Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Vegetation Community Characteristics
for use as
Restoration Goals and Guidelines in the Sutherland Shire by
CALLY HOWE
A research report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the
award of the degree of
HONOURS BACHELOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
ENVIRONMENTAL SCENCE PROGRAM
FACULTY OF SCIENCE
THE UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG
October 2005
ii
- Acknowledgments –
There have been many people who have provided invaluable assistance and support
throughout the production of this report.
Firstly, I would like to thank my parents Glenn and Jane Howe, as well as Cheyne
Ramsay for their support, patience and assistance throughout this project. I am
especially grateful for their assistance with fieldwork, which involved many hours
finding appropriate sites and counting thousands of plants. Thankyou also to Cheyne
for his comments on the initial drafts.
Thankyou very much to my supervisors Assoc. Prof. Kris French and Ian Drinnan
from the Sutherland Shire Council, for their help in the project design and support
throughout its production. Thankyou very much to Kris French for her invaluable
comments and advice on the final drafts.
Thankyou to Belinda Pellow who helped with the identification of many of my
plants.
Thankyou also to my other field assistants Kim Ralph, Shelley Reis, Melanie Parsons
and Naomi Strakosch.
iii
- Abstract –
Degradation of bushland, as a result increased human impacts is an important
problem facing the world today. Restoration is required to repair this damage,
however, many projects take a superficial approach to restoration, resulting in
communities that do not persist or develop into the bushland that has been lost. The
current restoration goals for the Sutherland Shire are insufficient and do not
differentiate between vegetation communities or specify the species richness or the
vegetation composition required. A more ecological approach is required to
overcome these issues.
This study aimed at improving the current guidelines based on the three main
vegetation communities in the area, Ridge, Gully and Riparian. With current
functioning bushland used as reference information, quadrat data for each of these
vegetation communities was gathered at various locations around the Sutherland
shire for density, structure, species richness and composition.
The results demonstrated the intrinsic differences between vegetation communities on
Hawkesbury sandstone in the Sutherland Shire. There were clear differences
apparent in all aspects of each vegetation communities characteristics.
As a result of these differences, separate distinct restoration guidelines were
formulated based on each vegetation communities attributes. The resulting guidelines
will enable areas to be revegetated appropriately, depending on their corresponding
vegetation type representing the natural community intended as closely as possible.
If, through monitoring, this method proves successful; this method of guideline
formulation can be used to assist restoration in various other locations and could set
a benchmark for future revegetation throughout Australia.
iv
- Table of Contents –
Title Page .................................................................................................................. i
Acknowledgments..................................................................................................... ii
Abstract..................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents...................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures.......................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ...........................................................................................................viii
List of Plates................................................................................................................ix
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
1.1 Restoration........................................................................................................1
1.2 Problems with past restoration efforts and how they can be overcome........... 3
1.3 Revegetation aims for the Sutherland Shire..................................................... 5
1.4 Aims of this report............................................................................................ 6
CHAPTER 2 Vegetation Communities
2.1 Introduction.................................................................................................... 8
2.1.1 Value of urban bushland..................................................................... 8
2.1.2 Degradation of urban bushland.......................................................... 9
2.1.3 Vegetation Communities.................................................................... 10
a) Ridge............................................................................................... 12
b) Gully............................................................................................... 13
c) Riparian.......................................................................................... 14
2.1.4 Aims................................................................................................... 15
2.2 Methods.......................................................................................................... 16
2.2.1 Site Selection...................................................................................... 16
2.2.2 Quadrat Flora Surveying..................................................................... 17
2.2.3 Data analysis...................................................................................... 20
2.3 Results............................................................................................................ 22
2.3.1 Ridge.................................................................................................. 23
v
2.3.2 Gully................................................................................................ 28
2.3.3 Riparian............................................................................................ 39
2.4 Discussion.................................................................................................... 45
2.4.1 Vegetation Community variables.................................................... 45
2.4.2 Variability within vegetation communities..................................... 47
2.4.3 Conclusions..................................................................................... 48
CHAPTER 3 Restoration Guidelines
3.1 Introduction.................................................................................................. 49
3.2 Goals for Restoration of Urban Bushland.................................................... 50
3.3 Restoration Principles................................................................................... 51
3.3.1 Density.............................................................................................. 51
3.3.2 Structure............................................................................................ 52
3.3.3 Diversity............................................................................................ 53
3.3.4 Species Composition......................................................................... 54
3.4 Guideline Development................................................................................ 56
3.4.1 Methods for guideline formulation................................................... 56
3.4.2 Application........................................................................................ 58
3.5 Guidelines..................................................................................................... 59
3.5.1 Ridge................................................................................................. 59
3.5.2 Gully................................................................................................. 62
3.5.3 Riparian............................................................................................. 67
3.6 Development Issues...................................................................................... 70
3.6.1 Size and Location of area................................................................. 70
3.6.2 Availability of Stock....................................................................... 70
3.6.3 Ongoing Management...................................................................... 71
3.6.4 Monitoring........................................................................................ 72
CHAPTER 4 Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Work 4.1 Recommendations for Future Research........................................................ 73
4.2 Conclusions.................................................................................................. 74
vi
REFERENCES....................................................................................................... 75
APPENDICES.......................................................................................................... 83
vii
- List of Figures – 1.1 Different approaches for improving a damaged ecosystem........................... 2
2.1 Vegetation map of the Vegetation communities in the Sutherland Shire...... 11
2.3 Location of quadrats using for data collection............................................... 19
2.4 MDS of different vegetation communities..................................................... 23
2.5 Ridge structural density proportions...............................................................24
2.6 Ridge cumulative total species....................................................................... 25
2.7 Ridge cumulative species per structural layer............................................... 25
2.8 Percentage abundance of ridge species......................................................... 28
2.9 MDS of different gully aspects...................................................................... 29
2.10 South and East gully structural density proportions...................................... 30
2.11 South and East gully cumulative total species............................................... 31
2.12 South and East gully cumulative species per structural layer....................... 32
2.13 Percentage abundance of south and east gully species................................. 34
2.14 North and West gully structural density proportions.................................... 35
2.15 North and West gully cumulative total species.............................................. 36
2.16 North and West gully cumulative species per structural layer....................... 37
2.17 Percentage abundance of north and west gully species.................................. 39
2.18 Riparian Structural density proportions......................................................... 40
2.19 Riparian cumulative total species................................................................... 41
2.20 Riparian cumulative species per structural layer............................................ 41
2.21 Percentage abundances of riparian species..................................................... 44
3.1 Number of species to plant per unit area for ridge......................................... 61
3.2 Number of species to plant per unit area for south and east facing gully
vegetation........................................................................................................ 64
3.3 Number of species to plant per unit area for north and west facing gully
vegetation........................................................................................................ 66
3.4 Number of species to plant per unit area for riparian vegetation................... 69
viii
- List of Tables –
2.1 Nationally and regionally significant species found....................................... 22
2.2 Mean and percentage structure density for ridge vegetation.......................... 24
2.3 Ridge Vegetation descriptors.......................................................................... 26
2.4 Mean and percentage structure density for south and east facing gully
vegetation........................................................................................................ 30
2.5 South and east facing gully vegetation descriptors......................................... 32
2.6 Mean and percentage structure density for north and west facing gully
vegetation........................................................................................................ 34
2.7 North and west facing gully vegetation descriptors........................................ 37
2.8 Mean and percentage structure density for riparian vegetation...................... 40
2.9 Riparian vegetation descriptors....................................................................... 42
3.1 Ridge revegetation guidelines......................................................................... 60
3.2 South and east facing gully revegetation guidelines....................................... 63
3.3 North and west facing gully revegetation guidelines...................................... 65
3.4 Riparian revegetation guidelines..................................................................... 68
ix
- List of Plates –
2.1 Ridge vegetation...................................................................................... 12
2.2 Gully vegetation....................................................................................... 13
2.3 Riparian vegetation.................................................................................. 14
2.4 Ridge/Gully Intergrading vegetation....................................................... 17
3.1 Ridge vegetation...................................................................................... 59
1
- Chapter 1 -
Introduction Human development results in a loss of native bushland, with much of the remaining
remnants being severely degraded. There is increasing pressure to repair the damage,
with vast numbers of restoration projects conducted in Australia and around the world.
However, many of these projects take a superficial approach to restoration, resulting in
communities that do not persist or develop into the bushland that has been lost (Davies &
Christie, 2001). New, innovative methods are required to increase success in these
projects, and recent advances in ‘restoration ecology’ are suggesting a more ecological
approach is needed.
1.1 Restoration
The term ‘restoration’ encompasses any activity aimed at repairing an ecosystem that has
been damaged (Temperton et al, 2004). It can be defined as ‘the return of an ecosystem to
a close approximation of its condition prior to disturbance (National Research Council,
1992, in Perrow & Davy, 2002). A number of different approaches have been used,
defined as revegetation, rehabilitation and reclamation. All have different endpoints with
different goals (Figure 1.1) with the only true return to an original ecosystem being
ecological restoration.
2
Ecosystem function
(biomass, nutrient content
and cycling)
Replacement ORIGINAL
ECOSYSTEM Restoration
Rehabilitation
Natural processes (primary succession)
Degredation
DEGRADED
ECOSYSTEM
Ecosystem structure
(species & complexity) Figure 1.1: Different approaches for improving a damaged ecosystem (in Perrow & Davy, 2002).
A natural ecosystem has two important attributes; structure and function. The structure
of an ecosystem includes the species and complexity of an ecosystem (Perrow & Davy,
2002), whereas, the function includes the use of habitats by biota for growth, feeding,
reproduction as well as biogeochemical cycling and energy flow (Toth et al., 1995).
A natural healthy ecosystem should have high value of both (Perrow & Davy, 2002).
Often restoration projects do not consider both structure and function (Warren et al.,
2002), and as such, there are many different ways in which projects are undertaken. True
restoration aims to recreate both the structure and function of an ecosystem, with the
ultimate goal being to commensurate a ‘natural, functioning, self-regulating system that
is integrated with the ecological landscape in which it occurs’. (National Research
Council, 1992 in Perrow & Davy, 2002). It is often considered that structure is easier to
3
restore than function (Campbell et al, 2002). However, in some ecosystems it can take up
to 500 years to restore the total age structure (Urbanska et al, 1997), whereas, if effective,
functions can return within 10 years (Urbanska et al, 1997).
Restoration activities can be undertaken in a range of disturbed areas ranging from areas
with minimal weed infestation to areas that are totally cleared with no remaining
vegetation (McLoughlin, 1997). As there are different levels of damage, the attainable
and realistic level of restoration, also changes. In degraded areas both structure and
function would be adversely affected to some extent (Urbanska et al., 1997) and as such,
both need to be repaired. Despite numerous attempts at restoration, few have been
documented as successful, or assessed by ecologists for restoration of both structure and
function (Allen et al., 1997).
1.2.Problems with past restoration efforts and how they can be overcome
The problems with past restoration efforts begin in the initial planning stages. A
common issue is the lack of a ‘conceptual framework’ in restoration (Hobbs & Harris,
2001). The conceptual framework includes addressing what needs to be achieved and
how it can be achieved, including the setting of goals prior to the start (Ehrenfeld, 2000,
Temperton et al, 2004). Frequently, there is no baseline data collected to use for setting
these quantitative goals, or if it had been, it was not appropriate to the project objective or
site (Aronson et al, 1995). Reference communities are commonly recommended
(Clewell & Rieger, 1997 White & Walker, 1997, Buchanan, 1991 Hobbs & Harris, 2001)
which are often nearby sites where parameters such as composition, structure and spatial
heterogeneity can be measured (Hobbs & Harris, 2001). These reference communities
can then be used to develop goals (White & Walker, 1997, Buchanan, 1991).
A lack of other ecological considerations can also be a problem when the ecological
concepts used while developing restoration plans are outdated (Hobbs & Harris, 2001).
One such concept is the misconception that ecological systems can independently return
to a particular equilibrium following a disturbance (Hobbs & Harris, 2001). This is not
4
always the case, as some extreme constant disturbances such as those associated with
urbanisation result in an area potentially unable to return to its natural state without
management and intervention by restorers. There is a need to apply more accurate
scientific principles (Hynes et al., 2004) to ensure that appropriate ecological parameters,
including structure and function can be restored.
As a result of these problems, often restored areas do not represent what they were
designed to replace (Campbell et al, 2002, Hynes et al, 2004, Martin et al, 2005, Wilkens
et al, 2003). In the USA, for instance, wetlands are being created in areas where they did
not previously exist (Campbell et al, 2002). Also, comparisons of restored and natural
riparian zones in Merri Creek, Melbourne, found differences in both composition and
structure (Hynes et al, 2004). Plants were planted in incorrect topographical positions as
well as at incorrect densities (Hynes et al, 2004).
Species richness is commonly lower in restoration efforts (Campbell et al, 2002, Martin
et al, 2005); sometimes purposely done under the misconception that the area will
‘develop’ into the desired community with time as they mature. This quasi-successional
approach is frequently found to be incorrect (Hynes et al, 2004), particularly for those
communities where successional processes are long term or non-existent. Furthermore,
the reliance on seed dispersal from nearby remnants is particularly problematic in the
Sutherland Shire as the majority of species found in this region can only disperse very
short distances. This is because the vegetation associated with the main substrate in this
area, Hawkesbury Sandstone, supports primarily mermechorous species (ant dispersed)
(Westoby et al, 1990) or species which have no dispersal mechanism at all. Thus,
propagules can not travel significant distances to colonise new areas that are remote from
remnants.
A Restoration of Tallgrass prairie in the United States was unsuccessful due to the
required diversity being unable to be restored (Martin et al, 2005). A lack of diversity
has also resulted in restored areas along the Colorado River, USA being unable to support
species which would have previously utilised the vegetation in that community (Nelson
& Anderson, 1999). Restored sites did not provide the required resources essential for
5
butterfly assemblages indigenous to that particular area, thus these species were not
present (Nelson and Anderson, 1999).
Further on this, the ecological success of the remaining restoration projects that have
been undertaken have not been assessed (Hynes et al, 2004). However, if assessment has
been undertaken, monitoring has not been in place from commencement, thus the initial
methods cannot be evaluated (Clewell & Rieger, 1997). As a result, the same restoration
procedure is used repeatedly without knowing whether it is effective or not (Clewell &
Rieger, 1997).
1.3 Restoration/Revegetation aims for the Sutherland Shire
The Sutherland Shire is located in the south of Sydney with boundaries of the Pacific
ocean in the east, the Royal National Park in the south and George’s River and Woronora
Dam in the north and west respectively (Sutherland Shire Council, 2004). Urban
development places pressure on the area, with at least 68% of the area available for
development in the Sutherland Shire having been cleared (Sutherland Shire Council,
2004). This totals approximately 7,450ha with approximately 0.5km2 of bushland
transformed for human usage every year (Sutherland Shire Council, 2004). Urban
clearing, combined with further stresses of urbanisation, as outlined in Chapter 2,
delegate the need for revegetation in this area. Revegetation of the highest possible
standard is a benefit to the council, as it assists nature conservation, maintains water and
air quality and makes suburban areas more aesthetically appealing.
Restoration/Revegetation is required in the Sutherland Shire for various situations:
• to restore an area where vegetation has been illegally removed
• to restore degraded sites. This is commonly carried out by Bushcare groups, and is
very important in urban areas, such as the Sutherland Shire due to the large amount of
degradation associated with urbanisation.
6
• as part of a development consent – this is when restoration of one area is required to
compensate for loss or damage from development (i.e.one hectare is developed and
one hectare must be restored somewhere else to compensate for that loss).
Many revegetation efforts are currently underway in the Sutherland Shire, both voluntary
and enforced. The Sutherland Shire Bushcare group is the largest in Sydney,
maintaining, weeding and revegetating over 153 bushland sites in the area (Sutherland
Shire Council, 2004). As well as voluntary revegetation, there are revegetation projects
underway as part of development consent in areas around Kurnell, and have occurred in
other areas.
To date, there have been few guidelines that are relevant, or have the capacity to ensure
revegetation is of the highest possible standard. Currently there are guidelines for
restoration set up by DIPNR which form part of some current development consents,
however these are seen to be too general and therefore insufficient to restore ecological
structure and function in specific habitats. There is only one set of guidelines being used
regardless of the geological substrate and vegetation community, which do not specify
the desired diversity or species composition of the final community. These
insufficiencies are likely to be the cause of past revegetation failures.
1.4 Aims of this report
This project aimed to improve these guidelines using ecological approaches, and
therefore improve the success of restoration in the Sutherland Shire. The guidelines are
aimed at attempting to recreate vegetation communities that will be representative of
analogous vegetation in the area, functioning, as self-sustaining as possible and resilient.
The new guidelines are based on field surveys of the vegetation within healthy,
functioning vegetation communities. From this information, distinct revegetation
guidelines for the major vegetation communities in the Sutherland Shire were developed
incorporating density and structure as well as diversity and species composition.
7
Recreating vegetation characteristics of natural systems should produce an area that will
develop with minimal future management.
Guidelines of this type are not currently in use in other local councils, thus this data could
be of use, not only for the Sutherland Shire, but also other areas, which have the same
vegetation types. Using reference communities that are currently in existence also
provides the opportunity for future evaluation of the success of this restoration method.
If successful, this study could become a benchmark for future revegetation throughout
Australia.
8
- Chapter 2 -
Vegetation Communities
2.1 Introduction
The Sutherland Shire contains an extensive amount of urban bushland and some
extensive less disturbed areas of natural bushland (e.g. Royal National Park), which is an
integral part of the natural character and beauty of the area. Currently, 200 urban
bushland reserves are listed in the Sutherland Shire, which cover approximately 3000ha
(Sutherland Shire, 2004). Despite the seemingly extensive amount of remnant bushland
remaining, the majority of this has been degraded (personal observation) and is
consistently subjected to further disturbances (Sutherland Shire Council, 2004).
2.1.1 Value of urban bushland
Urban bushland is valuable in maintaining both fauna and flora biodiversity by providing
a refuge from anthropocentric disturbances and by forming wildlife corridors in high-
density urban developments (Sutherland Shire Council, 1990). Corridors can increase
native species immigration rates, thus averting local extinction (Gilfedder & Kirkpatrick,
1998). Bushland can also achieve a natural stabilisation of the soil profile by preventing
wind and water erosion and siltation of the neighbouring estuaries and water ways
(Sutherland Shire Council, 1990).
Furthermore, the valleys of urban bushland can lessen the effects of pollution and rubbish
resulting from run-off, thereby, maintaining the quality of ground and surface waters
(Heemsta, 1994). This “buffer zone”, may also improve air quality by filtering the urban
air (Heemstra, 1994). Anthropocentrically, bushland contributes to the landscape quality
of urban areas (Sutherland Shire Council, 1990), beautifying the area, which in turn
results in a more pleasant place to reside benefiting the real estate value of the area.
Bushland is also important for recreational purposes, such as bushwalking and
9
birdwatching, providing representative samples of natural habitats for educational and
scientific purposes (Heemstra, 1994).
2.1.2 Degradation of urban bushland
Despite the knowledge of the importance of urban bushland, there is a noticeable loss of
quality, biodiversity and integrity, associated with invasion of exotic species and cleared
areas. Some of the degradation in the Sutherland Shire, and other urbanised areas, is the
result of urban runoff (Thomson & Leishman, 2005, Sutherland Shire Council, 1990).
Runoff is usually the result of storm water, sewerage over-flows as well as fertilizers and
pet excrement from gardens (King & Buckney, 2002). Increases in soil moisture and
nutrients associated with runoff, particularly phosphorus, encourage exotic species
growth (King & Buckney, 2002). This is especially significant in this area, as the natural
substrate is typically low in nutrients (Benson & Howell, 1990). Runoff also transports
exotic plant seeds and cuttings from urban gardens to remnants (King & Buckney, 2002).
Another major threat to urban bushland is an altered fire regime. Fire can effect both the
character and species composition of native vegetation (Gilfedder & Kirkpatrick, 1998).
Although bush fires are a natural phenomenon, the altered fire regimes common in urban
bushland can be a threat to the natural composition and life cycles of the plants within.
Many native plant species, such as Hakea and Banksia rely on the heat from fire to
release their seed (Heemsta, 1994), thus too infrequent fires will result in these fire
dependant species being lost (Sutherland Shire Council, 2004). Although, if fires are too
frequent, these species will be unable to complete their lifecycle (Sutherland Shire
Council, 2004) and may become locally extinct. Fire in urban bushland is frequently
instigated for hazard reduction to prevent large fires that endanger urban developments.
This type of fire is commonly of low intensity and occurs frequently, resulting in a loss of
overall biodiversity (Morrison et al, 1996). This type of fire also results in a decline in the
fire reliant species as fire occurs before the newly sprouted plants are able to become fire
tolerant (Bradstock & Myerscough, 1988).
10
Bushland is also cleared for installation and maintenance of necessary community
services such as electricity, gas and water (Sutherland Shire Council, 1990), which
increases runoff. Illegally clearing and subsequent damage to urban bushland in the
Sutherland Shire significantly contributes to remnant degradation and, as a result, council
enforces restoration or revegetation of the illegally damaged area. Bushland can also be
cleared as vegetation ‘trade-offs’ where an area cleared for development with the hope of
restoring bushland elsewhere. However, in both cases, revegetation often results in
unsuitable plantings (Sutherland Shire Council, 1990) that do not represent the bushland
destroyed.
2.1.3 Vegetation Communities
There are at least 23 remnant vegetation communities in the Sutherland Shire, ranging
from Turpentine Forest to Estuarine complexes beside large rivers (Sutherland Shire
Council, 2004)(Figure2.1) depending on underlying geology and associated soil types as
well as climate influences such as rainfall and temperature (Benson & Howell, 1990).
The Sutherland Shire is located primarily on Hawkesbury Sandstone, with small shale
influences form Sutherland to Wooloware as well as shale plateaus at Menai, Lucas
Heights and nearby areas (Benson & Howell, 1990, Sutherland Shire Council, 2004).
Hawkesbury Sandstone is low in nutrients and water holding capacity and has high
species richness, supporting a wide variety of species (Burrough et al, 1977). The
sandstone landscape of the Sutherland Shire is dominated by steep hills topped by long
narrow ridges with deep rocky valleys at the base (Benson & Howell, 1990). These
landscape characteristics influence the vegetation and the area comprises gully
vegetation; which is found on the slopes and along the valleys, ridge vegetation; and
riparian vegetation, found along creeks at the bottom of the valleys.
Most of this remnant bush is found only on steep slopes or beside creeks, as these areas
are unsuitable for housing (Benson & Howell, 1990). Because these vegetation types are
the most common, Ridge, Gully and Riparian communities are the areas most commonly
in need of restoration.
11
Veg map on this page
12
a) Ridge Vegetation
Woodland Ridge vegetation (Plate 2.1) occupies large areas of sandstone around Sydney
commonly in parks and reserves (Benson & Howell, 1990). Ridge vegetation is more
resilient than other vegetation communities (Benson & Howell, 1990). Due to its higher
position it would be less likely to receive the high load of nutrients and weed propagules
compared to other communities, however, it is often the first to be developed (Benson &
Howell, 1990) and is therefore disappearing rapidly. Furthermore, many rare species,
such as Eucalyptus squamosa and Darwinia diminuta, are only found on ridges
(Sutherland Shire Council, 2004), which increases the conservation value.
Plate 2.1: Ridge vegetation located within Jannali Reserve, Bonnet Bay, Sydney.
13
b) Gully Vegetation
Gully vegetation (Plate 2.2) is also common in parks and reserves. These areas are often
retained, as they are too steep to develop. Although this community is likely the most
abundant in the area, it is highly vulnerable to run-off, weed invasion and erosion as a
result of its slope (Benson & Howell, 1990). Furthermore, based on data from this
community in older suburbs, it is likely that they will be very degraded 10-20 years from
now (Benson & Howell, 1990). Vegetation communities in gullies also differ on
different aspects with ‘south and east’ differing from ‘north and west’ slopes (Benson &
Howell, 1990) associated with north and west slopes receiving more sunlight and south
and east receiving more rain.
Plate 2.2 : Gully Vegetation found within the West Menai Conservation Area.
14
c) Riparian
Small permanent creeks (Plate 2.3) are common in sandstone (Benson & Howell, 1990)
and occur throughout the area. Weeds are a particular problem in riparian zones
(Hancock et al, 1996), and as a result, many creeks in the area are degraded to the point
where true riparian vegetation no longer remains (personal observation). Riparian zones
receive the bulk of the pollution and runoff via storm water drains, and thus are extremely
susceptible to the associated negative impacts. Despite the difficulties, it is important
they be conserved as they maintain bank stability, filter flow from upland thus trapping
sediment and absorbing nutrients (Benson & Howell, 1990). Riparian vegetation also has
the ability to control algal blooms as it shades and cools the river (Hancock et al, 1996).
Plate 2.3: Riparian vegetation located at Kangaroo Creek, Royal National Park.
15
2.1.4 Aims
By studying the main vegetation types in the area, this chapter aims at establishing the
broad characteristics of each vegetation type (density, structure, species richness, and
species composition). Although vegetation surveys and mapping have been undertaken in
this area previously, these studies use the Braun Blanquet method of scoring cover
abundances as a percentage not a real numerical value. Although this information is
useful, it is not appropriate for use in revegetation guidelines as it does not give an
indication of the actual number of plants found per unit area. Furthermore, although
species lists are given in these instances, the increase in species number with area and
species unique to particular communities are not recorded.
16
2.2 Methods
2.2.1 Site Selection
Surveying was undertaken primarily in the southwestern reaches of the shire, as this is
where most of the remnant vegetation remains. Surveying was also undertaken in Royal
and Heathcote National Parks to ensure variation in locations as well as enabling
bushland of the highest quality to be included.
The distribution of ridge, riparian and gully vegetation types were obtained using
Sutherland Shire Council vegetation maps and a GIS system. Selected areas were then
visited and visually assessed for their suitability against a specific selection criterion
which included:
1. Located at least 40m from any major disturbance or edge; i.e. roads, storm water
drains, houses and other urban development, or at least 1-2 meters from any minor
disturbance such as bush tracks.
2. Free from any extensive weed invasion (i.e. no more than 5% of the quadrat)
3. Free from any extensive bracken fern invasion (i.e. no more than 15% of the quadrat)
4. No more than 45% rock cover
5. If the area had been burned, it must have recovered sufficiently to have a
reestablished shrub and ground layer.
At least 20 urban bushland sites were initially assessed and approximately 50% of the
anticipated sites (mainly riparian) were rejected on the basis of not meeting the above
criteria or due to difficulties in accessing the sites (Appendix 1). Within the areas that
were deemed suitable, a quadrat was set up in an area that appeared representative of the
vegetation type as a whole.
17
2.2.2 Quadrat Flora Surveying
Data was collected from 10 quadrats in riparian vegetation, 11 quadrats in ridge
vegetation types. 11 qudrats were also sampled for gully vegetation, with 6 located in
North and West aspects and 5 located in South and East aspects (Figure 2.3). For Ridge
and Gully Forest vegetation, each quadrat was 20m x 20m (400m2). Within gully
vegetation each aspect was sampled. Riparian vegetation quadrats were 40m x 10m (also
400m2) extending along the side of the waterway. The differing shaped quadrat for
riparian vegetation was chosen based on preliminary investigations that found that true
riparian vegetation only extends a short distance from the water at most sites, before it
intergrades into gully forest vegetation (Plate 2.4).
Plate 2.4: Site located in the Royal National Park showing riparian/gully intergrade.
18
The exact location of each quadrat was recorded using a Global Positioning System
(Garmin GPSII Plus), recorded in map units. Aspect and slope were determined using a
clinometer and topographic position (i.e. either high or low on the slope) was recorded.
The percentage cover of rocks, grasses and bare ground were estimated.
For each quadrat every plant species was recorded. To determine the number of plants
within each quadrat, individual plants were counted with the exception of graminoids,
which were given a percentage cover score. Graminoids were not counted individually
because of the difficulty in determining an individual from above ground parts only.
Each species was also classified, according to its structural contribution to the quadrat, as
either:
• Upper canopy- large trees >5m (e.g. many Eucalyptus species)
• Lower canopy - small trees and large shrubs 2-5m (e.g. Persoonia spp.)
• Shrubs – robust shrubs between 0.50-2m (e.g. Many Grevillea and Acacia spp.)
• Ground covers – includes many herbs, annuals such as orchids, smaller shrubs
<0.50m or less robust shrubs, as well as Xanthorrhoea and Lomandra spp.
• Graminoids – grasses, sedges and rushes
• Ferns and Vines including climbing species
Samples of all unknown species were collected and identified in the Janet Cosh
Herbarium. All collected and identified specimens were preserved by pressing and
drying. These were then collated into a small herbarium collection for future species
identification.
19
Figure 2.3: Site map goes here
20
2.2.3 Data analysis
Vegetation type differences
The similarity in the composition of quadrats was determined using Bray-Curtis indices
of similarity on untransformed data. Graminoids were omitted from this analysis as they
were recorded in percentage cover, not actual number, thus not in the same format as the
rest of the data.
Non-parametric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) was applied to the similarity matrix to
visualize any patterns in vegetation type among quadrats. Non-parametric analyses of
similarity (ANOSIM) were used to confirm that there were differences in plant species
composition between vegetation type (ridge, riparian or gully)
Density and Structure
Total numbers of plants and numbers of plants in each structural layer were calculated for
each vegetation type. The mean density of plants was calculated for each vegetation type
per quadrat and per m2. The total cumulated density was also recorded. Average density
per m2 of each individual structural layer for each vegetation type was calculated by
dividing the total density by the total area (4000m2 for riparian and 4400m2 for ridge and
gully). From this, the percentage contribution of each structural layer was also calculated.
Mean graminoid percentage cover was calculated for each vegetation type.
Species richness and composition
Mean species richness (including graminoids) per quadrat was calculated, as well as
cumulative species richness for each vegetation type as a whole. This was also calculated
for each structural layer. Similarity percentage analysis (SIMPER) was used on all
vegetation types to determine which plant species made the highest contributions to the
average Bray-Curtis index of similarity within, and average dissimilarity between each of
the vegetation type.
21
Abundance rankings
Abundance rankings were also calculated for all species found. The abundance rank was
based on each species proportion of the total density for each vegetation type, being
ranked either, abundant, common or sparse.
• Abundant species = >2% of the total density
• Common species = 1-2% of the total density
• Sparse species = <1% of the total density
Species list Supplementation
Previous vegetation surveys of the area (Heemstra, 1994) were incorporated in the
species richness analyses to supplement the species found in this study. Species were
included from vegetation communities analogous to ridge and gully vegetation
communities surveyed in this study obtained from 10 x 10m2 quadrats. Data was
obtained from eleven sheltered valley forest quadrats (analogous to south and east gully
vegetation), twelve upper slope woodland quadrats (analogous to ridge vegetation) and
forty upper slope woodland (analogous to north and west gully vegetation). Abundance
ranking had been given to supplementary species by the author (Heemstra, 1994), but
were based on percentage cover (Braun-Blanquet), thus ranking varied slightly.
• Abundant species = >5% cover
• Common species = 1-2% cover
• Sparse species = <1% cover
2.3 Results
A total of 218 species were found throughout all surveys (Appendix B) Two rare
species were found as well as two regionally significant species (Table 2.1).
Table 2.1: Nationally and regionally significant species found.
Species Family Significance
Angophora costata x hispida Myrtaceae Regionally significant
Eucalyptus squamosa Myrtaceae Regionally significant
Hibbertia nitida Dilleniaceae Nationally significant (Rare 2RC-)
Lomandra fluviatilis Lomandraceae Nationally significant (Rare 2Rca)
Although weeds are common in urban bushland in the Sutherland Shire, only two
weed species were found in the quadrats surveyed and were not common. These were
Ageratina riparia (mist flower) and Ligustrum sinese (privet). Weeds are common in
remnants, but sites were chosen as those that were least disturbed and therefore had
low numbers of species.
Multi-dimensional scaling and analysis of similarity reaffirmed the distinction
between the previously mapped ridge, gully and riparian vegetation types (Global R =
0.714, P = 0.1%) (Fig 2.4). There were clear differences between the different types
in regards to species composition, structure and density.
23
riparian
ridge
gully
C1
C2
C3C4
C5C6
C7
C8C9
C10
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
R10R11
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6G7
G8
G9G10
G11
Stress: 0.16
Figure 2.4: Multidimensional scaling showing the floristic distinction between ridge,
gully and riparian vegetation in the Sutherland Shire. Data taken from 11 ridge, 11
gully and 10 riparian 400m2 quadrats.
Riparian and ridge vegetation were the most different (average dissimilarity =
92.44%), with gully appearing to be an intergrade between the two (gully/ridge av.
dissimilarity= 80.08%, gully/riparian av. dissimilarity = 86.50%).
2.3.1 Ridge Vegetation
Typical ridge vegetation consisted of a dense covering of shrubs and grasses with a
relatively open canopy. Ridge vegetation, although covering a small area within the
Sutherland Shire, was of high quality with no evidence of weed invasion. On
average, there were 653.45 plants (+194.55 sd) per quadrat, and 7188 plants counted
over the 11 quadrats (4400m2).
When broken into its structural components, the highest total density was from
groundcovers (40%), followed by shrubs (36%), then the lower canopy(11%) (Fig.
2.5, Table 2.2).
24
Table 2.2: Mean density (number of plants) per 400m2 quadrat for ridge vegetation
in the Sutherland Shire. Data taken from 11 quadrats.
Structural Layer
Percentage contribution Mean 400m2 density
Top canopy 9% 62.18
Lower canopy 11% 70.73
Shrubs 36% 232.36
Groundcovers 40% 261.64
Ferns/Vines 4% 26.55
Total 100% 653.5
top canopylower canopyshrubsgroundcoversferns/vines
Figure 2.5: Visual representation of the density proportions per m2 of each structural
layer within ridge vegetation in the Sutherland Shire. Data calculated from eleven
400m2 quadrats A total of 134 species were found in ridge vegetation. There were 18 species that
were unique to this community which was 13.4% of the total. Comparison with
previous vegetation surveys (Heemstra, 1994) revealed an extra 56 species to be
found in this vegetation community. This brings the total species found up to 190.
25
When the total number of species was cumulated up to 4200m2 there was no strong
evidence of the number leveling off, indicating many of the species in this vegetation
type have not yet been found (Fig 2.6).
020406080
100120140160180200
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
area (m2)
cum
ulat
ive
# sp
ecie
s
Figure 2.6: Cumulative number of species found within ridge vegetation in the
Sutherland Shire. Data taken from eleven 400m2 quadrats sampled between March
and August 2005 (solid line) and data from previous study of the area (Heemstra,
1994) (dotted line).
The highest number of species was found in the shrub and groundcover structural
layer. The other structural layers had a similar number of species to each other (Fig
2.7).
26
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
area (m2)
cum
ulat
ive
# sp
ecie
sUpper canopy
Lower canopy
Shrubs
Groundcovers
Graminoids
Ferns/Vines
Figure 2.7: Cumulative number of species found within each structural layer of ridge
vegetation in bushland in the Sutherland Shire. Data taken from eleven 400m2
quadrats surveyed between March and August 2005 (solid line) and previous study of
the area (Heemstra, 1994) (dotted line).
It appears that most of the occurring species in the graminoid, ferns/vines, top canopy
and lower canopy layers have been identified, indicated by the leveling off of the
cumulative amount. However, the shrub and groundcover layers appear to still be
increasing which indicates that more species would be found if the number of
quadrats surveyed had been higher.
Species Composition Similarity In ridge vegetation there was an average Bray Curtis similarity between quadrats of
only 26.33%, with nine species making up 50% of the average similarity between
quadrats (Table 2.3).
27
Table 2.3: Ridge vegetation descriptors. These species contributed up to 50% of the
average similarity between sites.
Species
Structural
layer
Av.
abundance
Cumulative %
Grevillea sericia Shrub 40.18 13.20
Leptospermum arachnoides Shrub 34.45 19.51
Phyllanthus hirtellus Groundcover 23.73 25.80
Lomandra obliqua Groundcover 19.18 31.97
Leptospermum trinervium Lower Canopy 19.00 36.56
Banksia spinulosa Shrub 15.00 40.13
Corymbia gummifera Upper Canopy 9.73 43.30
Dillwynia retorta Shrub 17.91 46.46
Epacris pulchella Shrub 16.91 49.48
Common Species Upper canopy species: Most common tree was Corymbia gummifera. Also
Eucalyptus haemestoma/racemosa and Allocasuarina littoralis.
Lower canopy species: Leptospermum trinervium, Hakea sericia and Angophora
hispida.
Shrubs: Grevillea sericia, Leptospermum arachnoides, Banksia spinulosa and
Dillwynia retorta. Other species included Epacris pulchella, Grevillea sphacelata,
Phyllota phylicoides and Isopogon anemonifolius.
Groundcovers: Most common were Phyllanthus hirtellus, Lomandra obliqua and
Actinotus minor. Other species included Leucopogon microphyllus, Lomatia
silicifolia and Pimelia linifolia.
Ferns/Vines: Lindsea linearis was most common.
28
Graminoids The average percentage graminoid cover for ridge vegetation was 27.2%, which was
the second highest cover of all the vegetation types. The most abundant grasses were
Anisopogon avanaceus, Entolasia stricta and Leptocarpus tenax.
Abundance Rankings
Sparse species make up the majority of the species found in ridge vegetation
communities (78.5%), followed by common (14%) and lastly, abundant (7.5%) (Fig
2.8). It is therefore important to include sparse species.
Abundant
Common
Sparse
Figure 2.8: Percentage density of abundant sparse and common species in ridge
vegetation.
2.3.2 Gully
Gully vegetation, covers a large area within the Sutherland Shire and quality was
highly variable. Typical gully vegetation consisted of a dense covering of
groundcovers, as well as shrubs, with a small percentage cover of graminoids. There
29
was variability within the gully vegetation associated with aspect. South and east
sites appear to group together indicating a similarity in their physical attributes
(Global R = 0.563, 4.8%). The north and west sites also separated from the south and
east sites but not as strongly ( Fig 2.9).
NW
SE
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
G8
G9G10
G11
Stress: 0.14
Figure 2.9: Multidimensional scaling showing the floristic distinction between North
and West compared against South and East aspects within gully vegetation. Data
taken from 11 400m2 quadrats within the Sutherland Shire
Density, structure, species richness and composition differed depending on the aspect
with south/easterly slopes being more shaded with a more closed canopy and a denser
covering. North/Westerly slopes were more open, received more sun and had a
higher proportion of grasses. Due to the differences these communities are described
separately.
South and East Aspect Gully
The average total density for South and East gully vegetation was 976.4 (±132.67s.d)
plants per quadrat. When all quadrat densities were cumulated, there were 4882 plants
per 2000m2. When broken into its structural components the highest average density
of plants was found in the groundcover layer (54%), followed by shrubs (32%), with
ferns/vines (5%), the top canopy (5%) and the lower canopy (4%) contributing the
least to the density (Table 2.4, Fig. 2.10).
30
Table 2.4: Mean density (number of plants) per 400m2 quadrat for south and east
gully vegetation in the Sutherland Shire. Data taken from 5 quadrats.
Structural Layer Percentage contribution
Mean 400m2 density
Top canopy 5% 49
Lower canopy 4% 43
Shrubs 32% 316
Groundcovers 54% 522
Ferns/Vines 5% 46
Total 100% 976
top canopylower canopyShrubsGroundcoversFerns/Vines
Figure 2.10: Visual representation of the density proportions per m2 of each structural
layer within gully vegetation in the Sutherland Shire. Data calculated from 11 400m2
quadrats A total of 97 species were found in the south and eastern slopes. There were 11
species that were unique to south and east facing gully slopes (11.34% of total species
found here). Within gully forest alone, 29 (30%) species were unique to this aspect.
When total species from all quadrats were cumulated up to 4400m2 there was no
evidence of the number beginning to level off (Fig 2.11), thus more species are yet to
be found.
31
Comparison with previous vegetation surveys (Heemstra, 1994) revealed an extra 39
species to be found in this vegetation community. This brings the total species found
up to 136.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
area (m2)
# sp
ecie
s fou
nd
Figure 2.11: Cumulative number of species found within south and east gully
vegetation in the Sutherland Shire. Data taken from five 400m2 quadrats sampled
between March and August 2005 (solid line) and previous smapling n the area
(Heemstra, 1994) (dotted line).
The highest number of species was found in the groundcover structural layer followed
by shrubs, and grasses with the least number of species being found in the top canopy
layer (Fig 2.12). It appears that most of the occurring species in the graminoid,
ferns/vines, top canopy and lower canopy have been identified, indicated by the
leveling off of the cumulative amount. Whereas, the shrub and groundcover layers
appear to still be increasing which indicates that more species would be found if the
number of quadrats surveyed had been higher.
32
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
area (m2)
# sp
ecie
s fou
nd
Upper canopyLower canopyShrubsGroundcoversGramnoidsFerns/Vines
Figure 2.12: Cumulative number of species found within each structural layer of
south and east Gully vegetation with bushland in the Sutherland Shire. Data taken
from five 400m2 quadrats surveyed between March and August 2005 (solid line) and
previous studies in the area (Heemstra, 1994) (dotted line).
Species Composition
Similarity
In gully vegetation there was an average similarity between quadrats of 34.18%, with
only eight species making up 50% cumulative similarity (Table 2.5)
Table 2.5 : South and East Gully vegetation descriptors. These species contributed up
to 50% of the average similarity between sites.
Species
Structural Layer Av. Abundance Cumulative %
Platysace linearifolia Groundcover 133.00 24.77
Epacris pulchella Groundcover 38.00 30.52
Xanthosia tridentata Groundcover 35.00 36.02
Xanthosia pilosa Groundcover 57.00 41.19
Dillwynia retorta Shrub 20.80 44.19
Banksia serrata Lower canopy 14.80 47.84
Banksia spinulosa Shrub 18.20 50.98
33
Common species
Upper Canopy species: Corymbia gummifera and Angophora costata were most
common.
Lower canopy species: Banksia serrata, Leptospermum trinervium and
Cerratopetalum gummiferum were most common
Shrubs: Dillwynia retorta, Banksia spinulosa and Acacia terminalis were most
common.
Groundcovers: Most comon was Playsace linearifolia. Also, Epacris pulchella,
Xanthosia tridentata and Xanthosia pilosa.
Ferns/Vines: Most common was Lindsea linearis.
Graminoids The average percentage graminoid cover for south and east facing gully quadrats was
9%.
The most abundant species were Cyathochaeta diandra, Leptocarpus tenax and
Caustis flexuosa.
Abundance Rankings
Sparse species make up the majority of the species found in south and east gully
vegetation communities (82%) followed by common (11%) and lastly, abundant (7%)
(Fig 2.13). It is therefore important to include sparse species.
34
AbundantCommonSparse
Figure 2.13: Percentage density of abundant sparse and common species in south and
east facing gully vegetation.
North and West
The average total density per quadrat for North and West gully vegetation was 658.5
(±272.79s.d) plants. When all quadrat densities were cumulated, there were 3951
plants at an area of 2400m2. When broken into its structural components the highest
average density was from groundcovers with lower canopy contributing least to the
density (Table 2.6)(Fig 2.14)
Table 2.6: Mean density (number of plants) per 400m2 quadrat for north and west
gully vegetation in the Sutherland Shire. Data taken from 6 quadrats.
Structural Layer Percentage contribution
Mean 400m2 density
Top canopy 10% 69
Lower canopy 3% 18
Shrubs 36% 240
Groundcovers 41% 267
Ferns/Vines 10% 66
Total 100% 659
35
top canopylower canopyShrubsGroundcoversFerns/Vines
Figure 2.14: Visual representation of the density proportions per m2 of each structural
layer within north and west gully vegetation in the Sutherland Shire. Data calculated
from five 400m2 quadrats. Species Richness
A total of 118 species were found in the north and west slopes of this vegetation type.
There were 6 species that were unique to north and west facing gully communities
(5.08%), and within gully alone there were 19 species (16.1%) that were unique to
these aspects. When all species were cumulated up to 2400m2 there was no evidence
of the number beginning to level off (Fig 2.15). Comparison with previous vegetation
surveys (Heemstra, 1994) revealed an extra 58 species to be found in this vegetation
community. This brings the total species found up to 176.
36
020406080
100120140160180200
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
area (m2)
# sp
ecie
s fou
nd
Figure 2.15: Cumulative number of species found within north and west gully
vegetation in the Sutherland Shire. Data taken from five 400m2 quadrats sampled
between March and August 2005 (solid line) and previous surveys of the area
(Heemstra, 1994) (dotted line).
The highest number of species was found in the groundcover structural layer followed
by shrubs, and graminoids, with the least number of species being found in the ferns
and vines layer (Fig 2.16). It appears that most of the occurring species in the
graminoid, ferns/vines, top canopy and lower canopy have been identified, indicated
by the leveling off of the cumulative amount. However, the shrub and groundcover
layers appear to still be increasing which indicates that more species would be found
if the number of quadrats surveyed had been higher.
37
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
area (m2)
# sp
ecie
s fou
ndUpper Canopy
Lower canopy
Shrubs
Grondcovers
Graminoids
Ferns/Vines
Figure 2.16: Cumulative number of species found within each structural layer of
north and west Gully vegetation with bushland in the Sutherland Shire. Data taken
from five 400m2 quadrats surveyed between March and August 2005 (solid line) and
previous surveys in the area (Heemstra, 1994) (dotted line).
Species Composition
In gully vegetation there was an average similarity between quadrats of only 25.22%,
with only eight species making up 50% cumulative similarity (Table 2.7).
Table 2.7: North and west facing gully vegetation descriptors. These species
contributed up to 50% of the average similarity between sites.
Species
Structural Layer Av. Abundance Cumulative %
Dillwynia retorta Shrub 50.03 12.02
Pteridium esculentum Fern 54.00 22.80
Platysace linearifolia Groundcover 29.00 32.32
Leptospermum
trinervium
Lower Canopy 20.33 38.56
Allcasuarina littoralis Upper canopy 20.00 44.02
Actinotus helianthi Groundcover 16.33 48.88
Xanthosia pilosa Groundcover 15.33 53.62
38
Common species
Upper Canopy species: Allocasuarina littoralis was common. Also Banksia serata
and Corymbia gummifera.
Lower canopy species: Leptospermum trinervium was most common.
Shrubs: Dillwynia retorta also Grevillea sericia and Banksia spinulosa.
Groundcovers: Platysace linearifolia, also Actinotus helianthi, Xanthosia pilosa and
Phyllanthus hirtellus.
Ferns/Vines: Pteridium esculentum was very comon.
Graminoids The average percentage graminoid cover for north and west facing gully quadrats was
28%. This was the highest graminoid cover of all vegetation communities.
The most abundant species were Anisopogon avanaceus, Entolasia stricta and
Lepidosperma laterale.
Abundance Rankings
Sparse species make up the majority of the species found in ridge vegetation
communities (80%) followed by common (12%) and lastly, abundant (8%) (Fig 2.17).
It is therefore important to include sparse species. These species are often overlooked
because they are sparse, but it is clear that they make up the majority of the diversity
found.
39
AbundantCommonSparse
Figure 2.17: Percentage of abundant sparse and common species in north and west
facing gully vegetation.
2.3.3 Riparian Riparian vegetation was the most different from the other vegetation types, as it
contained many unique species. Typical riparian vegetation consisted mainly of
groundcovers and shrubs, but also had a higher lower canopy cover than the other
vegetation types. The canopy was more closed, but vegetation did differ depending
on the slope leading down to the waterside. Flatter quadrats had more of the distinct
riparian vegetation species.
Riparian zones cover a large area within the Sutherland Shire and quality was
extremely poor in most cases (personal observation).
The average total density for riparian vegetation for a 400m2 quadrat was 584.9
(±224.5s.d) individual plants, which cumulated to 5849 plants at 4000m2. When
broken into its structural components, groundcovers had the highest density. Ferns
had a higher density in this vegetation type than any of the other vegetation types (Fig
2.18)(Table2.8).
40
Table 2.8: Mean density (number of plants) per 400m2 quadrat for riparian vegetation
in the Sutherland Shire. Data taken from 10 quadrats.
Structural layer Percentage contribution
Mean 400m2 density
Top canopy 6% 36.4
Lower canopy 22% 129.6
Shrubs 26% 153.1
Groundcovers 35% 201.8
Ferns/Vines 11% 64
Total 100% 584.9
top canopylower canopyshrubsgroundcoversferns/vines
Figure 2.18: Visual representation of the density proportions per m2 of each structural
layer within riparian vegetation in the Sutherland Shire. Data calculated from 10
400m2 quadrats
A total of 149 species were found in this vegetation type (Fig 2.19). There were 35
species found that were unique to riparian communities, this was 23.5% of the total
species found in this community.
It appears that the number of species is not starting to stabilize and level off (Fig
2.19), indicating that more species have yet to been found.
41
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
area (m2)
# sp
ecie
s fou
nd
Figure 2.19: Cumulative number of species found within riparian vegetation in the
Sutherland Shire. Data taken from ten 400m2 quadrats sampled between March and
August 2005.
The highest number of species were identified in the shrub layer followed by the
groundcovers, the lower canopy then grasses, ferns/vines, with the top canopy having
the least number of species (Fig 2.20).
groundcovers, the lower canopy then grasses, ferns/vines, with the top canopy having
the least number of species (Fig 2.20).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000
area m2
cum
ulat
ive
spec
ies top canopy
lower canopyshrubsgroundcoversgrassferns/vines
Figure 2.20: Cumulative number of species found within each structural layer of
riparian vegetation within bushland in the Sutherland Shire. Data taken from ten
400m2 quadrats surveyed between March and August 2005.
Figure 2.20: Cumulative number of species found within each structural layer of
riparian vegetation within bushland in the Sutherland Shire. Data taken from ten
400m2 quadrats surveyed between March and August 2005.
42
It appeared that the number of species in each structural layer began to level off at
apprximately 3200m2. The ferns/vines and graminoid layers appear to level off
earlier at approximately 2400m2 and it appears the groundcovers may still be
increasing slightly.
Species composition
Similarity
In riparian vegetation there was an average similarity between quadrats of 31.72%,
which was the highest similarity of all the vegetation types. Only eight species made
up 50% cumulative similarity (Table 2.9)
Table 2.9: Riparian vegetation descriptors. These species contributed up to 50% of
the average similarity between sites.
Species Structural layer Av. Abundance Cumulative %
Bauera rubiodes Groundcover 42.00 11.14
Dodonaea triquetra Shrub 30.90 20.07
Tristaniopsis laurina Top Canopy 23.80 28.19
Gonocarpus
teucroides
Groundcover 31.60 35.59
Platysace linearifolia Groundcover 20.50 39.83
Lomatia myricoides Lower canopy 12.40 43.88
Grevillea oleoides Shrub 14.70 47.63
Baekea linifolia Lower canopy 12.70 50.40
43
Common Species
Upper canopy: The most common upper canopy species was Tristaniopsis laurina,
which was unique to this vegetation type.
Lower canopy: Lomatia myricoides, Baekea linifolia and Leptospermum polygifolium
were common. Also, Persoonia pinifolia, Banksia ericifolia.
Shrubs: Dodonaea triquetra, Grevillea oleoides and Leucopogon setiga were most
common.
Groundcovers: Bauera rubiodes was extremely common and abundant. Also,
Gonocarpus teucroides, Playsace linearifloia and Xanthosia tridentata.
Ferns/ Vines: Gleichenia microphylla, Pteridium esculentum and Sticherus
flabellatus were common.
Graminoids
The average percentage grass cover for the riparian vegetation type was 12.7%. This
is lower than the other communities. The percentage rock cover is high in this group
as it is situated along creek sides. It appears that when there is a larger cover of rock
there is a lower percentage grass cover as well as a smaller average density. Abundance Rankings Sparse species make up the majority of the species found in riparian vegetation
communities (79%), followed by common (12%) and lastly, abundant (9%) (Fig
2.21).
44
AbundantCommonSparse
Figure 2.21: Percentage density of abundant sparse and common species in riparian
vegetation
45
2.4 Discussion As expected, there were clear differences in composition and structure between the
three vegetation types in terms of all parameters measured. There are many
environmental variables that may contribute to causing these differences (Le Brocque
& Buckney, 1994).
2.4.1 Vegetation community variables
The most dense vegetation type was south and east facing gully, followed by north
and west facing gully, ridge and then riparian. This is likely to be due to the fact that
gully vegetation in both aspect groups was more dominated by groundcovers than the
other vegetation types, which made up almost 50% of the total density for this
community. Groundcovers are much smaller and thus more plants can cover an area
as opposed to larger shrub and tree species. Ridge plant density is lower due to the
higher percentage of grasses found in this community. The lower density for riparian
vegetation is likely to be because of the high percentage rock cover that was common
for riparian sites. Although there was a selection criteria for quadrats that the rock
cover must be below 40%, often the percentage approached this closely. This was
unavoidable, as the majority of riparian zones do naturally have a large covering of
rock due to the rock making up the majority of the riverbed, which is often exposed
due to low water levels. Avoiding sites with rock would result in an inaccurate
representation of this community.
No structural layer dominated riparian vegetation communities, with the density of
plants being more evenly spread between shrubs, groundcovers and lower canopy
species. This was similar to what was found by Hancock et al (1996). In contrast,
Gully vegetation did not have an even spread of structural layers, with almost 50% of
the density being made up of groundcovers in both aspect groups. Ridge was
structured similarly to the gully vegetation groups.
46
Species richness per 400m2 quadrat ranged from 31 to 79 species. This high species
richness is similar, however, slightly higher to results obtained by other researchers on
Hawkesbury Sandstone, who found the averages of between 9 and 52 species (Broque
& Buckney, 2003) and between 24 and 40 species (Rice, 1999) for the same area.
Based on the results from this study alone, riparian vegetation had the highest species
richness. Previous research has found riparian vegetation communities to be
comparatively less species rich than other ridge or further upland vegetation
communities (Hancock et al., 1996, Gilfedder & Kirkpatrck, 1998). This was not the
case in this study. While riparian communities occur over a smaller area of the
Sutherland Shire than the other two vegetation types, they were the most diverse,
partially because they encompassed some gully species as well as its own suite of
unique species. Riparian communities had the highest percentage of unique species
found, followed by ridge.
Often the riparian zone ended before the end of the quadrat boundary. Plant
community distribution on either side of the stream is related to topography: i.e. water
availability (Hancock et al, 1996). In steep valleys, the riparian zone is narrow, with
an almost indistinguishable ecotone, whereas shallow valleys had a wider riparian
zone and ecotone before the gully begins (Hancock et al, 1996). Furthermore,
riparian vegetation sampling was undertaken predominantly within National Parks
due to the difficulty in finding appropriate urban bushland vegetation sites. It is
possible that urbanisation results in the loss of species from remnant vegetation, thus
sampling for the other vegetation types may be lowered relative to riparian vegetation.
The largest differences between the vegetation communities were their species
composition. Ridge and Riparian vegetation was the most different, whereas gully
and ridge were the most similar to each other. This is further demonstrated by the
number of unique species found in each environment, which was the highest in
riparian vegetation communities followed by ridge communities. Ridge and Riparian
vegetation, in most cases are separated by the most area, with riparian being in the
lowest topographical position and ridge the highest. The major environmental
differences between these positions are water availability and sunlight, with riparian
47
being the wettest and ridge being the driest. Subsequently different species are better
suited to the different environments.
Ridge and Gully are likely to be more similar, as in most cases they are located close
to each other with one intergrading into the other at the top of a slope. The drier north
and west facing slopes as well as gentle slopes also have similar conditions to ridge.
2.4.2 Variability within vegetation communities
Gully vegetation
Gully vegetation showed greatest variability from quadrat to quadrat when analysed
as a single community. Gully communities are highly variable due to the many
environmental variables acting on them. Although the sample size was small, the
result of the variability was shown by the high number of species unique to each
aspect community within gully vegetation as a whole (NW- 16%, SE, 30%).
Angle, type and aspect of slope influence species composition (Bochet & Garcia-
Fayos, 2004). The differences are due to differences in light, heat and moisture (Bale
et al, 1998).
Steeper slopes are better drained than gentler ones; slopes facing north and west
receive more sunlight, thus drying out faster than those facing south and east. South
facing slopes are often more steep (Benson & Howell, 1990). These differences
influence what species are best suited to that particular environment as well as their
growth rates, thus there will be differences within this vegetation community. North
and West facing slopes receive more intense sunlight than south and east facing
slopes, which can influence other variables including, increasing soil temperatures
and reducing soil moisture (Parsons, 2004). Thus the vegetation communities differ
as a result of these differences.
Riparian vegetation
The highest number of species was found in riparian vegetation communities and
contained the highest number of unique species (35) of any other community.
48
Riparian vegetation had the highest average similarity (31.72%), thus quadrats were
the most similar to each other compared to the other vegetation types. This is likely
to be attributed to riparian vegetation being the most distinct compared other
vegetation types and many of the distinct species, such as Tristanopsis laurina and
Bauera rubiodes were found at nearly all sites. The different soil and groundwater
regimes along their banks contribute to producing this vegetation that is distinct from
that of surrounding areas (Hancock et al, 1996).
Any difference among riparian sites would be a result of the slope of the bank, as well
as the aspect. With the flattest slopes having the most typical riparian vegetation, as
there is more influence from the riparian environment, whereas the stepper slopes
have a higher influence from the gully environment. Aspect would affect vegetation
as explained in gully. Also, the position of the creek may affect the vegetation. The
most different quadrat was located higher in the catchment than other quadrats.
Ridge Vegetation
Ridge vegetation had an intermediate level of similarity (26.33%) and contained 18
unique species. Much of the variability in this vegetation type would be accounted to
different locations. Sites were located all over the Sutherland Shire, as well as in the
national park. Ridge was sampled in the highest number of different sites. Also,
there is a possibility that there may be a small shale influence in some sites, as any
remaining shale in the area is located on ridge tops (Benson & Howell, 1990).
2.4.3 Conclusions
It is clear that there are definite discernible differences between the major vegetation
types in the Sutherland Shire. The clear differences in density, structure, species
richness and composition all form an important and integral part of revegetation plans
for the area.
The clearer understanding of the discrete differences, and their use in implementing
revegetation plans in the area should increase the chances of restoration success.
49
-Chapter Three-
Restoration Guidelines
3.1 Introduction
All restoration and revegetation projects hope to create an area that will become a
healthy community that will be sustainable with minimal future management.
However, this rarely occurs (Chapter 1), with the restored areas differing significantly
from the surrounding vegetation (Hynes et al., 2004, Campbell et al., 2002, Holl &
Crone, 2004). There are differences between simply revegetating an area and
restoring an area to become similar to natural vegetation.
Many revegetation projects concentrate on the former, which is problematic.
Revegetation that concentrates on only replacing vegetation, not the specific ecology
involved such as the community density, diversity and structure, will not be recreating
the desired vegetation community. This also does not adequately conserve
biodiversity, as often only limited species are being replaced. This would essentially
be known as “ecosystem substitution’ (Westman, 1991). This approach is considered
grossly inadequate.
Ecological information, such as specific vegetation community characteristics, must
be included to ensure the restored habitat will function as a community with specific
habitats (Buchanan, 1991). Restoring function, although both difficult to define and
measure, should be the most important goal of restoration, encompassing all
ecosystem processes (Grimbacher & Hughes, 2002).
This project hopes to give guidelines to recreate as close to the current functioning
ecosystems present in the area by incorporating ecological principles and using
information from vegetation surveys of bushland nearby. Thus, improving planting
50
diversity and structural characteristics incorporated in revegetation guidelines and
programs and improving current management practices. It is anticipated that this
improvement will move towards more sustainable system, thus creating a healthy
‘functioning’ ecosystem or at least contributing to one (I. Drinnan, personal
communication). It is difficult to replace everything that contributes to the
functionality of an ecosystem, (i.e. animals, tree hollows leaf litter), but, as vegetation
is the key producer in an ecosystem, hopefully by replacing the characteristics of that
vegetation community, eventually, the factors contributing to functionality will also
return (Ian Drinnan, pers com). Thereby, providing habitat for animals and insects
that will contribute to pollination and seed distribution, thus, the function of the
system will return. Although we can not yet fully understand how to recreate natural
systems exactly, by incorporating similar plant densities and species richness, and
matching structural complexity as closely as possible, there is a better chance of high
survival rates and restored areas analogous to the historic vegetation community.
3.2 Goals for restoration of Urban Bushland
Restoration planning and goal setting of restoration projects are sometimes poorly
done or overlooked completely before a project has commenced (Close & Davidson,
2003, Hobbs, 2003), giving poor results. Goals must be realistic and specific to
ensure what is aimed for, can and, will be able to be achieved (Cairns, 1989, Hobbs,
2003). Goals and objectives of restoration projects in other areas include;
‘reestablishing the structure and function of historic habitats’ (Kissimmee River; Toth
et al, 1995) or ‘recreating pre –European vegetation’ (Hynes et al, 2004). Currently,
although there are restoration guidelines for the Sutherland Shire, there are no specific
documented goals associated with these guidelines.
The new guidelines will create areas of vegetation that are as close as possible to what
naturally occurs in each particular habitat. Thus, by creating communities that will
complement the current bushland and enhance the biodiversity of the area. As the
natural plant communities have been surveyed and described for the Sutherland Shire
in this study (Chapter 2), this knowledge can be used to determine the exact
characteristics of newly created habitat.
51
3.3 Restoration Principles
The principles for restoration are based on ecological knowledge, centred around the
four main community characteristics that were measured in Chapter 2. These
principles will be relevant to all of the vegetation communities sampled.
3.3.1 Density Rates of survivorship in restoration are not always high (Sweeney et al, 2002). Most
revegetation plans compensate for the fact that not all individuals planted will survive.
Survival rates within restoration projects can be highly variable, with documented
restoration survival rates ranging from 2-100% (Sweeney et al, 2002, Close et al,
2002, Ewing, 2002, Humphrey & Schupp, 2002). Various techniques can improve
survival rates, including herbicide use, shelters, tree mats, post planting weeding and
post planting watering (Sweeney et al, 2002, Close et al, 2002, Ewing, 2002,
Humphrey & Schupp, 2002, Yates et al, 2000). For planned restoration projects, it is
recommended that the best practices for improving survival rates are incorporated into
guidelines, thus anticipated survival rates in these circumstances would be expected to
be between 50 and 90% (Sweeeney et al, 2002, Dugald et al, 2002). Thus, it is
recommended that more plants should be planted than what is currently found in
reference communities of the same area to incorporate the anticipated mortality.
Planting densely also benefits restoration projects by increasing the area’s resistance
to weed invasion. Competition between native plants and weeds is a major cause of
restoration project failure (Ewing, 2002), thus this type of competition should be
ameliorated. It has been previously found (Olsen et al., 2005), that increased planting
density can increase weed suppression in an area. By planting densely, there will be
less available space for weed seeds to establish. A dense layer of groundcovers and
graminoids may be particularly important, as they are able to fill the small spaces
between the trees and shrubs where weeds establish (Sullivan et al., 2005).
52
In Sutherland Shire as in other urban areas, the increased runoff and level of weed
propagules associated with the human influences is likely to be high. Also,
considering many species on Hawkesbury sandstone substrate do not disperse far (see
diversity), it is likely that more weed seeds will occur in any available spaces than
native seeds and any gap would be filled by a weed, not a native species.
Advanced tube stock is recommended for use, which will further increase survival
rates. Although direct seeding is a more economical approach, survival rates are low
(Montalvo et al, 2002). Thus more advanced developed plants will enable the desired
community to be created more accurately and efficiently in terms of density and
structure.
Current guidelines suggest five plants per m2; this is quite a dense amount, but it is
not known where this data came from and whether it is ecologically based. In these
guidelines I base planting density on ecological data from the three vegetation
communities sampled and correct for potential mortality.
3.3.2 Structure
Most restoration projects follow the same guidelines in terms of structure, regardless
of the vegetation type. Current guidelines state that trees and shrubs are to be planted
at a density of one plant per square metre and at a proportion of 1 tree to three shrubs
and groundcover species are to be planted at an average density of at least four plants
per square metre in addition to the tress and shrubs.
Chapter two describes the intrinsic differences in structure between these habitat
types, with a clear indication that they are not the same in terms of cover at each
structural layer. It was discovered that one single structural layer did not dominate
riparian vegetation, but Gully vegetation consisted of a high percentage cover at the
ground. Thus, giving the same structural guidelines for different vegetation
communities is inappropriate. Past revegetation projects (Hynes et al, 2004) have
shown that disregarding structural differences between vegetation communities will
result in areas that do not represent the community they were aiming to achieve and
an homogenizing of newly created habitats.
53
3.3.3 Diversity
Species diversity is extremely important for restoration projects. When the number of
species is reduced it can adversely affect all aspects of the ecosystem (Knops et al.,
1999, Naeem, 2003). Loss of species can result in an ecosystem becoming more
vulnerable to invasion by exotics and weeds, enhance disease transmission as well as
affecting insect communities (Knops et al., 1999). High diversity protects against
weed invasions (diversity-invasibility hypothesis (Elton, 1958 in Knops et al., 1999)
with fewer species being able to establish in diverse systems (Knops et al., 1999). It
can also increase the resilience of a community, enabling it to better recover from a
disturbance (Grime, 1997, Buchanan, 1991).
Also, many insects have only one type of specific host plant, thus, an increased
number of host plants results in an increased number of insects (Knops et al., 1999)
which extends through the food chain. Without this diversity, a diverse animal
community, which is hoped to be achieved, will not be adequately supported (Jones
Saver, 1998). This can also affect other levels of functionality, as it will, logically,
affect pollinator abundance (i.e. affecting seed production), as well as the number of
seed dispersers (especially ants) (Buchanan, 1991).
The amount of plant and animal disease is also lower in species rich areas. As
specific disease host plants will be less dense when there is a higher species richness
(Knops et al., 1999), when disease does break out, less total plants will be lost, as the
certain host plant will only make up a portion of the total species pool in a species
rich ecosystem.
Often when restoration projects are compared against natural remnant bushland the
diversity is much lower in the restored areas (Martin et al, 2005). Many restoration
projects only plant a few species with the hope of others colonising naturally from
other nearby remnants (Holl & Crone, 2004). In the Sydney Region, approximately
80% of species found on infertile Hawkesbury sandstone are either myrmechorous,
relying on ants to disperse their seeds (Westoby et al, 1991) or have no dispersal
54
mechanism at all. As a result, seeds will only be able to travel short distances, thus
restoration efforts cannot rely on species from nearby remnants contributing to the
seed bank (Lindborg & Eriksson, 2004).
Many species that occur in the natural vegetation are not propagated in nurseries
(Jones Saver, 1998) making it difficult to achieve a high diversity in planting. This is
believed to be because some species are not profitable to stock or they are difficult to
establish (Sullivan et al, 2005). There is a significant need for the nursery industry to
provide local stock from a wide range of species; far wider than available to date.
Council nurseries are likely to be an important component of the successful
implementation of these guidelines.
However, if the species richness was low in a site historically, then higher species
richness will not lead towards the desired restoration goal (Westman, 1991, Grime,
1997). This is why the number of species for each vegetation community is handled
separately. If a community were naturally species poor, it would be inappropriate to
revegetate with high species richness, but if a community is naturally species rich,
planting a low number of species would also not result in the desired community.
Currently, a ‘diverse range’ of species is stated to be planted in the guidelines, but
there is no exact goal of the number of species, or even a range. The goal for the new
guidelines is to plant at least the minimum number of species found per unit area.
3.3.4 Species Composition
It is important to plant species indigenous to the area being restored, as similar plant
communities will help re-establish the former biotic structure (Lindborg & Eriksson,
2004). Although diversity is very important, the particular species present are as
important as the number of species (Hartley & Jones, 2003). Certain species have a
specific function within their community, such as their part in plant herbivore
interactions and the like (Hartley & Jones, 2003). Thus, specific species making up
plant communities that have been found in certain vegetation types should be planted
in areas analogous to that area to ensure that functionality is retained.
55
Although planting the correct species is important, it should be ensured that the
species is a locally indigenous variety. Some species can vary between regions and
areas, thus seeds should be collected from a site nearby, that ‘environmentally
matches’ the site to be restored (Holmes and Richardson, 1999). Not doing this could
result in seed hybridisation between local and non-local species, leading to a loss in
genetic integrity (Holmes & Richardson, 1999). Furthermore; locally indigenous
species have a higher survival yield (Humphrey & Schupp, 2002).
As well as considering which species to plant in which position, it is also vital to
consider the proportions required to attain a community similar to what occurs
naturally. It has been found that certain plant species can be highly competitive,
resulting in these particular species becoming more dominant than intended
(Jefferson, 2004). For this reason, plants which are naturally more abundant should
be planted at a higher density to ensure they have a higher dominance than species
which should be represented less in the community.
Currently, it is recommended that species local to the area be used in restoration
projects. Furthermore, There is no mention of species abundances. This can be
improved on by only using plant species local to the area and suited to the vegetation
type being restored as well as planting the correct proportion of plants with different
abundances.
Graminoids
It should be noted that graminoids will be planted by direct seeding methods and are
NOT included in density calculations. Direct seeding is chosen as the desired method
for these plants because they establish well in this way and it will alleviate the
concern of competition between the other growing species. This is significant
because grasses and grass like plants have the capacity to grow quickly and cover
large areas thereby outcompeting other plants (Brown & Archer, 1999, Zimmermann
et al., 2000).
56
Ferns & Vines
Ferns and vines are also not advised to be included in the initial planting. These can
sometimes outcompete trees and shrubs when they are in their early stages and
dominate an area (Zimmermann et al, 2000). Links have also been found that ferns
can inhibit growth in nearby establishing plants (Duncan & Chapman, 2001).
Furthermore, ferns disperse longer distances than other species in the area as they are
dispersed by spores which can be blown far from their origin in the wind (Campbell et
al, 1999) Thus these species should not be included in planting density calculations. It
is recommended that if they have not dispersed and established from nearby remnants
after a few years, then they can be added (Pellow & French, 2002).
3.4 Guideline development
All of the above principles were taken into consideration when developing guidelines
to best enable the establishment of the desired communities. These principles were
used in conjunction with the compiled data of the structure, density, species richness
and composition of each vegetation community to best enable the projected outcome
o be as similar as possible to current communities of that type. Guidelines are
calculated in 10m2 unit areas (with larger area examples) to enable calculation for
larger scale projects as well as simplified planning layout by bush regenerators.
3.4.1 Methods for guideline formulation
The required density for a vegetation community was based on the density found in
that vegetation type. To attain this density, extra plants were added to account for
anticipated mortality. The increase in number of plants was based on the average
survival rates based on best pre and post revegetation practices (see section 3.6.4).
Seventy-five percent survival is anticipated, thus required planting density was
calculated by dividing the average density (with ferns and vines omitted) found in
each vegetation community (for 10m2) by 0.75. As gully and riparian vegetation
communities can have variable rock cover which can influence density, separate
densities levels were calculated for areas with high or low percentage rock cover.
57
This was calculated in the same manner as the regular guidelines, but based on
standard deviation values obtained in each vegetation community.
The proportion of each structural layer was calculated based on the percentages
calculated from the data obtained from each vegetation community. The number of
plants in each structural layer per 10m2 was calculated based on field data, again, to
enable easier planting layout. Although sparse species often make up the majority of
the species, they do not occur in as high abundance as the common and abundant
species and this should be reflected when revegetating. Abundant species should be
planted at a higher density, followed by common and then sparse.
Further, the actual species used were obtained from the species list compiled from
each vegetation type. This species list has been compiled both from the authors
surveyed data which is also supplemented by previous work (Heemstra, 1994).
Supplementary species are only given for ridge and gully vegetation types, as riparian
vegetation was not surveyed in Heemstra (1994). The extra species ensures that the
more of the diversity in the area will be retained as the greater amount of sampling
increases the area and variety of sites sampled.
The number of species will also be dependent on the size of the revegetation project;
the cumulative number of species found in each vegetation type calculated this. A
graph showing this was prepared with a line of best fit. Depending on the size of the
revegetation project, the number of species required will be read off this.
Suggested species used in the guidelines were selected based on their relative
abundance in natural communities. The proportion of species in each abundance rank
for each vegetation type (calculated in Chapter 2) was then used to determine the
proportion of each abundance group to be used in each vegetation type.
Grass seeds required were calculated based on the standard seed requirements to
100% cover an area given by the Department of Land and Water Conservation (1996)
and was then divided to give the required coverage for each vegetation type. The
required coverage was the average grass cover calculated for each vegetation type.
58
3.4.2 Application
For each vegetation type the required characteristics required for the size of the
revegetation project is given below. Examples for a large-scale project (5,000m2 or
2,500 m2) and a small-scale project (500m2) are given. Some examples have
alternatives so different plans can be used in different areas, thereby increasing the
variety of species used in revegetating. If a different area is required, simple
multiplication and proportion calculations can be performed based on the given
information. A worked example is provided (Appendix C).
Furthermore, alternative densities are given for gully and riparian environments with
differing percentage rock cover. Separate values are not given for ridge communities,
as rock cover is typically low. The values incorporate the range of rock cover
percentage values encountered in this study, although, it is assumed that the average
value will be appropriate in most cases.
59
3.5 Guidelines 3.5.1 Ridge
Most ridge sites are similar in environmental conditions, and do not have any large
environmental influences such as aspect or a large percentage rock cover. For this
reason, most ridge sites can be revegetated in the same manner (Table 3.1). Example
revegetation plans are given in Appendix E).
Plate 3.1: Ridge vegetation community located in Jannali Reserve
60
Table 3.1: Revegetation Guidelines for Ridge Vegetation Communities. The number
and proportion of plants and species required for 10m2, 500m2 and 5000m2.
RIDGE Area (m2)
10m2 500m2 5,000m2
Density/Structure
(# of plants)
Percentage Actual # of plants
Top Canopy
Lower Canopy
Shrubs
Groundcovers
10%
11%
37%
42%
2
2
8
9
100
100
400
450
1000
1000
4000
4500
TOTAL 100% 21 1050 10500
Graminoids Percentage Cover Grams of seed sown
27% 7g(spring) 8g (autumn)
350g(Spring) 400g(Autumn)
3500g(Spring) 4000g(Autumn
Species Composition
(# of Species)
Species Richness Percentage Actual # of species
(read off graph) Top canopy
Lower Canopy
Shrubs
Groundcovers
Graminoids
9%
10%
26%
42%
13%
4
5
12
19
6
13
15
38
61
18
TOTAL 100% 46 145
Species Abundances Percentage Actual number of species
Abundant
Common
Sparse
7.5%
14%
78.5%
4
6
36
11
20
114
TOTAL 100% 46 145
61
020406080
100120140160180200
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
area (m2)
cum
ulat
ive
spec
ies
Figure 3.1: Number of species to plant per unit area for ridge vegetation
communities. Species should be selected from the provided species list (Appendix D)
62
3.5.2 Gully Gully vegetation shows variability when it is located at different aspects, for this
reason separate guidelines have been given for ‘north and west’ aspects and ‘south
and east’ aspects. Density and composition differ with the differing aspects and as
such separate guidelines are given. Separate species lists are also given for each of the
aspect groups. As the percentage rock cover can be variable in these environments
differing densities are given based on this. Example revegetation plans are given
(South and East: Appendix I) (North and West: Appendix G)
For South and East Gully vegetation communities,
Average rock cover: 12% - 22% rock cover: use regular value
Low rock cover: 0% -12% rock cover: use highest value
High rock cover: 22% -30% rock cover: use lowest value
For North and West Gully vegetation communities,
Average rock cover: 9%-20% rock cover: use regular value
Low rock cover: 0% -9% rock cover: use highest value
High rock cover: 25% -35% rock cover: use lowest value
63
South and East Table 3.2: Revegetation Guidelines for South and East facing Gully Vegetation Communities. The number and proportion of plants and species required for 10m2, 500m2 and 2500m2. Values in parentheses indicate number of plants when low or high rock cover respectively. South & East Gully Area (m2)
10m2 500m2 2500m2
Density/Structure Percentage Actual # of plants
Top Canopy
Lower Canopy
Shrubs
Groundcovers
5%
5%
34%
56%
2(2,2)
2(2,1)
10(12,9)
17(20,15)
100(100,100)
100(100,50)
500(600,450)
850(1000,750)
500(500,500)
500(500,250)
2500(3000,2250)
4250
(5000,3750)
TOTAL 100% 31(36,27) 1550(1800,1350) 7750 (9000,6750)
Graminoids Percentage Cover Grams of seed sown
9% 2g(spring) 2.5g (autumn
100g(Spring) 125g(Autumn)
500g(Spring) 625g(Autumn
Species
Composition
Species Richness Percentage Actual # of species(read off graph)
Top canopy
Lower Canopy
Shrubs
Groundcovers
Graminoids
7%
10%
30%
41%
12%
4
6
18
24
7
7
10
30
41
12
TOTAL 100% 59 100
Species
Abundances
Percentage Actual number of species
Abundant
Common
Sparse
7%
11%
82%
4
7
48
7
11
82
64
.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
area (m2)
# sp
ecie
s to
plan
t
Figure 3.2: Cumulative number of species to be planted for south and east facing gully
vegetation in the Sutherland Shire.
65
North and West
Table 3.3: Revegetation Guidelines for North and West facing Gully Vegetation Communities. The number and proportion of plants and species required for 10m2, 500m2 and 5000m2. Values in parentheses indicate number of plants when low or high rock cover respectively. North & WestGully Area (m2)
10m2 500m2 5000m2
Density/Structure Percentage Actual # of plants
Top Canopy
Lower Canopy
Shrubs
Groundcovers
12%
3%
40%
45%
2(3,1.5)
1(1,0.5)
8(11,5)
9(12,5)
100(150,75)
50(50,25)
400(550,250)
450(600,250)
1000(1500, 750)
500(500,250)
4000(5500,2500)
4500
(6000,2500)
TOTAL 100% 20(27,12) 1000(1350,600) 10000 (13500,6000)
Graminoids Percentage Cover Grams of seed sown
28% 7g(spring) 8g (autumn)
350g(Spring) 400g(Autumn)
3500g(Spring) 4000g(Autumn)
Species
Composition
Species Richness Percentage Actual # of species(read off graph)
Top canopy
Lower Canopy
Shrubs
Groundcovers
Graminoids
5%
11%
30%
44%
10%
3
7
18
26
6
6
13
35
52
12
TOTAL 100% 60 118
Species
Abundances
Percentage Actual number of species
Abundant
Common
Sparse
8%
12%
80%
5
7
48
10
14
94
66
020406080
100120140160180200
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
area (m2)
# sp
ecis
e to
pla
nt
Figure 3.3: Cumulative number of species to be planted for north and west facing
gully revegetation in the Sutherland Shire.
67
3.5.3 Riparian The riparian vegetation guidelines should be used to revegetate the area reaching 10m
directly adjacent to the creek. Certain species are found primarily directly adjacent
the creek (personal observation). These species are indicated in the list (^). When
revegetating, these plants should be placed in this position. The distance from the
creek they are planted depends on the slope (personal observation). When the slope is
steep these plants should be fewer and only cover a small area, but when the slope is
gentle and the area more flat, these species can extend further back and take up a
more extensive amount of space.
Riparian vegetation shows variability in density based on the percentage rock cover,
for this reason separate density extremes are given to account for this.
Average rock cover: 10% - 30% rock cover: use regular value
Low rock cover: 0% -10% rock cover: use highest value
High rock cover: 30% -45% rock cover: use lowest value
68
Table 3.4: Revegetation Guidelines for Riparian Vegetation Communities. The number and proportion of plants and species required for 10m2, 500m2 and 2500m2. Values in parentheses indicate number of plants when low or high rock cover respectively.
Riparian Area (m2)
10m2 500m2 2500m2
Density/Structure Percentage Actual # of plants
Top Canopy
Lower Canopy
Shrubs
Groundcovers
7%
25%
29%
39%
1(1,1)
5(6,3)
5(7,3)
7(9,4)
50(50,50)
250(300,150)
250(350,150)
350(450,200)
250(250,250)
1250(1500,750)
1250(1750,750)
1750
(2250,1000)
TOTAL 100% 18(23,11) 900(1150,550) 4500 (5750,2750)
Graminoids Percentage Cover Grams of seed sown
13% 3g(spring) 4g (autumn)
150g(Spring) 200g(Autumn)
750g(Spring) 1000g(Autumn
Species Composition
Species Richness Percentage Actual # of species (total read off graph)
Top canopy
Lower Canopy
Shrubs
Groundcovers
Graminoids
6%
21%
32%
29%
12%
4
14
21
18
8
8
26
39
35
14
TOTAL 100% 65 122
Species Abundances Percentage Actual number of species
Abundant
Common
Sparse
9%
12%
79%
6
8
51
11
15
99
69
020406080
100120140160180
400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000
area (m2)
num
ber
of sp
ecie
s req
uire
d
Figure 3.4: Cumulative number of species required for revegetating riparian
vegetation in the Sutherland Shire.
70
3.6 Development Issues
3.6.1 Size and Location of area
As isolated areas are more difficult to restore, it is recommended that revegetated
areas should be connected to or located within current high quality remnant bushland
to ensure the success of the restoration (Davies & Christie, 2001). This is important
because it has been found that isolated patches of restored bushland do not function as
well as areas that are continuous with already existing bushland (Bell et al, 1997).
This also lessens the undesirable impacts associated with edge effects (Bell et al,
1997) as there will be less edge made up by the restored area. Edge effects could pose
a serious threat to restored areas as they are growing and developing, as these areas
would be much less resilient than a fully developed mature site. Furthermore, it has
been stated that higher survival rate are associated with restoration projects
established adjacent to existing bushland (Jacquemyn et al, 2003).
If a number of revegetation projects are being carried out in various areas, it should be
ensured that the same small group of species is not being used in all projects. A
database should be kept by council of species being used. This database should aim at
increasing the species pool to ensure that diversity is being maintained.
3.6.2 Availability of stock
As previously mentioned it can be difficult to attain all of the required species from
commercial nurseries, and thus it has been recommended that locally indigenous
species be specifically propagated for restoration purposes. Despite this assertion, it
is understood that some species can be difficult to propagate for reasons such as
difficulties in finding seeds as well as germinating that seed. It is recommended that
more nurseries be encouraged to provide a wider range of appropriate stock.
When planning restoration plantings, if one of the original species planned to be used
cannot be propagated this can be substituted for another species from the species list
71
for that vegetation type and within the same structural layer and abundance group. As
this will not affect the overall outcome. Furthermore, although it is desirable to
include the recommended number of species and this should definitely be aimed at, if
it is not possible, at least 80% of the required species should be used in the plantings
(Pellow & Fench, 2002).
3.6.3 Ongoing Management
Restoration is not a fast process, it is gradual, and therefore, long-term commitment is
required for the best results (Davies & Christie, 2001). Lack of management once the
project has finished has resulted in a reduction in the overall success (Close &
Davidson, 2003). Much of the plant loss in restoration projects occurs in the first four
years (Sweeney et al, 2002). Thus management of the area is crucial in these early
stages of development to improve the likelihood of survival and success.
Weed control after revegetation can increase survival rates as this prevents weeds
outcompeting the new plants, also watering (Close & Davidson, 2003). It has been
recommended that weeding be undertaken for the first few years after planting
(Zimmermann et al, 2000), to ensure full native establishment. Watering during the
early stages of restoration is also important to reduce mortality of the developing
plants (Brown & Archer, 1999). This is especially important in periods of low
rainfall, which is common in this area.
Extra Planting As previously mentioned, if vines and ferns have not dispersed and established in area
after several years they can be added.
Fire
Careful management of fire is needed in the future to ensure regeneration of species
that require fire to reproduce such as Hakea and Banksia.
Often the type of high intensity fire required for this purpose is not suitable in urban
bushland due to the threat to people and property. In urban bushland, hazard reduction
burns are the main types of fire. Hazard reduction burns are an important part of
72
protecting people and property from uncontrolled fires. But, high fire frequency,
which can be associated with this type of burn (further explained Chapter 2), can
result in a loss of floristic diversity (Bradstock et al, 1998).
This is especially important for regenerating bush in restoration projects as fire too
soon after planting could result in the loss of species before they have the chance to
set seed.
Appropriate fire regimes post restoration for Hawkesbury sandstone vegetation should
be implemented.
3.6.4 Monitoring
Monitoring is important both to measure success also, if this method is successful it
can be used for future restoration projects. Monitoring should test how similar the
restored area is to natural conditions (Wilkins et al, 2003). The same characteristics
that were initially measured in remnant bushland for this study should be measured in
the restored areas and these can be compared when the restoration has developed.
Euclidean PS indexes have been recommended for analysing and measuring
performance (see Westman, 1991). Function, such as ecosystem processes (net
primary productivity and nutrient cycling) (Martin et al, 2005) is another important
indicator of restoration success (Wilkins et al, 2003) and should also be assessed and
compared against natural reference communities. As well as proportion of native
species and animal and microbial diversity (Martin et al, 2005), studies into nutrient
cycling and productivity could be undertaken.
A more comprehensive description of monitoring programs is explained in Chapter 4:
Recommendations for Future research.
73
- Chapter Four –
Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Work
4.1 Recommendations for future research
The quality of this research could be improved by increasing the number of quadrats
sampled as well as the reaches of the landscape covered in this study. This would
improve the accuracy as well as enabling a better understanding of the increase in
species richness as the area increases. The greater sample area may also increase the
number of species found. This is especially important for the riparian vegetation
communities in the Sutherland Shire, as previous vegetation surveys of the area have
not included this important vegetation type. Further quadrat surveys will also be
beneficial to gain more accurate representation of the vegetation communities at a
larger scale, thus enabling larger areas to be revegetated to be analogous with current
remnants more extensive in size. It would be beneficial to undertake further sampling
over a larger time frame to enable a larger proportion of annual species to be recorded
as well as ensuring correct species identification of plants while they are flowering.
The main area for future research in this field is a monitoring program to be set up to
assess the success of this type of restoration project. As there is little solid research
success when the methods used were known, this project could provide invaluable
information towards restoration projects for the future. A data base should be set up
by council which monitors all aspects of the restoration projects; density, structure,
species richness and composition, this can then be compared against quadrat data
found in this project to assess whether it follows a trajectory.
Monitoring would also be useful to assess the survival rates for restoration over 1, 5
and 15 years post restoration. As the survival rates for this study were an estimate
based on survival rates of restoration projects elsewhere, more accurate data could
either validate the current rate or enable more accurate rates to be included in future
guidelines.
74
4.2 Conclusions
The research undertaken in this thesis demonstrates the intrinsic differences between
vegetation communities on Hawkesbury sandstone in the Sutherland Shire. The
differences are apparent in all aspects of each vegetation communities characteristics
including density, structure, species richness and composition.
As a result of these differences separate distinct restoration guidelines could be
formulated based on each vegetation communities attributes.
The resulting guidelines will enable areas to be revegetated appropriately, depending
on their corresponding vegetation type representing as close as possible the natural
community intended.
These guidelines can be used to assist bushcare workers regenerate degraded areas, to
restore areas illegally cleared, ad if not other option available as a vegetation trade off
when development is absolutely necessary. It is important to remember that there is
no true substitute for natural bushland. Although this study has developed the best
method to achieve a close as match as possible, it will still not be an exact replicate.
For this reason, I would strongly advise against destroying natural bushland with the
hope of replacing it somewhere else.
As these situations occur in urban bushland throughout Sydney and Australia, there is
the possibility that these guidelines can be used in other regions of this vegetation
type on Hawkesbury sandstone. If through monitoring, this method proves
successful, although the vegetation will differ on other substrates and locations, this
method of guideline formulation can be used to assist restoration in various other
areas. The results of this study should be put towards improving the quality of current
bushland and extending it’s area thereby improving the overall bushland quality in
this region as well as others.
75
- References - Allen, E.B., Wallace Covington, W. & Falk, D.A., (1997), Developing the Conceptual
Basis for Restoration Ecology, Restoration Ecology, 5(4), 275-276
Aronson, J., Dhillion, S. & Le Floc’h, E. (1995). On the need to select an Ecosystem
of Reference, However imperfect: A reply to Pickett and Parker. Restoration
Ecology, 3(1), 1-3.
Bell, S.S., Fonseca, M.S. and Motten, L.B. (1997). Linking restoration and Landscape
ecology, Restoration Ecology, 5(4), 318-323.
Benson, D. & Howell, J. (1990). Taken for granted: The Bushland of Sydney and it’s
Suburbs, Kangaroo Press, Sydney.
Bochet, E. & Garcia-Fayos, P. (2004) factors controlling Vegetation establishment
and Water erosion on motorway slopes in Valencia, Spain, Restoration
Ecology, 12 (2), 166-176.
Bradstock, R.A., and Myerscough, P.J. (1988) The survival and population response
to frequent fires of two woody resprouters, Banksia serrata and Isopogon
anamonifolius, Australian journal of Botany, 36 (4), 415-431.
Brown, J.R. & Archer, S. (1999). Shrub Invasion of Grassland: Recruitment is 80(7),
2385-2404.
Buchanan, R.A. (1991). Bush regeneration- measuring success, Plant Protection
Quaterly, 6 (3), 105-108.
Cairns, J. (1989). Restoraing Damaged Ecosystems: Is predisturbance condition a
viable option?, The Environmental Professional, 11, 152-159.
76
Campbell, D.A., Cole, C.A. & Brooks, R.P. (2002) A comparison of natural and
created wetlands in Pennsylvania, USA, Wetlands Ecology and management,
10, 41-49.
Campbell, N.A., Reece, J.B. & Mitchell, L.G. (1999). Biology, Fifth Edition,
Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park, CA.
Clewell, A. & Rieger, J.P. (1997), What practitioners need from Restoration
ecologists, Restoration Ecology, 5(4), 350-358.
Close, D.C. & Davidson, N.J. (2003) Revegetation to combat tree decline in the
midlands and Drwent Valley Lowlands of Tasmania: Practices for improved
plant establishment, Ecological management and Restoration, 4(1), 29-36.
Davies, R. & Christie, J. (2001), Rehabilitating Western Sydneys Bushland: Processes
needed for sustained recovery, Ecological management and Restoration, 2(3),
167-178.
Duncan, R.S., & Chapman, C.A. (2001). Tree-Shrub Interactions During early
secondary forest succession in Uganda, Restoration Ecology, 11(2), 198-207.
Elton, C.S. (1958). The ecology of invasions by animls and plants. London: Methuen
& Co.
Ewing, K. (2002). Effects of Initial site traetments on early growth and three year
survival of Idaho Fescue, Restoration Ecology, 10(2), 181-196.
Fairly, A. & Moore, P. (2000). Native Plants of the Sydney District: An dentification
Guide. Kangaroo Press, Sydney.
Gilfedder, L. & Kirkpatrick, J.B. (1998). Factors influencing the integrity of remnant
bushland in subhumid Tasmania. Biological Conservation, 84, 89-96.
77
Grimbacher, P.S. & Hughes, L. (2002) Responses of ant communities and ant-seed
interactions to bush regeneration. Ecological management and Restoaration,
3(3), 188-199
Grime, J.P. (1997) Biodiversity and Ecosystem function: the debte deepens (US and
UK have built controlled ecosytems in an effort to examine the effects of
reduced diversity). Science, 277 (5330), 1260-1262.
Gross, M. (2003). Inventing Nature – Ecological Restoration by Public Experiments.
Lexington Books, USA.
Hancock, C.N., Ladd, P.G. & Froend, R.H. (1996), Biodeiversity and management of
riparian vegetation inWestern Australia. Forest Ecology and Management,
85, 239-250.
Harden, G. (1990). Flora of New South Wales Volume 1. NSW University Press,
Sydney.
Harden, G. (1990). Flora of New South Wales Volume 2. NSW University Press,
Sydney.
Harden, G. (1990). Flora of New South Wales Volume 3. NSW University Press,
Sydney.
Harden, G. (1990). Flora of New South Wales Volume 4. NSW University Press,
Sydney.
Hartley, S.E. & Jones T.H. (2003) Plant diversity and insect herbivores: Effects of
environmental change in contrasting model systems. OIKOS, 101, 6-17.
Heemstra, S, (1994). Classification and Assessment of Vegetated Land of Western
Sutherland Shire, Unpublished Masters Thesis, School of Geography,
University of New South Wales, Kensington.
78
Hobbs, R.J. (2003). Ecological Management and restoration: Assessment, sting goals
and measuring success. Ecological Management and Restoration, (4), S2-S3.
Hobbs, R.J. & Harriss, J.A., (2001). Restoration Ecology: Repairing the Earthes
Ecosystems in the New Millenium. Restoration Ecology, 9(2), 239-246.
Holl, K.D. & Crone, E.E. (2004). Applicibility of landscape and island biogeography
theory to restoration of riparan understorey plants. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 41, 922-933.
Holmes, P.M. & Richardson, D.M. (1999). Protocaols for Restoration based on
Recruitmnt dynamics, Community Structure and Ecosystem function:
Perspectives fro South African Fynbos. Resoration Ecology, 7(3), 215-230.
Humphrey, D.L. & Schupp, E.W. (2002). Seedling survival from locally and
commercially obtained seeds on two semi-arid sites. Restoration Ecology,
10(1), 88-95.
Hynes, L.N., McDonnell, M.J. & Williams, S.G. (2004). Measuring the success of
urban riparian revegetation projects using remnant vegetation as a reference
community. Ecological management and Restoration, 5(3), 205-209.
Jacquemyn, H., Butaye, J. & Hermy, M. (2003). Impacts of Restored path Density
and Distance from natural Forests on Colonization success. Restoration
Ecology, 11(4), 417-423.
Jefferson, L.V. (2004). Implications of plant density on the resulting community
structure of mine site land, Restoration Ecology, 12(3), 429-438.
Jones Saver, L. (1998). The once and future forest – a guide to forest restoration
stratedgies, Island Press, Washington D.C.
King, S.A. & Buckney, R.T. (2002). Invasion of exotic plants in nutrient enriched
urban bushland. Austral Ecology, 27, 573-583.
79
Knops, J.M.H., Tilman, D., Haddad, N.m., Naeem, S., Mitchell, C.E., Harstad, J.,
Ritchie, M.E., Howe, K.M., Reich, P.B., Siemann, E. & Groth, J. (1999).
Effects of Plant species richness on invasion dynamics, disease outbreaks,
insect abundances and diversity. Ecology Letters, 2, 286-293.
Landers, D.H. (1997). Riparian Restoration current status and the reach to the future.
Restoration Ecology, 5(4S), 113-121.
Le Brocque, A.F. & Buckney, R.T., (1994). Vegetation and Environmental patterns
on soils derived fom hawkesbury sandstone and Narrabeen substrata in Ku-
ring-gai Chase national park, New South Wales. Australian Journal of
Ecology, 19, 229-238.
Lindborg, R. & Eriksson, O. (2004). Effects of restoration on Plant species richness
and Composition in Scandanavian Semi-Natural Gasslands. Resoration
Ecology, 12(3), 318-326.
Martin, L.M., Moloney, K.A. & Wilsey, B.J. (2005). An assessment of grassland
restoration success using species diversity components. Journal of applied
Ecology, 42, 327-336.
McLoughlin, L. (1997). The impact of planting for restoration of remnant bushland on
it’s scientific and educational values: Implications for conservation planning.
Pacific Conservation Biology, 3(1), 27-38.
Montalvo, A.M., McMillan, P.A. & Allen, E.B. (2002). The relative importance of
seeding method, soil ripping and soil variables on seeding success. Restoration
Ecology, 10(1), 52-67.
Morrison, D.A., Buckney, H.T, Bewick, B.J., and Cary, C.J. (1996). Conservation
conflicts over burning bush in south-eastern Australia. Biological
Conservation, 76, 167-175.
80
Naeem, S. (2003). Continuing debate in the face of biodiversity loss. OIKOS, 100 (3),
619.
Nelson, S.M. &Anderson, D.C. (1999). Butterfly (Papplionoidea and Hesperiodea)
Assemblages assocated with natural, exotic and restored riparian habitats
along the lower Colorado River, USA. Regulated Rivers: Research and
Management, 15, 485-504.
Olsen, J., Kristensen, L., Weiner, J. & Griepentrog, H.W. (2005). Increased density
and spatial uniformity increase weed supression by spring wheat. Weed
Research, 45(4), 316-.
Parsons, M. (2004). Effect of Habitat fragmentation on vegetation diversity and plant
function, unpublished Honours thesis, Wollongong University.
Perrow, M.R. & Davy, A.J. (2002) Handbook of Ecological Restoration, Volume 1:
Principles of Restoration, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Pellow, B. & French, K. (2002) Revegetation stratedgy for the North Kiama ByPass.
Report prepared for the RTA.
Rice, B. (1999). No evidence for divergence between Australia and Elsewhere in
plant specise richness at tenth-ha scale, Proc. Ecol. Soc. Aust. , 14, 99-101.
Robinson, L. (1991). Field Guide to the Native plants of Sydney. Kangaroo Press,
Sydney.
Sweeney, B.W., Czapka, S.J. & Yerkes, T. (2002). Riparian Forest Restoaration:
increasing success by reduced plant competition and herbivory. Restoration
Ecology, 10(2), 392-400.
Sullivan, N, Misdale, M, Jackson, G. & French, K. (2005) Allans Creek Re-vegetation
and Management Plan. Report prepared for Bluescope Steel Limited.
81
Sutherland Shire Council (2004). Sutherland Shire State of the Environment Report
2003/2004. Sutherland Shire Councl, Sutherland.
Sutherland Shire Council (1990). Sutherland Shire Urban Bushland Plan of
Management. Prepared by the Technical Services Division, Sutherland.
Temperton, V., Hobbs, R.J., Nuttle, T. & Halle, S. (2004). Assembly Rules and
Restoration Ecology: Bridging the Gap between theory and Practice, Island
Press, Washington D.C.
Thomson, V.P. & Leishman, M.R. (2005). Post-fire vegetation dynamics in nutrient-
nriched and non-enriched sclerophyll woodland. Austral Ecology, 30, 250-
260.
Toth, L.A., Arrington, D.A., Brady, M.A. & Muszick, D.A., (1995). Conceptual
evaluation of factos potentially affecting restoration of habitat structure within
the channelised Kissimee River Ecosystem. Restoration Ecology, 3(3), 160-
180.
Warren, R.S., Fell, P.E., Rosza, R., Hunter Brawley, A., Orsted, A.C., Olsen, E.T.,
Swamy, V. & Niering, W.A. (2002). Salt Marsh Restoration in Conecticut: 20
years of Science and Management, Restoration Ecology, 10(3), 497-513.
Westman, W.E. (1991). Ecological Restoaration projects: Measuring their
performance. The Environmental Professional, 13, 207-215.
Westoby, M, French, K., Hughes, L., Rice, B. & Rodgerson, L. (1991). Why do more
plant species use ants for dispersal on infertile compared wth fertile soils?.
Australian Journal of Ecology, 16, 445-455.
Yates, C.J., Hobbs, R.J. & Atkins, J. (2000). Establishment of perrenial shrub and tree
species in degraded Eucalyptus salmonophloia (Salmon Gum) Remnant
Woodlands: Effects of Restoration Treatments. Restoration Ecology, 8(2), get
pages.
82
Zimmermann, J.K., Pascarella, J.B. & Aide, T.M. (2000). Barriers to forest
regeneration in an abandoned pasture in Puerto Rico. Restoration Ecology,
8(4), 350-360.
83
- Appendix -
Appendix A.................................................................................................................85
Table A1: Sites initially visually assessed and rejected based on selection criteria,
for use as quadrat sampling for this study
Appendix B..................................................................................................................86
Table B1: List of species found in all vegetation communities sampled.
Appendix C.................................................................................................................97
Worked example for calculating exact guidelines for specific areas.
Appendix D.................................................................................................................99
Ridge Species List
Table D1: Species to be planted within ridge vegetation communities.
Appendix E................................................................................................................104
Example revegetation plans for Ridge vegetation communities
Table E1: First alternative for revegetating ridge vegetation at an area of 500m2.
Table E2: Second alternative for revegetating ridge vegetation for an area of 500m2
Table E3: Example revegation plan for revegetating ridge vegetation for an area of
5,000m2 (half hectare).
Appendix F............................................................................................................... 112
North and West Gully Species List
Table F1: All species for planting in north and west gully vegetation communities.
84
Appendix G...........................................................................................................117
Example revegetation plans for North West Gully vegetation communities.
Table G1: Revegetation plan for revegetating north and west gully vegetation for
areas covering 500m2.
Table G2: Revegetation plan for revegetating north and west gully vegetation for
areas covering 5000m2.
Appendix H............................................................................................................. 122
South and East Gully Species List
Table H1:All species for planting in south and east gully vegetation communities.
Appendix I................................................................................................................ 127
Example revegetation plans for South and East Gully vegetation communities. Table I1: Revegetation plan for revegetating south and east gully vegetation for areas
covering 500m2.
Table I2: Revegetation plan for revegetating south and east gully vegetation for areas
covering 2500m2.
Appendix J............................................................................................................... 132
Riparian Species List
Table J1: All species to be planted within this vegetation type.
Appendix K.............................................................................................................. 136
Example revegetation plans for Riparian vegetation communities.
Table K1: Revegetation plan for revegetating riparian vegetation for areas covering
500m2.
Table K2: Revegetation plan for revegetating riparian vegetation for areas covering
2500
85
- Appendix A - Table A1: Sites initially visually assessed and rejected based on selection criteria, for use as quadrat sampling for this study Site location Vegetation type Reason for Rejection The Glen Gully, Riparian Innapropriate due to extensivebracken invasion resultant from previous fires Jannali Reserve Riparian Extensive bracken invasion Prince Edward Park Gully, Riparian Innapropriate due to recent burning (possibly hazard reduction) The “Needles” Engadine
Gully , Riparian Innapropriate due to high level of disturbance, walking tracks directly beside water way, large walking tracks thoughout majority of reserve making the escape of edge effects difficult. Also, in some parts, weed infestation, bracken invasion and recent burning.
Beside Woronora River
Riparian Walking track directly beside river
Drysdale Pl, Kareela Riparian High level of disturbance, weed invasion, insufficient size to avoid edge effects Carvers Rd, Jannali Riparian Insuffiscent size Burraneer Park Ridge, Gully,
Riparian Mainly used for recreation, includes playng equipment etc
Various locations around Menai and Bangor
Riparian, Gully
Difficulty reaching water way (extremely steep slope), recent burning, extremely steep slopes reachng gully sites
Loftus Creek Riparian, more Gully
Remaining required aspects are difficult to access, Riparian difficult to access due to extremely steep slopes and long distance to water way
Menai (various locations)
Ridge (more) Planned areas for sampling have now been developed, leaving small reserves of insufficient size for sampling
Honeysuckle Reserve, Jannali
Koolangarra Reserve, Bonnet Bay
86
- Appendix B –
Table B1: List of species found in all vegetation communities sampled.
Vegetation Community Found Scientific name Growth Form Ridge Gully Riparian Common Name
North&West South&East PTERIDOPHYTES Dennstaedtiaceae Pteridium esculentum Fern * * * * Bracken Fern Glecheniaceae Glechenia dicarpa Fern * Pouched Coral Fern Sticherus flabellatus Fern * Umbrella Fern Lindsaeaceae Lindsea linearis Fern * * * Screw Fern Lindsea microphylla Fern * Lacy Wedge Fern Schizaeaceae Schizaea dichotana Fern * * Branched Comb Fern
GYMNOSPERMS Cupressaceae Callitris muelleri Upper canopy * Callitris rhomboidea Upper Canopy * Port Jackson Cyprus Zamiacaea Macrozamia communis Shrub * Burrawang
DICOTYLEDONS Apiaceae
87
Actinotus helianthi Groundcover * * * * Flannel Flower Actinotus minor Groundcover * * * * Lesser Flannel Flower Platysace lanceolata Groundcover * * * * Native Parsnip Playsace linearifolia Groundcover * * * * Carrot Tops Xanthosia pilosa Groundcover * * * Wooly Xanthosia Xanthosia tridentata Groundcover * * * * Rock Xanthosia Asteraceae Olearia microphylla Shrub * * Bridal Daisy Bush Ozothanus diosmofolius Shrub * * Everlasting, Paper daisy
Baueraceae Baura rubiodes Groundcover * River Rose Casuarinaceae Allocasuarina distyla Upper canopy * * She Oak Allocasuarina littoralis Upper Canopy * * * * Black she oak Casuarina glauca Upper canopy * Swamp she oak Cuoniaceae Callicoma serratifolia Lower canopy * Callicoma, Black Wattle, Tderruing Ceratopetalum apetalum Lower canopy * Coachwood, Boola Ceratopetalum gummiferum Lower Canopy * * * New South Wales Christmas Bush Dilleniaceae Hibbertia diffusa Groundcover * * * Hibbertia fasciculata Groundcover * Guinea Flower Hibbertia hitardens Groundcover * Hibbertia nitida Groundcover * * * * Shiny Guinea Flower Hibbertia linearis Groundcover * Showy Guinea Flower Droseraceae Drosera peltata Groundcover * * * * Sundew Elaeocarpaceae Eleocarpus reticularis Lower canopy * Blue Berry Ash
88
Epacridaceae Astroloma elliptica Groundcover * Astroloma pinifolium Groundcover * Pine Heath Brachyloma daphnoides Groundcover * * Daphne Heath Epacris longifolia Groundcover * * Native Fuschia Epacris microphylla Groundcover * * * Coral Heath Epacris obtusifolia Groundcover * * Epacris paludosa Groundcover * Epacris pulchella Shrub * * * * NSW Coral Heath Leucopogon amplexicaulus Groundcover * * Bearded Heath Leucopogon ericoides Groundcover * Bearded Heath Leucopogon lanceolatus Groundcover * Lance Beard Heath Leucopogon setiga Shrub * Bearded Heath Lissanthe strigosa Groundcover * * Native Cranberry Monotoca scoparia Groundcover * Sprengelia incarnata Groundcover * Styphelia tubiflora Groundcover * * * Five Corners Woolsia pungens Shrub * * * Snow Wreath Euphorbiaceae Micrantheum ericoides Groundcover * * * Micrantheum hexandrum Groundcover * Phyllanthus hirtellus Groundcover * * * * Thyme spurge Porathera ericifolia Groundcover * * Pseudanthus pimeliodes Groundcover * Ricinocarpos pinifolius Shrub * * * * Wedding Bush Fabaceae Aotus ericoides Shrub * * Aotus Bossiaea heterophylla Shrub * * * * Variable Bossiaea Bossiaea rhomboidea Shrub * * * Bossiaea stephensonii Shrub * * *
89
Dillwynia retorta Shrub * * * Heathy parrot pea Glycine clandestina Vine * Love creeper Gompholobium glabratum Shrub * * * Golden glory pea Gompholobium grandiflorum Shrub * * Golden glory pea Gompholobium latifolium Shrub * Broad leaf wedge pea Hardenbergia violacea Vine * * * * Hardenbergia Hovea linearis Groundcover * * * Phyllota phylicoides Shrub * * * * Common Phyllota Platylobium formosum Groundcover * * Handsome flat pea Pultanaea daphnoides Shrub * * * Bush pea Pultanaea elliptica Shrub * * * Bush pea Pultanaea stipularia Shrub * * * Bush pea Viminaria juncea Lower canopy * Golden Spray Mimosoideae Acacia binervia Shrub * * Coastal myall Acacia brownii Shrub * Wattle Acacia decurrens Shrub * Sydney green wattle Acacia elongata Shrub * Wattle Acacia hispidula Shrub * Wattle Acacia linifolia Shrub * * * * Flax leaved wattle Acaci mearnsii Shrub * Acacia longifolia Shrub * * * Sydney glden wattle Acacia myrtifolia Shrub * Red stemmed wattle Acacia obtusifolia Shrub * Wattle Acacia suaveolens Shrub * * * * Sweet scented wattle Acacia terminalis Shrub * * * * Sunshine wattle Acacia ulicifolia Shrub * * * * Prickly Moses Goodeniaceae Dampiera stricta Groundcover * * * * Goodenia hederacea Groundcover * * * * Violet leaved goodenia
90
Scaevola racisissima Groundcover * Snake flower Haloragaceae Gonocarpus tetragynus Groundcover * * Poverty Raspwort Gonocarpus teucroides Groundcover * * * * Germander raspwort Lauraceae Cassytha pubescens Vine * * * * Common devils twine Lobeliaceae Lobelia dentata Groundcover * Loganiaceae Logania albiflora Shrub * Myrtaceae Angophora bakeri Upper canopy * * Narrow leaved Apple Angophora costata Upper canopy * * * * Smooth barked Apple Angophora hispida Lower canopy * * * Dwarf Apple Angophora hispida x costata Upper canopy * Austromyrtus tenuifolia Groundcover * Narrow leaf Myrtle Baeckea diosmifolia Groundcover * Heath Myrtle Baeckea imbricata Groundcover * * Heath Myrtle Baeckea linifolia Shrub * Heath Myrtle Callistemon citrinus Shrub * Crimson Bottlebrush Calytris tetragona Shrub * * Corymbia gummifera Upper canopy * * * * Darwinnia fascicularis Shrub * Eucalyptus globoidea Upper canopy * White stringy bark Eucalyptus haemastoma-racemosa Upper canopy * Scribbly Gum Eucalyptus oblonga Upper canopy * Common Sandstone stringybark Eucalyptus piperita Upper canopy * * * * Sydney Peppermint Eucalyptus punctata Upper canopy * * Grey Gum Eucalyptus squamosa Upper canopy * Scaly bark Kunzea ambigua Shrub * * * * Tick Bush
91
Leptospermum arachnoides Shrub * * * * Spidery Teatree Leptospermum juniperinum Lower canopy * Prickly tea tree Leptospermum lanigerum Lower canopy * Leptospermum morisonii Lower canopy * Leptospermum polygifolium Lower canopy * * * * Lemon scented Teatree leptospermum squarrosum Lower canopy * * * * Leptospermum trinervium Lower canopy * * * * Paperbark Teatree Tristania neriifolia Upper canopy * Tristaniopsis laurina Upper canopy * WaterGum Pittosporaceae Billardiera scandens Vine * * * * Apple berry Pittosporum undulatum Lower canopy * * Sweet Pittosporum Proteaceae Banksia ericifolia Lower canopy * * * * Heath leaved banksia Banksia marginata Shrub * * * * Silver banksia Banksia oblongifolia Shrub * * * Honeysuckle Banksia serata Lower canopy * * * * Old man Banksia Banksia spinulosa Shrub * * * * Hairpin banksia Conospermum longifolium Shrub * Cone seed Grevillea buxifolia Shrub * * * * Grey Spider flower Grevillea mucronulata Shrub * * * Green spider flower Grevillea oleoides Shrub * * * Grevillea sericia Shrub * * * * Pink spider flower Grevillea sphacelata Groundcover * * * Grey spider flower Hakea dactyloides Lower canopy * * Finger hakea Hakea gibbosa Lower canopy * Hakea salicifolia Lower canopy * Willow leaved Hakea Hakea sericia Lower canopy * * * * Bushy Needlybush Hakea teretifolia Lower canopy * * * Dagger hakea Isopogon amemnifolius Shrub * * * * Drumsticks
92
lambertis formosa Shrub * * * * Mountain Devils Lomatia myricoides Lower canopy * River Lomatia Lomatia silaifolia Groundcover * * * * Crinkle Bush Melaleuca squarrosa Shrub * Persoonia lanceolata Lower canopy * * Geebung Persoonia levis Lower canopy * * * * Smooth Geebung Persoonia linearis Lower canopy * * * Narrow leaved Geebung Persoonia pinifolia Lower canopy * * * * Pine leaf Geebung Petrophile pulchella Shrub * * Conesticks Petrophile sessilis Lower canopy * * * Conesticks Stenocarpus salignus Lower canopy * Scrub Beefwood Telopea speciosissima Shrub * Waratah Rhamnaceae Cryptandra amara var. Amara Groundcover * Bitter cryptandra Pomaderris elliptca Groundcover * Smooth pomaderris Rubiaceae Pomax umbellata Groundcover * * Pomax Rutaceae Boronia ledifolia Groundcover * * * * Sydney Borona Boronia pinnata Groundcover * Crowea saligna Groundcover * Eriostemon australasius Shrub * * Pink wax Flower Eriostemon scaber Groundcover * * * * Wax Flower Zieria pilosa Groundcover * * * * Santalaceae Exocarpus cuppressiformis Lower canopy * Cherry Ballart Letomeria acida Lower canopy * Acid drops Sapindaceae Dodonea triquetra Shrub * * * Common Hop Bush Sterculiaceae
93
Lasiopetalum Ferrungineum Shrub * * Rusty petal Lasiopetalum parviflorum Shrub * * Lasiopetalum rufum Shrub * * Rusty petals Stylidiaceae Stylidium graminifolium Groundcover * Triggerplant Stylidium laricifolium Groundcover * * * Stylidium lineare Groundcover * * heath trigger plant Thymelaeaceae Pimelia linifolia Groundcover * * * * Tremandraceae Tetratheca ericifolia Groundcover * *
MONOCOTYLEDONS
Agavaceae Dorynthes excelsa Groundcover * * * Gymea Lily Cyperaceae Baumea juncea Graminoid Caustis flexousa Graminoid * * * * Old mans beard Caustis pentandra Graminoid * Caustis recurvata Graminoid * * * Cyathochaeta diandra Graminoid * * * Gahnia sieberiana Graminoid * * Sword Grass Lepidosperma laterale Graminoid * * * * Sword sedge Schoenus melanostachys Graminoid * Bog Rush Haemodoraceae Haemodorum corymbosum Groundcover * * * Blood Root Lomandraceae Lomandra brevis Groundcover * Mat rush Lomandra filliformis Groundcover * * * Wattle Mat Rush
94
Lomandra fluviatilis Groundcover * Mat rush Lomandra glauca Groundcover * * * Lomandra longifolia Groundcover * * * Spin headed Mat rush Lomandra obliqua Groundcover * * * * Mat rush Orchidaceae Caledenia catenata Groundcover * White Fingers Cymbidium suave Groundcover * Snake Flower Thelymitra ixiodes Groundcover * Spotted Sun Orchid Phormiaceae Dianella careulea Groundcover * * * * Blue Flax Lily Dianella revoluta Groundcover * * Blue Flax Lily Poaceae Anisopogon avanaceus Graminoid * * * * Oat speargrass Aristata vagans Graminoid * Three awn speargrass Entolasia marginata Graminoid * * * * Entolasia stricta Graminoid * * * * Wiry Panic Erogrostis brownii Graminoid * * Browns Lovegrass Poa labillardieri Graminoid Tussock Themeda australis Graminoid * * * Kangaroo Grass Restionaceae Leptocarpus tenax Graminoid * * * * Twine rush Restio dimorpha Graminoid * Smilaceae Smilax glyciphylla Vine * * * Native Sarsparilla Xanthorrhoeaceae Xanthorrhoea arborea Groundcover * * Broad leaf Grasstree Xanthorrhoea concava Groundcover * * * * Grasstree Xanthorrhoea media Groundcover * Forest Grass tree Xanthorrhoea resinifera Groundcover * * * * Grasstree
95
WEEDS Oleaceae Ligustrum sinese Shrub * Small leaved Privet Asteraceae Ageratina riparia Groundcover * Mist Flower
97
- Appendix C -
Worked example for calculating exact guidelines for specific areas. This example is
based on an area of 5,000m2 for ridge vegetation.
1. Calculate total density for the required area
21 (density for 10m2) x 500m2 (5, 000m2 / 10) = 10, 500
2. Calculate required density for each structural layer from the number of plants
per 10m2. Multiply this by the required area diveded by ten
Top canopy – 500 x 2 = 1000
Lower canopy - 500 x 2 = 1000
Shrubs - 500 x 8 = 4000
Groundcovers - 500 x 9 = 4500
3. Calculate required number of species
From graph – 145 species are requied
4. Calculate proportion of species from each structural layer
Top canopy - 9% of 45 = 13 species
Lower canopy - 10% of 45 = 15 species
Shrubs - 26% of 45 = 38 species
Groundcovers - 42% of 45 = 61 species
Graminoids - 13% of 45 = 18 species
5. Calculate proportion of abundant, common and sparse species
Sparse - 78.5% of 45 = 114 species
Common - 14% of 45 = 20 species
98
Abundant - 7.5% of 45 = 11 species
6. Work out required amount of seed required for graminoids. Based on weight
required per 10m2; multiply to the required area for revegetation. Seed should be
made up of a mixture of the required number of species.
6. Finally, based on all of the above information and the species list, the required
number of species are chosen for each structural layer, including the correct
proportion of common, abundant an sparse species. The number of plants is then
decided for each species based on the required density. Species are chosen, within the
requirements, randomly from the list. The number of plants for each species is
approximated based on the required parameters; with abundant ranked species having
the highest density, followed by common then sparse. The result of this is shown in
appendix .....
99
- Appendix D -
Ridge Species List Table D1: Species to be planted within ridge vegetation communities. In this survey actual densities were given for every species, and abundanace rankings were given based on their percentage contribution to the total density of all sites. Graminoids were handled seperately, ranking were given based on average percentage cover. Species with an asterix were found by another auhtor (Simon Heemstra, 1994), abundance rankings were given based on average cover. A = abundant (>2% of total density) (*>5% average cover) C = common (>1-2% of total density) (* 1-5% average cover) S = sparse (<1% of total desnity) (*<1% average cover) Upper canopy (>5m)
Allocasuarina distyla S Allocasuarina littoralis A Angophera bakeri S Angophera costada S Angophera costada x hispidula S Banksia serrata S Corymbia gummifera C Eucalyptus capitellata* C Eucalyptus globoidea S Eucalyptus haemastoma/racemosa C Eucalypus pilularis* S Eucalyptus piperita S Eucalyptus punctata S Eucalyptus oblonga S Eucalyptus resinifera* S Eucalyptus sclerophylla* C Eucalyptus sieberi* S Eucalyptus squarrosa S
Lower Canopy (3-5m) Acacia longifolia S Angophera hispidula C Banksia ericifolia C Eleocarpus reticularis* S Exocarpus cuppressiformis S Hakea dactyloides S Hakea sericia C
100
Hakea teretifolia S Lptospermum juniperinium* S Leptospermum parvifolium* S Leptospermum polygarifolium S Leptospermum squarrosum S Leptospermum trinervium A Persoonia lanceolata S Personnia levis S Persoonia linearis S Persoonia pinifolia S Petrophile sessilis A
Shrub layer
Acacia binervia S Acaicia brownii S Acacia buxifolia* S Acacia decurrens S Acacia linifolia S Acacia myrtifolia S Acacia suaveolens C Acacia terminalis S Acacia ulicifolia C Banksia marginata S Banksia oblongifolia S Banksia spinulosa A Boronia ledifolia S Brachyloma daphnoides S Bossiaea ensata* S Bossiea heterophylla S Bossiaea stephensonii* S Conospermum longifolium ssp. Augustifolium S Conospermum taxifolium* S Darwinnia fascicularis ssp. Fascicularis S Daviesia corymbosa* S Daviesia ulicifolia* S Dillwynia retorta A Dillwynia sericia* S Dodonea triquetra S Epacris pulchella A Eriostemon australis S Grevillea bauxifolia S Grevillea diffusa* S Grevillea mucronulata* S Grevillea sericia A Grevillea sphacelata C Isopogon anemonifolius C
101
Isopogon anethifolius* S Kunzea ambigua S Lambertia formosa C Leptospermum arachnoides A Lissanthe stringosa S Macrozamia communis* S Olearia microphylla S Ozothanus diosmofolius S Phylota phylicoides C Pultanaea daphnoides S Pultanaea elliptca S Pultanaea linophylla S Pultanaea stipularis* S Woolsia pungens S
Groundcover layer
Actinotus helianthi S Actinotus minor C Baekea diosmofolia C Baekea imbricata* S Blandifordia noblis* S Calytrix tetragona C Cryptandra amara var. Amara S Dampiera stricta C Dianella caerulea S Dipodium variegatum* S Doryanthes excelsa* S Drosera peltata S Epacris microphylla S Epacris longifolia* S Epacris paludosa S Eriostemon scaber S Gahnia erythocarpa* S Gompholobium glabratum S Gompholobium grandiflorum* S Gompholobium minus* S Gonocarpus micranthus* S Gonocarpus tetragynus S Gonocarpus teucroides S Goodenia bellidifolia subsp. Bellidifolia* S Goodenia hederophylla S Haegemodorum planifolium S Hibbertia bracteata* S Hibbertia linearis S Hibberta nitida S Hibbertia riparia* S
102
Helichrysum scorpiodes* S Hovea linearis S Hypericum gramineum* S Lasiopetalum ferrunginum subsp. Ferrunginum* S Laxmania gracilis* S Leucopogon amplexicaulis* S Leucopogon appressus* S Leucopogon microphyllus A Leucopogon ericoides S Lasiopetalum parvifloum C Lobelia denata S Lobelia gracilis* S Lomandra confertifolus subsp. Rubiginosa S Lomandra brevis S Lomandra filliformis S Lomandra glaca S Lomandra gracilis* S Lomandra obliqua A Lomandra longifolia A Lomatia silicfolia C Micrantheum ericoides C Mitrascame polymorpha* S Monotoca scoparia* S Phyllanthus hirtellus A Patersonia sericia* S Pimelia linifolia C Platyscae lanceolata S Platysace linearifolia C Pomax umbellata S Poranthera ericifolia S Ricinocarpus pinifolius S Stylidium gramnifolum* S Stylidium linease S Stylidium productum* S Styphelia tubifolra S Tetratheca ericifolia S Thelymitra ixiodes S Thysanotus tuberotus* S Tricoryne simplex* S Xanthosia tridentata S Xanthorea resinifera S Xanthorea concava S Xanthorea media C Zieria pilosa S
Graminoids
103
Anisopogon avanaceus A Caustis flexuosa S Digitaria parviflora S Entolasia marginata S Entolasia stricta C Isoleptis inundata S Leptocarpus tenax S Lepidosperma laterale C Philotrix deusta S Themeda australis S Cyathochaeta diandra S Cynodon dactylon* S Danthonia linkii var. Fulva* S Imperata cylindrica var. Major* S Lepidosperma concavuum* S Lepidosperma viscidum* S Schoenus imberbis* S Schoenus melanostachys* S Microlaena stipoides* S Poa affinis* S Poa labillardieri* S Stipa pubescens* C Leproydia scariosa* S
Ferns/vines Billardiera scandens S Cassytha pubescens S Lindsaea linearis A Lindsaea microphylla* S Schizaea bifida* S Schizaea dichotana S Hardenbergia violeacea S Smilax glycipylla S
104
- Appendix E - Example revegetation plans for Ridge vegetation communities on Hawkesbury sandstone in the Sutherland Shire. Species are interchangeable for species of the same grouping. Table E1: First alternative for revegetating ridge vegetation at an area of 500m2. Alternative 1
Upper canopy Abun. Rank # plants
Allocasuarina littoralis A 45Banksia serrata S 15Corymbia gummifera C 30Eucalyptus punctata S 10
100Lower canopy
Banksia ericifolia C 40Hakea teretifolia S 20Leptospermum polygifolium S 25Persoonia levis S 15
100Shrubs
Acacia linifolia S 30Acacia suaveolens C 60Banksia spinulosa A 85Boronia ledifolia S 20Bossiaea heterophylla S 25Conospermum longifolium ssp. Augustifolium S 35Daviesia ulicifolia S 25Grevillea sphacelata C 55Kunzea ambigua S 20Pultanaea elliptica S 15Woolsia pungens S 30
400Groundcovers
Actinotus helianthi S 20Cryptandra amara var. Amara S 20Dianella caereulea S 20Epacris microphylla S 20Eriostemon scaber S 25Gompholobium grandiflorum S 25Gonocarpus teucroides S 20
105
Haegemodorum planifolium S 20Hibbertia nitida S 10Hovea linearis S 20Lasiopetum ferrunginum var. Ferrunginum S 25Lobelia denata S 15Lomandra brevis S 25Lomatia silicifolia S 15Patersonia sericia S 20Pimelia linifolia C 60Pomax umbellata S 15Ricinocarus pinifolia S 25Xanthorea media C 50
450Graminoids
Anisopogon avanaceus A 75gCaustis flexousa S 55gEntolasia marginata S 55gLepidosperma laterale S 55gPoa labillardiei S 57gLeproydia scariosa S 53g 350g (spring)
106
Table E2: Second alternative for revegetating ridge vegetation for an area of 500m2
Alternative 2 Upper Canopy Abundance rank # plants Angophora costata S 20Eucalyptus haemestoma/racemosa C 40Eucalypyus pilularis S 15Eucalyptus squarrosa S 25
100Lower canopy
Angophora hispidula C 35Leptospermum junipinium S 15Leptospermum trinervium C 35Persoonia pinifolia S 15
100Shrubs
Acacia binervia S 30Acacia brownii S 25Acacia terminalis S 30Banksia oblongifolia S 25Banksia marginata S 20Dillwynia retorta A 85Eriostemn australis S 20Grevillea sericia A 85Lisanthe stringosa S 25Olearia microphylla S 35Pultanaea dahnoides S 20
400Groundcovers
Actinotus minor C 45Bakea imbricata S 20Dampiera stricta C 50Drosera peltata S 15Epacris longifolia S 15Gompholobium glabratum S 20Goodenia heterophylla S 20Hibbertia linearis S 10Laxmania gracilis S 15Leucopogon amplexicaulus S 25Lomandra glauca S 20Lomandra longifolia A 70Monotoca scoparia S 15
107
Platysace lanceolata S 15Poranthera ericifilia S 20Styphelium linease S 15Styphelia tubiflora S 20Xanthorea resinifera S 20Zieria pilosa S 20
450Graminoids
Cyathochaeta diandra S 55Digitaria parviflora S 55Entolasia stricta C 70Isolepsis inundata S 57Philotrix deusta S 55Themeda australis S 58 350g(spring)
108
Table E3: Example revegation plan for revegetating ridge vegetation for an area of 5,000m2 (half hectare).
Abun. Rank # plants Top canopy
Allocasuarina distyla S 70Angophora bakeri S 70Angophophora costata S 80Angophora costata x hispida S 80Banksia serrata S 75Corymbia gummifera C 120Eucalyptus haemastoma/racemosa C 130Eucalyptus punctata S 80Eucalyptus oblonga S 80Eucalyptus resinifera S 70Eucalyptus sieberi S 75Eucalyptus squarrosa S 70
1000Lower canopy
Acacia longifolia S 40Angophora hispida C 95Banksia ercifolia C 95Hakea dactyloides S 35Exocarpus cuppressiformis S 40Hake sercia C 120Hakea teretifolia S 45Leptospermum juniperinium S 40Leptospermum parvifolium S 30Leptospermum polygifolium S 45Leptospermum trinervium A 140Persoonia lanceolata S 45Persoonia levis S 40Persoonia pinifolia S 50Petrophile sessilis A 140
1000Shrubs
Acacia binervia S 70Acacia brownii S 75Acacia linifolia S 70Acacia myrtiflia S 70Acacaia suaveolens C 180Acacaia terminalis S 80Acacia ulicifolia C 180Banksia marginata S 60
109
Banksia oblongifolia S 60Banksia spinulosa A 240Boronia ledifolia S 60Brachyloma daphnoides S 70Bossiaea heterophylla S 70Conospermum longifolium ssp. Augustifolium S 70Conospermum taxifolium S 75Darwinnia fascicularis ssp. Fasciclaris S 70Daviesia corymbosa S 70Dillwynia retorta A 230Epacris pulcella A 240Eriostemon australis S 70Grevillea buxifolia S 60Grevillea diffusa S 70Grevillea mucronulata S 80Grevillea sericia A 230Grevillea spacelata C 170Isopogon anemonifolius C 180Kunzea ambigua S 60Lambertia formosa C 150Leptospermum arachnoides A 240Lissanthe stringosa S 80Olearia microphylla S 60Ozothanus diosmofolius S 70Phylllota phylicoides C 170Pultanaea daphnoides S 75Pultanaea elliptica S 65Pultanaea stipularis S 60Woolsia pungens S 70
4000Groundcover layer
Actinotus helianthi S 50Actinotus minor C 150Baekea diosmofolia C 140Baekea imbricata S 60Blandifordia nobilis S 60Calytrix tetragona C 120Cryptandra amara var. Amara S 50Dampiera stricta C 120Dianella careulea S 65Dianella revoluta S 55Epacris microphylla S 65Epacris longifolia S 50Eparis paludosa S 60Eriostemon scaber S 50Gompholobium glabratum S 60
110
Gompholobium grandiflorum S 60Gonocarpus tetragnus S 60Gonocarpus teucroides S 70Goodenia bellidifolia subsp. Bellidifolia S 60Goodenia heterophylla S 50Haegemodorum planifolium S 55Hibbertia linearis S 50Hibbertia nitida S 60Hibbertia riparaia S 50Helichrysum scorpiodes S 50Hovea lineris S 55Hypericum gramineum S 45Lasiopetalum ferrungineum subsp. Ferrunginum
S 50
Laxmannia gracilis S 50Leucopogon amplexicaulus S 60Leucopogon apressus S 50Leucopogon microphyllus A 230Leucopogon ericoides S 60Lobelia denata S 65Lomandra confertifolius subsp. Rubiginosa S 60Lomandra brevis S 60Lomandra filliformis S 50Lomandra glauca S 60Lomandra obliqua A 220Lomandra longifolia A 220Lomatia silicifolia C 145Mitrascame polymorpha S 50Monotoca scoparia S 60Phyllanthus hirtellus A 200Patersonia sericia S 60Pimelia linifolia C 130Platysace lanceolata S 60Playsace linearifolia C 140Pomax umbellata S 45Poranthera ericifolia S 40Ricinocarpus pinifolius S 55Stylidium linease S 50Styphelia tubiflora S 60Tetratheca ericifolia S 40Thysanotus tuberotus S 60Xanthorea resinifera S 60Xanthorea media C 140Zieria pilosa S 50
4500Graminoids
111
Anisopogon avanaceus A 500gCaustis flexuosa S 180gCyathochaeta diandra S 180gCynodon dactylon S 190gDanthonia linkii var. Fulva S 180gDigitaria parviflora S 200gEntolasia marginata S 200gEntolasia stricta C 380gIsolepsis inundata S 210gLeproydia scariosa S 180gLeptocarpus tenax S 180gMicrolaen stipoides S 200gPhilotrix deusta S 180gPoa affinis S 180gPoa labillardieri S 180gThemeda australis S 180g 3500g
112
- Appendix F-
North and West Gully Species List
Table F1: All species for planting in north and west gully vegetation communities. Species with (*) were seen in a prevoius survey of this vegetion type in the Sutherland Shire. In this survey actual densities were given for every species, and abundanace rankings were given based on their percentage contribution to the otal density of all sites. Graminoids were handled seperately, ranking were given based on....Species with an asterix were found by a previous auhtor (Simon Heemstra, 1994), abundance rankings were given based on average cover. A = abundant (>2% of total density) (*>5% average cover) C = common (>1-2% of total density) (* 1-5% average cover) S = sparse (<1% of total desnity) (*<1% average cover) Top canopy (>10m)
Abun. Rank Allocasuarina littoralis A Angophera bakeri S Angophera costada C Angophora floribunda* S Banksia serrata C Callitris rhomboidea S Casuarina glauca* S Corymbia gummifera C Eucalyptus pilularis* S Eucalyptus piperita S Eucalyptus punctata S Syncarpia glomulifera* C
Lower Canopy (3-9m)
Acacia longifolia S Angophera hispidula S Banksia ericifolia A Cerratopetalum gummiferum S Eleocarpus retcularis* S Hakea sercia S Hakea teretifolia S Leptospermum juniperinum S Leptospermum poligarifloim S Leptospermum trinervium A
113
Persoonia levis S Personnia linearis S Persoonia lanceolata S Persoonia pnifolia S Petrophile sessilis S Stenocarpus salignus* S Xylemelom pyriforme* S
Shrub Layer
Acacaia buxifolia* S Acacaia falciformis* S Acacia hispidula S Acacia linifolia S Acacia suaveolens S Acacia terminalis S Acacia ulicifolia C Aotus ericoides S Banksia integriflia* S Banksia marginata S Banksia oblongifolia S Banksia spinulosa S Bossia heterophylla C Bossiiae rhombifolia S Bossiea stephensonii S Brachyloma daphnoides S Callistemon citrinus S Callistemon linearis* S Callistemon salignus* S Daviesia corymbosa* S Daviesia ulicifolia* S Dillwynia parvifolia* C Dilwynia retorta A Dodonaea triquetra A Epacris longifolia S Epacris pulchella C Gompholobium glabratum S Grevillea bauxifolia S Grevilea mucronulata S Grevillea oleoides S Grevillea sericia A Grevillea sphacelata S Isopogon anemonifolius C Isopogon anethifolius* S Kunzea ambgua S Lambertia formosa S Leucopogon microphyllus S
114
Leucopogon setiga S Ozothannus diosmofolius S Podocarpus spinulosus S Pomaderris intermedia* S Pomaderris lanigera* S Phyllota phlicoides C Pultanaea blakelyi* S Pultanaea elliptica C Pultanaea flexilis* S Pultanaea hispida* S Pultanaea linophylla S Pultanaea stipularis C Rapanaea variabilis* S Ricinocarpus pinifolius S Woolsia pungens S
Groundcover
Actinotus helianthi A Actinotus minor S Bauera rubiodes* S Boronia ledifolia S Calytrix tetragona S Correa reflexa* S Crowea exalata* S Dampiera purpurea* S Dampiera stricta S Dianeela careulea S Dianella revoluta S Doryanthes excelsa S Drosera peltata S Epacris longifolia* S Epacris microphylla S Eriostemon australius* S Eriostemon scabra C Gonocarpus teucroides A Goodenia heterophylla S Hibbertia acicularis* S Hibbertia bracteata* S Hibbertia diffusa S Hibbertia fasciculata S Hibbertia monogyna* S Hibbertia nitida S Hovea linearis S Hovea longifolia S Lasiopetalum furunginium S Lasiopetalum parviflorum S
115
Laxmannia gracilis* S Leptospermum arachnoides C Leucopogon appressus* S Leucopogon ericoides S Lissanthe stringosa S Lobelia gracilis* S Lomandra confertifolia* S Lomandra cylindrica* S Lomandra filliformus sp. Filliformus S Lomandra glauca C Lomandra gracilis* S Lomandra multiflora* S Lomandra obliqua A Lomandra longifolia A Lomatia silicifolia S Melichrus procrumbens* S Macrozmia communis* S Micrantheum ericoides* S Micrantheum hexandrum S Monotoca elliptica* S Monotoca scoparia S Olieria microphylla S Patersonia glabrata* S Patersonia sericia* S Phyllanthus hirtellus C Pimelia linifolia S Platylobium formosum S Platysace ericoides* S Platysace lanceolata C Playsace linearifolia A Pomax umbellata S Poranthera ericifolia S Stylidium laricifolium S Tetratheca ericifolia C Tetratheca neglecta* S Thysanotus tuberosus* S Xanthosia pilosa A Xanthosia tridentata S Xanthorea arborea S Xanthorea concava S Xanthorea resinifera S Zieria pilosa S
Graminoids
Anisopogon avanaceus C Aristata vagans* S
116
Caustis flexuosa S Caustis recurvata S Dendrobium liguiforme subsp. Liguiforme* S Entolasia marginata C Entolasia sricta A Entolasia whiteana S Erograstiss brownii S Imperata cylindrica var. Maor* S Juncus kraussii* S Lepidosperma concavum* S Lepidosperma laterale A Lepidosperma neesii* S Lepidosperma viscidum* S Leprodia scariosa* S Leptocarpus tenax S Poa affinis S Schoenus ericetorum* S Schoenus imberbis* S Stipa pubescens* S Themeda australis C Cyathochaeta diandra S
Ferns/Vines
Adiantum hispidulum S Calochleana dubia S Glechenia dicharpa S Sticherus flabellatus S Billardiera scandens S Cassytha pubescens S Hardenbergia violiacea S Pandorea pandorana* S Selaginella uliginosa S Smilax glyciphlla S Lindsaea linearis C
117
- Appendix G - Example revegetation plans for North West Gully vegetation communities on Hawkesbury sandstone in the Sutherland Shire. Species are interchangeable for other species of the same grouping. Table G1: Revegetation plan for revegetating north and west gully vegetation for areas covering 500m2. Abund. Rank # plants Upper Canopy
Angophora costata C 40Banksia serrata C 40Eucalyptus pilularis S 20
100Lower canopy
Hakea sericia S 15Leptospermum juniperinum S 10Leptospermum trinervium A 35Persoonia levis S 10Persoonia linearis S 10Petrophile sessilis S 10Xylemelom pyriforme S 10
100Shrubs
Acacia buxifolia S 20Acacia hispidula S 15Acacia suaveolens S 20Acacia ulicifolia C 35Aotus ericoides S 15Banksia marginata S 15Banksia spinulosa S 15Bossiaea heterophylla C 40Brachyloma daphnoides S 15Callistemon salignus S 10Daviesia corymbosa S 15Gompholobium glabratum S 10Grevillea sericia A 70Isopogon anethifolius S 20Lambertia formosa S 20Pultanaea flexilis S 25
118
Ricinocarpus pnifolius S 20Woolsia pungens S 20
400Groundcovers
Actinotus helianthi A 50Actinotus minor S 15Boronia ledifolia S 10Correa reflexa S 15Dampiera stricta S 15Dianella revoluta S 10Drosera peltata S 10Eriostemon scabra C 30Gonocarpus teucroides A 50Hibbertia acicularis S 15Hibbertia nitida S 15Hovea longifolia S 15Lobelia gracilis S 10Lomndra cylindrica S 15Lomandra multiflora S 10Lomatia silicifolia S 15Monotoca elliptica S 15Patersonia sericia S 10Pimelia linifolia S 15Platysace ericoides S 15Platysace lanceolata C 30Pomax umbellata S 15Stylidium laricifolium S 10Xanthorea concava S 15Xanthorea resinifera S 15Zieria pilosa S 10
450Gramonoids
Aristata vagans S 35gCaustis flexuosa S 45gEntolasia stricta A 110gLeptocarpus tenax S 50gThemeda australis C 70gCyathochaeta diandra S 40g
350g
119
Table G2: Revegetation plan for revegetating north and west gully vegetation for areas covering 5o00m2. Upper canopy
Abund. Rank # Plants Allocasuarina littoralis A 300Angophora floribunda S 100Banksia serrata C 210Corymbia gummifera C 220Eucalyptus piperita S 80Eucalyptus piperita S 90
1000Lower canopy
Acacia longifolia S 40Angophora hispidula S 40Banksia ericifolia A 120Cerratopetalum gummiferum S 40Eleocarapus reticularis S 30Hakea sericia S 40Hakea teretifolium S 30Leptospermum juniperinum S 20Leptospermum polygifolium S 40Persoonia levis S 30Persoonia linearis S 20Petrophile sessilis S 30Stenocarpus salignus S 20
500Shrubs
Acacia buxifolia S 80Acacia hispidula S 70Acacia linifolia S 70Acacia suaveolens S 100Acacia terminalis S 90Acacia ulicifolia C 245Aotus ericoides S 90Banksia integrifolia S 70Banksia marginata S 80Banksia oblongifolia S 60Banksia spinulosa S 100Bossiaea heterophylla C 235Bossiaea stephensonii S 50Callistemon citrinus S 80Callistemon linearis S 70Callistemon salignus S 90Dillwynia parvifolia C 240Dillwynia retorta A 380
120
Epacris longifolia S 90Epacris pulchella C 250Gompholobium glabratum S 90Grevillea buxifolia S 80Grevillea sericia A 400Grevillea sphacelata S 80Isopogon anethifolius S 70Kunzea ambigua S 80Lambertia formosa S 70Leucopogon microphyllus S 90Ozothanus diosmofolius S 60Pomaderris intermedia S 80Phyllota phylicoides S 70Pultanaea blakelyi S 80Pultanaea elliptica S 50Ricinocarpus pinifolius S 70Woolsia pungens S 90
4000Groundcovers
Actinotus helianthi A 250Actinotus minor S 40Boronia ledifolia S 50Calytrix tetragona S 50Correa reflexa S 30Crowea exalata S 40Dampiera stricta S 40Dianella careulea S 40Dianella revoluta S 50Doryanthes excelsa S 30Drosera peltata S 50Epacris microphylla S 40Eriostemon australius S 40Eriostemon scabra C 150Gonocarpus teucroides A 250Goodenia heterophylla S 60Hibbertia bracteata S 50Hibbertia diffusa S 50Hibbertia fasciculata S 60Hibbertia nitida S 50Hovea linearis S 50Lasiopetalum parviflorum S 50Laxmannia gracilis S 50Leucopogon appressus S 50Lucopogon ericoides S 40Lobelia gracilis S 50Lomandra cylindrica S 60
121
Lomandra filliformis S 50Lomandra glauca S 40Lomandra gracilis S 50Lomandra multiflora S 60Lomandra obliqua A 250Lomatia silicifolia S 50Melichrus procrumbens S 50Macrozamia communis S 50Micrantheum hexandrum S 70Monooca scoparia S 50Olieria microphylla S 65Patersonia glabrata S 65Patersonia sericia S 50Phyllantus hirtellus C 160Pimelia linifolia S 60Platylobium formosum S 80Platysace ericoides S 80Platysace linearifolia A 250Pomax umbellata S 70Poranthera ericifolia S 70Stylidium laricifolium S 60Tetratheca ericifolia C 180Thysanotus tuberosus S 70Xanthosia pilosa A 200Xanthosia tridentata S 50
4000Graminoids
Anisopogon avanaceus C 450gAristata vagans S 200gCaustis flexuosa S 200gDendrobium liguiforme subsp. Liguiforme S 200gEntolasia whiteana S 150gErograstis brownii S 250gLepidosperma laterale A 750gLeptocarpus tenax S 250gPoa affinis S 200gStipa pubescens S 200gThemeda australis C 450gCyathochaeta diandra S 200g
3500g
122
- Appendix H –
South and East Gully Species List Table H1:All species for planting in south and east gully vegetation communities. Species with (*) were seen in a prevoius survey of this vegetion type in the Sutherland Shire. In this survey actual densities were given for every species, and abundanace rankings were given based on their percentage contribution to the total density of all sites. Graminoids were handled seperately, ranking were given based on average percentage cover. Species with an asterix were found by a previous auhtor (Simon Heemstra, 1994), abundance rankings were given based on average cover. A = abundant (>2% of total density) (*>5% average cover) C = common (>1-2% of total density) (* 1-5% average cover) S = sparse (<1% of total desnity) (*<1% average cover) Top canopy (>10m)
Abun. Rank Allocasuarina littoralis S Angophera bakeri S Angophera costada S Banksia serrata C Callitris rhomboidea S Corymbia gummifera C Eucalyptus piperita S Eucalyptus punctata S
Lower Canopy (3-9m)
Acacia longifolia S Angophera hispidula S Banksia ericifolia S Cerratopetalum gummiferum C Eleocarpus retcularis** C Ficus rubiginosa** S Glochidion ferdinandi** S Hakea gibbosa S Hakea sercia S Leptospermum juniperinum S Leptospermum poligarifloim S Leptospermum trinervium A Persoonia laurina** S Persoonia levis S Personnia linearis S
123
Persoonia pnifolia S Stenocarpus salignus** S Xylemelom pyriforme** S
Shrub Layer
Acacia elongata** S Acacia linifolia S Acacia suaveolens S Acacia terminalis C Acacia ulicifolia A Banksia integriflia** S Banksia marginata S Banksia oblongifolia S Banksia spinulosa C Bossia heterophylla C Bossiiae rhombifolia S Bossiea stephensonii S Breynia oblongifolia** S Callistemon citrinus S Cassinia aureonitens** S Dilwynia retorta A Dodonaea triquetra C Epacris longifolia S Epacris pulchella A Gompholobium grandiflorum S Gompholobium glabratum S Gompholobium latifolium S Grevillea bauxifolia S Grevilea mucronulata S Grevillea oleoides S Grevillea sericia C Grevillea sphacelata S Isopogon anemonifolius S Kunzea ambgua S Lambertia formosa C Leucopogon microphyllus S Leucopogon setiga S Logania albiflora** S Ozothannus diosmofolius S Podocarpus spinulosus S Polyscias sambucifolia** S Phebalium squamulosum subsp. Squamulosum** S Phyllota phlicoides S Pultanaea daphnoides S Pultanaea elliptica S Pultanaea flexilis** S
124
Pultanaea hispida** S Pultanaea linophylla S Pultanaea stipularis C Rapanaea variabilis** S Ricinocarpus pinifolius S Telopea speciosima S Woolsia pungens C
Groundcover
Actinotus helianthi A Actinotus minor C Astroloma elliptica C Astrotricha latifolia** S Baekea imbricata S Bauera rubiodes** S Boronia ledifolia S Correa reflexa** S Crassula sieberiana** S Crowea exalata** S Dampiera stricta S Dianeela careulea S Doryanthes excelsa S Drosera peltata S Epacris longifolia S Epacris microphylla S Epacris paludosa S Eriostemon australius C Eriostemon scabra S Gonocarpus teucroides A Goodenia heterophylla C Haemodorum planifolium S Hibbertia bracteata** S Hibbertia diffusa S Hibbertia fasciculata S Hibbertia hitardens S Hibbertia nitida S Hovea linearis S Hovea longifolia S Lasiopetalum furunginium S Lasiopetalum parviflorum S Leptospermum arachnoides S Leucopogonamplexicaulus S Leucopogon ericoides A Leucopogon lanceolatus** S Lissanthe stringosa S Lobelia gracilis** S
125
Lomandra confertifolia** S Lomandra filliformus sp. Filliformus S Lomandra glauca S Lomandra multiflora** S Lomandra obliqua A Lomandra longifolia** C Lomatia silicifolia S Macrozmia communis S Micrantheum ericoides S Micrantheum hexandrum S Monotoca elliptica** S Monotoca scoparia** S Opercularia diphylla S Phyllanthus hirtellus A Pimelia linifolia S Platylobium formosum S Platysace lanceolata S Playsace linearifolia A Podocarpus spinulosus** S Pomax umbellata** S Poranthera ericifolia S Pseudognaphalium leuto-album** S Scaeveola racimmosa S Stylidium graminifoloium S Stylidium laricifolium C Stylidium linease S Stylidium productum** S Styphelia tubiflora S Tetratheca ericifolia C Xanthosia pilosa A Xanthosia tridentata A Xanthorea arborea S Xanthorea concava S Xanthorea resinifera S Zieria pilosa* S
Graminoids
Anisopogon avanaceus S Caustis flexuosa C Caustis recurvata S Cymbidium suave** S Danthonia linkii var. Fulva** S Entolasia marginata S Entolasia sricta S Erograstiss brownii S
126
Gahnia sp. S Lepidosperma concavum** S Lepidosperma laterale S Lepidosperma neesii* S Lepidosperma viscidum** S Leprodia scariosa** S Leptocarpus tenax S Stipa pubescens** S Themeda australis S Cyathochaeta diandra S
Ferns/Vines
Adiantum hispidulum S Blechnum bartilagineum** S Calochleana dubia A Commelina cyanea** S Comsperma volubile** S Glechenia dicharpa S Marsdenia suaveolens** S Sticherus flabellatus S Billardiera scandens S Cassytha pubescens S Hardenbergia violiacea S Pandorea pandorana** S Selaginella uliginosa S Smilax glycophlla S Lindsaea microphylla S Lindsaea linearis A
127
- Appendix I –
Example revegetation plans for South and East Gully vegetation communities on Hawkesbury sandstone in the Sutherland Shire. Species are interchangeable for other species of the same grouping. Table I1: Revegetation plan for revegetating south and east gully vegetation for areas covering 500m2.
Upper canopy Abund. Rank # Plants
Allocasuarina littoralis S 20Angophora costata S 20Banksia serrata C 40Eucalyptus piperita S 20
100Lower Canopy
Banksia ericifola S 15Cerratopetalum gummiferum C 25Hakea gibbosa S 15Leptospermum trinervium A 35Persoonia levis S 10
100Shrubs
Acacia linifolia S 15Acacia suaveolens S 20Acacia terminalis C 35Banksia marginata S 15Bossiaea stephensonii S 15Breynia oblongifolia S 15Callistemon citrinus S 15Dllwynia retorta A 55Gompholobium glabratum S 15Grevillea buxifolia S 20Isopogon anemonifolius S 15Kunzea ambigua S 20Lambertia formosa C 40Pultanaea daphnoides S 15Pultanaea elliptica S 20Pultanaea stipularis C 35Ricinocarpus pinifolius S 20Telopea speciosima S 15
128
400Groundcovers
Austroloma elliptica C 65Astroticha laifolia S 30Boronia ledifolia S 30Dampiera stricta S 35Doryanthes excelsa S 35Eriostemon scabra S 25Haemodorum planifolium S 30Hibbertia diffusa S 25Hibbertia nitida S 25Lasiopetalum ferrumginium S 30Leucopogon amplexicaulis S 25Lomandra confertifolia S 25Lomatia siliciflia S 25Macrozamia communis S 35Monotoc scoparia S 30Pimelia linifolia S 25Platysace lanceolata S 30Platysace linearifolia A 85Poranthera ericifolia S 25Pseudognaphalium leuto-album S 35Styphelia tubiflora S 25Xanthosia tridentata A 90Xanthorea arborea S 30Zieria pilosa S 35
850Graminoids
Casutis flexuosa C 35gCymbidium suave S 15gEntolasia stricta S 15gLepidosperma laterale S 10gLeprodia scariosa S 10gCyathochaeta diandra S 15g
100g
129
Table I2: Revegetation plan for revegetating south and east gully vegetation for areas covering 2500m2.
Upper Canopy Abund. Rank # Plants
Allocasuarina littoralis S 50Angophora bakeri S 50Angophora costata S 50Banksia serrata C 125Callitris rhomboidea S 50Corymbia gummifera C 120Eucalyptus piperita S 55
500Lower canopy
Acacia longifolia S 40Banksia ericifolia S 40Cerratopetalum gummiferum C 80Ficus rubiginosa S 40Hakea gibbosa S 30Hakea sericia S 40Leptospermum trinervium A 120Persoonia levis S 35Persoonia pinifolia S 40Stenocarpus salignus S 35
500Shrubs
Acacia linifolia S 70Acacia suaveolens S 60Acacia terminalis C 130Acacia ulicifolia A 200Banksia marginata S 70Banksia spinulosa C 150Bossiaea heterophylla C 150Bosiaea stephensonii S 70Breynia oblongifolia S 65Callistemon citrinus S 65Cassinia aureonitens S 60Dillwynia retorta A 200Epacris longifolia S 75
130
Gompholobium glabratum S 70Gompholobium latifolium S 65Grevillea buxifolia S 60Grevillea mucronulata S 65Isopogon anemonifolius S 60Kunzea ambigua S 65Lambertia formosa C 140Leucopogon microphyllus S 60Logania albiflora S 55Ozothannus diosmofolius S 50Phebaliumsquamulosum subsp. Squamulosum S 55Phyllota phylicoides S 60Pultanaea daphnoides S 45Pultanaea hispida S 50Pultanaea stipularis C 140Riciocarpus pinifolius S 50Telopea speciosima S 45
2500Groundcovers
Actinotus helianthi A 280Astroloma elliptica C 190Astrotricha latifolia S 80Baekea imbricata S 80Correa reflexa S 95Crassula sieberiana S 75Crowea exalata S 65Dampiera stricta S 95Dianella caereulea S 70Doryanthes excelsa S 90Epacris longifolia S 90Epacris paludosa S 90Eriostemon australius C 210Eriostemon scabra S 90Gonocarpus teucroides A 310Haemodorum planifolium S 80Hibbertia bracteata S 95Hibbertia fasciculata S 70Hibbertia nitida S 90Hovea linearis S 70Hovea longifolia S 75Lasiopetalum parviflorum S 80Lasiopetlaum ferrunginium S 85
131
Leucopogon amplexicaulus S 90Leucopogon lanceolatus S 75Lissanthe stringosa S 80Lobelia gracilis S 85Lomandra filliformis S 90Lomanra glauca S 90Lomatia silicifolia S 85Macrozamia communis S 70Micrantheum hexandrum S 90Monotoca elliptica S 85Pimelia linifolia S 65Platylobium formosum S 90Platysace lanceolata S 85Platysace linearifolia A 310Stylidium linease S 90Styphelia tubiflora S 70Xanthosia tridentata A 300Xanthorea arborea S 95
4500Graminoids
Anisopogon avanaceus S 40gCaustis flexuosa C 100gCymbidium suave S 40gDanthonia linkii var. Fulva S 35gEntolasia stricta S 35gGahnia sp. S 30gLepidosperma lateale S 40gLeproydia scariosa S 40gLeptocarpus tenax S 30gStipa pubescens S 35gThemeda australis S 35gCyathochaeta diandra S 40g
500g
132
- Appendix J -
Riparian Species List
Table J1: All species to be planted within this vegetation type. In this survey actual densities were given for every species, and abundanace rankings were given based on their percentage contribution to the otal density of all sites. Graminoids were handled seperately, ranking were given based on average percentage cover. A = abundant (>2% of total density) C = common (>1-2% of total density) S = sparse (<1% of total desnity) Upper Canopy (>5m)
Allocasuaina Distyla S Allocasuarina litoralis S Angophora costata S Banksia serrata S Callitris muelleri S Callitris rhomboidea S Corymbia gummifera S Eucalyptus piperita S Tristaniopsis laurina^ A Lower Canopy (3-5m)
Acacia elongata C Acaca longifolia C Austromyrtus tenuifolia S Banksia ericifolia C Baekea linifolia^ A Callicoma serratifolia S Ceratopetalum apetalum^ C Ceratopetalum gummiferum S Hakea dactyloides S Hakea teretifolia S Hakea Salicifolia ssp. Angustifolia^ S Hakea sericia S Leptomeria acida S Leptospermum lanigerum^ S Leptospermum juniperinum S Leptospermum morrisonii^ S
133
Leptospermum polygifolium A Leptospermum squarrosum C Leptospermum trinervium S Leionema dentatum S Leionema diosmeum S Lomatia myricoides^ A Melaleuca squarrosa S Persoonia levis S Persoonia pinifolia C Stenocarpus salignus S Tristania neriifolia^ C Viminaria juncea S
Shrubs Acacia linifolia S Acacia mearnsii S Acacia obtusifolia S Acacia suaveolens S Acacia terminalis C Acacia ulicifolia S Aotus ericoides S Banksia marginata S Banksia spinulosa S Bertya pommederoides S Boronia pinnata S Bossiaea heterophylla S Bossiaea rhombifolia S Bossiaea stephensonii C Dillwynia retorta A Dodonaea triquetra A Epacris pulchella S Epacris obtusifolia S Epacris longifolia C Gompholobium grandifolium S Grevilea bauxifolia S Grevillea oleoides^ A Grevillea mucronulata C Grevillea sericia S Hibbertia nitida S Isopogon anamonifolius S Kunzea ambigua S Lambertia formosa S Leptospermum arachnoides S Logania albiflora S Leucopogon setiga^ C Logania albiflora S
134
Petrophile pulchella S Petrophile sessilis S Pomaderris elliptica S Pultanaea daphnoides S Platylobium formosum S Pultanaea stipularis C Phllota phlicoides S Ricinocarpus pinifolius S Sprengelia incarnata S Stylidium laricifolium S Styphelia tubiflora S
Groundcover
Actinotus helianthi S Actinotus minor S Austroloma pinifolia S Baekea imbricata S Bauera rubiodes^ A Boronia ledifolia S Crinum pedunculatum S Crowea saligna S Dampiera stricta S Dianella caruelea S Doryanthes excelsa S Drosera peltata S Epacris microphylla S Eriostemon scaber S Gahnia sieberania S Godocarpus tetragynus A Godocarpus teucroides A Goodenia heterophylla S Hibbertia diffusa S Lasiopetalum ferrungium S Lasiopetalum parviflorum S Lasiopetalum rufum S Leucopogon amplexicaulus S Leucopogon ericoides S Leucopogon lanceolatas S Leucopogon microphyllus S Lomandra filliformis S Lomandra longifolia S Lomandra obliqua S Lomatia silicifolia S Micrantheum ericoides S Phyllanthus hirtellus S Pimelia linifolia S
135
Platysace lanceolata S Platysace linearifolia A Pseudanthus pimeliodes S Xanthorea concava S Xanthorea resinifera C Xanthosia pilosa C Xanthosia tridentata C Zieria pilosa S
Graminoids
Anisopogon avanaceaus S Schoenus melanoachys^ S Entolasia stricta A Entolasia whiteana S Caustis pentandra S Casustis flexuosa C Caustis recurvata S Juncus articularis S Lepidosperma laterale A Restio dimorpha C Leptocarpus tenax C Entolasia marginata S
Vines/Ferns Smilax glyciphylla S Billardiera scandens S Cassytha pubescens S Pteridium esculentum C Sticherus flabellatus^ A Gleichenia microphylla^ A Hardenbergia violeacea S Selaginella uliginosa S Lindsaea linearis S Lindsaea microphylla S
136
- Appendix K - Example revegetation plans for Riparian vegetation communities on Hawkesbury sandstone in the Sutherland Shire. Species are interchangeable for other species of the same grouping. Table K1: Revegetation plan for revegetating riparian vegetation for areas covering 500m2. Upper Canopy Abund. rank # plants
Average High rock Low rockAllocasuarina distyla S 10 10 10Angophora costata S 10 10 10Eucalypus piperita S 10 10 10Tristaniopsis laurina^ A 20 20 20
50 50 50Lower Canopy
15 Acacia elongata C 20 25 15Austromyrtus tenuifolia S 15 15 5Banksia ericifolia C 20 25 15Baekea linifolia^ A 30 35 25Callicoma serratifolia^ S 15 15 5Ceratopetalum gummiferum S 15 15 5Hakea teretifolia S 15 15 5Hakea salicifilia ssp. Augustifolia^ S 15 20 5Leptospermum lanigerum^ S 15 15 5Leptospermum morisonii^ S 10 15 5Leptospermum trinervium S 10 15 10Lomatia myricoides^ A 30 35 25Melaleuca squarrosa S 10 15 5Persoonia pinifolia C 20 25 15Stenocarpus salignus S 10 15 5
250 300 150Shrubs
22 Acacia linifolia S 10 10 5Acacia obtusifolia S 5 15 5Acacia suaveolns S 10 10 5Acacia terminalis C 15 25 10Aotus ericoides S 5 10 5Banksia marginata S 5 15 5Bertya pommederoides S 10 10 5
137
Boronia pinnata S 10 10 5Bossiaea rhombifolia S 10 15 5Epacris pulchella S 10 10 5Epacris longifolia C 20 30 10Gompholobium grandiflorum S 10 10 5Grevillea buxifolia S 10 10 5Grevillea oleiodes^ A 30 40 25Grevillea mucronulata C 20 30 10Grevillea sericia S 10 10 5Hibbertia nitida S 10 15 5Leucopogon setiga^ C 20 30 10Pultanaea daphnoides S 10 10 5Platylobium formosum S 5 10 5Phyllota phylicoides S 5 10 5Sprengelia incarnata S 10 15 5
250 350 150Groundcover
20 Actinotus helianthi S 15 20 5Austroloma pinifolia S 10 20 5Bauera rubiodes^ A 45 55 30Crinum pedunculatum S 15 20 10Crowea saligna S 10 15 5Dampiera stricta S 10 15 5Doryanthes excelsa S 15 15 10Gonocarpus teucroides A 40 55 25Goodenia heterophylla S 10 15 5Hibbertia diffusa S 15 15 5Leucopogon amplexicaulus S 15 20 10Leucopogon microphyllus S 10 15 5Lomandra filliformis S 15 15 5Lomandra longifolia S 10 15 10Lomatia silicifolia S 15 20 15Pimelia linifolia S 15 15 5Pseudanthus pimeliodes S 15 15 5Xanthorea concava S 10 15 10Xanthosia pilosa C 30 40 15Xanthosia tridentata C 30 35 15TOTAL 350 450 200
Graminoids
9 Anisopogon avanaceus S 15g 15g 15g
138
Caustis flexuosa S 15g 15g 15gCaustis pentandra S 10g 10g 10gEntolasia stricta S 15g 15g 15gEntolasia whiteana S 10g 10g 10gJuncus articularis S 5g 5g 5gLeptocarpus tenax S 10g 10g 10gRestio dimorpha S 15g 15g 15gSchoenus melanostachys^ S 5g 5g 5g 150g 150g 150g
139
Table K2: Revegetation plan for revegetating riparian vegetation for areas covering 2500m2.
# plants Upper canopy Abund.
Rank Average High rock Low rock
Allocasuarina distyla S 30 30 30Angophora costata S 30 30 30Banksia serrata S 25 25 25Callitris muelleri S 30 30 30Corymbia gummifera S 30 30 30Eucalyptus piperita S 25 25 25Tristaniopsis laurina^ A 80 80 80
250 250 250Lower canopy
Acacia elongata^ C 75 80 50Austromyrtus tenuifolia S 30 30 15Banksia ericifolia C 75 80 50Baekea liifolia^ A 110 130 70Callicoma seratifolia S 35 45 15Cerratopetalum apetalum^ C 35 40 45Cerratopetalum gummiferum S 30 45 15Hakea dactyloides S 35 40 15Hakea teretifolia S 30 35 20hakea salicifolia sp. Ausgustifolium^ S 40 45 20Hakea sericia S 45 50 15Leptomeria acida S 30 35 20Leptospermum juniperinum S 45 45 20Leptospermum morrisonii^ S 30 40 10Leptospermum lanigerum^ S 30 35 25leptospermum polygifolium A 120 140 75Leptospermum squarrosum C 75 90 60Leptospermum trinervium S 30 45 20Leionema dentatum S 30 35 15Leionema diosmeum S 40 45 20Lomatia myricoides^ A 110 140 70Melaleuca squarrosa S 30 45 20Perssonia levis S 35 45 15Persoonia pinifolia C 40 50 15Stenocarpus salignus S 35 45 20Viminria juncea S 30 45 15
140
1250 1500 750Shrubs
Acacia linifolia S 25 40 15Acacia obtusifolia S 30 45 15Acacia suaveolens S 25 40 10Acacia terminalis C 60 80 45Aotus ericoides S 20 35 20Banksia marginata S 25 30 20Banksia spinulosa S 20 40 20Bertya pommederoides S 25 40 20Boronia pinnata S 20 40 15Bossiaea heterophylla S 25 40 15Dillwynia retorta A 85 105 70Dodonaea triquetra A 85 110 70Epacris pulchella S 20 35 15Epacris obtusifolia S 25 40 15Epacris longifolia C 60 75 10Gompholobium grandifolium S 25 35 20Grevillea buxifolia S 25 30 15Grevillea oleoides^ A 85 110 70Grevillea mucronulata C 60 85 45Grevillea sericia S 20 40 10Hibbertia nitida S 30 35 15Isopogon anamonifolius S 20 40 15Kunzea ambigua S 35 35 15Lambertia formosa S 20 30 10Logania albiflora S 25 35 15Leucopogon setiga^ C 65 80 15Petrophile pulchella S 25 35 15Petrophile sessilis S 25 40 10Pommaderris elliptica S 35 40 15Pultanaea daphnoides S 25 45 10Platylobium formosum S 30 40 15Phyllota phylicoides S 30 35 10Ricinocarpus pinifolius S 35 40 15Sprengelia incarnata S 30 40 10Stylidium laricifolium S 35 45 15Styphelia tubiflora S 20 40 15
1250 1750 750Groundcovers
Actinotus helianthi S 45 70 30
141
Actinotus minor S 40 55 30Austroloma pinifolia S 45 70 25Baekea imbricata S 50 65 20Bauera rubiodes* A 145 180 95Boronia ledifolia S 50 60 25Crinum pedunculatum S 45 65 30Crowea saligna S 50 65 30Dampiera stricta S 45 55 35Dianella caereulea S 50 60 35Doryanthes excelsa S 50 55 30Drosera peltata S 45 50 25Epacris microphylla S 50 60 25Eriostemon scaber S 45 60 25Gonocarpus teucroides A 140 180 90Goodenia heterophylla S 60 70 25Leucopogon amplexicaulus S 50 60 30Leucopogon lanceolataus S 45 55 20Lomandra filliformis S 50 60 25Lomandra longifolia S 45 55 25Lomatia silicifolia S 40 60 30Phyllanthus hirtellus S 35 70 20Pimelia linifolia S 60 65 25Platysace lanceolata S 55 60 30Platysace linearifolia A 140 180 95Pseudanthus pimeliodes S 60 75 20Xanthorea concava S 55 75 20Xanthosia tridentata C 100 140 65Zieria pilosa S 60 75 20
1750 2250 1000Graminoids
Anisopogon avanaceus S 65g 65g 65gCaustis pentandra S 70g 70g 70gCaustis recurvata S 55g 55g 55gEntolasia marginata S 50g 50g 50gEntolasia stricta S 60g 60g 60gEntolasia whiteana S 55g 55g 55gJuncus acicularis S 65g 65g 65gLeptocarpus tenax S 55g 55g 55gRestio dimorpha C 105g 105g 105gSchoenus melanostachys^ A 160g 160g 160g
750g 750g 750g
142
143
83
![[Vegetation and Remote Sensing] Vegetation](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/577cdfd71a28ab9e78b21a32/vegetation-and-remote-sensing-vegetation.jpg)
