Australian Natural Resources Atlas

Natural Resource Topics

Biodiversity and Vegetation - Australia

Australia

Introduction

The Landscape Health assessment is part of the Audit's ecosystem health theme focusing on:

This study indicates the relative significance of issues associated with landscape health and biodiversity status for each subregion of Australia's bioregions. It shows the geographic distribution of these issues, and their relative magnitude, and provides a broad indication of the scale of the challenges Australia faces in maintaining or restoring landscape health.

This study enables these challenges to be broken down into geographic extents that can be used to develop and guide responses.

Defining and Assessing Landscape Health

Landscape

Landscape is a scale of study and understanding beyond the paddock or the farm. A landscape is characterised by its:

It is important to understand that a particular landscape may be drained by a number of catchments or alternatively a range of landscapes can occur within a single catchment.

Landscape units assessed were the subregions of the 85 IBRA bioregions (Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation of Australia) used by States and Territories for environmental reporting and conservation planning. These subregions are defined on the basis of geomorphic and biogeographic features

Health

Landscape health is assessed by comparing the current state of the landscape against a baseline or reference point. From a biodiversity perspective the pre-settlement landscape represents an appropriate benchmark for measuring landscape health.

Intensive/extensive use zone boundary
Intensive/extensive use zone boundary

How landscape health was assessed

Indicators

Some useful attributes (e.g. fire regimes) could not be used as indicators due to a lack of suitable data or the difficulty of addressing complex issues in such a short time.

Process

Each indicator was used to assess the status of Australia's 354 subregions.

Subregions were grouped into two discrete zones-the intensive use zone (182 subregions) and the extensive use zone (172 subregions) (Figure 1).

Condition versus trend

The condition or state of the subregions was assessed. Where sufficient information was available, trend or change in condition could also be measured.

Native Vegetation

Native vegetation was assessed against four indicators:

Current extent

Extent of native vegetation is based on state vegetation coverages which vary in currency and scale. In the intensive use zone, clearing of native vegetation and the accumulated impacts of past clearing continue to be the major cause of impact on landscape health.

CSIRO research has found that loss of wildlife species due to habitat fragmentation begins once clearing exceeds around 20% or 30% of the landscape, and accelerates rapidly when less than 30% of the native vegetation remains.

Percentage of original vegetation remaining in each
subregion in the intensive use zone.

Less than 50%
of original
vegetation
remaining

Less than 30%
of original
vegetation
remaining

Less than 10%
of original
vegetation
remaining

97 subregions
(53%)

57 subregions
(31%)

12 subregions
(7%)

Current extent of native vegetation
Current extent of native vegetation

Connectivity

In the intensive land use zone native vegetation often remains as isolated patches surrounded by cleared land rather than continuous vegetation networks. Subregions were allocated to one of five connectivity classes:

Degree of connectivity of native vegetation
Degree of connectivity of native vegetation

Condition

No national or State-wide data sets exist for condition of vegetation. Data used to give an indication of condition were impact of grazing pressure in the extensive land use zone, and land use and conservation reserves.

Impact of grazing pressure in the extensive land use zone
Percentage of subregion with least grazing impact in extensive use zone
Percentage of subregion with least grazing impact in extensive use zone
Conservation reserves
Percentage of subregion in conservation reserves
Percentage of subregion in conservation reserves

Soil and Hydrology

Dryland salinity

Dryland salinity was mapped using:

The main areas of high salinity risk or hazard occur in southern temperate Australia-particularly south-west Western Australia, the seaward margins of the Murray Basin in South Australia and parts of central Victoria.

Percentage of subregion with high dryland salinity risk or hazard in the intensive use zone
Percentage of subregion with high dryland salinity risk or hazard in the intensive use zone

Degree of changed hydrological conditions

Hydrology can be changed by:

Intensive use zone
Extensive use zone
Degree of changed hydrological conditions

Weeds and Feral Animals

Weeds

Experts assessed 20 weeds of national significance by density and location. Weeds species could be grouped by current and potential distribution.

Wetland species are generally able to spread to suitable habitats across most of Australia:

Species restricted to the north of Australia:

Species that are mainly restricted to southern Australia:

Species with the potential to colonise suitable habitat across the entire continent:

Feral animals

Assessment of feral animals was based on expert knowledge. Density was classed as occasional, common or abundant.

Threatened Ecosystems and Species

At-risk ecosystems were only assessed in the intensive use zone since in these areas landscape loss is more easily defined and assessed (using land clearing or cultivation). Land degradation is incremental and less obvious in the extensive use zone. At-risk ecosystems were defined as those:

Measuring at-risk ecosystems

Ecosystems were generally defined at a scale of 1:100 000 and based on either mapping or expert knowledge.

Proportion(%) of subregional ecosystems at risk.
Ecosystems at risk (%) Number, percentage of assessed subregions (includes examples)
> 90 12 subregions (7%)
•Mount Lofty Ranges (South Australia)
•Goldfields (Victoria)
•Dawson River Downs (Queensland)
70-90 27 subregions (15%)
•Most cropping regions in southern Australia
•Northern Midlands (Tasmania)
•West Balonne Plains (Queensland)
50-70 58 subregions (32%)
•North Coast (New South Wales)
•Herbert (Queensland)
•Avon Wheatbelt (Western Australia)
Percentage of subregional ecosystems at risk in the intensive use zone
Percentage of subregional ecosystems at risk in the intensive use zone

Threatened species

Threatened species considered were those listed in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation act 1999 (Cth). Their occurrence was based on recent sightings and refined by distribution modelling and expert review.

Number of subregions (and percent) in intensive and extensive use zones.
Intensive Extensive Examples
Threatened plants
> 30 species 38 (11%) most of south-west Western Australia
10-30 species 86 (47%) 12 (7%) Broughton, South Australia
no records 3 (2%) 49 (48%) deserts of northern and north-western Australia
Threatened vertebrate fauna
>10 species 84 (46%) 12 (7%) New South Wales North Coast
no threatened species 0 9 (5%) Burt Plain (Northern Territory)

Trend Attributes

Rates of vegetation clearing (1980-1995)

Rates were only assessed for the intensive land use zone.

Area of woody native vegetation cleared each year in the intensive use zone
1990-1995, 1995-1997, 1997-1999 (ha/y)
1990-1995 1995-1997 1997-1999
New South Wales 19 483 * *
Queensland 280 209 339 662 445 683
South Australia 285 1310 613
Tasmania 4 345 78 316 *
Victoria 8 101 * *
Western Australia 40 373 * *
Total 352 798

* data not available

Trends in dryland salinity

The Audit's national dryland salinity assessment predicted extent of high dryland salinity risk or hazard for 2050. The assessment applies only to the intensive land use zone.

Predicted area of subregion affected by dryland salinity in 2050
Predicted area of remnant vegetation affected by dryland salinity in 2050
Percentage of subregion predicted to have high dryland salinity risk or hazard in 2050 in the intensive use zone
Percentage of subregion predicted to have high dryland salinity risk or hazard in 2050 in the intensive use zone

Synthesis - Landscape Stress

A classification of landscape stress was produced for each subregion by using a decision tree that considered the relative importance of each assessed attribute (see below).

Landscape-scale responses are required in these subregions to maximise protection of remaining subregional biodiversity. Priorities include protecting and managing the remaining native vegetation coupled with revegetation strategies that concentrate on restoring or enhancing connectivity and increasing the area of more significant remnants.

Subregions within the two lowest stress classes are in relatively good health. These regions are of marginal value to agriculture or pastoralism and provide opportunities for cost-effective and sustainable biodiversity conservation. Clearing is continuing in some of these subregions.

Continental landscape stress
Continental landscape stress

Applications

Specific institutional or on-ground responses are needed to manage and conserve biodiversity in each subregion. These responses can only be determined by more detailed subregional assessments that provide precise estimates of needs and costs of sustaining regional landscape biodiversity in Australia, and clear directions for community and government action. This is the focus of the Audit's biodiversity assessment currently in progress.

The Landscape Health project has provided:

Attributes used to create the landscape stress rating
Intensive use zone Extensive use zone
Current extent of native vegetation
Connectivity of native vegetation
% subregion with least impact
from total grazing pressures
Percent native vegetation in land
tenure associated with
conservative land use
Percent native vegetation in land
tenure associated with
conservative land use
Percent of ecosystems threatened
Percent native vegetation with high
risk/hazard of dryland salinity
Weed number and density Weed number and density
Feral animal number and density Feral animal number and density
Number threatened plant and
vertebrate fauna species
Number threatened plant and
vertebrate fauna species

In partnership

Landscape Health in Australia was prepared by the National Land and Water Resources Audit in partnership with State of Environment Reporting and the National Reserve System sections of Environment Australia, and State and Territory agencies.

Principal author
Gethin Morgan
Commonwealth Management Committee
National Land and Water Resources Audit Jim Tait, Ian Cresswell (former member)
Environment Australia David Forsyth, Bruce Cummings, Gary Whatman, Allan Spessa (former member)

State and Territories Working Group

Australian Capital Territory
Department of Urban Services David Shorthouse
New South Wales
National Parks and Wildlife Service Rob Dick, Julianne Smart, Mike Cavanagh
Northern Territory
Parks and Wildlife Commission John Woinarski
Northern Territory
Department of Lands, Planning and Environment David Howe
Queensland
Environment Protection Agency Gethin Morgan, Paul Sattler, John Neldner
South Australia
Department for Environment and Heritage Tony Robinson, Tim Bond, Peter Copley
Tasmania
Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment Dave Peters, Peter Bosworth
Victoria
Natural Resources & Environment David Parkes
Western Australia
Department of Conservation and Land Management Norm Mackenzie, Angas Hopkins

Further information

View the full Landscape Health report.

View the Landscape Health Summary report [PDF 12.7 MB].

Link to the Map Maker to make a map using this information.

Data Library

PDF files

Some documents on this website are available as PDF files. Adobe Acrobat Reader  is required to view PDF files.

Key

   Links to an another web site
   Opens a pop-up window