How effective are broad-scale nutrient mass balances for determining the sustainability of lot-feed manure application?

Nutrient mass balances have been used to assess a variety of land resource scenarios, at various scales. They are widely used as a simple basis for policy, planning, and regulatory decisions but it is not clear how accurately they reflect reality. This study provides a critique of broad-scale nutrient mass balances, with particular application to the fertiliser use of beef lot-feeding manure in Queensland. Mass balances completed at the district and farm scale were found to misrepresent actual manure management behaviour and potentially the risk of nutrient contamination of water resources. The difficulties of handling stockpile manure and concerns about soil compaction mean that manure is spread thickly over a few paddocks at a time and not evenly across a whole farm. Consequently, higher nutrient loads were applied to a single paddock less frequently than annually. This resulted in years with excess nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium remaining in the soil profile. This conclusion was supported by evidence of significant nutrient movement in several of the soil profiles studied. Spreading manure is profitable, but maximum returns can be associated with increased risk of nutrient leaching relative to conventional inorganic fertiliser practices. Bio-economic simulations found this increased risk where manure was applied to supply crop nitrogen requirements (the practice of the case study farms, 200-5000 head lot-feeders). Thus, the use of broad-scale mass balances can be misleading because paddock management is spatially heterogeneous and this leads to increased local potential for nutrient loss. In response to the effect of spatial heterogeneity policy makers who intend to use mass balance techniques to estimate potential for nutrient contamination should apply these techniques conservatively.

Predictive modelling to aid the regional-scale management of a vertebrate pest

Extensive resources are allocated to managing vertebrate pests, yet spatial understanding of pest threats, and how they respond to management, is limited at the regional scale where much decision-making is undertaken. We provide regional-scale spatial models and management guidance for European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) in a 260,791 km(2) region in Australia by determining habitat suitability, habitat susceptibility and the effects of the primary rabbit management options (barrier fence, shooting and baiting and warren ripping) or changing predation or disease control levels. A participatory modelling approach was used to develop a Bayesian network which captured the main drivers of suitability and spread, which in turn was linked spatially to develop high resolution risk maps. Policy-makers, rabbit managers and technical experts were responsible for defining the questions the model needed to address, and for subsequently developing and parameterising the model. Habitat suitability was determined by conditions required for warren-building and by above-ground requirements, such as food and harbour, and habitat susceptibility by the distance from current distributions, habitat suitability, and the costs of traversing habitats of different quality. At least one-third of the region had a high probability of being highly suitable (support high rabbit densities), with the model supported by validation. Habitat susceptibility was largely restricted by the current known rabbit distribution. Warren ripping was the most effective control option as warrens were considered essential for rabbit persistence. The anticipated increase in disease resistance was predicted to increase the probability of moderately suitable habitat becoming highly suitable, but not increase the at-risk area. We demonstrate that it is possible to build spatial models to guide regional-level management of vertebrate pests which use the best available knowledge and capture fine spatial-scale processes.

Large-scale expansion of no-take closures within the Great Barrier Reef has not enhanced fishery production

A rare opportunity to test hypotheses about potential fishery benefits of large-scale closures was initiated in July 2004 when an additional 28.4% of the 348 000 km2 Great Barrier Reef (GBR) region of Queensland, Australia was closed to all fishing. Advice to the Australian and Queensland governments that supported this initiative predicted these additional closures would generate minimal (10%) initial reductions in both catch and landed value within the GBR area, with recovery of catches becoming apparent after three years. To test these predictions, commercial fisheries data from the GBR area and from the two adjacent (non-GBR) areas of Queensland were compared for the periods immediately before and after the closures were implemented. The observed means for total annual catch and value within the GBR declined from pre-closure (2000–2003) levels of 12 780 Mg and Australian $160 million, to initial post-closure (2005–2008) levels of 8143 Mg and $102 million; decreases of 35% and 36% respectively. Because the reference areas in the non-GBR had minimal changes in catch and value, the beyond-BACI (before, after, control, impact) analyses estimated initial net reductions within the GBR of 35% for both total catch and value. There was no evidence of recovery in total catch levels or any comparative improvement in catch rates within the GBR nine years after implementation. These results are not consistent with the advice to governments that the closures would have minimal initial impacts and rapidly generate benefits to fisheries in the GBR through increased juvenile recruitment and adult spillovers. Instead, the absence of evidence of recovery in catches to date currently supports an alternative hypothesis that where there is already effective fisheries management, the closing of areas to all fishing will generate reductions in overall catches similar to the percentage of the fished area that is closed.