Springbrook Rescue Restoration Project - Department of National ...

Springbrook Rescue
Restoration Project
Australian Rainforest Conservation Society Inc

Springbrook Rescue
Restoration Project
Performance Story Report
2008–2009
Aila Keto & Keith Scott
A Report to the Department of Environment and
Resource Management

Contents
Part 1: The Project ....................................................................................................1
1. The Project.........................................................................................................1
1.1 Background and overview of the Project ................................................................ 1
1.2 The Site ...................................................................................................................2
1.2.1 Identification............................................................................................................................................2
1.2.1.1 Location ...........................................................................................................................................2
1.2.1.2 Ownership .......................................................................................................................................2
1.2.1.3 Brief description .............................................................................................................................3
Topography ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Geology ............................................................................................................................................................................4
Climate..............................................................................................................................................................................5
Vegetation ........................................................................................................................................................................ 5
1.3 Ecological restoration ........................................................................................... 10
1.3.1 The Springbrook Rescue context.......................................................................................................10
1.3.2 Restoration goals...................................................................................................................................10
1.3.2.1 Overall goal....................................................................................................................................10
1.3.2.2 Sub-goals........................................................................................................................................11
1.3.3 Need for ecological restoration ..........................................................................................................12
1.3.3.1 Significance of the restoration sites...........................................................................................12
1.3.3.2 Current condition .........................................................................................................................12
1.3.3.3 Benefits from restoration............................................................................................................14
Ecological benefits .......................................................................................................................................................14
Economic benefits .......................................................................................................................................................14
Cultural benefits............................................................................................................................................................15
Educational and scientific benefits ...........................................................................................................................16
1.3.3.4 Ecosystems to be restored..........................................................................................................16
1.3.4 Key threats and barriers to ecological restoration at Springbrook...............................................18
1.3.4.1 Probability of success in reaching Biodiversity Goals ...........................................................22
1.3.5 Reference sites .......................................................................................................................................26
1.3.6 Timeframe ..............................................................................................................................................26
1.4 Program Logic ...................................................................................................... 27
1.5 Desired outcomes ................................................................................................. 28
1.6 Assumptions and risk assessment ........................................................................ 30
1.7 Evaluation questions............................................................................................. 33
1.8 Science Framework............................................................................................... 37
1.8.1 Conceptual Models ...............................................................................................................................37
1.8.1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................37
1.8.1.2 Biodiversity-stability model ........................................................................................................37
1.8.1.3 Patch–Matrix Functional Types.................................................................................................38
1.8.1.4 Successional Models (Continuum versus Threshold Dynamics).........................................38
1.8.1.5 A Practical Framework for assessing system stability or resilience — integrating science
and restoration practice.............................................................................................................40
1.8.1.6 A Framework for assessing Threshold Dynamics by restoration practitioners ................47
1.8.2 Data Collection......................................................................................................................................70
1.8.2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................70
1.8.2.2 Key Scientific Questions .............................................................................................................72
1.8.2.3 Scale issues.....................................................................................................................................72
1.8.2.4 Sampling strategy..........................................................................................................................74
1.8.2.5 Parameters and leading indicators for controlling and response variables ........................75
1.8.2.6 Data Analysis (methods) .............................................................................................................82
1.9 Resources .............................................................................................................. 83
1.10 Budget ................................................................................................................. 84

1.11 Results for 2008–2009 ........................................................................................... 85
Notes additional to Results for 2008–2009...............................................................................................97
1.12 Review and improvements .................................................................................. 99
Part 2: The Restoration Properties........................................................................101
2. The restoration properties ..............................................................................101
2.1 The properties......................................................................................................101
2.2 Summary Asset Document Sheets.......................................................................106
Part 3: Property Restoration Plans ........................................................................118
3. Property restoration plans...............................................................................118
3.1 Warblers in the Mist.............................................................................................118
3.1.1 The property ....................................................................................................................................... 118
3.1.2 Summary Asset Document Sheet.................................................................................................... 119
3.1.3 Original ecosystems ........................................................................................................................... 120
3.1.4. Historical information...................................................................................................................... 120
3.1.5 Current condition............................................................................................................................... 121
3.1.5.1 Vegetation................................................................................................................................... 121
3.1.5.2 Flora and fauna .......................................................................................................................... 122
3.1.6 Ecosystem models and management requirements ..................................................................... 123
3.1.7 Management activities 2008–2009 .................................................................................................. 124
3.1.8 Data collection and analysis ............................................................................................................. 125
3.2 Pallida (formerly ‘The Winery’) ...........................................................................126
3.2.1 The property ....................................................................................................................................... 126
3.2.2 Summary Asset Document Sheet.................................................................................................... 127
3.2.3 Original ecosystems ........................................................................................................................... 128
3.2.4 Historical information....................................................................................................................... 128
3.2.5 Current condition............................................................................................................................... 129
3.2.5.1 Vegetation................................................................................................................................... 129
3.2.5.2 Flora and fauna .......................................................................................................................... 130
3.2.6 Ecosystem models and management requirements ..................................................................... 133
3.2.7 Management activities 2008–2009 .................................................................................................. 135
3.2.8 Data collection and analysis ............................................................................................................. 135
3.3 Ashmiha ...............................................................................................................136
3.3.1 The property ....................................................................................................................................... 136
3.3.2 Summary Asset Document Sheet.................................................................................................... 137
3.3.3 Original ecosystems ........................................................................................................................... 138
3.3.4 Historical information....................................................................................................................... 138
3.3.5 Current condition............................................................................................................................... 139
3.3.5.1 Vegetation................................................................................................................................... 139
3.3.5.2 Flora and fauna .......................................................................................................................... 140
3.3.6 Ecosystem models and management requirements ..................................................................... 141
3.3.7 Management activities 2008–2009 .................................................................................................. 143
3.3.8 Data collection and analysis ............................................................................................................. 143
3.4 Ankuna.................................................................................................................144
3.4.1 The property ....................................................................................................................................... 144
3.4.2 Summary Asset Document Sheet.................................................................................................... 145
3.4.3 Original ecosystems ........................................................................................................................... 146
3.4.4 Historical information....................................................................................................................... 146
3.4.5 Current condition............................................................................................................................... 147
3.4.5.1 Vegetation................................................................................................................................... 147
3.4.5.2 Flora and fauna .......................................................................................................................... 148
3.4.6 Ecosystem models and management requirements ..................................................................... 149
3.4.7 Management activities 2008–2009 .................................................................................................. 150
3.4.8 Data collection and analysis ............................................................................................................. 150

Part 4: References ...............................................................................................151
Tables
Table 1.1. Regional Ecosystem descriptions and special values. Species highlighted in bold have been recorded at
Springbrook. ................................................................................................................................................................................8
Table 1.1. (Cont.) Regional Ecosystem descriptions and special values. Species highlighted in bold have been recorded
at Springbrook. ............................................................................................................................................................................9
Table 1.2. Implications of climate change for the Gondwana Rainforest of Australia World Heritage Area (from
Australian National University 2009)....................................................................................................................................14
Table 1.3. Threatening processes affecting the Springbrook restoration properties ...............................................................18
Table 1.4. Barriers to achieving goals and corresponding mitigation measures .......................................................................22
Table 1.5 Three basic ecosystem model types as heuristic frameworks to guide restoration (based on Suding and
Hobbs 2009) ..............................................................................................................................................................................39
Table 1.6. An explanation of key terms relating to resilience theory and practice...................................................................46
Table 1.7. Relationships between Drivers and State Variables ....................................................................................................56
Table 1.8. Summary of possible generic responses to Questions 3–5 (Step 2).........................................................................60
Table 1.9 A Practical Framework for identifying Alternative Stable States, Drivers, Thresholds, and Stability
(feedback interactions or loops).............................................................................................................................................66
Table 1.10. Comparison of potentially useful generic stability surrogates applied to three Archetypal Models of
threshold dynamics ± tipping points ....................................................................................................................................68
Table 1.11. Plant Traits and Trait States affecting competition for environmental resources...............................................78
Table 1.12. Monitoring approaches for assessing ecosystem recovery after disturbance.......................................................82
Table 2.1. The Restoration Properties ............................................................................................................................................102
Table 2.2. Structural and functional (abiotic/biotic) attributes of properties being restored ..............................................103
Table 3.1.1. Flora and fauna recorded from Warblers and adjoining forest............................................................................122
Table 3.1.2. Ecosystem condition and required management actions......................................................................................123
Table 3.2.1. Flora and fauna recorded from Pallida and adjoining forest................................................................................130
Table 3.2.2. Ecosystem condition and required management actions......................................................................................133
Table 3.3.1. Flora and fauna recorded from Ashmiha and adjoining forest............................................................................140
Table 3.3.2. Ecosystem condition and required management actions......................................................................................141
Table 3.4.1. Flora and fauna recorded from Ankuna and adjoining forest..............................................................................148
Table 3.4.2. Ecosystem condition and required management actions......................................................................................149
Figures
Figure 1.1. The Springbrook Area. Properties purchased by the Queensland Government are shaded blue. Springbrook
National Park is shaded green. The three properties that are the main focus of the restoration project at this
time are shown outlined. ...........................................................................................................................................................1
Figure 1.2. The Springbrook area viewed from the north. The southern extent of the view is the Queensland–New
South Wales border. ................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 1.3. Springbrook Plateau is outlined in red............................................................................................................................2
Figure 1.4. The Tweed Caldera. The rim of the erosion caldera is indicated by the dashed line............................................ 3
Figure 1.5. Springbrook Plateau terrain ..............................................................................................................................................3
Figure 1.6. Geology of Springbrook Plateau (based on Willmott & Hayne 2001)..................................................................... 4
Figure 1.7. Mean annual rainfall in the Caldera region. ...................................................................................................................5
Figure 1.8. Pre-clearing (pre-1906) Regional Ecosystem mapping by Queensland Herbarium. Regional Ecosystems
relevant to the restoration project are —...............................................................................................................................6
Figure 1.9. Remnant (2006) Regional Ecosystem mapping by Queensland Herbarium. Regional Ecosystems relevant to
the restoration project are — ...................................................................................................................................................7
Figure 1.10. Restoration properties (outlined in yellow) in the high country towards the southern end of Springbrook
Plateau. The national park is shaded green..........................................................................................................................10
Figure 1.11. Springbrook Plateau is outlined in yellow, the World Heritage Area in red and the national park shaded
green ............................................................................................................................................................................................12
Figure 1.12. Vegetation map of restoration areas. The properties to be restored are outlined in red. ................................16
Figure 1.13. Outcrops of rock on restoration properties commonly support heath vegetation ...........................................17
Figure 1.14 Biodiversity-Stability Model of Ecosystem Processes:...................................................................................37
Figure 1.15. Patch-Matrix Functional Classes....................................................................................................................38
Figure 1.16. Ecosystem Stability Model (shorthand version of Figure 1.14) ...........................................................................43
Figure 1.17. Patch-Scale Stability Conceptual Diagram based on plant functional groups (woody, herbaceous) .............43
Figure 1.18. Partitioning of rainfall into its various components affecting water balance and availability of water for
photosynthesis and plant growth...........................................................................................................................................45
Figure 1.19. Tipping Point Model......................................................................................................................................................65
Figure 1.20. Shifting Tipping Point Model.......................................................................................................................................65

Figure 1.21. State–Transition Conceptual Model ...........................................................................................................................69
Figure 1.22. Critical Scale Units for abiotic and biotic processes affecting biological productivity .....................73
Figure 1.23. A randomised complete block design (power 9) with a block constraint. ..........................................................74
Figure 1.24. Covarying Plant Traits. ..................................................................................................................................................81
Figure 1.25. Near confluent infestation of Aristea ecklonii at Warblers. ......................................................................................97
Figure 2.1. The high country at the southern end of Springbrook Plateau, viewed from the north. The ‘skyline’
coincides with the Queensland–New South Wales border ...........................................................................................101
Figure 2.2. The high country at the southern end of Springbrook Plateau showing aspect. ...............................................101
Figure 2.1 Bioclimatic envelopes for the restoration properties...........................................................................................104
Figure 2.2 Digital elevation model, Springbrook Plateau hight country .............................................................................105
Figure 3.1.1. Warblers in the Mist showing the monitoring and experimental plot grid. .....................................................118
Figure 3.1.2. Pre-clearing vegetation mapping, Queensland Herbarium..................................................................................120
Figure 3.1.3. Aerial photography showing Warblers. Left, 1930; Right, 1961 ........................................................................120
Figure 3.1.4. Aerial photography 2005 showing current vegetation. ........................................................................................121
Figure 3.1.5. Two-metre high Setaria sphacelata var. sericea on Warblers....................................................................................124
Figure 3.1.6. Regenerating native plants marked with a pink plant marker.............................................................................125
Figure 3.1.7. Soil moisture profile. Dark blue indicates the wettest areas and dark brown, the driest areas. ...................125
Figure 3.2.1. Pallida showing the monitoring and experimental plot grid. ..............................................................................126
Figure 3.2.2. Pre-clearing vegetation mapping, Queensland Herbarium..................................................................................128
Figure 3.2.3. Aerial photography showing Pallida. Left to right, 1930, 1989, 1995. ..............................................................128
Figure 3.2.4. Aerial photography 2005 showing current vegetation. ........................................................................................129
Figure 3.2.5. Soil moisture levels measured over 63 cells on the northern part of Pallida. Values ranged from 27.7%
(brown) to 90.7% (blue). .......................................................................................................................................................135
Figure 3.3.1. Ashmiha showing the monitoring and experimental plot grid...........................................................................136
Figure 3.3.2. Pre-clearing vegetation mapping, Queensland Herbarium..................................................................................138
Figure 3.3.3. Aerial photography showing Ashmiha. Left, 1930; Right, 1998. .......................................................................138
Figure 3.3.4. Aerial photography 2005 showing current vegetation. ........................................................................................139
Figure 3.4.1. Ankuna showing the monitoring and experimental plot grid.............................................................................144
Figure 3.4.2. Pre-clearing vegetation mapping, Queensland Herbarium..................................................................................146
Figure 3.4.3. Aerial photography: Left to Right — 1961, 1989, 1993, 2005 ...........................................................................146
Figure 3.4.4. Aerial photography 2005 showing current vegetation. ........................................................................................147

Report Structure
This Performance Story is structured as far as practicable to meet guidelines indicated by
the following sources:
Australian Government (2009). NRM MERI Framework. Australian Government
Natural Resource Management, Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement
Framework.
Pannell, D.J. (2009) INFFER: Investment Framework for Environmental Resources
http://www.inffer.org
SER (2004) The SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration. Society for
Ecological Restoration International, Science & Policy Working Group (Version 2:
October, 2004)

Part 1: The Project
1. The Project
1.1 Background and overview of the Project
The Queensland Government has allocated major funding to the acquisition of freehold
properties in the Springbrook area for the purposes of conservation.
The current national park, the southern section of which is included in the Gondwana
Rainforests of Australia World Heritage Area, is small and has boundary configuration
inconsistent with long-term conservation.
The overall aim of Springbrook Rescue is to restore rainforest on cleared areas and recreate
links between sections of the national park, thus creating a more viable World
Heritage Area and one which provides a greater potential for its flora and fauna,
especially ancient lineages underlying criteria for listing, to survive the impacts of future
climate change.
The Australian Rainforest
Conservation Society Inc (ARCS) has
enthusiastically accepted
responsibility for managing the
restoration program for properties
purchased by the Queensland
Government. This will be done in the
overall context of restoring World
Heritage values and integrity across
the Springbrook Plateau and
surrounding areas with a focus on
restoring whole catchments wherever
possible. This objective coincides
with that of the ARCS project,
‘Springbrook Rescue’.
Figure 1.1. The Springbrook Area. Properties
purchased by the Queensland Government are shaded
blue. Springbrook National Park is shaded green. The
three properties that are the main focus of the
restoration project at this time are shown outlined.
Boundaries
Whereas the Springbrook Rescue
project encompasses the whole of
Springbrook Plateau and adjoining
areas, the restoration project is
limited to properties purchased by the
Queensland Government or owned
by the Australian Rainforest
Conservation Society and, in the first
instance, will focus on those
properties that will restore the highcountry
linkage between sections of
the national park that are part of the
World Heritage Area.
1

1.2 The Site
1.2.1 Identification
1.2.1.1 Location
The site is defined broadly as Springbrook, an area of roughly 20 square kilometres (~ 12
km long and 3 km wide at the widest point), located largely on the Springbrook plateau,
between 28˚15' S and 28˚08' S, and 153˚14' E and 153˚18' E, and approximately 500 km
south of the Tropic of Capricorn and 38 km south of the nearest town, Nerang,
Queensland, Australia.
Springbrook Plateau Lamington Plateau
Numinbah Valley
Figure 1.2. The Springbrook area viewed from the north. The southern extent
of the view is the Queensland–New South Wales border.
Figure 1.3. Springbrook Plateau is outlined in red.
1.2.1.2 Ownership
A major part of the Springbrook area is owned by the Queensland Government within
protected area and Crown freehold tenures. The remainder includes conservation areas
owned by Gold Coast City Council and privately owned freehold land.
Restoration activities will be undertaken on land owned by the Queensland Government
and property owned by the Australian Rainforest Conservation Society.
2

1.2.1.3 Brief description
Topography
Springbrook lies on the northern flanks of the Tweed Volcano which, with its welldeveloped
radial drainage, is easily recognizable as a shield volcano, despite its age (23.5–
20.5 million years). Erosion has left a core, Mt Warning, isolated from a horseshoeshaped
arc of precipitous cliffs — the Mt
Warning or Tweed Caldera. This erosion
caldera, about 30 km across, is one of the
major examples of this landform in the
world, notable for its size and central
mountain mass (Figure 1.4).
Springbrook
Plateau
The Springbook precinct is effectively a
biogeographic island isolated by fluvial
processes typically associated with volcanic
landforms, preserving extremely compressed
environmental gradients (climatic,
hydrological, physiographic, historical)
including the wettest, most nutrient rich
environments nationally outside its sister
area, the Wet Tropics.
Mount Warning
Figure 1.4. The Tweed Caldera. The rim of the
erosion caldera is indicated by the dashed line.
Altitudinal gradients encompass lowlands (less than 400
m), through uplands (400–800 m) to highlands (800–1051
m)(See Figure 1.5.). Each altitudinal zone shows further
segmentation of microenvironments on the basis of
altitude, geology, rainfall and aspect — these are the key
present-day determinants of plant and animal
distributions, abundances and movements since they
determine availability of energy, moisture, nutrients, the
essential factors for life.
The highest points in the area are Mt Mumdjin (1010 m)
in the south-west corner of the plateau and Mt Bilbrough
(960 m) 2 km to the east along the McPherson Range.
The lower limit of the plateau’s elevation gradient was set
at ~600 m, as this generally marks the transition between
the flatter topography of the plateau and the near vertical,
rhyolite-derived cliff faces.
Over the past 23 million years geomorphological
processes have isolated the Springbrook plateau
biogeographically from the rest of the Caldera precinct
and the McPherson Range to the west. Erosion reduced
the crater from a maximum height of 2000 m to 1150 m,
with typical radial drainage reducing the conical surface to
complex, stepped valleys and more erosion resistant
scarps and cliff lines. Currumbin and Tallebudgera valleys
drain the plateau to the north east, and
Numinbah/Nerang to the north and north west.
3
Figure 1.5. Springbrook Plateau terrain

Catchments are the basic unit of management on any scale (Magnusson 2001; Margules
and Pressey 2000) since it is almost impossible to effectively protect parts of a catchment
if threats spread from ridgelines or watershed regions. Most ridgelines on the
Springbrook plateau are roaded, facilitating urbanization and associated infrastructure
development which fragment ecosystems and act as conduits for alien invasions, aiding
the spread of weeds and feral animals. Riparian areas with their dendritic structure and
connectivity throughout the landscape reinforce the need for a catchment approach to
management.
The plateau proper (above ~600 m) comprises 10 subcatchments flowing into the
Nerang River and Little Nerang Creek (both East and West branches), which supply
water to the Hinze and Little Nerang dams that service the needs of the Gold Coast. The
subcatchments vary in size between 20 and 290 hectares each, as well as in altitude,
topographic diversity, aspect, radiation and rainfall regimes, soils and geological
substrates.
Lower plateau (600–750 m) catchments with a combined area on the plateau of 422
hectares, are drained by Camp, Kuralboo, Purling Brook and Carrick Creeks via
spectacular waterfalls (Purling Brook Falls) over steep rhyolite cliffs into Little Nerang
Creek (West Branch). Cleared areas within these catchments are virtually contiguous and
total about 150 hectares. Purling Brook catchment is the only meso-scale catchment on
the lower plateau.
The higher plateau (750–1010 m) catchments with a combined area on the plateau of
about 350 ha are comprised of Mundora, Ee-jung, Boy-ull and Rush Creeks draining
northwards into Little Nerang Creek (East Branch). Boy-ull Creek Catchment is the only
meso-scale catchment on the higher plateau, and the second largest on the entire plateau.
Geology
The area represents the northern flank of
the now extinct Tweed Shield Volcano,
active between about 23 and 20 Million
years ago. It is the best preserved of its kind
and size in the world. Five major eruption
episodes of varying intensities and
durations produced as many lava flows
differing in composition, density, areal
extent and depth. The oldest and most
extensive flows (Beechmont Basalts) range
in thickness from 300 m to 150 m, south to
north. The two succeeding basalt flows are
interleaved by harder, less erodible rhyolites
(Binna Burra Rhyolite and Springbrook
Rhyolite), with Hobwee Basalts the last
overtopping layer restricted to the highest,
southernmost parts of the plateau.
Springbrook Rhyolite forms the upper cliff
line of this plateau (Figure 1.6).
4
Figure 1.6. Geology of Springbrook Plateau (based on
Willmott & Hayne 2001)

Climate
The climate is subtropical, moist maritime, characterized by hot, wet summers and cool
dry winters. The climate is strongly seasonal with two main air masses alternating during
the year. Dominant influences are unstable moist air masses flowing from the east in
summer and dry westerlies in winter.
Mean annual temperature is ~ 15 ˚C. Seasonal variation in air temperatures is high. The
monthly average maximum temperature is ~ 27 °C and the monthly average minimum
temperature is ~ 3 °C. January is the hottest month and August the coldest month. Daily
temperatures fluctuate enough to make frosts possible at any time of the year.
On the slopes of plateau, temperature decreases an average of 0.65 ˚C per 100 m increase
in elevation. Occasional snow has been recorded on the plateau in 1948 and 1985 (Hall
1990). Hailstorms are an annual occurrence.
Springbrook Plateau is the wettest area
on the Australian mainland outside the
Wet Tropics. Mean annual precipitation
exceeds 3500 mm at higher altitudes,
with marked interannual variation both
in seasonal and annual levels
corresponding to El Niño Southern
Oscillation (ENSO) events. Most of the
rain falls between December and April
with February the wettest month, with
an average of 475 mm of precipitation,
and August/September are the driest,
with generally less than 100 mm of
precipitation per month. In 1974,
Springbrook Forestry Station received
5648 mm with 2323 mm falling in
January. With respect to rainfall, the significance of Springbrook in the Tweed Caldera
region can be seen in Figure 1.7.
The annual 1600-mm isohyet skirts the base of the plateau, while precipitation reaches
>3100 mm at higher altitudes. Dry season length (number of months with

microphyll fern forest with Nothofagus moorei, 12.8.8 — Eucalyptus saligna or E. grandis tall
open forest and 12.8.9 — Lophostemon confertus open forest.
Figure 1.8. Pre-clearing (pre-1906) Regional Ecosystem mapping by Queensland Herbarium. Regional
Ecosystems relevant to the restoration project are —
12.8.1 Eucalyptus campanulata tall open forest on Cainozoic igneous rocks
12.8.2 Eucalyptus oreades tall open forest on Cainozoic igneous rocks
12.8.3 Complex notophyll vine forest on Cainozoic igneous rocks. Altitude 600m
12.8.6 Simple microphyll fern forest with Nothofagus moorei on Cainozoic igneous rocks
12.8.8 Eucalyptus saligna or E. grandis tall open forest on Cainozoic igneous rocks
12.8.9 Lophostemon confertus open forest on Cainozoic igneous rocks
6

Figure 1.9. Remnant (2006) Regional Ecosystem mapping by Queensland Herbarium. Regional
Ecosystems relevant to the restoration project are —
12.8.1 Eucalyptus campanulata tall open forest on Cainozoic igneous rocks
12.8.2 Eucalyptus oreades tall open forest on Cainozoic igneous rocks
12.8.3 Complex notophyll vine forest on Cainozoic igneous rocks. Altitude 600m
12.8.6 Simple microphyll fern forest with Nothofagus moorei on Cainozoic igneous rocks
12.8.8 Eucalyptus saligna or E. grandis tall open forest on Cainozoic igneous rocks
12.8.9 Lophostemon confertus open forest on Cainozoic igneous rocks
‘Disturbed’ ecosystems are generally rainforest regenerating after clearing
‘Non-remnant’ ecosystems are generally introduced pasture grasses
7

Table 1.1 provides more details of the Regional Ecosystems as described by the
Queensland Herbarium.
Table 1.1. Regional Ecosystem descriptions and special values. Species highlighted in bold have been
recorded at Springbrook.
RE Description Special values
12.8.1 Eucalyptus campanulata tall open-forest
with shrubby to grassy understorey. Other
canopy species include Eucalyptus
microcorys, Syncarpia glomulifera subsp.
glomulifera, E. acmenoides, Corymbia
intermedia, E. carnea and E. resinifera.
Patches of Eucalyptus pilularis sometimes
present on ridges and crests. Occurs in high
rainfall areas above 580 metres altitude on
Cainozoic igneous rocks especially rhyolite.
Habitat for rare and threatened flora species
including Acacia acrionastes, A. saxicola,
Arundinella montana, Gahnia insignis, Hibbertia
hexandra, H. monticola, Pandorea baileyana
and Rulingia salviifolia.
12.8.2 Eucalyptus oreades ± E. campanulata tall
open-forest. Occurs on Cainozoic igneous
rocks
12.8.3 Complex notophyll vine forest.
Characteristic species include
Argyrodendron trifoliolatum,
Argyrodendron sp. (Kin Kin W.D.Francis
AQ81198), Olea paniculata,
Castanospermum australe, Cryptocarya
obovata, Ficus macrophylla forma
macrophylla, Syzygium francisii, Diploglottis
australis, Pseudoweinmannia lachnocarpa,
Podocarpus elatus, Beilschmiedia
obtusifolia, Neolitsea dealbata and
Archontophoenix cunninghamiana. Occurs
on Cainozoic igneous rocks, especially basalt
600m altitude.
Habitat for rare and threatened flora species
including Hibbertia monticola, Olearia
heterocarpa, Petermannia cirrosa , Banksia
spinulosa var. cunninghamii and Prostanthera
phylicifolia
Habitat for endemic and rare and threatened flora
species including Niemeyera whitei, Austromyrtus
fragrantissima, A. inophloia, Baloghia marmorata,
Cassia brewsteri var. marksiana, Choricarpia
subargentea, Corynocarpus rupestris subsp.
arborescens, Cupaniopsis newmanii,
Davidsonia johnsonii, Dendrobium schneiderae,
Diploglottis campbellii, Endiandra globosa,
Floydia praealta, Lepiderema pulchella,
Macadamia integrifolia, M. tetraphylla,
Muellerina myrtifolia, Ochrosia moorei, Owenia
cepiodora, Pandorea baileyana, Papillilabium
beckleri, Plectranthus nitidus (rocky outcrops),
Pouteria eerwah, Randia moorei, Rhodamnia
maideniana, Romnalda strobilacea, Sarcochilus
dilatatus, S. weinthalii, S. fitzgeraldii, S.
hartmannii, Syzygium hodgkinsoniae, S. moorei,
Marsdenia hemiptera and Triunia robusta.
Habitat for endemic and rare and threatened flora
species including Acacia orites, Acronychia
baeuerlenii, Austromyrtus inophloia,
Austrobuxus swainii, Clematis fawcettii,
Cordyline congesta, Cyathea cunninghamii,
Dendrobium schneiderae, Euphrasia bella,
Helmholtzia glaberrima, Lastreopsis
silvestris, Muellerina myrtifolia, Nothoalsomitra
suberosa, Pandorea baileyana, Pittosporum
oreillyanum, Sarcochilus fitzgeraldii, S.
hartmannii, S. weinthalii, Solanum callium,
Symplocos baeuerlenii and Uromyrtus sp.
(McPherson Range G.P. Guymer 2000), and cool
subtropical species at limits of climatic range.
8

Table 1.1. (Cont.) Regional Ecosystem descriptions and special values. Species highlighted in
bold have been recorded at Springbrook.
RE Description Special values
12.8.6 Simple microphyll fern forest with
Nothofagus moorei and/or Doryphora
sassafras, Caldcluvia paniculosa, Orites
excelsus. Occurs on Cainozoic igneous
rocks at high altitudes
Habitat for rare and threatened flora species
including Pararistolochia laheyana and
Parsonsia tenuis, and range limits of temperate
adapted species
12.8.8 Eucalyptus saligna or E. grandis tall openforest
often with vine forest understorey
('wet sclerophyll'). Other species include
Eucalyptus microcorys, E. acmenoides,
Lophostemon confertus, Syncarpia
glomulifera subsp. glomulifera. Occurs on
Cainozoic igneous rocks and areas subject to
local enrichment from Cainozoic igneous
rocks.
Habitat for rare and threatened flora species
including Lepidozamia peroffskyana
12.8.9 Lophostemon confertus open-forest often
with vine forest understorey ('wet
sclerophyll') Occurs on Cainozoic igneous
rocks. Tends to occur mostly in gullies and
on exposed ridges on basalt.
The standard descriptions of 12.8.3 and 12.8.5 include as characteristic species
Argyrodendron trifoliolatum below 600 m (12.8.3) and A. actinophyllum above 600 m (12.8.5).
At Springbrook, however, RE 12.8.5 is unusual in that A. trifoliolatum is more common
than A. actinophyllum above 600 m.
RE 12.8.2, Eucalyptus oreades tall open forest on Cainozoic igneous rocks, is ‘Of Concern’
being a very rare ecosystem having a pre-clearing extent of

1.3 Ecological restoration
1.3.1 The Springbrook Rescue context
Springbrook Rescue is a broad project that incorporates acquisition, protection and
restoration of land at Springbrook with the overall objective of providing secure, longterm
habitat for flora and fauna contributing to World Heritage values.
There remains a range of policies and management practices that need to be aligned with
the vision of Springbrook as a World Heritage precinct. This matter is addressed in the
Program Logic for the overall project.
Within the overall project, restoration of rainforest habitat is a central component, with
the initial focus being restoration of habitat linkage in the high country at the southern
end of the plateau (Figure 1.10).
Figure 1.10. Restoration properties (outlined in yellow) in the high country towards the southern end of
Springbrook Plateau. The national park is shaded green.
1.3.2 Restoration goals
1.3.2.1 Overall goal
The overall restoration goal is stated as follows:
An expanded, protected and self-sustaining World Heritage rainforest ecosystem providing secure habitat
for flora and fauna contributing to World Heritage values.
10

1.3.2.2 Sub-goals
The sub-goals or desired attributes for the restored ecosystems are listed below.
1. The restored ecosystem contains the characteristic assemblage of species with
community composition, structure and functions analogous with reference
ecosystems
2. The restored ecosystem provides habitat for rare, threatened and significant
species
3. The restored ecosystem comprises only indigenous species
4. All functional groups necessary for continued development, viability, health,
resilience and evolutionary capacity, are present or able to colonize naturally.
5. The abiotic environment can sustain reproductively viable populations of those
species required for stability and resilience and continued ecosystem development
along the desired trajectory.
6. The restored ecosystems are suitably integrated into a larger ecological matrix or
landscape with which it interacts through abiotic and biotic flows and exchanges.
7. Potential threats to the health and integrity of the restored ecosystems from the
surrounding landscape have been eliminated or reduced as much as possible.
8. The restored ecosystems are sufficiently resilient to endure the normal periodic
stress events in the local environment that serve to maintain the integrity of the
ecosystem.
9. The restored ecosystems are self-sustaining to the same degree as their reference
ecosystems and have the potential to persist indefinitely under existing
environmental conditions. Nevertheless, aspects of their biodiversity, structure
and functioning may change as part of normal ecosystem development and may
fluctuate in response to normal periodic stress and occasional disturbance events
of greater consequence. As in any intact ecosystem, the species composition and
other attributes of a restored ecosystem may evolve as environmental conditions
change.
10. The restored ecosystems are self-sustaining to the same degree as their reference
ecosystems and have the potential to persist indefinitely under existing
environmental conditions.
Note: In regard to Subgoal 9 in particular:
(a) aspects of the biodiversity, structure and function will change during normal
ecosystem development (succession), and may fluctuate in response to normal
periodic stress and disturbance regimes;
(b) the species composition and other ecosystem attributes may evolve as
environmental conditions change, e.g. under predicted climate change, to produce
novel or “no-analog” communities that are compositionally unlike any found today
(Jump and Penuelas 2005; Williams and Jackson 2007)
11

1.3.3 Need for ecological restoration
1.3.3.1 Significance of the restoration sites
Springbrook is the central core for values underpinning the Gondwana Rainforests of
Australia World Heritage Area which was listed in 1995. It is part of 15 nationally
proclaimed Biodiversity Hotspots representing “the most threatened and biodiverse
centres in Australia” (Commonwealth of Australia 2003) and part of the scientifically
famous “Macleay–McPherson Overlap” (Burbidge 1960).
As part of the Tweed volcanic province Springbrook is a recognised refugium and
contains outstanding levels of biodiversity, narrow-range endemism and relict
disjunctions of phylogenetically significant lineages. It is home to nearly 1100 species of
native plants contained within 537 genera in 159 families, and more than 220 species of
native animals including 20 species of frogs, 30 reptiles, 148 birds and 24 mammals.
The current National Park is too small (2,500 ha at the time of World Heritage Listing in
1995), unrepresentative, fragmented and dysfunctionally configured to viably protect the
region’s biodiversity and World Heritage values. The current National Park fails to
represent the core World Heritage values that occur on the plateau, very little of which is
included within the park estate (Figure 1.11).
The World Heritage Area is currently too
small, fragmented, unrepresentative and
poorly configured to be viable or resilient
against climate change, with the largest area
of cloud forests in subtropical Australia
critically threatened.
1.3.3.2 Current condition
As can be seen from Figure 1.9, the plateau
area has been strongly affected by humans.
Over the past 100 years, settlement,
encouraged by official government settlement
programs, resulted in forests being selectively
logged for timber and cleared for farmland
and, more recently, for urban development to
meet increasing population demands (Hall
1990). Most of the area was cleared prior to
the 1930s, including almost all of the plateau
area above 600 m totalling nearly 2000
hectares. Historical aerial photography shows
extensive rainforest regeneration since the
1930s as various farming ventures failed.
Clearing, however, continued and continues
Figure 1.11. Springbrook Plateau is outlined in
yellow, the World Heritage Area in red and the
national park shaded green
today for residential purposes. Whilst about 65 per cent of the originally cleared area is in
varying stages of regeneration, population pressures are escalating and current planning
and management guidelines and practices are not consistent with obligations under the
World Heritage Convention for “protection, conservation, presentation and transmission
to future generations” of areas of outstanding universal value wherever they occur.
12

The areas of regeneration can be seen in Figure 1.9 where they are mapped as ‘disturbed’
ecosystems.
The Queensland Government has purchased about 57 parcels of land between 2004 and
2009 comprising a total area of almost 840 hectares, including about 120 hectares (14 per
cent) in need of ecological restoration. The remainder of the purchased land is in varying
stages of natural regeneration requiring little or no active intervention. Of the 840
hectares purchased 444 ha (53 per cent) occur on the Springbrook plateau with the
balance on the western escarpment.
There remain over 720 hectares of land within private ownership or within National Park
on the Springbrook plateau, outside the Springbrook Rescue program, but in urgent need
of ecological restoration. These lands occur primarily on the lower plateau within the
Purling Brook, Camp, Kuralboo and Carrick Creek catchments.
The primary industries such as dairying, grazing and banana growing for which clearing
originally occurred have all declined leaving ecotourism virtually the sole economic base
for the small local community. However, significant areas of the plateau remain cleared
for rural activities which, whilst not economically viable in their own right, provide tax
benefits for some of the large landholders. Existing planning instruments such as the
South East Queensland Regional Plan at the State level, and the Gold Coast City
Council’s Local Area Plan, contain many deficiencies and loopholes, are essentially static
conceptually, and entrench the status quo. Much of the land is still formally classified as
“Good Quality Agricultural Land” legally binding local government planning instruments
to consistency with this obsolete objective. The protection, presentation and restoration
of World Heritage Values is not provided for by any existing statutory or policy
instruments. It is noted that responsibilities of State Parties under the World Heritage
Convention include “adopt general policies to give the heritage a function in the life of
the community” and “integrate heritage protection into comprehensive planning
programmes”.
Impacts
The cumulative legacy from past agricultural and settlement activities include habitat loss,
modification and fragmentation, invasions by feral animals and weeds, abnormal fire
regimes, altered hydrological regimes and altered bio-geochemical cycles including
significant soil erosion and degradation, such that the viability of biodiversity and World
Heritage values are now critically threatened by these impacts.
Superimposed on threatening processes associated with land-use change, global warming
is emerging as the most serious and pervasive of all the threats to the planet’s biodiversity
given its potential to affect even areas far from human habitation. Cloud forests and
restricted-range endemic species in “hotspots” are especially vulnerable to climate change
impacts (Malcolm et al. 2006).
A recent report on the implications of climate change for Australia’s World Heritage
Properties summarised threats and impacts for the Gondwana Rainforests of Australia
World Heritage Area (Australian National University 2009). They are listed in Table 1.2.
13

Table 1.2. Implications of climate change for the Gondwana Rainforest of Australia World Heritage Area
(from Australian National University 2009)
Potential climate threats
Potential impacts
• Higher temperatures
• Increased carbon dioxide concentrations
• Periods of prolonged drought
• A rise in the orographic cloud layer
• Exacerbation of fire regimes that are
inappropriate to maintenance of rainforest
species
• Further habitat fragmentation
• Frequent fires may threaten fauna and flora populations and
result in habitat loss
• The cool upland subtropical rainforest are at greatest risk from
higher temperatures and lower rainfall
• There are two groups of Gondwanan rainforests under threat
from climate change: the microphyll fern forests, typically
dominated by Nothofagus moorei (Antarctic Beech); and the
simple notophyll evergreen vine forests, generally dominated by
Ceratopetalum apetalum (coachwood)
• Loss of species with low dispersal ability and/or specific habitat
preferences
Fragmentation from clearing alters critical genetic and demographic processes potentially
threatening long-term persistence of both rare and common and widespread species
(Broadhurst and Young 2007). All aspects of the plant reproductive cycle may be
impacted including flowering, pollination, fertilisation, seed set and quality and
probability of reaching reproductive adulthood.
Clearing destroys the buffering conditions created by intact forest canopies critical for
the persistence of palaeo-climatic refugia (Fjeldsa and Lovett 1997a,b; Fjeldsa et al.
1997). The high concentrations of phylogenetically significant endemic species (old or
basal lineages) are especially at risk from the combined effects of fragmentation and
climate change. Biomass that accumulates in these refugial areas normally buffers
extrinsic changes in the physical environment through feedback loops with soil, water
and climate. Intact, extensive forest canopies increase the frequency of cloud immersion
in high altitude forests which may be critical to the survival of many of the relictual
species.
1.3.3.3 Benefits from restoration
Ecological benefits
Biodiversity representing major stages of the earth’s evolutionary history and formally
recognised as having outstanding universal value will receive greater protection with
improved prospects for viability, resilience and capacity for ongoing evolution.
Specifically, the area when restored will contribute to:
(a) protecting biodiversity — a hotspot for species richness, rarity, ad endemism;
(b) conserving phylogenetic diversity — habitat for ancient plant and animal lineages
representing major changes in the earth’s evolutionary history, that contribute to
viability and resilience of World Heritage values significantly threatened by
climate change
Economic benefits
Economic benefits are three-fold. Benefits can be predicted to accrue from increased
quality and sustainability of (1) ecotourism, (2) water catchment values, and (3)
restoration practice.
14

Long-term sustainability of ecotourism will depend on the availability of increasingly rare
experiences of “overwhelming” naturalness, outstanding natural beauty, grandeur and
intrinsic curiosity in a “living museum”.
The Project area is part of the water source for the Hinze Dam, a vital water supply for
the Gold Coast City. Restoration of forest cover is likely to improve the quality of water
and the evenness of water flows.
Improved cost-effectiveness of restoration techniques will enable restoration to be
carried out at more ecologically meaningful scales at a range of other biologically
significant areas.
To 2006, less than 0.5 per cent of previously cleared rainforest in the Wet Tropics or 0.3
per cent in the subtropics had been restored at a cost of $525 Million (Catterall and
Harrison 2006). The cost of restoring previously rainforested land on the Springbrook
plateau (800 hectares) could therefore be projected to be $40–80 million. Clearly,
traditional restoration practices are not tenable at ecologically meaningful scales.
If land is to be reforested at ecologically meaningful scales, revolutionary changes are
needed (Catterall and Harrison 2006): either (a) there is greater financial commitment by
governments and the community, or (b) methods are developed enabling restoration of
greater areas at lower unit cost. Calls have been made for more case studies enabling
restorationists to reduce costs, time and effort by avoiding mistakes of others, and
implement proven strategies or generic decision rules (Jenkinson et al. 2006).
Clearly, better, more cost-effective restoration practices would be of immense economic
benefits to society, enabling biodiversity conservation and restoration at meaningful
scales so critically needed today.
Cultural benefits
World Heritage obligations include ensuring that World Heritage plays a meaningful role
in the community (Bentrupperbäumer and Reser 2006).
Environmental degradation is both caused by human behaviour and affects human
health and wellbeing. There is mounting concern over unparalleled threats to the world’s
biodiversity and human welfare (World Commission on Environment and Development
1987; Union of Concerned Scientists 1992, 1997; World Resources Institute 2002,
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003, Kennedy 2006; World Wildlife Fund 2006).
The natural environment is a defining and formative part of the Australian character,
lifestyle and sense of place (Australian Psychologists Society Position Statement on
Psychology and the Natural Environment, April 2007). Australia is richly endowed with
World Heritage Areas (15) listed for their outstanding universal values to all current and
future human generations. Their protection, restoration and presentation, is clearly of
immense cultural benefit both locally and globally.
Springbrook has been selected as a State Icon. This year, Queensland’s 150th, the State
Government wished to celebrate the people, places and stories that define the State. All
Queenslanders had the opportunity to vote for their favourite icons from a short-list of
300 between 2 March and 30 April 2009. These votes ultimately made up the list of
Queensland’s top 150 icons. Springbrook National Park was voted as one of the 15 top
15

icons in the ‘Natural Attractions’ category. Hence there are significant cultural benefits in
ensuring the ongoing viability of the area.
Educational and scientific benefits
Ecological restoration is increasingly considered an “acid test for ecology”. It provides
ideal experimental settings for tests of ecological theory (Lake 2001, Young et al. 2005,
Halle 2007, Temperton 2007), but equally the practice of restoration is becoming
critically dependent on the scientific understanding of ecosystem processes. Springbrook
provides exceptional opportunities for restoration informing ecological theory because of
the compressed nature of ecological gradients within a relatively small, readily accessible
area.
1.3.3.4 Ecosystems to be restored
Figure 1.12 shows regional ecosystems and other vegetation on the properties that are
the main focus of restoration.
Figure 1.12. Vegetation map of restoration areas. The properties to be restored are outlined in red.
The required restoration falls mainly in the category of creation of a new ecosystem to
replace the existing ecosystem dominated by grasses. There may also be some repair of
damaged ecosystems where regenerating rainforest has been invaded by shade-tolerant
weeds.
The preclearing vegetation map (Figure 1.12) suggests that the original ecosystem over
virtually all of the restoration properties was subtropical rainforest — complex notophyll
vine forest (>600 metres)(RE 12.8.5). However, there are indications that the Eucalyptus
oreades tall open forest (RE 12.8.2) may have extended further south than is shown on the
preclearing map and may have covered the northern parts of two of the properties.
Because of the scale of regional ecosystem mapping, some smaller occurrences of other
vegetation types are not shown. Figure 1.13 shows occurrences of outcrops of rock
which in some cases support montane heath vegetation. Where these outcrops occur,
there is often evidence of extensive occurrence of rock beneath a very thin soil cover.
16

The regenerating rainforest has generally not yet regained the original species
composition as judged by the composition of appropriate reference ecosystems.
Figure 1.13. Outcrops of rock on restoration properties commonly support heath vegetation
17

1.3.4 Key threats and barriers to ecological restoration at Springbrook
The main threatening processes occurring on the asset are listed in Table 1.3. Those
threats considered to be most likely to occur are highlighted.
It is noted that a recent report (Australian National University 2009) has identified
implications of climate change for the Gondwana Rainforests of Australia World
Heritage Area.
Table 1.3. Threatening processes affecting the Springbrook restoration properties
Threat category Threatening/key processes Details of key process if required
Altered
biogeochemical
processes
Detrimental
regimes of
physical
disturbance events
Hydrological processes (eg acidification,
inappropriate hydroperiod, salinisation,
sedimentation, diversion, soil erosion, compaction)
Altered nutrient cycles
o linked to soil moisture availability
o impacts on photosynthesis, biomass
accumulation and competitive abilities
Altered climate processes
— Rainfall, cloud immersion, temperature, wind
regimes, incident radiation
Fire regimes
— dependent on climate or weather conditions
and ecosystem type and condition
Cyclone or wind storm regimes
— changes in regimes related to climate change
— impact intensity affected by aerodynamic texture
of sites (cleared, modified, canopy architecture) and
topographic location
Drought regimes
— changes related to climate change, altered
hydrological processes
— impacts related to intensity/duration of soil
water and vapour pressure deficits
Erosion (caused by wind, water)
— exacerbated by loss of vegetation cover, soil
compaction, slope, associated fire regimes,
intensity, duration and frequency of rain events
Clearing changes water balances, soil
organic matter and porosity affecting
plant water availability; dams and
diversions alter normal land surface
flows; compaction of thin soils from
machinery and cattle increases
compaction, reduces macroporosity,
hydraulic conductivity and increases
overland flows and erosion
Nutrient enrichment (past fertilizer
use; cattle grazing), changed soil
organic content and microorganisms,
may significantly influence
productivity and competitive
interactions that affect likely
achievement of the long-term goal
Altered evapotranspiration levels,
microclimate loss from clearing and
edge effects
Triggers include arson, arcing of
electric fencing, lightning strikes (less
probable; normally associated with
rain events, but underground
rhizomes of grasses can catalyse
delayed fire response)
Increased exposure to high intensity
winds causing windthrow of remnant,
regrowth or biological legacies in
exposed areas. Fragmented forests
and forest edges inherently vulnerable
to wind damage (Laurance and
Curran 2008)
Duration of conditions where
evapotranspiration exceeds
precipitation or biologically available
soil water for long enough to cause
carbon starvation or cavitation (Dyer
2009)
High erosion proneness (sheet, gully)
due to thin compacted soils with
diminished infiltration rates and
increased overland flows
18

Threat category Threatening/key processes Details of key process if required
Impacts of
introduced plants
and animals
Impacts of
problem natives
Impacts of disease
Insufficient
ecological
resources to
restore and
maintain viable
populations
Impacts of
pollution
Flood
Frost and hail events
Lightning strikes — affected by topographic
position and exposure; especially relevant where
few relict trees remain as biological legacies
Environmental weed invasion
Predation/herbivory by introduced species
Habitat destruction/damage/competition
Expansion of native plant species or fauna (e.g.
Bell Miner associated dieback)
Expansion of native fauna species
Predation/herbivory by native species
Dieback (e.g. Phytophthora spp., Favolachia calocera,
Armillaria luteobubalina, Puccina psidii (Eucalypt Rust)
and other wood-, root- or shoot-rot fungi)
Viral wildlife diseases (e.g. IBD, Inclusion Body
Disease)
Fungal animal pathogens (e.g. Chytrid fungus)
Flora — Decreasing (or loss of) species pool,
pollinators, dispersal agents, or other vital
mutualists
Fauna — Decreasing food, water, shelter, oxygen,
‘nest’ sites, access to mates (eg from vegetation
clearing, urban development, other habitat
degradation)
Chemical — herbicide/pesticide use and direct
impacts
High overland flows in high rainfall
zone and waterlogging impacting on
land substrate and natural
regenerative capacity
Frequent or long-lasting frost:
differential mortality of frost-sensitive
plants in exposed areas
Vulnerability higher in regions with
few tall trees in lightning prone areas
Competitive exclusion from Aristea
ecklonii, Kahili Ginger, Plectranthus
ciliatus, Montbretia, pasture grasses,
exotic cypress and smothering vines
(major problem invasives)
Domestic dogs and cats, feral dogs,
cats, foxes, cane toads killing wildlife
Large domestic dogs damaging
regeneration; exotic ants competing
with native species (key roles in
ecosystem processes)
Hoop Pine, and garden escapees not
indigenous to the asset
Expansion of disturbance-loving
species (increasers) at the expense of
those typifying low-disturbance
regimes
Pademelon & insect herbivory;
predation of native fauna by elevated
numbers of dingoes
Fungal pathogens affecting live wood,
roots or shoots with potential lethal
imacts. Both Phytophthora and
Favolachia have been recorded at
Springbrook
Recent unconfirmed reports at
Springbrook of IBD, lethal to carpet
pythons, a key component of the
food chain; tests are being carried out
Unconfirmed but possible risk of
infection to frogs
Loss of biological legacy including
coarse woody debris, rocks for
thermal mass, inadequate species
pool, lowered propagule availability,
disrupted, diminished or destroyed
mutualisms (mycorrhizal associations,
pollinators, dispersers)
persistent herbicides/pesticides —
impacting on rare herpetofauna,
aquatic biota, residual effects on
plants and soil microorganisms
19

Threat category Threatening/key processes Details of key process if required
Impacts of
competing uses
Chemical/physical — spillage of oil and other
chemical spills
Physical — entanglement in, collision with or
ingestion of anthropic structures or debris
Photopollution (polarized light pollution) — linear
polarization by reflection off smooth, dark
buildings, or other human-made objects or by
scattering in the atmosphere or hydrosphere at
unnatural times or locations (Stratford & Robinson
2005, Horvath et al. 2009)
Noise pollution — detrimental impacts on faunal
survival and reproduction (Buckley and Pannell
1989, Patricelli and Blickley 2006); examples: motor
vehicles, helicopters, gun firing ranges, high-decibel
music, persistent dog barking etc
Recreation management — impacts on native
fauna include loss of fitness (Amo et al. 2006);
impacts on flora from trampling, compaction
(Komatsu et al. 2007)
Urbanization impacts
Agricultural impacts (other than as already dealt
with above)
Consumptive uses (water extraction); domestic and
commercial very prevalent
Illegal activities
Discarded barbed wire, plastic bags.
Physical hazards capable of
endangering or injuring wildlife, e.g.
Barbed-wire Fencing, electric fencing,
large glass reflective panels resulting
in bird kills
Maladaptive responses in
polarization-sensitive taxa and
ecological interactions — increased
mortality and reproductive failure;
understorey birds adapted to low light
conditions (lyrebirds, logrunners)
especially sensitive
Acoustic communication a key role in
avian sexual selection and social
integration — noisy environments
result in severe energetic costs and
behavioural penalties to animals
Car parks and associated landscaping
with exotic garden plants (altered
food, shelter, habitat, “perceived
threat”, acoustic environments);
introduction of pathogens
Increased access corridors
(fragmentation impacts, road kills,
alteration of hydrology, loss of rare
ridge habitats); increased weed
invasions from road conduits and
exotic gardens; exotic fish escape into
streams; light and sound pollution;
altered fire regimes favouring
protection of life and property at the
expense of biodiversity; clearing,
waste disposal
Use of fertilizers/chemicals
associated with cattle dips may have
occurred on the properties prior to
government acquisition with potential
residual contamination
Water extraction from aquifers
changing recharge, flow and discharge
rates affecting soil water availability to
dependent flora and soil fauna (flow
on effects to ground-dwelling avian
insectivores)
Trespass for vandalism, poaching (of
native orchids, rare plants, fungi,
seeds, foliage, rare butterflies, frogs),
firewood collection, tree harvesting,
dumping of refuse
20

Threat category Threatening/key processes Details of key process if required
Socio-political
processes
Mining and quarrying (including exploration)
Hunting and collecting
Harvesting of native species for production or
consumption
Infrastructure management (powerlines, roads)
Impacts of community values
Legal quarry for ilmenite on western
escarpment of plateau; dust, noise
pollution; nucleus for weed invasions,
fragmentation impacts
Firewood collection leading to loss of
natural coarse woody debris as critical
habitat component
Native edible fruits and fungi
Overhead powerlines traverse
properties and if retained will cause
fragmentation, edge effects,
impairment of restoration, weed
invasions
Road are conduits for weeds, feral
animals (especially toads) and
Opposition from local minority
groups impacting broader support for
restoration and underlying acquisition
program, vandalism, poaching
Other Climate change Atmospheric CO 2 levels the highest
in more than 650,000 years
(preceding the last ice ages) (Bradley
and Pretziger 2007). A predicted 2˚C
temperature change results in
latitudinal range shifts of ~ 300 km or
altitudinal range shifts of ~ 300 m;
other multidimensional, simultaneous
changes expected including degree
day length or photoperiod, water
balance, phenological changes,
species interactions, nutrient cycling
(Alzinga et al. 2007, Jump and
Penuelas 2005, Memmott et al. 2007,
Pinay et al. 2007)
High-altitude assemblages,
particularly associated with cloud
forests, are especially vulnerable
(Benzing 1998, Wilson et al. 2007,
Warman and Moles 2009)
The incidence or significance of each threat varies across the various sites. For example,
Aristea ecklonii is a major barrier to natural regeneration on Warblers whereas Kikuyu is
the major barrier on Pallida.
21

1.3.4.1 Probability of success in reaching Biodiversity Goals
Table 1.4 lists barriers to achieving goals and corresponding mitigation measures. These
correlate with the identified threatening processes listed in the Table 1.3.
Table 1.4. Barriers to achieving goals and corresponding mitigation measures
Goal Goal description Barrier to achieving Goal Mitigation measures
1 The restored ecosystems
contain the characteristic
assemblage of species
with community
composition, structure
and functions analogous
with reference ecosystems
2 The restored ecosystems
comprise only indigenous
species
(1) Almost complete clearing of the plateau in the
last 100 years may have resulted in species
extinctions. The extent is unknowable.
(2) Abiotic conditions may have changed irreversibly
as a result of past land use practices (nutrient loss
from clearing, nutrient enrichment as a result of
grazing and fertilizer applications, stream
diversions impacting on hydroecology, loss of
microhabitats, e.g., stones providing critical
thermal mass for fauna that are food resources
for Albert’s Lyrebird (past farming practices
involved systematic removal of “floaters”)
(3) Natural pollinators and dispersers may have
declined or been replaced by less efficient or
ineffectual exotic species, e.g. domestic bees;
(4) Genetic diversity may be impoverished by
reduction of remnant populations below critical
levels.
(5) Climate change may make it impossible for some
species to establish successfully and survive
(Harris et al. 2006)
(1) The likelihood of meeting this goal will depend
on the effectiveness of policy, planning and onround
management practices within and outside
the immediate project area
(2) Alien species invasions are unlikely to be
prevented if populations are continually reintroduced
or rejuvenated through slashing
practices along access or essential service
corridors, through garden escapes or failure to
eliminate source populations elsewhere in
Springbrook for those species spread by wind,
overland flow or animal vectors (Macleay 2004,
Hierro et al. 2005)
(3) Success will depend on an understanding of the
underlying ecological processes associated with
invasive species (Hierro et al. 2005)
Land-use practices on private
land changed through public
education and assistance with
funding
Policy deficiencies at an
institutional level that allows
continuing threatening
processes along road verges
and power-line easements
rectified
Landscape-scale change
through ensuring appropriate
infrastructure policies, Local
Area and Regional Plans
Science-based elimination of
non-indigenous species
within the project area
prioritised on basis of threat
and effected through
intervention or services of
nature
22

Goal Goal description Barrier to achieving Goal Mitigation measures
3 The restored ecosystem
provides habitat for
rare, threatened and
significant species
(1) There are 10 endangered, 21 vulnerable and 40
rare pant species recorded from the Project area
Group E V R Total
Plants 10 21 40 71
Frogs 2 1 4 7
Reptiles 1 3 4
Birds 5 5 10
Mammals 3 3
(3
cont.)
The restored ecosystem
provides habitat for
rare, threatened and
significant species
4 All functional groups
necessary for continued
development, stability
and resilience are present
or able to colonize
naturally
(2) “Habitat” not synonymous with “native
vegetation”; resources and conditions for
restoring or maintaining occupancy and dispersal
capacity of species, populations or individuals
(Lindenmayer and Fischer 2006, Miller and
Hobbs 2007) may not be known or possible
because of lack of data or irreversible changes in
abiotic or biotic environment.
(3) Lack of functional landscape connectivity
(Chetkiewicz et al. 2006, Awade and Metzger
2008)
(4) Lack of knowledge different ecological habitat
preferences for different life stages of plants or
animals (Comita et al. 2007)
(5) Land management practices in adjoining lands
non-conducive to habitat restoration at scale
required, e.g. National Parks management retain
high-usage, high-profile visitor walking tracks
through prime Rufous Scrub Bird habitat where
understorey managed for visitor comfort and
visibility rather than habitat retention
(6) Lack of community understanding of the
significance of habitat components, e.g. vines
seen as undesirable, to be eradicated elements,
but Pale-yellow Robins’ nests built almost
exclusively in lawyer-vine (Hindwood 1966)
(1) Widespread clearing and fragmentation on
Springbrook Plateau may have resulted in
irreversible loss or severe depletion of whole
functional groups (e.g. specialized pollinators and
dispersal vectors, avian frugivores, mycorrhizal
symbionts, soil microorganisms)
(2) Changed abiotic conditions (e.g. climate,
hydrological regimes, nutrient cycling) may be
inimical to recovery of particular functional
groups (e.g. epiphytes with keystone role in
hydrological fluxes)
Functional diversity and ecosystem processes are
closely linked (Ernst et al. 2006, Thuiller et al. 2006).
Functional diversity is positively correlated with
productivity (efficient resource capture conferring
invasion resistance), complex trophic structures and
feedback interactions fundamental to stabilizing
ecosystem structure and function within narrow,
historical bounds (Hosack et al. 2009)
Improve autecological data,
life history attributes,
understanding of natural
disturbance regimes and
resource fluxes across
multiple temporal and spatial
scales
Restore functional landscape
connectivity
Restore canopy cover and
vegetation structure and
composition (restore
microclimates,
biogeochemical cycling)
Monitor recovery of key
functional groups that include
foundation, keystone species
Assist recovery where
naturally inadequate (through
comparison with reference
sites) by direct seeding or
replanting from ex situ stock
maximising local genetic
diversity
23

Goal Goal description Barrier to achieving Goal Mitigation measures
5 The abiotic environment
can sustain
reproductively viable
populations of those
species required for
stability and resilience
and continued ecosystem
development along the
desired trajectory
6 The restored ecosystems
function normally for
their ecological stage of
development; signs of
dysfunction absent
7 The restored ecosystems
are integrated into the
larger ecological matrix
or landscape with which
it interacts through
abiotic and biotic flows
and exchanges
Normal biogeochemical processes and disturbance
regimes may have been changed beyond historical
limits of variation such that biotic interactions and
positive feedback cycles necessary for normal
successional processes and negative feedback cycles
for stability and resilience of restored ecosystems
may not be achievable (Halpern et al. 2007, Jentsch
2007)
(1) Inability to distinguish between a normal
successional trajectory and shifts via threshold
dynamics to alternative stable states (Hobbs and
Norton 1996)
Lack of a regional management plan, strategies and
controls directed at restoring landscape-wide health
and integrity to a World Heritage Precinct, the
deficiency allowing:
(1) local opposition to acquisition strategy designed
to restore landscape integrity
(2) land-use practices on private land (clearing,
slashing, cattle grazing, forestry, water extraction,
fencing, light and noise pollution)
(3) institutional policies and practices responsible for
ongoing threatening processes (infrastructure
management, inadequate development controls)
Cattle grazing ceased on all
acquired properties
potentially allowing autogenic
recovery in the long-term
Routine slashing of exotic
pasture grasses ceased to
allow natural regeneration
processes (where possible) to
re-establish
Observe/monitor adequacy
of natural recovery processes
for initial years of project
Develop indicators able to
distinguish between normal
successional (linear) and
threshold dynamics
Compare type, intensity,
extent and frequency of
disturbance regimes and
resource fluxes with reference
sites and selected
chronosequence sites and
other historical records
Project likely forest structure
using an ecosystem growth
model (EDS)
Identify policy deficiencies
Seek institutional,
organisational and policy
change to rectify policy
deficiencies and facilitate
control of landscape-wide
threatening processes
24

Goal Goal description Barrier to achieving Goal Mitigation measures
8 Potential threats to the
stability and resilience of
the restored ecosystems
from the surrounding
landscape have been
eliminated
9 The restored ecosystems
are sufficiently resilient
to endure normal
periodic stress events in
the local environment
that serve to maintain
integrity of the ecosystem
(1) local opposition to acquisition strategy designed
to restore landscape integrity
(2) land-use practices on private land (clearing,
slashing, cattle grazing, forestry, water extraction,
fencing, light and noise pollution)
(3) institutional policies and practices responsible for
ongoing threatening processes (infrastructure
management, inadequate development controls)
(4) inadequate funding allocated to acquisition of
land for ensuring landscape integrity of the
expanded National Park
(1) Alternative stable states are more intractable
(stable and resilient) than expected or resources
allow
(2) Key functional groups missing (e.g. large trees
capable of hydraulic redistribution to maintain
soil moisture during dry periods)
(3) Genetic fitness adapted to local conditions
insufficient to maintain resilience
(Risk increases where intervention planting
carried out to initiate succession — “year effects”
can be important
(1) A community support
strategy that
encompasses:
• extension (website, field
days, brochures and
displays, Scenario Based
Learning (SBL) aimed at
improved understanding
of World Heritage Values
and vulnerabilities
resulting from land-use
and climate change;
• financial assistance to
facilitate better land-use
practices
(2) Identification of policy,
strategic and
coordination deficiencies
at the institutional level
aimed at threat
mitigation and
facilitation of restoration
(3) Seek additional funding
for strategic acquisition
of land consistent with
the regional and local
planning framework
Secure additional resources to
ensure essential science-based
interventions restart
autogenic succession at the
expense of alternative stable
states
Focus on reversing the more
intractable effects of stressors
on the resource base and
ability of biota to capture
these resources (Hobbs and
Norton 1996)
Last resort interventions
include direct seeding or
planting of genetically diverse
stock of missing canopy
species (Argyrodendron, Sloanea,
Syzygium etc)
10 The restored ecosystems
are self-sustaining to the
same degree as their
reference ecosystems and
have the potential to
persist indefinitely under
existing environmental
conditions
(1) Functional diversity inadequate to ensure
required feedback loops and species interactions
that dampen oscillations in ecosystem structure,
function and productivity
Assess diversity of functional
groups associated with
recovery trajectory against
reference and
chronosequence sites
Intervene where necessary
with direct seeding/planting
of required genetically diverse
stock likely to engender
resilience
25

1.3.5 Reference sites
Reference sites will be determined by a combination of visual inspection of historical
aerial photography (back to 1930) and on-the-ground assessments. The intention is to
establish a chronosequence of reference sites covering a timescale from preclearing to
recent clearing and therefore a sequence of ecosystem development from ‘original’
rainforest ecosystem through various stages of regeneration to recent regeneration.
The location of reference sites will take account of altitude, aspect, slope, rainfall and
geology in order to match, as far as practicable, the range of these attributes on the
restoration properties.
1.3.6 Timeframe
Springbrook Rescue is a long-term project with an initial timeframe of 10 years.
Provision has been made in the Restoration Agreement between the Queensland
Government and the Australian Rainforest Conservation Society for an extension for a
further 10 years.
Because of this timeframe, restoration will rely as far as possible on natural regeneration.
This factor, together with the dependence on volunteer labour which in turn is more
readily achievable over a longer timeframe, is expected to make the project significantly
more cost-effective.
26

Springbrook — a thriving community of residents and visitors
sustaining and sustained by the World Heritage values of a mainly
natural landscape that inspires and revives the human spirit
Aspirational goal
supported by the
community
Reference
sites
selected and
attributes
documented
Community
understands the
project and its
significance for
World Heritage
Web site designed and
online; brochures designed
and printed; display designed
and installed; 3 field days
held; Scenario Based
Learning (SBL) Tool started
Community
support strategy
designed
Policy and management
practices consistent with a
World Heritage precinct
Landscape-scale threats
abating by harmonising
infrastructure policies, Local
Area and Regional Plans
Institutional, organisational
and policy change
facilitating control of
threatening processes
Road verges, powerline
easements managed to
restore microclimate,
protect habitat and
reduce spread of weeds
Policy deficiencies
that allow continuing
threatening processes
notified to relevant
authorities
1.4 Program Logic
Aspirational
program goal
Vision for the asset
An expanded, protected and self-sustaining World Heritage rainforest
ecosystem at Springbrook providing secure habitat for flora and fauna
contributing to World Heritage values
A successful test case
able to be applied
more broadly
Biodiversity conservation
Native vegetation covering all previously
cleared land and the trajectory of ecosystem
change moving in the desired direction
Minimal managemnt inputs
required beyond normal
protected area demands
Conceptual and growth
models for ecological
restoration verified or refined
and published
Improvement in state of
biophysical asset
Policy & social change
and
Intermediate activities
Barriers to ecosystem
restoration eliminated;
Aristea ecklonii
eradicated from all sites
Results of
monitoring reviewed
and incorporated
into adaptive
management
Community skills,
knowledge and
engagement
increased; SBL
Tool completed
(0–3 years
Initial activities and outcomes
(3–9 years)
Intermediate activities and outcomes
Longer-term
outcomes
(≥10 years)
80-100% Canopy cover
achieved on 50% of cleared
areas on all sites;
‘significant’ species utilising
newly restored habitats
Supplementary planting in
selected areas unable to
regenerate naturally (by
direct seeding, transplanting
or growing nursery stock)
Aristea ecklonii declared a
Class 2 weed; nurseries
cease selling it; local
landholders participate in
removing it from their land
More projects
using wireless
sensor networks
for monitoring of
restoration
Forest structure consistent
with model predictions for
their age and
environmental conditions
Biophysical outputs
Non-biophysical outputs
Threats and barriers to
ecological restoration under
active control based on
observation and monitoring
Threats and barriers to
ecological restoration
identified and described
for each asset
Extent of invasion by
Aristea ecklonii and other
priority weeds identified;
control options assessed
and measures underway
Restoration
equipment
purchased
Volunteers recruited;
training, safety,
insurance and
accommodation in
place
Sensor system
installed for
recording of
environmental
parameters
Funding
sources
established
Long-term monitoring
plots set up; growth
rate, soil moisture and
other measurements
initiated; trials started
Monitoring
equipment
purchased
Natural
regeneration
identified,
evaluated and
mapped
Flora and fauna
surveys carried
out in adjoining
rainforest
(species pool)
GIS mapping resources
established; grid-based
monitoring and reporting
adopted and cells (16.67 m
square) permanently marked
Foundational
activities
Project activities
Program logic
defined using
INFFER &
SER
Guidelines;
Goals set
Potential threats and
barriers to ecosystem
restoration described,
risk factors identified,
mitigation options
evaluated
Resource
requirements
identified
and costed;
feasibility
determined
Monitoring,
evaluation
and reporting
processes
defined
Conceptual
and growth
models of
ecological
restoration
selected
Assets defined
and described;
significant
species
selected and life
history attributes
completed
Policy
deficiencies that
allow continuing
threatening
processes
identified
27

1.5 Desired outcomes
Outcome hierarchy Outcome description Associated target
Vision for
the asset
• An expanded, protected and self-sustaining World Heritage rainforest ecosystem at
Springbrook providing secure habitat for flora and fauna contributing to World Heritage
values
Aspirational
program goal
• A successful test case for ecological restoration able to be applied more broadly
• Springbrook — a thriving community of residents and visitors sustaining and sustained by
the World Heritage values of a mainly natural landscape that inspires and revives the
human spirit
Longer term outcomes
Biodiversity
conservation
• Native vegetation covering all previously cleared land and the trajectory of ecosystem
change moving in the desired direction compared with reference sites and modelling
projections
• Minimal management inputs required beyond normal protected area demands
• Conceptual and growth models for ecological restoration verified or refined and published
• Aspirational goal supported by the community
• Policy and management practices consistent with a World Heritage precinct
• Restoration of
rainforest and World
Heritage values
Improvement
in state of
biophysical
assets
• 80–100% canopy cover achieved on at least 50% of cleared areas on all sites; ‘significant’
species utilising newly restored habitats
• Barriers to ecosystem restoration eliminated; Aristea ecklonii eradicated from all sites.
• Forest structure consistent with model predictions for the age and environmental
conditions
• Natural regeneration
progressing
adequately on 120
hectares of land
within 10 years
• Landscape threats abating by harmonising infrastructure policies, Local Area and Regional
Plans
Intermediate activities and outcomes
Policy and
social change
• Supplementary planting in selected areas unable to regenerate naturally (by direct seeding,
transplanting or growing nursery stock)
• Aristea ecklonii declared a Class 2 weed and nurseries cease selling it; local landholders
participating in removing it from their land
• More projects using wireless sensor networks for monitoring restoration stimulated
• Results of monitoring reviewed and incorporated into adaptive management
• Community skills, knowledge and engagement increased; SBL Tool completed
• Community understands the project and its significance for World Heritage (social survey)
• Institutional, organisational and policy change facilitating control of threatening processes.
• Policy and
management
practice consistent
with a World
Heritage precinct
Initial activities and outcomes
Biophysical
outputs
• Threats and barriers to ecological restoration under active control based on observation
and monitoring.
• Extent of invasion by Aristea ecklonii and other priority weeds identified; control options
assessed and measures underway.
• Sensor system installed for recording environmental parameters
• Long-term monitoring plots set up; growth rate, soil moisture and other measurements
initiated; restoration trials started
• Natural regeneration identified, evaluated & mapped.
• Flora & fauna surveys carried out in adjoining rainforest (species pool)
• Reference sites selected and attributes documented (chronosequence)
• Road verges and powerline easements managed to restore microclimate, protect habitat
and reduce spread of weeds
• Facilitate natural
regeneration on 120
hectares of land
• Aristea ecklonii, and
Class 1 and Class 2
weeds (QLD) and
WONS
(Commonwealth)
eliminated or
controlled
28

Outcome hierarchy Outcome description Associated target
Nonbiophysical
outputs
• Threats and barriers to ecological restoration identified and described for each asset
• Restoration equipment purchased
• Volunteers recruited; training, safety, insurance, accommodation in place
• Funding sources secured, identified or indicated
• Monitoring equipment purchased
• GIS mapping resources established; grid-based monitoring and reporting adopted and cells
(16.67 m square) permanently marked
• Springbrook Rescue web site designed and online; brochures designed and printed; display
designed and installed; 3 field days held; Scenario-Based Learning (SBL) Tool started
• Adequate volunteer
program established
within 3 years
• Public information
resources established
in second year
• State and Local
Government
Agencies modifying
infrastructure
policies
• Policy deficiencies that allow continuing threatening processes notified to authorities
Foundational activities
Project
activities
• Program logic defined using INFFER & SER Guidelines 1
• Potential threats and barriers to ecological restoration described; risk factors identified;
mitigation options evaluated
• Resources requirements identified and costed; feasibility determined.
• Monitoring, evaluation and reporting processes defined.
• Conceptual and growth models of ecological restoration selected
• Assets defined and described; significant species selected and life history attributes
completed
• Community support strategy defined
• Policy deficiencies that allow continuing threatening processes identified
• Foundations in place
for cost-effective
restoration of
rainforest
ecosystems at
Springbrook
29

1.6 Assumptions and risk assessment
Assumptions about how change will occur through implementation of the program
strategies and activities to achieve the outcomes outlined in 1.5 are documented in the
following table. Assumptions are based on currently available evidence and the risks of
these assumptions being incorrect are indicated.
Outcome level
Outcome statements
An expanded, protected and self-sustaining
World Heritage rainforest ecosystem at
Springbrook providing secure habitat for
flora and fauna contributing to World
Heritage Values
Assumptions
(underlying basis of change)
Risk
(a) assumptions invalid
(b) implications
(a)
Low
Medium
High
Stable climatic conditions or species track changes M–H Major
National Park tenure established L Major
Critical biotic viability thresholds not passed
irreversibly as a result of past threatening processes
L
(b)
Insignificant
Minor
Moderate
Major
Extreme
Extreme
Essential habitat elements identified and
recoverable
L–M
Major
Aspirational goal
Longer term outcomes
(longer than 10 years)
A successful test case of ecological
restoration able to be applied more broadly
Springbrook — a thriving community of
residents and visitors sustaining and
sustained by the World Heritage values of a
mainly natural landscape that inspires and
revives the human spirit
Naïve vegetation covering all previously
cleared land and the trajectory of ecosystem
change moving in the desired direction.
Minimal management inputs required
beyond normal protected area demands
Data are available L Moderate
Conceptual models & decision trees validly
applicable from site specific levels to the generic
Functional group approach valid; leading indicators
validly selected
L–M
L
Moderate
Moderate
Greater reliance on free ecosystem services feasible L Major
Wireless sensor network technology can overcome
constraints on effective monitoring and
characterization of ecohydrological and other vital
abiotic processes tightly linked to ecosystem
processes (productivity, stability, resilience)
Significant numbers of people do not adequately
value biodiversity
L
L–M
Moderate
People prepared to change their values L Major
The international and national community
increasingly value diminishing natural areas
L
Insignificant
Major
Stable climatic conditions M–H Major
Stable land tenure status guaranteed (National Park) L Major
Conceptual succession models correctly applied and
alternative stable states identifiable and changeable
EDS Growth model correctly parameterised and
designed to adequately project ecosystem
development
L–M
M–H
Major
Minor
Autogenic succession achievable within 10 years L–M Moderate
Functional diversity enough in ≥10 years to repel
invasive species
M
Moderate
30

Outcome level
Longer term outcomes
(longer than 10 years)
Outcome statements
Conceptual and growth models for
ecological restoration verified or refined
and published
Aspirational goal supported by the
community
Assumptions
(underlying basis of change)
Risk
(a) assumptions invalid
(b) implications
(a)
Low
Medium
High
(b)
Insignificant
Minor
Moderate
Major
Extreme
Conceptual models and science questions valid L–M Major?
The assessment scale, sampling strategy and
analytical methods able to distinguish between Type
I and II errors
L–M
Insignificant
or
Major?
The EDS growth model correctly parameterised M–H Minor
People do not adequately value biodiversity L–M Insignificant
People are prepared to change their values M Major
People are prepared to participate in field days L Moderate
Content and style of public information is
appropriate (website design and content, brochures,
displays) as evidenced by attendances and web visits
L
Moderate
World Heritage has a meaningful community role L–M Major
Policy and management practices consistent
with a World Heritage precinct
Policy enshrined in regional planning legislation or
state World Heritage legislation; regulations and
local planning instruments amended for consistency
L–M
Major
MOU between State agencies in place that
harmonise on-ground management practices
M
Major
80-100% Canopy cover achieved on 50%
of cleared areas on all sites; ‘significant’
species utilising newly restored habitats
Distinction between threshold dynamics with
alternative stable states and normal successional
dynamics correct
L–M
Major?
Growth rates are accurately predicted from study
plots; historical air photos reflect regrowth capacity
L–M
Major
High canopy cover initiates autogenic succession L Moderate
New vegetation structure, microclimate, litter
production, soil moisture conditions induce return
of (1) invertebrate food resources for ground
dwelling avifauna; (2) shelter and possible nest sites
L–M
Major
Intermediate activities and outcomes (3-9 years)
Barriers to ecosystem restoration
eliminated; Aristea ecklonii eradicated from
all sites
Forest structure consistent with model
predictions for their age and environmental
conditions
Microclimate conditions increase seedling survival
of increasing number of plant functional types
L–M
Major
Abiotic barriers are not intractable M Extreme
Biotic barriers can be overcome cost-effectively L–M Major
Resources available for management L–M Major
All aspects of invasion theory re. Aristea considered M Major
Chronosequence plots a valid alternative to
permanent plots measured successively in time for
determining successional structure and composition
Ecosystem dynamics simulator (EDS) program
correctly parameterised
M
M
Moderate
Minor
Structure a valid surrogate for biodiversity H Minor
31

Risk
(a) assumptions invalid
Outcome level
Outcome statements
Assumptions
(underlying basis of change)
(b) implications
(a)
Low
Medium
High
(b)
Insignificant
Minor
Moderate
Major
Extreme
Landscape-scale threats abating by
harmonising infrastructure policies, Local
Area and Regional Plans
State Government committed to (a) creating or
amending legislation for policy direction with
required head of power and (b) useing that power
L–M
Major
Line agencies of government committed to the
required on-ground practices
Local Government (a) responsive to State Interests,
(b) prepared to remove ambiguities and loopholes
in statutory instruments, and (c) willing to act
M
M–H
Major
Major
Threats and barriers to ecological
restoration under active control based on
observation and monitoring
Abiotic threats and barriers (resource constraints &
altered disturbance regimes) adequately identified
L–M
Major
Biotic threats and barriers correctly identified L–M Major
Monitoring parameters and period sufficient L–M Moderate
Science underpinning control measures is sound L–M Major
Resources for management adequate L Major
Initial activities and outcomes (1-3 years)
Extent of invasion by Aristea ecklonii and
other priority weeds identified: control
options assessed and measures underway
Sensor system installed for recording of
environmental parameters
Aristea still is in early establishment phase L–M Major
Extent of Aristea invasion can be accurately
assessed
L
Major
Biotic dispersal mode for Aristea unlikely M–H Major
Integrated physical and chemical control methods
are necessary for Aristea based on life-history
attributes (seed mass, specific leaf area SLA, plant
height, reproductive modes)
Invasiveness and control measures for traditional
weeds already known and able to be applied in
sensitive environments
L
L
Major
Major
Adequate resources for at least 10 years L–M Major
Adequate resources and skills for establishment,
maintenance, data archival and analysis
Sensor type and spatial distribution adequately
measures parameters reflecting key resource fluxes
(energy, water, nutrients) that determine
competition and survival
L
L–M
Major
Moderate
Audio-sensors and cameras usefully reflect habitat
suitability for selected faunal ‘indicator species’
L
Moderate
Long-term monitoring plots set up; growth
rate, soil moisture and other measurements
initiated; trials started
Sampling strategy adequate to deal with
autocorrelation and spatial heterogeneity in areas of
compressed environmental gradients
L–M
Major
Resources adequate for set-up and ongoing
measurement (financial and human) analysis and
reportiong
L
Major
Natural regeneration identified, evaluated
and mapped
Resources available L Major
32

Outcome level
Outcome statements
Flora and fauna surveys carried out in
adjoining rainforest (species pool)
Assumptions
(underlying basis of change)
Risk
(a) assumptions invalid
(b) implications
(a)
Low
Medium
High
Skills and resources available L Major
(b)
Insignificant
Minor
Moderate
Major
Extreme
Reference sites selected and attributes
documented
Attributes for identifying sites suitable
Sufficient reference sites survived clearing
Sufficient resources available
L
L
L
Moderate
Major
Major
Road verges, powerline easements managed Management conditions correctly prescribed M Major
to restore microclimate, protect habitat and
reduce spread of weeds Policies, programs and on-ground works in place M Major
1.7 Evaluation questions
Evaluation questions for three levels of the Outcomes hierarchy are listed below.
Evaluation questions for the ‘Foundational activities’ and ‘Initial activities and outcomes’
levels of the hierarchy are implicit in the Results section (1.10).
The MERI Framework (Australian Government 2009) suggests evaluations address five
categories.
Evaluation categories
Impact
In what ways and to what extent has the program contributed to changing
asset condition and management practices and institutions?
What, if any, unanticipated positive or negative changes or other outcomes
have resulted?
To what extent were the changes directly or indirectly produced by the
program interventions?
Appropriateness
To what extent is the program aligned with the needs of the intended
beneficiaries?
To what extent is the program compliant with recognised best practice
processes in the field—e.g. the type, level and context of investment and
associated activities?
How time critical is the program?
Effectiveness
To what extent have the planned activities and outputs been achieved?
Are current activities the best way to maximise impact or are there other
strategies that might be more effective?
33

To what extent is the program attaining, or expected to attain, its objectives
efficiently and in a way that is sustainable?
Efficiency
To what extent has the program attained the highest value out of available
resources?
How could resources be used more productively and efficiently?
What could be done differently to improve implementation, and thereby
maximise impact, at an acceptable and sustainable cost?
Legacy
Will the program’s impacts continue over time and after the program ceases?
How and by whom should the legacy be managed?
The Key evaluation question is: To what extent has the long-term viability of World
Heritage rainforest at Springbrook and of habitat for flora and fauna contributing to
World Heritage values been secured?
Outcome Evaluation question Category
Outcome
level
Impact (real outcomes)
Appropriateness (needs)
Effectiveness (methods)
Efficiency (cost-effective)
Legacy (sustainable)
Vision for
Springbrook
achieved
To what extent are rainforest ecosystems at Springbrook providing
secure habitat for flora and fauna contributing to World Heritage
values?
Impact
Aspirational goal
Is the expanded National Park sufficiently stable and resilient to
threatening processes, especially climate change?
Were the ecological restoration strategies cost-effective?
Can the test case be applied more broadly?
How and by whom will the restored areas be managed when the
project finishes?
Appropriateness
Effectiveness
Legacy
Longer term outcomes (≥10 years)
Improvement
in biodiversity
conservation
Is native vegetation covering all previously cleared land on the
restoration properties?
Is the trajectory of ecosystem change moving in the desired direction?
Are policy and management practices consistent with a World Heritage
precinct?
Are required management inputs now minimal?
Were the management inputs cost-effective
Are conceptual and growth models for ecological restoration helpful?
Does the community support the aspirational goal?
Is the project capable of being continued and by whom
Impact
Appropriateness
Effectiveness
Efficiency
Effectiveness
Appropriateness
Legacy
34

Outcome Evaluation question Category
Outcome
level
Impact (real outcomes)
Appropriateness (needs)
Effectiveness (methods)
Efficiency (cost-effective)
Legacy (sustainable)
Improvement
in the state of
the asset
Is 80–100% canopy cover achieved over 50% of cleared areas on all
restoration properties?
Are ‘significant’ species utilising newly restored habitats?
Impact
Impact
Has Aristea ecklonii been eradicated from all project sites?
Impact
Are local landholders participating in removing it from their land?
Impact
Has Aristea ecklonii been declared a Class 2 weed?
Impact
Have all barriers to ecosystem restoration been eliminated at each site?
Impact
Intermediate activities and outcomes (3–9 years)
Policy and
social change
Were supplementary plantings or direct seeding necessary over
significant areas?
Is forest structure consistent with model predictions for same age and
environmental conditions?
Are landscape-scale threats abating?
Have results to date been reviewed and incorporated into adaptive
management?
Have community skills, knowledge and engagement increased?
Has community understanding of the project and its significance for
World Heritage increased?
Has there been any policy change at the institutional level that will
facilitate control of threatening processes?
Has Aristea ecklonii been declared a Class 2 weed?
Effectiveness
Effectiveness
Impact
Efficiency
Effectiveness
Impact
Appropriateness
Impact
Effectiveness
Immediate activities and outcomes
(0–3 years)
Improvement
in the state of
the asset
Improvement
in
Organisational
capacity to
implement the
program
Are threats and barriers to ecological restoration under active control
and based on best science and practice?
Is the extent of Aristea ecklonii infestation identified; control options
assessed, and control measures under way?
Are appropriate control measures for all priority weeds under way?
Are landscape-wide measures being applied to control weeds and
restore habitat (e.g. along road verges and powerline easements)?
Were the threats and barriers to ecological restoration identified and
described for each asset?
Were sufficient funding sources secured?
Was all equipment necessary for restoration and monitoring acquired?
Were identified data acquisition, storage, analysis and reporting
requirements set in place?
Effectiveness
Effectiveness
Effectiveness
Effectiveness
Effectiveness
Effectiveness
Effectiveness
Effectiveness
Was a volunteer program successfully established?
Effectiveness
35

1.8 Science Framework
1.8.1 Conceptual Models
1.8.1.1 Introduction
1.8.1.2 Ecosystem stability model
1.8.1.3 Patch-Matrix Functional Types
1.8.1.4 Succession Models (Continuum vs Threshold dynamics)
1.8.1.5 Integration of science with restoration practice
1.8.1.6 A Framework for assessing Threshold Dynamics by restoration practitioners
1.8.1.1 Introduction
The following statements, conceptual models and diagrams reflect the underlying science
framework for the project. They provide heuristic tools for understanding observed
patterns, predicting outcomes, testing assumptions and making adaptive improvements.
Conceptual models are a vital tool to help determine whether a damaged or destroyed
ecosystem will recover unaided or whether and what type of specific interventions are
required. A range of published models will be considered for their respective usefulness.
Without an understanding of the ecological processes involved, one can erroneously do
nothing when action was required and end up with a permanently degraded state, or one
can take positive and costly actions when none were required — inadvertently ending up
with something different from what was intended and extremely difficult to remedy.
1.8.1.2 Biodiversity-stability model
Figure 1.14 represents a biodiversity-stability model of ecosystem processes that appears
useful. It recognises ecosystems as complex, dynamic, spatially heterogeneous, and
potentially exhibiting non-linear threshold dynamics with alternative stable states, driven
and maintained by bi-directional
Disturbance
interactions and feedback loops
between species, resource fluxes and
disturbance regimes (Anand and
Stability
Orlóci 1996, Chapin et al. 1996a,
Biodiversity
Regional Species Pool
Productivity
Resource supply
Climate
Worm and Duffy 2003). Negative
feedback loops are the key to
ecosystem stability providing
resistance or resilience to
environmental change (DeAngelis et
al. 1986, DeAngelis and Post 1991,
Worm and Duffy 2003, Duffy 2009).
Figure 1.14 Biodiversity-Stability Model of Ecosystem Processes:
Bi-directional relationships between biodiversity, productivity (potential and realized carbon gain) and community stability
(resistance; resilience) with feed-back loops and indirect effects mediated by trophic interactions and other ecological
processes including competition, facilitation, mutualism, herbivory and predation. Biodiversity includes species richness (number
of species), composition (identity of species) and functional diversity. Richness influences energy and nutrient fluxes (including
carbon) through increased facilitation and niche complementarity at high species richness. Composition may affect productivity
though functionally dominant species. These may represent a small number of species out of the total species pool.
Productivity refers to both biomass production and potential productivity which reflects gradients in resource supply
(energy, water, nutrients). Increasing resource supply increases potential productivity to which local diversity adjusts.
Stability refers to community stability with respect to destabilizing influences on community biomass. Diversity increases
stability because of a greater range of adaptive functional traits within the species pool that keep productivity stable under a
range of conditions. By contrast, stability of the environment adjusts local richness within a species pool. A diverse rainforest
community can stabilize the abiotic environment by ameliorating fluctuations in water availability and ambient temperature to
influence disturbance regimes, thence diversity.
Based on Worm and Duffy 2003, Duffy 2009
37

Sustainability (stability) of ecosystems implies that over the normal cycle of disturbance
events, an ecosystem can maintain its characteristic diversity of major functional groups,
productivity, soil fertility, and rates of biogeochemical cycling within stable bounds
(Chapin et al. 1996b). Figure 1.14 can equally represent patch-matrix functional dynamics
where the outer box (fawn) represents the resource-disturbance matrix and potential
species pool contributing colonising species to the patch by dispersal, and the inner box
(white) the patch that responds to loss of biomass (productivity, and possibly
biodiversity) after disturbance (e.g. clearing). The ability of a patch to recover unassisted
after major disturbance such as clearing (and fragmentation) will be limited by the extent
to which either the species pool, resource supply and disturbance regimes, or all three
components have changed outside these bounds. Significant change in any or all of these
parameters may constitute absolute barriers to unassisted recovery. A broad functional
assessment of sites is the first stage in determination of restoration barriers and priorities.
1.8.1.3 Patch–Matrix Functional Types
Figure 1.15 represents nine patch-matrix classes used in the project to classify the current
condition of assets described in Section 2.2. This is a functional classification only.
1
a
b
c
2
a
b
c
3
a
b
c
Figure 1.15. Patch-Matrix Functional Classes.
Patches (inner squares) represent the average status of biodiversity, productivity and stability at the local scale within a matrix
(outer squares) comprising the broader landscape. The matrix represents the integrity of the species pool that contributes
propagules, and the integrity of resource and disturbance regimes. Nine broad functional classes are defined representing
combinations of both patch and matrix ranging from undisturbed fully functional ecosystems (1, dark green) though
moderately disturbed ecosystems (2, pale green) to cleared or severely disturbed land (3, white) in either the patch or matrix.
Three functional classes exist for both patch and matrix.
1, a Reference sites comprising undisturbed ecosystems that are structurally and functionally intact
2 Biotic factors are dysfunctional: (a) depleted species pool, potentially replenished from remote Class 1 areas or metapopulations
by long-distance dispersal; or (b) modified species pool (invasive species present and requiring removal)
3 Abiotic and biotic primary processes are severely impaired. Biotic losses may be total (cleared areas) or functionally
significant (loss of foundation, keystone species etc) requiring replacement by active intervention. Abiotic
impairment may involve changes to disturbance regimes and/or resource fluxes which may or may not be reversible
b Functional impairment is restricted to biodiversity or biotic processes (competition, dispersal, herbivory, mutualism)
c Abiotic and biotic processes severely impaired: productivity–resource interactions and stability (feedback loops)
1.8.1.4 Successional Models (Continuum versus Threshold Dynamics)
The detailed degree and type of restoration intervention requires an understanding of
successional dynamics underpinned by the basic interactions in Figure 1.15. Conceptual
models adopted in this study to aid distinguishing between options are shown in Table 1.5.
38

ECOSYSTEM MODEL PATTERNS PROCESSES
Arrival Order
Matters
(Priority Effects)
Feedbacks;
Degradation
Spiral
Sometimes Positive
feedbacks;
Yes
Yes, priority effects
possible
No No?
Positive
feedbacks;
Yes
Table 1.5 Three basic ecosystem model types as heuristic frameworks to guide restoration (based on Suding and Hobbs 2009)
Environmental
Relationship 1
Spatial Pattern Temporal Pattern 2 State-Transition
Diagram 3
Disturbance
Response 4
1. Gradual continuous Linear Gradual boundary,
or sharp if
underlying
environmental
boundary (e.g.,
different prior land
use)
Linear with no
hysteresis
(collapse path
same as recovery
path)
Continuous states;
A-AB-B
Gradual No Less strong
feedbacks
New Models
2a. Threshold or
dynamic regime
2b. Threshold with
alternative
stable states
(ASS)
Sigmoid Sharp boundary,
with less sharp
environmental
boundary
Various; S-shaped
curve; ≥2
alternative states 5
Sharp boundary,
with less sharp
environmental
boundary
Sigmoid with or
without hysteresis
Sigmoid with
hysteresis; collapse
recovery
A to B;
discrete states,
thresholds,
transitions
A to B;
discrete states,
thresholds,
transitions
Resilient, then
small disturbance
causes large
change in state
variables
As in threshold;
but non-recovery
or hysteresis
3. Stochastic No pattern None, random No temporal
trend
None No consistent
response
1
The relationship between the ecosystem ‘state’ variable (y axis) — fast-changing, e.g. dominant vegetation, diversity, or ecosystem function — and a slow-changing or external
‘controlling’ variable (x axis), such as climate, nutrient inputs, disturbance etc.
2
How the restoration ‘state’ variable changes over time (e.g. stochastic — linked with divergent, cyclic, or arrested trajectories with no common states)
3
The existence and classification of ‘states’ determined by either multivariate analysis (site groupings based on vegetation components), multi-model distributions (most frequent
vegetation conditions in a landscape), variance (Martens et al. 2000, Breshears 2006) or qualitatively based on direct knowledge of the system and its history
4
Assumes manipulation of or changes in the controlling variable (e.g., the x axis)
5
A 2-threshold model where one state may result from changed abiotic conditions, and another (later in a restoration pathway) denotes changed biotic interactions. The concept
was first introduced by Holling (1973).
39

The models depicted in Table 1.5 represent the range between deterministic and stochastic
models of ecosystem dynamics and successional processes following the loss of biomass after
disturbance. Any site may display dynamic behaviour consistent with all three major models at
any one time, or any single site may change from stochastic to deterministic processes with
time as the number of functional groups and feedback interactions between species (and
functional groups) and their environment increases.
The Gradual Continuum Model (a deterministic model) describes classical autogenic
succession where recovery after disturbance follows a steady predictable path towards a single
stable climax or equilibrium state. One could intervene to accelerate progress, but the end
point is the same regardless of the initial condition or disturbances to the recovery trajectory
(Clements 1916, Young et al. 2001). The most cost-effective strategy in this case is to do
nothing, unless the need to recover critical habitat for threatened species or recovery of
buffering mechanisms against climate change demands otherwise.
Threshold models of successional dynamics, on the other hand, imply abrupt, large changes in
ecosystem structure, function and feedback interactions with relatively small changes in
environmental conditions past a critical point or threshold. These regime shifts are frequently
described by thresholds (criticality, rapid transitions or tipping points). Key subsets of threshold
models, of critical significance to restoration, are alternative stable state models. Minor changes in
environmental conditions can lead to rapid and essentially irreversible change (collapse) in
ecosystem structure and/or function to alternative stable states. Positive feedbacks are
responsible for rapid transitions, and negative feedbacks for stability or resilience of the new
equilibrium state. Invasive species, for example, may modify environmental conditions to give
a competitive advantage to the invading species (positive feedback, autofacilitation). Priority
and year (contingent) effects are common. These terms are described in detail in the next
section.
The challenge remains as to how to satisfactorily determine the end point of succession or, for
long time-frames, if succession is following the model predictions. The ecological and
biodiversity costs of not anticipating or preventing unwanted regime shifts are high because
the survival or resilience of the outstandingly significant mesic core of the Gondwana
Rainforests of Australia World Heritage Area is unlikely.
Currently, a major barrier to forecasting shifts in stability of ecosystems is the absence of
practical, measurable tests suitable for restoration practitioners.
1.8.1.5 A Practical Framework for assessing system stability or resilience — integrating
science and restoration practice
To move from a conceptual framework for understanding ecosystem stability (“resistance”
and/or “resilience”) to a practical one, one needs to understand and be able to measure
stability in the field, i.e. one needs an operational definition of stability (Carpenter et al. 2005).
Resistance implies the stability of system components to disturbance or stress, whilst resilience
encompasses both (a) the time taken for recovery after a disturbance (a mechanistic concept
associated with equilibrium dynamics) and (b) the intensity of disturbance required to push the
system past a threshold from one stable state to another (an ecological concept associated
with threshold dynamics), or the capacity of the system to resist change to another regime.
Direct measurements of resilience are difficult as they require measurement of thresholds
between alternative states and the only sure way to detect a threshold in complex systems is to
cross it. However, the use of surrogates to represent key features of resilience promises to
40

provide useful, transparent, and measurable predictive tools for restoration practitioners who
do not have the resources or time for detailed scientific experiments.
The challenge for practitioners wishing to underpin restoration by sound science, is to be able
to determine whether current vegetation ‘states’ are transient or stable, i.e. whether
continuum, stochastic or threshold dynamics apply, and, in the latter case, what feed-back
loops (positive and negative) stabilise a current ‘undesirable’ state that can be manipulated to
effect a transition towards the ‘desired’ state via ‘normal’ autogenic succession. In other
words, what minimum interventions are required to ‘kickstart’ succession and let nature
recover independently or with minimal intervention.
Since virtually all of the Springbrook plateau was cleared and burnt (often repeatedly) over the
last 100 years, the present-day mosaics of vegetated and cleared areas represent responses to
past anthropic disturbances such as clearing, logging, grazing, water extraction, stream
diversion, fire, lifestyle horticulture and infrastructure development or management relating to
urbanization or visitor management.
Landscapes are thus a mosaic of vegetation types and conditions, dominated by different
species (native or invasive), controlled by different ecological processes (e.g. dispersal,
competition for resources, facilitation, predation, herbivory, mutualism, biogeochemical
cycling, other species interactions and feedback loops), and with different responses to
environmental drivers (e.g. climate, resource fluxes, disturbance regimes) at different stages of
plant growth or ecological succession (e.g. seedling, sapling, mature plant; or early- to latesuccession).
Some states and processes (species pool, biogeochemical cycling) may be
irreparably harmed. A broad classification of each situation can be achieved using the
conceptual models illustrated in Figures 1.14 and 1.15. To identify the controlling elements
and feedback loops in order to understand successional dynamics requires a more detailed
look at the interacting components.
However, a full accounting of ecosystem elements and their interactions is confounding.
What is considered here is a simplification — an identification of only those ecosystem
elements whose changes influence key ecological processes at relevant scales sufficient to
guide restoration management decisions.
The proposed approach integrates three conceptual models of system components and
threshold dynamics:
(a) the broad scale or highest order conceptual biodiversity–stability model of Worm and
Duffy (2003);
(b) a fine-scale conceptual model of patch-level ecological processes based on plant functional
types (Breshears and Barnes 1999; Martens et al. 2000; House et al. 2003; Breshears
2006); and
(c) a conceptual framework for identification of resilience surrogates relating to transition
thresholds and feedback processes (Bennett et al. 2005).
The construction of simplified systems models of feedback based on basic archetypes
involving plant functional groups that can be built up to reflect increasing complexity offers a
practical framework for unravelling, in the field, the dynamics of complex ecosystems outlined
in Figure 1.14 and Table 1.5. It facilitates, through a series of four steps comprising 15 key
questions, the identification of the contributors to stability (resilience) within the system model
depicted in Figure 1.14 and simplified in Figure 1.16.
41

The systems model is intended to identify:
(a) potential stable states (‘undesirable’ and ‘desirable’) if any;
(b) the feedback loops or interactions responsible for their stability if stable states exist;
(c) possible thresholds (tipping points) between the stable states; and
(d) possible disturbance regimes (including restoration interventions) favouring preferred
positive feedback interactions that may shift thresholds thereby facilitating more rapid
transitions to desirable stable states.
This approach is a modification of that published by Bennett et al. 2005. The restoration
project at Springbrook should provide a useful test of its practical value with possible
feedback for improvement. A summary of the framework is shown in Box 1 (1.8.1.6).
The procedure adopted for developing relevant systems models involves four steps. These are
intended to reduce the complexity referred to in previous sections to only those key or focal
elements that are critically relevant to the dynamics of stability (feedback loops). It relies
heavily on reducing the large diversity of species involved to plant functional types that are
described in more detail in section 1.8.2. The models should be, as Albert Einstein reputedly
has said “as simple as possible, but no simpler” (Bennett et al. 2005).
In this project the term “stability” encompasses both “resistance” and “resilience” (Figure
1.14). In some of the literature (Holling 1973, 1986), “resilience” includes the concept of
resistance (engineering resilience), but for mountainous refugia both aspects need to be
considered.
The “resistance” component of stability is especially relevant to refugial areas in complex
mountainous terrain that harbours high concentrations of surviving ancient lineages of flora
and fauna. Buffering mechanisms (feedbacks) that preserve moisture and nutrient regimes
comparable to paleoclimatic conditions are likely to be (a) intact forest canopies (that can
stabilize internal microclimates) including the absence of anthropically caused gaps that act as
‘chimneys’ venting moist understorey air (Miller et al. 2007), (b) large, long-lived foundational
canopy tree species providing storage effects (Beckage et al. 2005) and capable of hydraulic
redistribution, (c) a low cloud base (frequent, extensive immersion in dense cloud seeded by
biogenic, volatile organic aerosols from intact forest canopies; Meir et al. 2006), (d) cold air
drainage characteristic of steep mountainous watersheds producing significant diurnal changes
in wind speed and direction, temperatures, and carbon dioxide concentrations (Pypker et al.
2007, de Araujo et al. 2008), (e) intact underground aquifers and seepage areas associated with
fractured basalt layers characteristic of large shield volcanoes, and (f) intact nutrient cycling
regimes involving feedbacks within the historical soil-plant-atmosphere continuum.
Concerns have been raised that, if tropical–subtropical cloud forests require higher than
present-day moisture levels, comparable to those under palaeoclimates and achievable only
though buffering mechanisms which include cloud stripping, restoration may be unsuccessful
because conditions after clearing may be too dry for the species adapted to wetter conditions
to regenerate (Wilson and Agnew 1992). The mechanism for achieving stability involves the
accumulation of biomass (productivity) that modifies the environment (resources of water,
nutrients and light) through positive feedback loops to enhance ‘stability’ structured by
negative feedback loops (Fjeldsa and Lovett 1997).
In this project, productivity, reflecting biomass accumulation, encompasses two facets of the
bi-directional diversity–productivity relationship shown in Figure 1.14 (Section 1.8.1.2).
Productivity potential or ‘environmental’ productivity reflects resource availability. Biodiversity
increases to a maximum with increasing resource availability, thereafter decreasing at higher
42

esource concentrations due to competitive exclusion by a limited number of dominant,
strong competitors (Grime 1973, de Lafontaine and Houle 2007, Worm and Duffy 2003,
Duffy 2009). Hence variance in resource availability (environmental productivity) determines
biodiversity, not vice versa. Conversely, rate of aggregate biomass production (‘species’ productivity)
at fixed resource levels is determined by biodiversity. Productivity (carbon accumulation) can
thus be affected by plant traits and disturbance which alters either biomass or nutrient levels at
a range of scales.
Productivity, the dynamics of carbon accumulation (growth and mortality as affected by
resource availability and capture, and disturbance), may provide a practical means of
evaluating the presence or absence of stable states, thresholds, and appropriate restoration
strategies. Figures 1.16 and 1.17 are important conceptual diagrams to illustrate the
fundamental dynamics of change from broad ecosystem- to patch-scale dimensions.
D
Fine- or patch-scale heterogeneity and connectivity in resource
availability (environmental productivity) are vital for
understanding vegetation dynamics following disturbance,
particularly at the earliest stages.
RSP
B
S
Figure 1.16. Ecosystem Stability Model
(shorthand version of Figure 1.14)
P
R
Bi-directional feedback interactions between individual plants and
available resources at the patch scale can be represented twodimensionally
by above- and below-ground arenas of feedback
influence by ‘shoots’ and ‘roots’ of woody plants (Figure 1.17).
The main factors determining changes at the local level are
resource availability and responses to environmental variables that
(A)
Deep-rooted
Woody Plants
(B)
Shallow-rooted
Woody Plants
(C)
Herbaceous &
woody plants
Above
Ground
Upper
Soil
Lower
Soil
Inter-canopy
Canopy
Inter-canopy
Canopy
Inter-canopy
Canopy
Figure 1.17. Patch-Scale Stability Conceptual Diagram based on plant functional groups (woody, herbaceous)
43

have a direct physiological impact on plant growth, i.e. productivity (Sanchez-Gonzalez and
Lopez-Mata 2006). Woody plants can have a dominant and disproportionately greater effect
on key ecosystem processes and structure than herbaceous plants by virtue of their greater
biomass and distinctive physiological traits. These effects are mediated directly and indirectly
through changes to the distribution of energy (photons, temperature), water and nutrients,
thus influencing microclimate and localized biogeochemical cycles both beneath and beyond
the vertical projection of the canopy. Seed germination and seedlings are critical stages
affected.
Woody plants can spatially redistribute and attenuate key resources creating heterogeneity in
resource availability thereby micro-disturbance regimes affecting the productivity of other plants,
amplified by feedback effects. This patch-scale heterogeneity results from redistribution and
attenuation of light, moisture and nutrients both horizontally and vertically as shown in Figure
1.17. The patch-scale conceptual model involves six resource compartments, two above
ground (canopy and intercanopy) and four belowground representing upper and lower soil
compartments for both canopy and intercanopy patches. This is to accommodate the spheres
of influence of shoots and roots of woody plant functional types. The upper soil layer is
defined by the predominant rooting depth of herbaceous and shallow-rooted woody plants.
The lower soil layer reflects the additional area of soil penetrated by deep-rooted woody plants
(Breshears and Barnes 1999). Avenues for woody plant impacts on fundamental plant
resources are described.
Energy
Woody canopies intercept light so that near-ground solar radiation in both “canopy” and
“intercanopy” patches is reduced, the degree of shading depending on sun angle, leaf area
index (LAI) and the density and height of the woody plants. This shading is equivalent to a
micro-disturbance if it eliminates biomass (productivity) of competing herbs in canopy and
intercanopy spaces, thus creating new favourable sites for colonisation by more woody,
comparatively shade-tolerant plants. The mechanism may involve carbon starvation via
reduction in photosynthesis due to reduced light levels. Changes in distribution of nearground
incoming solar radiation can be large, non-linear, exhibiting threshold behaviour with
peak variance occurring at substantially lower woody plant densities than 50 per cent, which
may be manipulated to accelerate recovery.
Moisture
Plants can only access water from soils, not directly from rainfall. Woody plants can
significantly influence spatial variability in plant water availability. The canopy intercepts
rainfall, as a function of biomass, leaf area index, and canopy architecture, redistributing it via
evaporation, stemflow, canopy drip, infiltration, runoff and transpiration to change spatial
patterns of plant available water (Loik et al. 2004, Newman et al. 2006, Roth et al. 2007). This
partitioning is shown in a conceptual diagram (Figure 1.18). Shading (insulation) by canopy
and leaf litter also reduces evaporation of soil moisture through reduced soil temperatures,
thereby increasing plant-available water. Increased soil carbon under canopies increases water
infiltration rates, soil storage capacity and conductivity (by improving aggregate stability)
compared with corresponding values for intercanopy soils. Some woody plants with deep
roots can access deep soil moisture stores unavailable to most herbaceous plants, and through
hydraulic redistribution further increase horizontal and vertical soil moisture gradients. Thus
changes in variance of plant available water, as measured by soil water potential differences
between canopy and intercanopy patches, can display non-linear threshold behaviour as a
function of woody plant density and size, and provide pre-warning of tipping points between
44

grassy and woody vegetation cover. Alternatively, variance in the ratio of transpiration to total
evapotranspiration would be expected to similarly exhibit threshold dynamics.
Biogeochemical cycling (carbon and nutrients)
Nutrient cycling and availability to plants is inextricably linked to water availability. Both may
co-limit productivity. Complex feedback loops linking plants, soil moisture availability and
nutrient cycling involving soil macro-and micro-fauna can mediate shifts between alternative
stable states (Bradley and Pregitzer 2007). Canopy patches under woody plants tend to have a
higher below-ground root mass, soil carbon and microbial biomass levels, potentially
differentially affecting feedbacks (Schenk 2006), relative rates and balance of nitrification and
mineralization processes (Ehrenfeld et al. 2005, Hawkes et al. 2005) and levels of plantavailable
phosphorus (Lavelle and Spain 2001, Lawrence et al. 2007).
Precipitation
Evapotranspiration
Evaporation
Photosynthesis / Transpiration
Direct throughfall
Canopy drip
Stemflow
Uptake
Evaporation
Runoff
Infiltration
Figure 1.18. Partitioning of rainfall into its various components affecting water balance and availability of water
for photosynthesis and plant growth.
To be consistent, as far as possible, with terminology about resilience and threshold behaviour in
published literature, a number of terms need to be described (Table 1.6).
45

Table 1.6. An explanation of key terms relating to resilience theory and practice
Term Similar terms Explanation
System Regime All the elements that interact to form a more complex entity with
characteristic structure, function, dynamics and feedbacks.
All systems are dynamic (Carpenter and Turner 2001, Levin 2000) (See Figure
1.14.)
The focus here is only on key system components that critically affect the
dynamics of the system with regard to resilience and thresholds.
State and
state
variables
Land condition
Ecosystem response
variables
A system ‘state’ is described in terms of its structure (species richness, i.e. the
number of species or functional groups; composition, i.e. the identity of the
species, and their relative abundances; biomass, soil organic matter etc),
function — productivity (biomass accumulation) and the nature and intensity of
feedback interactions between the components that provide stability from
disturbances; and dynamics — the rate and direction of change in system
variables (trajectory). The concept of Alternative Stable States was first
introduced by Holling (1973). The focus is on responses to disturbance.
Feedback Loops A signal within a system that loops back to control the system. A feedback
loop exists when the output of a process influences the input of the same
process. Positive feedback amplifies the process; negative feedback dampens
or stabilises the process by cancelling out change.
Disturbance
Transitions
Threshold
Drivers
Causal variables
Slow variables
Triggers
Shocks
Stresses
Stressors
Pressures
Regulators
Factors
Regime change,
switches, flips,
ecosystem collapse
Tipping point
Switch point,
switchover
A disturbance is anything that changes (or can trigger a change in) the state of
the system or its trajectory (dynamics). In more helpful practical terms a
disturbance is any process that removes or reduces biomass from the
community (Grime 1977, Hughes et al. 2007). The severity of disturbance can
be measured by the fraction of biomass removed.
It can be continuous (‘press’) or a relatively discrete event in time (‘pulse’). It
can originate externally at broad scales, or internally at fine patch-level scales.
It can change (a) biomass — the composition, abundance and interactions of
ecosystems, communities or populations; (b) resources — substrates (soils)
and/or resource availability; and (c) space — niches or empty spaces, i.e. new
opportunities for more individuals or colonies to become established.
“Pulse” or “press” disturbances will have different impacts.
“Pulse” disturbances are characterized in terms if their frequency, extent and
intensity. If the frequency and intensity are greater than the time taken by the
system to recover from the previous disturbance, the system can cross a
threshold to an alternative state. Pulse disturbances include cyclones, floods,
fires, frosts, slashing (or other forms of biomass removal), disease outbreaks.
“Press” disturbances are more or less continuous, e.g. grazing pressure, plant
propagule pressure, climate change etc.
Parameters to characterize disturbance regimes include: disturbance nature,
type (pulse or press), frequency, system recovery time, system variable or
component most affected by the disturbance, magnitude of impact, trends
(change in disturbance regimes over time, i.e days, months, years, decade, or
longer). There is a distinction between natural and anthropic disturbances (e.g.
active management of fire, slashing)
A “transition” represents a large change in the dominant plant functional type
or vegetation type and associated stabilizing feedback loops, marked by sharp
boundaries or ‘discontinuities’ unrelated to underlying environmental factors.
A threshold is a clear breakpoint between two alternative states of a system,
which when passes results in a change in vegetation and system feedbacks.
Thresholds are extremely difficult to detect or predict.
Resilience Stability A system’s ability to maintain structure, function & feedback after shock
46

1.8.1.6 A Framework for assessing Threshold Dynamics by restoration practitioners
A generic framework for assessing factors contributing to potential stable states and
transitions observable at the various restoration sites at Springbrook is summarised in Box 1.
The framework
Box 1
A Framework for Assessing Feedback Systems
Step 1: Problem definition and setting of boundaries
1. What aspect of the system should be or become resilient?
2. What kind(s) of change or disturbance should the system to be resilient to or absorb?
Step 2: Identifying feedback processes
3. What state variables are changing, if any?
4. What processes and drivers are producing these changes? And how are they connected?
5. What forces control the processes that are generating change?
Step 3: Designing a Systems Model
6. What are the key elements and how are they connected?
7. What positive and negative feedback loops exist and which variables do they connect?
8. What, if any, are the intervening factors that influence or control these feedback loops?
9. What, if anything, moves the system from being controlled by one feedback loop to another?
Step 4: Identification of Stability Surrogates
10. What is the threshold value of the relevant state variable
11. How far is that state variable from the threshold value?
12. How fast is the state variable moving toward or away from the threshold?
13. How do outside shocks and controls affect state variables and how likely are those shocks and
controls?
14. How are slow variables changing in ways that affect the threshold location?
15. What factors control the changing of these slow variables?
Based on Bennett et al. 2005
A more detailed elaboration of the steps in the Framework follows.
47

STEP 1: PROBLEM DEFINITION AND SCOPING
The first step in solving a restoration problem is defining or framing the problem — the
spatial and temporal boundaries. Another way of describing this step is asking “Resilience of
what ecosystem to what pressures?”. All ecosystems are dynamic but a large range in turnover
times of ecosystem components exists from days to millennia. What appears stable over the
short term (e.g. topography) is not in the longer term. So one has to clearly specify the spatial
and temporal scales of concern. Setting the context in space and time clearly allows one to
treat very slow millennial processes as fixed parameters and focus on key processes (slow or
fast variables) in management timeframes (Carpenter and Turner 2001). The answers to this
question determine the design of the entire project.
1. What aspect of the system should be ‘resilient?
At each of the Springbrook restoration sites dealt with in this report, the desired ultimate
“stable” state refers to specific native ecosystems described in Part 1, Section 1.3.2 (Goals).
These woody plant systems range from montane heath, through wet sclerophyll forests to
rainforest. The spatial scales are restricted to areas of cleared land requiring restoration
(patch level) and the matrix area that influences patch level dynamics, and are described
and mapped for each property listed in Table 2.1. The time scale is a management
timeframe of decades, generally expected to be of the order of about 10–15 years being the
period during which native species could be expected to have captured the sites so as to
allow normal successional processes to proceed without significant further management
inputs. It is recognised that the longer-term trajectories will take centuries.
The current state of the system, as opposed to the ultimate state, requires a description of
all states present:
— are two or more ecosystems or dominant plant functional types present that can potentially transition
between one another?
— has the naturally occurring ecosystem been completely destroyed and replaced by another?
— which ecosystem requires restoration?
— what elements of ‘structure’ (composition) and ‘function’ are most relevant to restoration?
The recommended focus is primarily on the state one wishes to be or become resilient
(Carpenter et al. 2001). Where disturbance has already resulted in an alternative non-native
state, the focus is still on identifying factors that prevent or retard native species from
establishing and gaining competitive advantage. The feedback loops stabilizing such nonnative
grass- or other herb-dominated legacies of past clearing or ongoing management
practices need to be understood in order to destabilize and replace them with new sets
favouring the native ecosystems. Some existing non-native ecosystems will represent stable
states, others may be unstable (resulting from cessation of management practices) and
already transitioning naturally and predictably towards the desired ecosystems.
The focus here is specifically to determine what, if any, interventions may be necessary to
recover former, ecologically stable or resilient native vegetation.
It is assumed that restoring ecosystem function helps conserve biological diversity. This
ecosystem approach aims to restore and conserve all species characteristic of an ecosystem
including those not yet known (Walker 1995) through an understanding of the
relationships between biodiversity, productivity and stability and the controlling influence
of the available species pool, resources and disturbance regimes (Figure 1.14).
48

2. What kind(s) of change should the ‘desired’ system be able to resist or absorb?
Of all the threatening processes listed in Table 1.3 (Section 1.3.4), the most serious longterm
threats to the remnant, restored or regenerating ecosystems are likely to be the
interacting threatening processes of climate change, fragmentation, species invasions,
disease or pest outbreaks and anthropic fire regimes.
However, restoration in the short term has to deal with the legacy of past anthropic
disturbances superimposed on continuing climate variability which may have already
resulted in stable, intractable states.
The need for interventions to facilitate restoration of a native ecosystem will be determined
by the degree to which the integrity of the species pool, biogeochemical cycles and
disturbance regimes have been altered so as to affect site biodiversity, productivity and
normal species interactions and feedbacks essential for stability. Examples include:
Dispersal limitation — Disruption of dispersal processes
Do seeds arrive? If not, invasive alien species or cultivated exotic grasses have an
unfettered opportunity to saturate available sites. Interventions would be unavoidable.
Disruption of dispersal processes from an intact and sufficiently close native species
pool must be rectified for any chance of the desired ecosystems to be fully functional.
Previous clearing may have depleted the available species pool, fragmentation effects
may prevent propagules reaching suitable and available sites because of distance, or
dispersal agents may be missing or depleted. Absence of ‘nurse plants’ may alter
aerodynamics affecting trajectories of wind-dispersed seeds. Appropriate assessments of
the status of dispersal processes include the following actions to determine if seeds do
arrive at suitable or available sites:
• Survey adjoining forests, if any, in comparison with reference sites, and prepare an
inventory of species with a specific focus on distance from colonisable patches,
developmental status w.r.t. reproductive maturity, and dispersal mode.
• Document life history attributes of candidates for colonization including seed type, size
and longevity, dispersal mode (gravity, wind, water, endozoochory, exozoochory;
mass effects), and flowering and fruiting phenology. When, and how often are seeds
likely to arrive at a site? Over what distances? Small seed size characterise early
colonisers in light-rich environments. Their small nutritional reserves require
photosynthetic self-sufficiency shortly after germination by rapid growth. Conversely
larger seeds with greater reserves can generate a larger leaf surface area before selfsufficiency,
tolerate lower light levels but grow more slowly.
• If necessary, initiate a longitudinal survey of flowering and fruiting phenology for
selected species under local conditions to provide assistance with interpreting ‘year
effects’ or seasonality. Plot fruiting time by number of species with a particular
dispersal mode. To facilitate consistency prepare proforma data sheets.
• Assess likely dispersal distances under prevailing conditions (topography, wind
behaviour) based on observations over a range of sites and evidence from the
literature; dispersal distance for wind dispersed species is likely to ≤~50 m.
• Conduct dispersal limitation trials including the use of seed traps or the creation of
suitable germination sites to test if seed actually arrives but fails to survive.
49

Resource limitation (or niche limitation) — sites are no longer suitable or available. Do seeds arrive
but fail to establish? (Orrock et al. 2006). This aspect relates to seedling establishment
(demographic) processes determined by physiological traits. The period between seed
germination and seedling establishment represents one of the most vulnerable
transitions in the life cycle of plants potentially affecting ecosystem structure and
function in the long-term (Gomez-Aparicio et al. 2005). These processes relate to
suitability and availability of habitat (niche limitation). Quality of microhabitats, above
and below ground, is normally spatially heterogeneous and temporally variable
(seasonally and inter-annually). It is important to recognise that temporal variability in
seedling establishment may be important for long-term ecosystem stability (Beckage et
al. 2005). For example, because of inter-annual variation in seed production, predator
abundance, climate and disturbance regimes, a diverse range of species can capture
vacant sites in different years rather than the available sites always being captured by the
same best competitor. In addition, inter-annual variation in climatic conditions allows
selection from within-population genetic variation across micro-gradients to perpetuate
long-term resilience (Jump and Penuelas 2005). This is a strong argument for
facilitating natural regeneration rather than restoration through one-off mass plantings.
Disturbance limitation. Different disturbance regimes will apply to mature forests
compared with those affecting colonization of cleared or severely disturbed sites.
Cleared areas will have many long-term pressures that are a legacy of the original
disturbance(s) that removed biomass and changed biogeochemical processes.
Appropriate preliminary assessments to determine which aspects of seedling establishment
processes may be limiting include the following:
— establishment failure: absence of suitable or available niches can be assessed via seed
traps to test for seed limitation and by direct seeding experiments that monitor
germination success and survival; essential field surveys to determine prevailing
baseline abiotic conditions include assessment of underlying geology, soil type, depth,
spatial and temporal variation in soil moisture and plant available water levels, and
changes in soil organic matter;
— competition exclusion by (a) competitively superior non-native or non-indigenous
species (a competitive hierarchy for essential resources could exist due to differences in
resource-use efficiencies under limiting conditions) or (b) by priority effects for
competitively equivalent species — which species arrived first, wins;
— competitive displacement by species that modify microclimates or soil conditions to
enhance their own growth and remove biomass of competing stress-intolerant plants
(stress tolerance factors). Detection of clumped distributions across a range of
environmental gradients may indicate competitive displacement via feedbacks;
— absence of facilitation (Franks 2003, Padilla and Pugnaire 2006): e.g. absence of
physical structures (live or dead) that facilitate dispersal, establishment or growth of a
species, its cohorts, or like members of a functional group. Artificial structures as bird
perches could be trialled to detect some facilitation effects; other trials are described
later;
— missing mutualists, e.g. mycorrhizal symbionts, tested through inoculations from
neighbouring forest soils (Stampe and Daehler 2003);
— Changed disturbance regimes: e.g. greater (a) frost or fire risk, greater daily variance in
light, temperature or moisture conditions; (b) herbivory or predation of
seedlings/saplings — testable by exclosure experiments.
50

STEP 2: IDENTIFYING FEEDBACK PROCESSES
Feedback processes (as shown in 1.8.1.2, Figure 1.14) between biodiversity and productivity,
the species pool, resource fluxes, climate and disturbance regimes are the key processes
determining stability (resistance or resilience) of or transitions between alternative states
within a dynamic system (Worm and Duffy 2003, Duffy 2009, Agrawal et al. 2007).
Feedback loops exist when the output of a process influences the input of the same process
(Wilson and Agnew 1997). Negative feedback results when feedback dampens the process
pushing it to equilibrium. Positive feedback is ‘destabilizing’ and acts to amplify a process
away from an equilibrium. Competing positive feedbacks can limit each other and result in
alternative stable states. Most systems have complex networks of both negative and positive
feedbacks the balance of which determine stable states or transitioning between them.
Generally, thresholds are crossed when stabilizing negative feedback loops amongst one
system’s components are lost and replaced by new positive feedback loops leading to a new
state (King and Whisenant 2009). Identifying the specific interactions involving feedback
loops provides potential opportunities for manipulation in restoration strategies.
The following questions help identify which key variables are changing, the internal and
external processes causing those changes and the key feedback loops connecting them either
above- or below-ground or both (Van der Putten et al. 2009).
3. What state variables are changing? (or have already changed?)
This question relates primarily to the Biodiversity and Productivity aspects of the
Biodiversity–Stability Model in Figure 1.14 and its abbreviated version, Figure 1.16.
State variables are variously also known as ‘response variables’ or ‘fast variables’ (Suding
and Hobbs 2009). They are the characteristics that describe the ecosystems’ responses to
changes in propagule pressure, resource availability or disturbance in terms of their
structure (composition, abundance, extent), function (establishment, growth, mortality) or
dynamics (rates of change in community elements or their impacts on resources).
All the Springbrook sites involve mainly terrestrial ecosystems (including streams), but no
natural lakes. Figure 1.14 (1.8.1.2) and Figure 1.16 (1.8.1.5) provide a guide to potential
state variables. The focus here is on the ‘composition’ aspects of biodiversity within the
area directly affected by anthropic disturbance, particularly if it is a good indicator of
function or ecosystem processes.
The ‘composition’ variable may currently exist or be desired (recovered). It may be part of
an ‘undesirable’ state (i.e. presence of an invasive species) or a ‘desirable’ (native) state.
For example, a site that was previously cleared, probably several times, then planted with
pasture grasses for cattle grazing followed by abandonment, may represent an ‘undesirable’
alternative stable state — the changes have already occurred and may only be reversed with
difficulty. Answers to the question relate to characteristics of the existing and desired
alternative state that can ‘potentially’ be changed, i.e. grass versus woody plant density
characteristic of the original ecosystem.
Alternatively the grassy ecosystem may already be open to invasion by native species from
a nearby intact native species pool and trending to that state. The variables then represent
the key structuring, or strongly influencing, components of each actual state present.
51

Each state may comprise many species. It is not helpful to list all the components (species)
that are changing. This framework aims to reduce complexity to the minimum number of
variables that characterize or strongly influence change, i.e. leading indicators of change.
The number of variables considered should be restricted to at least three, but not more
than five (Holling and Gunderson 2002).
Species can be assigned to functional groups on the basis of physical/morphological or
ecophysiological characteristics which determine their fitness (establishment, growth,
mortality, reproductive success) in a given environment (varying resource and disturbance
constraints) (Bucci et al. 2004, Edwards et al. 2007, Pendry et al. 2007).
Plant functional types (PFTs) are defined as groups of plants that have similar responses to
environmental conditions and/or similar effects on ecosystem processes (Muller et al.
2007). Based on the assumption of a relationship between form and function (Barkman
1988), this structural-functional approach potentially enables structural and physiological
plant traits to be selected as surrogates for functional patterns and processes at the
ecosystem level. Plant functional types as surrogates for species composition are discussed
in more detail in Section 1.8.2.5.
Useful plant functional types as integrative surrogates of both structural and functional
aspect of the states of interest occurring soon after major disturbance are likely to be
higher order categories of plant form, i.e. herbs, woody plants, or vines. Table 1.11 and
Figure 1.23 in Section 1.8.2.5 summarize these attributes in more detail.
Changes in the proportions and spatial distribution of plant functional groups that
dominate alternative stable states, e.g. the extent, distribution and density of herbs versus
woody plants versus bare ground may be potentially useful leading indicators.
Below-ground biotic and abiotic state variables may be crucial but are more difficult to
measure, e.g.:
— plant rooting depth and lateral extension;
— composition and abundance of soil micro-organisms and soil organic matter;
— soil physical and chemical properties.
Useful initial guiding questions to identify state variables in the field include:
• what dominant plant functional types exist on the site?
• which PFTs are changing in their density and distribution over at least a two year period?
• are boundaries between PFTs sharp and changing?
• are herbivore or predator species present and their levels changing?
• are soil properties changing (compaction, moisture, pH, organic carbon, mineral nutrient levels)?
• are water tables changing?
• are light conditions changing near ground level?
• are patterns of bare or exposed soil changing with time?
Sources of information include historical aerial and ground photographs, anecdotal reports
from previous owners or community members as well as direct qualitative observations
and/or quantitative measurements.
52

Whilst the key structural/functional elements of all the native ecosystems of interest
involve woody plants as a functional group, the individual elements of biodiversity must be
considered later in the project in order to restore and protect World Heritage values and
their resistance or resilience to climate change (Duffy 2009).
4. What processes and drivers are producing these changes?
This question relates primarily to the Disturbance, Resource Availability, and Species Pool
variables in the Biodiversity-Stability Model illustrated in Figure 1.14 and the abbreviated
version, Figure 1.16. Figure 1.17 represents patch-level processes and drivers.
Traditionally, restoration has focussed on site preparation (ameliorating disturbance
impacts on soil properties by tilling, fertilising, mulching), weeding (improving resource
availability by removing competition), and direct seeding or planting (compensating for
species pool and dispersal deficiencies). The focus here is trying to understand how natural
ecosystem processes and disturbance regimes can be coopted to influence state variables in
desirable directions with minimal human ‘mechanical’ interventions. Recognising
‘facilitation’ as a key process that regulates the assembly of communities provides a
promising new avenue or tools for restoring forest ecosystems (Callaway 2007, Brooker et
al. 2008, Maestre et al. 2009, Gomez-Aparicio 2009).
The processes and drivers producing changes in the ‘state variables’ referred to in the
above question are also known as ‘controlling variables’, ‘controlling factors, ‘slow
variables’, or simply ‘drivers’ in the scientific literature (Suding and Hobbs 2009). At broad
scales, at least in the short term, the drivers are not affected by the changes produced in
‘state’ or ‘response’ variables. However, at finer scales so-called ‘fast variables’ or state
variables can also act as drivers, especially where feedback loops are involved. For example,
any plant that gains a height advantage can potentially shade out its neighbours, reducing
competition for light, thereby enhancing its own growth in a positive feedback loop.
Differences in light compensation points between species (shade tolerance) as well as
structural attributes and growth rates (productivity) affecting intensity and extent of
shading are key factors (Poorter et al. 2005, Domingues et al. 2007, Myers and Kitajima
2007, Bonan 2008).
Drivers can be spatially or temporally continuous (press) effects or discrete (pulse) triggers,
historical conditions (resulting from anthropic clearing), or novel pressures (climate
change) and may have direct (proximate) or indirect (ultimate or distal) effects (Briske et al.
2006, King and Whisenant 2009). This full range of potential drivers (external and internal)
to consider for relevance to specific sites are depicted in Figure 1.21. The drivers produce
impacts on biodiversity (richness, composition), productivity (biomass accumulation) and
stability (feedback interactions). Responses by organisms are determined by their aggregate
life-history traits (resource-use efficiency and stress tolerance tradeoffs) representing
potentially multiple alternative optima for a given environment (Marks and Lechowicz
2006, Marks 2007). Primary resources come down to light, carbon, water and nutrients —
the essentials of life for primary producers. Carbon dioxide changes matter mainly at
geological timescales except in steep mountainous watersheds where cold air drainage can
produce significant localized diurnal changes in carbon dioxide concentrations (Pypker et al.
2007, de Araujo et al. 2008). Space is often considered as a resource but here is considered
synonymous with resource availability.
53

Species Pool Effects
These are partly described in Step 1, Question 2 under Disruption of dispersal processes (p. 49).
This represents the first filter that affects biodiversity and stability (Uriarte et al. 2004). If
species cannot arrive at a site because they are missing from species pool or dispersal
processes are dysfunctional, long-term impacts on restoration can be severe and must be
addressed by direct seeding, seedling translocation or planting of ex situ grown nursery
stock. However, climate variability can have significant impacts on timing of seed
availability and dispersal, and these impacts are likely to escalate with climate change. Seeds
arriving at a site are subsequently filtered by resource suitability/availability and disturbance
regimes operating at a range of spatial and temporal scales.
Resource Availability — primary resources
Resource availability (light, carbon, water, nutrients) acts as a critical environmental filter
directly affecting which species are able to establish at a site and their overall productivity.
Light and temperature are primary drivers of productivity or carbon gain. It is
axiomatic that plant survival and productivity depend absolutely upon light-driven
carbon gain. Solar irradiance is controlled at a broader landscape scale by topography
and geologic landforms through aspect and slope (Barrett and Ash 1992, Bennie et al.
2008). At a patch scale, vegetation itself controls the light and temperature
environment horizontally and vertically to create micro-gradients affecting seedlinglevel
dynamics (response variables also become drivers at these scales). Morphological
and physiological traits and tradeoffs as part of integrated life-history traits govern
responses to light and other resource gradients (Baraloto and Forget 2007, Myers and
Kitajima 2007). Photosynthesis ceases outside a critical range of light levels. Below the
lower range limit (light compensation point) there is insufficient ATP and NADPH
from light reactions to fuel the dark reactions of photosynthesis. Above the upper
range limit (light saturation point), photosynthesis is limited by CO 2 and the enzyme
responsible for carbon fixation (Rubisco). Excess irradiance can also irreversibly
damage the sites for photosynthesis. Temperature affects metabolic rates, hence
transpiration rates, soil volumetric water content, evaporation rates and overall water
stress levels, especially in areas and during periods experiencing negative water
balance. Photosynthetic carbon gain is restricted to a specific temperature range
beyond which it ceases. The optimum range varies with plant functional groups (e.g.
C3 and C4 plants) and across species, and will influence relative competitive abilities
affected by resource use efficiencies, hence community composition.
Rainfall is also a primary driver setting limits to productivity (carbon gain) and hence
aboveground biomass able to be supported at any one particular site. Photosynthesis
reduces sharply when leaf water content falls below a minimum value and stomata
close. Stomatal regulation involves tradeoffs between maximising carbon gain and
minimizing water loss. Prolonged periods of soil water deficit exacerbated by
atmospheric vapour pressure deficits lead irreversibly to wilting and death due to
cavitation or carbon starvation (Adams et al. 2009). Variations in water deficit interannually
and intra-seasonally are generally more directly influential than total annual
precipitation — particularly dry season length or number of days with little or no
rainfall (Loik et al. 2004). However plants derive their moisture almost solely from
soils, thus it is important to determine if and why soil moisture may be limiting. The
amount reaching soils is determined by the net balance between interception by foliage
and litter, evaporation, throughfall and infiltration (Loik et al. 2004, Newman et al.
2006, Cuartas et al. 2007, Roth et al. 2007). The likely above-ground partitioning
54

depends on many factors (Holder 2004) — hillslope, canopy height and architecture,
foliar surfaces, foliage and branch orientation, epiphyte loading etc. Below-ground, soil
texture regulates infiltration, percolation and plant-available water (Newman et al.
2006) and soil texture is determined by vegetation through a range of feedbacks.
Mineral nutrients are the third group of primary vital resources. They are essential for
life, limited in supply and integrally linked to carbon and hydrological cycles through
complex feedback loops and often exhibiting threshold behaviour (Manzoni and
Porporato 2007). They are universally accessed from soils by roots of higher plants in
soluble form, thus water limitation compounds effects of altered nutrient cycling
(Lawrence et al. 2007).
Feedback controls over phosphorus availability over management timescales involve:
(i) influences over its solubility in soils mediated by plant, microorganism and
arbuscular mycorrhizal exudates, and pH changes associated with nitrogen
cycles;
(ii)
canopy trapping (Lawrence et al. 2007), and
(iii) recycling back to soils via biomass decomposition (Smil 2000, Vitousek 2006).
Members of the Proteaceae (e.g. Persoonia, Lomatia) with cluster or proteoid roots that
release copious organic acids may have a distinct competitive advantage where
phosphorus is limiting (Pate et al. 2001; Eviner and Chapin 2003). Phosphorus is most
likely to be limiting in Ferrosols (Oxisols) and Dermosols (Ultisols) (Smil 2000).
Feedback controls affect nitrogen cycling. Microbial mineralization of ammonium ion
from soil organic matter is the principal source of plant-available nitrogen and may
limit productivity in many forest ecosystems (Vernimmen et al. 2007). Plants feed
microbes with dead plant matter, which in return provide plants with essential
inorganic nitrogen. Cation-exchange capacity of soils (high organic colloidal and clay
content) maintains nitrogen stocks in a readily exchangeable form. Nitrification to
more labile, soluble nitrates, exposes the nitrogen cycle to severe losses under human
disturbance regimes, especially land-use change and dysfunctional fire regimes (Burton
et al. 2007, Huygens et al. 2007). Exotic grasses may change the composition of soil
microbial communities, shifting the balance from mineralization to nitrification
thereby increasing their own nitrogen uptake to maintain the dominance of grasses as
an alternative stable state (Hawkes et al. 2005). Species-specific, feedback loops may
exist between nutrient availability, nutrient use efficiency and nutrient cycling (Chapin
et al. 2006; Vitousek 2006) with the potential for stabilising or destabilising particular
plant communities.
Disturbance regimes
Disturbance is any process that removes biomass from the community directly, or indirectly
through restricting essential resources (Grime 1977, Hughes et al. 2007). Disturbance and
resource availability jointly determine the variety of life-history traits that can be expressed
in a system (Cardinale et al. 2006). Clearly, recruitment is only possible if sites are
unoccupied (unsaturated) and suitable (resource requirements met), or disturbance creates
new spaces and resources.
Typical abiotic and biotic examples of drivers that directly remove biomass include:
(a) land-cover change and land-use change, e.g. grazing, slashing, logging, impoundments,
fire, pollution, use of herbicides, or possibly nutrient loadings;
55

(b) climate variability (drought, frosts, intense wind- and hail-storms, heatwaves);
(c) herbivores and predators (natural enemies) — trophic interactions;
(c) soil disturbance, litter removal (digging by bandicoots etc);
(d) plants with allelopathic effects.
Disturbance increases or decreases post-dispersal establishment limitations posed by
factors such as space limitation, competition for limiting resources, recruitment from soil
seed banks, and low environmental micro-heterogeneity or low local niche dimensionality
(Myers and Harms 2009).
Drivers involving land-cover change can leave long-lasting legacies that indirectly continue
to destroy biomass or affect recruitment of colonising species through changed
environmental conditions, e.g. exposure to greater extremes in irradiance, temperatures,
moisture, or nutrient levels, or through fragmentation. This is often referred to as “path
dependence” associated with lags (Chapin et al. 2006).
If the drivers are ‘external’ to the focal system and unchanged by changes in the ‘state
variables’, they are referred as ‘slow variables’ or ‘cross-scale interactions’.
The controlling variable can also be internal as when the response variable itself acts as a
‘driver’ thereby creating feedback loops. Plants that limit light availability to competitors
through shading by particular foliage architecture (density, spread and height) have a
powerful influence on community assembly processes at critical ontogenic stages of plant
development. Shading can also directly affect below-ground resources through changes in
temperature and moisture, indirectly affecting composition and/or productivity of
microorganisms, thereby nutrient cycling.
The connections between changing state variables and drivers most often relate to a change
in shared limiting resources (light or lack of it, moisture, mineral nutrients), or a specific
disturbance that differentially affects the biomass (productivity) of one species compared
to another. These factors are summarised in Table 1.7.
Table 1.7. Relationships between Drivers and State Variables
State Variables that are changing
Biodiversity
Relative proportions of
key functional groups
Species productivity (resource utilization)
Loss of biomass
Drivers
• Differences in propagule pressure from native versus invasive
species due to differences in life history traits, order of arrival
from respective species pools, composition of and distance
from respective species pools and presence and effectiveness of
suitable dispersal agents
• Differences in resource use efficiency or stress tolerance traits
between native and invasive species
Anthropic land-cover and or land-use change (mainly clearing for
agriculture, grazing, urban infrastructure and development)
Gain of biomass Planting of pasture grasses, maintenance of grass cover by
continued grazing or regular slashing regimes, or pasture
abandonment
Environmental Productivity (resource availability)
Changes in light,
moisture and nutrient
levels or availability
Changed bioeochemical cycles via compaction erosion, fertiliser
application, cattle excretions, loss of soil organic content.
Cessation of grazing can still leave a legacy of abiotic changes that
last many decades, potentially impacting on successional dynamics
56

5. What forces or factors control the processes that are generating change?
This question relates to potentially complex systems of feedback loops linking the
controlling (species pool, resource availability, disturbance) and response (biodiversity,
productivity) variables which fundamentally affect the stability of an ecosystem and which
potentially determine threshold behaviour.
Feedback loops amplify or dampen the direct effects of one system variable on another
and are the mechanisms for achieving either resilience of a particular regime or its
transition to another. These feedback loops involve biotic and abiotic factors.
Biotic factors can critically control restoration dynamics. These factors can range from loss
of native seed sources (species pool effects through clearing and fragmentation), increased
propagule pressure and competition from invasive species that can also change
biogeochemical cycling, and changes in trophic interactions (herbivory and predation)
(Suding et al. 2004). Feedbacks between these biotic factors and abiotic factors can operate
and interact at multiple scales in space and time.
The existence of or potential for alternative stable states and transition thresholds
separating them can be difficult to detect, particularly at small scales, and rigorous scientific
proof is generally beyond the capacity of restoration practitioners (Suding et al. 2004).
However, useful initial questions directed at determining the possibility of alternative stable
states stabilised by feedback loops and demarked by transition thresholds, from patterns
and processes observed in the field include:
• are Plant Functional Types distributed randomly or sharply aggregated?
• are the changes affecting (a) plant height (biomass per unit area) and/or (b) boundaries (extent)?
• are sharply aggregated patterns correlated with measurable environmental patterns or not?
Feedback Interactions
Feedback loops where “response” or state variables also act as “internal” drivers are
fundamental to threshold behaviour. External drivers (slow variables) do not generally have
feedback loops involving the ‘state’ or ‘response’ variables. Feedback loops fit into four
basic categories (Suding et al. 2004; King and Whisenant 2009) involving biotic and abiotic
processes:
Biotic
(1) productivity effects — through species composition shifts which change
productivity
(2) biodiversity effects — through changes in trophic interactions and other species
interactions involving competition and/or facilitation processes
(3) Species pool effects — via landscape connectivity loss
Abiotic
(4) abiotic long-term, broad-scale or short-term, local scale changes in disturbance
regimes and/or climate and resource fluxes.
57

Feedback loops operate both above and below ground in what is referred to as the soil-plantatmosphere
continuum (SPAC) (Eamus et al. 2006). Resource fluxes (energy, water, carbon,
need to be considered within this integrative context.
All terrestrial ecosystems are founded on soil. Plants rely solely on soil for water and nutrients,
but plants also supply organic matter to the soil affecting water and nutrient holding capacity
of soils, thus creating the potential for multiple and complex feedback interactions (Lambers et
al. 2009). These soil-plant feedback interactions are responsible at different spatial and time
scales for the genesis of soil, the evolution of terrestrial floras (Ehrenfeld et al. 2005),
enhancing biological invasions and stabilizing or destabilising alternative ecosystem states.
Ehrenfeld et al. (2005) suggest a range of criteria for assessing potential feedback mechanisms
involving soils — complexity, specificity, relative strength and the temporal and spatial scales
over which feedback interactions may operate. They further elaborate broad soil components
or variables that may be involved — physical (structure, water, temperature), biogeochemical
(organic matter, nutrients and cations), and biotic (microbiota and macrobiota), but emphasise
the complexity and difficulty of confirming conclusively the existence of plant-soil feedback
interactions responsible for regime stabilisation or destabilisation (Ehrenfeld et al. 2005). For
example, within the complexity of soil sub-pools, turnover rates can range from days
(microbes, fungi, some roots) to years, decades or even millennia (Fitter 2004; Pendall et al.
2004).
In summary (based on previous sections), the structure and dynamics of a community over
the timescale of interest are sensitive to variables ranging from those that are relatively
constant (fixed parameters or state variables), to those that are slowly changing (slow
variables) to those that are rapidly changing (fast variables) (Chapin et al. 2006). The fixed
parameters constrain slow variables, which constrain the fast variables. For example,
geological substrate, climate and topography constrain the water-holding and cation exchange
capacities of soil (slow variables), which constrain short-term water and nutrient supplies to
vegetation (fast variables). The effects of these variables can range from strong (critical
controls) to weak (undetectable or difficult to detect against background variability of other
factors). The reciprocal interactions and feedbacks between fixed parameters, slow variables
and fast variables become more pronounced going from larger to smaller scales (from state
factors through to fast variables. Changes in a community (or regime) depend on the
magnitude of change in critical slow variables, the sensitivity of the regime to these changes,
and the internal feedbacks that modify these sensitivities (Turner et al. 2003).
Plant functional types play a key role in feedback loops that stabilize or destabilize critical slow
variables such as the supply of soil resources or disturbance frequency. Change in the
abundance of a species or a plant functional type that maintains key feedback loops thus is
likely to lead to disproportionately large (threshold) changes in control variables and therefore
community composition (Chapin et al. 2006).
Plant functional types significantly and differentially affect soil texture (aggregate stability,
organic content) and chemistry which in turn modifies plant-available water (i.e., soil water
potential) and nutrient retention which together regulate the relative competitive abilities
(productivities) of woody and herbaceous species. Underlying parent materials interact with
plant functional types to affect soil composition including pH differences which affect
nutrient cycling (Plowman 1979). On acidic metamorphic soils the pH of open forest is higher
than that under rainforest. On less acidic basalt derived soils, the differences are greater than
those observed on metamorphics. All these factors are acutely relevant at the seedling stage
which represents the most vulnerable stage of the plant life cycle (Hanle and Sykes 2009). Soil
58

organic matter (SOM) (quantity and quality) critically determines soil aggregate stability and
nutrient availability. The balance of mineralization (release) of nutrients from SOM by
microbes and immobilization (uptake) of nutrients into microbial biomass is key for nutrient
availability to plants, because neither nutrients in SOM nor mineral nutrients immobilized in
microbial biomass are immediately available for plant root uptake.
Dominant species (representing most of the biomass through greater resource use efficiencies
or stress/disturbance tolerances) and keystone species (with ecological impacts
disproportionate to their biomass) (Power et al. 1996) are more likely to have key roles in
feedback interactions either stabilising or destabilising regimes.
Figure 1.21 represents a simplified, generalised conceptual model representing states and
transitions likely to be observed both at Springbrook restoration sites.
The ecosystems involved in the project can be abstracted into a small number of structural
and functional components that vary in canopy cover, stature, spatial pattern (random, regular,
or clumped) and interactions. These components are trees, shrubs, herbs, vines, grasses,
grazers, browsers and humans. Vegetation can be shifted between structural/functional states
by drivers (or ‘controlling’ variables such as climate, soil parent material) which impact on
response variables (or ‘state’ variables relating to composition, abundance or ecosystem
function). The stability of particular stable states is determined by the balance between
positive and negative feedback loops.
Figure 1.21 draws together all the above possible interacting components of a system that
could affect the need for intervention and the possible outcomes of restoration work.
Table 1.8 illustrates a practical framework for identifying system elements (state variables,
drivers, feedback interactions and threshold) likely to apply specifically at Springbrook.
Critical to this project is the issues of scale, in both space and time. Interaction dynamics
between species, resources and disturbance across both these scales is a core focus of this
project — the outcomes of coupled slow and fast cycles in an ecosystem drives the restoration
strategies.
59

Table 1.8. Summary of possible generic responses to Questions 3–5 (Step 2)
Q. 3: What variables are
changing
Q. 4: What processes and drivers
are producing these changes
Q. 5: What forces (factors) control the
processes that are generating change
State or response variables Controlling variables Possible Feedback loops
Biodiversity
1. The extent and
density of different
components of
biota at the site,
either or both above
(plants) and below
ground (e.g.
microorganisms)
Productivity
2. Resource variables
(light levels, soil
moisture etc)
3. Biomass
accumulation
(relative
establishment,
growth and
mortality rates)
Disturbance (destroys carbon)
External anthropic drivers:
past clearing, grazing, logging,
fire, pasture establishment,
slashing regimes have residual
long-term impacts on species
pools and resource availability
External non-anthropic drivers
Cyclones, floods, droughts,
fires (from lightning strikes),
heatwaves, frosts, intense
wind- and hail-storm events
Internal proximal drivers
Herbivory, predation,
parasitism, disease,
allelochemicals, shading a
Management responsible for
• biomass removal by clearing which created
new opportunities for non-native species
to establish; there are no feedback loops
associated with these past management
interventions
• biomass removals through restoration
interventions which destroy carbon
(herbicides, physical means such as
slashing, mowing, shearing, tarping etc); no
feedback loops other than management
inputs are determined by outcomes
Climate Change is increasingly responsible
for changing frequency and intensity of
disturbance events (no feedback loops
from local to global)
Biotic interactions
Potential positive or negative feedback
loops exist between plant biomass
changes and trophic interactions (e.g.
levels of herbivory, predation, parasitism)
and other biomass destroying factors such
as disease outbreaks, fire, allelopathy and
shading thereby differentially affecting
plant functional types
Resource Availability (Stressors)
External drivers:
• climate/weather variability
(drought, rainfall patterns,
temperature regimes)
• soil disturbance (erosion,
compaction, earthworks)
affecting nutrient cycling and
biogeochemical cycling and
hydrological processes
Internal drivers:
• microclimate changes involving
light, temperature, moisture,
mediated by changes in
vegetation
• rainfall variability independent of or
resulting from past clearing, e.g. at large
scales, ENSO related events (floods,
droughts, cyclones) has a major
influence; local clearing affects local
rainfall and water balance
• resource availability will change as soil
condition and chemistry changes
(compaction, erosion, nutrient loading)
in response to revegetation after clearing
a
Species Pool Effects
External biotic drivers
• a depauperate species pool of
native species due to past
clearing and fragmentation will
limit establishment options
• changes to dispersal processes
from an external species pool
to the site affects relative
propagule pressures
• A depauperate or immature native species
pool resulting from clearing and
fragmentation may result in an imbalance
in propagule pressure from native versus
non-native species; feedback loops
associated with the non-native species
will dominate
• An absence of dispersal agents for native
species may favour complete site capture
by exotics through self-augmenting
positive feedback loops
shading is controlled by above ground processes, e.g. differences in plant growth rates, height, leaf type and area, canopy density,
and in some cases, which plant arrives first (priority effects). The latter may be due to stochastic effects or species pool effects
(proximity, dispersal, soil seed stores)
60

STEP 3: DESIGNING A SYSTEMS MODEL
This section involves selecting a subset of the most critical and rate controlling elements
considered in the previous section.
6. What are the key elements and how are they connected?
The key elements at sites considered to date are mostly the varying proportions of key
plant functional groups, e.g. introduced grasses or herbs, and native woody plants.
These can be further subdivided into subgroups based on their resource use modes
and efficiencies, e.g. C4 versus C3 grasses etc. In some cases, herbivores (both insects
and mammals) are additional key elements. Under some circumstances, fire may also
be a key element. Grasses may develop high, flammable biomass levels that determine
community composition due to differential sensitivity of species to fire.
The key elements are connected mainly by trophic interactions, facilitation processes
(Callaway 1996) or by competition for resources (space, light, moisture and potentially
nutrients) resulting in changes in the proportions of the key elements.
Facilitation interactions are most likely where there is habitat heterogeneity with
respect to resources (light, water, nutrients). If water is limiting at microsites,
vegetation is likely to facilitate survival by moderating the microclimate (Kirkman et al.
2004) or below-ground conditions.
Competition can be variously described based on the mechanisms involved and the
relative strengths of interactions resulting in competitive hierarchies — contingent
versus asymmetric; scramble versus contest (Schenk 2006).
Contingent competition (or symmetric competition) is a major factor where species
are competitively equal — neighbouring individuals utilise available resources equally
efficiently or proportionally to their respective sizes. Priority effects are important.
The species arriving first in empty niches can gain a growth advantage and, through
shading, either exclude the other from nearby sites (inter-canopy spaces) or eliminate it
through ‘carbon starvation’ (photosynthesis rates unable to support the metabolic cost
of maintaining tissues). Shading is equivalent to creating a disturbance (biomass removal) at a
micro-scale. Through shading, the successful species provides further growth
advantage to itself via increasing availability to itself of moisture and nutrients. These
represent ‘priority’ or ‘founder’ effects. The species that arrives first gains the
advantage. Contingent competition, if the strength of shading is high, will result in a
system with multiple stable states (Levin 2000, 2005).
Asymmetric competition is one-sided, where, for example, taller plants suppress
smaller ones (Grabarnik and Sarkka 2009) or one species has a much greater resource
use efficiencies than those of its competitions. The result is competitive dominance
by one or a small number of species. Certain C4 grasses notoriously such as Kikuyu
outcompete more slow growing C3 woody plant species resulting in grass dominated
ecosystems difficult to reverse.
61

Scramble competition occurs when resources are coopted by one species. In contest
(interference) competition, access to resources is blocked by allelopathy or
mycorrhizal effects.
7. What positive and negative feedback loops exist and which variables do they
connect?
Vegetation patterns and regime changes arise through positive feedbacks on short
time scales and local spatial scales and are stabilized by negative feedbacks on longer
time scales and broader spatial scales (Levin 2000).
Both herbaceous and woody plants involve positive (+) feedback loops, particularly in
sites that are unsaturated (patch occupancy low to medium). At longer timescales and
wider spatial scales, these loops become negative (-), thereby stabilizing populations
through carrying capacity (resource availability) effects.
Negative feedback loops are likely to exist between grass or forb functional types on
the one hand and woody plants on the other, regulated primarily by shading and
possible priority effects. Shading has positive (+) feedback loop in relation to the
abundance of woody plants if they arrive first and establish, and a negative (-)
feedback loop in relation to the abundance of grasses and forbs.
8. What, if any, are the intervening factors that influence or control these feedback
loops?
Intervening factors are likely to be below-ground interactions in the rhizosphere
involving facilitation or competition between and among microorganisms and plant
roots roots (Ehrenfeld et al. 2005; Dijkstra and Cheng 2007). These are likely to be
complex and difficult to define and identify.
9. What, if anything, moves the system from being controlled by one feedback loop
to another?
Disturbance either at the broader or local scale which affects biomass (productivity)
or resource availability is the major factor causing regime change where different
feedback loops operate and stabilise the different regimes.
At a microsite scale relevant to seedling regeneration processes shading is likely to
have a major differential impact on different plant functional groups. Shading (canopy
and litter effects) is equivalent to a disturbance if it is a means to displace/remove a
competitor by causing the death of an individual plant (biomass is removed).
Where shading at the micro- or local-scale is the means by which one species gains a
competitive advantage over the other, the relative strength of shading (plant height,
canopy density and spread) and shade tolerance of either plant functional type will
potentially move the system past a threshold density after which transition to the
alternative stable state with a different set of feedback loops is likely to occur.
62

STEP 4: IDENTIFICATION OF STABILITY SURROGATES
No single surrogate is likely to capture all the elements of stability or resilience
(Carpenter et al. 2001). Surrogates are context-dependent and need to be transparent,
consistent and repeatable. Stability assessments require a range of surrogates to address
multiple aspects of stability and resilience (Carpenter et al. 2005).
10. What is the threshold value of the relevant state variable?
Thresholds are normally only possible to determine after they have been passed. One
of the greatest practical challenges is to identify the threshold value which when
passed rapidly results in a regime change.
In the context of this framework, the threshold value would be the woody plant
density at which shading is sufficient for the woody plants to outcompete grasses or
other herbs.
11. How far is that state variable from the threshold value?
When considering possible changes from a desirable regime to an undesirable one, a
key question is how soon must a regime shift be detected in order to prevent it?
(Contamin and Ellison 2009). The closer one is initially to the threshold, the harder
it will be for the indicator to detect the regime shift with ample warning time, since
changes occur rapidly nearest the thresholds.
In the context of restoration however, one is interested in potential interventions to
move the system closer to thresholds that would lead to a regime change dominated
by woody plants.
Thus the resilience surrogate within this framework is likely to be the difference
between the current density of woody plants and the threshold density after which
woody plants would rapidly outcompete grasses or other herbs.
12. How fast is the state variable moving toward or away from the threshold?
The rate of change in woody plant density (or some measure reflecting resultant
changes in resource supply, e.g. of shading) is likely to be an indicator of how fast
the state variable is moving toward a threshold.
A useful simple comparative scale for assessing likely timeframes for reaching such a
threshold that would assist management planning could be (Contamin and Ellison
2009):
• rapid (2 years);
• intermediate (5 years); and
• slow (≥ 10 years).
13. How do outside shocks and controls affect state variables and how likely are
those shocks and controls?
This question helps define whether the system is resilient or how resilient the system
is to external shocks. Outside shocks or controls refer to disturbances likely to affect
63

productivity (biomass) or the resource fluxes on which productivity of system
components depend. These could include changes in climate (which influence storm
frequency or rainfall and temperature regimes which affect water balance etc),
disturbance regimes (herbivory, fires, frosts etc) (Adams et al. 2009) and nutrient
fluxes. Local history and climate records will indicate the types and probabilities of
disturbance regimes likely to affect the proportions of species present.
Management is easier when only one slow variable causes the regime shift and when
that variable can be controlled. When several slow variables interact to cause a regime
shift, some of which cannot be controlled, management is more difficult (Contamin
and Ellison 2009).
14. How are slow variables changing in ways that affect the threshold location?
The answer to this questions helps define whether slow changes are decreasing or
increasing the resilience of the system being considered. Refer to Adams et al. 2009
(temperature increases with climate change the threshold at which a plant species
(functional group) become more vulnerable to temperature-dependent mortality from
carbon starvation). The dynamics here are dominated by slow variables.
15. What factors control the changing of these slow variables?
The answers to this questions help pinpoint the controls that affecting the position of
thresholds, the factors that result in reaching or passing thresholds sooner than
expected. These controls may or may not be amenable to local management
interventions (e.g. climate change). The dynamics here are dominated by slow
variables.
DEVELOPMENT OF GENERAL SYSTEM MODELS
General system models attempt to integrate the key state variables, drivers and feedbacks
between the various system elements, and in so doing, help in identifying rapidly- and
slowly-changing variables and stabilizing and destabilizing feedback forces associated
with regimes (Bennett et al. 2005).
Two such general system models (tipping point and shifting tipping point models)
potentially exhibiting alternative stable states and likely to be relevant to those at
Springbrook include the following:
1. Tipping Point Model
In this case the growth (productivity) of two state variables, e.g. woody plants and herbs,
is each inhibited by one another. When considered in isolation, both exist in positive
feedback loops limited by space and resources (Figure 1.19). However, in the real world,
the growth of one limits the growth of the other. Disturbance of some type (e.g. fire,
shading) mediates this relationship. The nature of the disturbance is affected by the scales
involved. Fine scales are relevant to seedling establishment and survival. Shading at
microsites caused by taller woody plants facilitates further establishment of shadetolerant
woody plants which in turn suppress the growth of less shade-tolerant herbs
such as most grasses.
64

+ Grass - Shade + Woody +
-
Space
-
Figure 1.19. Tipping Point Model.
Growth of two state variables (grass and woody plant functional types) each have positive
feedback loops limited by space and each are each inhibited by the other. Shade associated
with taller woody plants mediates this relationship.
The system is organised by either of two alternative sets of feedback processes
characterising each regime, with a threshold or tipping point representing a sudden
transition from one set of controlling feedback processes to another. It is critical to
identify the systems attributes that change in detectable ways as the system approaches or
passes a tipping point.
2. Shifting Tipping Point Model
The addition of a third set of processes to the above model can result in a shift of the
tipping point over time (Figure 1.20). For example climate change could result in a higher
density of woody plants, if any, required to reach a tipping point in the woody plant–
grassland model. Alternatively, the presence of herbivores such as pademelons
dependent on both grass and woody plant ecosystems but inhibit the survival of woody
plant seedlings as numbers of pademelons increase.
+
+
Herbivore
-
+ Grass - Shade + Woody +
-
Space
-
Figure 1.20. Shifting Tipping Point Model.
Growth of two state variables (grass and woody plant functional types) each have positive
feedback loops limited by space and each are each inhibited by the other. Shade associated
with taller wood plants and herbivore impacts on woody plants mediates this relationship.
Herbivore numbers such as pademelons are increased by availability of grass as an
additional food resource. The impact of the herbivores on woody plants (reduced foliage
density) means that higher densities of woody plants are needed for shading levels to impact
on grass viability and regeneration.
65

Table 1.9 A Practical Framework for identifying Alternative Stable States, Drivers, Thresholds, and Stability (feedback interactions or loops)
Based on Bennett et al. 2005 EXAMPLES OF DIFFERENT POSSIBLE FOCAL SYSTEMS
Step Question Answer Defines C4 mat-forming grasses dominate
alternative states
3. Systems Model Design
(producing systems diagram)
2. Feedback loops
All key elements, feedbacks and links
[Spp composition, trophic, landscape
connectivity, climate /abiotic changes]
1 Problem
definition
What to What?
1. What aspect of the system
should be resilient?
2. What kind(s) of change
would we like the system to be
resilient to?
Describing the ‘desirable’ state
System boundaries, criteria
for building system model
Resilience to What?
External drivers,
disturbances
3. What variables are changing? System elements
4. What processes and drivers
are producing these changes?
5. What forces control the
processes that are generating
change?
6. What are the key elements
and how are they connected?
7. What positive and negative
feedback loops exist and which
variables do they connect?
8. What, if any, intervening
factors could influence or
control these feedback loops?
9. What could move the system
from being controlled by one
feedback loop to another?
(Response variables)
— biodiversity
— productivity
System drivers
(Controlling variables)
Connection among processes
and elements
Editing and refining
connections among elements
and processes
Identifying loops in the
model
Identifying mediating
feedback loops (feedback
complexity)
Identifying threshold and
management leverage points
in loops
Woody plants (trees, shrubs, vines) and
herbs indigenous to the original local
community
(1) Invasive species
(2) Climate change
(3) Fire
(4) Droughts or low water balance
1. The relative proportions of C4 matforming
pasture grasses and C3 native
woody species (e.g. Figures 1.19 & 1.20)
2. Local light & soil conditions (resources)
1 Disturbance: clearing, grazing, chemicals
2. Resource availability (external/internal)
3. Species Pool Effects
1. Management practices
2. Biotic interactions
• Grasses and woody plants
• Compete for same resources/space
(-) grass and woody plant functional types
compete for space and resources
(+) woody plant growth increases shading,
allowing more woody plant seedlings to
establish and grow
(+) both herb & woody plant populations
but affected by priority effects
1. Allelopathy augments competition effects
2. Below ground feedbacks involving fauna
3. Fire enhanced by grasses, 4. Herbivores
Management intervention to strategically
remove grass biomass in selected patches to
act as regeneration nuclei for woody plants
C4 bunch grasses dominate
alternative states
Indigenous woody plants
(trees, shrubs, vines), herbs
(1) invasive species
(2) Climate change
(3) Fire
(4) Droughts (- water balance)
1. relative proportions of C4
bunch grasses and C3 native
woody plants
2. local light & soil conditions
1. Disturbance clearing, grazing
2. Resource availability
3. Species Pool Effects
1. Management practices
2. Biotic interactions
• Grasses and woody plants
• compete for same resources
(+) Increased woody plant
height & density enhances
niche space for woody plants;
(-) decreased availability of
light, soil moisture and
nutrients to competing
grasses
1. Cloud stripping effects
2. Below-ground feedbacks
3. Fire regimes; 4. Herbivores
Possibly no threshold
behaviour; may be example of
linear continuum dynamics
C3 shade-tolerant forbs
dominate alternative states
Indigenous woody plants
(trees, shrubs, vines), herbs
(1) Invasive species
(2) climate change
(3) Droughts (low or - water
balance)
1. relative proportions of C3
shade tolerant herbs and
native woody plants
1. Disturbance
2. Resource availability
3. Species Pool Effects
1. Management practices
2. Biotic interactions
• Herbs and woody plants
• compete for same resources
(+) Herb growth, woody plant
growth (space not limiting)
(-) Herb growth shades out
woody plant seedlings and
captures available light,
moisture and nutrients
(-) possible allelopathic effects
1. Allelopathic effects
2. Mycorrhizal links
3. Avian dispersal agents
Only total biomass removal of
shade tolerant herb can shift
feedback loop favouring it
66

Based on Bennett et al. 2005 EXAMPLES OF DIFFERENT POSSIBLE FOCAL SYSTEMS
Step Question Answer Defines C4 mat-forming grasses dominate
alternative states
4. Resilience surrogates
Changing thresholds
Distance from threshold
10. As indicated by the
feedback loops what is the
threshold value of the state
variable?
11. How far is the state variable
from the threshold value?
12. How fast is the variable
moving toward or away from
the threshold?
13. How do external controls
and shocks affect the state
variable and how likely are
those shocks and controls?
14. How are slow variables
changing in ways that affect the
threshold location?
15. What factors control
changes to the slow variables?
Threshold conditions
(where is the threshold?)
Compare current state to
threshold level
(how close to the threshold?)
Whether system is becoming
more vulnerable or more
resilient
(how fast is the change?)
Whether system is resilient;
how resilient is the system to
external shocks
(relative sensitivities of
localized resource fluxes to
changes in density or the
state variables (herb/wood)
Whether slow changes in the
organization of the system
are decreasing or increasing
the resilience of the system
Controls of the resilience of
the system
Unknown, as yet, percentage of woody
cover and height (a functional attribute) at
which resources for mat grasses are limiting
their competitive advantage
Determined by measuring (a) variance in e.g.
LAI across focal sites; or (b) extent of
coverage by each plant functional type
Rate of change in woody plant density
(successional pioneer native species) to be
measured
Outside shocks and slowly-changing
variables include (A): climate, which
influences storm frequency, fire frequency
and extent, temperatures, soil moisture and
light levels (cloud immersion frequency,
intensity and extent); herbivory, predation
and disease levels; and (B) the actions of
humans — biomass removal (grazing
pressure, slashing, herbicide); moisture and
shading controls (mulching etc)
Changing length of dry season (negative
water balance) decreases resilience of
drought sensitive grasses, increases
competitive advantage of adapted natives
Climate (not able to be controlled by
management);
67
C4 bunch grasses dominate
alternative states
Definitions based on Glossary at the Resilience Alliance Web page (http://www.resalliance.org) and Hobbs and Suding 2009, Box 1.1, pp 5–6):
C3 shade-tolerant forbs
dominate alternative states
n/a n/a since no property of
woody plants can impede
growth of shade tolerant herb
n/a n/a but relative site capture
indicative of the size of the
problem
n/a Measured by annual levels of
management inputs to control
residual infestations
n/a Wet season greatly increases
C3 herb growth but retards
timely use of herbicides
n/a
n/a
Associated prolifiration of C4
bunch grasses (e.g. Setaria
spp.) increases difficulty of
various controls
State (or fast) response variables: characteristics that describe ecosystem responses in terms of their structure (e.g. composition, abundance) or function (growth, mortality etc).
Controlling (or slow) variables: the factor(s) that drive changes in state response variables (e.g. land-cover change, grazing intensity, logging, fire frequency, pollution, nutrient loading, species
invasions, trophic interactions, species effects, ). These are mostly external to the system and unchanged by changes in the response variables. Controlling variables external to the system are
also called “cross-scale interactions”. Alternatively, control variables can be internal when the response (state) variables also act as drivers creating feedback loops. Slow variable are often also referred
to as “drivers”. Drivers (causal or “controlling” variables) can be spatially or temporally continuous effects, or discrete triggers, historic conditions, or novel pressures. They can have direct
(proximate) or indirect (ultimate or distal) effects (King and Whisenant 2009). Disturbances: changes in the system state variable (perturbations or stresses) or in the controlling variable
external shocks (either is potentially affected by management). Feedback loops: when the output of a process influences the input of the same process. Positive feedback amplifies the process;
negative feedback dampens it towards an equilibrium. Threshold: the clear breakpoint between two states of a system characterised by a change in system feedbacks. Restoration threshold
need to be addressed in order for recovery to occur.

Q.15. Factors controlling changes
in slow variables
Table 1.10. Comparison of potentially useful generic stability surrogates applied to three Archetypal Models of threshold dynamics ± tipping points
The state of the system
relative to the location of the
threshold:
Stability Surrogates: Generic descriptions
Position of the Threshold unchanged Changing position of Threshold
The sensitivity of the system
to further movement:
The rate at which the system
is moving toward or away
from a fixed threshold:
Sensitivity of the threshold
to changes in slow variables
The rate of change in the
movement of the threshold
Archetypical Models
exhibiting Alternative
Stable States (ASS)
Q11. The distance of the state
variable from the threshold
Q12. The rate at which the state
variable is moving toward or
away from the threshold
Q13. The outside controls or
shocks that may change the
direction or rate of change of this
state variable & their likelihood
Q.14. the ways in which slow
variables are changing to affect
threshold locations
Limits to growth with a
threshold
(e.g. eutrophic lakes)
Stable Tipping Point
e.g. Mesic forests vs pasture grass
systems
Shifting Tipping point
e.g. mesic forest–pasture systems
with herbivores
Dominated by fast
variables
P concentration of lake
relative to P concentration at
which the rate of P recycling
increases
Woody plant density relative
to threshold density at which
woody plants out-compete
grassy or other herb
communities for limiting
resources (light, moisture
etc)
Woody plant density relative
to threshold density at which
woody plants out-compete
grass or other herb
regeneration
Dominated by feedback
strength, internal to the
system
Amount of P recycling
relative to lake P dynamics
• Relative sensitivity of
grass productivity and
spread to changes in
woody plant density
• Relative propagule
pressure of woody plants
and grasses
• Relative sensitivity of e.g.
shading impact on grasses
to changes in woody plant
density; and
• Relative mortality of
woodlands to fire
Dominated by shocks or
controls imposed from
outside the system
Rate of terrestrial input of P
and factors that influence
that rate, such as fertilizer
use
• Management control of
pasture grasses to reverse
priority effects etc
• Incidence of fire (arson or
lightning strikes)
• Incidence of fire
• Climate variation (e.g.
ENSO related): relative
wet and dry periods
• Exclusion of herbivores
Dominated by changes in
the slow variables
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Relative balance between
woody plant growth, fire
incidence, and herbivoremediated
woody seedling
elimination
Stable threshold (columns 1–3): systems dominated by the fast variables in the system and relate to the state of the system relative to the location of the threshold.
Moving threshold (columns 4–5): systems dominated by slowly-changing variables
Dominated by changes in
the slow variables
• Intensity of herbivory
impacts on woody plant
growth
68

External Drivers
Macro-climate:
rainfall, wind, T°C
(latitude, altitude)
Soil parent
material, depth
Topograpy
(slope, aspect,
water table depth)
Vegetation
(structure)
Species Pool
Resource availability
Energy balance
Water balance
Nutrients
High
Internal Drivers
Distal
Proximal
Microclimate
PAR, T°C
VP deficit
Wind speed
& direction
Soils:
water potential
bulk density
depth, porosity
organic content
soil pH
Dispersal:
Propagules
Vectors
Fire
Frosts
Shading
Flooding,
waterlogging
Compaction
Predators
Herbivores
Allelopathy
State variables
Structural shifts
Functional shifts
Feedback shifts
Woody
Vegetation
Herbaceous
Vegetation
Bare patches
of soil
Low
Productivity (biomass /
resources)
Resources use efficiency (Seedling stage) — useful plant traits for surrogates
Physiognomic
Life form, Specific leaf Area (SLA) ; root mass & depth
Physiological
Photosynthetic pathway: C4 (NAD-ME>NADP-ME); C3
Resources use efficiency (adult stage) — useful plant functional traits for surrogates
Physiognomic
Physiological
Height, foliage projective cover (FPC), plant density, Leaf
Area Index (LAI), wood density, root depth & density
Life form (See 1.8.2 for more detailed lists and explanations)
Figure 1.21. State–Transition Conceptual Model
Vegetation structure and function are closely linked to rainfall. Height, FPC and tree density increase with
increasing rainfall. Water balance (balance between rainfall, evaporative demand, and soil storage capacity
determine tree density, standing biomass, leaf area index (productivity). A dense stand of tall trees uses
more water than any other vegetation type. Water storage by soils and movement between soils, plants and
the atmosphere (the Soil-Plant-Atmospheric-Continuum, SPAC) is relevant to understanding transitions
between state variables.
Slow drivers (variables)
Atmospheric conditions regulate timing, intensity and amount of precipitation, as well as vapour pressure
deficits; the length of time when potential evapotranspiration exceeds precipitation must be considered in
association with plant differences in water use efficiencies and stress tolerance. The frequency, duration
and magnitude of temperature decline below freezing point need to be correlated with relative frost
tolerance of different plants.
Soil parent material and depth affect nutrient availability, soil water storage potential, and rooting depth.
Topography and geologic landforms control (1) solar irradiance through aspect and slope; and (2) water
table depth (Newman et al. 2006).
Vegetation structure at a landscape level determines water balance
Species Pool determines propagule availability and propagule pressure
Internal drivers
Internal drivers (abiotic or biotic) exist when changes in these drivers caused by a vegetation type (plant
functional type) feeds back to enhance the productivity of a plant functional type causing the change,
and/or disadvantage the productivity of a competing plant functional type.
69

1.8.2 Data Collection
Important issues relating to data collection can be considered under the following
headings:
1.8.2.1 Introduction
1.8.2.2 Key scientific questions
1.8.2.3 Scale issues
1.8.2.4 Sampling strategy
1.8.2.5 Leading indicators for controlling (species pool/resources/disturbance)
and response variables (biodiversity/productivity)
1.8.2.6 Data analysis (or analytical methods)
1.8.2.1 Introduction
The scientific literature as summarised in Section 1.8.1 leads one to acknowledge that
ecosystems are complex and frequently unpredictable in their dynamic behaviour, but
fundamentally involve competition between species for finite resources in order for
individual species to establish, grow and persist. Resource-use efficiencies of species
(fitness traits) are determined by evolutionary processes. Individual species may
continually modify resource availability (energy, water, nutrients) to co-occurring species
through plant form, height, canopy and root architecture. Disturbance regimes change
dynamics by either affecting biomass (creating empty niches) or abiotic conditions
(resource supply). If positive and negative feedbacks between species, resources and
disturbance regimes are in balance, an ecosystem effectively occurs in a stable state. If
disturbance, especially that caused by humans, is outside the normal bounds regarding
type, frequency, intensity or extent of occurrence, the feedback loops that control key
ecosystem processes can change with new equilibria establishing — a regime shift to a
new stable state (Scheffer and Carpenter 2003).
Key common characteristics of regime change also include ‘priority effects’ — changes
in competitive interactions between species depend on timing of arrival. A species may
be able to competitively exclude another only if it arrives first. For example, if highly
competitive grasses invade a degraded area first, they may be able to exclude native
species through limiting access to light, soil moisture or nutrients. However, woody
plants, if established first, may be able to exclude invasive species including grasses
through positive feedbacks — shading or changes in soil moisture or nutrient regimes
that favour recruitment of woody plants. History of a site must be considered as it is
likely to have crucial implications for restoration (Carpenter and Turner 2001).
However, regimes shifts are difficult to study because they occur in large, spatially
heterogeneous systems, have multiple causes, and usually involve processes operating at
many spatial and temporal scales (Carpenter and Brock 2006). Whilst threshold
behaviour associated with regime shifts is rapid in comparison with normal successional
dynamics, it can be slow compared with human or project lifetimes, and thus difficult to
detect. Most practical restoration projects are unable to afford complex long-term
monitoring or stringent empirical testing. In the absence of statistically rigorous tests,
dynamics may be inferred using suitable indicators coupled with expert knowledge.
Inference requires several lines of evidence such as from long-term observations of
different ecosystems across gradients of key drivers and from appropriately scaled
experiments (Carpenter and Brock 2006)
70

A useful framework for determining which variables (response and controlling variables)
in these complex systems and which methods will be most helpful to the understanding
of system behaviour, are based on seven criteria (Lovett et al. 2007).
(1) The program is designed around clear and compelling science questions
These determine the variables measured, spatial extent of sampling, intensity and
duration of measurements, and usefulness of data.
(2) Review, feedback, and adaptation is included in the design
The key science questions and data collected need to be continually reviewed for
relevance and validity without compromising continuity of core measurements.
(3) Measurements need to be efficient, cost-effective and amenable to long-term sustainability
Core measurements should provide statistically valid, basic measures of system
function and dynamics. Power analysis should assist in determining replication
requirements. Costs of measurements should not jeopardise the long term
viability of the project. Photopoint monitoring, where used, should adhere to
established guidelines (O’connor and Bond 2007).
(4) Quality and consistency of date is maintained
Quality assurance protocols need to be established at the outset. Sample
collections and measurements must be rigorous, repeatable, well documented and
employ accepted methods. Changes in methods should be rare and should
involve overlap periods to ensure comparability.
(5) Long-term data accessibility and sample archiving is ensured
Metadata should provide all relevant details of survey, collection, analysis and
data reduction. Raw data should be stored in accessible form for reanalysis. Raw
data, metadata and descriptions of procedures should be stored in multiple
locations.
Policies of confidentiality, data ownership, and data hold-back times should be
established at the outset. Archiving of samples (soils, water, plant voucher
specimens and animal materials) can be valuable resources for future analysis.
(6) Monitoring data is continually examined, interpreted and presented
Error and trend detection is optimised by frequent external review through
publishing or sharing of data and results.
Adequate resources need to be committed to managing data and evaluating,
interpreting, and publishing results. Often these are given low priority compared
to actual data collection.
(7) Monitoring is part of an integrated research program
An integrated program may include qualitative observation, experimentation,
modelling and cross-site comparisons.
71

1.8.2.2 Key Scientific Questions
Scientific questions determine experimental design: the type of data to be collected, the
scale at which it is collected, the sampling strategy to be used and the analytical methods
to test reliability and meaningfulness of results (Queensborough et al. 2007).
The following scientific questions are posed to frame assessment and monitoring
programs relating to the establishment phase that could significantly guide early
restoration activities in this project from seedling to later stages. The questions pertain to
geomorphic units and are consistent with questions articulated in Section 1.8.16 :
1. Are spatial distributions of species clumped, random, even, or absent (i.e. no
native species present on the site)?
2. Are spatiotemporal distributions and abundances of species associated with
specific environmental conditions (niche specificity, e.g relating to availability
of light, water or nutrients), dispersal parameters (species pool, vectors,
timing, e.g. priority and year effects) or disturbance regimes?
3. Are recruitment, growth and mortality rates of species (productivity) related
to specific environmental associations or gradients, or to something else?
4. Are temporal changes in vegetation or functional groups at the site behaving
according to normal linear successional dynamics or do threshold or other
dynamics apply?
5. Is the system already in or heading towards a desirable or undesirable stable
state?
6. What specific system parameters or leading indicators can give early warning
of impending regime change?
7. What specific interventions (e.g. mowing, herbicide applications, removal of
plants, direct seeding, planting etc) could most effectively impact on system
parameters — the species pool, species interactions and feedbacks, resource
availability, disturbance regimes — and hence the stability or resilience of a
current stable state or the dynamics of successional processes? How will the
interventions restart, redirect or speed-up the trajectory of succession?
8. What system parameters will suffice to indicate autogenic succession has
been achieved?
9. What parameters (re. structure, function, stability) best define the desired
end point of successional processes that are initiated by restoration activities?
1.8.2.3 Scale issues
The spatial scale (extent and resolution or ‘grain’) of assessments must match the scale at
which ecological (abiotic and biotic) processes that influence plant and animal
distributions operate. Extent refers to the size of the entire study area and grain, the size
of each observational unit (Wiens 1989). The extent of each more intensively studied
area ranges between 1.5 and 35 hectares. These are imbedded within sub-catchments that
range in size between 60 and 124 ha. The chosen resolution of sampling must also be
able to capture fine-scale spatial variation that may represent boundaries between
alternative stable states, which if dealing with controls at the seedling stage, may require
resolutions at a scale of 1–5 m 2 .
Figure 1.22 defines critical scale units (domains) based on scale-dependent abiotic and
biotic processes delivering primary environmental resources (light, heat, water, nutrients)
that control biological productivity. These critical scale units each represent a major
72

change in the dominant processes controlling the distribution and availability of primary
environmental resources at each level of biodiversity, or biological organisation.
SCALE UNITS or DOMAINS (GRAIN and EXTENT)
ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES
Scale
Resolution
Grain
Extent
Biodiversity level
Macro-climate
Weather
Elevation
Lithology
Topography (local)
Vegetation Canopy
Biotic interaction
Global
>10000 km
continental
higher taxon level
Meso Scale
1–5 km
10–200 km
(landscape/regional)
species level (range)
Topo
10–30-m
(1–10

1.8.2.4 Sampling strategy
Given the multiple spatial and temporal scales of ecosystem patterns and processes, the
likelihood of autocorrelation at some scales, and the need for sufficient replication to
account for confounding effects of spatial heterogeneity unrelated to successional
processes, a flexible, scaleable sampling strategy is essential.
A versatile approach therefore involves a nested, randomised complete block design for
permanent plots. The basic configuration is a 150 m x 150 m grid (2.25 ha) aligned in the
cardinal directions, comprised of 3 x 3 blocks, each block being 50 m x 50 m (0.25 ha)
containing 3 x 3 cells each 16.67 m x 16.67 m (278 m 2 ). Cell are defined by their northwest
corner, permanently marked and located using a differential GPS (Figure 1.23).
This is a variant of the Latin square of order nine with a block constraint (no repeated
digits in each block, row or column). Latin squares are a standard method of statistical
sampling in ecological studies. A Latin square of order n is an n x n array of cells
containing the numbers 1–n in such a way that each number (or symbol) occurs once in
each row and column of the array. A ‘gerechte’ variant further partitions the array into
regions (blocks) with the constraint that each number occurs once in each column, row
and block. Control for bias is by randomisation of the numbers within each row, column
and block. The Sudoku variant (n = 9) has the potential for a more even coverage of
sampling space. The grids are extended in space as required by adding more grids. Finer
sampling is achieved through nested subsets of the grids by repeating the same
randomised block design within cells. This flexibility allows the study design to be
adjusted to suit the scale of the heterogeneity (response and control variables) of the
system being studied, deal with bias and spatial autocorrelation (Legendre et al. 2004) as
well as test for the presence or absence of orthogonal gradients (Bailey et al. 2008,
Andersen 2007). Line and belt transects (with or without quadrats), and stratified
sampling are compatible with the block design. Sampling resolution can match
environmental grain by scaling to a 450-m x 450 x grid (20.25 ha) with 50- x 50-m cells.
50 m
6 7
9
3
8
4
2
1
5
16.67 m
cell
BLOCK
50 m
3
8
5
9
1
2
4
7
6
4
1
2
5
7
6
3
9
8
7
2
3
8
9
1
6
5
4
9
1
5 4 6 3 7 1 8 2
6 8 4 2 5 7 3 9
5 4 7 1 6 8 9 2 3
2
3
6
7
5
9
8
4
1
8
9 1 2 4 3 5 6 7
150 m
Figure 1.23. A randomised complete block design (power 9) with a block constraint.
74

1.8.2.5 Parameters and leading indicators for controlling and response variables
It is accepted that vegetation patterns and processes result from the bi-directional
interactions between abiotic processes (resource availability, disturbance regimes) and
biotic processes (dispersal, competition, mutualism etc) as described in 1.8.1, Fig. 1.14).
Diversity (richness, composition and abundance) results from a dynamic equilibrium
between productivity, i.e. biomass production (or more accurately, the availability of
resources that limit production) that increases competitive exclusion, and the frequency
or magnitude of disturbance that reduces the impact of competition by selective removal
of either biomass directly (competitors) or indirectly by changing the resource supply.
If the existing community is in an equilibrium stable state (positive and negative feedback
loops in balance), disturbance is required to create new niche opportunities. The new
conditions allow species to differentially express life history trade-offs, such as between
their ability to compete for limiting resources, colonize empty niches, or specialize on the
exploitation of resource rich patches. The expression of life-history traits is a function of
productivity, which influences the rate of biomass accumulation in open patches,
dispersal of propagules across patches, and the speed of successional displacement of
inferior by superior competitors. Thus disturbance and resource availability jointly
determine the variety of life-history traits expressible in a system (Cardinale et al. 2006).
To summarise, the key concepts are:
1. biomass production increases competitive exclusion by co-option of resources;
2. disturbance creates new niche opportunities through increased or decreased
resource availability or removal or reduction of competition for resources;
3. the life history traits expressible in a community change across disturbance–
productivity continua;
4. the spatial distribution of life history traits (or functional groups) can be even,
random or clumped;
5. clumping may reflect intrinsic or emergent spatial heterogeneity in resources,
differences in dispersal, localized differences in disturbance regimes;
6. small changes in resources and or disturbance can result in dramatic shifts in
species composition through threshold dynamics and phase shifts;
7. phase shifts may not be reversible by an equally small reverse change in external
conditions (i.e., hysteresis exists);
8. the resilience of a ‘stable’ state changes with changes along the disturbance–
resources continua depending on the balance between positive and negative
feedback interactions or loops.
To detect possible phase shifts in time to act (given short project timeframes), indicators
need to give sufficient advance warning even with incomplete information about
underlying ecosystem processes (Contamin and Ellison 2009).
Hence there is a need for leading indicators that are both sensitive and integrative.
Desirable attributes for indicators include (1) low cost and ease of measurement, (2)
sensitivity to stress factors, (3) short response times, (4) low spatiotemporal variability,
and (5) capacity to provide an integrative, predictive measure of ecosystem change
(Grabherr and Pauli 2004; Abreu et al. 2008).
75

Leading indicators — Controlling Variables
A range of candidate variables, both continuous and categorical will be selected for
potential multivariate analyses of the influence of resource availability and disturbance
regimes within sampling units across large environmental gradients. The variables will be
appropriate to relevant landscape processes and ecosystem perturbations described for
conceptual models in earlier sections.
1. Resource Availability
Key variables affecting resource availability that will be measured at varying sampling
densities and frequencies include, altitude, topographic position, catchment position,
aspect, slope, soil type and depth, soil moisture (content and plant available moisture),
soil temperature, soil organic content (quantitatively or qualitatively), soil compaction,
direct and transmitted solar radiation (total and photosynthetically active radiation),
rainfall, relative humidity and temperature, leaf wetness, wind speed and direction.
2. Disturbance
Disturbance is defined as any process leading to loss of biomass directly or through
changes in resource supply. Disturbances at relevant scales will be described by type,
frequency, intensity or extent of occurrence, path dependence and lags.
3. Species Pool Effects
Assessments of Species Pool integrity as affected by past clearing and fragmentation
will involve comparisons of species present and reproductively mature within
reasonable dispersal distance of particular sites. Suitable deficiency measures by
successional status will be established.
Dispersal processes involves evaluating dispersal syndromes of candidate species,
their known phenology and hence probability of arrival seasonally and inter-annually.
More work on suitable integrative measures of species pool effects is needed.
Leading indicators — Response Variables
Leading indicators of response variables range from distribution and abundance of
vegetation in alternative regimes using integrative traits such as plant functional types, to
specific measures of plant fitness or productivity (establishment, growth, mortality).
Successional processes at Springbrook can generally be broadly envisaged as lying
somewhere within a continuum between exposed soil (initial clearing), grassland (invaded
or cultivated pasture grasses), and mature forest or associated vegetation.
Functional groups
Species can be assigned to functional groups on the basis of physical/morphological or
ecophysiological characteristics which determine their fitness (establishment, growth,
mortality, reproductive success) in a given environment (varying resource and
disturbance constraints) (Bucci et al. 2004, Edwards et al. 2007, Pendry et al. 2007). The
functional classification selected depends on the science questions asked, and the scale
(spatial and temporal) involved — e.g. whole plant or part of a plant or groups of plants;
microsite, stand, or catchment.
76

Plant functional types (PFTs) are here defined as groups of plants that have similar
responses to environmental conditions and/or similar effects on ecosystem processes
(Muller et al. 2007). Based on the assumption of a relationship between form and
function (Barkman 1988), this structural-functional approach potentially enables
structural and physiological plant traits to be selected as surrogates for functional
patterns and processes at the ecosystem level. Caution is needed.
Plant functional traits reflect plant evolutionary adaptations to (a) specific historical
environments (resource fluxes, disturbance regimes) and (b) resource use efficiencies,
thus are informative regarding community assembly processes, ecosystem functioning
and feedback loops (Ackerly and Cornwell 2007, Díaz et al. 2007, McGill et al. 2006,
Shipley et al. 2006). It is thus assumed that functional groups can provide links between
life history strategies at the level of plants and ecosystem processes (Pokorny et al. 2005).
It is recognised that a universal functional classification of plants is impossible and that
the functional classification must fit the purpose, e.g. understanding successional
processes and dynamics, response to disturbance, or the effect of environmental resource
gradients and be applied with caution.
It is also recognised, however, that competitive ability or resource use efficiencies can
also be the result of allelopathic interactions, flexibility in mycorrhizal partners or
selective modification of soil microbial communities (Broz et al. 2008).
Further, it is recognised that trait-state shifts do occur within a species during
developmental stages from seedlings to adults (Cornelissen et al. 2003). Also plant species
may have different responses to environmental factors when growing in different
habitats (Bellingham and Sparrow 2000, Vesk and Westoby 2004).
It is thus important to select locally relevant traits for determining plant functional
groups in relation to local resource gradients and disturbance pressures, i.e. a contextdependent
evaluation of plant functional groups (Lavorel et al. 1997, Mueller et al. 2007).
Table 1.11 summarises a selection of plant functional traits known to be strongly
associated with colonization, growth, survival and reproduction across broad scales
(Westoby et al. 2002, Wright et al. 2005).
For the purposes of discerning successional dynamics and potential ‘alternative’ stable
states, those functional groups that most efficiently reflect plant competitive responses to
variation in the key resources of light (and temperature), water and nutrients, or
responses to disturbance regimes at initial stages of succession will be considered initially.
For example, growth form, seed size, rooting depth and photosynthetic pathways are key
functional traits significantly affecting competition for light, water and nutrients in early
succession. For an initial assessment broad morphological traits relating to growth form
(woody plants versus herbs (grasses, forbs) will be trialled.
Productivity Assessments
Productivity measures related to fitness traits will directly measure establishment, growth
and mortality together with the distal and proximal factors influencing these measures.
77

Table 1.11. Plant Traits and Trait States affecting competition for environmental resources
Trait and Trait States Competitive advantage Disadvantage (Trade-offs)
Growth Form
Forb
Rapid growth and seed set
between frequent disturbance
events; large output of small
seeds
Advantage in disturbed habitats
Low maximum height (can be
shaded out by woody plants);
low rooting depth — smaller
pool of available soil moisture
(vulnerable to drying out)
Grass
Woody
plant
Vines
Rapid growth (under high
irradiance) and seed set between
frequent disturbance events;
large output of small seeds
Below ground meristems: survive
fire better than forbs and woody
plants
Height advantage, hence
potential light capture advantage,
Height and growth advantage
(hence light capture advantage)
without heavy structural support
costs
Low maximum height (may be
shaded out by woody plants);
Greater moisture requirement,
higher cavitation risk
Lower survival rates
Morphological
Maximum
canopy height
High
Prior access to light than shorter
plants. A strategy for maximising
carbon gain via light capture
(Weiher et al. 1999, Westoby et al.
2002); capacity to dominate light
resources; Taller plants shade
shorter plants
Low (a) woody plants — lower
water demand, lower
allocation cost for stem
growth; greater allocation
to shade tolerance and
longevity
(b) Herbs — Prostrate or
rosette traits reduce accessibility
to browsers
Trade-off re cost of investment
in stem growth and maintenance,
water transport higher; high
allocation cost for roots (nutrient
and water absorption), shoots
(photosynthetic and transpiring
tissues) (Chapin et al. 1996)
Lower competitive ability in high
light environments
Leaf Mass
per unit Area
(LMA)
High
High strength and durability; a
measure of leaf construction
costs per area (Posada et al.
2009);
High shade tolerance
Low photosynthetic capacity
(low leaf nitrogen)
Low
High photosynthetic capacity;
low shade tolerance
Low strength and longevity; low
shade tolerance; high leaf N leads
to high herbivory rates
Specific Leaf
Area:
[Area per unit
Mass]
(SLA)
(light-capturing
area/dry mass)
High
Correlates with high
photosynthetic capacity, leaf
Nitrogen content, higher relative
growth rates, shorter time to
reproductive maturity, advantage
in more disturbed environments
(Westoby 1998; Kyle &
Leishman 2009);
Or with higher soil nutrients
• Lower leaf longevity
• Greater moisture loss per unit
leaf area (Niinemets 2001)
78

Trait and Trait States Competitive advantage Disadvantage (Trade-offs)
(Wright et al. 2002), e.g. nitrate;
higher conductivity and % clay &
silt (Kyle and Leishman 2009)
Low Lower water loss in dry areas Reverse of above
Leaf margin
Entire
Advantage in mesic habitats with
high mean annual temperature
Disadvantage in wet habitats at
low mean annual temperatures
Serrated
Improves photosynthetic
capacity (competitive advantage
at low temperatures but nonlimiting
moisture and nutrient
availability) (Royer and Wilf
2006)
Disadvantage in dry
environments (low water use
efficiency, high transpiration
rates) (compensated by leaf
trichomes in xerophytic plants
(Carpenter 2006)
Wood density
High
Positive correlation with shade
tolerance; maximises carbon gain
under low light, higher survival
rate (Aiba and Nakashizuka
2009)
Longer time to reproductive
maturity
Low
Faster growth to outcompete
others for light resources
Higher risk of mortality
(structural failure or cavitation
risk)
Rooting depth
Shallow
High density of roots in upper
soil layers enhances ability to
capture available surface soil
water and nutrients in early
succession
Sensitive to water deficits,
particularly in thin soils and
seasonally dry environments;
sensitive to vertically stratified
nutrient distributions
Deep
Extends water resources
available to the plant
Capacity for hydraulic
redistribution: water transferred
to deep soil stores during
abundant supplies; returned to
soil surface during dry periods to
maintain more temporally
equitable regimes
High construction and
maintenance costs, slower
growth rates (vulnerable to being
outcompeted at seedling stage by
shallow rooted species)
Seed size
Small
• higher fecundity advantage
(more seeds per year)
• Lower cost per propagule of
germination failures (Westoby et
al. 1996)
• increased colonizing
opportunities; fast initial growth
• increased seed bank persistence
High germination and
establishment failure (Westoby et
al. 2002, Baraloto et al. 2005);
greater proneness to herbivory
Large
• higher probability of
establishment due to storage
effects (Westoby et al. 2002):
• enhanced shade and stress
tolerance of seedlings (higher
survival rates of seedlings w.r.t.
shade, drought, deep litter,
damage), but may still be
outgrown by small-seeded
individuals when resoures not
• fecundity disadvantage (less
seeds per year), but may have
greater lifetime seed production
due to greater canopy area and
more reproductive years (Moles
et al. 2004)
• higher cost per propagule of
germination failure (Westoby et
al. 1996). Limited ability to
colonise new patches; low seed
79

Trait and Trait States Competitive advantage Disadvantage (Trade-offs)
Physiological
Photosynthetic
pathway
[light
resources]
Stomatal
conductance
(g s )
[gas exchange]
Leaf water
potential (Ψ)
(pre-dawn)
Leaf water
potential (at
end of dry
season)
Hydraulic
conductance
(water
transport)
Growth rates
C3
C4
(three
subtypes)
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Slow
limiting (Baraloto et al. 2005).
Competitive advantage in shaded
or colder environments; greater
frost tolerance in some
Higher photosynthetic, water
and nutrient use efficiencies in
hotter (>30°C), drier
environments
High rates of photosynthesis
(high levels of gas exchange) for
carbon capture and growth;
maximum light-saturated CO2
exchange rate per unit leaf area
(Gifford and Evans 1981); high
growth rates
Low transpirational losses,
higher water use efficiency
Indicative of high soil water
availability to vegetation
Useful indicator of rooting
depth, hence tolerance of water
deficits
Supports fast growth rates (high
photosynthetic activity) (a longterm
adaptive trait)
Greater tolerance of low leaf
water status (higher drought
resistance); high photosynthetic
water-use efficiency
Dominate areas with high
availability of aboveground
(light) and below-ground soil
resources (water, nutrients) and
low stresses
• higher survival rates in high
stress environments:
• can dominate shady, dry or
infertile environments (Grime
1977, Chapin 1980, Lambers and
Poorter 1992)
bank persistence, slow growth
Disadvantage in open, hotter and
drier environments; and at low
CO 2 levels; wastes up to 40% of
absorbed energy in
photorespiration
Higher frost sensitivity, lower
shade tolerance; advantage lost
below 20 °C (Ibrahim et al. 2008)
High transpiration losses
Low growth rates
Low maximal stomatal
conductance to reduce water
use at a time of declining water
availability
• Risk of embolism higher
• Low tolerance to low leaf water
status (low drought resistance)
• Low photosynthetic water-use
efficiency
Slower growth rates;
• Need high levels of soil
nutrients, high rates of
photosynthesis, high water
requirements, large leaf area
• lower survival rates
• lower survival rates in high
resource, low abiotic stress
environments due to competitive
inferiority c.f grasses and
invasive species (Baraloto et al.
2005)
80

Covariation of traits is common, aiding use of integrative traits for specific purposes (Figure 1.24).
STEM ROOT LEAF WHOLE PLANT
STRUCTURE
FUNCTION
HEIGHT VASCULAR WOODINESS ROOT
TRANSPORT
Type, Depth
Spread
Light
capture
Water &
nutrient
capture
Embolism
resistance
Support
for vascular
system
Water &
nutrient
capture;
mechanical
support
LEAF
Area
Mass
Width
Gas exchange
Coupling
(CO2/H2O)
Construction
maintenance
costs
LEAF
Margin
Hairs
(trichomes)
Temperature
and moisture
range
extreme
adaptations
Bundle
sheath cells:
• large (C4)
• small (C3)
Resource
use
efficiency
• light
• water
• nutrients
Cumulative
Leaf or Root
Area Index
(LAI, RAI a )
or RAI
Overall
Competitive
abilities
LIFE FORM
Optimal trait
tradeoffs for
specific resource
niche
Tall
Very
Large
Vessels
Large
Vessels
Low
density
Low
density
Shallow
roots
Deep
roots
Low LMA
High SLA
Short LL
Low LMA
High SLA
Short LL
Toothed
lobed or
entire
Toothed
lobed or
entire
C3
C3
Very High
High
Vines b
Tall Trees
• fast growth
• light demanding
• shorter lived
Small
Vessels
High
Density
Shallow
roots
High LMA
Low SLA
Long LL
Toothed
lobed or
entire
C3
Lower
Shorter Trees
• slow growth
• shade tolerant
• longer lived
Deep roots
Low LMA
High SLA
Short LL
C3
Higher
Shrubs
• fast growth
• light demanding
• shorter lived
TRAITS
Woody
Shallow roots
High LMA
Low SLA
Long LL
C3
Lower
Shrubs
• slow growth
• shade tolerant
• long lived
No roots
±CAM c
Epiphytes
Short
Vascular
Herbaceous
Nonaerenchymatous
± rhizomatous
Broad leaf
Narrow leaf
Annual
Perennial
Perennial
Annual
C4 high
C3 low
C4 high
C3 low
Higher
Lower
Higher
Lower
Forbs
(flat)
Forbs
(Erect)
Grasses
Mat-forming
Grasses
Clumped
Herbs
Aerenchymatous
C4/C3
Sedges
Non-vascular
Mosses
Lichens
Figure 1.24. Covarying Plant Traits. a Root Area Index (RAI) denotes the below-ground resource capture capacity of roots
in the same way as Leaf Area Index (LAI) denotes above-ground light capture capacity. b Vines: large diameter vessels; abundant
soft parenchyma tissue in xylem; high conducting, high sap flow, high transpiration rates c.f. trees; larger total leaf area than
trees, higher growth rates; can quickly exploit disturbed areas. c CAM plants use a biochemical ‘idle’ function to save energy and
water under resource stress in exposed positions
81

1.8.2.6 Data Analysis (methods)
Assessment methods will be both qualitative (long-term observations across a range of
environmental and disturbance gradients) and quantitative to the extent that is feasible
and appropriate for restoration practitioners.
Early work will involve the accurate laying out of sampling grids and marking all new
regeneration in selected grid cells using permanent markers.
Where quantitative assessments are appropriate a range of analytic tools will be used.
Power analysis will underpin replication requirements where specific interventions
involve a range of treatment options.
Analytical methods for interpreting resulting patterns and trends will involve ordination
techniques and statistical analyses, particularly analysis of variance (ANOVA
etc)(Carpenter and Brock 2006).
The details of methods used and results will be reported in successive years as data over a
sufficient period of time to be statistically valid become available.
Reference sites
Selecting suitable reference plots with similar environmental conditions is very difficult
due to continuous variations in altitude, slope, aspect, stoniness, geomorphology,
topography, and land use history particularly in montane environments (Abreu et al.
2008).
The advantages and disadvantages of two main approaches to monitoring ecosystem
recovery after human disturbance (chronosequence versus permanent monitoring plots)
are elaborated in Table 1.12:
Table 1.12. Monitoring approaches for assessing ecosystem recovery after disturbance
Monitoring Description Advantages Disadvantages
approach
Chronosequence Synchronic analysis —
plots established in
different seral stages are
monitored
simultaneously (time is
substituted by space)
Results can be achieved
over shorter experimental
time scales
Confounding effects of
spatial heterogeneity
especially in mountain
environments that may
be unrelated to
successional processes
Permanent Plot Diachronic analysis —
individual plots are
monitored over time
Avoids confounding effects
of spatial heterogeneity;
Potentially an advantage in
mountain environments
where spatial heterogeneity
is high
High between-plot
variability requires large
replications and hence
costs
Requires longer study
periods (less sensitive to
ecosystem changes over
short periods that
characterise project time
frames)
82

1.9 Resources
Resources required for the project are described and costed in the Results section (1.10)
where resources acquired in 2008–2009 are also described.
ARCS Inc has acquired two accommodation businesses at Springbrook to support
Springbrook Rescue. The businesses are Springbrook Lyrebird Retreat
(www.lyrebirdspringbrook.com.au) and Koonjewarre (www.koonjewarre.com). Both are
proving profitable and all profits are directed to restoration of rainforest at Springbrook.
A budget for the first 10 years is provided in section 1.10.
83

Program Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 TOTAL
2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17 2017–18
Management $80,000.00 $80,000.00 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $640,000.00
Supervision $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $500,000.00
Volunteers $68,600.00 $68,600.00 $68,600.00 $68,600.00 $51,000.00 $51,000.00 $51,000.00 $42,500.00 $42,500.00 $42,500.00 $554,900.00
Restoration $50,000.00 $20,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $150,000.00
Science & monitoring $95,000.00 $60,000.00 $30,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $255,000.00
Data acquisition (in-kind) $120,000.00 $120,000.00 $120,000.00 $360,000.00
Reporting $50,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $185,000.00
Scholarships $10,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $170,000.00
Community support program $2,810.00 $18,750.00 $33,855.00 $8,855.00 $8,855.00 $8,855.00 $8,855.00 $8,855.00 $8,855.00 $8,855.00 $117,400.00
Administration $1,500.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $12,300.00
Vehicle expenses $7,400.00 $60,400.00 $4,400.00 $4,400.00 $4,400.00 $4,400.00 $4,400.00 $4,400.00 $4,400.00 $4,400.00 $103,000.00
Equipment maintenance & fuel $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $30,000.00
Insurance $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $100,000.00
TOTAL $538,310.00 $383,950.00 $413,055.00 $248,055.00 $230,455.00 $230,455.00 $350,455.00 $221,955.00 $221,955.00 $221,955.00 $3,177,600.00
1.10 Budget
84

Potential
threats and
barriers to
ecological
restoration are
described in
Section 1.3
ARCS has
prepared a set
of Fact Sheets
covering all
significant
weeds
1.11 Results for 2008–2009
Program
Logic Steps
Expected results 2008–2009 Results statement in
summary
Detailed results Additional
data
Foundational
activities
Program logic defined Program logic has been defined In designing the Program Logic, the following sources were used:
• Developing and Using Program Logic in Natural Resource Management — User
Guide (Commonwealth of Australia 2009)
• NRM Framework — Australian Government Natural Resource Management
Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting And Improvement Framework
(Commonwealth of Australia 2009)
• INFFER: Investment Framework for Environmental Resources (David J. Pannell
2009; http://www.inffer.org)
• Using INFFER to develop and assess projects for "Caring for our Country", the
Australian Government program (David J. Pannell and Anna M. Roberts 2009;
www.inffer.org)
• The SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration. Society for Ecological
Restoration International, Science & Policy Working Group (Version 2: October,
2004)
• Guidelines for Developing and Managing Ecological Restoration Projects, 2nd
Edition. Andre Clewell, John Rieger, and John Munro. December 2005.
http://www.ser.org and Tucson: Society for Ecological Restoration International
Potential threats and barriers to
ecological restoration described; risk
factors; identified; mitigation options
evaluated
Potential threats and barriers to
ecological restoration have been
described
Risk factors have been assessed using
the INFFER process
Mitigation options have been evaluated
Potential threats and barriers to ecological restoration are summarised below:
• Altered biogeochemical cycles
• Altered climate processes (climate change)
• Impacts of introduced plants and animals (especially environmental weed
invasion)
• Impacts of problem natives
• Impacts of disease
• Detrimental regimes of physical disturbance events (especially frost and
hailstorms)
• Impacts of pollution
85

Future costs
will largely
relate to
equipment
maintenance,
chemicals, fuel
Program
Logic Steps
Expected results 2008–2009 Results statement in
summary
Detailed results Additional
data
• Impacts of competing land uses
• Socio-political processes
• Insufficient ecological resources to restore and maintain viable populations
(especially decreasing or loss of species pool, pollinators, dispersal agents, other
vital mutualists)
Risk factors (See Table 1.6)
Four principal threats have been identified as indicated above. Mitigation options for
these threats have been evaluated:
• Climate change
o A central objective of the project is to restore canopy cover and expand the
extent of rainforest on Springbrook, in particular on land adjoining the
World Heritage area, with the expectation that this will reduce the threat
posed by climate change.
• Environmental weed invasion
o Mitigation options include biomass removal by hand and herbicide
treatment. Removal by hand is time-consuming and must be carried out
before fruiting to be of maximum value. It may also be less than fully
effective if roots or rhizomes are left behind. Whereas herbicide treatment
may be more effective, there is concern about the potential impact on fauna
(e.g. frogs) and regenerating native plants.
• Insufficient ecological resources
o It is considered that there will be circumstances where planting will be
necessary to establish nuclei in areas distant from remnant rainforest
(species pools, etc.). A key prerequisite step involves identifying those areas
in need of active intervention.
occurring at
Springbrook
Resources requirements identified and
costed; feasibility determined.
Resources requirements were identified
and costed
Given available funds and human
resources, together with donations and
an assessment of likely future support,
the project was determined to be
feasible with a low risk of failure
The total value of required resources
for 2008–09 has been estimated at
The following restoration resources have been identified and costed (Costs are shown
in parentheses.):
• Brushcutters (2) ($1200)
• Ride-on mowers (2) ($16,000)
• Chainsaw ($400)
• Chipper ($2400)
86

Program
Logic Steps
Expected results 2008–2009 Results statement in
summary
Detailed results Additional
data
$538,310 of which $338,600 is an inkind
contribution. A proportion of the
$95,000 for science and monitoring
was spent over the 2006–07 period in
preparation for this project.
The total value of the project over 10
years is estimated to be $3,177,600.
• Honda Blower (mower cleaning) ($420)
• Herbicide back-pack spraying equipment (2) ($500)
• Herbicide splatter gun equipment ($900)
• Hand tools (various) ($1800)
• Safety equipment ($1400)
• Compost bins (3) ($1100)
• Chemicals (herbicides, etc) ($600)
• Tarpaulins ($300)
• Fuel containers ($350)
• Weed mats (650)
• Trailer ($1700)
• Fuel ($2500)
Required monitoring resources have been identified and costed:
• Differential GPS ($11,500 + annual licence fee $3800)
• Environmental sensors, data loggers, transmitters ($14,000)
• Star pickets for marking grid-cell corners ($1400)
• Hand-held weather station (Kestrel 4500
Pocket Weather Meter and computer interface) ($840)
• Plant markers (20,000) to mark regeneration ($5000)
• Equipment to measure plant growth ($500)
• Audio- and video-recording equipment to
identify and monitor significant species ($22,000)
• Photographic equipment to monitor regeneration
at fixed photopoints and record wildlife for
identification and reporting ($7300)
• Soil augurs and colour charts to sample and
characterise soil and condition ($950)
Data acquisition, storage, analysis and reporting requirements have been identified and
87

Volunteers will be recruited from within ARCS membership, the local community,
interested groups including naturalists, bushwalkers, bird watchers, etc. The in-kind
contribution of volunteers over the first 10 years has been valued at $554,900.
Program
Logic Steps
Expected results 2008–2009 Results statement in
summary
Detailed results Additional
data
costed:
• Computer hardware ($8,500)
• Database software upgrade ($500)
• ArcGIS software upgrade ($2000)
• Aerial photography (high resolution) &
digital terrain model (5-metre) ($120,000;
donated by Gold Coast City Council)
• Aerial photographs for land-use history (1930,
1961, 1989, 1993, 2005) ($1000)
• Regional Ecosystem data
• Flora and fauna records
Monitoring, evaluation and reporting
processes defined.
Monitoring, evaluation and reporting
processes have been defined
Monitoring
• A 50-metre grid, subdivided into 16.67-metre cells, will be established on all
major restoration sites. Regular evaluation of regeneration progress and control of
barriers to ecological restoration is planned. GIS mapping and a detailed database
will be used to record changes temporally and spatially.
Evaluation
• Progress will be evaluated using criteria indicated by guidelines developed by the
Australian Government for Natural Resource Management programs and those
indicated by INFFER and SER.
Reporting
• An initial report format has been devised, consistent with guidelines developed by
the Australian Government for Natural Resource Management programs
(MERI).
Conceptual and growth models of
ecological restoration selected
Conceptual and growth models of
ecological restoration have been
Three conceptual models of ecological restoration — stochastic, gradual continuum
and threshold — have been selected for evaluation.
88

selected The chosen growth model is Ecosystem Dynamics Simulator produced by Nature
Refuges Branch, Sustainable Communities, Department of Environment and Resource
Management. An alternative model, MUSE, has ceased to be supported.
Relevant
planning
instruments are
Program
Logic Steps
Expected results 2008–2009 Results statement in
summary
Detailed results Additional
data
Assets defined and described;
significant species selected and life
history attributes completed
Assets have been defined and
described
Significant species have been selected
Life history attributes for 62 species of
birds and 25 species of frogs have been
completed
The various sites that make up the overall asset are described in Chapter 2
The following significant species have been selected:
• Menura alberti (Albert’s Lyrebird)
• Atrichornis rufus (Rufous Scrub-bird)
• Orthonyx temminckii (Logrunner)
• Ptiloris paradiseus (Paradise Riflebird)
• Ptilinopus magnificus (Wompoo Fruit-dove)
• Mixophyes fasciolatus (Great Barred Frog)
• Mixophyes fleayi (Fleay’s Barred Frog)
• Kyrranus loveridgei (Philoria loveridgei)
• Argyrodendron trifoliolatum (Booyong)
• Syzygium ingens (Red Apple)
• Sloanea australis (Maiden’s Blush)
• Sloanea woolsii (Yellow Carabeen)
• Duboisia myoporoides (Corkwood)
• Acacia melanoxylon
Fact sheets incorporating life history attributes have been prepared for 62 bird species
and 25 species of frogs
Community support strategy defined Elements of a community support
strategy have been defined
The following of elements of a community support strategy have been considered at
this stage:
• Web site & blog
• On-site displays incorporating appropriate conceptual diagrams
• Field days
• Signage on two or more sites
• Brochures for local distribution
•
Policy deficiencies that allow
continuing threatening processes
A number of policy deficiencies have
been identified
Policy deficiencies that allow continuing threatening processes include the following:
• Lack of a unified policy within the Queensland Government; while two agencies
89

identified were coordinating the acquisition of land including cleared land with the intention
of restoring the rainforest landscape, another agency was advising Gold Coast
City Council to ensure that all cleared land remained cleared
• Changes to the SEQ Regional Plan Regulatory Provisions that came into effect
on 7 December 2008 provide for development with 50 cabins on one site within
the Regional Landscape and Rural Production Area without impact assessment;
with impact assessment, 150 cabins could be possible on a single property.
• Road verge management by Main Roads and Gold Coast City Council maintain
canopy opening, encourage weed growth and spread weeds; heavy pruning is
apparently intended to prevent damage to large buses which are arguably
inappropriate for the Springbrook setting
• Energex contractors are required to clear vegetation around powerlines; the
existence of powerlines and the associated clearing along roads such as Repeater
Station Road maintain canopy openings with associated impacts on rainforest; a
number of powerlines traverse properties that are the subject of restoration and
this is a source of conflict that will be exacerbated as regeneration proceeds
the State
Government’s
SEQ Regional
Plan and Gold
Coast City
Council’s Local
Area Plan.
Program
Logic Steps
Expected results 2008–2009 Results statement in
summary
Detailed results Additional
data
Initial
activities
(Nonbiophysical)
0–3 years
Threats and barriers to ecological
restoration identified and described for
each asset
Threats and barriers to ecological
restoration have been identified and
described for each asset
Restoration equipment purchased Identified restoration equipment has
been purchased at a total cost of
$32,220.
EPA (DERM) has contributed a
brushcutter, ride-on mower and trailer
at a total cost of $10,300..
The threats and barriers for each asset are described in the individual property reports
in Part 3.
The following restoration equipment has been acquired in 2008–2009:
• Brushcutters (2) ($1200)
• Ride-on mowers (2) ($16,000)
• Chainsaw ($400)
• Chipper ($2400)
• Honda Blower (mower cleaning) ($420)
• Herbicide back-pack spraying equipment (2) ($500)
• Herbicide splatter gun equipment ($900)
• Hand tools (various) ($1800)
• Safety equipment ($1400)
90

• Compost bins (3) ($1100)
• Chemicals (herbicides, etc) ($600)
• Tarpaulins ($300)
• Fuel containers ($350)
• Weed mats ($650)
• Trailer ($1700)
• Fuel ($2500)
• Tractor with slasher attachment (acquired by ARCS as a
result of purchasing the accommodation business, Koonjewarre)
Program
Logic Steps
Expected results 2008–2009 Results statement in
summary
Detailed results Additional
data
Volunteers recruited An initial team of volunteers has been
established and contacts have been
made with other groups with the view
to obtaining an ongoing commitment
of volunteers
Volunteer recruitment has involved the following:
• Volunteers from within ARCS
• Volunteers from the Springbrook community
• Volunteers from Community of Christ with an ongoing commitment of 22
person-days per year for 3 years
• Approaches to birdwatching, naturalist and bushwalking groups
• A commitment to regular field surveys by the Queensland Mycological Society
Funding sources secured, identified or
indicated
A number of funding sources have
been secured and others identified or
indicated
ARCS has purchased two accommodation businesses at Springbrook with the
commitment that all profits would be directed to Springbrook Rescue. Both are run by
experienced managers and are performing very well.
A number of ARCS members are making annual or monthly donations and two
businesses have indicated future donations.
The Springbrook Rescue website will be set up to attract donations and sponsorship.
Monitoring equipment purchased Identified monitoring equipment was
purchased in 2008–09 at a total cost of
$53,290. In addition, a range of sensors
(temperature, humidity, soil moisture,
photosynthetically active radiation),
data loggers and data transmitters was
Monitoring resources acquired to 2008–2009 include:
• Differential GPS ($11,500 + annual licence fee $3800)
• Star pickets for marking grid-cell corners ($1400)
• Hand-held weather station (Kestrel 4500
91

Program
Logic Steps
Expected results 2008–2009 Results statement in
summary
Detailed results Additional
data
ordered at a cost of $14,000 and
delivery occurred in July 2009.
Pocket Weather Meter and computer interface) ($840)
• Plant markers (20,000) to mark regeneration ($5000)
• Equipment to measure plant growth ($500)
• Audio- and video-recording equipment to
identify and monitor significant species ($22,000)
• Photographic equipment to monitor regeneration
at fixed photopoints and record wildlife for
identification and reporting ($7300)
• Soil augurs and colour charts to sample and
characterise soil and condition ($950)
GIS mapping resources established,
grid-based monitoring and reporting
adopted and cells permanently marked
GIS mapping resources are established
Grid-based monitoring has been
initiated and cells marked.
GIS mapping resources have been acquired, including —
• ArcsGIS 9.2
• High-resolution aerial photography (donated by Gold Coast City Council)
• High-resolution digital terrain model (donated by Gold Coast City Council)
• Rainfall data
• Regional Ecosystem layers (pre-clearing and remnant)
• Flora and fauna records
• Digitised geology layers
Using the GIS, a 50-metre grid has been mapped and subdivided into 16.67-metre cells
To June 2009, 206 cells have been marked on the ground (113 on Warblers, 13 on
Ashmiha, 80 on Pallida) using a Differential GPS with sub-metre accuracy.
Springbrook Rescue web site designed
and online; brochures designed and
printed; display designed and installed;
3 field days held; Scenario-Based
Learning (SBL) Tool started
These actions are planned for the
second and third year
A web designer has been commissioned to produce the web site and will begin work
on it within the next two months. A grant has been sought to cover the costs.
92

Program
Logic Steps
Expected results 2008–2009 Results statement in
summary
Detailed results Additional
data
Policy deficiencies that allow
continuing threatening processes
identified and notified
Policy deficiencies that allow
continuing threatening processes have
been identified and notified
Policy deficiencies have been notified to the Queensland Government and ongoing
discussions are occurring
Initial
activities
(Biophysical)
Threats and barriers to ecological
restoration under active control based
on observation and monitoring
Threats and barriers to ecological
restoration are being assessed based on
observation and monitoring
Two likely barriers to restoration are smothering growth of the weed, Aristea ecklonii,
and the grass, Kikuyu.
Frost damage has been recorded during winter months on Warblers, Ashmiha and
Pallida.
0–3 years
Extent of invasion by Aristea ecklonii
and other priority weeds identified;
control options assessed and measures
underway
Extent of invasion by Aristea ecklonii
and other priority weeds has been
identified on the majority of sites;
fact sheets for 50 of the most
significant weed species have been
completed;
a comprehensive database for 225
weed species relevant to Springbrook
has been developed with parameters
including flowering and fruiting times,
controls and ecological characteristics;
an excel spreadsheet has been prepared
listing all species by property, ranking
(degree of infestation or potential
impacts) and flowering times;
control options for priority weeds have
been assessed and control measures
are underway
Extent of invasion
Aristea ecklonii: The occurrence of Aristea ecklonii has been identified on the
following properties:
• Warblers — major infestation covering almost all of the property
• Ashmiha — not widespread at this time, but dense in a few sections
• Pallida — mainly confined to the road verge and the northern boundary but one
isolated plant found recently about 200 metres from other occurrences
• Ankuna — significant occurrences on the southern part of the property
Hedychium gardnerianum (Kahili Ginger): Kahili Ginger represents a major weed
problem at Springbrook being capable of growing in shade and having the potential to
invade rainforest and dominate the understorey. It occurs on numerous properties and
along Department of Transport and Main Roads property (Springbrook Road):
• Warblers — a few plants were identified in garden beds and within a clump of
native vegetation where it was apparently dispersed from the garden bed plants by
birds
• Pallida — a few plants occur on the road verge outside the northern boundary
Senecio madagascariensis (Fireweed): this annual (generally) is spread across many
cleared areas on Springbrook; it is not considered to be a threat to rainforest
regeneration but is a Class 2 declared weed:
• Warblers — Fireweed appears extensively across the property each Autumn but
isolated plants can appear at any time of the year
• Pallida — Fireweed appears extensively across the property each Autumn but
isolated plants can appear at any time of the year
93

Crocosmia x crocosmiiflora (Montbretia): Montbretia is a vigorously growing
perennial, tolerates full sun or shade, wet or dry environments, displacing other ground
layer plants; reported to be a significant threat in the Blue Mountains World Heritage
Area. Recorded from several of the government properties and along roadsides:
• Warblers — several sites mainly in shaded patches; not extensive
• Ankuna — several dense patches on the southern half of the property on lowerlying
moist sites
Kahili Ginger: This plant has large rhizomes up to a metre thick and is difficult to
remove by cutting and digging. It can be treated by applying herbicide to freshly cut
stems or to new shoots after cutting stems.
Montbretia: Grows from rhizomes, so pulling out plants may not be very effective;
digging up requires attention to removing rhizomes; glyphosate is reported to be
effective but has not been systematically trialed here.
Program
Logic Steps
Expected results 2008–2009 Results statement in
summary
Detailed results Additional
data
Control options
Aristea ecklonii: hand weeding and glyphosate application; as an immediate action
flowers and fruiting heads should be removed; advanced plants develop rhizomes that
produce new ‘plants’ vegetatively; it is essential that the rhizome is dug out when hand
weeding
Control measures
Aristea ecklonii: control measures are described in detail in the Notes section
following this table
Kahili Ginger: occurrences on the restoration properties are small. All have been cut
back to ground level and treated with glyphosate. Follow up may be required.
Montbretia: the majority of plants occurring on restoration properties have been
removed by hand; follow up will be essential
94

Program
Logic Steps
Expected results 2008–2009 Results statement in
summary
Detailed results Additional
data
Sensor system installed for recording
environmental parameters
A range of sensors has been installed
and the network will be expanded in
2009–2010.
The wireless sensor network (WSN) project initiated by ARCS and being implemented
in conjunction with CSIRO and DERM is underway. Nine nodes have been installed
on the Pallida site and one at Logunners on Repeater Station Road. In the pilot stage,
sensors are measuring temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction, soil moisture
and leaf wetness. Data collected by the nodes are transmitted wirelessly to a base
station in the main building on the site and then via the wireless 3G network to
CSIRO. The data are then processed for graphical presentation on the CSIRO
Sensornets web site.
A workshop was held at Springbrook to discuss monitoring requirements including
acoustic and video monitoring to assess habitat recovery.
In the next stage, the number of nodes will be increased and rainfall and radiation will
be added to the measurements.
In addition to the WSN project, ARCS has purchased a range of sensors (temperature,
humidity, soil moisture, photosynthetically active radiation), data loggers and data
transmitters. These will be installed at Warblers over the coming months.
Long-term monitoring plots set up;
growth rate, soil moisture and other
measurements initiated
The establishment of long-term
monitoring plots is underway and
growth rate and soil moisture
measurements initiated.
Growth study involving measurement
of establishment, growth and mortality
seasonally have been instituted.
The grid cells described above represent the long-term monitoring plots. To date, 206
cells have been marked on the ground (113 on Warblers, 13 on Ashmiha, 80 on
Pallida) using a Differential GPS with
sub-metre accuracy. Within 13 cells on
Warblers, Pallida and Ashmiha, heights
of regenerating native plants have been
measured.
Soil moisture measurements have been
made at a range of points on Warblers
and Pallida. The soil moisture profile
across the 3-ha Warblers property is
shown graphically here (Blue represents
higher moisture and brown, lower
moisture.).
95

Pink plant markers locate regenerating native plants to prevent accidental damage and
allow monitoring and analysis.
Program
Logic Steps
Expected results 2008–2009 Results statement in
summary
Detailed results Additional
data
Natural regeneration identified,
evaluated and mapped
About 20,000 native plants
regenerating in cleared areas have been
marked with pink plant markers.
Within 8 grid cells on Warblers, the
regenerating plants have been
individually located using the dGPS
and mapped using the GIS. A similar
exercise has been conducted on 4 cells
on Ashmiha.
Plant demography (e.g. establishment,
growth, mortality) to be analysed by
species and environmental gradients.
Ecosystem Dynamic Simulator
software has been acquired and
parameters for modelling are being
analysed.
Flora and fauna surveys carried out in
adjoining rainforest (species pool)
Flora and fauna surveys have been
carried out in adjoining rainforest
Flora surveys have been carried out in rainforest adjoining those properties that have
been the main focus for restoration in 2008–2009 (Warblers, Ashmiha and Pallida).
Fauna surveys have been carried out in rainforest adjoining Pallida and Ashmiha.
Incidental records have been compiled for Warblers.
Reference sites selected and attributes
documented (chronosequence)
Reference sites will be established in
2009–2010.
Historical aerial photography has been studied to locate remnant rainforest
occurrences and gain an understanding of the age of the various regenerating forests.
This information will allow reference sites to be selected to provide a chronosequence.
Road verges, powerline easements
managed to restore microclimate,
protect habitat and control weeds
No progress has been made to date. Road verges, roadside vegetation and powerline easements continue to be managed in
a manner that destroys native vegetation, maintains or expands canopy openings,
damages habitat and spreads weeds.
96

Notes additional to Results for 2008–2009
Weed invasion
Aristea ecklonii
The first inspection of the Warblers property by ARCS occurred a few months after the property was purchased by the
Government. It had been observed that the property had been slashed immediately prior to the sale. That first
inspection revealed the extensive presence of a lily. The plant was subsequently identified as Aristea ecklonii. Figure 1.25
shows an example of the density of the weed.
Figure 1.25. Near confluent infestation of Aristea ecklonii at Warblers.
Control measures
Removing flowers and fruiting heads is intended to prevent
establishment of a soil seed source that would produce a wave
of new plants in Spring. It will not in itself lead to eradication
as the plants can reproduce vegetatively from rhizomes (Figure
1.26). Another stop-gap measure is mowing (after removing
fruiting heads) to set back growth and future flowering and
fruiting and buy time for application of more permanently
effective measures.
In addition to removing flowers and fruiting heads, herbicide
treatment has been used on Warblers. A solution of 1–2 %
glyphosate (Roundup), 0.2 % penetrant (Pulse) and 0.2 % dye
(Herbidye) has been applied directly to plants using a backpack Figure 1.26. Aristea ecklonii plants showing rhizomes
spray with finely controlled nozzle such that spray drift is
negligible. This has been reasonably successful in that the overall density of Aristea has been reduced. However, some
plants survive especially where they occur among a large clump. The tentative conclusion is that the clump represents
multiple individual plants some of which escape the herbicide application. Further investigation is required to establish
97

whether the rhizomes are killed by the herbicide. In addition to plants surviving herbicide treatment, there are numerous
outbreaks of ‘lawns’ of small plants. Some of these appear to have grown from seed, others have sprouted from
rhizomes.
Follow-up herbicide application has been carried out on some areas. In others, plants have been dug out by hand by
volunteers. When new shoots appeared following digging out, it became clear that rhizomes were not being thoroughly
removed. Subsequent volunteers have been trained to check for rhizomes and make every effort to remove them
entirely.
Aristea ecklonii after treatment with herbicide. Images on the left were taken about 3 weeks after treatment and those on the
right about 8 weeks after treatment. In the image at the bottom right, new shoots can be seen appearing in the treated area.
98

1.12 Review and improvements
This section of the report is intended to provide ongoing review and the basis for adaptive
management. In this, the first year of the project, little review is possible.
The preceding Results section (1.11) provides details of work carried out and observations of the
processes that are occurring in favour of, and as barriers to, restoration.
In summary, a conceptual model has been determined to guide restoration, an extensive grid system
has been established for sampling and monitoring; all regeneration is being marked to facilitate
protection and monitoring; establishment growth and mortality measurements have been carried out
seasonally on several 280 square metre sample plots and shown to be feasible over wider areas covering
a broader range of environmental gradients, and soil moisture measurements have been carried out
over extensive areas on two properties showing predictable and significant micro-environmental
variation.
Aristea ecklonii (Iridaceae) eradication is proving a challenge as a result of its fecundity, dispersal abilities,
and rhizomatous habit. Herbicide control is challenging in a very wet environment with rare frogs and
uncertainty regarding biochemistry or mode and timing of herbicide translocation to rhizomes.
Regeneration is progressing well over significant areas consistent with conceptual model predictions.
Impediments to regeneration in other areas have been identified and intervention trials coupled with
sensor network monitoring will progress in the coming year.
Social factors influencing social-ecological systems will need to be further elaborated within a systems
framework in the coming year.
Assumptions underlying the project appear to be valid and not requiring change at this stage.
Risk factors identified at the outset appear to be reasonable.
After the first year, budget projections also appear to be reasonable and likely to total $3.2 million over
10 years. Grant funding will be required to complement pro bono contributions and those from the
Springbrook Rescue Fund.
The evaluation questions set out in Section 1.7 for ‘Immediate activities and outcomes’ are addressed
below.
Outcome Evaluation question Answer (as at July 2009)
Improvement
in the state of
the asset
Are threats and barriers to ecological restoration under
active control and based on best science and practice?
Is the extent of Aristea ecklonii infestation identified;
control options assessed, and control measures under way?
Control measures are in place but ongoing
monitoring will be essential; consultations with
scientists ongoing regarding herbivide mode of
action for optimal effectiveness; ecological
conceptual model for restoration constructed.
The extent of A. ecklonii infestation has been
identified though the possibility of new
outbreaks can not be excluded. Control options
(herbicide, digging up) have been assessed and
control measures are underway. Further
investigation of the impact of herbicide on
rhizomes is required.
99

Outcome Evaluation question Answer (as at July 2009)
Improvement
in
Organisational
capacity to
implement the
program
Are appropriate control measures for all priority weeds
under way?
Are landscape-wide measures being applied to control
weeds and restore habitat (e.g. along road verges and
powerline easements)?
Were the threats and barriers to ecological restoration
identified and described for each asset?
Were sufficient funding sources secured?
Was all equipment necessary for restoration and monitoring
acquired?
Were identified data acquisition, storage, analysis and
reporting requirements set in place?
Was a volunteer program successfully established?
Control measures are generally underway.
Further attention may be required for kahili
ginger and montbretia.
Landscape-wide measures involve government
agencies and are not yet in place. Negotiations
are progressing. ARCS members have been
removing kahili ginger along road verges.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Around 40 volunteers have been involved to
date. One community group has provided a
team of volunteers on a number of occasions
and is committed to continuing. Three other
organizations have indicated an intention to
become involved. One scientific association
has begun a regular survey program on the
restoration properties.
100

Part 2: The Restoration Properties
2. The restoration properties
2.1 The properties
As noted in Section 1.3.1, the initial restoration focus is on properties within the high country
linkage between sections of the national park. The main three properties are Warblers, in the
Mundora Creek catchment, Ashmiha in the Ee-jung Creek catchment and Pallida (formerly known
as The Winery) in the Boy-ull Creek catchment. The landscape is illustrated in Figure 2.1.
Mundora Creek
Warblers
Ee-Jung Creek
Mt Springbrook
Ashmiha Pumilo
Boy-Ull Creek
Pallida
Koonjewarre
Figure 2.1. The high country at the southern end of Springbrook Plateau, viewed from the north. The ‘skyline’ coincides
with the Queensland–New South Wales border
Legend
Aspect
North
Northeast
East
Southeast
South
Southwest
West
Northwest
Figure 2.2. The high country at the southern end of Springbrook Plateau showing aspect.
101

Table 2.1. The Restoration Properties
No Name Lot on Plan Address Catchment
1 Warblers in the
Mist
2 Ashmiha 9RP150877;
10RP201032
1RP150877 17 Bilbrough Court Mundora Creek
18 Bilbrough Court Ee-Jung Creek
3 Pumilo 14RP221033 2884 Springbrook Road Ee-Jung Creek
4 Barimbar 15RP889011 2844 Springbrook Road Boy-ull Creek
5 Pallida 12RP201032 2824 Springbrook Road Boy-ull Creek
6 Koonjewarre 26RP139816 2806 Springbrook Road Boy-ull Creek
7 Logrunners 30RP139816 329 Repeater Station Road Boy-ull Creek
8 Kyarranus 1–14RP102950 375-333 Repeater Station
Road
Boy-ull Creek
9 Springers 1RP224325 74 Repeater Station Road Purling Brook
10 Kanimbla 4RP160167 387 Lyrebird Ridge Road Purling Brook
11 Ankuna 1SP100210 2666 Springbrook Road Little Nerang Creek (East)
12 Quolls 3RP100199 Repeater Station Road Cave Creek
13 Lyrebird Retreat 1RP56663 418 Lyrebird Ridge Road Cave Creek
102

Table 2.2. Structural and functional (abiotic/biotic) attributes of properties being restored
Attributes Restoration Properties in 5 different Sub-catchments
Property WAR ASH PUM BAR PAL KOO LOG KYR LYR KAN SPR ANKU
Tl: Unknown Basalts (3 rd youngest); Tls: Springbrook Rhyolites (2 nd youngest); Tlh: Hobwee Basalts (youngest). CWD: coarse woody debris. P: potentially. Topographic classes: 1 (valley or flat base of slopes);
Sub-Catchment Mundora Ee-jung Ee-jung Ee-jung Boy-ull Boy-ull Boy-ull Boy-ull Cave Purling Purling Little
Rainfall gradient: (mm) 100 100 500 700 900 200 100 600 Brook 200 Brook 200 Nerang 100
Min (mm) 3000 3000 3000 2800 2200 2800 3000 2500 2100 2200 2300 2100
Max (mm) 3100 3100 3500 3500 3100 3000 3100 3500 2700 2400 2500 2300
Altitudinal range (m) 5 65 60 150 130 40 120 40 100 110 100 10
Min (m) 800 795 800 790 790 790 830 950 710 690 690 750
Max (m) 805 860 860 940 920 830 950 990 810 800 790 760
Geological substrate Tls Tls Tls Tlh Tls Tlh Tls Tlh Tls Tlh Tlh Tlh Tls Tlh Tl Tls Tlh Tl Tls Tlh Tlh
Topographic classes (1–5) 1 1, 2 1–5 1–5 1–5 1, 2 2–5 5 26.1 5.9 1.6
Asset Area (ha) 3 12 8.2 28.1 32.7 5.4 4.1 1.1 14.4 26.1 5.9 1.6
Habitat loss and degradation (%) [Species Pool Effect]
Loss 95 95 27 28 78.6 80 0.4 41 14 10 20 77
Disturbed: includes loss of hollows, CWD, rocks 25 25 63 67.5 16.4 20 99.6 49 36 36 76 23
Remnant (based on aerial photos) 0 0??? 4.5 5 0 0 0 50 44 4 0
Altered biogeochemical processes (Y/N)
Energy y y y y y
Water y y y y y y
Nutrients y y y y y y
Altered disturbance regimes (Y/N)
Storm (wind, hail, electrical) y y y (?) y
Fire y (p) y (p) Y(p) y (p)
Flood or waterlogging y y y y y y
Drought (evapotranspiration>>rainfall) y y y
Frost y y y y y y
Pollution (e.g. fertilizers, pesticides, Al 3+ levels) ± y y y
Invasive species (native/non-native) y y y y y y y y y
Dysfunctional Biological interactions (Y/N)
Seed availability y y y y y y
Dispersal ± y y(?) y y y y
Competition y y y y y y y y
Mutualism ± y ±
Herbivory y y y y y y y y y
Predation y y y y
Allelopathy ? y? y ±
Pathogens
Trophic webs y y y y y y y y y
Dysfunctional Landscape — cross-scalar (Figure 1.15)
Patch-Matrix Class (dominant) — property level 2c 2c 2b: 2c 2b 1c 2b 2b: 2c 2c 1b: 2c 2b 1c
Patch-Matrix Class (dominant) — cell level 3c 3c 3c
2 (lower slopes); 3 (mid-slopes); 4 (upper slopes); 5 (ridges). Abbreviations for property names are explained in Figure 2.1.
103
A / B
Biotic
Function
Abiotic
Biotic
Structure
Abiotic

Figure 2.1 Bioclimatic envelopes for the restoration properties
ASH L Ashmiha — Lower property MIS Misthaven
ASH H Ashmiha — Higher property SPR Springers
BAR Barimbar (was Mt Springbrook) WAR Warblers
JEN Jendar (now Ankuna) WIN Winery (now Pallida)
KAN Kanimbla
KOO Koonjewarre
KYR1 Kyarranus
LOG Logrunners
LYR Lyrebird
104

Figure 2.2 Digital elevation model, Springbrook Plateau hight country
(Data courtesy of Gold Coast City Council)
105

2.2 Summary Asset Document Sheets
Summary Asset Document Sheet — Warblers
Name of asset
“Warblers in the Mist”
Context of asset
One of 46 properties (705 ha; 104 ha cleared) bought by the QLD government
Location Description of asset Current condition of asset
17 Bilbrough Court
Lot 1 on Plan RP150877
In the Mundora Creek
subcatchment
• Formerly contained RE12.8.2 (still
exists on boundaries), 12.8.5 (southern
boundary), 12.8.18, 12.8.19 (on edges
and small inlier)
• 3 ha in size
• relatively flat (800–805 ha) but at base
of steep gradient to 955 m at caldera
edge
• rainfall gradient 3000–3100 mm/a;
frequently immersed in cloud
• Acquired by government for inclusion
in future NP and WHA
Mainly (95%) cleared and condition
declining due to aggressive weeds
(Aristea ecklonii and pasture
grasses), roaming domestic and wild
dogs
Environmental values Community/social values Economic values
Recovery of WHV and integrity
Habitat for significant spp.
Lyrebirds, logrunners, bowerbirds,
bowerbirds, thornbills (brown),
scrubwrens (yellow throated, white
browed), robins (eastern yellow) &
Bassian Thrush visit or inhabit the
site)
Rare and vulnerable flora species
present (3)
Intrinsic and future WHV
Linkage (connectivity)
Links with Ashmiha (15 ha) to west,
NP to east, acquired Ostwald (3 ha)
to south
Threats to the asset
Aesthetic value of tall open forests and
rainforest when restored
Scientific value as model ecological
restoration site (test of ecological theory
and cost/effective methods of
restoration)
Other notes and key info
Water supply contributed to Hinze
Dam
Future ecotourism value in the
region as part of an essentially
natural WH precinct
Altered hydrological, nutrient,
climate regimes
Loss, fragmentation, modification of
habitat through clearing and edge
effects
Depleted species pool in
surrounding regrowth
Potential loss of mutualisms (soil
mycorrhizal associations)
Invasive plants & animals (includes
foxes, noisy miners, pied
currawongs)
Exposure to frosts and frequent
high intensity winds
Fire risk from dry grass during 3–4
months of the year
There are two earth dams and several trenches and benches on the site to catch
or divert water
Small-scale grazing occurred on the site (visible from air photos)
A coffee shop with compacted gravel parking areas, exotic gardens and Biocycle
waste disposal system existed on the site
Powerline easements (2) traverse the site east-west and diagonally
Local road easements on two sides infested with threatening weeds
Barbed-wire fencing encloses property on all sides
Almost 100% cover with Aristea ecklonii
Locals visit the dams with their dogs which kill wildlife (pademelons, native
ducks, masked lapwings, lyrebirds)
106

Summary Asset Document Sheet — “Pallida” formerly known as The Winery
Name of asset
“Pallida”
Context of asset
One of 46 properties (705 ha; 104 ha cleared) bought by the QLD government
Major part of Boy-ull Creek Catchment, the largest on upper Springbrook; forms
the western flank of Mt Springbrook, the third highest elevation at Springbrook
Location Description of asset Current condition of asset
2824 Springbrook Road
Lot 12 on RP201032 (32.7 ha)
The largest single property in the
Boy-ull Creek sub-catchment
• remnant and regrowth of RE12.8.1 or
12.8.2 (on northern boundaries), 12.8.5
(southern boundary), RE12.8.18
(coachwood), 12.8.19 (montane heath)
and an un-named regional ecosystem
dominated by Melaleuca pallida on a
spring-fed water-logged site.
• 32.72 ha in size (25.7 ha cleared)
• flat in northern half (790–800 m); steep
in southern half — 120 m N–S over
300 m (800–920 m) to within 50 m of
Mt Springbrook (947 m)
• rainfall gradient 2200–3100 mm/a;
frequently immersed in cloud
• eastern half of Boy-ull Creek
catchment
• Geology: most recent 2 of the 5 Tweed
Volcano lava flows — Hobwee basalts
(Tlh) on upper slopes; Springbrook
Rhyolite (Tls) on lower slopes
Largely cleared (25.7 ha; 78.6%);
condition improving in parts due to
natural regeneration after repeated,
full clearing of the property, the last
in 1992, and cessation of grazing in
2005; condition declining in lower
half dominated by kikuyu; biological
legacies of older regrowth in steeply
dissected and/or bouldery areas
appear steadily recovering
Infrastructure
• old tin & timber house and garage,
5 sheds of assorted sizes, large
underground concrete sewerage
storage tank, 1 concrete water
storage tank, 6 earth dams, barbedwire
boundary & paddock fencing;
wooden yard and paddock fencing;
hardened, gravel and bitumen
paved access and parking areas
Environmental values Community/social values Economic values
Habitat for significant species
Lyrebirds, logrunners, bowerbirds,
thornbills (brown), scrubwrens
(yellow throated, white browed),
robins (eastern yellow), Bassian
Thrush, eastern spinebill and tawny
frogmouth visit or inhabit the site)
Rare, vulnerable and
phylogenetically significant flora
species present
Linkage (connectivity)
Links Springbrook NP with
Numinbah Nature Reserve (NSW)
Threats to the asset
Aesthetic value of rainforest-clad ridges
including along the caldera edge.
Scientific value as one of two major sites
testing conceptual models of ecological
restoration using advanced sensor
network monitoring technologies and
dynamic ecosystem models
Other notes and key information
Water supply from Boy-ull Creek
contributes to Hinze Dam
Sustainable ecotourism in the region
depends upon an essentially natural,
intact World Heritage precinct
Abiotic barriers (hydrological,
nutrient cycling, climatic) significant
Invasive plants & animals (includes
foxes, wild dogs, kikuyu, mistflower)
Loss, fragmentation, modification of
habitat (majority cleared)
Depleted species pool in regrowth
re. fleshy-fruited canopy species
(vital resource for avian frugivores)
~Total removal of rocks (floaters)
— thermal mass for reptiles key
potential food resource for lyrebirds
Totally cleared areas (25.7 ha) represent 78.6 % of the total area. Most regrowth
patches are in the upper half (deep rocky gullies, steep slopes). Smothering
Kikuyu a problem for natural regeneration in flat, lower half. Pasture grass
dominating in upper half is whiskey grass.
Powerline easements (2) traverse the site east-west, north-south, with substantial
and regular clearing and pruning of vegetation by Energex contractors. Poor
Codes of Practice. Represents a major impediment in the future for achieving
integrity of regenerating forest.
Pugging from cattle is deeply eroding in steeper parts (causing escalating gully
erosion)
Erosion from last clearing in 1992 led to major loss of top soil into the National
Park.
Pallida refers to Melaleuca pallida which occurs on the site as one of the most significant occurrences in Queensland
107

Summary Asset Document Sheet — Ashmiha
Name of asset
“Ashmiha”
Context of asset
One of 46 properties (705 ha; 104 ha cleared) bought by the QLD government
80% of a contiguous 15-ha cleared area in the Ee-jung/Mundora Ck catchments
Location Description of asset Current condition of asset
18 Bilbrough Court
Lot 9 on RP150877 (3 ha)
Lot 10 on RP201032 (9 ha)
In the Ee-jung Creek subcatchment
• Formerly contained RE18.8.2 (still
exists on boundaries), 12.8.5 (southern
boundary), 12.8.18, 12.8.19 (on edges
and small inlier)
• 12 ha in size
• moderately flat (795–860 ha) but
increases in steepness at the southern
boundary; adjoins steeper gradient to
955 m at caldera edge
• rainfall gradient 3000–3100 mm/a;
frequently immersed in cloud
• traversed by a major part of Ee-jung
Creek before flowing over cliffs into
the National Park
• geology: 1 of the 5 Mt Warning lava
flows represented: Springbrook
Rhyolites (Tls); thin soils, low nutrients
Mainly (95%) cleared and condition
declining due to
• early infestation by aggressive
weeds (Aristea ecklonii and pasture
grasses),
• roaming domestic and wild dogs
• cattle grazing impacts
• residual impacts of tree clearing
using the persistent herbicide
Grazon within the riparian area
• redundant infrastructure — house,
sheds, concrete driveway and
parking areas, yard fence, small
over-grown shade house, boundary
and paddock fencing
Environmental values Community/social values Economic values
Habitat for significant spp.
Lyrebirds, logrunners, bowerbirds,
bowerbirds, thornbills (brown),
scrubwrens (yellow throated, white
browed), robins (eastern yellow) &
Bassian Thrush visit or inhabit the
site)
Rare and vulnerable flora species
present (4)
Intrinsic and future WHV
Linkage (connectivity)
Links with Warblers (3 ha) to east,
the NP to north via a narrow band
of road reserve and private
properties, with Pumilio (8.2 ha) and
Barrow (28 ha) properties to the
west and south
Threats to the asset
Aesthetic value of tall open forests and
rainforest when restored
Scientific value as model ecological
restoration site (test of ecological theory
and cost/effective methods of
restoration)
Other notes and key information
Water supply to Hinze Dam
Sustainable ecotourism in the region
is dependent upon an essentially
natural WH precinct
Altered hydrological, nutrient,
climate regimes
Invasive plants & animals (includes
foxes, noisy miners)
Loss, fragmentation, modification of
habitat
Depleted species pool in
neighbouring regrowth
Exposure to frosts and frequent
high intensity winds
Fire risk from dry grass during 3–4
months of the year
There is one earth/concrete dam and several trenches (quite deep) on the site to
store water (for cattle) or divert overland flow from the house
Small scale grazing (~15 head of cattle) occurred on the site (until November
2008) — trampling, compaction, pollution from excreta everywhere
Powerline easements (1) traverses the north-east corner of the site
Local road easements on two sides, Bilbrough Court thick with Aristea ecklonii
Barbed-wire boundary fencing encloses property and paddock fencing within
Aristea ecklonii beginning to invade; Fireweed the other major weed
Exposed Leptospermum polygalifolium var. montanum growing on skeletal soils and
rock pavements uprooted by high intensity winds
108

Summary Asset Document Sheet — Ankuna
Name of asset
Ankuna
Meaning: Aboriginal for “flowing
waters”
Context of asset
One of 46 properties (705 ha; 104 ha cleared) bought by the QLD government
The two headwaters tributaries of Little Nerang Creek (East Branch) converge
on Ankuna before leaving the plateau via Blackfellow Falls to Canyon Gorge.
Location Description of asset Current condition of asset
2666 Springbrook Road
Lot 1 on SP100210 (1.6 ha)
Little Nerang Creek (East Branch)
sub-catchment
• Regrowth of RE12.8.5 (0.4 ha) mainly
dominated by Callicoma serratifolia
• 1.6 ha in size (1.2ha cleared)
• flat (750–760 m); valley bottom
• rainfall gradient 2100–2300 mm/a
• junction of the headwater tributaries of
Little Nerang Creek (East Branch)
• Geology: most recent of the 5 Tweed
Volcano lava flows — Hobwee basalts
(Tlh) — close to its northern limit and
on the boundary with Springbrook
Rhyolite (Tls) on the eastern side.
Summary
Low topographic diversity and narrow
bioclimatic envelope representing
moderate rainfall on mid-altitude
basalts
Fully cleared in 1930 airphotos;
regeneration progressing in southern
half and riparian corridor by 1961–
1975; road realigned by 1961;
significant re-clearing in ~1989
(regrowth ~20 years); Currently 1.2
ha (77%) remains cleared; northern
section dominated by bracken,
grasses and Cobbler’s Pegs) has high
regenerative capacity due to low soil
disturbance, absence of kikuyu; midsection
dominated by aristea,
mistflower, crofton weed, groundsel,
persicaria, creeping buttercup,
columbian waxweed and Japanese
honeysuckle.
• Creek diversions (by neighbouring
landowner)
• traversed N–S by an overgrown
track once the main Springbrook
Road thoroughfare before
realignment in 1960-61.
Infrastructure
• a double-door garage with short
access track; guttering and old
timber refuse behind shed needs
removal
• small concrete ford across creek
• powerline crosses diagonally
Environmental values Community/social values Economic values
Habitat for significant species
Fauna: Logrunners, bowerbirds
(satin), thornbills (brown),
scrubwrens (yellow throated, white
browed), robins (eastern yellow);
Assa darlingtonii,
Linkage (connectivity)
A stepping stone link between
eastern and western core habitats
Threats to the asset
Aesthetic value of rainforest-clad plateau
undiminished by .
Scientific value as a reference site
representing 20-year regeneration within
a chronosequence of succession since
clearing.
Other notes and key information
Water supply from Little Nerang
Creek (East Branch) contributes to
Hinze Dam
Sustainable ecotourism in the region
depends upon an essentially natural,
intact World Heritage precinct
Invasive plants & animals
Loss, fragmentation, modification of
habitat (majority cleared)
Depleted species pool in regrowth
re. fleshy-fruited canopy species
(vital resource for avian frugivores)
28 Weed species: 2 vines, 3 shrubs, and 23 herbs – Araceae (1), Asteraceae (8),
Iridaceae (2), Liliaceae (1), Lythraceae (1), Onagraceae (1), Poaceae (5),
Polygonaceae (2), Ranunculaceae (1), Scrophulariaceae (1)
Heavy aristea ecklonii infestation will require quarantine for at least 5 years of
more.
Low to absent grazing pressure (compaction, herbivory, erosion, pugging,
pollution) for considerable periods
109

Summary Asset Document Sheet — Barimbar formerly known as “Barrow”
Name of asset
Barimbar
Ancient Sumerian for “could- covered”
Context of asset
One of 46 properties (705 ha; 104 ha cleared) bought by the QLD government
Major watershed/headwaters for upland catchments; vital north-south
vegetation corridor linking Springbrook National Park with Numinbah Nature
Reserve
Location Description of asset Current condition of asset
2844 Springbrook Road
Lot 15 on RP889011 (28.1 ha)
In the Ee-jung and Boy-ull Creek
subcatchments
• Formerly contained RE18.8.2 (still
exists on boundaries), 12.8.5 (southern
boundary), 12.8.18, 12.8.19 ()
• 28.1 ha in size (7.8 ha cleared)
• steeply dissected; 150 m gradient
north-south over 700 m (790–940 m)
to Mt Springbrook ( 947 m) at caldera
edge
• rainfall gradient 2800–3500 mm/a;
frequently immersed in cloud
• headwaters of Boy-ull, Ee-jung Creeks
in QLD and Crystal Creek in NSW
• Acquired for inclusion in future NP
and World Heritage Area
Partly cleared (7.8 ha 28%);
condition improving in parts due to
natural regeneration after almost
complete clearing of the property by
1930; condition declining in areas
dominated by kikuyu; remnant
rainforest (1.25 ha) that survived
>100 year history of clearing
remarkably free of invasive species
Infrastructure
• large brick house, swimming pool,
1 large shed, 4 water tanks in 1,900
m 2 clearing at summit of Mt
Springbrook, barbed-wire
boundary fencing; 800 m bitumen
road (deeply eroding channels
developing)
• powerline easements
Environmental values Community/social values Economic values
Habitat for significant species
Lyrebirds, logrunners, bowerbirds,
bowerbirds, thornbills (brown),
scrubwrens (yellow throated, white
browed), robins (eastern yellow),
Bassian Thrush, rifle birds
(paradise), and plumed frogmouth
visit or inhabit the site)
Rare (7) and vulnerable (1) flora
species present
Linkage (connectivity)
Links with Ashmiha (12 ha) to east,
the NP to north via vegetated
private land, with Numinbah NR in
NSW to the south (beyond caldera);
and Pallida (to the west)
Threats to the asset
Aesthetic value of tall open forests,
montane heaths and rainforest when
restored
Scientific values (two reference sites):
— RE12.8.5 remnant unaffected
by past clearing (total area of
regrowth 1.25 ha; 150 m x ~83
m); plot size 20 m x 20 m
— RE12.8.6 regrowth on summit
(recent clearing, part of
chronosequence)
Other notes and key information
Water supply from Ee-jung Creek
contributes to Hinze Dam
Sustainable ecotourism in the region
depends upon an essentially natural
WH precinct
Contains historical cultural sites:
— Read’s Lookout
— Mt Springbrook (947 m), one of
the 3 highest points on Springbrook
plateau
Abiotic barriers minimal
Invasive plants & animals (includes
foxes, kikuyu, crofton weed,
groundsel, montbretia, kahili ginger,
formosan lily, mistflower, purple
top)
Loss, fragmentation, modification of
habitat (clearings remain)
Depleted species pool in regrowth
re. fleshy-fruited mature phase
species (key to restoration of
frugivorous avifaunal guilds)
Cleared areas (7.8 ha) representing 28 % of the total area, in 13 separate patches
the largest being 2.6 ha and 2.5 ha respectively, with the smallest, 110 square
metres. The maximum width of any clearing is 100 metres (surrounded by
regrowth on all sides) and should not represent a barrier to natural seed dispersal
processes. Smothering Kikuyu a problem for natural regeneration.
Powerline easements (2) traverse the site east-west, north-south, with substantial
and regular clearing and pruning of vegetation by Energex contractors. Poor
Codes of Practice
110

Summary Asset Document Sheet — “Pumilo” formerly Pumpkin Pottery
Name of asset
“Pumilo”
Context of asset
One of 46 properties (705 ha; 104 ha cleared) bought by the QLD government
Part of the second largest contiguous extent of cleared land on the upper plateau
Location Description of asset Current condition of asset
2884 Springbrook Road
Lot 14 on RP221033 (8.2 ha)
Middle reaches of the Ee-jung Creek
subcatchment
• Formerly contained RE18.8.2 (still
exists on boundaries), 12.8.5 (southern
boundary), 12.8.18, 12.8.19 (on edges
and small inlier)
• 8.2 ha in size
• moderately flat (800–860 m altitude
over 300 m distance) but increases in
steepness at the southern boundary;
adjoins steeper gradient to 955 m at
caldera edge
• rainfall gradient 3000–3500 mm/a;
frequently immersed in cloud
• geology: the 2 most recent of the 5 Mt
Warning lava flows represented —
Hobwee basalts (Tlh) on upper slopes;
Springbrook Rhyolite (Tls) on lower
slopes
• traversed (in SE corner) by Ee-jung
Creek which flows through Ashmiha
Partly (2.1 ha; 27%) cleared but
condition improving due to natural
regeneration after complete clearing
of the property by 1930, largely due
to sympathetic management by the
most recent owner (resident for last
17 years).
Infrastructure and Past history
• residual impacts of neighbour’s use
of the persistent herbicide Grazon
upstream along Ee-jung Creek
• redundant infrastructure — a very
small yurt-style cottage, 3 small
sheds, a small commercial pottery
(closed), and linking gravel
driveway
Environmental values Community/social values Economic values
Habitat for significant spp.
Lyrebirds, logrunners, bowerbirds,
thornbills (brown), scrubwrens
(yellow throated, white browed),
robins (eastern yellow), Bassian
Thrush, rifle birds (paradise), and
plumed frogmouth visit or inhabit
the site)
Rare, vulnerable and
phylogenetically significant flora
species present
Linkage (connectivity)
Links with Ashmiha (12 ha) to east
and south, the NP to north via a
narrow band involving the road
reserve and private properties,
acquired Barrow (28 ha) properties
to the west and south
Threats to the asset
Aesthetic value of tall open forests,
montane heaths and rainforest when
restored
Scientific value as model ecological
restoration site (test of ecological theory
and cost/effective methods of
restoration); the montane heath
represents a reference site given it has
survived clearing since 1906.
Other notes and key information
Water supply from Ee-jung Creek
contributes to Hinze Dam
Sustainable ecotourism in the region
depends upon an essentially natural,
intact WH precinct
Altered hydrological regime
Invasive plants & animals (includes
foxes, noisy miners, kahili ginger)
Loss, fragmentation, modification of
habitat
Depleted species pool in regrowth
re. fleshy-fruited mature phase
species (key to restoration of
frugivorous avifaunal guilds)
Cleared areas (2.1 ha) representing 27.2% of the total area, in 7 separate patches
the largest being 1 ha in size and the smallest, 70 square metres. The maximum
width of any clearing is 90 metres (surrounded by regrowth on all sides) and
should not represent a barrier to natural seed dispersal processes.
A powerline easement (1) traverses the site with substantial regular clearing and
pruning of vegetation by Energex contractors. Poor Codes of Practice
Natural flows of Ee-jung Creek affected by clearing upstream on Ashmiha.
Bounded along half the northern side by a residential inlier with exotic gardens
(including aggressively invasive weeds) cultivated and large domestic dogs kept.
“Pumilo”: from ‘pumilio’ referring to low ‘dwarf-like’ stature of vegetation within a significant patch of montane heath on the
property
111

Summary Asset Document Sheet — Koonjewarre
Name of asset
“Koonjewarre”
Meaning: Aboriginal for “meeting place on
high ground”
Context of asset
One of 46 properties (705 ha; 104 ha cleared) bought by the QLD government
Strategically significant as high altitude cloud forest on rhyolite
Location Description of asset Current condition of asset
2806 Springbrook Road
Lot 26 on RP 139816 (5.4 ha)
Boy-ull Creek sub-catchment
• Pre-clearing vegetation mapped as RE
12.8.5 but clearly elements of
RE12.8.19, 12.8.18, 12.8.2 present
depending on underlying geology,
soils, hydrology and local climate as
affected by topography and aspect
• 5.4 ha (4.3 ha cleared, or 79.4%)
• small altitudinal gradient (790–830 m)
for the major part of the property with
steeper slopes at higher altitudes.
• rainfall gradient (2800–3000 mm/a);
• cloud immersion frequent
• Boy-ull Creek tributary traverses the
property (dammed)
• geology: contains two of the 5 Mt
Warning lava flows represented here
by the youngest, Hobwee basalts (Tlh)
and Springbrook Rhyolites (Tls)
Summary: Relatively narrow bioclimatic
envelope (high rainfall, relatively flat,
i.e. 810±20 m, rhyolite dominant
The entire property was cleared
(1930–1993 airphotos) with
regeneration advancing over 20% of
the property, at higher altitudes, by
2009. The remainder had been
maintained as a cleared area until the
time of government purchase.
• The eastern boundary fronts
Springbrook Road the alignment
of which is entirely cleared.
• foxes, wild dogs, feral cats, invasive
plants (especially kahili ginger) have
been recorded. Domestic dogs
have been kept by the managers of
the accommodation and activities
centre.
• infrastructure — several
accommodation buildings (180-
person capacity), sheds, sullage
trenches associated with septic
waste disposal, an artificial lake,
sporting fields including ropes
courses; helipad for SES training,
overhead power lines
Environmental values Community/social values Economic values
Habitat for significant spp.
Avifauna: Currently reflects highly
disturbed state
Flora: Currently reflects highly
disturbed state
Linkage (connectivity)
Key high-altitude linkage between
plateau vegetation in Springbrook
National Park to the east and the
higher altitude forests on the ridges
within the Boy-ull Creek subcatchment
Threats to the asset
Aesthetic value of tall wet scelrophyll
forests, and the springtime floral shows
of the montane heaths
Scientific value as a high-altitude, high
rainfall, low-nutrient study site for costeffective,
evidence-based ecological
restoration.
Other notes and key information
Water supply to Hinze Dam (mid
reaches of Boy-ull Creek)
Sustainable ecotourism in the region
is dependent upon an essentially
natural World Heritage precinct
Altered hydrological, nutrient,
climate regimes (as a result of
clearing in a high rainfall zone)
Invasive plants & animals
(introduced exotic fishes in lake)
Loss, fragmentation, modification of
habitat (clearing, re-contouring of
land surface, removal of rocks)
Complete clearing initiated in the early 1900’s and maintained for almost 100
years. Managed as a dairy farm until 1970 when an accommodation and activity
centre was built by the Community of Christ. Extensive erosion from the cleared
basaltic ridges is likely to have enriched the skeletal rhyolite-derived soils on the
majority of the property. Significant changes have likely to have resulted in
hydrological and nutrient regimes, as well as soil condition.
The species pool in the surrounding vegetation will be significantly depleted
112

Summary Asset Document Sheet — Springers
Name of asset
“Springers”
Context of asset
One of 46 properties (705 ha; 104 ha cleared) bought by the QLD government
Occurs in the highest reaches of Purling Brook, the largest plateau catchment
Location Description of asset Current condition of asset
74 Repeater Station Road
Lot 1 on RP224325 (5.9 ha)
In the Upper Purling Brook subcatchment
• Rainforest: RE12.8.5 mixed with
elements of RE12.8.3
• 5.9 ha in size (1.4 ha cleared) (together
with adjoining Stone and Kanimbla
properties, comprise 36 ha , i.e. half
the upper Purling Brook catchment
area
• altitudinal gradient 690–790 m
• rainfall gradient 2300–2500 mm/a
• headwaters of Purling Brook
• 3 of the 5 Mt Warning lava flows
represented: Unnamed basalts (Tl),
Springbrook Rhyolites (Tls), Hobwee
Basalts (Tlh)
Partially cleared (1.4 ha; 23.8%);
condition improving in parts due to
natural regeneration of small
clearings, after almost complete
clearing of the property by 1930;
succession appears locked in parts by
smothering native raspberry
Infrastructure
• 5 cabins and 1 ‘restaurant’ to be
used in association with Lyrebird
Retreat; hardened access (and large
parking) area to cabins traverses
property full width north-south
Environmental values Community/social values Economic values
Habitat for significant species
Lyrebirds, logrunners, bowerbirds,
thornbills (brown), scrubwrens
(yellow throated, white browed),
robins (eastern yellow), Bassian
Thrush, rifle birds (paradise), and
plumed frogmouth visit or inhabit
the site)
Rare and vulnerable flora species
present (6)
Intrinsic and future WH Value
Linkage (connectivity)
Links with Kanimbla (26.1 ha) to
north, with Stone property (4 ha) to
the west together comprising half
the upper Purling Brook catchment
Threats to the asset
Aesthetic value of tall cathedral-like
subtropical rainforest with very large,
majestic mature phase trees, ferns,
epiphytes and abundant avifauna
(western edge)
Other notes and key information
Water supply from Purling Brook
contributes to Hinze Dam
Sustainable ecotourism in the region
depends on an essentially natural
World Heritage precinct
No serious abiotic barriers
preventing regeneration apart from
some bare soils and erosion in the
north-west corner.
Invasive plants & animals (includes
foxes, wild dogs, crofton weed,
tobacco, morning glory, rubus,
plectranthus, lantana, kahili ginger,
american elder, occasional camphor
laurel and many non-indigenous
garden species)
Possibly depleted species pool in
regrowth re. fleshy-fruited mature
phase species (key to restoration of
frugivorous avifaunal guilds)
Cleared areas (1.4 ha) representing 23.8 % of the total area, in 27 separate small
patches the largest being 0.15 ha, with most being no more than 15–30 m wide.
The maximum width of any clearing is 100 metres (surrounded by regrowth on
all sides) and should not represent a barrier to natural seed dispersal processes.
Smothering native rubus (Rubus rosifolius) appears a problem for natural
regeneration in the lower precincts. Otherwise remarkably free of weeds outside
the access road corridor.
Powerline easement (1) traverses the site north-south, with substantial and
regular clearing and pruning of vegetation by Energex contractors. Codes of
Practice currently are poor.
Assisted natural regeneration appears the most feasible restoration option with
removal of exotics and direct seeding (transferring parking area mulch) the main
interventions needed.
113

Summary Asset Document Sheet — Lyrebird Retreat
Name of asset
“Lyrebird”
Context of asset
One of 46 properties (705 ha; 104 ha cleared) bought by the QLD government
Strategically significant
Location Description of asset Current condition of asset
418 Lyrebird Ridge Road
Lot 1 on RP 56663 (14.4 ha)
Cave Creek (North) sub-catchment
• Pre-clearing vegetation mapped as RE
12.8.5 but clearly elements of RE12.8.3
present
• 14.4 ha (2 ha cleared, or 14%)
• steep altitudinal gradients (710–810 m)
sloping down from a small relatively
flat plateau area at the watershed of
three sub-catchments (Cave Creek
(North), Purling Brook and Little
Nerang Creek (East Branch)) to the
steep cliff lines demarcating the
plateau boundary
• rainfall gradient (2100–2700 mm/a);
• contains the headwaters of Cave Creek
(North)
• geology: contains two of the 5 Mt
Warning lava flows represented here
by the youngest, Hobwee basalts (Tlh)
and Springbrook Rhyolites (Tls)
Only about 4 hectares appeared to
have been cleared by 1930 with
regeneration advancing by 1961 to
leave only 2 ha (14%) which has
been maintained as a cleared area
since that time. The remainder of the
property appears to be relatively
undisturbed with mature forest.
In the last decade, previous owners
established an arboretum of mainly
exotic conifers, drawn from around
the world, within ~ 2 ha.
• The northern boundary fronts
Lyrebird Ridge Road which is
progressively being widened and
slashed for large bus traffic
• foxes, wild dogs, feral cats, invasive
plants (including lantana) recorded
• infrastructure — house, four
within-forest commercial cabins,
large greenhouse, ‘garden’
landscaping with concrete
structures and paving
Environmental values Community/social values Economic values
Habitat for significant spp.
Avifauna: Lyrebirds, logrunners,
bowerbirds, thornbills (brown),
scrubwrens (yellow throated, white
browed), robins (eastern yellow),
birds of paradise (paradise riflebird)
Flora: Rare (12) and vulnerable (2)
species (2 EPBC listed species),
large numbers of phylogenetically
significant species
Linkage (connectivity)
Key link between mid-altitude
rainforests of Cave Creek (North),
Purling Brook and Little Nerang
Creek (East Branch) sub-catchments
Aesthetic value of cathedral-like mature
rainforests, waterfalls and scenic vistas
of Numinbah valley.
Scientific value as a mid-altitude study
site for cost-effective, evidence-based
ecological restoration.
Water supply to Hinze Dam
(headwaters of Cave Creek (North))
Sustainable ecotourism in the region
is dependent upon an essentially
natural World Heritage precinct
Threats to the asset
Other notes and key information
Altered hydrological, nutrient,
climate regimes (clearing)
Invasive plants & animals
Loss, fragmentation, modification of
habitat (clearing, re-contouring of
land surface, removal of rocks)
Minimal clearing in the early- to mid-1900s of the upper reaches of the Cave
Creek (North) catchment restricted to mainly a single, medium-sized clearing
(~4 ha). Some changes are likely to hydrological and nutrient regimes as a result
of the biomass loss (and burning), erosion and compaction.
The species pool appears largely intact, within the property and in the landscape
context with the land opposite having remained relative intact historically
Road verge management (by Gold Coast City Council) is altering the ridgeline
ecosystem and increasing edge effects.
114

Summary Asset Document Sheet — Kanimbla
Name of asset
“Kanimbla”
Aboriginal word for “tribal fighting
ground”
Context of asset
One of 46 properties (705 ha; 104 ha cleared) bought by the QLD government
Contains some of the few remaining remnant vegetation relicts left in the Purling
Brook catchment after early settlement in 1906
Location Description of asset Current condition of asset
387 Lyrebird Ridge Road
Lot 4 on RP160167 (26.1 ha)
Within the upper Purling Brook
subcatchment
• Pre-clearing vegetation mapped as RE
12.8.5 although at finer scales RE
12.8.3 present as well
• 26.1 ha in size (largest Lot in the upper
Purling Brook catchment)
• altitudinal gradient (690–800 ha)
encompasses plateau surface steeply
dissected by ridges, ridge flanks and
deep gullies
• rainfall gradient 2200–2400 mm/a; but
topographic diversity increases niches
• upper headwaters of Purling Brook
between ridge lines at western,
northern and southern boundaries
• geology: 3 of the 5 Mt Warning lava
flows represented: the youngest
Hobwee basalts (Tlh), Springbrook
Rhyolites (Tls) with thin soils and low
nutrient levels, and Unnamed basalts
(Tl) exposed at the lowest levels
Almost half (11.7 ha; 45.9%) still
cleared but condition slowly
improving; was essentially all cleared
by 1930 except for remnants on
western watershed and steep gullies;
significant regeneration by 1961;
consolidating further by 1975, 1989
etc. to 2009; 12 cleared areas are
mainly along the ridgelines none of
which exceed 50 metres in width.
• Western boundary (mature forest)
fronts Lyrebird Ridge Road
• Power lines (2) traverse the
property for full 600 meter width
(aggressive clearing by Energex)
• small dam on northern boundary
• foxes, wild dogs and toads; small
exotic plantation of cypress
• redundant infrastructure —
rundown house, one shed, bitumen
driveway (eroding)
Environmental values Community/social values Economic values
Habitat for significant spp.
Avifauna: Lyrebirds, logrunners,
bowerbirds, thornbills (brown),
scrubwrens (yellow throated, white
browed), robins (eastern yellow),
birds of paradise (paradise riflebird)
(33 birds in total)
Rare (5) and vulnerable (2) flora
species present
Linkage (connectivity)
Key link between eastern and
western mid-altitude rainforests of
the upper Purlingbrook catchment
and Springbrook NP
Threats to the asset
Aesthetic value of cathedral-like remnant
rainforest with tall canopies and diversity
of epiphytes, treeferns, and understory
vines and shrubs.
Scientific value as a mid-altitude study
site for cost-effective, evidence-based
ecological restoration
Other notes and key information
Water supply to Hinze Dam
(headwaters of Purling Brook)
Sustainable ecotourism in the region
is dependent upon an essentially
natural WH precinct
Altered hydrological, nutrient,
climate regimes (dams, erosion,
microclimate change from clearing)
Invasive plants & animals (includes
wild dogs, foxes, toads, small exotic
cypress plantations)
Loss, fragmentation, modification of
habitat (minor scale). Depleted
species pool in regrowth
Disturbance regimes normal (hail &
wind storms)
There is one small earth dam on the eastern boundary altering hydrological
flows, species pool and species interactions (major increase in lentic breeders
among frog species, hence elevated snake populations); permanent water ideal
breeding ground for toads
All ridgelines affected by clearing for roads or views. The most recent clearings
carried out prior to 1987 along the full 630-metre width. An internal access road
follows this ridge line for almost half its length (remainder overgrown). A 4-
wheel drive loop road around the property is now overgrown.
Road verge management (Gold Coast City Council) altering ridgeline ecosystem.
Powerline easements (2) traverse the site over its 600 m length; Energex
management policy inconsistent with achieving canopy closure
115

Summary Asset Document Sheet — Logrunners
Name of asset
“Logrunners”
Meaning: based on abundance of Logrunners
(Orthonyx temminckii)
Context of asset
One of 46 properties (705 ha; 104 ha cleared) bought by the QLD government
Strategically significant as high value, high altitude cloud forest on basalt
Location Description of asset Current condition of asset
329 Repeater Station Road
Lot 30 on RP 139816 (4.1 ha)
Boy-ull Creek sub-catchment
• Pre-clearing vegetation mapped as RE
12.8.5; stands of regrowth Callicomadominated
forest in significant patches
• 150 m 2 cleared, or 0.4% (minimal)
• altitudinal gradient (960–830 m); ridge
to valley floor; easterly aspect
• rainfall gradient (3100–3000 mm/a)
• cloud immersion frequent
• Boy-ull Creek headwaters
• geology: contains one of the 5 Mt
Warning lava flows represented here
by the youngest, Hobwee basalts (Tlh)
Summary: Broad bioclimatic envelope
(0.8°C temperature change over 400
m a , high rainfall supplemented by
cloud stripping), topographic position:
ridge to lower slopes, i.e. 130 m over
less than 400 metres horizontal
distance, basalt dominant
a Assumes an environmental lapse rate
of 0.6°C per 100 m change in altitude
The entire property was cleared
(1930–1975 airphotos); with 35-year
regeneration advancing over all of
the property. Biodiversity in
understorey high; overstorey
biodiversity lrelatively ow
• The western boundary fronts
Repeater Station Road; the
alignment is unsympathetically
pruned by Energex contractors
around overhead powerlines and
the verge slashed by Council
contractors (canopy gaps, weed
spread, regeneration suppression).
• dingoes, wild dogs, feral cats
(recorded on monitoring cameras),
invasive plants (restricted to
isolated camphor laurel) have been
recorded.
• infrastructure — single building,
short bitumen access, underground
power from roadside pole to house
Environmental values Community/social values Economic values
Habitat for significant spp.
Fauna: Lyrebirds, logrunners,
bowerbirds (regent, satin) thornbill
(brown), gerygones (brown),
scrubwrens (yellow throated, white
browed), robins (eastern yellow,
rose), birds of paradise (paradise
riflebird); Richmond Birdwing;
Kyarranus loveridgei
Flora: Rare (7), vulnerable (1)
Linkage (connectivity)
Key high-altitude linkage of plateau
vegetation within the cloud forests
of the Boy-ull Creek sub-catchment
Threats to the asset
Aesthetic value of tall rainforest
Scientific value as a part of the chronosequence
(35-year) of high-altitude, high
rainfall, high-nutrient study sites for
developing cost-effective, evidencebased
ecological restoration.
Other notes and key information
Water supply to Hinze Dam (upper
reaches of Boy-ull Creek)
Sustainable ecotourism in the region
is dependent upon an essentially
natural World Heritage precinct
Altered hydrological, nutrient,
climate regimes (as a result of
clearing in a high rainfall zone)
Invasive plants & animals (28 weed
species, dingoes, wild dogs, feral
cats)
Loss, fragmentation, modification of
habitat (repeated clearing)
Complete clearing initiated in the early 1900’s was maintained for almost 75
years. Extensive erosion from the cleared basaltic ridges is likely to have enriched
the skeletal rhyolite-derived soils on adjoining valley properties. Significant
changes are likely to have resulted in changes in hydrological and nutrient
regimes, as well as in soil condition.
The existing building has a very small footprint with overhanging vegetation
The native species pool is significantly depleted of overstorey species.
116

Summary Asset Document Sheet — Kyarranus
Name of asset
“Kyarranus”
Meaning: Aboriginal name for ‘mountain
frog’ i.e. species of this genus
Context of asset
Nine of 46 properties (705 ha; 104 ha cleared) bought by the QLD government
They all occur above 950 metres on the rarest altitudinal gradient on the
Springbrook plateau — part of the vulnerable high country cloud forests
Location Description of asset Current condition of asset
Members of a group of 14 small lots
(3.1 ha in total) near the top of
Repeater Station Road:
1. 375 Repeater Station Road
Lot 1 on RP102950 (2472.1 m 2 )
2. 363 Repeater Station Road
Lot 4 on RP102950 (3625.5 m 2 )
3. 351 Repeater Station Road
Lot 5 on RP102950 (770.3 m 2 )
4. 347 Repeater Station Road
Lot 7 on RP102950 (656.8 m 2 )
5. 343 Repeater Station Road
Lot 9 on RP102950 (609.3 m 2 )
6. 341 Repeater Station Road
Lot 10 on RP102950 (609.3 m 2 )
7. 339 Repeater Station Road
Lot 11 on RP102950 (609.3 m 2 )
8. 337 Repeater Station Road
Lot 12 on RP102950 (609.4 m 2 )
9. 333 Repeater Station Road
Lot 14 on RP102950 (609.3 m 2 )
All lots occur within the Boy-ull
Creek subcatchment
• Pre-clearing vegetation mapped as RE
12.8.5 and RE 12.8.6 (rare here)
• 1.06 ha in aggregate (4351 m 2 cleared)
• rare upland plateau (950–990 m)
representing the ancient volcano’s
original surfaces
• rainfall gradient at the high end found
on Springbrook (2500–3500 mm/a);
frequent cloud immersion affecting
hydrological and climatic fluxes;
topographic diversity on eastern
boundary increases niches diversity
• in the upper headwaters of Boy-ull
Creek at the watershed boundary
between Boy-ull and Cave Creeks, and
the caldera edge
• geology: One of the 5 Mt Warning lava
flows represented here — Hobwee
basalts (Tlh); soils deep Kraznozems
Almost all cleared by 1961 together
with the rest of Boy-ull Creek
catchment (erosion likely to have
been significant); road more
consolidated in 1975 air photos with
further clearing of remnant patches
0.43 ha (41.2%) currently cleared;
condition slowly improving in parts,
declining in others;
• Western boundaries on Repeater
Station Road part cleared on Lots
3, 9, 10, 12 (invasive species,
microclimate change and road kills
• Repeater Station Road road-verge
management for access and power
lines maintains open canopy
affecting microclimate, weed
invasions, and road kills; impedes
restoring World Heritage values
• Power line traverses Lot 1 and kept
cleared until government purchase
• foxes, wild dogs, feral cats; invasive
plants (non-indigenous and
indigenous garden escapes)
• clearing prospects on Lots 2, 3, 8
and 13;
• redundant infrastructure — Houses
± sheds on Lots 1, 4, 5, 9 and 10
Environmental values Community/social values Economic values
Habitat for significant spp.
Avifauna: Lyrebirds, logrunners,
bowerbirds, thornbills (brown),
scrubwrens (yellow throated, white
browed), robins (eastern yellow),
birds of paradise (paradise riflebird)
Key frog habitat for Kyrranus loveridgei
Flora: Rare (9) and vulnerable (2)
Linkage (connectivity)
Key link between high-altitude
rainforests of Boy-ull, Cave and
Crystal Creek catchment
Threats to the asset
Aesthetic value of cloud forests rich in
bryophytes, lichens, mosses, ferns and
epiphytic higher plants; and in places
ancient Antarctic Beeches.
Scientific value as a high-altitude study
site for cost-effective, evidence-based
ecological restoration.
Other notes and key information
Water supply to Hinze Dam
(headwaters of Boy-ull Creek)
Sustainable ecotourism in the region
is dependent upon an essentially
natural WH precinct
Altered hydrological, nutrient,
climate regimes (clearing)
Invasive plants & animals
Loss, fragmentation, modification of
habitat (clearing, re-contouring of
land surface, removal of rocks)
Extensive clearing in the early- to mid-1900s of entire catchments from ridgeline
to valley floor had major impacts on hydrological and nutrient regimes, erosion
rates and potential loss of rare or range-restricted species (species pool).
Road verge management (Gold Coast City Council) altering ridgeline ecosystem.
Powerline easement follows the road alignment; Energex management policy
inconsistent with achieving canopy closure (severe clearing and pruning)
117

Part 3: Property Restoration Plans
3. Property restoration plans
3.1 Warblers in the Mist
3.1.1 The property
Warblers in the Mist is situated at 17 Bilbrough Court. Details are provided in section
3.1.2. Summary Asset Document Sheet.
Figure 3.1.1 shows the monitoring and experimental plot grid for the property.
Figure 3.1.1. Warblers in the Mist showing the monitoring and experimental plot grid.
118

3.1.2 Summary Asset Document Sheet
Name of asset
“Warblers in the Mist”
Context of asset
One of 46 properties (705 ha; 104 ha cleared) bought by the QLD government
Location Description of asset Current condition of asset
17 Bilbrough Court
Lot 1 on Plan RP150877
In the Mundora Creek
subcatchment
• Formerly contained RE12.8.2 (still
exists on boundaries), 12.8.5 (southern
boundary), 12.8.18, 12.8.19 (on edges
and small inlier)
• 3 ha in size
• relatively flat (800–805 ha) but at base
of steep gradient to 955 m at caldera
edge
• rainfall gradient 3000–3100 mm/a;
frequently immersed in cloud
• Acquired by government for inclusion
in future NP and WHA
Mainly (95%) cleared and condition
declining due to aggressive weeds
(Aristea ecklonii and pasture
grasses), roaming domestic and wild
dogs
Environmental values Community/social values Economic values
Recovery of WHV and integrity
Habitat for significant spp.
Lyrebirds, logrunners, bowerbirds,
bowerbirds, thornbills (brown),
scrubwrens (yellow throated, white
browed), robins (eastern yellow) &
Bassian Thrush visit or inhabit the
site)
Rare and vulnerable flora species
present (3)
Intrinsic and future WHV
Linkage (connectivity)
Links with Ashmiha (15 ha) to west,
NP to east, acquired Ostwald (3 ha)
to south
Threats to the asset
Aesthetic value of tall open forests and
rainforest when restored
Scientific value as model ecological
restoration site (test of ecological theory
and cost/effective methods of
restoration)
Other notes and key info
Water supply contributed to Hinze
Dam
Future ecotourism value in the
region as part of an essentially
natural WH precinct
Altered hydrological, nutrient,
climate regimes
Loss, fragmentation, modification of
habitat through clearing and edge
effects
Depleted species pool in
surrounding regrowth
Potential loss of mutualisms (soil
mycorrhizal associations)
Invasive plants & animals (includes
foxes, noisy miners, pied
currawongs)
Exposure to frosts and frequent
high intensity winds
Fire risk from dry grass during 3–4
months of the year
There are two earth dams and several trenches and benches on the site to catch
or divert water
Small-scale grazing occurred on the site (visible from air photos)
A coffee shop with compacted gravel parking areas, exotic gardens and Biocycle
waste disposal system existed on the site
Powerline easements (2) traverse the site east-west and diagonally
Local road easements on two sides infested with threatening weeds
Barbed-wire fencing encloses property on all sides
Almost 100% cover with Aristea ecklonii
Locals visit the dams with their dogs which kill wildlife (pademelons, native
ducks, masked lapwings, lyrebirds)
119

3.1.3 Original ecosystems
Pre-clearing vegetation in this location is shown in Figure 3.1.2.
Figure 3.1.2. Pre-clearing vegetation mapping, Queensland Herbarium
As noted in the Summary Asset Data Sheet, at a finer scale the vegetation included patches of
montane heath associated with bare rock pavement (RE 12.8.19).
3.1.4. Historical information
Historical aerial photography shows that by 1930 the property was almost totally cleared (Fig.3.1.3).
In 1961 (Fig. 3.1.3), some regeneration had occurred suggesting some change in land use. In 1989,
the property was completely cleared except for a clump around the rocky outcrop towards the
western boundary.
Figure 3.1.3. Aerial photography showing Warblers. Left, 1930; Right, 1961
120

The presence of the herbaceous weed, Aristea ecklonii, is a principal issue in managing restoration on
this property. Given that the plant does not occur in anywhere near equivalent proportions on
adjacent properties, it is assumed that it was introduced as a garden plant following construction of
the house. Aerial photography shows that the house was constructed between 1998 and 2003. If
Aristea was introduced as a garden plant after 2003, it colonised virtually the whole 3-hectare
property within four years (See Figure 1.25, p. 97)). The spread of the plant across the entire
property is likely to have resulted from a combination of dispersal of the small seeds by overland
water flow and mechanical means including mowing and slashing.
3.1.5 Current condition
3.1.5.1 Vegetation
Current vegetation is shown and described in Figure 3.1.4.
Regenerating Eucalyptus oreades,
E. campanulata with rainforest
species in the understorey (RE
12.8.2)
Regenerating mixed forest,
dominated by Leptospermum and
Kunzea spp. with Callicoma
serratifolia, Acacia melanoxylon,
Lomatia arborescens and
Pittosporum spp.
Montane heath and rock pavement,
dominated by Leptospermum and
Acacia spp. with rainforest species in
the understorey including Tasmannia
insipida. (RE 12.8.19)
Residual patch of forest with Callicoma
serratifolia, Lomatia arborescens and
Correa lawrenceana var. glandulifera, a
species recorded in Queensland only from
Springbrook and not recorded for 30 years
Figure 3.1.4. Aerial photography 2005 showing current vegetation.
Regenerating rainforest with
Callicoma serratifolia, Acacia
melanoxylon, Lomatia
arborescens and Persoonia
media. (RE 12.8.5)
RE 12.8.2, Eucalyptus oreades tall open forest on Cainozoic igneous rocks, is ‘Of Concern’ being a
very rare ecosystem having a pre-clearing extent of

3.1.5.2 Flora and fauna
Flora and fauna recorded from the property and adjoining forest are listed in Table 3.1.1.
Table 3.1.1. Flora and fauna recorded from Warblers and adjoining forest
Flora
Apocynaceae
Alyxia ruscifolia
Araliaceae
Cephalaralia cephalobotrys
Polyscias elegans
Polyscias sambucifolia
Asteraceae
Cassinia subtropica
Ozothamnus diosmifolius
Campanulaceae
Lobelia purpurascens
Celastraceae
Denhamia celastroides
Cunoniaceae
Callicoma serratifolia
Dilleniaceae
Hibbertia dentata
Hibbertia scandens
Elaeocarpaceae
Elaeocarpus reticulatus
Ericaceae
Acrotriche aggregata
Leucopogon juniperinus
Trochocarpa laurina
Euphorbiaceae
Homalanthus nutans
Fabaceae
Acacia melanoxylon
Acacia orites
Acacia ulicifolia
Gingiberaceae
Alpinia caerulea
Gleicheniaceae
Gleichenia dicarpa
Hemerocallidaceae
Dianella caerulea var. assera
Geitonoplesium cymosum
Meliaceae
Dysoxylum fraserianum
Synoum glandulosum subsp. glandulosum
Myrtaceae
Eucalyptus campanulata
Eucalyptus oreades
Kunzea ericoides
Lenwebbia prominens
Leptospermum polygalifolium subsp. montanum
Leptospermum trinervium
Melaleuca pallida
Pilidiostigma glabrum
Rhodamnia maideniana
Syzygium smithii
Orchidaceae
Sarcochilus falcatus
Spiranthes sinensis
Thelmitra fragrans
Pittosporaceae
Hymenosporum flavum
Pittosporum multiflorum
Pittosporum undulatum
Proteaceae
Lomatia arborescens
Orites excelsus
Persoonia media
Rutaceae
Acronychia octandra
Acronychia suberosa
Correa lawrenciana var. glandulifera
Smilacaceae
Smilax australis
Solanaceae
Duboisia myoporoides
R
R
R
Fauna
Recorded on the property
Striped Marsh Frog (Limnodynastes peronii)
Great Barred-frog (Mixophyes fasciolatus)
Southern Orange-eyed Treefrog (Litoria chloris)
Emerald-spotted Treefrog (Litoria peronii)
Whirring Treefrog (Litoria revelata)
Whistling Treefrog (Litoria verreauxii)
Land Mullet (Egernia major)
Common Eastern Blind Snake (Rhamphotyphlops nigrescens)
Carpet Python (Morelia spilota)
Red-bellied Black Snake (Pseudechis porphyriacus)
Australian Wood Duck (Chenonetta jubata)
Masked Lapwing (Vanellus miles)
Crimson Rosella (Platycercus elegans)
Pheasant Coucal (Centropus phasianinus)
Laughing Kookaburra (Dacelo novaeguineae)
Brown Thornbill (Acanthiza pusila)
Noisy Miner (Manorina melanocephala)
Lewin’s Honeyeater (Meliphaga lewinii)
Eastern Spinebill (Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris)
Logrunner (Orthonyx temminckii)
Grey Fantail (Rhipidura fuliginosa)
Satin Bowerbird (Ptilinorhynchus violaceus)
Pied Butcherbird (Cracticus nigrogularis)
Australian Magpie (Gymnorhina tibicen)
Pied Currawong (Strepera graculina)
Bassian Thrush (Zoothera lunulata)
Additional species recorded in adjoining forest
Marsupial Frog (Assa darlingtoni)
Brown Cuckoo-Dove (Macropygia amboinensis)
Wonga Pigeon (Leucosarcia melanoleuca)
Albert’s Lyrebird (Menura alberti)
Eastern Yellow Robin (Eopsaltria australis)
Eastern Whipbird (Psophodes olivaceus)
Golden Whistler (Pachycephala pectoralis)
Regent Bowerbird (Sericulus chrysocephalus)
122

Flora
Vitaceae
Cissus hypoglauca
Tetrastigma nitens
Winteraceae
Tasmannia insipida
Fauna
3.1.6 Ecosystem models and management requirements
It is considered that the majority of the property is trending rapidly towards a herb-dominated stable
state as a result of the almost total invasion by an aggressive weed, Aristea ecklonii. Intervention is
clearly required and a considerable amount of work has already been carried out. Table 3.1.2
summarises the condition.
Table 3.1.2. Ecosystem condition and required management actions
Are there stable
states from which
transition to
succession is
unlikely without
intervention?
Yes — Aristea
Class:
herb (rhizomatous)
monocot
C3 plant
Possibly — grasses
Class:
herb (tufted)
monocot
C4 plant
NADP-ME
Yes — bare ground
Explanatory description Feed-back loops Management
action
• in 2007, the property was almost completely
infested with an iris
• iris identified as Aristea ecklonii — a first
record for Queensland (See Figure 1.24.).
• grows in dense masses capable of forming a
complete ground cover.
• has invaded thickets of native vegetation;
flourishing in low light conditions.
• reproduces vegetatively from rhizomes as
well as producing seed in massive numbers
• dispersed by wind, water and physical means
(fur, shoes, machinery)
• Setaria sphacelata var. sericea occurs
extensively across the property
• a tufted perennial, growing to 2 m
• C4 & NADP-ME — high efficiency of
resource use, competitive advantage
• probably does not exclude light to the point
where germination and growth of seedlings are
prevented
• competition for nutrients may slow the
growth of native seedlings.
• bare, sloping ground around a dam towards
the southern end of the property
• nearly two years of observation shows little
sign of being colonised
• may be expanding
123
• dense ground
cover generates own
+ve feedback
• excludes light
from germinating
seedlings of native
species.
• grows in low light;
not disadvantaged
by shading along
edges of native
vegetation (strong
+ve feedback).
• Setaria is gaining
sufficient resources
to flourish and
provide own +ve
feedback
• may eventually be
shaded out by
regenerating native
species.
• bare ground
condition appears to
be stable
• likely that the
surface is unstable
and continual slow
erosion prevents
establishment of
seedlings (+ve
feedback)
• eradicate via
herbicide and/or
physical removal
with care to remove
rhizomes
• monitor whether
dispersal processes
are adequate across
the property for
colonisation by
natives
• if necessary, plant
natives where
indicated by
monitoring
• mowing, brushing
and/or herbicide
treatment to reduce
biomass and hence
competition with
native seedlings
• erosion control
matting
• monitor
colonisation by
natives/weeds
• assist colonisation
by natives if
indicated by
monitoring
There is at least one patch along the eastern boundary where the adjoining native vegetation
(Leptospermum sp.) has expanded into cleared areas over the past year. This apparent successional
state has probably been facilitated by the removal of large aristea clumps. However, aristea has not
been eradicated from the area and would be expected to recolonise the area growing among the

egenerating leptospermum as is the case in the adjoining leptospermum thicket, i.e. it is likely to
return to a stable state dominated by aristea.
3.1.7 Management activities 2008–2009
The following management activities have been undertaken during 2008–2009:
Clipping of Aristea flowers and fruits
Given the large number of seeds produced by one Aristea ecklonii plant and the apparently high
germination rate, it is fundamentally important to prevent, as far as possible, future seed dispersal.
Prior to 2008 and in order to buy time before herbicide treatment and manual removal could be
undertaken, teams of volunteers systematically removed flowers and fruits from aristea across the
property. Since then, regular inspections have been made for flowering and fruiting and clipping
carried out where necessary.
Herbicide treatment of Aristea ecklonii
Aristea ecklonii has been treated across the whole property with a solution of glyphosate (1–2%),
penetrant (Pulse, 0.2%) and a dye (Herbidye, 0.2%) using a backpack spray with a finely controlled
nozzle that effectively eliminates spray drift. The treatment has been effective but does not produce
complete kill. One possible reason is that clumps are comprised of multiple plants and each
individual plant needs to be treated. A further reason may be that rhizomes are not killed and
resprouting occurs. Follow-up treatments have been applied on a significant part of the property.
Herbicide is used with caution, as several species of frogs, including rare species, have been
observed or their calls heard among the grass. One has been observed on leaves of aristea.
Manual removal of A. ecklonii
Teams of volunteers have removed large masses of A. ecklonii by digging. After early digging efforts,
it became clear that rhizomes were not being completely removed allowing the plant to produce new
leaves. Subsequently, volunteers have been carefully instructed to take great care to remove the
whole rhizome.
This procedure is generally effective but very time-consuming. Further, ‘lawns’ of tiny plants
commonly appear in patches, probably from seed stores in the soil.
Mowing and brushcutting
Mowing and brushcutting have been used as
control measures both for Aristea and the
grass, Setaria sphacelata var. sericea.
After ensuring no fruits are present on the
Aristea, mowing has been used to provide
time for herbicide treatment or hand
removal before the next flowering occurs.
Mowing and brushcutting have been used to
control setaria. This grass grows to 2 m high
(Figure 3.1.5) and cutting it back to ground
level not only reduces biomass and therefore
competition with native seedlings, but also
exposes aristea plants.
Figure 3.1.5. Two-metre high Setaria sphacelata var. sericea
on Warblers
124

Removal of fireweed
Fireweed, Senecio madagascariensis, appears across the property annually. Whereas it is not considered
to be a significant threat or barrier to regeneration, it is a Class 2 declared weed under the Land
Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002, and is required to be controlled by landholders.
Teams of volunteers have repeatedly removed fireweed by hand-pulling. Because of propagule
pressure from its wind-dispersed seeds, it will not be eradicated until a canopy provides shading.
3.1.8 Data collection and analysis
Natural regeneration is occurring over a major proportion of the property. The main species are
Leptospermum spp., Lomatia arborescens, Acacia melanoxylon, A. orites, A. ulicifolia, Persoonia media,
Eucalyptus oreades and E. campanulata. A total of 52 species has been recorded including three rare
species.
The location of essentially all of the regenerating plants has been marked with a pink plant marker
(Figure 3.1.6) with the exception of the south-east corner of the property where the density of
leptospermum seedlings is such that marking is not practicable.
Figure 3.1.6. Regenerating native plants marked with a pink plant marker.
As shown in Figure 3.1.1, the property has been divided into four 150-metre grids and around 113
cells (16.67 x 16.67 m). Height measurements of each plant in six cells have been made on at least
two occasions (~3 months apart), allowing indicative growth rates to be calculated. Mortality has
also been recorded.
Soil moisture measurements have been made across the entire property (92 points). Measurements
were made using an MP406 Soil Moisture Probe Kit with 50-mm probes (ICT International). The
results are shown in Figure 3.1.7. Soil moisture ranged from 27.6 to 85.2 volume per cent. To
produce the image, the area under buildings was assumed to be equal to the minimum value and the
dam was set at 100 per cent.
Figure 3.1.7. Soil moisture
profile. Dark blue indicates the
wettest areas and dark brown,
the driest areas.
125

3.2 Pallida (formerly ‘The Winery’)
3.2.1 The property
Pallida is situated at 2824 Springbrook Road. Details are provided in section
3.2.2. Summary Asset Document Sheet.
Figure 3.2.1 shows the monitoring and experimental plot grid for the property.
Figure 3.2.1. Pallida showing the monitoring and experimental plot grid.
126

3.2.2 Summary Asset Document Sheet
Name of asset
“Pallida”
Context of asset
One of 46 properties (705 ha; 104 ha cleared) bought by the QLD government
Major part of Boy-ull Creek Catchment, the largest on upper Springbrook; forms
the western flank of Mt Springbrook, the third highest elevation at Springbrook
Location Description of asset Current condition of asset
2824 Springbrook Road
Lot 12 on RP201032 (32.7 ha)
The largest single property in the
Boy-ull Creek sub-catchment
• remnant and regrowth of RE12.8.1 or
12.8.2 (on northern boundaries), 12.8.5
(southern boundary), RE12.8.18
(coachwood), 12.8.19 (montane heath)
and an un-named regional ecosystem
dominated by Melaleuca pallida on a
spring-fed water-logged site.
• 32.72 ha in size (25.7 ha cleared)
• flat in northern half (790–800 m); steep
in southern half — 120 m N–S over 300
m (800–920 m) to within 50 m of Mt
Springbrook (947 m)
• rainfall gradient 2200–3100 mm/a;
frequently immersed in cloud
• eastern half of Boy-ull Creek catchment
• Geology: most recent 2 of the 5 Tweed
Volcano lava flows — Hobwee basalts
(Tlh) on upper slopes; Springbrook
Rhyolite (Tls) on lower slopes
Largely cleared (25.7 ha; 78.6%);
condition improving in parts due to
natural regeneration after repeated,
full clearing of the property, the last
in 1992, and cessation of grazing in
2005; condition declining in lower
half dominated by kikuyu; biological
legacies of older regrowth in steeply
dissected and/or bouldery areas
appear steadily recovering
Infrastructure
• old tin & timber house and garage,
5 sheds of assorted sizes, large
underground concrete sewerage
storage tank, 1 concrete water
storage tank, 6 earth dams, barbedwire
boundary & paddock fencing;
wooden yard and paddock fencing;
hardened, gravel and bitumen paved
access and parking areas
Environmental values Community/social values Economic values
Habitat for significant species
Lyrebirds, logrunners, bowerbirds,
thornbills (brown), scrubwrens
(yellow throated, white browed),
robins (eastern yellow), Bassian
Thrush, eastern spinebill and tawny
frogmouth visit or inhabit the site)
Rare, vulnerable and
phylogenetically significant flora
species present
Linkage (connectivity)
Links Springbrook NP with
Numinbah Nature Reserve (NSW)
Threats to the asset
Aesthetic value of rainforest-clad ridges
including along the caldera edge.
Scientific value as one of two major sites
testing conceptual models of ecological
restoration using advanced sensor
network monitoring technologies and
dynamic ecosystem models
Other notes and key information
Water supply from Boy-ull Creek
contributes to Hinze Dam
Sustainable ecotourism in the region
depends upon an essentially natural,
intact World Heritage precinct
Abiotic barriers (hydrological,
nutrient cycling, climatic) significant
Invasive plants & animals (includes
foxes, wild dogs, kikuyu, mistflower)
Loss, fragmentation, modification of
habitat (majority cleared)
Depleted species pool in regrowth
re. fleshy-fruited canopy species
(vital resource for avian frugivores)
~Total removal of rocks (floaters)
— thermal mass for reptiles key
potential food resource for lyrebirds
Totally cleared areas (25.7 ha) represent 78.6 % of the total area. Most regrowth
patches are in the upper half (deep rocky gullies, steep slopes). Smothering Kikuyu
a problem for natural regeneration in flat, lower half. Pasture grass dominating in
upper half is whiskey grass.
Powerline easements (2) traverse the site east-west, north-south, with substantial
and regular clearing and pruning of vegetation by Energex contractors. Poor Codes
of Practice. Represents a major impediment in the future for achieving integrity of
regenerating forest.
Pugging from cattle is deeply eroding in steeper parts (causing escalating gully
erosion)
Erosion from last clearing in 1992 led to major loss of top soil into the National
Park.
Pallida refers to Melaleuca pallida which occurs on the site as one of the few occurrences at Springbrook
127

3.2.3 Original ecosystems
Pre-clearing vegetation in this location is shown in Figure 3.2.2.
Figure 3.2.2. Pre-clearing vegetation mapping, Queensland Herbarium
As noted in the Summary Asset Data Sheet, at a finer scale the vegetation included patches of
montane heath associated with bare rock pavement (RE 12.8.19).
3.2.4 Historical information
Historical aerial photography shows that by 1930 the property was almost totally cleared. By 1989,
there had been significant regeneration on the upper slopes, but in 1992 it was again cleared (Figure
3.2.3).
Figure 3.2.3. Aerial photography showing Pallida. Left to right, 1930, 1989, 1995.
128

It is reported that the clearing in 1992 was followed by heavy rain and major erosion occurred such
that the pool at the foot of Twin Falls in Springbrook National Park was filled with mud from the
property.
3.2.5 Current condition
3.2.5.1 Vegetation
Current vegetation is shown and described in Figure 3.2.4.
Regenerating tall open forest (RE
12.8.1 or 12.8.2)
Unnamed ecosystem dominated by
Melaleuca pallida on a spring-fed
water-logged site
Planted pasture grass (Prairie
Grass Bromus catharticus)
Regenerating rainforest with Acacia
melanoxylon, Callicoma serratifolia,
Lomatia arborescens, Duboisia
myopoiroides, Orites excelsus
Kikuyu
Remnant and regenerating
rainforest along Boy-ull Creek
Regenerating rainforest and
montane heath (RE 12.8.19)
around a rocky outcrop
Regenerating rainforest dominated
by Callicoma serratifolia and/or
Lomatia arborescens
Kikuyu with scattered
rainforest plants
Remnant and regenerating
rainforest (RE 12.8.5)
Regenerating rainforest
(RE 12.8.5)
Remnant and regenerating
rainforest (RE 12.8.5)
Whiskey grass and
regenerating rainforest species
Figure 3.2.4. Aerial photography 2005 showing current vegetation.
Remnant and regenerating
rainforest (RE 12.8.5)
129

3.2.5.2 Flora and fauna
Flora and fauna recorded from the property and adjoining forest are listed in Table 3.2.1.
Table 3.2.1. Flora and fauna recorded from Pallida and adjoining forest
Flora
Adiantaceae
Adiantum formosum
Apiaceae
Hydrocotyle pedicellosa
Apocynaceae
Alyxia ruscifolia
Marsdenia lloydii
Melodinus australis
Parsonsia fulva
Araceae
Pothos longipes
Araliaceae
Cephalaralia cephalobotrys
Polyscias elegans
Polyscias murrayi
Arecaceae
Linospadix monostachya
Aristolochiaceae
Pararistolochia laheyana
R
Aspleniaceae
Asplenium australasicum
Asteraceae
Ageratina adenophora *
Ageratina riparia *
Cassinia subtropica
Atherospermataceae
Daphnandra tenuipes
Doryphora sassafras
Berberidopsidaceae
Berberidopsis beckleri
Bignoniaceae
Pandorea baileyana
R
Blechnaceae
Blechnum cartilagineum
Doodia aspera
Campanulaceae
Lobelia purpurascens
Celastraceae
Denhamia celastroides
Cunoniaceae
Ackama paniculata
Callicoma serratifolia
Geissois benthamii
Cyatheaceae
Cyathea australis
Cyathea cooperi
Cyathea leichhardtiana
Cyperaceae
Lepidosperma elatius
Dilleniaceae
Hibbertia scandens
Dryopteridaceae
Lastreopsis decomposita
Elaeocarpaceae
Elaeocarpus obovatus
Sloanea australis subsp. australis
Ericaceae
Trochocarpa laurina
Euphorbiaceae
Croton verreauxii
Homalanthus nutans
Fabaceae
Acacia melanoxylon
Austrosteenisia glabristyla
Geraniaceae
Geranium homeanum
Gleicheniaceae
Gleichenia dicarpa
Fauna
Recorded on the property
Marsupial Frog (Assa darlingtoni)
Clicking Froglet (Crinia signifera)
Striped Marsh Frog (Limnodynastes peronii)
Great Barred-frog (Mixophyes fasciolatus)
Green-thighed Frog (Litoria brevipalmata) – not confirmed
Southern Orange-eyed Treefrog (Litoria chloris)
Emerald-spotted Treefrog (Litoria peronii)
Whirring Treefrog (Litoria revelata)
Whistling Treefrog (Litoria verreauxii)
Carpet Python (Morelia spilota)
Red-bellied Black Snake (Pseudechis porphyriacus)
Tiger Snake (Notechis scutatus)
Australian Wood Duck (Chenonetta jubata)
Black-shouldered Kite (Elanus axillaris)
Brahminy Kite (Haliastur indus)
Grey Goshawk (Accipiter novaehollandiae)
White-bellied Sea-Eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster)
Wedge-tailed Eagle (Aquila audax)
Masked Lapwing (Vanellus miles)
Crimson Rosella (Platycercus elegans)
Pheasant Coucal (Centropus phasianinus)
Laughing Kookaburra (Dacelo novaeguineae)
Brown Thornbill (Acanthiza pusila)
Noisy Miner (Manorina melanocephala)
Lewin’s Honeyeater (Meliphaga lewinii)
Eastern Spinebill (Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris)
Logrunner (Orthonyx temminckii)
Grey Fantail (Rhipidura fuliginosa)
Pied Butcherbird (Cracticus nigrogularis)
Australian Magpie (Gymnorhina tibicen)
Additional species recorded in adjoining forest
Brown Cuckoo-Dove (Macropygia amboinensis)
Wonga Pigeon (Leucosarcia melanoleuca)
Albert’s Lyrebird (Menura alberti)
Eastern Yellow Robin (Eopsaltria australis)
Eastern Whipbird (Psophodes olivaceus)
Golden Whistler (Pachycephala pectoralis)
Satin Bowerbird (Ptilinorhynchus violaceus)
Superb Fairy-wren (Malurus cyaneus)
130

Flora
Fauna
Hemerocallidaceae
Geitonoplesium cymosum Juncaceae
Juncus usitatus
Lauraceae
Cinnamomum camphora *
Cryptocarya meisneriana
Cryptocarya obovata
Loranthaceae
Benthamina alyxifolia
Meliaceae
Dysoxylum fraserianum
Synoum glandulosum subsp. glandulosum
Menispermaceae
Carronia multisepalea
Sarcopetalum harveyanum
Tinospora smilacina
Monimiaceae
Palmeria scandens
Wilkiea huegeliana
Wilkiea macrophylla
Myrtaceae
Decaspermum humile
Lenwebbia prominens
R
Melaleuca pallida
Pilidiostigma glabrum
Rhodamnia maideniana
R
Syzygium australe
Syzygium crebrinerve
Syzygium smithii
Tristaniopsis laurina
Orchidaceae
Dendrobium kingianum
Microtis parviflora
Sarcochilus falcatus
Spiranthes sinensis
Oxalidaceae
Oxalis corniculata *
Passifloraceae
Passiflora edulis *
Petermanniaceae
Petermannia cirrosa
Philydraceae
Helmholtzia glaberrima
R
Phytolaccaceae
Rivina humilis *
Pittosporaceae
Hymenosporum flavum
Pittosporum multiflorum
Pittosporum undulatum
Plantaginaceae
Plantago debilis
Polypodiaceae
Microsorum scandens
Platycerium bifurcatum
Pyrrosia confluens var. dielsii
Primulaceae
Ardisia bakeri
R
Myrsine howittiana
Proteaceae
Helicia glabriflora
Lomatia arborescens
Orites excelsus
Persoonia media
Triunia youngiana
Putranjivaceae
Drypetes deplanchei
Quintiniaceae
Quintinia sieberi
Quintinia verdonii
Ripogonaceae
Ripogonum discolor
Rubiaceae
Atractocarpus benthamianus subsp. glaber
Rutaceae
Acronychia octandra
Acronychia pubescens
Acronychia suberosa
131

Flora
Fauna
Citrus australasica
Citrus x limon *
Salicaceae
Scolopia braunii
Sapindaceae
Cupaniopsis baileyana
Cupaniopsis newmanii
R
Sapotaceae
Pouteria australis
Smilacaceae
Smilax australis
Solanaceae
Duboisia myoporoides
Solanum inaequilaterum
Solanum mauritianum *
Symplocaceae
Symplocos baeuerlenii
V
Thymelaeaceae
Pimelea ligustrina subsp. ligustrina
Urticaceae
Elatostema reticulatum
Verbenaceae
Lantana camara *
Violaceae
Viola hederacea subsp. hederacea
Vitaceae
Cissus hypoglauca
132

3.2.6 Ecosystem models and management requirements
Several ecosystem conditions occur across the 33-hectare property. A major proportion is
considered to be a herb-dominated stable state where kikuyu covers the ground. The dense mat
excludes light, thus providing its own positive feed-back loop. The kikuyu-dominated area occurs
mainly on the lower slopes and the flatter ground at the northern end of the property. Also in the
lower part of the property is another herb-dominated ecosystem likely to be a stable state. The
dominant species is oats, apparently planted for fodder.
On the upper slopes, there is a distinct difference between the westerly and northerly aspects (See
Fig. 3.2.6). The westerly aspect is dominated by whiskey grass whereas the northerly aspect is
dominated by kikuyu. Rainforest regeneration is more advanced in the whiskey grass area.
Table 3.2.2 summarises the condition.
Table 3.2.2. Ecosystem condition and required management actions
Are there stable
states from which
transition to
succession is
unlikely without
intervention?
Explanatory description Feed-back loops Management
action
Yes — kikuyu
Class:
herb (mat,
rhizomes &
stolons)
monocot
allelopathy
C4 plant
NADP-ME
• kikuyu (Pennisetum clandestinum) covers
much of the 30-ha property
• forms a dense, thick mat; high biomass
• C4 & NADP-ME — high efficiency of
resource use, competitive advantage
• rarely flowers, reproducing and spreading via
rhizomes and stolons.
• improves soil condition but now apparently
a stable state.
• some areas with regeneration of Acacia spp.
within kikuyu may have established when the
area was being grazed by cattle (

Are there stable
states from which
transition to
succession is
unlikely without
intervention?
Explanatory description Feed-back loops Management
action
Class:
woody plant
dicot
C3 plant
• occurs in dense patches along parts of the
forested edges
• excludes light from ground surface
• expected to inhibit establishment of native
seedlings
• requires a degree of shade.
and forest edges
where there is
appropriate level
of light/shade.
Possibly — weeds
Class:
herbs
dicots
C4 plants
• several species of weeds occur in dense strips
around the margins of the forested edges:
crofton weed (Ageratina adenophora),
mistflower (Ageratina riparia), cobbler’s pegs
(Bidens pilosa), thickhead (Crassocephalum
crepidioides).
• annuals, forming a dense, smothering layer at
their peak growth stage.
• dense, smothering
occurrences
annually during
spring and
summer
• compete with
native species
where semi-shade
persists
Yes — bare ground
• areas of bare sloping ground around several
dams
• little sign of colonisation
• may be expanding
• several severely eroding tracks formerly used
by cattle (pugging).
• bare ground
condition appears
to be stable
• likely that the
surface is unstable
and continual slow
erosion prevents
establishment of
seedlings (+ve
feedback)
• erosion control
matting
• monitor
colonisation by
natives/weeds
• assist colonisation
by natives if
indicated by
monitoring
No — upper slopes
• on western aspect of upper slopes
• whiskey grass among patches of natural
regeneration (Lomatia arborescens, Acacia
spp.)
• natural regeneration patches observed to be
expanding
• succession likely to
be occurring with
displacement of
whiskey grass by
native species
• monitor progress
of natural
regeneration.
Trending — Aristea
Class:
herb (rhizomatous)
monocot
C3 plant
• Aristea ecklonii occurs as a minor outbreak
on the road frontage
• A. ecklonii can grow in dense masses capable
of forming a complete ground cover.
• reproduces vegetatively from rhizomes as
well as producing seed in massive numbers
• dispersed by wind, water and physical means
(fur, shoes, machinery)
• occurrence here still fairly sparse, but some
dense patches of very small ‘seedlings’
• capable of
establishing dense
ground cover
generating own
+ve feedback
• excludes light
from germinating
seedlings of native
species.
• eradicate via
herbicide and/or
physical removal
with care to
remove rhizomes
.
134

3.2.7 Management activities 2008–2009
The following management activities have been undertaken during 2008–2009:
Mowing, slashing and brushcutting
Mowing, slashing and brushcutting have been carried out on areas dominated by kikuyu, Setaria
sphacelata var. sericea and oats. The objective in cutting these grasses back to ground level is in general
to reduce biomass and therefore competition with native seedlings. However, it is recognised that
this may be effective only where seed dispersal is adequate and where the cutting back has reduced
the effectiveness of the self-supporting positive feed-back loop of kikuyu.
Removal of fireweed
Fireweed, Senecio madagascariensis, appears across the property annually. Whereas it is not considered
to be a significant threat or barrier to regeneration, it is a Class 2 declared weed under the Land
Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002, and is required to be controlled by landholders.
Teams of volunteers have repeatedly removed fireweed by hand-pulling. Because of propagule
pressure from its wind-dispersed seeds, it will not be eradicated until a canopy provides shading.
Manual removal of Aristea ecklonii
Numerous individual plants of Aristea ecklonii have been removed from the road frontage by digging.
However, ‘lawns’ of tiny plants have appeared in a few small patches following this activity,
probably from seed stores in the soil. Follow-up treatment is required.
3.2.8 Data collection and analysis
Natural regeneration is occurring over a significant proportion of the property. Most of this is on
the upper slopes. Where regeneration is occurring on lower areas, the location of individual plants
has been marked with pink plant markers. The main species are Acacia melanoxylon, A. orites, Lomatia
arborescens and Callicoma serratifolia. A total of 103 species has been recorded including seven rare
species.
Height measurements of each plant in three cells have been made. Mortality has also been recorded
in those cases where marking occurred some time before the height measurements.
Soil moisture measurements have been made across 63 cells in the lower part of the property.
Measurements were made using an MP406 Soil Moisture Probe Kit with 50-mm probes (ICT
International). The results are shown in Figure 3.2.5.
Figure 3.2.5. Soil moisture levels measured over
63 cells on the northern part of Pallida. Values
ranged from 27.7% (brown) to 90.7% (blue).
135

3.3 Ashmiha
3.3.1 The property
Ashmiha is situated at 18 Bilbrough Court. Details are provided in section 3.3.2 Summary Asset
Document Sheet.
Figure 3.3.1 shows the monitoring and experimental plot grid for the property.
Figure 3.3.1. Ashmiha showing the monitoring and experimental plot grid.
136

3.3.2 Summary Asset Document Sheet
Name of asset
“Ashmiha”
Context of asset
One of 46 properties (705 ha; 104 ha cleared) bought by the QLD government
80% of a contiguous 15-ha cleared area in the Ee-jung/Mundora Ck
catchments
Location Description of asset Current condition of asset
18 Bilbrough Court
Lot 9 on RP150877 (3 ha)
Lot 10 on RP201032 (9 ha)
In the Ee-jung Creek subcatchment
• Formerly contained RE18.8.2 (still
exists on boundaries), 12.8.5
(southern boundary), 12.8.18, 12.8.19
(on edges and small inlier)
• 12 ha in size
• moderately flat (795–860 ha) but
increases in steepness at the southern
boundary; adjoins steeper gradient to
955 m at caldera edge
• rainfall gradient 3000–3100 mm/a;
frequently immersed in cloud
• traversed by a major part of Ee-jung
Creek before flowing over cliffs in
the National Park
• geology: 1 of the 5 Mt Warning lava
flows represented: Springbrook
Rhyolites (Tls); thin soils, low
nutrients
Mainly (95%) cleared and condition
declining due to
• early infestation by aggressive
weeds (Aristea ecklonii and pasture
grasses),
• roaming domestic and wild dogs
• cattle grazing impacts
• residual impacts of tree clearing
using the persistent herbicide
Grazon within the riparian area
• redundant infrastructure — house,
sheds, concrete driveway and
parking areas, yard fence, small
over-grown shade house, boundary
and paddock fencing
Environmental values Community/social values Economic values
Habitat for significant spp.
Lyrebirds, logrunners, bowerbirds,
bowerbirds, thornbills (brown),
scrubwrens (yellow throated, white
browed), robins (eastern yellow) &
Bassian Thrush visit or inhabit the site)
Rare and vulnerable flora species present
(4)
Intrinsic and future WHV
Linkage (connectivity)
Links with Warblers (3 ha) to east, the
NP to north via a narrow band of road
reserve and private properties, with
Pumilio (8.2 ha) and Barrow (28 ha)
properties to the west and south
Threats to the asset
Aesthetic value of tall open forests and
rainforest when restored
Scientific value as model ecological
restoration site (test of ecological
theory and cost/effective methods of
restoration)
Other notes and key information
Water supply to Hinze Dam
Sustainable ecotourism in the region
is dependent upon an essentially
natural WH precinct
Altered hydrological, nutrient, climate
regimes
Invasive plants & animals (includes
foxes, noisy miners)
Loss, fragmentation, modification of
habitat
Depleted species pool in neighbouring
regrowth
Exposure to frosts and frequent high
intensity winds
Fire risk from dry grass during 3–4
months of the year
There is one earth/concrete dam and several trenches (quite deep) on the site
to store water (for cattle) or divert overland flow from the house
Small scale grazing (~15 head of cattle) occurred on the site (until November
2008) — trampling, compaction, pollution from excreta everywhere
Powerline easements (1) traverses the north-east corner of the site
Local road easements on two sides, Bilbrough Court thick with Aristea ecklonii
Barbed-wire boundary fencing encloses property and paddock fencing within
Aristea ecklonii beginning to invade; Fireweed the other major weed
Exposed Leptospermum polygalifolium var. montanum growing on skeletal soils and
rock pavements uprooted by high intensity winds
137

3.3.3 Original ecosystems
Pre-clearing vegetation in this location is shown in Figure 3.3.2.
Figure 3.3.2. Pre-clearing vegetation mapping, Queensland Herbarium
As noted in the Summary Asset Data Sheet, at a finer scale the vegetation included patches of
montane heath associated with bare rock pavement (RE 12.8.19).
3.3.4 Historical information
Historical aerial photography shows that by 1930 the property was almost totally cleared (Fig.3.3.3).
By 1998 (Fig. 3.3.4), further clearing had occurred with essentially the only vegetation remaining
being narrow and scattered patches along the creek line and within the rocky outcrop on the western
boundary of the northern lot.
Figure 3.3.3. Aerial photography showing Ashmiha. Left, 1930; Right, 1998.
It is clear that the property has been used for cattle grazing over many decades.
138

3.3.5 Current condition
3.3.5.1 Vegetation
Current vegetation is shown and described in Figure 3.3.4.
Eucalyptus oreades, E. campanulata
(RE 12.8.2)
Regenerating clump of Acacia melanoxylon
with Leptospermum spp. , Acacia spp. and
Lomatia arborescens around exposed rock
Montane heath and rock pavement (RE
12.8.19) with Leptospermum spp. and
Melaleuca pallida
Regeneration of native species
(Leptospermum spp., Acacia spp. & Lomatia
arborescens)
Regenerating
rainforest (RE 12.8.5)
Remnant rainforest
(RE 12.8.5)
Regeneration of native species
(Leptospermum spp., Acacia spp.,
Orites excelsus & Lomatia arborescens)
Regenerating
rainforest (RE 12.8.5)
Figure 3.3.4. Aerial photography 2005 showing current vegetation.
Regenerating
rainforest (RE 12.8.5)
RE 12.8.2, Eucalyptus oreades tall open forest on Cainozoic igneous rocks, is ‘Of Concern’ being a
very rare ecosystem having a pre-clearing extent of

3.3.5.2 Flora and fauna
Flora and fauna recorded from the property and adjoining forest are listed in Table 3.3.1.
Table 3.3.1. Flora and fauna recorded from Ashmiha and adjoining forest
Flora
Apocynaceae
Alyxia ruscifolia
Apocynaceae
Melodinus australis
Araliaceae
Cephalaralia cephalobotrys
Arecaceae
Archontophoenix cunninghamiana
Linospadix monostachya
Aspleniaceae
Asplenium australasicum
Asteraceae
Cassinia subtropica
Blechnaceae
Doodia aspera
Celastraceae
Denhamia celastroides
Colchicaceae
Tripladenia cunninghamii
Cunoniaceae
Ackama paniculata
Callicoma serratifolia
Dilleniaceae
Hibbertia dentata
Ericaceae
Acrotriche aggregata
Fabaceae
Acacia melanoxylon
Acacia orites
R
Lauraceae
Neolitsea dealbata
Meliaceae
Synoum glandulosum subsp. glandulosum
Monimiaceae
Palmeria scandens
Wilkiea huegeliana
Myrtaceae
Callistemon pallidus
Eucalyptus campanulata
Eucalyptus oreades
Lenwebbia prominens
R
Leptospermum polygalifolium subsp. montanum
Lophostemon confertus
Pilidiostigma glabrum
Rhodamnia maideniana
R
Syzygium smithii
Orchidaceae
Spiranthes sinensis
Philydraceae
Helmholtzia glaberrima
R
Pittosporaceae
Pittosporum multiflorum
Pittosporum undulatum
Polyosmaceae
Polyosma cunninghamii
Proteaceae
Lomatia arborescens
Orites excelsus
Persoonia media
Rutaceae
Acronychia octandra
Acronychia suberosa
Sapindaceae
Sarcopteryx stipata
Smilacaceae
Smilax australis
Solanaceae
Duboisia myoporoides
Vitaceae
Cissus hypoglauca
Winteraceae
Tasmannia insipida
Fauna
Recorded on the property
Clicking Froglet (Crinia signifera)
Striped Marsh Frog (Limnodynastes peronii)
Great Barred-frog (Mixophyes fasciolatus)
Southern Orange-eyed Treefrog (Litoria chloris)
Emerald-spotted Treefrog (Litoria peronii)
Whirring Treefrog (Litoria revelata)
Whistling Treefrog (Litoria verreauxii)
Carpet Python (Morelia spilota)
Red-bellied Black Snake (Pseudechis porphyriacus)
Australian Wood Duck (Chenonetta jubata)
Black-shouldered Kite (Elanus axillaris)
Masked Lapwing (Vanellus miles)
Crimson Rosella (Platycercus elegans)
Pheasant Coucal (Centropus phasianinus)
Laughing Kookaburra (Dacelo novaeguineae)
Brown Thornbill (Acanthiza pusila)
Noisy Miner (Manorina melanocephala)
Lewin’s Honeyeater (Meliphaga lewinii)
Eastern Spinebill (Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris)
Logrunner (Orthonyx temminckii)
Grey Fantail (Rhipidura fuliginosa)
Pied Butcherbird (Cracticus nigrogularis)
Australian Magpie (Gymnorhina tibicen)
Additional species recorded in adjoining forest
Brown Cuckoo-Dove (Macropygia amboinensis)
Wonga Pigeon (Leucosarcia melanoleuca)
Albert’s Lyrebird (Menura alberti)
Eastern Yellow Robin (Eopsaltria australis)
Eastern Whipbird (Psophodes olivaceus)
Golden Whistler (Pachycephala pectoralis)
Satin Bowerbird (Ptilinorhynchus violaceus)
140

3.3.6 Ecosystem models and management requirements
It is considered that the majority of the property is essentially in a herb-dominated stable state as a
result of the extensive occurrence of dense kikuyu. There is also invasion of some areas by the
aggressive weed, Aristea ecklonii, and these areas may be trending towards an alternative stable state.
Intervention is clearly required and a significant amount of work has already been carried out. Table
3.3.2 summarises the condition.
Table 3.3.2. Ecosystem condition and required management actions
Are there stable
states from which
transition to
succession is
unlikely without
intervention?
Explanatory description Feed-back loops Management
action
Yes — Kikuyu
Class:
herb (mat,
rhizomes &
stolons)
monocot
C4 plant
NADP-ME
• Much of this 9-ha property is covered with
Kikuyu (Pennisetum clandestinum) which
forms a dense, thick mat. It rarely flowers,
reproducing and spreading via rhizomes
and stolons.
• Kikuyu has probably provided some
benefits in improved soil condition but is
now apparently maintaining a stable state.
• dense ground
cover generates
own +ve feedback
• excludes light
from germinating
seedlings of native
or other species
• favours fire (+ve
feedback)
• does not grow in
shade; absent or
sparse around
forest edges
• eradication not
feasible.
• mow to reduce
biomass
• kill in patches
using herbicide
and monitor for
natural
regeneration
• if indicated by
monitoring, plant
patches with native
species.
Trending — Aristea
Class:
herb (rhizomatous)
monocot
C3 plant
• Aristea ecklonii occurs in a few fairly
dense patches and a number of scattered
outbreaks.
• This herb grows in dense masses capable
of forming a complete ground cover.
• It reproduces vegetatively from rhizomes
as well as producing seed in massive
numbers
• If not brought under control, it has the
potential to become a confluent mass and
establish a stable state
• The dense ground
cover produced
by A. ecklonii
excludes light
from germinating
seedlings of
native species.
• It grows in low
light and is not
disadvantaged by
shading along
edges of native
vegetation.
• Eradicate A.
ecklonii
(herbicide and/or
physical removal
with care to
remove rhizomes)
• It will be
necessary to
monitor whether
dispersal
processes are
adequate across
the property or
planting is
required in some
areas
Possibly — grasses
Class:
herb (tufted)
monocot
C4 plant
NADP-ME
• Setaria sphacelata var. sericea occurs
across parts of the property. It is a tufted
perennial and probably does not exclude
light to the point where germination and
growth of seedlings are prevented.
Competition for nutrients may slow the
growth of native seedlings.
• At this stage,
Setaria is gaining
sufficient
resources to
flourish. It may
eventually be
shaded out by
regenerating
native species.
• mowing and/or
herbicide
treatment to
reduce biomass
and hence
competition with
native seedlings
141

Are there stable
states from which
transition to
succession is
unlikely without
intervention?
Explanatory description Feed-back loops Management
action
Yes — bare ground
• There are some tracks on the property
formerly used by cattle and which are
eroding.
• It is likely that the
surface is
unstable and
continual slow
erosion prevents
establishment of
seedlings.
• erosion control
matting with
monitoring of
colonisation
No — upper slopes
• grass density is much less than on lower
areas and native seedlings are establishing
• succession likely
to be occurring
leading to canopy
cover providing
+ve feedback
loop
• monitor progress
of natural
regeneration
142

3.3.7 Management activities 2008–2009
The following management activities have been undertaken during 2008–2009:
Manual removal of A. ecklonii
Volunteers have removed some A. ecklonii by digging. This procedure is generally effective but very
time-consuming. Further, ‘lawns’ of tiny plants commonly appear in patches, probably from seed
stores in the soil.
Mowing and brushcutting
Mowing and brushcutting have been used as control measures both for kikuyu, Setaria sphacelata var.
sericea and aristea. Cutting the grasses back to ground level not only reduces biomass and therefore
competition with native seedlings, but also exposes Aristea plants.
After ensuring no fruits are present on the Aristea, mowing has been used to provide time for
herbicide treatment or hand removal before the next flowering occurs.
Removal of fireweed
Fireweed, Senecio madagascariensis, appears across the property annually. Whereas it is not considered
to be a significant threat or barrier to regeneration, it is a Class 2 declared weed under the Land
Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002, and is required to be controlled by landholders.
Teams of volunteers have repeatedly removed fireweed by hand-pulling. Because of propagule
pressure from its wind-dispersed seeds, it will not be eradicated until a canopy provides shading.
3.3.8 Data collection and analysis
Natural regeneration is occurring over a major proportion of the property. The main species are
Leptospermum spp., Lomatia arborescens, Acacia melanoxylon, A. orites, Persoonia media, Eucalyptus oreades
and E. campanulata. A total of 44 species has been recorded including four rare species.
As shown in Figure 3.3.1, the property has been divided into ten 150-metre grids and around 460
cells (16.67 x 16.67 m). The location of the regenerating plants has been marked with a pink plant
marker over about 150 cells. To date, height measurements of each plant in four cells have been
made.
143

3.4 Ankuna
3.4.1 The property
Ankuna is situated at 2666 Springbrook Road. Details are provided in section 3.4.2 Summary Asset
Document Sheet.
Figure 3.4.1 shows the monitoring and experimental plot grid for the property.
Figure 3.4.1. Ankuna showing the monitoring and experimental plot grid.
144

3.4.2 Summary Asset Document Sheet
Summary Asset Document Sheet — Ankuna
Name of asset
Ankuna
Meaning: Aboriginal for “flowing
waters”
Context of asset
One of 46 properties (705 ha; 104 ha cleared) bought by the QLD government
The two headwaters tributaries of Little Nerang Creek (East Branch) converge
on Ankuna before leaving the plateau via Blackfellow Falls to Canyon Gorge.
Location Description of asset Current condition of asset
2666 Springbrook Road
Lot 1 on SP100210 (1.6 ha)
Little Nerang Creek (East Branch)
sub-catchment
• Regrowth of RE12.8.5 (0.4 ha) mainly
dominated by Callicoma serratifolia
• 1.6 ha in size (1.2ha cleared)
• flat (750–760 m); valley bottom
• rainfall gradient 2100–2300 mm/a
• junction of the headwater tributaries of
Little Nerang Creek (East Branch)
• Geology: most recent of the 5 Tweed
Volcano lava flows — Hobwee basalts
(Tlh) — close to its northern limit and
on the boundary with Springbrook
Rhyolite (Tls) on the eastern side.
Summary
Low topographic diversity and narrow
bioclimatic envelope representing
moderate rainfall on mid-altitude
basalts
Fully cleared in 1930 airphotos;
regeneration progressing in southern
half and riparian corridor by 1961–
1975; road realigned by 1961;
significant re-clearing in ~1989
(regrowth ~20 years); Currently 1.2
ha (77%) remains cleared; northern
section dominated by bracken,
grasses and Cobbler’s Pegs) has high
regenerative capacity due to low soil
disturbance, absence of kikuyu; midsection
dominated by aristea,
mistflower, crofton weed, groundsel,
persicaria, creeping buttercup,
columbian waxweed and Japanese
honeysuckle.
• Creek diversions (by neighbouring
landowner)
• traversed N–S by an overgrown
track once the main Springbrook
Road thoroughfare before
realignment in 1960-61.
Infrastructure
• a double-door garage with short
access track; guttering and old
timber refuse behind shed needs
removal
• small concrete ford across creek
• powerline crosses diagonally
Environmental values Community/social values Economic values
Habitat for significant species
Fauna: Logrunners, bowerbirds
(satin), thornbills (brown),
scrubwrens (yellow throated, white
browed), robins (eastern yellow);
Assa darlingtoni,
Linkage (connectivity)
A stepping stone link between
eastern and western core habitats
Threats to the asset
Aesthetic value of rainforest-clad plateau
undiminished by .
Scientific value as a reference site
representing 20-year regeneration within
a chronosequence of succession since
clearing.
Other notes and key information
Water supply from Little Nerang
Creek (East Branch) contributes to
Hinze Dam
Sustainable ecotourism in the region
depends upon an essentially natural,
intact World Heritage precinct
Invasive plants & animals
Loss, fragmentation, modification of
habitat (majority cleared)
Depleted species pool in regrowth
re. fleshy-fruited canopy species
(vital resource for avian frugivores)
28 Weed species: 2 vines, 3 shrubs, and 23 herbs – Araceae (1), Asteraceae (8),
Iridaceae (2), Liliaceae (1), Lythraceae (1), Onagraceae (1), Poaceae (5),
Polygonaceae (2), Ranunculaceae (1), Scrophulariaceae (1)
Heavy Aristea ecklonii infestation will require quarantine for at least 5 years.
Low to absent grazing pressure (compaction, herbivory, erosion, pugging,
pollution) for considerable periods
145

3.4.3 Original ecosystems
Pre-clearing vegetation in this location is shown in Figure 3.4.2. It is mapped entirely as RE 12.8.5.
Figure 3.4.2. Pre-clearing vegetation mapping, Queensland Herbarium
3.4.4 Historical information
Historical aerial photography (Fig. 3.4.3) shows that in 1961 the property was mostly cleared except
for a section at the southern end. Some further clearing had occurred by 1989 and by 1993 the
property was almost totally cleared.
Figure 3.4.3. Aerial photography: Left to Right — 1961, 1989, 1993, 2005
The presence of the herbaceous weed, Aristea ecklonii, is a principal issue in managing restoration on
this property.
146

3.4.5 Current condition
3.4.5.1 Vegetation
Current vegetation is shown and described in Figure 3.4.4.
Regenerating rainforest with
Callicoma serratifolia, Acacia
melanoxylon, Lomatia
arborescens and Pittosporum spp.
Infestation of Aristea ecklonii
Regenerating rainforest along the
banks of Little Nerang Creek with
Callicoma serratifolia, Acacia
melanoxylon, Lomatia arborescens
and Pittosporum spp.
Infestation of Montbretia
Regenerating Eucalyptus oreades,
(possibly RE 12.8.2)
Infestation of Aristea ecklonii
Regenerating rainforest currently
dominated by Callicoma serratifolia
.
Figure 3.4.4. Aerial photography 2005 showing current vegetation.
RE 12.8.2, Eucalyptus oreades tall open forest on Cainozoic igneous rocks, is ‘Of Concern’ being a
very rare ecosystem having a pre-clearing extent of

3.4.5.2 Flora and fauna
Flora and fauna recorded from the property and adjoining forest are listed in Table 3.4.1.
Table 3.4.1. Flora and fauna recorded from Ankuna and adjoining forest
Flora
Apocynaceae
Melodinus australis
Araliaceae
Polyscias sambucifolia
Asteraceae
Cassinia subtropica
Atherospermataceae
Daphnandra tenuipes
Bignoniaceae
Pandorea pandorana
Cunoniaceae
Ackama paniculata
Callicoma serratifolia
Elaeocarpaceae
Elaeocarpus reticulatus
Fabaceae
Acacia melanoxylon
Hemerocallidaceae
Dianella caerulea var. assera
Lauraceae
Cryptocarya erythroxylon
Meliaceae
Synoum glandulosum subsp. glandulosum
Monimiaceae
Wilkiea huegeliana
Myrtaceae
Eucalyptus oreades
Pittosporaceae
Pittosporum undulatum
Primulaceae
Ardisia bakeri
R
Proteaceae
Lomatia arborescens
Quintiniaceae
Quintinia verdonii
Vitaceae
Cissus hypoglauca
Fauna
There have been no systematic surveys of fauna on the
property to date. There has been an incidental
recording of the Marsupial Frog (Assa darlingtoni),
satin bowerbird, brown thornbill, eastern yellow ribin
148

3.4.6 Ecosystem models and management requirements
It is considered that the majority of the property is trending rapidly towards a herb-dominated stable
state as a result of the almost total invasion by an aggressive weed, Aristea ecklonii. Intervention is
clearly required and a considerable amount of work has already been carried out. Table 3.4.2
summarises the condition.
Table 3.4.2. Ecosystem condition and required management actions
Are there stable
states from which
transition to
succession is
unlikely without
intervention?
Explanatory description Feed-back loops Management
action
Yes — Aristea
Class:
herb (rhizomatous)
monocot
C3 plant
• about 10% of the property is infested with
Aristea ecklonii
• A. ecklonii grows in dense masses capable of
forming a complete ground cover.
• reproduces vegetatively from rhizomes as
well as producing seed in massive numbers
• dispersed by wind, water and physical means
(fur, shoes, machinery)
• dense ground
cover generates
own +ve feedback
• excludes light
from germinating
seedlings of native
species.
• grows in low light;
not disadvantaged
by shading along
edges of native
vegetation (strong
+ve feedback).
• eradicate via
herbicide and/or
physical removal
with care to
remove rhizomes
• monitor whether
dispersal processes
are adequate
across the property
for colonisation by
natives
• if necessary, plant
natives where
indicated by
monitoring
Possibly — grasses
Class:
herb (tufted)
monocot
C4 plant
NADP-ME
• Setaria sphacelata var. sericea occurs on the
property and may expand
• a tufted perennial, growing to 2 m
• C4 & NADP-ME — high efficiency of
resource use, competitive advantage
• probably does not exclude light to the point
where germination and growth of seedlings
are prevented
• competition for nutrients may slow the
growth of native seedlings.
• Setaria is gaining
sufficient
resources to
flourish and
provide own +ve
feedback
• may eventually be
shaded out by
regenerating native
species.
• mowing, brushing
and/or herbicide
treatment to
reduce biomass
and hence
competition with
native seedlings
Possibly —
Montbretia
• several patches of Montbretia (Crocosmia x
crocosmiiflora) in low-lying part of the
property on the southern side of the creek
• may be expanding
• Montbretia is
capapable of
vigorous growth
forming dense
ground cover
excluding other
ground-layer
plants (+ve
feedback)
• reproduces
vegetatively from
corms and
rhizomes
• eradicate via
herbicide and/or
physical removal
with care to
remove corms and
rhizomes
• monitor for
regrowth and
apply follow-up
treatment where
necessary
149

3.4.7 Management activities 2008–2009
The following management activities have been undertaken during 2008–2009:
Clipping of Aristea flowers and fruits
Given the large number of seeds produced by one Aristea ecklonii plant and the apparently high
germination rate, it is fundamentally important to prevent, as far as possible, future seed dispersal.
In order to buy time before manual removal could be undertaken, volunteers systematically removed
flowers and fruits from A. ecklonii across the property. Since then, regular inspections have been
made for flowering and fruiting and clipping carried out where necessary.
Manual removal of A. ecklonii
Because the infestations of aristea border Little
Nerang Creek, herbicide treatment has not been
used. In April 2008, a team of volunteers removed
large masses of aristea by digging. Inspection in
2009 revealed significant regrowth and a second
digging was carried out.
Brushcutting
Brushcutting has been used as an interim control
measure for the grass, Setaria sphacelata var. sericea,
and a range of weeds including cobbler’s pegs
(Bidens pilosa) and thickhead (Crassocephalum
crepidioides).
Figure 3.4.5. This image shows a confluent mass of Aristea
ecklonii held together by a mat of fibrous roots.
Montbretia
There are several patches of Montbretia on a low-lying area adjoining the southern bank of Little
Nerang Creek. Hand removal is generally considered inappropriate, as loose corms could be missed
and subsequently wash into the creek and spread downstream into the national park. Spraying with
herbicide is also considered inappropriate because of the proximity to the creek. It is intended to
treat plants individually with glyphosate using a sponge applicator avoiding spillage.
Other plants
The northern part of the property is dominated by bracken and this may require intervention.
3.4.8 Data collection and analysis
Natural regeneration is occurring over a proportion of the property. The main species are Lomatia
arborescens, Acacia melanoxylon, Callicoma serratifolia and Eucalyptus oreades. A total of 19 species has been
recorded including one rare species.
The location of many of the regenerating plants has been marked with a pink plant marker,
especially in the central part of the property.
150

Part 4:
References
Abreu, Z., Llambi, L.D. and Sarmiento, L. (2008) Sensitivity of soil restoration indicators during Paramo
succession in the high tropical Andes: Chronosequence and permanent plot approaches. Restoration Ecology
DOI: 10.1111/j.1526–100X.2008.00406.x
Adams, H.D., Guardiola-Claramonte, M., Barron-Gafford, G.A., Villegas, J.C., Breshears, D.D., Zou, C.B.,
Troch, P.A. and Huxman, T.E. (2009) Temperature sensitivity of drought-induced tree mortality portends
increased regional die-off under global-change-type drought. PNAS 106(17), 7063–7066.
Agrawal, A.A., Ackerly, D.D., Adler, F., Arnold, A.E., Caceres, C., Doak, D.F., Post, E., Hudson, P.J.,
Maron, J., Mooney, K.A., Power, M., Schemske, D., Stachowiez, J., Strauss, S., Turner, M.G., Werner, E.
(2007) Filling key gaps in population and community ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 5, 145–
152.
Alzinga, J.A., Atlan, A., Biere, A., Gigord, L., Weis, A.E. and Bernasconi, G. (2007) Time after time:
flowering phenology and biotic interactions. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 22, 432–439.
Amo, L., Lopez, P. and Martin, J. (2006) Nature-based tourism as a form of predation risk affects body
condition and health state of Podarcis muralis lizards. Biological Conservation 131, 402–409.
Anand, M., and L. Orlóci. (1996) Complexity in plant communities: the notion and quantification. Journal of
Theoretical Biology 179, 179-186.
Anderson, K.J. (2007) Temporal patterns in rates of community change during succession. The American
Naturalist 169(6), 780–793.
Australian Government (2009) NRM MERI Framework. Australian Government Natural Resource
Management Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement Framework.
http://www.nrm.gov.au/publications/frameworks/meri-framework.html
Australian National University (2009) Implications of climate change for Australia’s World Heritage properties: A
preliminary assessment. A report to the Department of Climate Change and the Department of the
Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts by the Fenner School of Environment and Society, the
Australian National University.
Awade, M. and Metzger, J.P. (2008) Using gap-crossing capacity to evaluate functional connnectivity of two
atlantic rainforest birds and their response to fragmentation. Austral Ecology 33, 863–871.
Bailey, R.A., Cameron, P.J. and Connelly, R. (2008) Sudoku, gerechte designs, resolutions, affine space
spreads reguli, and Hamming codes. American Mathematics Monthly 115, 383–404.
Baraloto, C. and Forget, P-M. (2007) Seed size, seedling morphology, and response to deep shade and
damage in neotropical rain forest trees. American Journal of Botany 94, 901–911.
Barrett, D.J. and Ash, J.E. (1992) Growth and Carbon partitioning in rainforest and eucalypt forest species of
south coastal New South Wales, Australia. Australian Journal of Botany 40, 13–25.
Beckage, B., Lavine, M. and Clark, J.S. (2005) Survival of tree seedlings across space and time: estimates from
long-term count data. Journal of Ecology 93, 1177–1184.
Bennett, E.M., Cumming, G.S. and Peterson, G.D. (2005) A systems model approach to determining
resilience surrogates for case studies. Ecosystems 8, 945–957.
Bennie, J., Huntley, B., Wiltshire, A., Hill, M.O. and Baxter, R. (2008) Slope, aspect and climate: Spatially
explicit and implicit models of topographic microclimate in chalk grassland. Ecological Modelling 216, 47–59.
Benzing, D.H. (1998) Vulnerabilities of tropical forests to climate change: the significance of resident
epiphytes. Climate Change 39, 519–540.
Bonan, G.B. (2008) Ecological Climatology: Concepts and Applications. Second Edition. Cambridge University
Press, UK. 550 pp.
Bradley, K.L. and Pregitzer, K.S. (2007) Ecosystem assembly and terrestrial carbon balance under elevated
CO2. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 22(10), 538-547.
Breshears, D.D. (2006) The grassland-forest continuum: trends in ecosystem properties for woody plant
151

mosaics? Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 4, 96–104
Breshears, D.D. and Barnes, F.J. (1999) Interrelationships between plant functional types and soil moisture
heterogeneity for semiarid landscapes within the grassland/forest continuum: a unified conceptual model.
Landscape Ecology 14, 465–478.
Briske, D.D., Fuhlendorf, S.D. and Smeins, F.E. (2006) A unified framework for assessment and application
of ecological thresholds. Rangeland Ecology and Management 59, 225-236.
Broadhurst, L. and Young, A. (2007) Seeing the wood and the trees — predicting the future for fragmented
plant populations in Australian landscapes. Australian Journal of Botany 55, 250–260.
Brooker, M.I.H. and Kleinig, D.A. (2006) A Field guide to Eucalypts. Volume 1. South-eastern Australia. Third
Edition. Bloomings Books, Melbourne. 356 pp.
Brooker, R.W., Maestre, F.T., Callaway, R.M., Lortie, C.L.,Cavieres, L.A., Kunstler, G., Liancourt, P,
Tielborger, K., Travis, J.M.J., Anthelme, F., Armas, C., Coll, L., Corcket,E., Delzon,S., Forey, E.,
Kikvidze, Z., Olofsson, J., Pubnaire, F., Quiroz, C.L., Saccone, P., Schiffers, K., Seifan, M., Touzard, B.
and Michalet, R. (2008) Facilitation in plant communities: the past, the present, and the future. Journal of
Ecology 96, 18–34.
Broz, A.K., Manter, D.K., Callaway, R.M (2008) A molecular approach to understanding plant-plant
interactions in the context of invasion biology. Functional Plant Biology 35, 1123–1134.
Bucci, S.J., Goldstein, G., Meinzer, F.C., Scholz, F.G., Franco, A.C. and Bustamante, M. (2004) Functional
convergence in hydraulic architecture and water relations of tropical savanna trees: from leaf to whole
plant. Tree Physiology 24, 891–899.
Buckley, R. & Pannell, J. (1989) Environmental Impacts of Tourism and Recreation in Australian National
Parks and Conservation Reserves. Centre For Resource and Environemntal Studies, Australian National
Univeristy Canberra.
Burbidge, N.T. (1960) The phytogeography of the Australian region. Australian Journal of Botany 8, 75–212.
Burton, J., Chen, C., Xu, Z.and Ghadiri, H. (2007) Soluble organic nitrogen pools in adjacent native and
plantation forests of subtropical Australia. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 39, 2723–2734.
Callaway, R.M. (1996) Positive interactions among plants. The Botanical Review 61(4), 306-349.
Callaway, R.M. (2007) Positive Interactions and Interdependence in Plant Communities. Springer, Berlin.
Cardinale, B.J., Hillebrand, H. and Charles, D.F. (2006) Geographic patterns of diversity in streams are
predicted by a multivariate model of disturbance and productivity. Journal of Ecology 94, 609–618.
Carpenter, S.R. and Brock, W.A. (2006) Rising variance: a leading indicator of ecological transition. Ecology
Letters 9, 311–318.
Carpenter, S.R. and Turner, M.G. (2001) Hares and tortoises: Interactions of fast and slow variables in
ecosystems. Ecosystems 3, 495-497.
Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J.M. and Abel, N. (2001) From Metaphor to Measurement: Resilience of
what to what? Ecosystems 4, 765–781.
Carpenter, S.R., Westley, F. and Turner, M.G. (2005) Surrogates for resilience of social-ecological systems
Ecosystems 8, 941–944.
Catterall, C.P. and Harrison, D.A. (2006) Rainforest restoration activities in Australia’s tropics and subtropics. Cairns,
Australia: Rainforest CRC. http://www.jcu.edu.au/rainforest/publications/restoration_activities.htm
Chapin III, F.S., Torn, M.S. and Tateno. M. (1996a) Principles of ecosystem sustainability. The American
Naturalist 148, 1016–1037.
Chapin III, F.S., Bret-Harte, M.S., Hobbie, S.E. and Zhong, H. (1996b) Plant functional types as predictors
of transient responses of arctic vegetation to global change. Journal of Vegetation Science 7, 347–358.
Chetkiewicz, C-L.B., St. Clair, C.C. and Boyce, M.S. (2006) Corridors for conservation: integrating pattern
and process. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 37, 317–42.
152

Clements, F.E. (1916) Plant succession: An analysis of the developent of vegetation. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie
Institute of Washington. Referenced in Hobbs, R. J. and Suding, K.N., Eds. (2009). New Models for
Ecosystem Dynamics and Restoration. Island Press.
Clewell, A., Rieger, J. and Munro, J. (2005) Guidelines for Developing and Managing Ecological Restoration
Projects, 2nd Edition. December 2005. http://www.ser.org and Tucson: Society for Ecological
Restoration International
Comita, L.S., Condit, R. and Hubbell, S.P. (2007) Developmental changes in habitat associations of tropical
trees. Journal of Ecology 95, 482–492.
Commonwealth of Australia (2003) Australia’s 15 National Biodiversity Hotspots.
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/hotspots/national-hotspots.html
Contamin, R. and Ellison, A.M. (2009) Indicators of regime shifts in ecological systems: What do we need to
know and when do we need to know it? Ecological Applications 19(3), 799–816.
Cuartas, LA., Tomasella, J., Nobre, A.D., Hodnett, M.G., Waterloo, M.J. and Munera, J.C. (2007)
Interception water-partitioning dynamics for a pristine rainforest in Central Amazonia: Marked differences
between normal and dry years. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 145, 69–83.
DeAngelis, D.L., Post, W.M. and Travis, C.C. (1986) Positive Feedback in Natural Systems. Springer, Berlin.
DeAngelis, D.L. and Post, W.M. (1991) Positive feedback and ecosystem organization. Pp. 155–178 in M.
Higashi and T.P. Burns, Eds. Theoretical Studies of Ecosystems: The Network Perspective. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
De Araujo, A.C., Kruijt, B., Nobre, A.D., Dolman, A.J., Waterloo, M.J., Moors, E.J. and de Souza, J.S. (2008)
Nocturnal accumulation of CO2 underneath a tropical forest canopy along a topographical gradient.
Ecological Applications 18(6), 1406–1419.
de Lafontaine, G. and Houle, G. (2007) Species richness along a production gradient: a multivariate approach.
American Journal of Botany 94, 79–88.
Dijkstra, F.A. and Cheng, W. (2007) Moisture modulates rhizosphere effects on C decomposition in two
different soil types. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 39, 2264–2274.
Domingues, T.F., Martinelli, L.A. and Ehleringer, J.R. (2007) Ecophysiological traits of plant functional
groups in forest and pasture ecosystems form eastern Amazonia, Brazil. Plant Ecology 193, 101–112.
Duffy, J.E. (2009) Why biodiversity is important to the functioning of real-world ecosystems. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment 7(8), 437–444.
Dyer, J.M. (2009) Assessing topographic patterns in moisture use and stress using a water balance approach.
Landscape Ecology 24, 391–403.
Eamus, D., Hatton, T., Cook, P. and Colvin, C. (2006) Ecohydrology: Vegetation function, water and resource
management. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. 348 pp.
Edwards, E.J., Still, C.J. and Donoghue, M.J. (2007) The relevance of phylogeny to studies of global change.
TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 22, 243–249.
Ehrenfeld, J.G., Ravit, B. and Elgersma, K. (2005) Feedback in the plant-soil system. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources 30, 75–115.
Ernst, R., Linsenmair, K.E. and Rödel, M-O. (2006) Diversity erosion beyond the species level: Dramatic loss
of functional diversity after selective logging in two tropical amphibian communities. Biological Conservation
133, 143–155.
Eviner, V.T. and Chapin, F.S. III (2003) Functional matrix: A conceptual framework for predicting multiple
plant effects on ecosystem processes. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 34, 455–485.
Fitter, A.H. (2005) Darkness visible: Reflections on underground ecology. Journal of Ecology 93, 231–243.
Fjeldsa, J. and Lovett, J.C. (1997a) Geographical patterns of old and young species in African forest biota: the
significance of specific montane areas as evolutionary centres. Biodiversity and Conservation 6, 325–346.
Fjeldsa, J. and Lovett, J.C. (1997b) Biodiversity and environmental stability. Biodiversity and Conservation 6, 315–
323.
153

Fjeldsa, J., Ehrlich, D., Lambin, E. and Prins, E. (1997) Are biodiversity ‘hotspots’ correlated with current
ecoclimatic stability? A pilot study using the NOAA-AVHRR remote sensing data. Biodiversity and
Conservation 6(3), 401–422.
Franks, S.J. (2003) Facilitation in multiple life-historystages: evidence for nucleated succession in coastal
dunes. Plant Ecology 168, 1–11.
Gomez-Aparicio, L. (2009) The role of plant interactions in the restoration of degraded ecosystems: a metaanalysis
across life-forms and ecosystems. Journal of Ecology 97, 1202–1214.
Gomez-Aparicio, L., Gomez, J.M. and Zamora, R. (2005) Microhabitats shift rank in suitability for seedling
establishment depending on habitat type and climate. Journal of Ecology 93, 1194–1202.
Grabarnik, P. and Sarkka, A. (2009) Modelling the spatial structure of forest stands by multivariate point
processes with hierarchical interactions. Ecological Modelling 220, 1232–1240.
Grabherr, G. and Pauli, H. (2004) Terrestrial ecosystems and global change monitoring: an overview. Pages
46–69 in C Lee and T.Schaaf, Eds. Global Environmental and Social Monitoring. Proceedings of the 1 st
International Thematic Workshop. UNESCO, Vienne, France.
Grime, J.P. (1973) Control of species density in herbaceous vegetation. Journal of Environmental Management 1,
151–167.
Hall, P. (1990) Springbrook — Where the clouds touch the earth. Pamela Hall, Springbrook, 150 pp.
Halpern, B.S., Silliman, B.R., Olden, J.D., Bruno, J.P. and Bertness, M.D. (2007) Incorporating positive
interactions in aquatic restoration and conservation. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 5, 153–160.
Hanle, M.E. and Sykes, R.J. (2009) Impacts of seedling herbivory on plant competition and implications for
species coexistence. Annals of Botany 103, 1347–1352.
Harris, J.A., Hobbs, R.J., Higgs, E. and Aronson, J. (2006) Ecological restoration and global climate change.
Restoration Ecology 14(2), 170–176.
Hawkes, C.V., Wren, .F., Herman, D.J. and Firestone, M.K. (2005) Plant invasion alters nitrogen cycling by
modifyng the soil nitrifying community. Ecology Letters 8, 976–985.
Hierro, J.L., Maron, J.L. and Callaway, R.M. (2005) A biogeographical approach to plant invasions: the
importance of studying exotics in their introduced and native range. Journal of Ecology 93, 5–15.
Hindwood, K. (1966) Australian Birds in Colour. Reed, Sydney. p. 52.
Hobbs, R.J. and Norton, D.A. (1996) Towards a conceptual framework for restoration ecology. Restoration
Ecology 4, 93–110.
Holling, C.S. (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4, 1–
23.
Holling, C.S. (1986) The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems: Local surprise and global change. In: Sustainable
development of the Biosphere, eds. W.C. Clark and R.E. Munn, 292–317. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Holling, C.S. and Gunderson, L.H. (2002) Resilience and adaptive cycles. In: Panarchy: Understanding
transformations in human and ecological systems, eds. L.H. Gunderson and C.S. Holling, 25–62. Island Press,
Washington, D.C.
Horvath, G., Kriska, G., Malik, P; and Robertson, B. (2009) Polarized light pollution: a new kind of
ecological photopollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7, 317–325.
Hosack, G.R., Li, H.W. and Rossignol, P.A. (2009) Sensitivity of system stability to model structure. Ecological
Modelling 220, 1054–1062.
House, J.I., Archer, S., Breshears, D.D., Scholes, R.J. and NCEAS Tree-Grass Interactions Participants
(2003) Conundrums in mixed woody-herbaceous plant systems. Journal of Biogeography 30, 1763–1777.
Hughes, A.R., Byrnes, J.E., Kimbro, D.L. and Stachowicz, J.J. (2007) Reciprocal relationships and potential
feedbacks between biodiversity and disturbance. Ecology Letters 10, 849–864.
Huston, M. (1994) Biological Diversity: The Coexistence of Species on Changing Landscapes. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
154

Huygens, D., Rutting, T., Boeckx, P., Van Cleemput, O., Godly, R. and Muller, C. (2007) Soil nitrogen
conservation mechanisms in a pristine south Chilean Nothofagus forest ecosystem. Soil Biology and
Biochemistry 39, 2448–2458.
Ibrahim, D.G., Gilbert, M.E., Ripley, B.S. and Osborne, C. (2008) Seasonal differences in photosynthesis
between the C3 and C4 subspecies of Alloteropsis semialata are offset by frost and drought. Plant, Cell and
Environment 31, 1038–1050.
Jenkinson, R.G., Barnas, K.A., Braatne, J.H., Bernhardt, E.S., Palmer, M.A., Allan, J.D. and The National
River Restoration Science Synthesis (2006) Stream restoration databases and case studies: A guide to
information resources and their utility in advancing the science and practice of restoration. Restoration
Ecology 14, 177–186.
Jentsch, A. (2007) The challenge to restore processes in face of nonlinear dynamics — on the crucial role of
disturbance regimes. Restoration Ecology 15, 334–339.
Jump, A.S. and Penuelas, J. (2005) Running to stand still: adaptation and the response of plants to rapid
climate change. Ecology Letters 8, 1010–1020.
Kirkman, L.K., Coffey, K.L., Mitchell, R.J. and Moser, E.B. (2004) Ground cover recovery patterns and lifehstory
traits: implications for restoration obstacles and opportunities in a species-rich savanna. Journal of
Ecology 92, 409–421.
Komatsu H., Katayama, A., Hirose, S., Kume, A., Higashi, N., Ogawa, S. and Otsuki, K. (2007) Reduction in
soil water availability and tree transpiration in a forest with pedestrian trampling. Agricultural and Forest
Meteorology 146, 107–114.
Lambers, H., Mougel, C., Jaillard, B. and Hinsinger, P. (2009) Plant-microbe-soil interactions in the
rhizosphere: An evolutionary perspective. Plant Soil 321, 83–115.
Laurance, W.F. and Curran, T.J. (2008) Impacts of wind disturbance on fragmented tropical forests: A review
and synthesis. Austral Ecology 33, 399–408.
Lawrence, D., D’Odorico, P., Diekmann, L., DeLonge M., Das, R. and Eaton J. (2007) Ecological feedbacks
following deforestation create the potential for a catastrophic ecosystem shift in tropical dry forest.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences US 104(52), 20696–20701.
Lavelle, P. and Spain, A.V. (2001) Soil Ecology, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London.
Legendre, P., Dale, M.R.T., Fortin M-J., Casrain, P; and Gurevitch, J. (2004) Effects of spatial structures on
the results of field experiments. Ecology 85(12), 3202–3214.
Levin, S.A. (2000) Multiple scales and the maintenance of biodiversity. Ecosystems 3, 498–506.
Levin, S.A. (2005) Self-organization and the emergence of complexity in ecological systems. BioScience 55,
1075–1079.
Lindenmayer, D.B. and Fischer, J. (2006) Tackling the habitat fragmentation panchreston. TRENDS in
Ecology and Evolution 22, 127–132.
Loik M.E., Breshears, D.D., Lauenroth, W.K. and Belnap, J. (2004) A multi-scale perspective of water pulses
in dryland ecosystems: climatology and ecohydrology of the western USA. Oecologia 141, 269–281.
Mackey, B.G. and Lindenmayer, D.B. (1991) Towards a hierarchical framework for modelling the spatial
distribution of animals. Journal of Biogeography 28, 1147–1166.
Macleay, R. (2004) Regeneration response after removal of Lantana camara L. from mixed forest in the lower
Bellinger valley, northern New South Wales. Ecological Management & Restoration 5, 70–71.
Maestre, F.T., Bowker, M.A., Puche, M.D., Hinojosa, M.B., Martínez, I., Garcia-Palacios, P., Castillo, A.P.,
Soliveres, S., Luzuriaga, A.L., Sánchez, A.M., Carreira, J.A., Gallardo, A. and Escudero, A. (2009) Shrub
encroachment can reverse desertification in semi-arid Mediterranean grasslands. Ecology Letters 12, 930–
941.
Magnusson, W.E. (2001) Catchments as basic units of management in conservation biology courses.
Conservation Biology 15(5), 1464–1465.
Malcolm, J.R., Liu, C., Neilson, R.P., Hansen, L. and Hannah, L. (2006) Global warming and extinctions of
endemic species from biodiversity hotspots. Conservation Biology 20, 538–548.
155

Manzoni, S. and Porporato, A. (2007) A theoretical analysis of nonlinearities and feedbacks in soil carbon and
nitrogen cycles. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 39, 1542–1556.
Margules, C.R. and Pressey, R.L. (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405, 243–253.
Marks, C.O. (2007) The causes of variation in tree seedling traits: the roles of environmental selection versus
chance. Evolution 61(2), 455–469.
Marks, C.O and Lechowicz, M.J. (2006) Alternative designs and the evolution of functional diversity. The
American Naturalist 167(1), 55–66.
Martens, S.N., Breshears, D.D. and Meyer, C.W. (2000) Spatial distributions of understorey light along the
grassland/forest continuum: effects of cover, height, and spatial pattern of tree canopies. Ecological
Modelling 126, 79–93.
Meir, P., Cox, P. and Grace, J. (2006) The influence of terrestrial ecosystems on climate. TRENDS in Ecology
and Evolution 21, 254–260.
Memmott, J., Craze, P.G., Waser, N.M. and Price, M.V. (2007) Global warming and the disruption of plantpolinator
interactions. Ecology Letters 10, 710–717.
Miller, J.R. and Hobbs, R.J. (2007) Habitat restoration — Do we know what we’re doing? Restoration Ecology
15, 382–390.
Miller, S.D., Goulden, M.L. and da Rocha, H.R. (2007) The effect of canopy gaps on subcanopy ventilation
and scalar fluxes in a tropical forest. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 142, 25–34.
Myers, J.A. and Harms, K.E. (2009) Seed arrival, ecological filters, and plant species richness: a meta-analysis.
Ecology Letters 12, 1250–1260.
Myers, J.A. and Kitajima, K. (2007) Carbohydrate storage enhances seedling shade and stress tolerance in a
neotropical forest. Journal of Ecology 95, 383–395.
Newman, B.D., Wilcox, B.P., Archer, S.R., Breshears, D.D., Dahm, C.N., Duffy, C.J., McDowell, N.G.,
Phillips, F.M., Scanlon, B.R. and Vivoni, E.R. (2006) Ecohydrology of water-limited environments: A
scientific vision. Water Resources Research 42, W06302, doi:10.1029/2005WR004141.
Ngugi, M.R. (2007) Application of a Forest Dynamics Simulation Model to Native Vegetation Management
in Queensland. In: Oxley, L. and Kulasiri, D. (eds) MODSIM 2007 International Congress on Modelling
and Simulation. Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand, December 2007, pp.
2182–2188. ISBN : 978-0-9758400-4-7.
http:/www.mssanz.au/modsim07/papers/41_s34/ApplicationOfForest_s34_Ngugi_.pdf.
Norman, J.A., Rheindt, F.E., Rowe, D.L. and Christidis, L. (2007) Speciation dynamics in the Australo-
Papuan Meliphaga honeyeaters. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 42, 80–91.
Orrock, J.L., Levey, D.J., Danielson, B.J. and Damschen, E.I. (2006) Seed predation, not seed dispersal,
explains the landscape-level abundance of an early-successional plant. Journal of Ecology 94, 838–845.
Padilla, F.M. and Pugnaire, F.I. (2006) The role of nurse plants in the restoration of degraded environments.
Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 4, 196–202.
Pannell, D.J. (2009) INFFER: Investment Framework for Environmental Resources http://www.inffer.org.
Pate, J.S., Verboom, W.H. and Galloway, P.D. (2001) Co-occurrence of Proteaceae, laterite and related
oligotrophic soils: coincidental associations or causative inter-relationships? Australian Journal of Botany 49,
529–560.
Patricelli, G.L. and Blickley, J.L. (2006) Avian communication in urban noise: causes and consequences of
coval adjustment. The Auk 123, 639–649.
Pearson, R.G. and Dawson, T.P. (2003) Predicting the impacts of climate change on the distribution of
species: are bioclimate envelope models useful? Global Ecology & Biogeography 12, 361–371.
Pendall, E., Rustad, L. and Schimel, J. (2008) Towards a predictive understanding of belowground process
responses to climate change: have we moved any closer? Functional Ecology 22, 937–940.
Pendry, C.A., Dick, J., Pullan, M.R., Kneew, S.G., Miller, A.G., Neale, S. and Watson, M.F. (2007) In search
of a functional flora — towards a greater integration of ecology and taxonomy. Plant Ecology 192, 161–167.
156

Pinay, G., Barbera, P., Carreras-Palou, A., Fromin, N., Sonie, L., Couteaux, M.M., Roy, J., Phillippot, L.,
Lensi, R. (2007) Impact of atmospheric Co2 and plant life forms on soil microbial activities. Soil Biology and
Biochemistry 39, 33–42.
Plowman, K.P. (1979) Litter and soil fauna of two Australian subtropical soils. Aust. J. Ecol. 4, 87–104.
Poorter, L., Bongers, F., Sterck, F.J. and Woll, H. (2005) Beyond the regeneration phase: differentiation of
height-light trajectories among tropical tree species. Journal of Ecology 93, 256–267.
Pypker, T.G., Unsworth, M.H., Lamb, B., Allwine, E., Edburg, S., Sulzman, E., Mix, A.C. and Bond, B.J.
(2007) Cold air drainage in a forested valley: Investigating the feasibility of monitoring ecosystem
metabolism. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 145, 149–166.
Roth, B.E., Slatton, K.C. and Cohen, M.J. (2007) On the potential for high-resolution lidar to improve rainfall
interception estimates in forest ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 5(8), 421–428.
SER (2004) The SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration. Society for Ecological Restoration
International, Science & Policy Working Group (Version 2: October, 2004).
Scheffer, M. and Carpenter, S.R. (2003) Catastrophic regime shifts in ecosystems: linking theory to
observation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18, 648–656.
Schenk, H.J. (2006) Root competition: beyond resource depletion. Journal of Ecology 94, 725–739.
Smil, V. (2000) Phosphorus in the environment: Natural flows and human interferences. Annual Review of
Energy & Environment 25, 53–88.
Stampe, E.D. and Daehler, C.C. (2003) Mycorrhizal species identity affects plant community structure and
invasion: a microcosm study. Oikos 100(2), 362–372.
Stratford, J.A. and Robinson, W.D. (2005) Gulliver travels to the fragmented tropics: geographic variation in
mechanisms of avian extinction. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 3, 85–92.
Suding, K.N. and Hobbs, R.J. (2009) Models of Ecosystem Dynamics as Frameworks for Restoration
Ecology. In: New models for ecosystem dynamics and restoration, eds R.J. Hobbs and K.N. Suding, pp. 3–21.
Island Press.
Suding, K.N., Gross, K.L. and Houseman, G.R. (2004) Alternative states and positive feedbacks in
restoration ecology. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 19(1), 46–53.
Ter Steege, H., Pitman, N., Sabatier, D., Castellanos, H., van der Hout, P., Daly, D.C., Silveira, M., Phillips,
O., Vasquez, R., van Andel, T., Duivenvoorden, J., de Oliveira, A.A., Ek, R., Lilwah, R., Thomas, R., van
Essen, J., Baider, C., Maas, P., Mori, S., Terborgh, J., Vargas, P.N., Mogollon, H. and Morawetz, W. (2003)
A spatial model of tree alpha–diversity and tree density for the Amazon. Biological Conservation 12, 2255–
2277.
Thuiller, W., Lavorel, S., Sykes, M.T. and Araujo, M.B. (2006) Using niche-based modelling to assess the
impact of climate change on tree functional diversity in Europe. Diversity and Distributions 12, 49–60.
Uriarte, M., Canham, C.D., Thompson, J., Zimmerman, J.K. and Brokaw, N. (2005) Seedling recruitment in a
hurricane-driven tropical forest: light limitation, density-dependence and the spatial distribution of parent
trees. Journal of Ecology 93, 291–304.
Van der Putten, W.H., Bardgett, R.D., de Ruiter, P.C., Hol, W.H.G., Meyer, K.M., Bezemer, T.M., Bradford,
M.A., Christensen, S., Eppinga, M.B., Fukama, T., Hemerik, L., Molofsky, J., Shadlert, M., Scherber, C.,
Strauss, S.Y., Vos, M. and Wardle, D.A. (2009) Empirical and theoretical challenges in abovegroundbelowground
ecology. Oecologia 161, 1–14.
Vernimmen, R.R.E., Verhoef, H.A., Verstraten, J.M., Bruijnzeel, L.A., Klomp, N.S., Zoomer, H.R. and
Wartenbergh, P.E. (2007) Nitrogen mineralization, nitrification and denitrification potential in contrasting
lowland rain forest types in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 39, 2992–3003.
Vitousek, P. (2006) Ecosystem science and human-environment interactions in the Hawaiian archipelago.
Journal of Ecology 93, 510–521.
Walker, B. (1995) Conserving biological diversity through ecosystem resilience. Conservation Biology 9(4), 747–
752.
Warman, L. and Moles, A.T. (2009) Alternative stable states in Australia’s Wet Tropics: A theoretical
157

framework for the field data and a field-case for the theory. Landscape Ecology 24, 1–13.
Wiens, J.A. (1989) The Ecology of Bird Communities, Volume I, Foundations and Patterns; Volume II, Processes and
Variations. ISBN 0521 260 302 (Vol.I) and ISBN 0521 365 589 (Vol.II).
Williams, J.W. and Jackson, S.T. (2007) Novel climates, no-analog communities, and ecological surprises.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9(5), 475–482.
Williams, J.E. and Woinarski, J.C.Z. (1997) Eucalypt ecology: overview and outlook. In: Eucalypt Ecology:
Individuals to Ecosystems, eds J.E. Williams and J.C.Z. Woinarski, pp.402–411. Cambridge University Press.
Willis, K.J. and Whittaker, R.J. (2002) Species diversity — scale matters. Science 295, 1245–1248.
Willmott, W.F. and Hayne, (2001) Slope stability and its constraints on closer settlement, Springbook Plateau
and upper Tallebudgera and Currumbin Valleys, south-east Queensland / W.F. Willmott & M Hayne
Dept. of Mines and Energy, Brisbane.
Wilson, J.W. and Agnew, A.D.Q. (1992) Positive-feedback switches in plant communities. Advances in
Ecological Research 23, 263–336.
Wilson, J.B. and Agnew, A.D.Q. (1992) Positive-feedback switches in plant communities. Advances in Ecological
Research 23, 264–336.
Wilson, R.D., Trueman, J.W.H., Willias, S.E. and Yeates, D.K. (2007) Altitudinally restricted communities of
Schizophoran flies in Queensland’s Wet Tropics: vulnerability to climate change. Biodiversity Conservation 16,
3163–3177.
Worm, B. and Duffy, J.E. (2003) Biodiversity, productivity and stability in real food webs. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution 18, 628–632.
Young, T.P., Chase, J.M. and Huddleston, R.T. (2001) Community succession and assembly: Comparing,
contrasting and combining paradigms in the context of ecological restoration. Ecological Restoration 19, 5–
18.
158