Monitoring sustainability with a monitoring system that is itself sustainable: addressing the cause and the symptoms
IAN WATSON,1 AND PAUL NOVELLY, 2
1

Department of Agriculture and Centre for Management of Arid Environments

PO Box 483 Northam, Western Australia, 6401 Ph 08 9690 2000 Fax 08 9622 1902 iwatson@agric.wa.gov.au
2

Department of Agriculture and Tropical Savannas CRC

Kununurra, Western Australia

ABSTRACT Throughout the 1970s and 1980s much effort was expended on a range monitoring program in Western Australia. Unfortunately, much of the system put in place is now inactive. Such a situation is not unique and the rangelands of the world are littered with monitoring sites that are no longer part of an operating system. A need has emerged for a biodiversity monitoring system in the rangelands and the discussion is currently at the point where the range management discipline was in the early 1970s. Efficiencies can be made when developing the biodiversity monitoring system by learning from the experience of the range management profession. Monitoring sustainability will only be possible if the monitoring system is itself sustainable. We suggest a number of attributes for the system that need to be in place before the system can be judged at all sustainable. These attributes are a mix of biophysical, social and institutional and highlight the view that monitoring systems of the type being suggested constitute an unusual mixture of attributes not found in typical scientific activity. The monitoring system is dependent on all of these attributes to function. If any one of them fails, the system fails.

INTRODUCTION Range (and presumably biodiversity) monitoring systems should be expected to have useful lives of fifty years or more (Wilcox 1988). While 2053 seems a long way off, consider the benefits that would be available to land managers if good monitoring information was currently available from 1953 onwards.

Page 2

Rangeland monitoring in Australia had a number of false starts since first proposed in the early 1970s (Lendon and Lemacraft 1976). By 2002, only the NSW Rangeland Assessment Program (Green et al. 2001) TRAPS in Queensland (Burrows et al. 2002) and the Western Australian Rangeland Monitoring System (WARMS) in the Kimberley (Watson et al. 2001) had been through a complete cycle of reassessment. The current WARMS program began in 1992 but grew out of several earlier systems dating to the 1970s. Several directional changes ensured that over 20 years was spent developing the system and only now is it really beginning to produce a bulk of useful information. Embarking on a long-term monitoring program is a big commitment for any agency, and administrative continuity is essential for the scheme to be successful (Spellerberg 1991). Perhaps that is why there are so few operational monitoring systems worldwide and so many systems in which sites have been installed but have not continued to be reassessed. Westoby (1991) noted that long-term ecological research projects generally persisted only because of the commitment of individual scientists, very few projects have passed to the second generation. Range monitoring on a statewide scale demands the support of many individuals within an organisation. The 33 years since range monitoring research began in Western Australia and 22 years since a formal range monitoring program was adopted have seen massive turnover in staff, and none of the original staff remain employed by the agency. Whitehead et al. (2001) developed an analytical framework for monitoring biodiversity in Australia’s rangelands containing a minimum set of 11 indicators. The techniques for data collection included administrative collation (e.g. progress towards a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system) repeated assessment on permanent point based sites (e.g. cover of native perennials), resampling of landmark wildlife surveys (e.g. trends in susceptible mammals) and remote sensing (e.g. clearing of native vegetation). The National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity (Anon 1996) also proposed a national coordinated program of long term monitoring based largely on a combination of remote sensing and a “national network of secure field based monitoring sites in representative habitats”. Hopkins and McKenzie (1994) also proposed a series of permanently marked monitoring benchmarks for monitoring trends in biodiversity in arid and semi-arid Australia. While it is not yet clear the form a biodiversity monitoring system for Australia’s rangelands might take, it is clear that a large component of the program will involve repeated sampling of widely spaced permanent sites to some agreed standard. This paper is focused on such a component, which will have many similarities to existing range monitoring systems.

Page 3

Planning for the new system can be aided by considering the experiences gained from range monitoring systems. The paper considers some of the issues associated with implementing a wide area long term monitoring system. Many of the issues arise because a monitoring system of this type is a different form of scientific pursuit to typical research projects and this has multiple effects on the design and implementation of an operational system. The paper discusses a number of components of a sustainable monitoring system, all of which need to to be addressed to keep the system functioning. The issues discussed include institutional and social factors, just as important as the fundamental biophysical factors associated with developing the monitoring program.

DESIGN ISSUES FOR LONG-TERM MONITORING SYSTEMS There is increasing demand for a biodiversity monitoring system to be implemented across Australia’s rangelands (Anon 1996). The huge area of Australia’s rangelands (5,916,000 km2 ) and the nature of change in biological systems means that any biodiversity monitoring system will need to be both wide area and decadal in scope. Fifty years is too far into the future for government managers and scientists to consider. Therefore, in this paper we consider a time frame of only 20 years, a period not uncommonly served by professionals working for academic institutions or state and territory government agencies.

What are the differences between monitoring systems and other scientific activity Academic institutions and state and Commonwealth government agencies are accustomed to a range of scientific activities. However, they have less experience with operational monitoring systems and there are important differences between the two activities. The major generic differences between long term monitoring and typical scientific activity relate to the need to collect identical/similar data multiple times, the long time scale involved and the consequent judgements that are made about cost and benefit. Monitoring is concerned with detecting change over time (West et al. 1994). This almost certainly means re-sampling the same site multiple times. Most research activities sample only once i.e. when a control and treatment are imposed simultaneously or twice such as when detecting change after imposing a treatment. Many changes in rangelands occur at decadal timescales at least. Long term monitoring therefore implies ongoing activity of at least a decade. Most research activities have a life of

Page 4

only several years. While it is true that many research studies are not once-off but are the next stage in an ongoing research process, research projects typically represent discrete activities, particularly when externally funded. Research activities investigating long term processes often substitute space (such as distance from water) for time (e.g. Hacker 1987). Typical research activities fit neatly within an adaptive system. In response to questions of interest, hypotheses are developed, then tested and the outcomes of the research reviewed. This inevitably raises further questions for which further hypotheses are then developed. Those hypotheses chosen to test are based on judgements of the optimal chance of success for the next phase of the research process. This cycle continues while the funding and personnel are available to work on a particular research topic. Over time, the sum of knowledge increases as each tested hypothesis addresses an additional complexity. Crucially, the technique or method of testing may vary substantially over time and may well shift to completely separate disciplines as the research topic progresses. Operational monitoring systems do not fit well into an adaptive cycle because of the need to maintain similar or identical data collection over time. There is very limited opportunity for review. Implementation of the monitoring system can never wait until the science is completed. Best bet options are invariably chosen with the consequent risk that sometime in the future they will be shown to be inadequate. The benefits to flow from long term monitoring take at least a single reassessment cycle (e.g. 5-10 years) to be realised. Prior to that, the system has asset value only. By contrast, the benefits flowing from discrete research projects commonly lag by only one or two years, particularly in applied sciences like agriculture. The consequence of this is that monitoring is a long term and ongoing investment for any agency, with benefits only evident some years into the program. Annual budgetary reviews and short term budgetary cycles are not well adapted to dealing with these circumstances, even though it is occasionally acknowledged (Anon 1996). The evidence for this is clear. The best examples of long term, repeated assessment are limited to small projects, restricted in area and scope and made possible only by the subterranean efforts of individuals or small groups (Sinclair 1996, Freudenberger 1997, Bastin et al. 2000) often using funds scavenged from other projects’ budgets or even through public donation.

What additional differences are there because of the wide area, decadal scale system needed? There are additional differences between the kind of monitoring system proposed to

monitor biodiversity in Australia’s rangeland s (e.g. Anon 1996, Whitehead et al. 2001) and

Page 5

more typical scientific activity. The system will need to be both wide area and to address change over decadal timescales. Wide area monitoring implies doing the same thing, at roughly the same time, in multiple places, in this case across 70% of Australia. By definition this implies training multiple staff in multiple locations to sample to a required standard. Almost certainly, these staff will come from a range of government agencies and resourcing needs will need to be negotiated with each agency separately.

The way the world works has changed since 1983 This statement, is of course not true; nature operates the same way now as it did 20 years ago. However, the underlying ecological models that are used to help understand the world can change radically over that time. A monitoring system begun in 1983 based on Clementsian succession and with a vegetation focus, would need to continue to be relevant to the changing ecological models over the last 20 years. Prior to the 1980s, indeed for most of the 20th Century, the range management discipline understood the world to operate in terms of Clementsian succession (Clements 1936) particularly as articulated by Dyksterhuis (1949) for the assessment of range conditio n. Ian Noble’s keynote address from the Second International Rangelands Congress in 1984 perfectly captured the emerging view that rangeland dynamics were event driven (Noble 1986). This event driven world view was then subsumed by a paper that suggested that rangeland dynamics could best be understood in terms of a State and Transition model (Westoby et al. 1989). The early 1990s saw a massive uptake in the rangeland community of the State and Transition model with many journal papers and at least one jour nal issue (Tropical Grasslands 28(4), 1994) given over entirely to S&T models. The late 1990s saw an emphasis on landscape function (Ludwig et al. 1997). Undoubtedly, the prevailing world view at the time will heavily influence the design of the monitoring system. An event driven world necessitates sampling more frequently to capture the event (Thornes and Brunsden 1977). A State and Transition world means having some contingency activities in place to capture transitions as well as having multiple possible states for single sites (important when selecting sites). A landscape function world moves the focus from assessing only biotic attributes to monitoring a broader range of bio-physical attributes such as lacunarity (Bastin et al. 2002).

Page 6

The institutional environment Those state and Commonwealth agencies with a responsibility for land and biodiversity management have a habit of being restructured, sometimes multiple times per decade. The priorities of restructured agencies are often less stable than those of continuing agencies, even for those activities that might be considered universal, such as resource monitoring. Also, the work groups conducting the monitoring often move between agencies. Imagine the number of internal restructures, altered management structures and Program Managers that a monitoring system might have to deal with over a period of 20 years. Institutions don’t easily commit funding for decadal time scales, yet long term monitoring systems need some assurance of continued funding.

Meeting multiple objectives and objectives that change over time Research projects need to satisfy a limited number of objectives. In well planned research projects the objectives remain constant throughout the life of the project. However, neither of these are likely for wide area long term monitoring programs. Almost certainly, given the nature of the task, there will be multiple objectives for an Australia wide biodiversity monitoring system from the outset (see Proceedings of this Alice Springs workshop – expert technical workshop on biodiversity monitoring Oct 2002). Equally certainly, these objectives will change over the life of the program. Neither biodiversity, nor Ecologically Sustainable Development were widely used terms in 1983 and it is likely that the objectives for a biodiversity monitoring system in 2023 will be driven by terms either not invented or not widely used in 2003. Although we don’t know what they are yet, it is inevitable that the biodiversity monitoring system will be expected to ans wer questions that have not yet been asked.

The social environment Most research projects and even research programs are maintained by staff who remain in the position for the duration of the project. Most of the work in the projects is done by these same staff, who are generally the beneficiaries of the research outcomes, in the sense of job satisfaction and career enhancement. Long term, wide area monitoring systems differ in that they require several generations of staff, those involved in sampling will be widely dispersed and many will receive no direct benefit from the system, often being used almost as contract labour in the sampling program. If not well managed this can lead to a lack of commitment by staff, particularly regionally based, who see the system as being driven by remote managers for objectives that do not

Page 7

directly relate to the local environment. If this occurs, data quality inevitably suffers. This is a real issue for a biodiversity monitoring system with a national focus. The subject is repeatedly raised by range monitoring system managers who need only to deal with staff within their own agency, working on an activity whose objectives are well aligned with the agency they work for. The continuity of monitoring funding does not sit well with the temperaments of funders. Continued funding of monitoring systems becomes “boring” for managers, many of whom are accustomed to funding new and “exciting” research and resent having to continuously fund the same old activities.

Outline of the extant system A range monitoring system currently operates across the 980,000 km2 of pastoral rangelands in Western Australia (Error! Reference source not found. ). The system developed over 20 years and many resources were expended on activities that were subsequently discontinued.

Figure 1 The location of 1,600 WARMS sites, coloured by year of assessment. The greyed areas denote land held under pastoral tenure and the khaki linework denotes Interim Biogeographical Regionalisation

Page 8 of Australia boundaries. The heavy green line in the south west shows the demarcation between rangelands and the agricultural areas.

The Western Australian Rangeland Monitoring System (WARMS) has a primary industry focus and is designed to report at regional or vegetation type scale (Watson et al. 2001). There are about 1,600 permanent sites. Of these, there are about 630 grassland sites in the Kimberley and Pilbara and almost 1,000 shrubland sites from the southern Pilbara through to the Nullarbor. The Kimberley sites are reassessed on 3 yr cycle, elsewhere on a 5 or 6 yr cycle. The primary attributes assessed relate to perennial vegetation. On Grassland sites, the frequency of all perennial vegetation (mostly grasses) and crown cover estimate of woody vegetation is recorded. On Shrubland sites a direct census technique is used as as well as estimates of crown size (width and height) of all woody species. Landscape Function Analysis (Tongway 1994, Tongway and Hindley 1995) is assessed on all sites and all sites have a standard photo. The system in its current form began in 1992 but emerged from several older systems dating back to the early 1970s.

History of its development Quantification of the patterns and dynamics of the shrub layer provided the basis for rangeland monitoring in Western Australia’s arid shrublands. This stemmed from an acknowledgement of the role of shrubs in animal production and resource stability and their use as indicators of range condition. Direct, although poorly documented, experience of shrub dynamics was gained mostly via a series of exclosures built in the mid to late 1950s and through subsequent exclosures built in the late 1960s and early 1970s throughout the upper and west Gascoyne and in the north-east Goldfields. Early recordings of these latter sites used direct census of individual shrubs but in the mid 1980s this was dropped in favour of counts and size estimates only. Direct census of individuals became a key feature of shrub sampling within a number of ecological studies and grazing trials conducted by the Department of Agriculture Western Australia such as at Yeelirrie (1973-1982; Gardiner 1986a,b), Yerilla (1986-1990; Fletcher 1991), Coodardy (1981-1989; Yan et al. 1996), Boolathana (1987-1993, Watson et al. 1997) and WARMS benchmarks from 1986 onwards. The original rationale for range monitoring in Western Australia came from a need to provide information to government on the resource base used by the state’s pastoralist operatio ns (Carneggie et al. 1971). In keeping with a general feeling that landholders themselves were best placed to exercise controls over grazing pressure (Wilcox 1988) monitoring subsequently came to be seen as a way of providing station managers with direct, objective feedback on the effect of their management decisions on the base resource.

Page 9

Initial attempts at developing a shrubland monitoring system began in 1970 using low altitude aerial photography of permanent flightlines (Carneggie et al. 1971). Over the next decade about 140 flightlines were installed (Holm 1986) mostly on properties in the Gascoyne and Ashburton catchments (Holm 1993a). These flightlines remain in place but do not form an active part of the current monitoring system. Between 1974 and 1978 a density sampling technique that came to be called HMW (Hacker-Morrissey-Wilcox) was developed but subsequently discarded. In 1975, the use of fixed ground-based photopoints was developed as a direct aid for pastoral management (Morrissey 1976). Almost 500 such sites were installed between 1975 and 1982 (Holm 1993a) and this period represents the zenith of WARMS commitment to individual pastoral operations with some data remaining confidential to individual stations. The technique remains, in refined form, a current part of WARMS. By 1980, fixed belt transects were used to record shrub counts and individual plant size. In 1981 this technique and its consequent conventions were formalised as the focus for WARMS (Holm et al. 1987). Several thousand sites, including almost 1,000 sites with permanent transects were installed by 1993. A large proportion of these sites were installed within externally funded projects. In order to aid in the interpretation of changes on the monitoring sites a network of fenced benchmarks was installed, mostly between 1984 and 1987. Unfenced reference sites were also installed at sites beyond normal stock grazing radius. Direct census of shrub populations was used in benchmark sites from 1986 onwards. This meant that individual plants could be followed over time. By contrast, all other sites were recorded as described by Holm et al. (1987), i.e. locations of individual shrubs were not determined but populations were counted within sub-sections of permanent belt transects. Following a review of WARMS in 1992 substantial changes were made to the program. The largest technical change was that direct census of individually located shrubs was applied to all shrubland sites. Because of the increased time involved in such a sampling technique and the decrease in funding for the entire program the number of sites actively remaining in WARMS declined dramatically. Rather than aiming to have one or two sites within each paddock of a property, only a maximum of several sites per station would be installed. WARMS came to be a two- layered system, being quantitative for “Parliament, its agencies and the community” and photo-point based for pastoralists (Holm 1993b).

Lessons to be learnt from this history What are the key points that need to be exc ised from this history that can be used to inform the development of a biodiversity monitoring system?

Page 10

•

There was considerable history of basic research on the attributes we decided to assess on the sites. In this case, the dynamics of the woody vegetation. (in later years this was severely questioned by those taking a more landscape process world view)

•

Despite recognition of the appropriate attribute to assess, our technique varied over time (flightlines, HMW, photo sites, density and size, complete census and size). At various times, decisions were made to implement at least a semi-operational monitoring system using a particular technique (e.g. flightlines) only to later discard that technique and set of sites for a new technique.

• • • •

Our objectives changed over time with an original focus for government – then for government and individual land managers - now back to government. The enthusiasm to implement the system, combined with external funding to install, allowed far more sites to be installed than could ever be re-assessed using core funding. Confidence in the system was misplaced, being largely based on the number of sites installed and not on the ability to manage the system well. The logistical realities of the system were not faced in the early years, because of the enthusiasm to keep installing new sites.

What are the components of a sustainable monitoring system A number of components are essential to a successful monitoring program (Error! Reference source not found. ) and unless these are all addressed, the system itself is destined to fail. Superficially, these components are not very different to those of a more typical scientific activity. However, failure in most research projects can be limited in time. At worst, only three or so years of activity need to be written-off. At best, unexpected results can be salvaged from a failed project. The important point is that a new research project can begin unencumbered by the failure of an earlier project. Operational monitoring systems do not have that luxury.

Long term institutional commitment – Without this fundamental support, staff and resources cannot be assured. Commitment is also required to set a clear objective for the monitoring, anchored in a strategic basis with a long term view. This is best delivered in an institutional manner, rather than as an “interesting question “ developed by an individual or small group of researchers with a restricted view.

Page 11

Financial backing on a long term basis – No institutio n will guarantee long term funding. However, without at least some assurance of continuing funding there is no good reason to begin implementing the system. Logistically possible – The sampling program needs to be achievable. This is a significant issue for widely spaced sites in remote areas. It is rendered even more significant if seasonal conditions only allow a short window to sample either due to access difficulties commonly experienced in the tropical savannas or because the biota of interest are ephe meral (even worse if they are facultative recruiters because one can’t plan a sampling program). Sufficient numbers of well skilled, competent staff need to be available for the task. This often means using staff in remote areas. Training, quality assurance and securing the staff resources are three big issues.

Long term institutional commitment

Policy legislative Executive support Champions and drivers

Confidence in the system, education of end users

Financial backing on a long term YIYO basis Methodology (incl R&D) Logistically possible

Data storage

Data management

Analysis and interpretation Information

Figure 2 Long term monitoring systems need to have the following components in place. (This diagram still a bit rough – will redo after some feedback in Alice)

Page 12

Data storage and management – Monitoring systems can produce enormous amounts of data. Multiple people in multiple locations will collect many of these data. Good data management protocols are essential to ensure that databases are populated with clean data. The databases themselves need to be well designed to handle the complex relationships that time sequential data requires, yet should be sufficiently user friendly that multiple people in multiple locations can extract useful information. Often, this is a neglected part of the program and the real costs are not recognised. For example, Edwards et al. (submitted) estimate that about 15% of the total cost (or ~30% of personnel costs) are needed for data preparation/management Methods/techniques – Cite any number of papers that stress the need to get the technique right. Reiterate that there is limited if any opportunity for adaptive management to improve the technique once the system is implemented. Analysis and interpretation – Self evident but it is a real weakness with range monitoring systems. Such a lot of effort has been put into the institutional and logistical components that the real science has been neglected. This partly due to procrastination, to the feeling that there are always several more years before enough data are available for analysis. Information – Without producing relevant information products in plain English, the outputs of the monitoring system will rarely be used. The temptation is to output large amounts of data, but only minimal amounts of information. Confidence in the system – Confidence in the system is an abstract, but underlying issue. Confidence is needed at all levels, from the staff asked to do the sampling, the biometricians brought in to help analyse, the champions and drivers of the system within middle management and the Executive (as well as Ministers, Chairs of peak groups etc). Without confidence, the system is weakened throughout.

Idealised timeline for a biodiversity monitoring system for Australia’s rangelands The following timeline is based on a five year reassessment cycle. • • • • • Define objectives and broad agreement on outputs from the system – 1-1.5 years Negotiate and lock in institutional support across government for logistical aspects – 12 years Secure long term funding – 2-3 years Develop stratification criteria and site selection protocols – 2-3 years Review R&D on known relationships between attributes of interest and indicators – 1 year

Page 13

• • • • • • • •

Prepare R&D program (link studies) to address specific issues related to attribute and indicators – 1-2 years Implement R&D program – 3-6 years Begin installing sites based on best bet – 3-8 years Add additional metrics as R&D program results kick in – 5-13 years Put together database and data management protocols – 4-6 years All sites installed by (perhaps with limited set of metrics assessed until R&D kicks in) – 8 years First reassessment complete – 13 years First report on complete monitoring cycle – 15 years

CONCLUSIONS Embarking on a long term monitoring program should only occur once an assessment is made that the optimal way to inform management is through information collected in a monitoring system. If the monitoring system is implemented simply on the basis that “it is a good thing to have a monitoring system” then the vagaries of time and changes in priorities will make it vulnerable and ultimately unsustainable. It is important to recognise that this is the fundamental cause of failure. Many of the issues raised in the paper represent symptoms of failure, brought about by no t considering the cause. These issues include: confused objectives or objectives that change over time; changes in techniques that render earlier data useless; the logistical requirements of the system need to be recognised early on; systems that develop rather than being planned are difficult to sustain, since enthusiasm drives the development but can’t hope to keep it going; systems that are based on external funding are vulnerable unless core funding can be found to sustain them (not only an issue of ongoing funding but also because over enthusiastic site installation with external funding cannot be supported with core funding); data that isn’t archived well cripples the system when outputs are required. Those funding and / or implementing the monitoring system need to understand the implications of the system design. They need to accept that there will be a considerable period (in a budget cycle sense) before good change information becomes available. They also need to consider to what extent the issues and objectives can change over time before the monitoring system is no longer useful.

Page 14

Finally, we believe that substantial effort needs to be put into determining the need for the monitoring system with funders and policy makers before deciding whether to proceed with system design. Monitoring systems are only tools, designed to help address issues, they should not be seen as ends in themselves.

REFERENCES Anon (1996) The National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Bastin, G., Ludwig, J., Eager, R. and Liedloff, A. (2000). Vegetation recovery: Kidman Springs exclosure photos over 25 years. Range Management Newsletter, 00/2, pp1-5. Bastin, G.N., Ludwig, J.A., Eager, R.W. Chewings, V.H. and Liedloff, A.C. (2002) Indicators of landscape function: comparing patchiness metrics using remotely sensed data from rangelands. Ecological Indicators, 1, 247-260 Burrows, W.H., Henry, B.K., Back, P.V., Hoffmann, M.B., Tait, L.J., Anderson, E.R., Menke, N., Danaher, T., Carter, J.O. and McKeon, G.M. (2002) Growth and carbon stock change in eucalypt woodlands in northeast Australia: ecological and greenhouse sink implications. Global Change Biol. 8, 769-84. Carneggie, D.M., Wilcox, D.G. & Hacker, R.B. (1971) The use of large scale aerial photographs in the evaluation of Western Australian rangelands. Department of Agriculture Western Australia, Technical Bulletin No. 10. Clements, F.E. (1936) Nature and structure of the climax. Journal of Ecology. 24, 252-284. Dyksterhuis, E.J. (1949) Condition and management of range land based on quantitative ecology. Journal of Range Management, 2, 104-115. Edwards, A., Kennett, R., Price, O., Russell-Smith, J., Spiers, G., Watson, M. and Woinarskis, J. (in prep – submitted?) Monitoring the impacts of fire regimes on biodiversity in northern Australia: an example from Kakadu National Park. Fletcher, W.J. (1991) Impact and production of feral goats in an arid mulga shrubland. MSc thesis, School of Agriculture, University of Western Australia. Freudenberger, D. (1997) Landscape resilience and resistance: an example from southwestern Queensland. Range Management Newsletter, 97/1, pp 2 – 4. Gardiner, H.G. (1986a) Dynamics of perennial plants in the mulga (Acacia aneura F.Muell.) zone of Western Australia. I. Rates of population change. The Australian Rangeland Journal, 8, 18-27.

Page 15

Gardiner, H.G. (1986b) Dynamics of perennial plants in the mulga (Acacia aneura F.Muell.) zone of Western Australia. II. Survival of perennial shrubs and grasses. The Australian Rangeland Journal, 8, 28-35. Green, D., Richards, R., Hart, D., and Watson, I. (2001) Rangeland monitoring, condition assessment and resource inventory activities in New South Wales conducted by the Department of Land and Water Conservation. Report prepared for the National Land and Water Resources Audit, Canberra. Hacker, R.B. (1987) Species responses to grazing and environmental factors in an arid halophytic shrubland community. Australian Journal of Botany, 35, 135-150. Holm, A McR., Curry, P.J. & Wallace, J.F. (1984) Observer differences in transect counts, . cover estimates and plant size measurements on range monitoring sites in an arid shrubland. The Australian Rangeland Journal, 6, 98-102. Holm, A. McR. (1986) The assessment of range trend in Western Australian pastoral shrublands. Rangelands: A resource under siege - Proceedings of the Second International Rangelands Congress. (Eds: P.J. Joss, P.W. Lynch & O.B. Williams) p. 529. Australian Academy of Science, Canberra. Holm, A. McR., Burnside, D.G. & Mitchell, A.A. (1987) The development of a system for monitoring trend in range condition in the arid shrublands of Western Australia. The Australian Rangeland Journal, 9, 14-20. Holm, A.McR. (1993a) The Western Australian rangeland monitoring program - an overview. Plant dynamics and interpretation in rangeland ecosystems. A compilation of papers presented at a workshop conducted at Yanchep on 2-4 February 1993. pp. 13-20. Department of Agriculture Western Australia, Miscellaneous Publication 27/93. Holm, A. McR. (1993b) WARMS at the crossroads. Range Management Newsletter, 93, 1819. Hopkins, A.J.M. and McKenzie, N. (1994). Options for long-term monitoring of arid and semi-arid terrestrial ecosystems in Australia. In: Options for a national program on long-term monitoring of Australian biodiversity. (Eds: T. Redhead, J. Mummery and Kenchington on behalf of Organising Committee for Workshop on Long-term Monitoring of Australia’s biodiversity. CSIRO and DEST Biodiversity Unit, Canberra 10-11 May 1994. Lendon, C. & Lamacraft, R.R. (1976) Standards for testing and assessing range condition in central Australia. The Australian Rangeland Journal, 1, 40-48.

Page 16

Ludwig, J., Tongway, D., Freudenberger, D., Noble, J. and Hodgkinson, K. (1997) Landscape ecology, function and management: principles from Australia’s rangelands. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia Morrissey, J.G. (1976) Photography and range site monitoring. Department of Agriculture Western Australia, Rangeland Bulletin, No. 24. Noble, I.R. (1986) The dynamics of range ecosysytems. Rangelands: A resource under siege Proceedings of the Second International Rangelands Congress. (eds P.J. Joss, P.W. Lynch & O.B. Williams) pp. 3-5. Australian Academy of Science, Canberra. Sinclair, R. (1996) Mulga regeneration at Koonamore. In: Focus on the Future – the Heat is On! (Eds: L. Hunt and R. Sinclair) Proceedings of the 9th Biennial Australian Rangeland Society Conference, Port Augusta, pp 255-256. Spellerberg, I.F. (1991) Monitoring ecological change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Thornes, J.B. & Brunsden, D. (1977) Geomorphology and time. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Tongway, D. (1994) Rangeland soil condition assessment manual. CSIRO Division of Wildlife and Ecology, Australia. 69 pp. Tongway, D. and Hindley, N. (1995). Manual for assessment of soil condition for tropical grasslands. CSIRO Division of Wildlife and Ecology, Australia. 60 pp. Watson, I.W., Westoby, M. and Holm, A.McR. (1997) Demography of two shrub species from an arid grazed ecosystem in Western Australia, 1983-1993. Journal of Ecology, 85, 815-832. Watson, I., Blood, D., Novelly, P., Thomas, P. and Van Vreeswyk, S. (2001) Rangeland monitoring, resource inventory, condition assessment and lease inspection activities in Western Australia conducted by the Department of Agriculture. Report prepared for the National Land and Water Resources Audit, Canberra. West, N.E., McDaniel, K., Smith, E.L., Tueller, P.T. & Leonard, S. (1994) Monitoring and interpreting ecological integrity on arid and semi-arid lands of the western United States. New Mexico Range Improvement Task Force Report No. 37. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces. Westoby, M. (1991) On long-term ecological research in Australia. Long-term ecological research (ed. P.G. Risser), pp. 191-208. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester. Westoby, M., Walker, B. & Noy-Meir, I. (1989) Opportunistic management for rangelands not at equilibrium. Journal of Range Management, 42, 266-274.

Page 17

Whitehead P., Woinarski J., Fisher, A. Fensham, R. and Beggs, K. (2001) Developing an analytical framework for monitoring biodiversity in Australia’s rangelands. A report by the Tropical Savannas CRC for the National Land and Water Resources Audit, Canberra. Wilcox, D.G. (1988) Fair use and a fair go. The Australian Rangeland Journal, 10, 76-81. Yan, Z.G., Holm, A.McR. & Mitchell, A.A. (1996) The population dynamics of perennial shrubs in a Western Australian chenopod shrubland in relation to grazing and seasonal conditions. The Rangeland Journal, 18, 10-22.