are most likely to be successful poses enormous scientific challenges. 'Rules of thumb', 'scoring systems' and various conceptual and quantitative modelling approaches have been proposed to aid agent selection. However, most attempts have met with limited success due to the diversity and complexity of the systems in question. This special issue presents a series of papers that deconstruct the question of agent choice with the aim of progressively improving the success rate of biological control. Specifically they ask: (i) what potential agents are available and what should we know about them? (ii) what type, timing and degree of damage is required to achieve success? and (iii) which potential agent will reach the necessary density, at the right time, to exert the required damage in the target environment?

Australia’s present scientific capacity to progress the biological control of weeds

Australia has a very proud record of achievement in biological control of weeds and the underpinning science. From the earliest campaigns against prickly pear and lantana, weed biocontrol developed with major contributions from CSIRO and state governments to produce outstanding successes against weeds such as salvinia, rubber vine, Noogoora burr, bridal creeper and prickly pear. Maximum research activity occurred in the 1980s when some 30 scientists were working world wide on Australia’s weed problems. Activity declined gradually until the last few years when government divestment in agricultural research greatly diminished capacity. There are now approximately eight full-time scientist equivalents supporting Australia’s weed biocontrol effort. Australia may now need to adopt a team approach to tackle future major weed biological control projects.