As climate changes, some plant species will start to die out in areas where climate becomes unsuited for them. Individual plants will not be able to move to find new areas where climate is more suitable, of course, but through seed dispersal, some species may be able to establish new colonies in areas that become suitable.  In this way, the species or population may be able to survive by moving through the landscape and thus ‘keeping up’ with climate change. But this will be made more difficult if the landscape is fragmented by agriculture, or if the species has poor seed dispersal. Which species will be able to move fast enough, and which will lag behind? Can we do anything to help them? The answer to these questions can be provided by PPunCC.

Not punk:

But PPunCC!

PPunCC (Plant Persistence under Climate Change) is a new model that predicts the likelihood of plant species being able to move through fragmented landscapes fast enough to keep up with changing climates. The image at the top shows a ‘birds-eye-view’ of a fragmented landscape. There is a climate gradient from dry in the east (right) to wetter in the west (left). Here we are simulating one species that likes a relatively dry climate. At the beginning, the climate in the far east is suitable for this species, but over time the climate becomes drier, and the part of the landscape suitable for the plant moves towards the west. Red areas are unsuitable for the species, because they have the wrong soil type, or are cleared for agriculture or urbanisation. Orange cells are suitable in terms of soil and land use, but do not currently have any of the species growing there, probably because the climate is too wet or dry, while white and yellow cells have a population of the species. The lighter the cell, the more populated it is. Can you see the population moving across the landscape over time? The middle plot shows the total population at different points along the gradient as time changes, and the bottom plot shows the total population size over time.

This species is one of the lucky ones. It moves fast enough to survive. But we simulated thousands of different types of plants with different characteristics, and found that the future was not bright for many of them. Trees fared particularly badly; few were predicted to move fast enough to keep up with the changing climate, mainly because of the relatively long time they need to establish, mature, and produce seed. In the top PPUNCC image, notice that there is a kind of orange path through he landscape. This shows an example where we have simulated some targeted restoration to produce a corridor through the unsuitable landscape. Such targeted restoration does increase the number of species predicted to survive, but not by a huge amount. This warns us that we may need to consider options like assisted migration or translocation of species if we don’t want to lose our most vulnerable plant species.

The critical question we face is how to maintain the health of our State Forests as we face the challenges of a drying climate, an inheritance of massive disturbance and mounting examples of tree decline. It is very urgent to begin to devise such a plan because we may not have the luxury of decades to reflect on the solutions before more widespread tree deaths and other ecological impacts become critical.

Given the habit of Jarrah to regrow dense thickets after intense logging I believe that to assist forest health will require well managed thinning programmes where we have the background research to justify them. The Forest Management Plan needs to provide the justifications for such management based on past research both at Wungong but more generally from decades of post-disturbance thinning. All field operations must be precautionary. Yet most of all we will need the courage to act as we explore resilience. Otherwise we will have widespread and unacceptable tree decline and dead forest patches on our collective consciences.

Facing these problems is made all the more difficult by the conceptual legacy with which the various stakeholders are so thoroughly imbued after decades of the “logging debate”. I would love to see the letting go of entrenched arguments around the old paradigms of conservation versus logging, given the level of disturbance in most State forest outside the reserve system. The concept of ‘health’ offers a helpful first principle to begin anew because, at least in theory, it is an objective that all stakeholders do share. So the management experience that foresters offer can be uncoupled from having to supply particular categories of timber demand to focus on restoration of past disturbance and ways to maximise resilience and carbon storage. In turn the greenies might need to drop their instinctive distrust of any and all management proposals, climb out of their trenches and bring their deep commitment to bear on establishing a new paradigm. And the scientists? They need our support to devise research and management solutions with insight and courage. In that way we can work together for the greater cause of putting the forest health first.

Our knowledge of the dynamics of forest ecosystem health is still small but not insignificant. Existing knowledge, critical new research programmes and precautionary applied science can form the basis of management: the test for all management, whether that is more disturbances or none, should become whether it fosters the resilience of the trees and all life in the forests. I propose that ecosystem health becomes the guiding principle of the next Forest Management Plan.

What a herculean effort the symposium of October 21st was. As an audience member the passion of the speakers shone through on a broad range of topics; I wouldn’t want to be a Phytophthora spore in Peter Scott’s line of sight for instance.

For Water Corporation, it was the perfect time to listen to the knowledge presented and reflect on the current findings of the Wungong Catchment Trial. The intellectual discussion that took place around the Trial clearly solidified our common value for the future of the northern jarrah forest. I thought this would be a good medium to reaffirm the purpose of the Trial and what determines its continuation. It may appease many questions out there and invoke curiosity to investigate the science behind it.

The progress and continuation of the Trial is based on the overall water and environmental benefits achieved. The data collected so far has encouraged Water Corporation to continue. It is just one part of our multi-faceted supply and demand strategy to achieve climate resilience for the Integrated Water Supply Scheme. The Trial has helped us understand ways ground water levels can be restored by managing the forest back to its original water-efficient structure. By favouring large trees, about 30 to 50 trees per hectare are retained which promotes an old-growth structure close to the one that used to exist. The Department of Environment and Conservation’s silviculture guidelines is the framework in which this is done to ensure overall forest health is maintained or exceeded. Over 12 years since 2005, this treatment will cover 2800 ha out of the 12,485 ha that is the Wungong Catchment.

Progress is reviewed through 18 Key Performance Indicators that are weighed up. This ranges from biodiversity studies for flora, fauna and aquatic fauna, nutrient and forest health monitoring as well as stream flow and hydrological data. The objective of the Trial is to determine how water yields from catchments can be increased whilst maintaining a sustainable forest environment.

Findings can be found at www.watercorporation.com.au/wungong

You can also subscribe to Wungong Whispers for regular updates on the Trial.

NB This posting contains quotes from a previous posting by John Clarke in bold. Reactions by Colin Fairclough are in plain format.

My thanks, also, for the hard work the Symposium workers / presenters / caterers/ etc, did. I was also moved by the palpable commitment (connection) the majority of researchers projected.

Background:
I am a member of the most under-represented demograph at the Symposium, and the most *under-represented demograph* in the development of WA’s current Forestry Policy. We have the ‘least’ effective input to current Forest Management Planning. I attended the Symposium as an optimistic participant, in the drive for achievable, sustainable, community ‘acceptable’ solutions, to a *forest* in crisis (“The Peoples Forest”). Several times, on the day, I felt I was propelled back to the 1980’s. Thankfully, Paul Barber succinctly highlighted that the word ‘community’ was under-represented in discussions / presentations, broaching policy planning, thereby negating ‘community’ driven solution strategies / options.

“I’m still worried that there was/is not enough articulation of and widespread support for clear, realistic and achievable actions to redress some of the problems identified”.

Widespread support will come (if it was meant to come) by an *OPEN and INCLUSIVE involvement* of all stakeholders, as was enthusiastically discussed and positively received in the closing stages of the Symposium Wrap-Up.

“Some of the small scale projects on small reserves as reported at the symposium are fine, but there is a need to take actions on large, landscape scales”.

The precautionary principle must apply. NO action should be undertaken on a large scale, until it is ‘unequivocally’ proven to be sustainable, effective and ecologically appropriate (Through an open process).
All parties (not just the IFA, DEC, FPC and Industry) need to stop forcing short term cycles (long term impacts!) on the Peoples Forest in search of ‘preferred’ outcomes. Any thinning ‘TRIAL’ MUST be scaled / paced accordingly, and with full community support. ‘Blanket thinning’ of all forest types, on all soil types, in a rapidly diminishing rainfall environment is fundamentally flawed. Sudden clearing of native vegetation has ALWAYS precipitated Salinity issues in WA.
As noted, at the Symposium, by Dr Neil Davidson, of the CRC on Forestry, the (unacceptable) risk of depleting genetic health of the current (industry created) re-growth, by way of wholesale thinning, will compromise the genetics of the healthiest, most vigorous ‘disease resistant’ individuals ( forests), going forward. The Timber Industry (major beneficiary of any subsequent forest products) must provide comprehensive research infrastructure / funds for any / all thinning trials. The minimum infrastructure would include comprehensive (independent) ecological, geological and hydrological studies (baseline and ongoing) (All data would be publicly available).

“There are really only two tools at our disposal: use of fire and silviculture (thinning)”.

This position (dichotomy) is an IFA policy position. Fire could actually deliver a new paradigm of forest structure. It’s a diverse ecosystem, NOT a plantation. (eg. A struggling canker infested Marri forest, is highly possible, post burning.) Natural, time-driven selection may be the safest route for Jarrah thinning. All options on a, ‘small scale’ and ‘long term’, time frame need to be given EQUAL weight. Repeat Message! Sudden clearing of native vegetation has ALWAYS precipitated Salinity issues in WA.

“Foresters are generally unanimous in their views in this regard, but their voices tend not to be widely heard”.

Not so.
The IFA is far more influential at the current policy level than are all non-fiscally *dependent stakeholders*. (*My demographic.) (e.g.: The recently released FMP for Karri and for the Dryandra mallet.)
The IFA work with the assistance of FPC and DEC, and have a far greater access to their data, policies and ‘ears’ than the average ‘ forest advocate,’ group or individual has. As confirmed, by Geoff Stoneham DEC, at the symposium, despite forest collapse and climate change, the Jarrah forest harvest rate looks set to continue at the same, or greater, rates in the next Jarrah FMP. The IFA has helped drive that outcome. Many FPC and DEC employees are actually members of the IFA.
‘Generally unanimous’ is like half pregnant.

“I have recently assumed the position of chair of the WA Division of the Institute of Foresters of Australia and will be doing my best to promote our policies”.

Given the Peoples Forest is a public asset; this policy development process should be shared and published widely for full community input.

“Our primary concern is for the ongoing health and welfare of our native forests”.

Here is the ‘Common Ground’ from which all stakeholders ‘could’ work together!
However;
South West Forest communities recognize the primary interest of the IFA, DEC (Forest Division) and the FPC is to ‘commodify’ the Peoples Forests. 100,000 plus Ha of juvenile stands (industry created) proves that ecological values have long been ignored, in seeking a sustainably managed forest.

“(As no doubt most people would be) but unlike some people, foresters accept that our forests can and should be managed for all their values, and that all acceptable users of those forests should be given a fair go”.

(Who does the IFA define as ‘acceptable users and ‘some people’.) At no time since the inception of the IFA, has the timber industry ‘NEVER’ had access to the Peoples Forest for fiscal advantage. The IFA ‘fair go’ policy should be extended to the iconic WA species most at risk of the current and Draft Jarrah FMP plan for The Peoples Forest.
Starting with the ‘building block’. The unique Jarrah Forest itself (and its associated flora / fauna).
On this ‘fair go’ point I would like to see the IFA position change, on the wholesale removal of habitat trees for firewood and for industrial char.
WA has three species of endangered Black Cockatoos. Many of their few remaining habitat hollows are infested with feral bees, invasive parrots and galahs, kookaburras and other secondary species.
This firewood/char industry is the lowest possible value use possible for stored carbon, let alone viable habitat.

“We support sustainable use of forests for timber production”.

Sustainable use means the bole size should not be continually diminishing. But it is. If the IFA has a ‘desire’ to restore health to our failing Jarrah Forest, they are to be commended. However, this process must be ecologically driven, and not used as a tool to set up another income stream capitalising on the industry created ‘toothpick’ forest.

“I was encouraged by the remarks from Chrissy Sharp”.

Dr Sharp, I believe, suggested thinning TRIALS, which is an acceptable concept to many.
(Such trials would need to be done at a small scale, independently managed and researched. At all stages they must be community driven and accountable to full and open public scrutiny). I also recall her emphasis on reconciliation and moving forward.. She stated that the largest remaining jarrah trees should be left standing (Something never on the IFA RADAR).
I am sure Christine Sharp will clarify her position.

BIG PICTURE STUFF
* Open inclusive: dialogue, research and policy development, is the way forward.
* Without prioritizing Ecology over production more forest collapses are imminent.
* Treatment options should be based on sound independent science (small scale and open trials) and must be ecologically driven.
* These trials should be compared to all other options including ‘do nothing’ options.
* The IFA, FPC, DEC must immediately establish hardwood plantations to supply industry.
* The true history of WA’s forestry management can be found by analyzing the continually ignored recommendations of WA Royal Commissions of 1903 and 1922 and other subsequent Official Enquiries into Forestry.
* Recommended reading “The Trees That Were Natures Gift”, Irene Cunningham,
(If you want to know about how we no longer have, what we once did.)

Un-doctored photo of Neil Murray, (Musician and Writer of “My Island Home”) with what all sustainably logged Jarrah forest should look like.
There are WAY less than 100 of these Ancient trees ALIVE on the Earth.
Trees like this were still being logged in the Eighties. (Under the watch of DEC, FPC (CALM) and the IFA.) (Copyright_2002)

A quick note to say thanks to the Centre of Excellence team for a great symposium on Friday (21st October 2011). The enthusiasm of all the researchers came through strongly, although I’m still worried that there was/is not enough articulation of and widespread support for clear, realistic and achievable actions to redress some of the problems identified.

Some of the small scale projects on small reserves as reported at the symposium are fine, but there is a need to take actions on large, landscape scales. As far as the public forest estate goes, there are really only two tools at our disposal: use of fire and silviculture, and by silviculture I mean appropriate tree thinning on overstocked jarrah stands in particular.

Foresters are generally unanimous in their views in this regard, but their voices tend not to be widely heard.

I have recently assumed the position of chair of the WA Division of the Institute of Foresters of Australia and will be doing my best to promote our policies. Our primary concern is for the ongoing health and welfare of our native forests (as no doubt most people would be) but unlike some people, foresters accept that our forests can and should be managed for all their values, and that all acceptable users of those forests should be given a fair go. We support sustainable use of forests for timber production and are opposed to the view that our forests should be left to their own devices and “locked up”. In that regard I was encouraged by the remarks from Chrissy Sharp, former Greens MP, who pleaded for her fellow “greens” to accept that some thinning  is necessary for the forests’ sake.

Again, thanks for conducting a fine symposium.

Check out this news story which was aired last night on the ABC, featuring our very own Giles Hardy and George Matusick.

The Murdoch University Climate Change Teaching Network is proud to present Climate Talk. This is a free, half-day event for students, staff and the wider community. The event will showcase teaching about climate change, provide opportunities for researchers and teachers to connect and provide space for conversation about the dilemmas and burning issues related to climate change. For research centers such as the Centre of Excellence for Climate Change Woodland and Forest Health, Climate Talk provides an opportunity to enthuse students and their teachers to engage in research. For students and teachers, this opportunity to meet with researchers might lead to cutting edge, interdisciplinary honours or masters projects, in a geographical area that is already obtaining international attention for its wide-scale forest decline as a consequence of drought and other environmental changes.

The program for the day will include:

12.00   Climate change teaching and research nexus  workshop

14.00   Dystopia  – a play by Moody Theatre

14.15    Climate Q&A

16.00   Sundowner

All day  Tackling Climate Change Creative Exhibition

For details of this event visit http://www.istp.murdoch.edu.au/ISTP/seminars/ClimateTalk2011.html or contact Dr Davina Boyd / telephone 0415912211 if you would like to be involved or have any queries.

I have recently attended the 8^th World Congress of the International Association for Landscape Ecology (IALE) in Beijing, China. I have been a member of this organisation since the start of my academic career. The concept of landscape ecology appeals to me because of its breadth and integrative nature. It takes a holistic approach in the way we look, live and interact with our “landscape”, and incorporates theories and concepts from both the natural and social sciences. Landscape ecology is unique as a discipline in terms of how it looks at the system under study. It recognises that different elements in the landscape, like forest patches, agricultural land and urban areas, are not contained but interact with each other. It further recognises that landscapes and ecosystems are heterogeneous, consisting of different components unevenly distributed across space, and are continuously changing over time. These characteristics make it a unique discipline within ecology.

It has been argued that in order to work together as scientists, practitioners and the general public, a strategy needs to be developed that can unite our different ways of thinking. To have a framework that people understand and agree upon would be a big step forward in our mission to make our woodlands and forests a place we can enjoy now and in the future.

Within the separate research disciplines there are only few that aim to integrate knowledge and have a sufficient spatial scope that can address large scale issues such as climate change. Landscape ecology is a research discipline that aims to do just that!

Landscape ecological concepts and tools can help us understand the processes that are taking place across the southwest of Western Australia. For instance, technological tools like geographical information systems (GIS) can be used to view and analyse the landscape across scales. The increasing availability of satellite and other airborne imagery has greatly facilitated the advancements in landscape ecology. Now we can use these products and tools to monitor and see our environment change over time. We can see what is happening, when it has happened, and where. This enables us to allocate our resources to the right places and perform more in-depth investigations on the ground to see what climate change is doing and what we potentially can do about it. Using digital maps is further a great way of showing what is going on around us (see picture). We can now potentially investigate and show what is going on in our back garden, our local nature reserve, or the forests across the southwest and beyond.

Climate change does not discriminate so equally will impact on all these separate landscape elements. We will have to accept that the southwest of WA is likely to become drier and hotter over time. Integrating our knowledge on what this will mean for our living environment and beyond is a challenge we have to face. We have to start this process now to be able to make a difference. Landscape ecology might just be the framework we can use to unite our different ways of thinking and come up with sustainable solutions. It would be great to hear your thoughts on this, i.e. if you think that a landscape ecological framework might be a good way of addressing these issues.

Map_GE_Landscape_complexity_Bungendore_Common

A great way to explore the the landscape is using Google Earth (free download http://www.google.com/earth/index.html ). This image shows the area surrounding Armadale/Bedfordale. The green outlines are indicating parks and recreational areas. This clearly shows the complexities of the landscape, particularly between urban and ‘green’ areas, with small recreational areas dotted throughout, and larger natural forested areas intersecting and bordering the urban areas.

Please register here, early bird registration closes Friday September 2nd!

Link to PDF:
Healthy Forests Symposium 2011 Flyer

Excerpt from: Ruthrof, K. X. and Valentine, L. E. (2010) Ecological, economic and social challenges, restoration filters and planning for the unknown. Australasian Plant Conservation 19 (3) 34-35.

Since European settlement, large areas of Australia have been degraded by various anthropogenic disturbances. This large-scale degradation has lead to a growing desire from the community, conservationists, scientists and land managers to develop techniques to restore these areas. However, restoration faces a range of ecological, economic and social challenges.

Ecological challenges encountered in broadscale restoration include basic, on-ground issues such as the availability of propagules, the ability to germinate a large range of species, successful control techniques for invasive species (pre and post restoration), and choice of species available (functional types, keystone species, faunal requirements, palatability and competitive ability). There are also the emerging challenges of a reduction in rainfall, higher temperatures, and perhaps a higher risk of frost events. Such ecological challenges are technical constraints, and although significant, is only part of the problem (Geist and Galatowitsch 1999).

Financial resources made available for restoration are often quite limited. Therefore, expensive machinery or propagules (e.g. some species can reach prices of $4/gm) may be out of reach of some projects. The longer term significance of some species—the use of cheap annual species versus more expensive perennials—is also important, and restorationists must determine the best long-term ecological ‘bang for your buck’. Given these ecological and economic challenges, the resultant vegetation community may be very different from the one practitioners had in mind at the planning stages of the project.

Restoration projects face an additional array of social-political challenges. These include choosing which site will be restored, the goals and values for that site, the amount of community support, personal preferences, and the amount of time and labour available to the project, especially in the long term. These are primarily human challenges, and unless overcome, ongoing commitment from land managers, practitioners and the community to restoration projects will likely be limited and it will not be possible to undertake larger scale restoration.

The community is often seen as a group of individuals for use as cheap labour. However, commitment to, and success of, restoration projects could be increased by development of a beneficial relationship between humans and the natural environment. There are various benefits of community involvement in restoration, including the involvement of hard working, enthusiastic people with a depth of local knowledge, experience and a sense of stewardship that can drive the sustained support for restoration. Benefits of restoration to the community are also broad-ranging and include restoring community spirit and improving agency-community relations as well as providing psychological and physiological benefits.

Restoration projects, particularly on public lands, may be more successful in the long term when the community, restoration ecologists, managers and practitioners create an evolving restoration plan together. Perhaps working together in the early stages of planning a restoration project will enhance the filter for the benefit of both the restoration area and the community involved.