Ageing mallee eucalypt vegetation after fire : insights for successional trajectories in semi-arid mallee ecosystems

A critical requirement in the ecological management of fire is knowledge of the age-class distribution of the vegetation. Such knowledge is important because it underpins the distribution of ecological features important to plants and animals including retreat sites, food sources and foraging microhabitats. However, in many regions, knowledge of the age-class distribution of vegetation is severely constrained by the limited data available on fire history. Much fire-history mapping is restricted to post-1972 fires, following satellite imagery becoming widely available. To investigate fire history in the semi-arid Murray Mallee region in southern Australia, we developed regression models for six species of mallee eucalypt (Eucalyptus oleosa F.Muell. ex. Miq. subsp. oleosa, E. leptophylla F.Muell. ex. Miq., E. dumosa J. Oxley, E. costata subsp. murrayana L. A. S. Johnson & K. D. Hill, E. gracilis F.Muell. and E. socialis F.Muell. ex. Miq.) to quantify the relationship between mean stem diameter and stem age (indicated by fire-year) at sites of known time since fire. We then used these models to predict mean stem age, and thus infer fire-year, for sites where the time since fire was not known. Validation of the models with independent data revealed a highly significant correlation between the actual and predicted time since fire (r = 0.71, P < 0.001, n = 88), confirming the utility of this method for ageing stands of mallee eucalypt vegetation. Validation data suggest the models provide a conservative estimate of the age of a site (i.e. they may under-estimate the minimum age of sites >35 years since fire). Nevertheless, this approach enables examination of post-fire chronosequences in semi-arid mallee ecosystems to be extended from 35 years post-fire to over 100 years. The predicted ages identified for mallee stands imply a need for redefining what is meant by ‘old-growth’ mallee, and challenges current perceptions of an over-abundance of ‘long-unburnt’ mallee vegetation. Given the strong influence of fire on semi-arid mallee vegetation, this approach offers the potential for a better understanding of long-term successional dynamics and the status of biota in an ecosystem that encompasses more than 250 000 km² of southern Australia.

Fire management on private conservation lands : knowledge, perceptions and actions of landholders in eastern Australia

Fire is an important natural disturbance process within the Australian landscape, but the complex and hazardous nature of fire creates a conservation management dilemma. For landholders of private conservation lands, management for conservation of biodiversity and risk reduction is complicated. Private conservation landholders in eastern Australia directed far less effort towards fire management than other conservation management actions, despite clearly acknowledging the risk and associated responsibilities of fire management on their lands. Nonetheless, landholders did undertake actions to reduce fuel hazards and prepare for wildfire events on their land. Despite the established role and benefits of fire to many ecosystems in the region, landholder understanding of the ecological role of fire was generally poor. Few landholders were aware of ecologically appropriate fire regimes for the vegetation types on their property, and few undertook fire management actions to achieve ecological outcomes. Site-specific obstacles, lack of fire management knowledge and experience, and legal and containment concerns contributed to the low level of fire management observed. There is a need for property-specific fire management planning across all private conservation lands, to further integrate ecological fire requirements into biodiversity management, and prioritise actions that aim to improve conservation outcomes while safeguarding life and property.

IUCN red list of ecosystems

We begin by briefly examining the achievements of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, and offering it as the model and motivator for the creation of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems (RLE). The history of the RLE concept within IUCN is briefly summarized, from the first attempt to formally establish an RLE in 1996 to the present. Major activities since 2008, when the World Conservation Congress initiated a "consultation process for the development, implementation and monitoring of a global standard for the assessment of ecosystem status, applicable at local, regional and global levels," have included: Development of a research agenda for strengthening the scientific foundations of the RLE, publication of preliminary categories and criteria for examination by the scientific and conservation community, dissemination of the effort widely by presenting it at workshops and conferences around the world, and encouraging tests of the system for a diversity of ecosystem types and in a variety of institutional settings. Between 2009 and 2012, the Red List of Ecosystems Thematic Group of the IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management organized 18 workshops and delivered 17 conferences in 20 countries on 5 continents, directly reaching hundreds of participants. Our vision for the future includes the integration of the RLE to the other three key IUCN knowledge products (IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, World Database on Protected Areas and Key Biodiversity Areas), in an on-line, user-driven, freely-accessible information management system for performing biodiversity assessments. In addition we wish to pilot the integration of the RLE into land/water use planning and macro-economic planning. Fundamental challenges for the future include: Substantial expansion in existing institutional and technical capacity (especially in biodiversity-rich countries in the developing world), progressive assessment of the status of all terrestrial, freshwater, marine and subterranean ecosystems, and development of a map of the ecosystems of the world. Our ultimate goal is that national, regional and global RLEs are used to inform conservation and land/water use decision-making by all sectors of society. © Author(s) 2012.

A practical guide to the application of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems criteria

The newly developed IUCN Red List of Ecosystems is part of a growing toolbox for assessing risks to biodiversity, which addresses ecosystems and their functioning. The Red List of Ecosystems standard allows systematic assessment of all freshwater, marine, terrestrial and subterranean ecosystem types in terms of their global risk of collapse. In addition, the Red List of Ecosystems categories and criteria provide a technical base for assessments of ecosystem status at the regional, national, or subnational level. While the Red List of Ecosystems criteria were designed to be widely applicable by scientists and practitioners, guidelines are needed to ensure they are implemented in a standardized manner to reduce epistemic uncertainties and allow robust comparisons among ecosystems and over time. We review the intended application of the Red List of Ecosystems assessment process, summarize 'best-practice' methods for ecosystem assessments and outline approaches to ensure operational rigour of assessments. The Red List of Ecosystems will inform priority setting for ecosystem types worldwide, and strengthen capacity to report on progress towards the Aichi Targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity. When integrated with other IUCN knowledge products, such as the World Database of Protected Areas/Protected Planet, Key Biodiversity Areas and the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, the Red List of Ecosystems will contribute to providing the most complete global measure of the status of biodiversity yet achieved.

Exploring ecosystems and health by shifting to a regional focus: perspectives from the Oceania EcoHealth Chapter

This article highlights contributions that can be made to the public health field by incorporating "ecosystem approaches to health" to tackle future environmental and health challenges at a regional level. This qualitative research reviews attitudes and understandings of the relationship between public health and the environment and the priorities, aspirations and challenges of a newly established group (the Oceania EcoHealth Chapter) who are attempting to promote these principles. Ten semi-structured interviews with Oceania EcoHealth Chapter members highlighted the important role such groups can play in informing organisations working in the Oceania region to improve both public health and environmental outcomes simultaneously. Participants of this study emphasise the need to elevate Indigenous knowledge in Oceania and the role regional groups play in this regard. They also emphasis that regional advocacy and ecosystem approaches to health could bypass silos in knowledge and disciplinary divides, with groups like the Oceania EcoHealth Chapter acting as a mechanism for knowledge exchange, engagement, and action at a regional level with its ability to bridge the gap between environmental stewardship and public health.

Identifying knowledge gaps in seagrass research and management: An Australian perspective.

Seagrass species form important marine and estuarine habitats providing valuable ecosystem services and functions. Coastal zones that are increasingly impacted by anthropogenic development have experienced substantial declines in seagrass abundance around the world. Australia, which has some of the world's largest seagrass meadows and is home to over half of the known species, is not immune to these losses. In 1999 a review of seagrass ecosystems knowledge was conducted in Australia and strategic research priorities were developed to provide research direction for future studies and management. Subsequent rapid evolution of seagrass research and scientific methods has led to more than 70% of peer reviewed seagrass literature being produced since that time. A workshop was held as part of the Australian Marine Sciences Association conference in July 2015 in Geelong, Victoria, to update and redefine strategic priorities in seagrass research. Participants identified 40 research questions from 10 research fields (taxonomy and systematics, physiology, population biology, sediment biogeochemistry and microbiology, ecosystem function, faunal habitats, threats, rehabilitation and restoration, mapping and monitoring, management tools) as priorities for future research on Australian seagrasses. Progress in research will rely on advances in areas such as remote sensing, genomic tools, microsensors, computer modeling, and statistical analyses. A more interdisciplinary approach will be needed to facilitate greater understanding of the complex interactions among seagrasses and their environment.