Download Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount

Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the
Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region
South Australia
Priorities, Strategies and Targets
HERO IMAGE - ONE IMAGE ONLY NO COLLAGES
June 2010
Department
for Environment
and Heritage
www.environment.sa.gov.au
Acknowledgements
The Department for Environment and Heritage coordinated the preparation of this document.
It is the culmination of several years project work, representing contributions from numerous
individuals, agencies and other organisations.
The Department would like to acknowledge the many people and organisations who
contributed to the development of this report.
Early drafts were compiled by Monique Blason and Sandy Carruthers. The primary author of
the current version of the strategy is Lisa Farroway. Significant contributions to the finalisation
of this version were made by Andrew Willson and Beatrice Hurrell.
The preparation of this report would not have been possible without the efforts and support
of various steering committee members including Wendy Stubbs, Brenton Grear, Jody Gates,
Andrew West, Adrian Stokes, Chris Morony and Ben Moulton.
Other individuals who provide valuable expertise are Amelia Hurren, Julia Bignall, Ben Fee,
Glen Sholtz and staff of DEH’s Adelaide Region Biodiversity Conservation Unit.
All information in this report was correct at the time of printing.
Except where otherwise indicated, all figures and photographs have been provided by the
Department for Environment and Heritage.
Cover photo - silky tea tree (Leptospermum lanigerum) swamp and candle bark forest
(Eucalyptus dalrympleana ssp. dalrympleana), Sinclair’s Gully, Norton Summit. Photo by Sonia Croft.
Citation: DEH (2009) Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region,
South Australia. Priorities, Strategies and Targets.
© Department for Environment and Heritage
Produced by the Corporate Communications Branch
All rights reserved
June 2010 FIS 90346
ISBN 978-1-921466-36-6
Contents
PART 1Introduction
1
1
1.1
Purpose and scope
1.2
Region description
PART 2
Biodiversity State and condition
7
2.1
What the region previously looked like
8
2.2
What the region currently looks like
9
PART 3
Approaches and framework for conservation
16
3.1
Impacts of modification and landscape change on biodiversity
16
3.2
Conservation planning principles
17
4
PART 4Conservation of biodiversity
23
Conservation of terrestrial and coastal biodiversity
23
4.1.1
26
4.1
Conservation of landscapes
Fragmented high cover landscapes
28
Disproportionately cleared fragmented landscapes
30
Recently fragmented landscapes
34
Presumed fragmented landscapes
37
Fragmented coastal landscapes
Relictual landscapes
40
44
47
4.1.2 Conservation of ecological communities
Conservation targets for ecological communities
52
Heathy forest
55
Heathy woodland
57
Shrubland
60
Grassy woodlands
62
Grassland
66
Mallee
68
Riparian
71
Wetland
75
Coastal vegetation
77
4.1.3 Conservation of species
90
Threatened species
90
Declining species
95
Endemic species
96
Abundant native species and native species in conflict
98
4.1.4 Aquatic ecosystem conservation programs
103
Mitigation of threatening processes
109
4.2
PART 5
Stakeholders
114
PART 6
Improving planning integration, application and knowledge
118
PART 7
References and further reading
119
PART 8
Appendices
131
PART 1
Introduction
This part outlines what this report aims to achieve, and includes
a regional description.
1.1 Purpose and scope
Informing biodiversity conservation in the region
In South Australia, the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges (AMLR) region is unique – relatively high
rainfall, hilly topography and surrounded west and south by coastal environments. The diversity of
landscapes within a comparatively small area supports a diverse array of ecosystems and species.
Many species are endemic to the region or geographically separated from other State or interstate
populations. The region is also home to over one million people residing in both urban and rural
areas. The environmental health of the region is therefore important for both quality of life and
economic prosperity.
However, historic native vegetation clearance has been significant and only approximately 13% of
original native vegetation remains in the region. Species have become extinct and many more are
continuing to decline.
Biodiversity conservation in the AMLR region aims to maintain, restore and halt the decline in
ecological processes, vegetation communities and species. However, there is a limited amount
of funding and resources available for biodiversity management, with an increasing level of
accountability to ensure public funds are wisely spent. There is a need, therefore, to prioritise and
ensure that works are targeted to meet specific and achievable outcomes.
This report aims to inform existing regional biodiversity programs and funding bodies about
conservation priorities, and proposes strategies and targets to achieve effective management of
these priorities. It does this by assessing the current biodiversity status of the region (mainly through
an analysis of vegetation decline) using current landscape planning principles, and by linking with
other relevant regional planning processes.
Conservation targets and actions are set at a variety of biological and spatial scales. There are
high-level targets for managing landscapes as a whole, combined with targets for managing
specific ecological communities, and targets related to conserving threatened species and other
species that require conservation efforts. While many strategies and targets developed in this
document are ambitious and require significant levels of additional resources to implement, others
can be achieved with existing resources through improved information sharing, planning and
regulatory processes.
This report also provides a framework with which to develop conservation management priorities.
However, it is acknowledged that ‘one document cannot do all’ and there are challenges ahead
to develop a fully integrated planning framework which can drive relevant regional biodiversity
management at a variety of biological and spatial scales (and which is relevant to State and
National conservation goals).
This document and the underlying analysis is intended to be dynamic, to change with new
knowledge, new data and changing conditions. As mapping data is improved and new information
becomes available from research and monitoring activities, strategies and targets should be
modified.
1
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Links to planning processes
AMLR NRM Plan
Outputs during the development of this report were used in formulating key biodiversity targets
in the AMLR Natural Resource Management Board’s plan Creating a Sustainable Future – An
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region.
The Department for Environment and Heritage (Adelaide Region) is currently implementing several
NRM threatened species and vegetation management programs, the direction of which have been
guided by this integrated planning approach.
South Australia’s Strategic Plan and No Species Loss
South Australia’s Strategic Plan (SASP) details a series of targets that provide a path towards a
prosperous and better future for South Australia. The plan includes targets relating to increasing
economic growth, including expansion of mineral exploration and production, and increasing the
population of South Australia. There are also environmental targets, including a target to lose no
known native species as a result of human impact. This target is addressed through No Species Loss
– A Nature Conservation Strategy for South Australia 2007-2017, the implementation of which will be
assisted by this report for the AMLR region.
NatureLinks
Another SASP target involves the development of five ‘NatureLinks’ biodiversity regions across
the State. This report will help deliver the NatureLinks goal of integrated ecosystem management
across the landscape. Regionally, the Cape Borda to Barossa NatureLink Strategy will facilitate the
implementation of many priorities proposed in this report through assessing key challenges facing
landscape scale conservation initiatives and progressing solutions to these challenges.
Photo: © DEH
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
2
The Plan for Greater Adelaide (2009-2038)
This plan guides how the state government proposes to balance population and economic growth
with the need to preserve the environment and protect the heritage, history and character of
the greater Adelaide region. The policies in this plan will have an important influence on statutory
planning processes in relation to increasing the consideration of biodiversity in development
planning processes. The implementation of these policies will rely heavily on priority-setting
information such as that contained within this report.
Regional Recovery Pilot Project
This report and the Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species and Ecological Communities of
Adelaide and the Mount Lofty Ranges, South Australia were prepared concurrently and are closely
integrated. Successful implementation of both species management requirements and habitat
reconstruction targets are dependent on each other.Legislative context
Legislative context
The content in this report is guided by, and informs, legislation and policy. Appendix 1.1. lists core
or primary relevance documents which drive or provide immediate and direct obligations and
expectations on Australia and South Australia in biodiversity conservation and management.
Partial or secondary relevance documents influence or provide more indirect obligations, mainly
by promoting principles of ecologically sustainable development. In particular, it is hoped that this
report may assist in the strategic operation of some elements of the Native Vegetation Act, such as
the Significant Environmental Benefits scheme.
Conserving biodiversity will require partnerships and co-ordinated efforts
Conserving the native plants, animals and ecosystems of the AMLR will be a challenging task.
Multiple and diverse conservation efforts will be required, across large spatial and temporal scales.
Meeting this challenging task, and minimising the loss of native species from the region, will require
partnerships between Government, non-government organisations, industry, scientists, indigenous
peoples and community groups.
What does this report NOT do?
Marine biodiversity has not been covered by this report, to avoid duplication with separate marine
specific planning processes. Marine Plans are being developed on a bioregional basis for all State
waters, guided by the Marine Planning Framework for South Australia, with links to regional NRM
Planning. Note that planning processes that are addressing biodiversity requirements for marine
environments are included in Appendix 1.1.
This report does not propose species-specific management, or use concepts of species-based
surrogacy for management (such as umbrella, flagship, indicator or keystone concepts).
It is not intended that this report acts as a ‘resource-inventory’ document. While a variety of
summary statistics and lists are presented for biodiversity, other documents and planning tools exist
in the region which can present more detailed information.
The emphasis of this report is the provision of ecological targets based on a regional landscape
analysis. The report does not attempt to propose detailed strategies for management processes
which mainly act at the broader State or National level (such as climate change policy).
3
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
1.2 Region description
The Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges region, as defined for this report, covers a total area of
780,000 ha, or 780 km2. The region includes metropolitan Adelaide, Willunga Basin, the Mount Lofty
Ranges (including the foothills, hills-face and eastern flanks), the Fleurieu Peninsula, the northern
Adelaide plains to the Light River, and the Barossa Valley. The region includes approximately 263
km of coastline, being bounded on the west by Gulf St Vincent, and on the south by the Southern
Ocean. The planning region does not include marine waters generally below the high tide mark.
Most of the planning region defined for this report falls within the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges
Natural Resources Management (NRM) region. The eastern flanks of the region fall within the South
Australian Murray Darling Basin (MDB) region (Figure 1.1)
Figure 1.1: The planning region used in this report
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
4
The Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges region is a biogeographically
unique part of South Australia
The combination of relatively high rainfall and hilly topography in the AMLR is not found elsewhere
in the state. The biodiversity of the region – the variety of plants and animals, communities and
ecosystems, and the ecological processes that sustain them – is similarly distinctive.
A broad range of vegetation types are represented in the region, including wet heathy (sclerophyll)
forests, drier heathy woodlands, grassy woodlands, grasslands, mallee, swamps, wetlands and
various coastal and estuarine ecosystems.
This diversity of vegetation types supports a wide range of flora and fauna. Over 450 native fauna
species have been recorded from the region, including over 75% of the bird species recorded within
South Australia (including a number of oceanic bird species that may only be occasional visitors to
the AMLR). The region also supports approximately 1,500 native vascular plant species.
The Mount Lofty Ranges is a terrestrial ‘island’ of habitat
The eucalypt forests and woodlands of the region represent an outlier of their distribution. These
forests form an ‘island’ separated from the cores of their distribution in eastern Australia by an
expanse of semi-arid mallee and dry woodland environments.
Reflecting this, many of the plants and animals that are found in the region represent populations
that are isolated from the cores of their distribution, or are present at the very edges of their
distribution.
The AMLR has high levels of endemism – species that are only found in the region. Many of these
endemic species are nationally threatened.
The Mount Lofty Ranges is part of a biodiversity hotspot
In recognition of the wide diversity of native species and the high levels of endemism – and the
fact that the remaining biodiversity is under a high level of threat – the Mount Lofty Ranges and
Kangaroo Island region was identified as one of 15 National Biodiversity Hotspots in Australia by the
Commonwealth Government in 2003.
The AMLR contains a number of significant and threatened ecological communities including
nationally significant wetlands, such as the critically endangered Swamps of the Fleurieu Peninsula
that provide habitat for significant fauna species, and Barker Inlet which provides habitat for
a number of migratory bird species of international significance. In addition, several AMLR
watercourses (the Currency, Tookayerta and Finnis Creeks) feed into the internationally significant
Coorong and Lower Lakes Ramsar wetlands.
The region also contains the nationally threatened ecological communities Peppermint Box Grassy
Woodland and Iron Grass Natural Temperate Grasslands.
5
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
The biodiversity of the AMLR is in a state of decline
Like all agricultural regions of Australia, the AMLR has changed dramatically since European
settlement. Vegetation clearance in the region has been extensive and only approximately 13%
of the original native vegetation of the region remains, based on current mapping. The AMLR
represents a highly fragmented landscape, with isolated remnants of native vegetation embedded
in a matrix of urban and agricultural land uses.
There are few intact areas remaining in the region. Most native vegetation has been modified
to some degree by human impact, and many areas are highly degraded. Many remnants are
managed for production outcomes such as grazing and agriculture on private land.
The widespread vegetation clearance in the AMLR has led to extensive declines in most native
species of the region. Many species have become extinct since European settlement, including nine
mammal species, three reptile species and 17 bird species. Almost 400 species are formally listed as
threatened under National or State legislation.
Many other species are considered to be declining or at risk of decline, most notably a large
number of bird species, with over 60 species listed on an initial list of declining birds.
The threats to the biodiversity of the AMLR are varied and widespread. They include the ongoing
impacts of historic clearance and fragmentation, combined with weed invasion, inappropriate
grazing regimes, introduced fauna species, altered hydrological cycles and fire regimes, urban
encroachment and recreational pressures. In the future, increasing populations and demands on
natural resources, along with the forecast predictions of climate change, have the potential to
further impact on and threaten biodiversity.
Conservation protection
Approximately 22% of the remnant vegetation is managed for conservation in dedicated reserves,
both publicly managed reserves and on private land. However, not all vegetation communities
are well represented in protected reserves. Analyses assessing the degree of protection for native
vegetation are presented in the following sections of this report.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
6
PART 2
Biodiversity State
and condition
This part contains information on the state and condition
of the biodiversity of Adelaide and the Mount Lofty Ranges.
Further information on the detailed condition and trend
of specific biodiversity assets can be found within Part 4.
The terrestrial and aquatic environments of Adelaide and the
Mount Lofty Ranges have been highly fragmented and modified.
The Mount Lofty Ranges are a well-defined stretch of ancient uplands and hills, extending from the
Barossa Valley in the north to Cape Jervis on the Fleurieu Peninsula. These higher areas are flanked
on their west and east by escarpments, undulating foothills, and then low-lying areas including
outwash plains and flats. Together these areas form the planning region defined as the AMLR for this
report (Figure 1.1 above). The topography varies across the region with the highest points exceeding
700 metres above sea level (MASL), steep fault-controlled escarpments ranging between 300-450
MASL, foothills between 150-300 MASL, and plains less than 150 MASL. This fine-scale topographic
and climatic heterogeneity is unique in South Australia, and important in explaining the biodiversity
value of the region.
The climate of the AMLR is Mediterranean-like, characterised by hot, dry summers and cool, wet
winters. However, there are significant climatic variations due to the topographic variability within
relatively small geographic areas.
Figure 2.1: Diversity of terrestrial land uses of the AMLR region
7
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
2.1 What the region previously looked like
Pre-European vegetation patterns
Prior to European settlement, the AMLR was typified by eucalypt forests and woodlands. The
dominant vegetation type in the region was woodland communities with herbaceous understoreys,
often generically called grassy woodlands, which covered over one third of the region. These were
located in a wide arc either side of the central spine of the ranges, and also in valleys and on
good soils within the ranges. These grassy woodlands had an understorey dominated by tussocks of
perennial grasses and herbaceous species.
Other grassy ecosystems were also found in the region, although their distributions were not as
extensive as that of grassy woodlands. Native grasslands were present on the low-lying plains to the
east and west of the Mount Lofty Ranges. Grasslands with emergent trees or shrubs were found on
the eastern flanks, joining the grassy woodlands found on their west and the grasslands to the east.
On the nutrient-deficient soils of the higher-rainfall central spine of the ranges, vegetation
communities with a shrub-dominated understorey were found. These communities had an
understorey dominated by many species of low shrubs, generally with small, hard leaves
(sclerophyllous). Forests and woodlands with shrub-dominated understories covered approximately
a quarter of the region. Drier open heathy woodlands were common, and were found in the
northern parts of the ranges and on the Fleurieu Peninsula. Tall heathy forests were less common
and were restricted to the high-rainfall, high-elevation areas of the central ranges and the southern
Fleurieu Peninsula.
A variety of shrubland vegetation types were also present in the region, although their distribution
was restricted, covering only 2% of the region. Shrublands included both arid-style chenopod
shrublands on near-coastal
plains and high-rainfall
sclerophyllous shrublands on
the infertile soils of the Fleurieu
Peninsula.
Mallee was found on the
periphery of the region, in
the far north and the far
east of the AMLR. This mallee
was more typical of regions
adjacent to the AMLR than
the AMLR proper, and was
connected to expansive
distributions of mallee in the
mid-north and the Murray
mallee.
Heathy woodland in good condition (Photo: Kirstin Long)
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
8
There are a large number of ephemeral and permanent watercourses in the AMLR, draining from
the uplands onto the plains, both west to Gulf St Vincent and east and south-east to the Murray
River and Lake Alexandrina. A variety of riparian and wetland vegetation types are found in the
region. Riparian vegetation was particularly widespread, covering approximately 15% of the region
prior to European settlement. Wetlands were more restricted, but since European settlement have
been significantly cleared and/or modified.
Coastal vegetation was found along the coastline adjacent to Gulf St Vincent and the Southern
Ocean. This vegetation covered approximately 4% of the region at the time of European settlement.
Coastal vegetation types represented in the region included samphire shrublands, mangrove
forests, and sand dune and cliff vegetation.
The AMLR is relatively species rich
The AMLR region has a high species richness, with a large proportion of South Australia’s native
species found in the region (see Table 2.2). At the time of European settlement, over 450 fauna
species were found in the region and over 1,500 flora species. There would also have been a diverse
range of invertebrates, soil micro-biota and non-vascular flora, although information on the number
of species that were present is unknown.
2.2 What the region currently looks like
Since European settlement, the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges region has
changed dramatically
The AMLR has been extensively modified since European settlement. Large tracts of native
vegetation were cleared or modified as the region was converted for urban and agricultural use
of land. The region is now a highly fragmented landscape, with only approximately 13% of the preEuropean vegetation remaining.
The AMLR region is the most heavily populated region of South Australia, incorporating metropolitan
Adelaide with a population of over one million people.
The AMLR contains some of the most productive land in the State, and supports a wide range of
agricultural activities, including stock grazing, dairy cattle, cropping, and horticulture (including
viticulture, orchard fruits and vegetable crops). Other land uses supported within the region include
industry, forestry, recreation, and conservation (139 public conservation areas including National
Parks, Conservation Parks, Conservation Reserves, Recreation Parks, Local Forest Reserves and
Native Forest Reserves; and over 400 Heritage Agreements protecting native vegetation on private
land and some public lands).
Widespread clearance and modification of the AMLR began shortly after
European settlement
Clearance in some parts of the AMLR occurred shortly after the settlement of South Australia in
1836. While the early population remained concentrated around the settlement capital Adelaide,
the use of land for agricultural pursuits expanded out into surrounding areas. Pioneer agriculture
was focused in the fertile soils of the Adelaide Plains and southern vales, and the valleys and
basins of the eastern Mount Lofty Ranges. Many of these areas had been cleared and converted
for agricultural use by 1850. By this time, pastoral leases had been granted to cover the northern
Adelaide Plains and the eastern plains adjacent to the Murray River.
Early pastoralists and agricultural land purchasers avoided the dense forest-like vegetation covering
the high-elevation parts of the Mount Lofty Ranges, but although these areas were not cleared at this
early stage, they were all cut for timber and may have been used for light pastoralism by some settlers.
By the 1860s, it was only the dense vegetation of the central spine of the Mount Lofty Ranges and
the Fleurieu Peninsula that had not been sold. These areas covered steep, rocky terrain or had
nutrient-deficient soils that would not support crops. Many of these areas were not cleared until
post-1945 when nutrient inputs that allowed for these soils to be used for productive agriculture had
been developed.
9
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Figure 2.2: Diversity of coastal land uses of the AMLR region
Vegetation on productive soils was cleared more extensively than vegetation
on poor soils
This widespread clearance and modification of the region’s ecosystems was conducted in a
selective manner, targeting areas of productive soils that were most suitable for agricultural
production.
Of the vegetation types that were dominant in pre-European times, it is the grassy ecosystems –
grassy woodlands and grasslands – that have been the most extensively cleared (approximately
93% and 99% respectively), including to the coastline in many areas (Figure 2.2). Grassy ecosystems
are located on deep, fertile soils and were favoured by settlers for agricultural pursuits. Many of
these areas, such as the grassy woodlands and grasslands that were located where metropolitan
Adelaide now lies, were cleared shortly after European settlement.
The extent of clearance of grassy ecosystems differs markedly to the clearance of vegetation with a
shrub or heath-dominated understorey. These vegetation types are typically found on infertile sandy
soils or in steep rocky areas unsuitable for agriculture. Overall, approximately 27% of the original
heathy/shrubby vegetation of the region remains, although some shrublands that were found on
the Adelaide Plains have been
extensively cleared.
The targeted clearance
of productive soils also
lead to extensive loss of
aquatic ecosystems. In South
Australia is estimated that
approximately 70% of wetlands
have been destroyed since
European settlement, with the
Adelaide and Mount Lofty
Ranges area experiencing
a disproportionate loss
compared to other regions of
the state.
Mosaic of improved pasture and remnant vegetation
(Photo: Kirstin Long)
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
10
Remnant vegetation reflects the disproportionate clearance patterns
The remaining (or remnant) native vegetation in the AMLR reflects these selective clearance
patterns. The most dominant vegetation type in the region is now heathy woodland, which has
replaced the more extensively cleared grassy woodland as the dominant vegetation type (Table
2.1, Figure 2.3).
In many places, such as the Mount Lofty Ranges north of the Torrens River, the central hills face zone
and the southern Fleurieu Peninsula, there are larger remnants of heathy woodland and heathy
forest, many of which are under conservation tenure.
Grassy ecosystems such as grassy woodlands and grasslands which were heavily cleared
predominantly remain as small or isolated remnants or scattered trees over pasture.
Protected areas provide a core for conservation efforts but are dominated by
heathy vegetation
Approximately 22% of the remnant vegetation in the AMLR is managed for conservation in
dedicated protected areas (comprising of publicly managed reserves and Heritage Agreements on
private land). These areas predominantly contain heathy forest and woodland, as they are typically
located on infertile soils or steep, inaccessible areas that were not suitable for agricultural use.
These protected areas provide a core for conservation efforts in the AMLR, although work in these
areas will need to be complemented by conservation efforts on the three quarters of remnant
vegetation on private and public land not under dedicated conservation tenure. Many of these
remnants on private land are managed for production outcomes such as grazing and agriculture.
This will be particularly important for grassy ecosystems, which are under-represented in protected
areas in the AMLR.
Remnant vegetation is in poor condition
As the AMLR is a highly fragmented landscape, most remnants of native vegetation are small and
isolated, and located within a mosaic of various urban, peri-urban and/or agricultural land uses.
Some large remnants remain in the AMLR; these are typically heathy forest or woodland remnants
on infertile soils. The largest remnant remaining in the AMLR is the vegetation that comprises Deep
Creek Conservation Park, with a size exceeding 4,200 ha.
Most remnant vegetation in the AMLR is modified to some extent. Many remnants are degraded
and in fair or poor condition, and typified by high levels of weed invasion, grazing impacts, reduced
native species diversity, and outbreaks of other threats such as dieback.
The remnant vegetation remaining in the best condition in the AMLR tends to be the larger
remnants of heathy forest or woodland, which have not been as heavily or extensively modified as
other vegetation types.
Much of the remnant vegetation in the region has a trend of ongoing or active decline. This trend
of decline includes the larger remnants of heathy forest or woodland which have remained in
relatively good condition until this time.
11
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Native species have been lost or are declining
Currently there are over 1,400 native vascular plant species in the AMLR, nearly half of the State’s
total. The region is also relatively bird species-rich, however many of the resident native species of
the AMLR have declined in abundance or distribution since European settlement. Over 130 native
fauna and 250 native flora species of the AMLR are threatened at a State and/or National level
(Table 2.2).
The Eastern Quoll, now extinct in the AMLR (Photo: DEH)
Some species have become
extinct in the region, including
mammals such as the Bilby,
Burrowing Bettong and Eastern
Quoll; and reptiles such as
the Pygmy Bluetongue. A
number of other species are
considered to be functionally
extinct in the region, most
notably a number of
threatened bird species. These
species now occur only very
infrequently in the AMLR and
their ecological role in the
region has been lost. Some
threatened flora species have
not been recorded within the
region within the last 20 years –
it is likely that these species no
longer exist within the AMLR.
The AMLR also contains a large number of species that are declining, but not yet formally
threatened. This includes a large number of woodland bird species that are actively declining in
abundance and/or distribution in the region.
Other native species have increased in abundance
Along with the decline in native species evident in the AMLR, some native species have increased
in abundance and/or distribution, for example, Western Grey Kangaroo, Koala, Little Corella and
Common Brushtail Possum. Such species are now present in larger numbers and/or over broader
distributions than they were at the time of European settlement.
The decline in some species and the increase in others has altered species abundances in ecosystems,
and the dominant species today are not necessarily those that were historically dominant.
Many threats to biodiversity have been introduced
European settlement has led to the introduction of many threats to biodiversity in the AMLR. These
include a number of introduced flora and fauna species, including weeds that are now widespread
and out-compete native flora species, and feral predators that prey on native fauna. Other threats
to biodiversity include dieback, particularly Phytophora cinnomomi, inappropriate grazing regimes,
inappropriate development, urban encroachment and recreational pressures. Climate change will
provide a future threat to the biodiversity of the region.
Ecological processes have been altered
The settlement and modification of the AMLR has altered the large-scale ecological processes of
the region, including hydrological and fire regimes. The disruption of these regimes has contributed
to a decline in the condition of native vegetation in the region, and consequent impacts on native
flora and fauna.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
12
Table 2.1 Native vegetation extent and clearance in the AMLR
Broad
vegetation
group1
PreEuropean2
(ha)
PreEuropean
(% of
region)
Remnant3
(ha)
Remnant
(% of total)
Clearance
(% cleared)
Heathy
forest
54,803
7%
15,398
16%
72%
Heathy
woodland
119,372
15%
26,778
27%
78%
Shrubland
18,987
2%
194
< 1%
99%
Grassy
woodland
362,780
47%
26,322
27%
93%
Grassland
42,353
5%
549
<1%
99%
Mallee
Mallee
22,172
3%
1201
1%
95%
Freshwater
Riparian
113,001
14%
16,797
17%
85%
Wetland
15,029
2%
3,560
4%
76%
Exposed
cliffs
2,247
<1%
1,114
1%
50%
Exposed
dunes
576
<1%
115
< 1%
80%
Sheltered
cliffs
1,592
<1%
141
< 1%
91%
Sheltered
dunes
2,948
<1%
541
< 1%
82%
Sheltered
tidal
24,142
3%
5,070
5%
79%
Shrubdominated
understorey
Non-shrub
dominated
understorey
Coastal
AMLR totals
780,003
97,780
87%
(682,223 ha
cleared)
Notes:
This plan describes the vegetation patterns of the AMLR using a generalised hierarchical vegetation classification that has been verified
by vegetation experts. Broad vegetation groups provide a generalised assessment of vegetation patterns in the AMLR. They have been
described based on broad floristic characteristics and environmental relationships (e.g. links between vegetation type and climate, soils
and landform).
1
Based on mapping of pre-European vegetation completed by DEH. This mapping uses a combination of current vegetation patterns,
historical information including records from early explorers, early land survey maps and photographs, and topographic and soils data.
2
Based on mapping of remnant vegetation completed by DEH. This mapping has been completed using aerial photography interpretation
and site-based assessments. This mapping is likely to underestimate grassy ecosystems. Note, the remnant mapping (presence only) was
over-layed with the pre-European mapping to determine changes in the vegetation groups.
3
Percentages have been rounded
Due to data processing discrepancies, the above statistics (and all in this report) do not include an area of 391 ha which were not coded
with a broad vegetation group.
13
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Figure 2.3 Vegetation patterns and clearance in the AMLR
The following maps show the vegetation patterns of the AMLR at two time periods: (a) prior to
European settlement and (b) today. Vegetation types with a grass-dominated understorey are
shown in shades of blue. Vegetation types with a heath or shrub-dominated understorey are
shown in shades of green, and mallee is shown in brown. Inland wetland vegetation types are
shown in yellow and orange. Coastal vegetation types are shown in purple. The white areas in
map (b) represent areas that have been cleared and replaced with urban, peri-urban and
agricultural land uses.
The pie charts graphically display the relative contribution of each vegetation type to the
region. The larger a segment, the more widespread or dominant a vegetation type in the
region. The pre-European chart shows that almost half of the vegetation of the AMLR was
vegetation with a grassy understorey (shades of blue).
Comparing the pie charts between the pre-European and remnant time periods gives an
indication of the differential clearance patterns and shows how the dominance of vegetation
types in the remnant vegetation has changed.
The relative contribution of grassy ecosystems in the AMLR has declined, now representing a
quarter of the remnant vegetation. Conversely, the relative dominance of heath or shrubdominated vegetation has increased - these areas now represent over a third of remnant
vegetation, compared to less than a quarter of pre-European vegetation. This is due to the
fact that these vegetation types were not cleared as extensively as grassy ecosystems.
(a) Pre-European vegetation
(b) Remnant vegetation
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
14
Table 2.2 Native species of the AMLR
Species
Group
# sp.
SA 1, 2
# sp.
AMLR
% SA sp.
in AMLR
% AMLR
sp. thr
Mammals
140
45
(+ 1 n-ind 5)
20
(incl. 3 extinct)
32%
44%
Birds
467
350
95 (incl. 6
functionally
extinct 7)
75%
27%
Reptiles
227
64
9
(incl. 1 extinct)
28%
14%
Amphibians
26
6
(+ 1 n-ind 5)
1
23%
17%
Invertebrates
unknown
unknown
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Vascular
3,378
1,430-1,625 6
252 (incl. 4
historical 8)
42-48%
16-18%
Non-vascular
(e.g. mosses,
liverworts,
lichens, fungi)
1,880
unknown
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
3
# sp.
thr AMLR
4
FAUNA
FLORA
1
Vertebrates of SA; includes marine mammals and reptiles. Other marine species and freshwater fish are not included.
2
Flora Census
3
Based on available biological survey and monitoring information.
4
Species proposed for listing under Schedules 7, 8, and 9 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972.
5
n-ind. denotes a non-indigenous native species that was introduced to the AMLR and did not previously occur in the region.
Flora data is subject to ongoing taxonomic revision. The AMLR data contains a number of non-current taxonomic names that require
revision. The figures provided here indicate the probable range of the number of species.
6
Functionally extinct denotes species that now only occur very infrequently in the AMLR, and that have lost their ecological role within the
region.
7
Historical denotes a species that has not been recorded in the region since 1 January 1984. These species may no longer be present
within the AMLR.
8
15
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
PART 3
Approaches and framework
for conservation
This section details the conservation planning principles that are used
in this report.
3.1 Impacts of modification and landscape change on
biodiversity
The way we modify and develop natural environments has long-lasting impacts on the native plants
and animals that use them.
Human settlement and conversion of land for urban, industrial and agricultural pursuits leads to
clearance and modification of native habitats. These changes to environments lead to changes in
the abundance and distribution of native species.
As native vegetation cover declines, species are lost from landscapes
As native vegetation is increasingly removed from a landscape, the lack of cover (and associated
floristic diversity) begins to disadvantage native species. Species are eventually lost from a
landscape when their habitat requirements are no longer present.
The particular habitat requirements differ greatly between species, but important thresholds for
habitat intactness and species persistence appear to exist at 60-70% cover, 30% cover and 10%
cover. It is at these points when the remaining habitat – and increasingly, the fragmented nature
of remaining habitat – is no longer able to support native species. For example, at the 60-70%
threshold, an integrated habitat converts to less viable isolated patches, and it is thought that when
cover drops below 30% many woodland birds are lost from regions. Catastrophic loss of species can
be expected when cover drops below 10%.
An extinction debt is species that are likely to be lost in the future as a result of
modification that has occurred
Although individuals of a species are immediately impacted by clearance and the fragmentation
of landscapes, species may not be instantly lost from landscapes following clearance. Individuals
may persist in remnant vegetation, however if the population is not viable (e.g. resources required
for breeding are not available) then eventual extinction is inevitable. A lag between clearance or
modification and the loss of a species is called an ‘extinction debt’. Reversing an extinction debt
and preventing the loss of a species from a landscape can provide a significant challenge and
require extensive resources.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
16
Modification alters species relative abundance
Each native species responds differently to modification and change of native habitats. A majority
of species decline in abundance in areas that are extensively modified. Other species may remain
at similar abundances despite modification and loss at habitat. Some species may increase in
abundance and/or distribution following modification. The response of a species depends on
whether its resources are still met in the modified landscape, and whether it is able to adapt to
utilise the resources provided in modified habitats.
The varying response of species means that the abundance and mix of species in particular
ecosystems can change. Previously dominant species that decline may be replaced by new
dominant species that have been advantaged by modification. These changes can lead to new
competitive interactions between species.
In addition to the relative abundance of native species being altered, modification typically leads
to the introduction or release of species that are not indigenous to the region. Introduced species
can become widespread and many have significant impacts on the native flora and fauna of a
region. For example, grasses introduced as pasture for stock can become widespread and outcompete native grasses, and the introduction of feral carnivores can lead to declines in native
fauna that they prey upon.
Good condition native vegetation provides better habitat
The condition of native vegetation can also be a key determinant of whether or not a native
species will persist in a landscape. Each native species has particular habitat requirements (e.g.
food resources, breeding requirements, shelter, vegetation structure) that must be met for it to
persist. If vegetation does not provide a species’ requirements it will not support that species.
When vegetation becomes degraded, it often loses critical habitat features that the species that
are dependant upon it require. Thus, improving condition of vegetation and ensuring that species
requirements are met can be important to ensure that biodiversity is conserved.
3.2 Conservation planning principles
The targets in this report are based on recognised conservation
planning principles and approaches to planning for biodiversity
Target-setting at
multiple levels of the
biodiversity hierarchy
Biodiversity exists at
different levels of biological
organisation, from genes and
species, through to ecological
communities, ecosystems and
landscapes. This structure
of biological organisation is
hierarchical, which means
that the higher levels of the
biological hierarchy, such as
landscapes and ecosystems,
constrain and affect what
happens at the lower levels of
species and genes.
Researchers checking for signs of Bandicoots, the only remaining
native medium-sized mammal in the AMLR (Photo: Forestry SA)
17
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
The biological hierarchy provides an efficient structure for setting targets to conserve biodiversity
(Table 3.1). The higher levels of the hierarchy can be used as a ‘coarse filter’ to conserve a
majority of species. This is because conservation actions delivered at the landscape or ecological
community level will also meet the conservation requirements of many species that fall within those
landscapes or communities. Conserving landscapes and ecological communities therefore provide
general surrogates for conserving biodiversity.
However, some species will have idiosyncratic requirements that are not met by the higher-level
targets. Species-specific targets can be used as a ‘fine filter’ to pick up any species whose needs
are not met by conservation action at a landscape or ecological community level, and to assign
tailored conservation efforts to those species.
Defining conservation targets at each level of the biodiversity hierarchy provides a planning
approach that is likely to result in the conservation of a broad number of species – it is estimated
that such an approach will result in the effective conservation of greater than 90% of species
(including poorly-known taxa such as invertebrates, soil biota and non-vascular flora).
Table 3.1 Levels of target setting used in this report
Coarse filter targets are a surrogate for the levels below them. This means that they are likely
to secure the large number of non-threatened or common species that can be neglected
through species-specific efforts.
Biological hierarchy level
Why important
Filter level
Landscapes
Ecologically, landscapes are a
mosaic of heterogeneous
landforms, vegetation types,
ecosystems and land uses.
Practically, a landscape can
be considered as an area of
land or sea that is large
enough to achieve positive
ecological outcomes.
Landscapes represent large
areas of biodiversity. Their
impacts on lower levels of
biodiversity mean that they are
efficient surrogates for
conserving much of their
constituent biodiversity – what
happens at the landscape
level is important for levels
below.
Coarse
Ecological communities
An ecological community is a
characteristic suite of
interacting species that are
adapted to particular
conditions of soil, topography,
water availability and climate.
These targets ensure that
conservation efforts
encapsulate the diversity of
ecological communities, along
with many of their component
species.
Coarse
Species
This section picks up those
species that “fall through the
gaps” of the higher-level
targets and have particular
requirements, and may include
sub-species or varieties of
species.
These complement the higherlevel targets set at the
landscape and ecological
community level.
Fine
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
18
Conservation actions should be focused on the biodiversity assets that are
to be protected
Threatening processes lead to a decline in the condition of many biodiversity assets, including
remnant vegetation and native species. The conservation focus for managing threatening
processes should be on the asset which is threatened, and be related to the impacts of the
particular threat and the condition outcome that is desired for the asset.
In some situations, a threat-based focus may be required to complement asset-based planning.
This is particularly so for threats that have the potential to affect all or much of the region, affect
multiple assets, or where there is a strategic advantage to focusing on the threat itself (e.g.
preventing the introduction of a threat to a region).
Conservation efforts should be targeted to protect what is left,
not what was once there
The goal of biodiversity planning should focus on maintaining what we currently have – the variety
of plants, animals and ecosystems found in a certain location.
Areas that have been extensively modified through agricultural or urban development may have
lost many of their native plants and animals. In such environments, the goal of biodiversity planning
should be to maintain the native species and ecological systems that remain in a region.
Landscape modification patterns can be used to describe landscapes
Landscapes can be described by their extent of modification, in particular, by considering how
much of the pre-European cover has been cleared. Modification descriptions can also be used to
infer changes in landscape-scale ecological processes, such as species movements or fire regimes.
With higher levels of cover remaining, landscapes are intact or variegated. In these landscapes,
native vegetation cover is still the most dominant part of landscapes. More heavily modified
landscapes are known as fragmented. It is in these landscapes where the reduction in cover starts
to lead to isolation of remaining habitat and lack of connectivity in the landscape. Pre-European
cover has been replaced by human land uses as the dominant part of landscapes. The most
modified landscapes, with very little of their pre-European cover remaining, are relictual. These
landscapes are typically located in highly modified locations such as urban environments (Figure 3.1).
The extent of
modification and
condition can help
define conservation
priorities
There is not a specific set
of conservation actions
that will be the most
appropriate conservation
priority for each landscape,
ecological community or
species. Typically, different
conservation actions are
required for each situation
The Threatened Plant Action Group volunteers weeding threatened
depending upon the level
native orchid habitat (Photo: Joe Quarmby)
of modification that has
occurred, the extent of threats to biodiversity, and the current condition and trend of a particular
biodiversity asset (Figure 3.1, Table 3.2).
It makes sense that conservation actions should be tailored to match a particular situation.
Moreover, it ensures that limited resources are not wasted by conducting non-priority actions in a
particular situation.
19
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
As well as being used to describe landscapes, modification patterns can be used to define the
conservation priorities and appropriate actions for managing a particular landscape. These
priorities are linked to objectives that aim to maintain good condition parts of the landscape,
improve the condition of degraded parts of the landscape, and to reconstruct important parts of
the landscape that have been reduced to such an extent that, for example, critical ecological
processes or threatened species cannot continue to exist.
The ‘Maintain, Improve and Reconstruct’ approach means different things in different landscapes.
With changing levels of clearance and modification, the priority actions vary. For example,
reconstruction (revegetation) will generally not be a priority in areas that still have high cover as
enough habitat remains in these landscapes to support native species (Figure 3.1, Table 3.2). In
contrast, a fragmented landscape may not have enough habitats remaining, or remaining habitats
may be too isolated. Reconstruction of vegetation in particular areas may be a priority to ensure
species are not lost.
Figure 3.1 Planning model used in this report
Notes: Matrix refers to the predominant land cover type (habitat in intact and variegated
landscapes; other land uses in fragmented and relictual landscapes). Patches are areas
of least modified habitat surrounded by more modified habitat (most relevant to intact
and variegated landscapes). Fragments are restricted areas of habitat within a matrix
of other land uses. Buffers are those areas directly surrounding patches. Connecting areas
refers to areas between fragments or patches. Source: Adapted from McIntyre & Hobbs
(1999; 2000) & DEH (2007).
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
20
Some areas may require more urgent conservation efforts than others
Areas that have been extensively modified may not require urgent action. This is because in heavily
modified areas (particularly where modification occurred relatively early during settlement)
condition is likely to already be at low levels, and as a consequence, many native species may
already have been lost. There may be little risk of further decline as the only species remaining in
the landscape may be stable, particularly if they have been able to adapt to use the resources
provided in the modified landscape.
This is in contrast to an area
that remains in relatively
good condition that is
undergoing active decline.
In this case the risk of losing
species may be very high as
a majority of native species
may still be present. Urgency
of conservation efforts
including management of
key ecological processes may
be required to ensure that
condition is maintained and
that native species are not lost.
Volunteers protecting threatened native orchids from grazing
(Photo: Joe Quarmby)
However, this does not mean
that poor condition areas
should be ignored completely in favour of good condition areas. Instead it means that different
actions may be the most appropriate for these areas, and these may relate to implementing
localised, targeted efforts to ensure that condition does not decline any further, instead of broadscale high-level action to improve condition.
21
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Table 3.2 Strategies to Maintain, Improve and Reconstruct landscapes
Landscape conservation
activity
Why important
Where important
Maintain good condition
Maintaining the condition of
habitats that remain in good
condition or are largely
unmodified.
Native vegetation in good
condition supports a high
diversity of native species.
Maintenance of good
condition is an important
activity – it is much easier and
cheaper to avoid the effects of
degradation than it is to try
and reverse them.
Large and whole-of-landscape
focus in less modified
environments where most
habitats remains in good
condition. In fragmented
landscapes, applies to those
remnants that remain in good
condition.
Improve degraded condition
Improving the condition of
habitats that are degraded or
that have been modified.
Where improvement in
condition is required to ensure
the persistence of native flora
and fauna. Improvement
requires more effort and
resources than maintenance,
highlighting the importance of
maintaining remnants in good
condition.
Less focus in more intact
landscapes. In fragmented
and relictual landscapes,
improvement has a large focus,
as a majority of ecosystems are
modified and/or degraded.
Reconstruct habitat elements
or resources that have been
lost, using revegetation and
assisted regeneration.
Reconstruction can take a
number of forms including
re-establishment of buffers to
protect existing remnants,
re-establishment of connecting
areas to restore connectivity,
re-establishment of specific
habitats lost through
preferential clearance
patterns, and large-scale
habitat re-establishment.
In extensively cleared
landscapes the remaining
extent and/or configuration of
habitat may no longer be
enough to support the native
species that are present. Where
this occurs, native vegetation
may need to be reconstructed
to increase the total area of
available habitat and/or
restore connectivity.
Reconstruction is a difficult and
expensive option, and will not
come close to replacing preEuropean habitat.
Less focus in more intact
landscapes where native
habitats remain (though
reconstruction may be
appropriate in some situations).
In fragmented and relictual
landscapes reconstruction of
vegetation may be necessary
to ensure the long-term viability
of existing remnants, to restore
connectivity, and/or to provide
sufficient habitat for native
species.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
22
PART 4
Conservation of biodiversity
This section contains conservation targets and priorities to ensure
that terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity of the AMLR is conserved
for future generations.
4.1 Conservation of terrestrial and coastal biodiversity
Scope
The terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity of the AMLR encompasses all inland, coastal and aquatic
(freshwater and estuarine) ecosystems. Some information on the conservation and management
of aquatic ecosystems has been included in the sections relating to the four target setting scales
of landscapes, ecological communities, species and threatening processes. However, a separate
section of the report has been dedicated to highlighting some of the current projects that are
underway at the National, State and regional levels relating to aquatic ecosystems (see Aquatic
Ecosystem Conservation Programs, Section 4.1.4). The proposed outcomes of these projects will address
knowledge gaps and add to and refine the management priorities in other sections of the report.
Target setting at multiple scales
Conservation priorities and targets for terrestrial and coastal biodiversity have been set at four levels:
• Landscapes
• Ecological communities
• Species
• Threatening processes.
Terrestrial and aquatic Biodiversity – Summary of long-term targets
Conservation targets detailed in this section will help to achieve the following outcomes and
ensure that the current terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity of the AMLR is conserved:
• An improved condition of remnant vegetation in the AMLR, relative to current levels. This
improvement of condition will be reached through actively managing 100% of remnant
native vegetation for biodiversity, by 2030.
• An increase in the extent of native vegetation cover in the AMLR. This will be achieved
through reconstruction of over 58,000 ha of native vegetation by 2030, in accordance
with defined restoration priorities for each landscape of the AMLR. This reconstruction
effort is equal to reconstructing an area greater than half of the current remaining
vegetation in the AMLR, and will increase the native cover of the region from 13% to 20%.
• Increased proportion of under-represented ecological communities in the (legislatively
dedicated) protected area network, by 2030. Indicative target is 15% of pre-European
vegetation (from 5 year target of 7%) = additional 62,400 ha.
• A halt to the decline and loss of native species in the AMLR (see Section 4.1.3 for targets).
• An increased understanding of, and acceptance of, biodiversity and living with wildlife.
• Improved understanding and management of aquatic ecosystems (including better
integrated management of terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity across local, sub-regional
and regional scales) through pursuing the strategies in Section 4.1.4.
23
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
What is ‘active management for biodiversity’ and how is it measured?
The term ‘active management’ is used throughout this report. In general it refers to on-ground
management undertaken at a level sufficient to achieve defined goals for improving the condition
of biodiversity. Active management can apply across all of the broad management strategies
(maintain, improve, reconstruct) used in this report.
Implicit in this definition is the need to define the scale of measuring active management over
any given area of native vegetation. More importantly, is the need to monitor the outcome of the
management and not just the activities per se. For example, for weed control targeting threatened
species habitat, the question for measuring the success of the management may be “how did
the threatened species respond to weed control?” rather than just “how many weeds were
eradicated?”. Similarly, for management aimed at conserving habitats or communities, the question
may be more about the effect of weed control on habitat floristics and/or structure. However, this
becomes more complex when there are threatened species of interest present dependant on
particular habitat characteristics, or if important ecological processes such as fire or hydrological
regimes need to be considered.
Such questions aimed at management outcomes rather than management activities could (and
should) be asked both at a site scale and at a regional scale. To achieve this, however, flexible
condition indicators need to be developed to facilitate both measurement and target-setting for
management. At a habitat or vegetation community level, this also requires an understanding of
‘baselines’, which is in part a determination of an ‘ideal’ condition for any particular community. In
highly modified natural environments such as in the AMLR region this can be challenging. Currently
there is a project being undertaken by DEH and the AMLR NRM Board to develop ‘biodiversity
baselines’ for the AMLR region.
Defining ‘conservation tenure’
In the AMLR region, remnant native vegetation occurs on private land and public land managed
by various land management agencies (e.g. DEH, SA Water, Forestry SA and local government).
Although native vegetation is broadly protected by the Native Vegetation Act, not all native
vegetation can be considered securely protected and designated for conservation purposes.
Custom definitions for conservation tenure have been devised and classified for the purposes of this
report. Tenure has been broadly divided into public or private, and sub-divided according to the
level of tenure security and tenure type dedicated for conservation purposes (see map, Figure 4.1).
Public – designated conservation
Public land legislatively dedicated and secured for conservation purposes. In this category, all land
managed by DEH and Native Forest Reserves managed by Forestry SA is included.
Private – designated conservation
Private land legislatively dedicated and secured for conservation purposes. In this category, all
land under Heritage Agreements (secured with land title) are included. Some Heritage Agreements
managed by local government in the AMLR are also included.
Public – not designated conservation
Public land which is not legislatively dedicated and secured for conservation purposes. In this
category, there are a variety of land managers, the largest being SA Water, Forestry SA (‘Locality
Forests’ or other areas that may be zoned for conservation), local government and crown land
reserves managed by other government agencies.
Note that this analysis does not include consideration of some forms of conservation on private
land, such as those areas included under the ‘Significant Environmental Offset’ scheme operating
under the Native Vegetation Act.
Further information and analysis on conservation tenure is presented in the sections below. See also
Section 4.1.2 for a more detailed discussion.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
24
Figure 4.1 Conservation tenure classification used in this report
25
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
4.1.1 Conservation of landscapes
This section defines landscapes of the AMLR, and sets conservation priorities and targets in each
landscape. Note that more detailed maps of landscapes (with other relevant mapping layers) are
available through DEH’s online mapping tool NatureMaps.
Defining ‘landscapes’
Nine terrestrial landscapes and two coastal landscapes have been defined for the purposes of this
report (Figure 4.2). Landscapes are largely ecologically meaningful sub-regional ‘windows’ which
facilitate finer scale analysis and allow users of the report to determine management priorities for
their area of interest. However, the boundaries should be considered approximate. In the situation
where an area of interest is close to the boundary of an adjoining landscape and where remnant
vegetation may be contiguous, management priorities of the adjoining landscape may also need
to be considered.
These landscapes have been defined based on biogeographic characteristics including soils and
geological landform mapping and pre-European vegetation patterns, and as such, they represent
relatively distinct regional-scale ecological units of the AMLR. Coastal environments have been
separated from terrestrial environments using pre-European vegetation mapping and the DEH
coastal boundary.
The landscapes identify the high rainfall central spine of the Mount Lofty Ranges, the near-coastal
plains and colluvial areas of the Adelaide Plains, grassland ecosystems on the eastern plains, and
the fertile hills and valleys of grassy woodland in the Barossa and Eastern Hills. Coastal sub-regions
include the sheltered tidal zones and sand dunes of the northern coastline, and the exposed cliffs
of the southern coastline.
Figure 4.2 Landscapes and landscape modification in the AMLR.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
26
Each landscape has been modified differently
The landscapes differ in their pre-European characteristics, and also the nature and extent
of modification since European settlement. Most defined landscapes of the AMLR fall into the
fragmented category of landscape classification (refer back to previous section; between 10% and
60% native cover remaining). Two heavily modified landscapes fall into the relictual category (less
than 10% cover remaining).
However, each landscape has distinct characteristics, including the extent and timing of clearance,
the particular patterns of clearance and modification and the land uses that are now dominant in
each landscape.
Some areas, such as the flat near-coastal Adelaide Plains were cleared shortly after European
settlement in 1836. Other areas were cleared over 100 years later. In particular, many parts of
the Fleurieu peninsula were not cleared until after the 1940s (though were utilised for agricultural
and timber production for many decades prior), when a soldier settlement land scheme and the
development of nutrient inputs allowed for the clearance of heathy vegetation and the agricultural
use of infertile soils.
Some landscapes were cleared relatively evenly across all vegetation types, whereas others display
disproportionate clearance patterns where some vegetation types were cleared more heavily than
others.
Based on the extent of clearance, clearance patterns and time since clearance, the landscapes of
the AMLR fall into six broad categories:
• Fragmented high cover landscapes
• Disproportionately cleared fragmented landscapes
• Recently fragmented landscapes
• Presumed fragmented landscapes
• Fragmented coastal landscapes
• Relictual landscapes.
Conservation priorities for each landscape
The modification patterns evident in each landscape help to determine the conservation priorities
for each of the landscape types. These priorities reflect the actions that are the most important to
protect a range of species in each landscape, and importantly, they also reflect what conservation
outcomes can feasibly be achieved in each landscape. However, it is recognised that at this level,
‘fine filter’ management considerations need to be incorporated to cater for many threatened
species (e.g. species that have declined to critical levels where urgent site-specific management
and/or ex-situ conservation may be required).
This section groups landscapes by their modification type. Each of the six modification types has a
modification summary, a number of defined conservation priorities and a landscape conservation
strategy. In addition, each of the 11 landscapes has a summary page displaying biogeographic
and modification statistics along with the conservation targets for each landscape.
27
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Fragmented high cover landscapes
Landscapes that are fragmented, but have more than a third of their native
cover remaining.
Where in the AMLR?
One landscape falls into this category: Northern Lofty Ranges.
Landscape modification summary
• Landscapes are fragmented, but native cover remains greater than 30%, and therefore above
the threshold at which many species are lost.
• Disproportionate clearance patterns are evident. Grassy ecosystems and riparian areas have
been more heavily cleared than shrubby/heathy ecosystems.
• Clearance and fragmentation has been relatively recent, with variegated cover (greater than
60% native vegetation) still remaining in the 1940s.
• Large, well-connected remnants remain.
• A large proportion of remnant vegetation is in the public lands system, either under formal
conservation tenure, or land managed by Forestry SA or SA Water.
• Land use mosaic is agricultural, dominated by grazing and horticulture. Intensive land use has
been historically low, with a current trend of increasing intensification and development.
• Condition is good relative to many other parts of the AMLR.
• Condition trend is considered stable to slightly declining.
Conservation priorities
The immediate priority is to ensure that the good condition of the landscape is maintained (Table
4.1). This landscape is unique as few areas where this can be feasibly achieved remain in the AMLR.
Maintaining the current condition will involve restricting new or increasing threats to biodiversity in
the landscape, and actively managing remnant vegetation to maintain or improve its condition.
Active management of vegetation should initially focus on the large, well-connected remnants in
the protected area network, and on large remnants on public land. The large extent of remnant
vegetation under conservation tenure provides a core for conservation efforts in the landscape.
These areas need to be actively managed now to ensure that they are maintained in good
condition, or improved to good condition where they are currently degraded.
The longer-term focus is on more intensive improvement of remnant vegetation across the
landscape, and reconstructing disproportionately cleared vegetation types. This will ensure
that there is enough of these more extensively cleared habitats to support the species that are
dependant on them for resources.
Table 4.1 Landscape conservation strategies for fragmented high cover landscapes
✓ = indicates the relative extent of effort and resources that should be directed towards each
conservation strategy (maximum 3 ticks).
Immediate focus (0-5 years)
Longer-term focus (5-20 years)
Maintain good condition
✓✓✓1
✓✓✓
Improve degraded condition
✓
✓✓
Reconstruct vegetation
1
2
1
✓2
Initial maintain and improve focus is on protected areas and public lands
Reconstruction of disproportionately cleared habitats only
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
28
Northern Lofty Landscape (fragmented high cover)
Pre-European vegetation
Remnant vegetation*
* Remnant vegetation pie chart represents relative proportions of vegetation types remaining after clearance.
Area and landforms
30,216 ha. 3.9% of the region. Low, steep and rolling hills with prominent rocky ridges. Low
slopes, flats and rises.
Pre-European
vegetation patterns
Dominated by vegetation with shrubby understorey, which covered half of the landscape;
predominantly heathy woodland (42%), with some areas of heathy forest (8%). Grassy
woodland in valleys and on productive soils, and riparian vegetation, each comprised
approximately 25% of the landscape.
Landscape
modification and
clearance patterns
Fragmented. 12,473 ha pre-European vegetation remaining (41%).
Some fragmentation is relatively recent. In the 1940s the level of cover was greater than 60%.
Alluvial valleys and areas of good soil were cleared first as they were most suitable for
agriculture. Clearance was focused on good soils, with a disproportionate loss of grassy
woodland and riparian vegetation. Less than 30% of the pre-European extent of these
vegetation types remains, compared to almost 60% of the pre-European extent of heathy
woodland remaining.
Remnant vegetation
patterns and
conservation
protection
Remnant vegetation is dominated by heathy woodland, which comprises almost two thirds of
the vegetation in the landscape. Grassy woodland and riparian vegetation cover
approximately 17% each.
Nearly half of remnant heathy woodland is protected on public lands, while approximately a
quarter of grassy woodland and riparian is also each protected on public lands. A similar
amount of these vegetation groups also occur on public lands that is not protected for
conservation.
In terms of the proportion of pre-European vegetation, grassy woodland, riparian and heathy
forest are under represented in public and private lands (legislatively designated for
conservation).
Total areas under various levels of protection include:
Public lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 37% remnant, 15% pre-European
Public lands (not legislatively designated for conservation): 29% remnant, 12% pre-European
Private lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 2% remnant, 1% pre-European
Land use
Major: grazing, conservation
Other: forestry, horticulture, peri-urban
Important
threatened species/
broad vegetation
group associations
Flora: heathy woodland, grassy woodland
Fauna: grassy woodland, heathy woodland
See Willson and Bignall (2009)
Conservation targets
5yr
00% of remnant vegetation under protected public and private conservation tenure actively managed for
1
biodiversity, by 2015 (target = 4,855 ha).
Remnant vegetation under SA Water and Forestry SA (target = 1,520 ha) management actively managed for
biodiversity, by 2015.
Development controls to ensure development takes place in a manner that does not impact on biodiversity assets
developed and implemented, by 2015.
Landscape-level threat management programs1 developed and implemented, by 2015.
20yr 100%
of remnant vegetation actively managed for biodiversity, by 2030.
Disproportionately-cleared vegetation types reconstructed to greater than 30% of their pre-European extent,
by 2030 (target = 300 ha).
1
The relative intactness of this landscape means that co-ordinated landscape-scale threat management may
achieve significant landscape-scale biodiversity outcomes; co-ordination and integration of activities such as
feral animal control means that land managers are more likely to achieve sustained reductions in feral animals
and their impacts.
29
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Disproportionately cleared fragmented landscapes
Landscapes that are fragmented, have less than a third of pre-European cover
remaining and show preferential clearance patterns.
Where in the AMLR?
Two landscapes fall into this category: Foothills and Hills Face, and Central Lofty.
Landscape modification summary
• Landscapes are fragmented, with pre-European cover cleared to less than 30%, the threshold
below which many species are lost from landscapes.
• Disproportionate clearance patterns are evident. Grassy ecosystems and riparian areas have
been more heavily cleared than shrubby/heathy ecosystems.
• Clearance and fragmentation of the landscape started early, with pre-European cover cleared
to below 50% by the 1940s.
• Large, well-connected remnants remain in some parts of the landscape.
• Over a quarter of remnant vegetation is in the public lands system, either under formal
conservation tenure, or land managed by Forestry SA or SA Water.
• Land use mosaic is agricultural and peri-urban, dominated by grazing, horticulture and lifestyle
blocks.
• Intensification of land use is increasing in some areas, with other areas (e.g. Hills Face) protected
from development.
• Condition of the landscape is modified.
• Condition trend is considered to be actively degrading in many places.
Conservation priorities
The conservation priority for these landscapes is to halt or slow the current decline in condition
(Table 4.2). This declining condition is linked to the poor current condition of many remnants and
the fact that they exist in a highly fragmented mosaic surrounded by intensive agricultural land use.
Edge effects from adjacent land use are common and leading to further degradation of remnants.
Ensuring the proper application of development controls in the Hills Face Zone may assist in slowing
the decline in biodiversity condition.
Halting the current decline in condition will require active management of remnant vegetation to
improve condition. This active management may involve containment of threats in degraded parts
of the landscape, or large-scale management of threats in areas with higher remnant cover. The
large amount of remnant vegetation in conservation areas, or on other public lands, provides a
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
30
core for conservation efforts in the short-term. Poorly protected vegetation types may also require
immediate active management to improve their condition. The large number of lifestyle blocks/
hobby farms in these landscapes provides an opportunity to get native vegetation under active
management for biodiversity, as land is not managed for economic outcomes.
Longer-term priorities include improvement of the condition of remnant vegetation across the landscape
and ongoing threat containment and management, and the reconstruction of disproportionatelycleared habitats. This reconstruction focus will ensure that grassy ecosystems and riparian areas are
increased in extent to provide resources for species that are dependent upon them, and it will also
serve to increase indigenous vegetation cover to greater than 30% of the landscape.
Table 4.2 Landscape conservation strategies for disproportionately-cleared fragmented
landscapes
✓ = indicates the relative extent of effort and resources that should be directed towards each
conservation strategy (maximum 3 ticks).
Immediate focus (0-5 years)
Longer-term focus (5-20 years)
Maintain good condition
✓1
✓✓✓
Improve condition
✓✓1
✓✓✓
Reconstruct vegetation
✓2
Initial maintain and improve focus is on protected areas and public lands, with additional improve
focus on poorly protected vegetation types.
2
Reconstruction of disproportionately cleared habitats only, where possible to buffer and connect
existing remnants.
1
31
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Hills Face / Foothills Landscape
(disproportionately cleared fragmented)
Pre-European vegetation
Remnant vegetation*
* Remnant vegetation pie chart represents relative proportions of vegetation types remaining after clearance.
Area and landforms
25,668 ha. 3.3% of the region. Steep hills and dissected escarpments (south). Steep low hills,
sandy ridges and dissected slopes (north).
Pre-European
vegetation patterns
Almost half of landscape (47%) was covered with grassy woodland, including box grassy
woodlands which were common among the foothills. Other common vegetation types were
riparian (27%), heathy woodland (16%) and heathy forest (10%).
Landscape
modification and
clearance patterns
Fragmented. 6,837 ha pre-European vegetation remaining (27%).
Many areas (e.g. foothills) were cleared prior to 1940s.
Clearance was selective towards good soils. Vegetation on steep hills and escarpments was
cleared less extensively than other vegetation. Almost half (44%) of the pre-European extent of
heathy forest remains as remnant vegetation. All other vegetation types were over 70%
cleared.
Remnant vegetation
and conservation
protection
Grassy woodland (40%) remains the dominant vegetation type in remnant vegetation followed
by riparian at nearly 30%. Less-cleared vegetation such as heathy forest (17%) are relatively
more dominant than they were historically.
Grassy woodland and heathy forest are equally-represented in protected public lands –
however the pre-European dominance of grassy woodland is not reflected in the proportions
of vegetation in protected public lands. There are significant amounts of grassy woodland in
unprotected public lands.
Total remnant areas under various levels of protection include:
Public lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 23% of remnant
Public lands (not legislatively designated for conservation): 13% of remnant
Private lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 3% of remnant
Land use
Major: peri-urban
Other: grazing, viticulture, conservation
Important
threatened species/
broad vegetation
group associations
Flora: heathy woodland, grassy woodland, wetland
Fauna: grassy woodland, heathy woodland
See Willson and Bignall (2009)
Conservation targets
5yr
00% of remnant vegetation under protected public and private conservation tenure actively managed for
1
biodiversity, by 2015 (target = 1,772 ha).
Remnant vegetation under SA Water and Forestry SA (target = 1,010 ha) management actively managed for
biodiversity, by 2015.
Opportunities for landscape-scale conservation clusters1 on private and public lands identified and developed, by
2015.
20yr 1
00% of remnant vegetation actively managed for biodiversity, by 2030.
Disproportionately-cleared vegetation types2 reconstructed to greater than 30% of their pre-European extent, by
2030 (target = 1,000 ha).
1
Conservation clusters are multi-property sites that are actively managed for biodiversity. Sites encompass private
and public lands and provide a buffer around conservation cores (protected areas).
2
Excludes reconstruction of heathy woodland. Although cleared to below 30%, reconstruction of heathy
woodland in the hills face is not considered a priority given the relatively large extent of this vegetation type
remaining in the rest of the AMLR.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
32
Central Lofty Landscape
(disproportionately cleared fragmented)
Pre-European vegetation
Remnant vegetation*
* pie chart represents relative proportions of vegetation types remaining after clearance.
Area and landforms
71,833 ha. 9.2% of the region. High elevation central divide. Dissected escarpments, precipitous
cliffs, deep, narrow gorges, steep to moderately steep slopes and rises with undulating crests.
Gentle slopes and flats, broad elongate valleys and rolling low hills. Strongly dissected by
watercourses and narrow creek flats.
Pre-European
vegetation patterns
Dominated by heathy forest (40%) and riparian vegetation (33%). Other vegetation types
included grassy woodland (14%) and heathy woodland (13%).
Landscape
modification and
clearance patterns
Fragmented. 18,500 ha pre-European vegetation remaining (26%).
Clearance is relatively long-term, with over half of the pre-European vegetation cleared by the
1940s.
Clearance was selective towards good soils, with a disproportionate loss of grassy woodland
and riparian vegetation. Only 14% of the pre-European extent of grassy woodland, and 20% of
riparian vegetation, remains, compared to over 30% of the original extent of heathy vegetation
types.
Remnant vegetation
and conservation
protection
Remnant vegetation is dominated by heathy woodland, with this vegetation type comprising
almost 50% of remnant vegetation in the landscape, followed by riparian at 25%.
Protection of remnant vegetation is relatively proportioned across vegetation groups. There are
also significant amounts of remnant vegetation on public land (not legislatively protected)
managed by SA Water.
Total remnant areas under various levels of protection include:
Public lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 21% of remnant
Public lands (not legislatively designated for conservation): 22% of remnant
Private lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 4% of remnant
Land use
Major: peri-urban
Other: grazing, horticulture, conservation
Important
threatened species/
broad vegetation
group associations
Flora: wetland, heathy woodland, grassy woodland
Fauna: grassy woodland, heathy woodland
See Willson and Bignall (2009)
Conservation targets
5yr
00% of remnant vegetation under protected public and private conservation tenure actively managed for
1
biodiversity, by 2015 (target = 4,566 ha).
Remnant vegetation under SA Water and Forestry SA (target = 2,780 ha) management actively managed for
biodiversity, by 2015.
Identify and develop opportunities for landscape-scale conservation clusters1 on private and public lands, by
2015.
20yr 1
00% of remnant vegetation actively managed for biodiversity, by 2030.
Disproportionately-cleared vegetation types reconstructed to greater than 30% of their pre-European extent, by
2030 (target = 3,900 ha).
1
Conservation clusters are multi-property sites that are actively managed for biodiversity. Sites encompass private
and public lands and provide a buffer around conservation cores (protected areas).
33
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Recently fragmented landscapes
Landscapes that are fragmented with less than a third of pre-European cover
remaining, with fragmentation resulting from a relatively recent clearance history.
Where in the AMLR?
Two landscapes fall into this category: Southern Fleurieu and Fleurieu.
Landscape modification summary
• Landscapes are fragmented, with pre-European cover cleared to less than 30%, the threshold below
which many species are lost from landscapes.
• Most vegetation types were cleared at similar levels. Strong disproportionate clearance patterns are
not evident.
• Clearance and fragmentation of the landscape has been relatively recent, with large amounts of
vegetation cleared after the 1940s.
• Some large remnants remain, although small, isolated remnants are also numerous.
• A relatively large proportion of remnant vegetation is in the public lands system under dedicated
conservation tenure.
• Land use mosaic is agricultural, dominated by grazing and dairies on improved pastures.
• Agricultural land use is becoming more intensive in some areas, with land uses such as farm forestry
also increasing.
• Condition of the landscape is modified.
• Condition trend is considered to be actively declining.
Conservation priorities
Halting and reversing the current decline in condition is the immediate priority of these landscapes (Table
4.3). As much of the clearance occurred relatively recently, there is likely to be a window of opportunity
to improve condition before species are lost. This will require active management of remnants to improve
condition, along with reconstruction of native vegetation to increase cover to exceed 30% of the
landscapes.
Both active management of remnants and reconstruction of vegetation should commence immediately,
to reflect the urgency and high priority of capitalising on this opportunity before further species decline or
are lost from these areas. The immediate focus of remnant management should be on remnants that are
currently in good condition, which is likely to be remnants under conservation tenure, large remnants, or
remnants that are buffered from the impacts of intensive land use. The immediate focus of reconstruction
should be to buffer and connect existing remnants, while also taking account of land availability
opportunities that may arise.
In the longer term, significant improvement – incorporating both remnant management and largescale reconstruction of vegetation – will be required to maintain the current species present in these
landscapes. The extent of conservation efforts required in these landscapes is large – capacity building
will also be required to ensure targets can be met.
Table 4.3 Landscape conservation strategies for recently fragmented landscapes
✓ = indicates the relative extent of effort and resources that should be directed towards each
conservation strategy (maximum 3 ticks).
Immediate focus (0-5 years)
Longer-term focus (5-20 years)
Maintain condition
✓✓
✓✓✓
Improve condition
✓✓✓1
✓✓✓
Reconstruct
vegetation
✓✓2
✓✓✓3
1
2
3
1
Initial maintain and improve focus is on protected areas, public lands and large remnants.
Initial reconstruct focus is to buffer and connect existing remnants.
Reconstruct to increase cover to >30%.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
34
Southern Fleurieu Landscape
(recently cleared fragmented)
Pre-European vegetation
Remnant vegetation*
* Remnant vegetation pie chart represents relative proportions of vegetation types remaining after clearance.
Area and landforms
29,007 ha. 3.7% of the region. Large, elevated Parawa plateau and moderate to steep slopes
flanking the plateau.
Pre-European
vegetation patterns
Heavily dominated by heathy forest (38%) and heathy woodland (37%), with wetlands (18%)
also well-represented. Other vegetation types were uncommon and included grassy
woodlands (6%) and riparian (1%).
Landscape
modification and
clearance patterns
Fragmented. 6,321 ha pre-European vegetation remaining (22%).
Much clearance is relatively recent and occurred post-1940s. In the 1940s pre-European
vegetation still covered approximately 80% of the landscape.
Most vegetation types were equally cleared, with strongly disproportionate clearance patterns
not evident. Most vegetation types are approximately 80% cleared, although wetlands were
less cleared, approximately 60%.
Remnant vegetation
and conservation
protection
Remnant vegetation is dominated by heathy forest, heathy woodland and wetland
vegetation, with each comprising just over 30% of remnant vegetation.
45% of heathy forest, 34% of heathy woodland and 29% of wetland remnant vegetation is
legislatively designated within public lands. An additional 12% of heathy woodland is privately
protected (Heritage Areas).
Total remnant areas under various levels of protection include:
Public lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 35% of remnant
Public lands (not legislatively designated for conservation): 5% of remnant
Private lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 6% of remnant
Land use
Major: grazing on modified pastures
Other: irrigated modified pastures, conservation, forestry, horticulture
Important
threatened species/
broad vegetation
group associations
Flora: wetland, heathy woodland
Fauna: grassy woodland, heathy woodland
See Willson and Bignall (2009)
Conservation targets
5yr
00% of remnant vegetation under protected public and private conservation tenure actively managed for
1
biodiversity, by 2015 (target = 2,592 ha).
Remnant vegetation under SA Water and Forestry SA tenure (target = 746 ha) actively managed for biodiversity, by
2015.
10% of long-term revegetation target reconstructed by 2015 (target = 240 ha).
20yr 1
00% of remnant vegetation actively managed for biodiversity, by 2030.
Native vegetation reconstructed1 to greater than 30%, by 2030 (target = 2,400 ha).
1
Where possible, vegetation should be reconstructed to buffer and connect existing remnants.
35
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Fleurieu Landscape
(recently cleared fragmented)
Pre-European vegetation
Remnant vegetation*
* Remnant vegetation pie chart represents relative proportions of vegetation types remaining after clearance.
Area and landforms
101,546 ha. 13% of the region. Undulating hills and valleys, rounded hills, steep hills and hill
slopes.
Pre-European
vegetation patterns
Almost half of the pre-European cover of the region was heathy woodland (49%). Many other
vegetation types were represented, including grassy woodland (24%), heathy forest (9%),
riparian (8%) and wetlands (8%).
Landscape
modification and
clearance patterns
Fragmented. 17,857 ha pre-European vegetation remaining (18%).
Fragmentation of the landscape is relatively recent. In 1945, native vegetation cover still
covered approximately 70% of the landscape.
Most vegetation types were cleared equally, with clearance rates of 80-85% applying to most
vegetation types.
Remnant vegetation
and conservation
protection
The proportions of remnant vegetation types reflect the pre-European patterns, with heathy
woodland the most dominant remnant vegetation type (54%). Grassy woodland represents 16%
of remnants and heathy forest 12%, with both riparian and wetland vegetation representing
approximately 8%.
Nearly one third of heathy woodland remnants are under conservation tenure, representing
the majority of legally protected vegetation in the landscape. Grassy woodland is underrepresented in legally protected public lands.
Total remnant areas under various levels of protection include:
Public lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 20% of remnant
Public lands (not legislatively designated for conservation): 3% of remnant
Private lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 9% of remnant
Land use
Major: grazing on modified pastures
Other: irrigated modified pastures, forestry, conservation
Important
threatened species/
broad vegetation
group associations
Flora: wetland, heathy woodland
Fauna: grassy woodland, heathy woodland
See Willson and Bignall (2009)
Conservation targets
5yr
00% of remnant vegetation under protected public and private conservation tenure actively managed for
1
biodiversity, by 2015 (target = 5,235 ha).
Remnant vegetation under SA Water and Forestry SA tenure (target = 2,520 ha) actively managed for biodiversity,
by 2015.
10% of long-term revegetation target reconstructed (target = 1,260 ha), by 2015.
20yr 1
00% of remnant vegetation actively managed for biodiversity, by 2030.
Native vegetation reconstructed1 to greater than 30%, by 2030 (target = 12,620 ha).
1
Where possible, vegetation should be reconstructed to buffer and connect existing remnants.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
36
Presumed fragmented landscapes
Landscapes that have been heavily cleared, but where it is presumed
that greater than 10% of pre-European cover remains.
Where in the AMLR?
Two landscapes fall into this category: Barossa Valley and Eastern Hills, and Eastern Flanks.
Landscape modification summary
• Landscapes are presumed fragmented, with pre-European cover likely to fall between 10% and 30% of
the landscape. Obtaining an accurate estimate of cover is difficult due to difficulties in mapping grassy
ecosystems using standard vegetation mapping techniques.
• Clearance and fragmentation of the landscape commenced early, with landscapes heavily cleared
and utilised for pastoralism since before the 1940s. Remnants are located within a mosaic of agricultural
land use. Many remnants are small and isolated.
• Low levels of remnant vegetation are formally protected under conservation tenure.
• Land use is dominated by extensive grazing, with intensive agriculture common in some areas. Land use
trend is for increasing intensification.
• Condition is modified to highly modified. Condition trend is considered to be stable to slightly declining.
Conservation priorities
Ensuring that these landscapes maintain their current native species will require extensive improvement of
remnant vegetation, broad-scale reconstruction of native vegetation, and an improvement in our current
understanding and knowledge.
Improvement of the condition of remnant vegetation is the most important short-term priority (Table 4.4).
As the current extent of grassy ecosystems in these landscapes is unclear, investigations to map all existing
remnant vegetation should be completed to inform conservation efforts. There is also a need to increase
recognition of remnant grassy ecosystems as native vegetation, and to better integrate the requirements
of these systems with appropriate grazing management practices. This will be achieved by providing land
managers with tools that will allow them to better manage land to improve the condition of remnant
vegetation (e.g. appropriate stock grazing practices).
The immediate focus of active management efforts should be on remnants in the best condition. These are
likely to be larger remnants, and/or areas that have been only lightly grazed or that have had good grazing
management. However, for grassy ecosystems the reverse can often be true – that small areas such as
cemeteries and road reserves that have historically been subject to little modification, such as grazing, can
often be in relatively good condition.
Learning more about the restoration of grassy ecosystems is also a short-term priority, as significant
reconstruction of these extensively cleared vegetation types will be necessary to ensure that the species of
these landscapes are conserved in the longer-term.
In the longer-term, these landscapes will require an improvement of condition across the landscape,
combined with extensive reconstruction to increase the cover of the landscape to a level that will support
the current species (provisionally set to greater than 20% cover, based on current mapping). Unlike other
parts of the AMLR, a large extent of this reconstruction may be achieved through assisted regeneration and
improvement of currently grazed remnants of grassy ecosystems. This type of reconstruction will require less
effort than the reconstruction required in many other parts of the AMLR.
Table 4.4 Landscape conservation strategies for presumed fragmented landscapes
✓ = indicates the relative extent of effort and resources that should be directed towards each
conservation strategy (maximum 3 ticks).
Immediate focus (0-5 years)
Maintain condition
Improve condition
Reconstruct vegetation
✓
1
✓✓
✓
2
Longer-term focus (5-20 years)
✓✓
1
✓✓✓
✓✓
3
Initial maintain and improve focus is on protected areas and large remnants.
Restoration and reconstruction trials for grassy ecosystems only.
Reconstruct to increase cover to >20%. Although the size of the target is large, significant amounts of this reconstruction may be met through assisted natural
regeneration, and will therefore require less effort than reconstruction in some other landscapes
1
2
3
37
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Barossa and Eastern Hills Landscape
(low cover presumed fragmented)
Pre-European vegetation
Remnant vegetation*
* Remnant vegetation pie chart represents relative proportions of vegetation types remaining after clearance.
Area and landforms
172,499 ha. 22.1% of the region. Undulating to rolling low rises and low hills, flat to gently sloping
valleys, broad alluvial flats and plains, and deeply incised watercourses with steep banks.
Pre-European
vegetation patterns
Pre-European vegetation strongly dominated by grassy woodland (62%), with riparian (27%)
and heathy woodland (10%) vegetation also present.
Landscape
modification and
clearance patterns
Presumed fragmented. 13,495 ha pre-European vegetation remaining (8%). This is likely to be
an under-estimate due to the difficulties of mapping grassy ecosystems.
Many areas were cleared prior to 1945, with pastoralism widespread by this time.
Most vegetation types were over 90% cleared, with grassy ecosystems cleared the most
extensively. Grassy woodlands were 93% cleared, riparian areas 91% cleared and heathy
woodland 87% cleared.
Remnant vegetation
and conservation
protection
Grassy woodland remains the dominant vegetation type (52% of remnant vegetation). Riparian
vegetation comprises 31% of remnant vegetation. The proportion of heathy woodland has
increased relatively, now representing 16% of remnant vegetation.
The amount of remnant vegetation in protected conservation lands is very small. Protected
areas are dominated by heathy woodland.
Total remnant areas under various levels of protection include:
Public lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 6% of remnant
Public lands (not legislatively designated for conservation): 4% of remnant
Private lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 3% of remnant
Land use
Major: grazing on modified pastures or native vegetation
Other: viticulture, horticulture
Important
threatened species/
broad vegetation
group associations
Flora: wetland (south), grassy woodland (north)
Fauna: grassy woodland , heathy woodland
See Willson and Bignall (2009)
Conservation targets
5yr
100% of remnant vegetation under protected public and private conservation tenure actively managed for
biodiversity, by 2015 (target = 1,211 ha).
The extent of remnant grassy ecosystems in the landscape accurately mapped, by 2015.
Tools for improved integration of primary production and biodiversity outcomes developed and promoted,
by 2015.
Trials to increase knowledge of restoration and reconstruction of grassy ecosystems conducted, by 2015.
20yr 1
00% of remnant vegetation actively managed for biodiversity, by 2030.
Native vegetation reconstructed1 to greater than 20%2 of the landscape, by 2030 (target = 21,000 ha).
1
Where possible, vegetation should be reconstructed to buffer and connect existing remnants (assisted
regeneration may be more appropriate than revegetation).
2
This target is preliminary and may change following improved identification of remnant vegetation extent in the
landscape.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
38
Eastern Flanks
(low cover presumed fragmented)
Pre-European vegetation
Remnant vegetation*
* Remnant vegetation pie chart represents relative proportions of vegetation types remaining after clearance.
Area and landforms
107,070 ha. 13.7% of the region. Rough hill country with steep rocky low hills and hills, rocky
outcrops and escarpments; and gentler country with rolling low hills, undulating rises, broad
valleys and flats, and alluvial flood plains. Watercourses and narrow river valleys dissect the
landscape in an east-west direction.
Pre-European
vegetation patterns
The pre-European vegetation of the landscape is dominated by grassy ecosystems, most
notably grassy woodlands (74%) and grasslands (9%). Other vegetation types include riparian
vegetation (8%) and mallee (6%).
Landscape
modification and
clearance patterns
Presumed fragmented. 9,045 ha pre-European vegetation remaining (8.5%). This is likely to be
an under-estimate due to the difficulties of mapping grassy ecosystems.
Many areas were cleared prior to 1945, with pastoralism widespread by this time.
All vegetation types have been extensively cleared (grassy woodlands 92%, grasslands 95%,
riparian 89% and mallee 88%).
Remnant vegetation
and conservation
protection
Grassy woodland is the most dominant vegetation type (73% of remnant vegetation).
Grassland was heavily cleared with approximately 5% remaining. Other remnant vegetation
types include riparian (10%), mallee (8%) and grasslands (5%).
Less than 10% of remnant vegetation is protected in formal conservation areas. Those areas
that are conserved are dominated by grassy woodlands (34% of protected vegetation), and
mallee (24%).
The amount of remnant vegetation in protected conservation lands is small. Protected areas
are mostly private, protecting grassy woodland (10%) and mallee (15%).
Total remnant areas under various levels of protection include:
Public lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 1% of remnant
Public lands (not legislatively designated for conservation): 5% of remnant
Private lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 9% of remnant
Land use
Major: grazing on modified pastures or native vegetation
Other: cropping, horticulture
Important
threatened species/
broad vegetation
group associations
Flora: mallee
Fauna: grassy woodland
See Willson and Bignall (2009)
Conservation targets
5yr
00% of remnant vegetation under protected public and private conservation tenure actively managed for
1
biodiversity, by 2015 (target = 923 ha).
The extent of remnant grassy ecosystems in the landscape accurately mapped, by 2015.
Tools for improved integration of primary production and biodiversity outcomes developed and promoted, by
2015.
Trials to increase knowledge of restoration and restoration of grassy ecosystems conducted, by 2015.
20yr 1
00% of remnant vegetation actively managed for biodiversity, by 2030.
Native vegetation reconstructed1 to greater than 20%2 of the landscape, by 2030 (target = 12,370 ha).
1
Excludes reconstruction of mallee, which is not considered a priority due to its peripheral distribution in the AMLR.
Where possible, vegetation should be reconstructed to buffer and connect existing remnants
2
This target is preliminary and may change following better identification of remnant vegetation extent.
39
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Fragmented coastal landscapes
Landscapes that are fragmented, have less than a third of pre-European cover
remaining, and are situated in coastal environments.
Where in the AMLR?
Two landscapes fall into this category: Northern Coastline and Southern Coastline. These cover the
coastal zone stretching from the Light River, along Gulf St Vincent, around Cape Jervis and along
the southern coast to Goolwa.
Landscape modification summary
• Landscapes are fragmented, with pre-European cover cleared to less than 30%, the threshold
below which many species are lost from landscapes. Some parts of the landscape were cleared
early, shortly after settlement.
• In the Northern Coastline landscape, clearance of all vegetation types has been substantial,
with most vegetation types cleared to similar low levels.
• Disproportionate clearance patterns are evident in the Southern Coastline landscape, with
sheltered cliff, sheltered dune and exposed dune vegetation types cleared more extensively
than exposed cliff vegetation types. In the adjacent hinterland areas grassy woodlands were
cleared more than heathy woodlands.
• Well-connected remnants remain along the coastline in the Northern Coastline landscape
(mostly in sheltered tidal mangrove vegetation), whereas remnants are small and highly
scattered in the Southern Coastline landscape.
• Approximately half of the remnant vegetation is legislatively designated in the public lands system.
• Land use mosaic is urban (Northern Coastline) or agricultural dominated by grazing (Southern
Coastline). Land use trend is for increasing urban development and recreation.
• Condition is modified to highly modified. Condition trend is considered to be stable (where
extensive modification has already occurred) to actively degrading.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
40
Conservation priorities
The conservation priority for these landscapes is to halt or slow the current decline in condition.
This declining condition is linked to on-going weed invasion, increasing urban development and
encroachment, inappropriate and unmanaged access and on-going grazing.
Halting the current decline in condition will require active management of remnant vegetation to
improve condition (Table 4.5). This active management may involve mitigation and containment
of threats in degraded parts of the landscape (e.g. controlling access, fencing to exclude grazing,
erosion control, weed removal or containment of weed spread to prevent incursion into more intact
areas). Larger-scale management of threats may be required in areas with higher remnant cover.
The large amount of remnant vegetation in conservation areas, or on other public lands, provides a
core for conservation efforts in the short-term. Poorly protected vegetation types may also require
immediate active management to improve their condition.
Preventing inappropriate urban and recreational development, and managing for the potential
impacts of climate change are also important components of managing the threats to these
landscapes. Longer-term priorities include improvement of the condition of remnant vegetation
across the landscape and ongoing threat containment and management, and the reconstruction
of disproportionately-cleared habitats. This reconstruction should focus on buffering and
connecting existing remnants.
Table 4.5 Landscape conservation strategies for fragmented coastal landscapes
✓ = indicates the relative extent of effort and resources that should be directed towards each
conservation strategy (maximum 3 ticks).
Immediate focus (0-5 years)
Longer-term focus (5-20 years)
Maintain condition
✓
✓✓
Improve condition
✓✓
Reconstruct vegetation
1
2
41
1
1
✓✓✓
✓
2
Initial maintain and improve focus is on protected areas and large remnants,
Reconstruct to buffer and connect existing remnants.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Northern Coastline Landscape
Pre-European vegetation
(fragmented coastal)
Remnant vegetation*
* Remnant vegetation pie chart represents relative proportions of vegetation types remaining after clearance.
Area and landforms
21,665 ha. 2.8% of the region. Coastal and near-coastal plains, broad alluvial plains and
floodplains, outwash fans, flat to very gently inclined plains, low lying estuarine and coastal
tidal flats, and coastal dunes and sub-dunes.
Pre-European
vegetation patterns
Coastal vegetation dominated by sheltered tidal zones (83%), with some sheltered dunes (10%).
Terrestrial vegetation in hinterland dominated by shrubland (7%).
Landscape
modification and
clearance patterns
Fragmented. 5,203 ha pre-European vegetation remaining (24%).
Some parts of this landscape were cleared early, shortly after settlement.
Clearance has been extensive in many parts of the landscape, with the coastal suburbs of
metropolitan Adelaide having replaced the native vegetation. Almost all of the near-coastal
shrubland has been lost (>99%). Sheltered tidal areas have been less cleared (73%) than
sheltered dunes (83%), although much of the supratidal zones adjacent to intertidal areas have
been lost.
Remnant vegetation
and conservation
protection
The majority of remnant vegetation in the landscape is sheltered tidal vegetation (>90%),
primarily mangroves and saltmarsh. Sheltered dunes are also represented (7%). Very few
remnants of other vegetation types remain.
Approximately one half of sheltered tidal areas are legislatively protected, mostly at Barker
Inlet Aquatic Reserve and Port Gawler Conservation Park.
Total remnant areas under various levels of protection include:
Public lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 48% of remnant
Public lands (not legislatively designated for conservation): 27% of remnant
Private lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 0%
Land use
Major: urban
Other: horticulture, industrial, conservation
Important
threatened species/
broad vegetation
group associations
Flora: coastal, grassy woodland
Fauna: grassy woodland
See Willson and Bignall (2009)
Conservation targets
5yr
00% of remnant vegetation under protected public and private conservation tenure actively managed for
1
biodiversity, by 2015 (target = 2,483 ha).
20yr 1
00% of remnant vegetation actively managed for biodiversity, by 2030.
Vegetation to buffer and connect existing remnants reconstructed, by 2030 (target = 800 ha).
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
42
Southern Coastline Landscape
Pre-European vegetation
(fragmented coastal)
Remnant vegetation*
* Remnant vegetation pie chart represents relative proportions of vegetation types remaining after clearance.
Area and landforms
9,328 ha. 1.2% of the region. Undulating rises, steep to precipitous hillslopes and coastal cliffs,
localised coastal flats and low sandy rises, and the undulating coastal plain surrounding Cape
Jervis.
Pre-European
vegetation patterns
Coastal vegetation dominated by cliffs, both sheltered (15%) and exposed (11%), with sheltered
dunes (8%) and exposed dunes (6%) also present. Terrestrial vegetation in the hinterland
adjacent to coastal areas was dominated by grassy woodland (40%) and heathy woodland
(10%). Wetland vegetation covered approximately 3%.
Landscape
modification and
clearance patterns
Fragmented. 2,059 ha pre-European vegetation remaining (22%).
Some parts of this landscape were cleared shortly after settlement.
Clearance has not been equal across all vegetation types. Sheltered cliff (90% cleared),
sheltered dune (79%) and exposed dune (80%) vegetation has been more extensively cleared
than exposed cliff vegetation (35% cleared). Hinterland areas have also been subject to
disproportionate clearance, with grassy woodlands (95% cleared) and markedly lower
clearance of heathy woodland (37%).
Remnant vegetation
and conservation
protection
Remnant vegetation comprises coastal vegetation and hinterland vegetation. The most
dominant vegetation types include exposed cliff vegetation (33% remnant vegetation) and
heathy woodland (28%), along with sheltered cliff (7%), sheltered dune (8%) and exposed dune
(5%).
Total remnant areas under various levels of protection include:
Public lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 69% of remnant
Public lands (not legislatively designated for conservation): 17% of remnant
Private lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 0%
Land use
Major: grazing on improved pastures
Other: conservation
Important
threatened species/
broad vegetation
group associations
Flora: coastal
Fauna: grassy woodland, heathy woodland
See Willson and Bignall (2009)
Conservation targets
5yr 1
00% of remnant vegetation under protected public and private conservation tenure actively managed for
biodiversity, by 2015 (target = 1,426 ha).
20yr 1
00% of remnant vegetation actively managed for biodiversity, by 2030.
Vegetation to buffer and connect existing remnants reconstructed, by 2030 (target = 500 ha).
43
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Relictual landscapes
Landscapes that have been extensively cleared and heavily modified, and have
less than 10% of pre-European cover remaining.
Where in the AMLR?
Two landscapes fall into this category: Adelaide Plains and Willunga Basin.
Landscape modification summary
• Landscapes are relictual, with pre-European cover cleared to less than 10%, the threshold below
which catastrophic loss of species is predicted.
• Most vegetation types have been extensively cleared and modified. Some have been
completely lost.
• Clearance and fragmentation commenced early, with many areas cleared shortly after
European settlement in the AMLR.
• Remnant vegetation is typified by small, isolated remnants within a highly modified matrix
• Little remnant vegetation is formally protected under conservation tenure, typically less
than 10% of remnants.
• Land use mosaic is urban and intensive agricultural, with a trend for increasing urban
encroachment and intensification of agricultural areas.
• Condition of the landscape is heavily modified.
• Condition trend is considered to be stable (where extensive modification has already occurred)
to declining (where modification has been less extreme).
Conservation priorities
Much of the biodiversity and ecological function of these landscapes has already been lost. The
goal is not to return lost species; it is about managing what is left, and maintaining and protecting
the species that remain. In these heavily modified landscapes this will often require site-specific
or species-specific efforts to maintain the viability of individual remnants or species, instead of
programs aimed at achieving landscape-scale improvement. The conservation priorities are to
improve the condition of remnant vegetation to maximise the long-term viability of individual
remnants, and to use conservation efforts for research and community engagement (Table 4.6).
The large population resident in these landscapes provides an opportunity to engage and educate
people about biodiversity.
Ensuring that individual remnants remain viable will probably also require the reconstruction of
buffering vegetation, both to increase remnant size and to protect remnants from the impacts of
adjacent land use. This may frequently involve focusing on improving connectivity with contiguous
vegetation in adjoining landscapes. Where reconstruction of buffers is not possible (e.g. urban areas),
development and land use should be managed to ensure that there is a buffer around remnants to
minimise detrimental impacts on remnants. In addition to buffering remnants, habitat reconstruction
will also have a role in promoting community understanding and engagement and increasing
our knowledge of reconstructing vegetation to achieve ecological goals. Ecological outcomes of
reconstruction may be limited due to the extensive long-term modification of these landscapes.
Table 4.6 Landscape conservation strategies for relictual landscapes
✓ = indicates the relative extent of effort and resources that should be directed towards each
conservation strategy (maximum 3 ticks).
Immediate focus (0-5 years)
Maintain condition
Longer-term focus (5-20 years)
✓
Improve condition
✓
1
✓
Reconstruct vegetation
✓
2
✓
2
1
Initial improve focus is on protected areas and larger remnants. Maintenance of good condition is not a priority as it is assumed that all vegetation has been
modified and will require an improvement in condition to remain viable.
2
Reconstruction is to buffer existing remnants, for research and for community engagement.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
44
Willunga Basin Landscape
Pre-European vegetation
(relictual)
Remnant vegetation*
* Remnant vegetation pie chart represents relative proportions of vegetation types remaining after clearance.
Area and landforms
55,422 ha. 7.1% of the region. Undulating to steep slopes, undulating rises and hills, dissected
escarpments, steep rocky hills and hillslopes.
Pre-European
vegetation patterns
Pre-European vegetation dominated by grassy woodland (70%). Other vegetation types
included heathy woodland (16%), riparian (9%) and small areas of shrubland (2%) and
grassland (2%).
Landscape
modification and
clearance patterns
Relictual. 2,970 ha pre-European vegetation remaining (5%).
Clearance and fragmentation of the landscape commenced early, with vegetation on good
soils cleared prior to the 1940s for agricultural development.
All vegetation types have been at least 90% cleared. Grassy woodland have been more
extensively cleared (96%) than other vegetation types (riparian, shrubland and heathy
woodland approximately 90% cleared).
Remnant vegetation
and conservation
protection
Remnant vegetation is dominated by grassy woodland (48%), with heathy woodland (31%) and
riparian vegetation (16%) also represented.
30% of grassy woodland is legislatively designated on public lands which is disproportionate to
it’s pre-European extent. However, a further 11% is represented in other public lands.
Total remnant areas under various levels of protection include:
Public lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 25% of remnant
Public lands (not legislatively designated for conservation): 11% of remnant
Private lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 5% of remnant
Land use
Major: grazing on modified pastures
Other: urban, viticulture, horticulture
Important
threatened species/
broad vegetation
group associations
Flora: grassy woodland
Fauna: grassy woodland, heathy woodland
See Willson and Bignall (2009)
Conservation targets
5yr
100% of remnant vegetation under protected public and private conservation tenure actively managed for
biodiversity, by 2015 (target = 903 ha).
20yr 100% of remnant vegetation actively managed for biodiversity, by 2030.
Vegetation reconstructed to buffer existing remnants and/or to increase connectivity to adjoining landscapes.
Reconstruction may also serve education and amenity purposes, by 2030 (target = 1,500 ha).
45
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Adelaide Plains Landscape (relictual)
Pre-European vegetation
Remnant vegetation*
* Remnant vegetation pie chart represents relative proportions of vegetation types remaining after clearance.
Area and landforms
155,747 ha. 20% of the region. Flat to moderately sloping country, gentle to moderate slopes,
gentle low rises and rolling low hills, gently inclined plains, and expansive outwash fans. Gently
undulating sandhill – swale dunefields are present in the north-west.
Pre-European
vegetation patterns
Grassy woodland was the most dominant vegetation type, covering 50% of the landscape.
Grasslands were also well-represented, covering 20% of the landscape. Other vegetation types
included shrubland (10%), mallee (10%) in the north of the landscape, and riparian (4%) along
the east-west watercourses flowing from the ranges to Gulf St Vincent.
Landscape
modification and
clearance patterns
Relictual. 3,021 ha pre-European vegetation remaining (2%).
Clearance and modification of the landscape commenced soon after European settlement.
Over 90% of the pre-European vegetation had been cleared by the 1940s.
All vegetation types were extensively cleared, with most over 95% cleared (grassy woodland
98%, shrublands 99%, grasslands 99%, mallee 97%). Grassy ecosystems and vegetation types on
the alluvial plains were heavily cleared soon after settlement. Riparian vegetation has been
cleared less extensively (87%) than other vegetation types.
Remnant vegetation
and conservation
protection
Very little native vegetation remains. Almost half of remnant vegetation is grassy woodland
(47%). Other remnant vegetation types include riparian (27%), mallee (15%) and grassland (3%).
The area of remnants under protected conservation tenure on public lands is very small.
However there are significant areas on public lands not protected for conservation.
Total remnant areas under various levels of protection include:
Public lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 7% of remnant
Public lands (not legislatively designated for conservation): 14% of remnant
Private lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 1% of remnant
Land use
Major: urban
Other: horticulture, cropping, grazing on modified pastures.
Important
threatened species/
broad vegetation
group associations
Flora: grassy woodland
Fauna: grassy woodland, heathy woodland
See Willson and Bignall (2009)
Conservation targets
5yr
100% of remnant vegetation under protected public and private conservation tenure actively managed for
biodiversity, by 2015 (target = 223 ha).
20yr 100% of remnant vegetation actively managed for biodiversity, by 2030.
Vegetation reconstructed to buffer existing remnants and/or to increase connectivity to adjoining landscapes.
Reconstruction may also serve education and amenity purposes, by 2030 (target = 1,500 ha).
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
46
4.1.2 Conservation of ecological communities
This section describes the terrestrial broad vegetation groups of the AMLR, summarises their
modification patterns and condition, and sets targets to ensure their effective conservation. This
includes defining the active management priorities for remnant vegetation in varying levels of
condition, to help meet the target of 100% of remnant vegetation in the AMLR being actively
managed for biodiversity within 20 years.
The target of 100% of remnant vegetation being under active management provides a surrogate
for achieving an improvement in the condition of remnant vegetation – a widespread improvement
in the condition of vegetation across the AMLR is considered necessary to ensure that the current
species of the AMLR are maintained.
This report provides a generalised vegetation hierarchical grouping for the AMLR
The information used in this section is based on detailed vegetation mapping, both of pre-European
vegetation types and of the extent of remnant vegetation.
Although vegetation mapping provides the most detailed assessment of vegetation in the region,
this information can be difficult to summarise. With over 130 pre-European vegetation mapping
descriptions for the AMLR, it can be difficult to define general patterns.
To overcome this, this plan describes the vegetation patterns of the AMLR using a generalised
hierarchical vegetation classification. This classification has been supported by vegetation experts.
The classification is based on the pre-European vegetation mapping descriptions, but its simple
hierarchical nature allows for it to provide a more generalised assessment of vegetation patterns
that are more easily recognisable.
The vegetation descriptions provided in this section are intentionally broad, and aim only to describe
the general vegetation patterns in the AMLR. In reality, the structure and composition of vegetation,
and the environments in which the different communities occur are a continuum. Distinctions between
vegetation types may not be as clear-cut in reality and this section should be considered as a guide only.
Broad vegetation patterns of the AMLR are described by broad vegetation groups
Broad vegetation groups are used to summarise the general vegetation patterns of the AMLR. They
have been described based on broad floristic characteristics and environmental relationships (e.g.
links between vegetation type and climate, soils and landform) and expert opinion.
Thirteen broad vegetation groups have been described for the AMLR (Table 4.7). These include
vegetation with a shrub-dominated understorey, vegetation with a non-shrub (i.e. native grass)
dominated understorey, mallee vegetation more typical of adjacent regions than the AMLR, inland
freshwater vegetation and coastal vegetation.
More detailed vegetation patterns are defined by ecological communities
Underneath the broad vegetation groups sits a finer level of vegetation classification. Ecological
communities define the more detailed floristic patterns and communities that are found under
each broad vegetation group. They also provide an impression of the diversity of vegetation that
are found under each broad vegetation group. Seventy-one ecological communities have been
defined for the AMLR, comprising 36 terrestrial, six inland wetland and 29 coastal.
Active management priorities differ with vegetation type and vegetation condition
This report sets a target for actively managing all remnant vegetation for biodiversity. What this
means in practice will differ according to the type of vegetation and also the condition that
vegetation is in. The different broad vegetation groups in the AMLR have differing patterns of
condition. The condition that remnant vegetation exists in today is linked to both historical and
current land use and management regimes.
Almost all remnant vegetation in the AMLR was subject to historical impacts. Many areas were
converted to agricultural use or used for pastoralism shortly after European settlement. Nearly all
forest and woodland vegetation was selectively timber-harvested by early settlers, including the
dense heathy forests of the central spine of the ranges.
47
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Table 4.7 Vegetation hierarchy for AMLR
Shrub-dominated
understorey
Non-shrub
-dominated
understorey
Mallee
Freshwater
Coastal
2
1
Broad vegetation
group
Ecological
communities
TEC3/T4
Distribution
Heathy forest
1
-/-
High-rainfall areas, central
spine of MLR
Heathy woodland
10
-/3
Widespread. Spine of MLR,
Fleurieu Peninsula
Shrubland
6
-/1
Restricted. Northern
Adelaide Coastline,
Northern Adelaide Plains,
Fleurieu Peninsula.
Grassy woodland
12
1/8
Widespread. Wide arc
either side of spine of MLR,
and on good soils in
ranges.
Grassland
3
1/2
Located on plains either
side of the spine of the
MLR.
Mallee
4
-/-
Peripheral. Northern and
eastern boundaries of
region
Riparian
2
-/1
Widespread. Restricted to
riparian zones.
Wetland
4
1/2
Restricted. Fleurieu
Peninsula and Adelaide
Plains.
Exposed cliffs
7
-/-
Restricted. Coastline of
Southern Ocean.
Exposed dunes
7
-/-
Restricted. Coastline of
Southern Ocean.
Sheltered cliffs
4
-/-
Restricted. Coastline of
Gulf St Vincent.
Sheltered dunes
4
-/-
Restricted. Coastline of
Gulf St Vincent.
Sheltered tidal
7
-/1
Restricted. Coastline and
areas surrounding Barker
Inlet, and north of the inlet.
Lists ecological communities defined at a very broad scale only. Finer scale communities and
patterns are not recorded.
2
Lists common ecological communities of coastal landforms only.
3
TEC denotes ecological communities that are listed as threatened under the EPBC Act 1999.
4
T denotes ecological communities that are provisionally listed as threatened in the AMLR.
1
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
48
More recent land use patterns and management regimes also determine the condition of remnant
vegetation. Often, vegetation in better condition today reflects early conversion to conservation,
while poorer condition vegetation may reflect ongoing intensive use such as agriculture or
intensive grazing and/or past poor management regimes (including inappropriate or insufficient
management of threats).
In this report, the definition of vegetation condition has been simplified into three categories:
• Good condition. Vegetation in good condition has low levels of degradation and remains largely
intact. This vegetation retains high levels of compositional, structural and functional integrity.
• Fair condition. Vegetation in fair condition has been degraded but retains recovery potential.
Degradation may include reductions to compositional, structural and/or functional integrity.
• Poor condition. Vegetation in poor condition has been highly modified and degraded. Recovery
potential may be lost or very low, or only possible with intensive recovery efforts. Compositional,
structural and functional integrity are all likely to be heavily altered.
Maintaining good condition vegetation is a priority but all remnant vegetation
requires some form of management
Good condition vegetation is likely to provide more resources for native species, and therefore more
likely to support a range of native flora and fauna.
While maintaining good condition remnant vegetation should always be the first priority, all remnant
vegetation in the AMLR needs to be actively managed for biodiversity.
For remnant vegetation in poor condition this may mean making sure that the condition doesn’t
decline any further, or containing threats to ensure that they don’t spread into adjacent remnant
vegetation in better condition. These activities are often necessary to ensure that the condition of
good condition vegetation is maintained.
Some ecological communities are threatened or of conservation concern
A number of ecological communities in the AMLR are threatened or of conservation concern due
to extensive clearance, poor condition of remnants or low levels of protection in formal conservation
areas. Threatened ecological communities have a disproportionately high number of threatened or
declining species associated with them.
Nationally threatened ecological communities are recognised under the Commonwealth Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Where applicable, ecological communities that
are formally listed as nationally threatened ecological communities are denoted by (TEC).
Unlike the national system, there is currently no formal process for the listing of threatened
ecological communities in South Australia. However, threatened ecological communities in South
Australia are recognised under the Provisional List of Threatened Ecosystems of South Australia (DEH,
last updated 2005). In this list ecological communities have been designated a rating (based on
expert opinion) to describe State-wide conservation status, on the basis of whether they have been
extensively cleared, are naturally rare and/or have been very highly modified or degraded. These
conservation status ratings used in this report from the State list should be considered provisional,
until a formal framework for assessing and defining threatened ecological communities in South
Australia is developed. Where applicable, ecological communities that are provisionally considered
threatened in the state are denoted by a (T).
Protection for conservation varies between vegetation groups
Definitions of the way conservation protection has been classified for the purposes of this report is
presented above in Section 4.1.1.
Twenty two percent of remnant vegetation is protected on public land legislatively designated for
conservation (which includes DEH managed land and Native Forest Reserves managed by FSA).
Thirty three percent of remnant heathy woodland is protected - which comprises the majority of
public conservation estate (41%). Heathy forest is the next best reserved at 16% of the estate.
49
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Grassy woodland, considering its pre-European dominance, is under-represented – only 9% of its
total remnant area is protected which is 11% of the conservation estate. Similarly, grassland is not
represented in protected conservation land.
A further 5% of remnant vegetation is legislatively designated for conservation on private lands
(Heritage Agreements), mostly comprised of terrestrial vegetation groups, particularly heathy
woodland and heathy forest but also grassy woodland. It should be noted that many large Heritage
Agreements in the Monarto area on the eastern edge of the region, which have been included in
this analysis, are of a different type than most other agreements in that they have an expiry date
(upon which they will be reviewed).
A further 13% of remnant vegetation occurs on public land which is not legislatively designated for
conservation (including lands under SA Water, FSA (‘Locality Forests’), council reserves and other
crown lands). These areas comprise significant amounts of heathy woodland, heathy forest, grassy
woodland and riparian vegetation.
How well does the reserve system protect the region’s native vegetation?
CAR principles for conservation protection
National guidelines recommend that reserve systems should be based on the principles of ‘CAR’ comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness.
Comprehensiveness – the reserve system should include the full range of vegetation associations
recognised by an agreed national scientific classification at appropriate hierarchical levels.
Adequacy – the reserve system should be able to maintain ecological viability and integrity of
populations, species and communities.
Representativeness – the areas that are selected for inclusion in reserves should reasonably reflect
the biotic diversity within the communities.
Ideally reserves should be legislatively dedicated to ensure the highest level of tenure security for
conservation purposes, however it is recognised there are many different form of conservation
tenure. For example in the AMLR region there are significant areas of native vegetation on other
public and private lands which are protected in principle by the Native Vegetation Act but these
areas may or may not be managed for conservation purposes – such ‘informal’ conservation tenure
is important in the region (e.g. SA Water lands), but does not offer the highest level of tenure security
for conservation.
Due to available data limitations, a full CAR analysis could not be undertaken for the AMLR region,
however a coarse assessment of the comprehensiveness of the reserve system was done based on
the broad vegetation groups, using legislatively dedicated conservation tenure. For the purposes
of this report, this includes all land managed by DEH, Native Forest Reserves managed by FSA, and
Heritage Area Agreements managed mostly by private landowners.
For each broad vegetation group the area currently under dedicated conservation tenure as a
proportion of the pre-European extent was assessed (Table 4.9). The results show that some groups
are vastly under-represented in the reserve system, particularly those which were dominant in their
pre-European extent such as grassy woodland and riparian. Other under-represented terrestrial
groups include grassland, shrubland, mallee and wetland. The best represented terrestrial groups in the
reserve system are heathy woodland and heathy forest. For coastal groups, exposed cliffs are overrepresented while sheltered cliffs and sheltered dunes are vastly under-represented in the reserve
system.
Table 4.10 shows remnant vegetation groups within public lands that are not legislatively dedicated
for conservation, highlighting opportunities to improve the tenure of these areas to contribute to the
protected reserve system, particularly for heathy systems, freshwater systems and most coastal groups.
National guidelines recommend a 15% target (as a proportion of the pre-European extent) of each
vegetation group for secure conservation protection (though it is recognised that such targets
need to be flexible to cater for regional circumstances). However, in the AMLR this target is not
practicable for some disproportionately cleared groups as it considerably exceeds current remnant
extent for grassy woodland, grassland, riparian and shrubland.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
50
It should be noted that for this type of analysis, it is highly probable that accuracy and scale issues
relating to the vegetation mapping data are affecting the results. To further assess CAR principles
in the AMLR, further planning particularly at the sub-regional scale is required (with improved
vegetation mapping data).
Despite the analysis limitations, broad targets have been devised at the regional scale with priorities
proposed for disproportionately cleared vegetation groups. This is essentially increasing the amount
of land legislatively dedicated to conservation (public and private) by 18,820 ha or 7% of the region
(from the current 4.6%), targeting disproportionately cleared vegetation groups as priority. This is an
amount equivalent to over one third of the currently public and private dedicated protected area.
More specific targets should be devised after knowledge concerning the pre-European extent and
the current distribution of remnant vegetation has improved.
The condition of remnant vegetation in the AMLR needs to be benchmarked
and monitored
This plan sets a target for actively managing 100% of remnant vegetation in the AMLR within 20
years. This target is a surrogate for an improvement in the current condition of vegetation; improved
condition is considered necessary to ensure that the current species of the AMLR are maintained.
This active management target is used instead of a quantitative condition-based target as
we do not know enough about the current condition of vegetation in the AMLR, nor is there a
methodology available for conducting a region-wide condition monitoring program. Tools for
region-wide monitoring of the condition of remnant vegetation, along with benchmarks that define
current condition states and allow for condition trends to be measured, need to be developed.
The extent of remnant grassy ecosystems needs to be better understood
Current mapping of remnant vegetation for the AMLR under-estimates the extent of grassy
ecosystems such as native grasslands. These vegetation types are difficult to detect using aerial
photography interpretation. Increasing our knowledge of the extent of grassy ecosystems in the
AMLR will be required to ensure that remnants of these heavily cleared vegetation types are
effectively managed and conserved. This may require use of innovative mapping methods such as
remote sensing, along with site-based assessments.
Threatened ecological communities justify targeted conservation efforts
Threatened ecological communities have high conservation significance. Good condition remnants
of threatened communities should be identified and be given a high priority for conservation
efforts. There is also an urgent need to undertake identification and mapping of the distributions of
communities that are threatened within the AMLR.
51
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Conservation targets for ecological communities
The conservation priorities for ecological communities include increasing our knowledge of their
condition, ensuring that threatened ecological communities are adequately protected, and ensuring
that the protected area network contains a representative sample of all vegetation types remaining
in the region (Table 4.8).
Table 4.8 Conservation targets for ecological communities
5yr
• A framework for identifying and mapping ecological communities that are threatened
within the AMLR1 developed and implemented, by 2015.
• Vegetation condition monitoring tool developed, and implemented at a scale which
allows for accurate assessment of regional vegetation condition, and detection of trends
in vegetation condition, by 2015.
• Biodiversity condition benchmarks developed for all broad vegetation types in the region,
by 2015.
• Increased understanding of the extent and management of remnant grassy ecosystems,
by 2015.
• Threatened ecological communities identified within the AMLR included within the
multi-species recovery and threat abatement plan, and implementation of recovery
actions commenced, by 2015.
• Increased proportion of under-represented ecological communities in the (legislatively
dedicated) protected area network, by 2015. Indicative target is 7% of the AMLR region
(current 4.6%) = additional 18,820 ha. Priority should be (1) grassy ecosystems, (2)
freshwater ecosystems and (3) other disproportionately cleared vegetation groups.
20yr
• Increased proportion of under-represented ecological communities in the (legislatively
dedicated) protected area network, by 2030. Indicative target is
15% of pre-European vegetation (from 5 year target of 7%) = additional 62,400 ha.
• 100% of remnant vegetation actively managed2, in accordance with defined active
management priorities for broad vegetation groups and condition states,
by 2030.
Note: see other related ecological community targets for individual landscapes above.
Ecological communities marked as (T) in this document are provisional only.
2
Active management of remnant vegetation is used as a surrogate for improved condition – this
target is provisional and should be replaced with quantitative condition-based measures (see 5
year targets above) once the condition and benchmarks have been identified.
1
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
52
Table 4.9 Dedicated conservation protection on public and private lands
Conservation protection
Broad vegetation
group
Pre-European
(ha)
Public dedicated1
Private –
dedicated2
Combined % 3
Shrubdominated
understorey
Heathy forest
54,803
3,498
915
8%
Heathy woodland
119,372
8,839
1603
9%
Shrubland
18,987
117
2
1%
Non-shrub
dominated
understorey
Grassy woodland
362,780
2,366
1343
1%
Grassland
42,353
0
<1
0%
Mallee
Mallee
22,172
98
123
1%
Freshwater
Riparian
113,001
2,248
435
2%
Wetland
15,029
838
102
6%
Exposed cliffs
2,247
1,019
2
45%
Exposed dunes
576
62
0
11%
Sheltered cliffs
1,592
15
0
1%
Sheltered dunes
2,948
78
0
3%
Sheltered tidal
24,142
2,480
0
10%
780,003 ha
21,656 ha
4,525 ha
3.3%
27,157 ha
8,624 ha
4.6%
Coastal
Total 1
Total 2
Total 1 – sum of conservation tenure over mapped remnant vegetation
Total 2 – sum including additional conservation tenure over areas not mapped as remnant vegetation
(true total of regional conservation tenure)
1
2
3
53
DEH managed land and Native Forest Reserves managed by FSA
Heritage Agreements managed mostly by private landholders
Combined percentage (of each broad veg group pre-European area)
from sum of both public and private dedicated areas
Mapping limitations relating to this analysis is discussed above
Percentages have been rounded
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Table 4.10 Native vegetation not under dedicated conservation protection
Broad vegetation
group
Pre-European
(ha)
Public – not
dedicated1
%2
Heathy forest
54,803
2709
5%
Heathy woodland
119,372
3569
3%
Shrubland
18,987
16
0%
Non-shrub
dominated
understorey
Grassy woodland
362,780
2323
1%
Grassland
42,353
15
0%
Mallee
Mallee
22,172
72
0%
Freshwater
Riparian
113,001
2201
2%
Wetland
15,029
243
2%
Exposed cliffs
2,247
17
1%
Exposed dunes
576
31
5%
Sheltered cliffs
1,592
83
5%
Sheltered dunes
2,948
346
12%
Sheltered tidal
24,142
1212
5%
780,003 ha
12,837 ha
1.6%
Shrub-dominated
understorey
Coastal
AMLR totals
Notes:
1
Public lands not legislatively dedicated for conservation, e.g. SA Water, FSA (Locality Forests),
local government, other crown lands.
2
Percentage (of pre-European total)
Mapping limitations relating to this analysis is discussed above
Percentages have been rounded
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
54
Heathy forest
What is heathy forest?
Heathy forest is an open forest with a canopy dominated by
eucalypts, and a dense understorey comprising many species
of low shrubs, generally with small, hard leaves (sclerophyllous).
The understorey is dominated by the families Dilleniaceae (e.g.
Hibbertia spp.), Epacridaceae (e.g. Acrotriche fasciculiflora,
Astroloma humifusum), Leguminosae (e.g. Pultenaea involucrata,
Platylobium obtusangulum, Acacia myrtifolia) and Proteaceae
(e.g. Hakea rostrata). The understorey also contains abundant
lilies and orchids, and sparse but diverse native grasses.
A sparse midstorey of Blackwood Acacia melanoxylon, Native
Cherry Exocarpus cupressiformis and banksias Banksia spp.
may be present. The understorey and midstorey density is
heterogeneous, with structure dependant upon fire history and
other disturbance.
Heathy open forest near
Mount Lofty (Photo: Kirstin Long)
Where is heathy forest found in the MLR?
The pre-European extent of heathy forest in the MLR was restricted to areas of high rainfall, such
as along the high elevation spine of the Mount Lofty Ranges and on the Fleurieu Peninsula (Figure
2.3, Section 2.1.2). Prior to European settlement, this vegetation covered less than 10% of the region
(Table 4.11).
Heathy forest has not been cleared as extensively as many other vegetation types in the AMLR and
almost 30% of the pre-European extent remains. This is because heathy forest is typically located on
shallow infertile soils or areas that are too steep or inaccessible for agriculture.
Table 4.11 Heathy forest extent in the MLR
Pre-European
54,803 ha
7% of region
Remnant
15,398 ha
28% PE extent
16% of remnant total
Protection*
3,498 ha
Public (protected)
2,709 ha
Public (not protected)
915 ha
Private (protected)
8,278 ha
Private (not protected)
* see definitions Section 4.1
Many of the protected areas in the MLR contain heathy forest, and this vegetation type is relatively
well-represented in the protected area network compared to other vegetation types.
Types of heathy forest in MLR
All heathy forest in the MLR is dominated by stringybarks.
One vegetation community is defined in this report:
• Messmate Stringybark Eucalyptus obliqua and/or Brown Stringybark Eucalyptus baxteri heathy
open forest.
Conservation status
Heathy forest is not considered threatened or poorly protected in the AMLR.
55
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Notable flora and fauna
Heathy forest provides habitat for a wide range of species. Fauna such as the Southern Brown
Bandicoot (Nat. E), Chestnut-rumped Heathwren (Nat. E), Painted Button-quail (State R) and Bassian
Thrush (State R) rely on the dense cover provided by the understorey. Yellow-tailed Black-cockatoos
(State V) forage in the understorey plants and nest in large hollow-bearing trees. Many honeyeaters
and insectivorous birds forage on the abundant nectar and invertebrates in this habitat. There are
several plant species of conservation significance associated with heathy forest including Mount
Compass Oak Bush (Nat. E), Bushy Clubmoss (State E), Mount Lofty Speedwell (State E) and Mount
Lofty Phebalium (State R).
Condition
Due to the relatively inaccessible location of heathy forest and the nutrient poor soils which
characterise this vegetation type, it has remained relatively intact in comparison to other vegetation
types. However, almost all heathy forest was logged at some point post-European settlement and
overstorey trees are predominantly regrowth. This vegetation type is vulnerable to weed invasion
and dieback and much of the remnant heathy forest has been degraded by these threats.
Threats
High
• Weed invasion, predominantly woody weeds, with 22 species identified as posing a medium to
high threat
• Drought and climate change
• Dieback, particularly Phytophthora cinnamomi
Other
• Altered fire regimes
• Nutrient inputs
• Altered hydrological regimes.
Conservation priorities
The conservation priorities for heathy forest differ according to the condition it is in (Table 4.12).
Active management varies from excluding stock from remnants and undertaking weed control
activities to simply containing threats to prevent their spread.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
56
Table 4.12: Active management of heathy forest in the AMLR
Vegetation condition
Amount
Active management priorities
Good condition
Some
Emphasis on preventing new incursions and
containing new outbreaks of priority weeds
and Phytophthora.
Overstorey and ground layers intact
with low levels of weed invasion. High
levels of structural, functional and
compositional integrity.
Fair condition
Implement strategic fire management.
Some
Implement strategic fire management.
Overstorey intact, understorey with
grassy and some woody weeds, linked
to grazing. Midstorey absent or sparse.
May be poor tree health.
Poor condition
Overstorey intact, woody weeds
dominate midstorey and understorey.
Where high grazing pressure present,
understorey may be absent with soil
compaction.
Manage priority weeds and Phytophthora.
Manage grazing pressure including stock,
feral grazing animals and kangaroos where
impacts are being sustained.
Common
Difficult to manage due to high weed
biomass and/or poor soil condition.
Fence out stock and manage weed
incursions to ensure they do not spread into
fair or good condition vegetation.
Where recovery likely, conduct targeted
removal of weeds.
Heathy woodland
What is heathy woodland?
Similar to heathy forest, heathy (open) woodland has a dense understorey and midstorey of a
variety of low small-leaved (sclerophyllous) shrubs. These layers have high structural diversity, but
contain fewer species than that of grassy woodlands. Most of the midstorey and understorey species
listed under heathy forest would also be found in heathy woodland. The overstorey is more widely
spaced and usually lower than in heathy forest. Most heathy woodland is dominated by eucalypts
(often stringybarks), although some is dominated by native pines.
Where is heathy
woodland found in
the AMLR?
Heathy woodland was a
common vegetation type
in the AMLR, with its preEuropean extent covering 15%
of the region (Table 4.13). This
vegetation was found along
the spine of the Mount Lofty
Ranges, the Fleurieu Peninsula,
and on poorer soils on the
foothills and eastern flanks
(Figure 2.3, Section 2.1.2).
Heathy woodland has been
cleared less extensively than
other vegetation types in the AMLR. This is because it is typically found on infertile soils or steep
areas that are unsuitable for agriculture. Over 20% of the pre-European extent of heathy woodland
remains in the AMLR as remnant vegetation.
Heathy woodland (Photo: Peter Lang)
Heathy woodland is the most dominant vegetation type in the protected area network, comprising
over 40% of the vegetation in protected areas.
57
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Table 4.13 Heathy woodland extent in the MLR
Pre-European
119,372 ha
15% of region
Remnant
26,778 ha
22% PE extent
27% of remnant total
Protection*
8,839 ha
Public (protected)
3,569 ha
Public (not protected)
1,603 ha
Private (protected)
12,767 ha
Private (not protected)
* see definitions Section 4.1
Types of heathy woodland in the AMLR
Many types of heathy woodland are found in the AMLR, with ten ecological communities defined
for this report:
• Brown Stringybark Eucalyptus baxteri heathy woodland
• Brown Stringybark Eucalyptus baxteri, Cup Gum Eucalyptus cosmophylla, Pink Gum Eucalyptus
fasciculosa heathy woodland
• Messmate Stringybark Eucalyptus obliqua, Cup Gum Eucalyptus cosmophylla heathy woodland
• Messmate Stringybark Eucalyptus obliqua, Pink Gum Eucalyptus fasciculosa heathy woodland
• Messmate Stringybark Eucalyptus obliqua, Long-leaved Box Eucalyptus goniocalyx, Pink Gum
Eucalyptus fasciculosa heathy woodland
• Cup Gum Eucalyptus cosmophylla, Pink Gum Eucalyptus fasciculosa heathy woodland
• Long-leaved Box Eucalyptus goniocalyx heathy woodland
• Blue Gum Eucalyptus leucoxylon heathy woodland (T)
• Pink Gum Eucalyptus fasciculosa heathy woodland (T)
• Southern Cypress Pine Callitris gracilis heathy woodland (T).
Conservation status
Most communities of heathy woodland are not considered threatened as they have been less
extensively cleared than other vegetation types, and are generally well-protected in conservation
areas. However, three communities are considered threatened within South Australia. Both Southern
Cypress Pine heathy woodland and Blue Gum heathy woodland are extensively cleared and
considered threatened because remnant examples are degraded with modified understoreys. Pink
Gum heathy woodland has also been more extensively cleared than other heathy woodlands. This
community is considered threatened due to widespread poor health and dieback of Pink Gums.
Notable flora and fauna
Heathy woodland provides habitat for numerous fauna species. As with heathy forest, fauna
species such as the Southern Brown Bandicoot (Nat. E), Chestnut-rumped Heathwren (Nat. E),
Painted Button-quail (State R) and Bassian Thrush (State R) rely on the dense cover provided by the
understorey. Yellow-tailed Black-cockatoos (State V) forage in the understorey plants and nest in
large hollow-bearing trees. Many of the historical records of the MLR Spotted Quail-thrush (Nat. CE;
now believed to be extinct) were from heathy woodland. Many honeyeaters and insectivorous birds
forage on the abundant nectar and invertebrates in this habitat. The Brown Toadlet (State R) is also
present in heathy woodlands.
Several Nationally threatened orchid species occur in heathy woodland habitats, including the
White Beauty Spider-orchid (Nat. E) and the Pink-lip Spider-orchid (Nat. E).
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
58
Condition
There is a greater amount of remnant heathy woodland in good condition than other vegetation
types in the AMLR. This is because heathy woodland has not been used as extensively for productive
use as other vegetation types.
The remnant heathy woodland on nutrient-poor rocky soils in the northern parts of the AMLR has
been largely resistant to the threat posed by weeds. However, there are significant amounts of
remnant heathy woodland that are in degraded or declining condition, with threats including weed
invasion (often linked to nutrient inputs), excessive grazing pressure, altered disturbance regimes,
altered hydrology and dieback.
Threats
High
• Weed invasion, predominantly woody weeds, with 16 species identified as posing a medium to
high threat.
• Altered grazing regimes (kangaroos)
• Altered fire regimes
• Dieback, particularly Phytophthora cinnamomi
Other
• Nutrient inputs
• Altered hydrological regimes
• Pollinator limited, due to decline of woodland birds.
Conservation priorities
The conservation priorities for heathy woodland are to maintain the condition of good condition
remnants, and to improve the condition of fair condition remnants (Table 4.14). This includes
threat exclusion and managing current threats including weed invasion and Phytophythora and
developing and implementing strategic fire regimes. In more degraded remnants, excluding stock
and managing grazing pressure may also be priorities.
Table 4.14 Active management of heathy woodland in the AMLR
Vegetation condition
Amount
Active management priorities
Good condition
Some
Emphasis on preventing new incursions and
containing new outbreaks of priority weeds
and Phytophthora.
Overstorey, midstorey and understorey
intact, with limited weed invasion.
Trend for increasing weed invasion.
Implement strategic fire management.
Monitor impacts of grazing to ensure grazing
remains at sustainable levels.
Fair condition
Species diversity still high, but reduced
regeneration of overstorey and
understorey. Woody and grassy weed
invasion. Leaf litter disturbed and soil
compacted. Reduced plant health.
Poor condition
Scattered trees over sparse remnant
understorey plants (e.g. bracken) or high
levels of woody weed invasion. Trees
may be senescent with little regeneration.
Reduced species diversity. Soil fertility
increased, soil compacted.
59
Some common
Manage priority weeds and Phytophthora.
Implement strategic fire management.
Manage grazing pressure including stock,
feral grazing animals and kangaroos where
impacts are being sustained.
Common
Difficult to manage due to high weed
biomass and poor soil condition. Manage
weed incursions and Phytophthora to ensure
they do not spread into fair or good
condition vegetation.
Where recovery likely, conduct targeted
removal of weeds and assisted regeneration.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Shrubland
What is shrubland?
Shrubland is vegetation with an open to very dense layer of shrubs up to 2 metres in height, with few
or no trees. Shrubland types in the AMLR include coastal chenopod shrublands, low-rainfall open
plains shrublands, and high-rainfall sclerophyllous shrublands.
Where is shrubland found in the AMLR?
At the time of European settlement, shrubland covered around 2% of the region, focused in
three distinct locations: the chenopod shrublands of the northern Adelaide coastline, the open
shrublands of the northern Adelaide plains, and the high-rainfall sclerophyllous shrublands of the
central spine of the ranges and the Fleurieu Peninsula (Figure 2.3, Section 2.1.2).
Shrubland has been extensively cleared and modified since European settlement (Table 4.15). Many
plains shrublands were cleared shortly after European colonisation. Mapping suggests that only
approximately 1% of its pre-European extent remains as remnant vegetation. Most of this remaining
shrubland is high-rainfall sclerophyllous shrubland, with very little of the semi-arid Adelaide Plains
shrublands or coastal chenopod shrublands remaining (also see Sheltered Tidal Zone vegetation).
Remnant shrubland is poorly represented in the protected area network, with shrubland vegetation
comprising around 1% of the total extent of vegetation under conservation tenure in the AMLR.
Table 4.15 Shrubland extent in the AMLR
Pre-European
18,987 ha
2% of region
Remnant
194 ha
1% PE extent
< 1% of remnant total
Protection*
117 ha
Public (protected)
16 ha
Public (not protected)
2 ha
Private (protected)
59 ha
Private (not protected)
* see definitions Section 4.1
Photo: Banksia marginata, Peter Croft
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
60
Types of shrubland in the AMLR
Six communities of shrubland are defined in the AMLR:
• Common Oak Bush Allocasuarina muelleriana ssp. muelleriana heath
• Silver Banksia Banksia marginata shrubland (T)
• Port Jackson Pine Callitris rhomboidea shrubland
• Cotton Bush Maireana aphylla chenopod shrubland
• Broombush Melaleuca uncinata shrubland
• Desert Senna Senna artemisioides ssp. petiolaris, +/- Weeping Emu Bush Eremophila longifolia
shrubland.
Conservation status
Silver Banksia Banksia marginata shrubland is considered to be a threatened vegetation community
because of its limited distribution, high levels of modification and poor representation in formal
reserves. However, the threat status of all the above communities should be reviewed, given the
extremely limited distribution of remnant shrubland in the AMLR.
The shrublands of the Adelaide Plains and northern Adelaide coastline have been very extensively
cleared and very few remnant examples remain. Remnants of these communities have high
conservation value.
Notable flora and fauna
The dense sclerophyllous shrublands of the Southern Fleurieu Peninsula provide habitat for the MLR
Southern Emu Wren (Nat. E), the MLR Chestnut-rumped Heath-wren (Nat. E) and the Heath Goanna
(State V). The high nectar production of these shrublands provide excellent foraging habitat for
nectarivorous species such as the Western Pygmy-possum, Eastern Spinebill and New Holland Honeyeater.
Prior to their extensive clearance, the semi-arid shrublands of the Adelaide Plains supported the
declining species Chestnut-rumped Thornbill, Southern Whiteface, Jacky Winter and Hooded Robin.
Condition
Shrublands are relatively poorly understood in comparison to the other vegetation groups of the
region, perhaps because so little remains.
The condition of shrubland is generally highly degraded. Most remnant shrubland exists in very
small fragments so is vulnerable to edge effects, however the patches of remnant sclerophyllous
shrubland protected with conservation reserves remain in relatively good condition. This is because
this community occurs on relatively nutrient-poor rocky soils and is more resistant to weed invasion.
Threats
High
• Drought and climate change
• Roadside management
Other
• Disturbance (linked to being in roadside reserves and inappropriate access and works)
• Altered grazing regimes
• Weed invasion, in particular the highly invasive Asparagus weeds (Bridal Creeper and Bridal Veil)
• Dieback, particularly Phytophthora cinnamomi
Conservation priorities
The conservation priorities for shrublands are to identify, protect and recover the condition of
all remnants, particularly on the northern Adelaide Plains (Table 4.16). Shrubland remnants in
roadside vegetation are particularly vulnerable. Identifying opportunities to reduce the effects of
fragmentation by buffering remnants is also a priority for all shrublands.
61
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Table 4.16 Active management of shrubland in the AMLR
Vegetation condition
Amount
Active management priorities
Good condition
Some
Largely intact, with high species
diversity and high compositional
integrity. Weed invasion low.
(heath
shrublands
only)
Manage current priority threats, including
weed invasion, Phytophthora and lack of
pollinators for plants (e.g. birds, insects).
Fair condition
Some
Increased shrub density, grassy layer
largely gone and replaced by weeds.
Changed composition due to altered
disturbance.
(open
plains
shrublands)
Common
Open structure as a result of ongoing
grazing. Remnant shrubs within a
grazed paddock.
Targeted roadside management, including
use of Roadside Markers.
Weed control and fencing of remnants to
remove grazing pressure.
Investigate and implement appropriate
disturbance regimes.
Reduced diversity of shrubs due to
historical and current grazing.
Poor condition
Investigate and implement appropriate
disturbance regimes.
Difficult to manage due to high weed
biomass and poor soil condition. Reduce
grazing pressure.
Manage weed incursions to ensure they do
not spread into fair or good condition
vegetation.
Where recovery feasible, conduct targeted
removal of weeds and assisted regeneration.
Grassy woodlands
What are grassy woodlands?
Grassy woodlands are woodlands with an understorey dominated by grasses, herbaceous species
(e.g. daisies, lilies) and sedges, a scattered shrub layer and a discontinuous tree layer.
Grassy woodlands have an overstorey typically dominated by eucalypts, including smooth-barked
gums and/or box. Tree density is variable, but a typical grassy woodland may have a tree density
of approximately 30 trees per hectare, which results in some open areas without canopy. In high
rainfall areas, tree density may be higher resulting in woodlands that resemble forests.
The mid-storey of grassy
woodlands may contain
scattered woody shrubs.
Shrub density is highly variable
between communities
and individual patches of
vegetation, probably reflecting
soil quality and fire history.
Grassy woodland in the eastern AMLR (Photo: Jean Turner)
The grassy woodland group
also includes areas mostly in
the east of the region which
intergrade with grasslands and
have an emergent layer of
occasional trees or shrubs, which
are present only in a sparse or
widely scattered fashion.
Grassy woodlands contain a very high diversity of native plant species. This diversity is particularly
apparent during spring, when many species of wildflower emerge from spaces between grass tussocks.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
62
Where are grassy woodlands found in the AMLR?
Grassy woodlands were the most common vegetation type in the AMLR at the time of European
settlement, covering almost 50% of the region (Table 4.17). Their distribution was a wide arc either
side of the spine of the ranges, covering the Adelaide and Willunga Plains, the Barossa Valley and
the Eastern hills and flanks. They were also present throughout the ranges in alluvial valley flats and
on more fertile soils (Figure 2.3, Section 2.1.2).
Table 4.17 Grassy woodland extent in the AMLR
Pre-European
362,780 ha
47% of region
Remnant
26,322 ha
7% PE extent
27% of remnant total
Protection*
2,366 ha
Public (protected)
2,323 ha
Public (not protected)
1,343 ha
Private (protected)
20,290 ha
Private (not protected)
* see definitions Section 4.1
Over 90% of grassy woodland in the AMLR has been cleared since European settlement. Grassy
woodlands have been preferentially cleared in the AMLR, as the fertile soils on which these
woodlands are found were favoured by settlers for grazing and agricultural pursuits. Reflecting this,
the relative representation of grassy woodlands in the AMLR has declined, dropping from 47% of the
pre-European vegetation to 27% of the remnant vegetation.
Remnant grassy woodlands are poorly represented in the protected area network, comprising <15%
of the total extent of protected remnant vegetation.
Types of grassy woodland in the AMLR
Grassy woodlands in the AMLR include smooth-barked gum grassy woodlands and box grassy
woodlands. Twelve communities of grassy woodland have been defined in the AMLR for this report:
• Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis grassy woodland
• Blue Gum Eucalyptus leucoxylon grassy woodland
• Blue Gum Eucalyptus leucoxylon ssp. pruinosa +/- Peppermint Box Eucalyptus odorata grassy
woodland (T)
• Bull Mallee Eucalyptus behriana + Peppermint Box Eucalyptus odorata grassy woodland (T)
• Peppermint Box Eucalyptus odorata grassy woodland (TEC)
• Mallee Box Eucalyptus porosa grassy woodland (T)
• Grey Box Eucalyptus microcarpa grassy woodland (T)
• Rough-Barked Manna Gum Eucalyptus viminalis ssp. cygnetensis grassy woodland (T)
• Drooping Sheoak Allocasuarina verticillata (grassy woodland/grassland with emergents) (T)
• Silver Banksia Banksia marginata grassland with (grassy woodland/grassland with emergents)
• Southern Cypress Pine Callitris gracilis grassland with (grassy woodland/grassland with
emergents) (T)
• Pink Gum Eucalyptus fasciculosa and Blue Gum Eucalyptus leucoxylon (grassy woodland/
grassland with emergents) (T) – note sometimes shrubby
Blue Gum and/or Red Gum grassy woodlands are found throughout the region. These vegetation
types were the most widespread ecological communities prior to European settlement, and were
dominant in many parts of the region. Box grassy woodlands were found primarily on the Adelaide
Plains and foothills and on the eastern flanks.
63
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Conservation status
Because grassy woodlands have been extensively cleared, and are under-represented in the
conservation network relative to other vegetation types, remnants of grassy woodland are a
conservation priority.
Peppermint Box grassy woodland is formally recognised as a nationally threatened ecological
community.
Many other grassy woodland communities are considered threatened in the AMLR. These include
other box communities such as Grey Box grassy woodland, Mallee Box grassy woodland, and Bull
Mallee and Peppermint Box grassy woodland. There are few remnants of these communities that
once covered large parts of the region, and those that do remain are in poor condition.
Similarly Blue Gum +/- Peppermint Box grassy woodland and Rough-Barked Manna Gum grassy
woodland have also been extensively cleared and modified, and are considered threatened.
Notable flora and fauna
Grassy woodlands provide habitat for many threatened woodland birds, such as the Diamond
Firetail (State V), Black-chinned Honeyeater (State V), Restless Flycatcher (State R) and Crested
Shrike-tit (State R), and numerous declining species especially Chestnut-rumped Thornbill, Southern
Whiteface, Jacky Winter, Hooded Robin and Brown Treecreeper. These habitats were historically
important for the nationally threatened Regent Honeyeater (Nat. E) and Swift Parrot (Nat. E),
however these species are now only very occasional visitors to the region.
Grassy woodlands have high flora species diversity, with over 100 native species being recorded
in some patches. Several threatened orchids are found in grassy woodlands, such as the Bayonet
Spider-orchid (Nat. E) and the Leafy Greenhood (Nat. V). A range of plant species are considered
grassy ecosystem specialists, such as the rare Pale Flax-lily (State R), Red-leg Grass (State R) and the
Blue Devil (State V).
Condition
Grassy woodlands in the AMLR have been modified through long-term historic use including
grazing, pasture improvement and tree clearance. Today, most remnants are in degraded
condition, with reduced recruitment of trees and high weed loads, in particular pasture grasses and
woody weeds.
Because of their high fertility, grassy woodlands are particularly vulnerable to weed invasion.
Unlike the shrub-dominated vegetation types, the invasion of woody weeds into grassy woodland
dramatically alters the structure (and consequently the habitats provided) and woodland fauna
species are at high risk. Grassy woodland remnants in good condition are uncommon in the AMLR.
Threats
Very High
• Weeds, with 50 weeds listed as posing a major threat to grassy woodland
High
• Inappropriate disturbance regimes (e.g. altered herbivory regimes, altered fire regimes)
• Excessive grazing (stock, kangaroos)
Other
• Nutrient inputs
Conservation priorities
The management priorities for grassy woodland depend upon the condition of the woodland, and
the type of woodland (Table 4.18). Priority activities vary from prevention and management of weed
incursions, to biomass management including slashing, burning and fire. Increasing conservation
protection is also a priority.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
64
Table 4.18 Active management of grassy woodland in the AMLR
Vegetation condition
Amount
Active management priorities
Good condition
Uncommon
Emphasis on preventing new incursions and
containing new outbreaks of priority weeds,
but also targeted control of current weed
infestations.
Relatively intact understorey and
overstorey. High diversity of native
species retained. Annual weeds
present, and frequently minor
incursions of woody weeds. Typically
in remnants where historical grazing
and cultivation was limited.
Recruitment evident.
Fair condition
Intact overstorey; understorey
degraded with annual weed
invasion; midstorey usually with
woody weed invasion. Reduced
native species diversity, with
palatable species lost and replaced
by annual grasses. Altered grazing
regimes. Recruitment and
regeneration limited by ongoing
grazing pressure. Condition is variable
according to grazing pressure and
current management.
Poor condition
Remnant overstorey over very
degraded understorey dominated by
annual weeds, +/- high levels of
woody weeds. Some native species
persist but are declining. Overstorey
trees may be in poor health. Highly
degraded remnants may exist as
scattered trees over pasture.
65
Buffer remnants, investigate and implement
appropriate disturbance regimes to maintain
perennial grass structure.
Some –
common
Reduce biomass, manage grazing, control
woody weeds, reduce nutrient loads in soil.
Buffer remnants, investigate and implement
appropriate disturbance regimes.
Multiple management actions may be
required.
Common
Difficult to manage due to high weed
biomass and poor soil condition.
Priority is to implement management regimes
that help recover structure through biomass
control.
Manage weed incursions to ensure they do
not spread into fair or good condition
vegetation.
Where recovery likely, conduct targeted
removal of weeds and assisted regeneration.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Grassland
What are grasslands?
A native grassland is
vegetation with few or no
trees, and an understorey
dominated by native grasses
and herbs. Grasslands may
have patches of shrubs in the
mid-storey, particularly on
shallow and rocky soils.
Native grassland in the eastern AMLR (Photo: Jean Turner)
All grasslands in the AMLR are
tussock grasslands, having
discrete clumps or tussocks of
grasses, herbs or sedges. Intertussock spaces consist of bare
ground with a diverse range
of herbs and annual plans
emerging in spring.
Grasslands with an emergent tree or shrub layer have been classified in this document as grasslands
with emergents. However, in reality, vegetation is a continuum with subtle intergrades between
grasslands, grasslands with emergents and grassy woodlands.
Where are grasslands found in the MLR?
The pre-European distribution of grasslands in the AMLR was over 40,000 ha, or 5% of the region
(Table 4.19). Grasslands were common in the Adelaide and Northern Adelaide Plains, and the hills
and plains to the east of the spine of the ranges (Figure 2.3, Section 2.1.2).
Grasslands have been highly modified and extensively cleared since European settlement. Many
grasslands – particularly those on the Adelaide plains – have been cleared for urban and industrial
development. Vegetation mapping suggests that approximately 1% of the pre-European distribution
of grasslands remain in the region, although this is likely to be an underestimate given the difficulties
associated with mapping grasslands.
Grasslands are poorly represented under conservation tenure in the AMLR, with less than 1% of
remnants formally protected in conservation areas.
Table 4.19 Grassland extent in the AMLR
Pre-European
42,353 ha
5% of region
Remnant
549 ha
> 1% PE extent
~ 1% of remnant total
Protection*
0 ha
Public (protected)
15 ha
Public (not protected)
<1 ha
Private (protected)
533 ha
Private (not protected)
* see definitions Section 4.1
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
66
Types of grassland in the MLR
Three grassland ecological communities are identified in the AMLR in this report:
• Iron Grass Lomandra effusa +/- Lomandra multiflora ssp. dura tussock grassland * (TEC)
• Speargrass Austrostipa spp. and Wallaby Grass Austrodanthonia spp. tussock grassland (T)
• Kangaroo Grass Themeda triandra tussock grassland (T).
(* not technically a grassland as iron grasses are lilies, but takes the structural formation of a
grassland and native grasses are present).
Conservation status
All grassland communities in the AMLR are considered threatened and all remnant grasslands have
very high conservation significance. Grasslands have been extensively cleared and highly modified
as a result of their location on fertile soils.
Iron Grass natural temperate grassland is a nationally threatened ecological community because
of a severe decline in condition and distribution. Wallaby Grass/ Spear Grass grassland, Kangaroo
Grass Grassland and Iron-grass Tussock Grassland are considered threatened in South Australia.
Notable flora and fauna
Birds found in grasslands include the Plains Wanderer (Nat. V; now very rarely found in the region),
Brown Quail (State R) and Red-chested Button-quail (State R). Historically, these habitats also
supported the Bustard (State V), which is now an extremely rare visitor.
Grasslands also provide habitat for grassy ecosystem specialist plant species.
Condition
The very small areas of native grasslands which remain in the region are degraded through grazing
and invasion of pasture grass weeds. Grasslands are particularly susceptible to weed invasion
due to their often more fertile soils. Remnant grasslands in good condition are very uncommon.
Increasing conservation protection is also a priority.
Threats
Very High
• Weed invasion, with 50 species listed as posing a moderate to high threat to grasslands
High
• Excessive grazing (stock)
• Drought and climate change
Other
• Altered disturbance regimes
• Inappropriate revegetation
• Increased nutrient loads.
Conservation priorities
Conservation priorities for grasslands are to determine their remnant distribution in the AMLR and to
improve the condition of remnants through reducing grazing pressure and controlling weeds (Table
4.20).
67
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Table 4.20 Active management of grasslands in the AMLR
Vegetation condition
Amount
Active management priorities
Good condition
Very
uncommon
Investigate and implement appropriate
disturbance regimes to maintain perennial
grass structure.
High native grass biomass, but
reduced vigour, and inter-tussock
space. Species composition changed
due to altered disturbance. Soil
condition intact. Annual weeds
present in low densities.
Fair condition
Preventing new incursions and contain new
outbreaks of priority weeds, control current
weed threats.
Buffer remnants.
Uncommon
Native grasses dominate understorey.
Palatable species lost. Inter-tussock
space annual weeds. Reduced
recruitment.
Poor condition
Reduce biomass, manage grazing, control
woody weeds, reduce nutrient loads in soil.
As per short-term. Assisted regeneration may
need to be supplemented with native seed
inputs.
Common
Native species diversity and density
reduced. Grassy and herbaceous
weeds dominate understorey. Reduced
recruitment of native species due to
competition with weeds. Degraded
soil structure. Legumes and/or woody
weeds may be abundant.
Difficult to manage due to high weed
biomass and degraded soil quality.
Manage weed incursions to ensure they do not
spread into fair or good condition vegetation.
Manage biomass and reduce soil nutrient levels.
Where recovery likely, conduct targeted
removal of weeds and assisted regeneration.
Mallee
What is mallee?
Mallee (Photo: Jean Turner)
Mallee is a term used to
describe vegetation with
low, characteristically multistemmed trees. Mallee may
have a grassy or shrubby
understorey, or a mixture of
both – the type of understorey
is dependant upon soil and
rainfall patterns. Chenopod
low shrubs are dominant in arid
areas, sandy soils support a
more grassy understorey with
Triodia spp. hummocks, and in
high rainfall areas, mallee may
have a midstorey comprising
sclerophyllous shrubs. Mallee has
a dense ground layer of twigs
and leaf litter and good soil crust.
Where is mallee found in the AMLR?
Mallee vegetation was once found in the far north of the AMLR region in the Northern Adelaide Plains,
and along the far eastern boundary of the region on the Murray Plains (Figure 2.3, Section 2.1.2). While
mallee is not well represented in the AMLR and its distribution was peripheral, this mallee forms part of
the extensive distribution of mallee in adjacent regions.
Mallee in the AMLR has been extensively cleared, with only an estimated 1% of its pre-European extent
remaining (Table 4.21). However, large remnants of mallee remain in regions adjacent to the AMLR.
Most of the remnant mallee vegetation within the AMLR is protected in formal conservation areas.
These are also large remnants of mallee within conservation areas in adjacent regions.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
68
Types of mallee in the AMLR
Three mallee ecological communities are defined for the AMLR in this report:
• Ridge-fruited Mallee Eucalyptus incrassata mallee
• Sessile-fruit White Mallee Eucalyptus phenax, Water Mallee Eucalyptus dumosa and Red Mallee
Eucalyptus socialis mallee
• Eucalyptus calycogona var. calycogona +/- Eucalyptus dumosa over shrubs/grasses
Other mallee ecological communities are known from regions adjacent to the AMLR, and despite
not being identified here, these communities may also be present in the AMLR.
Conservation status
Mallee communities are not considered threatened in the AMLR. Mallee is not a conservation
priority within the AMLR. This is based on the peripheral distribution of this vegetation in the region,
and the large cores of mallee that remain in regions adjacent to the AMLR. Remnant mallee in the
AMLR is heavily modified compared to the much better condition examples of mallee that exist in
adjacent regions.
Notable fauna and flora
Because mallee is peripheral in the AMLR region, many of the fauna species typical of mallee
habitats are at the edges of their distribution in the region. The region is not core habitat for these
species, despite their occasional presence.
The Malleefowl (Nat. V) is an iconic mallee species. Although it is known from mallee remnants in
adjacent regions, it is unlikely to still be present in the AMLR. Other threatened species which may
occur in the mallee of the region include the Red-lored Whistler (Nat. V), Gilberts Whistler (State R),
Shy Heathwren (State R) and Striped Honeyeater (State R).
Condition
Most mallee remnants in the AMLR are in poor condition, with high levels of weed invasion and
limited regeneration of native species (Table 4.22). Many remnants are located along roadsides and
are being degraded through roadside maintenance activities. Remnant mallee in good condition is
very uncommon.
Threats
High
• Weed invasion, with 11 species listed as posing a moderate to high threat to mallee
• Excessive grazing (rabbits)
Other
• Altered disturbance regimes
• Salinity.
Conservation priorities
The management priority for mallee is to prevent the further decline of remnants through ensuring
appropriate roadside management activities and management of weed invasions (Table 4.22).
69
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Table 4.21 Mallee extent in the AMLR
Pre-European
22,172 ha
3% of region
Remnant
1,201 ha
5% PE extent
<1% of remnant total
Protection*
98 ha
Public (protected)
72 ha
Public (not protected)
123 ha
Private (protected)
908 ha
Private (not protected)
* see definitions Section 4.1
Table 4.22 Active management of mallee in the AMLR
Vegetation condition
Amount
Active management priorities
Good condition
Very
uncommon
Emphasis on preventing new incursions and
containing new outbreaks of priority weeds,
also control existing weeds.
Species diversity maintained but less
vigour and reduced recruitment.
Trees may be senescing. Weeds
invading. Condition declining due to
altered disturbance regimes. Leaf
litter present. Trees may be even age
class.
Fair condition
Implement strategic fire management.
Some
Species composition changed with
palatable species lost and less
grasses. Reduced recruitment.
Annual weed invasion. Reduced leaf
litter, soil crust patchy or sparse.
Poor condition
Control weed invasions and reduce grazing
pressure.
Common
Senescing mallee trees over bare
ground or degraded understorey and
ground cover. Little recruitment or
regeneration. Annual and
herbaceous weed invasion. Weeds
invading shrub layer. Limited scope
for regeneration.
Targeted roadside management, including
use of Roadside Markers.
Difficult to manage due to high weed
biomass and poor soil condition.
Manage weed incursions to ensure they do
not spread into fair or good condition
vegetation.
Where recovery likely, conduct targeted
removal of weeds and assisted regeneration.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
70
Riparian
What is riparian vegetation?
Riparian vegetation is vegetation found along watercourses and on flood plains. Riparian zones
represent transition areas between land and water. The indigenous vegetation of these areas usually
reflects the better soils and moist conditions found in the lower parts of the landscape.
Riparian vegetation (Photo: Sonia Croft)
In the AMLR, riparian zones
can be separated into two
distinct types. The first is the
creeks and gullies of the
steeper slopes and ridges
of the Mount Lofty Ranges,
where riparian zones are
dominated by tall open forests
of Candlebarks, Manna Gums,
Swamp Gums, Blackwoods and
Stringybarks. The second type
of riparian zone is the Red Gum
dominated drainage lines of
the foothills and eastern flanks.
Riparian zones support typically
dense vegetation, with dense understorey, shrublayer and overstorey. Red Gum drainage lines
support more open vegetation, with some open grassy patches in the understorey.
Where is riparian vegetation found in the AMLR?
The pre-European distribution of riparian vegetation covered much of the AMLR, including eastwest watercourses stretching from the hills to drain in Gulf St Vincent, high elevation creeks and
gullies in the Mount Lofty Ranges and the Fleurieu peninsula, and expansive creeks and plains in the
eastern hills. Although subject to error due to the broad scale of mapping, it is estimated that the
pre-European distribution of riparian vegetation covered approximately 15% of the AMLR (Figure 2.3,
Section 2.1.2).
Riparian zones have been extensively cleared and modified in the AMLR. It is estimated that remnant
vegetation remains across 15% of its former range, with riparian vegetation on many watercourses
(e.g. those crossing metropolitan Adelaide) completely removed or replaced (Table 4.23).
Approximately 17% of remnant riparian vegetation is formally protected in conservation areas.
Table 4.23 Riparian vegetation extent in the AMLR
Pre-European
113,001 ha
14% of region
Remnant
16,797 ha
15% PE extent
17% of remnant total
Protection*
2,248 ha
Public (protected)
2,201 ha
Public (not protected)
435 ha
Private (protected)
11,913 ha
Private (not protected)
* see definitions Section 4.1
71
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Types of riparian vegetation found in the AMLR
Current vegetation mapping is at a broad scale, and doesn’t adequately reflect the specific
ecological communities of riparian zones in the AMLR. At a finer scale, many and varied riparian
zone ecological communities would occur. Two riparian communities are defined in this report
based on current mapping:
• River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis riparian or grassy woodland *
• Manna Gum Eucalyptus viminalis +/- Candlebark Eucalyptus dalrympleana riparian woodland (T)
(* The broad scale of mapping means that some non-riparian River Red Gum woodland may have
been mapped as riparian when it more appropriately fits under grassy woodland. Statistics should
be interpreted with caution).
Conservation status
Candlebark woodland/forest is considered threatened due to its very limited distribution in high
rainfall parts of the AMLR. It has suffered high levels of modification from weed invasion and it is
poorly protected in conservation reserves.
Notable fauna and flora
Riparian ecosystems provide habitat for aquatic fauna, such as fish and frogs. Species of
conservation significance which occur in the riparian zone include the Climbing Galaxis, Mountain
Galaxis, River Blackfish, Congolli and Brown Toadlet (State R). Rocky cliffs of river gorges provide
habitat suitable for Cunningham’s Skink (State E) and Peregrine Falcon (State R), dense reeds and
sedges support birds such as Latham’s Snipe (State R) and Buff-banded Rail, and the tree canopy
supports species such as the Black-chinned Honeyeater (State V) and Crested Shrike-tit (State R).
Candlebark Gum and Manna Gum are both rated as rare in South Australia. Other plants of
conservation significance which occur in riparian ecosystems include King Fern (State E), Skeleton
Fork-fern (State E), Coral Fern (State R), Fishbone Water-fern (State R) and Native Broom (State R).
Condition
Riparian zones have been some of the most heavily impacted areas in the AMLR, and there are
few remnants remaining in good condition. Remnants have been degraded through altered
flow regimes, erosion, and heavy weed invasion. Often the ground and shrub layers are gone
leaving only remnant trees. In this report, condition has been assessed separately for high elevation
creeklines and Red Gum drainage lines.
Threats
Very High
• Weed invasion, with 39 species listed as posing a moderate to high risk to riparian vegetation
• Altered hydrological regimes (and water use)
High
• Drought and climate change
• Excessive grazing (stock)
Other
• Erosion
Conservation Priorities
The highest priority for the riparian zone is fencing of watercourses to exclude grazing. Grazing has
substantial impacts on water quality through nutrient inputs, sedimentation and erosion. The control
of weeds, in particular willows Salix spp., is also a high priority for management. On a broader scale,
improving hydrological regimes is also a high priority for management (Table 4.24, 4.25).
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
72
Table 4.24: Active management of riparian vegetation in the AMLR – Red Gum drainage lines
of the foothills and plains
Vegetation condition
Amount
Active management priorities
Good condition
Uncommon
Emphasis on preventing new incursions and
containing new outbreaks of priority weeds.
Relatively intact with a diverse layer
of reeds and sedges remaining.
Weeds may be starting to invade.
Fair condition
Manage grazing, particularly stock, also feral
grazing animals and kangaroos where
impacts are being sustained.
Common
Significantly modified with little native
ground cover, but retains sparse trees
and shrubs. Phalaris aquatica may
be dominant. Willows may be
present. Reduced recruitment.
Reduced tree health.
Control priority weeds (particularly woody
weeds – willows).
Manage grazing, particularly stock, also feral
grazing animals and kangaroos where
impacts are being sustained.
Maintain soil stability and water quality
(Phalaris may assist to filter nutrients – crash
graze at appropriate time).
Assisted regeneration of native understorey
species.
Poor condition
Native species reduced and
outcompeted by weeds. Heavy
weed invasion in understorey and
midstorey. Soil structure changed due
to weeds. Active erosion may be
occurring
Some –
common
Difficult to manage due to high weed
biomass.
Manage weed incursions to ensure they
do not spread into fair or good condition
vegetation.
Control high priority weeds (e.g. willows)
and undertake works to mitigate erosion.
Where recovery likely, conduct targeted
removal of weeds and assisted regeneration.
73
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Table 4.25 Active management of riparian vegetation in the AMLR – high elevation creeks and
gullies of the Mount Lofty Ranges
Vegetation condition
Amount
Active management priorities
Good condition
Uncommon
Emphasis on preventing new incursions and
containing new outbreaks of priority weeds.
Overstorey and ground layer in good
condition, but very open or absent
midstorey. Little to no weed invasion.
Generally first order streams so few
impacts from hydrological changes.
Fair condition
Manage grazing, particularly stock, also feral
grazing animals and kangaroos where
impacts are being sustained.
Common
Manage grazing, particularly stock, also feral
grazing animals and kangaroos where
impacts are being sustained.
Good tree health, understorey
degraded as a result of weed
invasion, with weed front moving
upstream and upslope. Midstorey less
dense.
Poor condition
Native species reduced and
outcompeted by weeds. Heavy
weed invasion in understorey and
midstorey. Soil structure changed due
to weeds.
Control priority weeds.
Maintain soil stability and water quality.
Consider restoration adjacent to good and
fair condition areas, e.g. assisted
regeneration of native understorey species.
Some –
common
Difficult to manage due to high weed
biomass.
Manage weed incursions to ensure they
do not spread into fair or good condition
vegetation.
Consider restoration adjacent to good
and fair condition areas, e.g. assisted
regeneration of native understorey species.
Where recovery likely, conduct targeted
control of priority weeds.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
74
Wetland
What is wetland vegetation?
A number of wetland types are found in the AMLR. Discussion of these wetlands and their
conservation requirements is included under freshwater aquatic biodiversity. However, native
ecological communities specific to freshwater wetlands are considered in this section.
In the AMLR, wetland vegetation is associated with: freshwater
swamps of the MLR and lower Fleurieu Peninsula; seasonal
wetlands of the Adelaide Plains; estuarine creeks of the south
coast (considered under coastal); and Red Gum wetlands along
creeks featuring waterholes with fringing reeds (considered under
riparian).
Freshwater swamp vegetation in the AMLR is shrub-dominated
and typically very dense. This vegetation has high structural and
floristic diversity, and contains many endemic and rare plants.
Seasonal wetlands on the Adelaide plains were flat areas with
open water and fringing vegetation such as macrophytes, lignum
and samphire.
Where is wetland vegetation found in the AMLR?
Estimates of the extent of wetland vegetation are confounded by
the broad scale of mapping. Mapping suggests that freshwater
wetland vegetation covered approximately 2% of the AMLR
(Table 4.26). This vegetation was concentrated in the southern
MLR and Fleurieu Peninsula, with small pockets on the Adelaide
plains (Figure 2.3, Section 2.1.2).
Freshwater wetland at Cleland
CP (Peter Lang)
Mapping suggests that approximately a quarter of wetland
vegetation is remaining in the region. This remaining vegetation is
concentrated around the southern Fleurieu Peninsula.
Approximately a quarter of remnant freshwater wetland
vegetation is formally protected in conservation areas.
Table 4.26 Wetland vegetation extent in the AMLR
Pre-European
15,029 ha
2% of region
Remnant
3,560 ha
24% PE extent
4% of remnant total
Protection*
838 ha
Public (protected)
243 ha
Public (not protected)
102 ha
Private (protected)
493 ha
Private (not protected)
* see definitions Section 4.1
75
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Types of wetland vegetation in the AMLR
As with riparian vegetation, current vegetation mapping does not pick up on the fine scale of
wetland vegetation pattern and composition in the AMLR. Based on mapping, four freshwater
wetland ecological communities are defined in the AMLR:
• Swamp Gum Eucalyptus ovata woodland over wet heath (T)
• Cutting Grass Gahnia filum +/- Salt Club-rush Bolboschoenus caldwellii
• Common Reed Phragmites australis +/- Bulrush Typha sp. sedgeland
• Silky Tea-tree Leptospermum lanigerum shrubland (T).
Conservation status
The swamps of the Fleurieu Peninsula are a nationally critically endangered ecological community.
A variety of ecological communities are included in the definition of the Fleurieu Peninsula swamps.
Silky Tea-tree closed shrubland is considered threatened as a result of limited formal conservation of
this community and threats such as drainage. Swamp Gum woodland is also considered threatened
due to its poor representation in formal reserves and high levels of modification and fragmentation.
Notable fauna and flora
The Southern Emu-wren (Nat. E) and Chestnut-rumped Heathwren (Nat. E) occur within swamps; the
dense cover required by these ground-birds is provided within this vegetation type. Latham’s Snipe
(State V) also occur inhabit wetlands.
Condition
Wetlands have been heavily degraded through modification, and most wetlands in the AMLR are
in poor condition. Wetlands, being groundwater dependent ecosystems, are threatened by altered
hydrology and are likely to be at considerable risk in the face of climate change. Alterations to land
use surrounding swamps is likely to cause further decline, in particular water extracting activities. In
most cases, wetlands are experiencing ongoing decline.
Threats
Very High
• Altered hydrological regimes (groundwater extraction)
High
• Weed invasion, with 17 species posing a moderate to high threat to wetlands.
• Drought and climate change
• Excessive grazing (stock)
• Inappropriate disturbance regimes
Other
• Inappropriate adjacent land use.
Conservation priorities
The highest priority for wetlands is fencing to remove grazing which has substantial impacts on
remnant vegetation and water quality (Table 4.27). The control of weeds is also a high priority
for management, as is maintaining hydrological processes for these groundwater dependent
ecosystems.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
76
Table 4.27 Active management of wetland vegetation in the AMLR
Vegetation condition
Amount
Active management priorities
Good condition
Very
uncommon
Emphasis on preventing new incursions and
containing new outbreaks of priority weeds.
Relatively intact with low levels of
weed invasion (e.g. bird-spread
weeds but no annual grasses).
Restricted to freshwater swamps with
near-natural hydrological regimes.
Buffering of swamps from adjacent land
management.
Ensure appropriate land use and zoning on
adjacent land.
Investigate and implement appropriate
disturbance regimes.
Fair condition
Condition fair but declining due to
edge effects, grazing and altered
hydrology. Reduced health and
species diversity, with loss of some
hydrologically sensitive species.
Reduced recruitment. Weed invasion,
some areas may be choked with
weeds. Native species declining,
habitat values diminishing (includes
seasonal wetlands of the Adelaide
Plains).
Poor condition
Low native cover and species
diversity, dominated by introduced
grasses and other weeds. May be
heavy grazing pressure.
Uncommon
– some
As above.
Control weed infestations.
Improve hydrological processes at
landscape level.
Common
Difficult to manage due to high weed
biomass and other multiple threats.
Where recovery likely, conduct targeted
removal of weeds and assisted regeneration,
manage grazing.
Coastal vegetation
What is coastal vegetation?
Coastal vegetation is vegetation that is subject to the influences of coastal environments. Coastal
vegetation faces different environmental conditions than terrestrial vegetation, and in particular, it
must be able to tolerate exposure, high salt content and unstable substrates such as sandy soils and
eroded cliff-tops.
Where is coastal vegetation found in the AMLR?
Coastal vegetation is found along the coastline of Gulf St Vincent, and along the exposed coastline
of lower Fleurieu Peninsula abutting the Southern Ocean. The pre-European distribution of coastal
vegetation covered 4% of the region (Figure 2.3, Section 2.1.2).
Just over 20% of the pre-European extent of coastal vegetation remains in the AMLR (Table 4.28).
Clearance of coastal vegetation has been preferential, with some vegetation types – such as those
found alongside the metropolitan coastline – cleared more extensively than others.
Approximately a quarter of remnant coastal vegetation is protected within formal conservation
reserves. Reflecting the disproportionate clearance patterns of coastal vegetation, these protected
areas are biased towards some coastal vegetation types.
77
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Table 4.28 Coastal vegetation extent in the AMLR
Pre-European
31,505 ha
4% of region
Remnant
6,981 ha
22% PE extent
7% of remnant total
Protection*
3,654 ha
Public (protected)
1,689 ha
Public (not protected)
2 ha
Private (protected)
1,636 ha
Private (not protected)
These figures summarise the individual coastal groups below.
* see definitions Section 4.1
Defining coastal vegetation types in the AMLR
Environmental parameters such as geology and level of exposure are important determinants of
the type and composition of coastal vegetation that will persist at a particular coastal location. This
plan uses level of exposure, landform (e.g. cliffs, dunes, tidal zones) and geology to classify coastal
vegetation of the AMLR into 5 broad categories:
Exposed coastlines
• Exposed cliffs on non-calcareous substrates
• Exposed dunes on non-calcareous substrates
Sheltered coastlines
• Sheltered cliffs on non-calcareous substrates
• Sheltered dunes on non-calcareous or calcareous substrates
• Sheltered tidal zones.
Coastal vegetation mapping
The statistics presented in this section are based on separate vegetation mapping completed for
terrestrial and coastal environments (the latter at a finer-scale). There is some overlap between the
mapping datasets, and some broad vegetation groups have not been accurately mapped. The
figures provided here should be considered as approximate.
Defining coastal ecological communities
This section notes the common ecological communities that are found in each coastal broad
vegetation group. These lists are not exhaustive.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
78
Exposed cliffs
What are exposed cliffs?
Coastal vegetation on cliffs on exposed coastlines forms as a variety of shrubland and woodland
communities. Where present, the overstorey forms an open canopy of emergents. Exposed cliff
vegetation in the AMLR is predominantly low open woodland, varying from semi-arid mallee-style
open woodland in drier areas to vegetation with a dense shrub layer in wetter areas. Very little
ground layer occurs under the dense shrub layer. Trees usually occur sparsely, including Pink Gum
Eucalyptus fasciculosa, Mallee Box Eucalyptus porosa, Cup Gum Eucalyptus cosmophylla, Drooping
Sheoak Allocasuarina verticillata and Melaleuca spp.
Where are exposed cliffs found in the AMLR?
Coastal vegetation subject to high levels of exposure occurs along the southern Fleurieu coastline,
south and east of Cape Jervis (Figure 2.3, Section 2.1.2). This mainly rocky coast has steep, high
wind-exposed cliffs that support coastal vegetation.
Almost half of the pre-European extent of exposed cliffs remains in the AMLR (Table 4.29).
A large proportion of these remnants are protected in formal conservation areas – almost 90% of
remnant exposed cliff is in protected areas.
Photo: Peter Canty
Table 4.29 Exposed cliff vegetation extent in the AMLR
Pre-European
2,247 ha
<1% of region
Remnant
1,114 ha
50% PE extent
<1% of remnant total
Protection*
1,019 ha
Public (protected)
17 ha
Public (not protected)
2 ha
Private (protected)
76 ha
Private (not protected)
* see definitions Section 4.1
79
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Types of exposed cliff vegetation in the AMLR
Common ecological communities found on exposed cliffs include:
• Mallee Box Eucalyptus porosa, Drooping Sheoak Allocasuarina verticillata and Dryland Tea Tree
Melaleuca lanceolata grassy woodland
• Coastal White Mallee Eucalyptus diversifolia mallee
• Kangaroo Thorn Acacia paradoxa, Common Oakbush Allocasuarina muelleriana ssp.
muelleriana shrubland
• Twiggy Daisy Bush Olearia ramulosa, Coast Bearded Heath Leucopogon parviflorus shrubland
• Cup Gum Eucalyptus cosmophylla heathy woodland
• Spinifex Triodia sp. Hummock grassland
• Drooping Sheoak Allocasuarina verticillata grassy woodland.
Conservation status
The ecological communities occurring in Exposed Cliff environments are not considered threatened.
A reasonable proportion of these communities are conserved within conservation reserves.
Notable fauna and flora
The White-bellied Sea-eagle (State E) patrols the cliffs of the southern coastline. The dense
vegetation of exposed cliffs may provide habitat for nationally threatened fauna, including
Southern Brown Bandicoots (Nat. V), Southern Emu Wrens (Nat. E) and Chestnut-rumped Heathwrens
(Nat. E). Rocky cliffs may provide habitat for Cunningham’s Skinks (State E).
Condition
Approximately half of the exposed cliff vegetation in the region is formally conserved and its
condition is relatively intact. However, this vegetation is considered to be in decline as a result
of lack of disturbance regimes and the results of fragmentation. Other areas have experienced
degradation as a result of grazing, erosion and inappropriate access, and are in active decline.
Threats
• Changed disturbance regimes (fire)
• Weed invasion
• Erosion
• Inappropriate access / uncontrolled recreational use
• Excessive grazing pressure (e.g. rabbits).
Conservation priorities
Management priorities for exposed cliff vegetation are to exclude stock and manage recreational
access to reduce erosion (Table 4.30). Weed control is also a priority activity. Buffering remnants to
reduce the impacts of edge effects is required.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
80
Table 4.30 Active management of exposed cliffs in the AMLR
Vegetation condition
Amount
Active management priorities
Good condition
Common
Emphasis on preventing new incursions and
containing new outbreaks of priority weeds,
and controlling existing weed priorities.
Relatively intact in all layers, with
similar species diversity but reduced
abundance of some species. Weed
invasion occurring. No historical
grazing.
Fair condition
Monitor and manage recreational impacts.
Some
Manage grazing impacts.
Relatively intact overstorey, but
degraded shrub and ground layer.
Species diversity reduced, with
palatable species missing. Weed
invasion, including pasture grasses.
Erosion due to past livestock grazing
and clearing.
Poor condition
Overstorey and midstorey sparse to
absent, with groundcover present at
some locations (e.g. cliff-tops and
cliff-faces). Wind and water erosion.
Historical and current grazing.
As above.
Common
Fencing to exclude stock, manage
recreational access.
Manage weed incursions to ensure they do
not spread into fair or good condition
vegetation.
Where recovery likely, conduct targeted
removal of weeds and assisted regeneration.
Exposed dunes
What is exposed dune vegetation?
Exposed dune vegetation is vegetation that forms on sand dunes in areas with high levels of
exposure. This vegetation generally forms as open, low shrublands (<2 m). Common species include
Olearia spp. Where dune systems are wide, substantial rear dune systems with dominant Coastal
White Mallee Eucalyptus diversifolia and Acacia uncifolia are present.
Where is exposed dune
vegetation found in the AMLR?
Exposed dune vegetation
in the AMLR was historically
restricted in its distribution,
to small sandy embayments
along the exposed southern
coastline (Figure 2.3, Section
2.1.2).
Approximately 20% of the preEuropean extent of exposed
dunes remains in the AMLR
(Table 4.31).
Photo: Coast Protection Board 2008
81
Few examples of remnant
exposed dune vegetation are
found within the protected
area network in the AMLR.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Table 4.31 Exposed dune vegetation extent in the AMLR
Pre-European
576 ha
<1% of region
Remnant
115 ha
20% PE extent
<1% of remnant total
Protection*
62 ha
Public (protected)
31 ha
Public (not protected)
0 ha
Private (protected)
22 ha
Private (not protected)
* see definitions Section 4.1
Types of exposed dune vegetation in the AMLR
Common ecological communities found on exposed coastal cliffs in the AMLR include:
• Mallee Box Eucalyptus porosa, Sheoak Allocasuarina verticillata, Dryland Tea-tree Melaleuca
lanceolata grassy woodland
• Coastal White Mallee Eucalyptus diversifolia mallee
• Kangaroo Thorn Acacia paradoxa, Common Oak Bush Allocasuarina muelleriana ssp.
muelleriana shrubland
• Twiggy Daisy Bush Olearia ramulosa, Coast Bearded Heath Leucopogon parviflorus shrubland
• Cup Gum Eucalyptus cosmophylla heathy woodland
• Spinifex Triodia sp. hummock grassland
• Drooping Sheoak Allocasuarina verticillata grassy woodland
Conservation status
The ecological communities occurring in exposed dune environments are not considered
threatened.
Notable fauna and flora
Exposed dunes provide habitat for Hooded Plovers (State V). This species uses bare dunes for both
breeding and shelter. Other waders such as Red-capped Plovers also use these habitats.
Condition
Much of the remnant exposed dune vegetation has been, and continues to be, subjected to
degrading processes, such as grazing, unmanaged recreational access and urban encroachment.
Weed invasion is also contributing to the declining condition of this vegetation.
Threats (not rated)
• Urban encroachment and development
• Erosion
• Revegetation with non-local species
• Inappropriate access (e.g. human, horse, vehicle)
• Weed invasion
• Grazing.
Conservation priorities
The management of recreational access to exposed dunes and control of weeds are the priority
management activity to reverse the decline of this vegetation (Table 4.32).
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
82
Table 4.32 Active management of exposed dunes in the AMLR
Vegetation condition
Amount
Active management priorities
Good condition
Some
Emphasis on preventing new incursions and
containing new outbreaks of priority weeds,
and controlling existing weed priorities,
particularly Asparagus weeds.
Overstorey and midstorey relatively
intact, with sedgy ground layer and
soil crusts missing following
disturbance. Species composition
changed, with increased disturbancetolerant species. Heavy weed
infestations, particularly Asparagus
weeds (e.g. bridal creeper, bridal veil).
Fair condition
Monitor and manage recreational impacts.
Monitor and manage erosion.
Some
Manage grazing impacts.
Shrub layer and ground layer present
but degraded and sparse. Retains
habitat values for bird species. Woody
weed invasion.
Poor condition
Degraded dune systems, shrubs
almost non-existent. Dominated by
cosmopolitan coastal weeds. Only
human-tolerant birds supported.
As above.
Common
Difficult to manage due to urban
encroachment.
Where recovery likely, conduct targeted
removal of weeds and assisted regeneration.
Sheltered cliffs
What is sheltered cliff vegetation?
Sheltered cliff vegetation forms on coastal cliffs in sheltered environments along the coastline of
Gulf St Vincent. Generally the vegetation forms open woodland dominated by eucalypts with an
arid-style chenopod understorey.
Common species include
Mallee Box Eucalyptus
porosa, Drooping Sheoak
Allocasuarina verticillata,
Dryland Tea-tree Melaleuca
lanceolata. Other eucalypts
are also present including
Coastal White Mallee
Eucalyptus diversifolia, Yorrell
Eucalyptus gracilis and
Peppermint Box Eucalyptus
odorata.
Where is sheltered cliff
vegetation found in the AMLR?
Sheltered coastal cliffs occur in
the AMLR along the coastline
between Maslins Beach and Delamere (Figure 2.3, Section 2.1.2). This coastline abuts the lower
wave energy environment of Gulf St Vincent. These habitats were historically restricted in the AMLR,
covering less than 1% of the total region (Table 4.33).
Photo: Ron Sandercock
Coastal cliffs have been heavily cleared and modified by European settlement, with less than 10%
of their pre-European extent remaining as remnant. Clearance of escarpments has led to the loss of
much of this vegetation.
Very few examples of sheltered cliff vegetation are formally protected under conservation tenure.
83
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Table 4.33 Sheltered cliff vegetation extent in the AMLR
Pre-European
1,592 ha
<1% of region
Remnant
141 ha
9% PE extent
<1% of remnant total
Protection*
15 ha
Public (protected)
83 ha
Public (not protected)
0 ha
Private (protected)
43 ha
Private (not protected)
* see definitions Section 4.1
Types of sheltered cliff vegetation in the AMLR
Ecological communities found on sheltered cliffs in the AMLR include:
• Acacia cupularis shrubland
• Pale Turpentine Bush Beyeria lechenaultii +/- Acrotriche patula shrubland
• Marsh Saltbush Atriplex paludosa ssp. cordota +/- Short-leaf Bluebush Maireana brevifolia
chenopod shrubland
• Mallee Box Eucalyptus porosa, Sheoak Allocasuarina verticillata, Dryland Tea-tree Melaleuca
lanceolata grassy woodland.
Conservation status
The majority of sheltered cliff vegetation has been cleared with the result being erosion of these
environments. However, there is very little sheltered cliff vegetation remaining, and little is formally
conserved.
Notable fauna and flora
Sheltered cliffs provide habitat for birds of prey, including Peregrine Falcons and Wedge-tailed
Eagles, who soar alongside cliffs in thermals and updraughts. Prior to European settlement, many
other species would have used the resources provided by sheltered cliffs; these species are no
longer found in this vegetation as their resources are not provided in the degraded habitats that
remain.
Condition
Remnant vegetation on coastal cliffs is in a state of rapid decline, and most remnant examples are
in poor condition. Active erosion as a result of clearance of vegetation is occurring and is difficult to
manage. Unmanaged recreational access is further exacerbating this degradation.
Threats (not rated)
• Active erosion
• Urban encroachment
• Grazing
• Unmanaged recreational access.
Conservation priorities
The priority for sheltered cliffs is to fence cliffs to exclude grazing. Managing the active erosion of
these cliffs is likely to be challenging and will require innovative solutions (Table 4.34).
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
84
Table 4.34 Active management of sheltered cliffs in the AMLR
Vegetation condition
Amount
Good condition
None
Active management priorities
None present.
Fair condition
Some
Poor condition
Sparse chenopod shrubs and other
native coastal species present, but
dominated by woody weeds and
exotic grasses. Habitat values
reduced.
Controlling existing weed priorities.
Monitor and manage recreational impacts
and erosion.
Overstorey present but species
composition changed, with species
such as Eucalyptus porosa typically
absent. Understorey in good condition
with dense shrubs. Woody weeds at
low levels and generally stable. Native
herbaceous species missing due to
erosion.
Common
Difficult to manage due to active erosion
and adjacent urban development.
Where recovery likely, conduct targeted
removal of weeds and assisted regeneration.
Sheltered dunes
What is sheltered dune vegetation?
Sheltered dune vegetation forms on sand dunes along sheltered (i.e. low wave energy) coastlines.
Dune vegetation is highly adapted to the salt laden winds of the coast, and helps to stabilise dunes
by keeping sand in place and trapping sand blown up from the beach. Sheltered dune vegetation
comprises of foredunes, swales and rear dunes. Foredunes are unstable areas supporting colonising
grasses and herbs (e.g. Spinifex spp.), swales are semi-stable areas that support an open cover of
shrubs (e.g. Coast Daisy-bush Olearia axillaris, Coast Beard-heath Leucopogon parviflorus) and
ground plants (e.g. flax-lilies Dianella spp., riceflowers Pimelia spp.), and rear dunes support denser
shrublands and woodlands (e.g. Drooping Sheoak Allocasuarina verticillata, Common Boobialla
Myoporum insulare, and Acacia spp.).
Where is sheltered dune
vegetation found in the AMLR?
Sheltered dune vegetation
occurs in the AMLR along the
coastline from Tennyson Dunes
to Normanville (Figure 2.3,
Section 2.1.2). This coastline
abuts the low wave energy
environment of Gulf St Vincent.
Photo: Ron Sandercock
85
Approximately 17% of the preEuropean extent of sheltered
dunes remains in the AMLR
(Table 4.35). Less than 10%
of this remnant vegetation
is protected in conservation
areas.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Table 4.35 Sheltered dune vegetation extent in the AMLR
Pre-European
2,948 ha
<1% of region
Remnant
541 ha
18% PE extent
<1% of remnant total
Protection*
78 ha
Public (protected)
346 ha
Public (not protected)
0 ha
Private (protected)
117 ha
Private (not protected)
* see definitions Section 4.1
Types of sheltered dune vegetation in the AMLR
The dunal zones tend to support distinct vegetation communities, although there is often significant
species overlap between the zones. Common ecological communities of sheltered dunes include:
• Acacia cupularis shrubland
• Coast Daisy Bush Olearia axillaris, Coastal Wattle Acacia longifolia ssp.
sophorae shrubland
• Pale Turpentine Bush Beyeria lechenaultii shrubland
• Nitre Bush Nitraria billardierei, Coast Saltbush Atriplex cinerea shrubland.
Conservation status
While none of the vegetation communities are formally listed as threatened, sheltered dunes are
generally highly modified with little conservation protection for this vegetation. Threats are severe
and often difficult to manage.
Notable fauna and flora
The generally high levels of disturbance and high recreational use has reduced the quality of
sheltered dunes as habitat for fauna, although species that have been able to adapt to these
modified habitats are still common (e.g. Silver Gulls). Some of the less disturbed dunes may provide
habitat for the Hooded Plover (State V).
Condition
As a result of the location of sheltered dunes, primarily close to urban areas, the pressures on these
systems are very high, and most remnant examples are in poor condition. In most locations, urban
encroachment has caused the loss of the swales and rear-dunes with only degraded foredunes
remaining. The pressure from recreational use is very high, the resilience of these systems to
disturbance is low and the condition of remnant sheltered dunes is declining.
Threats (not rated)
• Drought and climate change
• Urban encroachment
• Weed invasion
• Edge effects
• Inappropriate access.
Conservation priorities
Many of the threats to sheltered dunes are very difficult to manage as they relate to urban
encroachment and associated threats. However, priority activities include weed control and
management of recreational use (Table 4.36).
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
86
Table 4.36 Active management of sheltered dunes in the AMLR
Vegetation condition
Amount
Active management priorities
Good condition
Some
Emphasis on preventing new incursions and
containing new outbreaks of priority weeds,
and controlling existing weed priorities.
Intact dune system with all zones
present, and low weed cover. Species
diversity high but composition altered,
with some species increased (e.g.
Leucopogon parviflorus). Some areas
may have been revegetated postmining with non-local species.
Fair condition
Monitor and manage recreational impacts.
Some
As above, however difficult to manage due
to urban encroachment.
Common
Difficult to manage due to urban
encroachment and high recreational
pressure.
All zones present or rear dunes absent
and just foredunes and swales
remaining. Remaining zones
degraded by weed invasion and
recreational impacts.
Poor condition
Rear dunes and swales absent.
Foredunes present but often greatly
reduced in extent. Native plant cover
low to absent, weed cover high. Some
dunes may have been artificially
created.
Where recovery likely, conduct targeted
removal of weeds and assisted regeneration.
Sheltered tidal zones
What is sheltered tidal vegetation?
Sheltered tidal vegetation occurs in sheltered coastal areas where vegetation is subject to tidal
change. These areas can be non-estuarine (i.e. marine only, no freshwater input) or estuarine (i.e.
with freshwater input). Sheltered tidal vegetation has three distinct zones: inter-tidal mangrove forests
at the seaward edge fringing tidal creeks, inter-tidal saltmarsh communities immediately inland of
the mangroves, and supra-tidal flats supporting communities of samphire and chenopod shrubland
inland of the inter-tidal saltmarsh. This third zone was the largest of the three and graded into sparse
mallee at its landward extremity.
Where is sheltered tidal vegetation found in the AMLR?
Sheltered tidal vegetation occurs in Barker Inlet, and along the sheltered coastline north of Barker
Inlet (Figure 2.3, Section 2.1.2). Sheltered tidal zones were the most dominant coastal vegetation
type in the AMLR; greater than 90% of the Pre-European coastal vegetation was sheltered tidal zones.
Approximately 20% of the
sheltered tidal zone vegetation
of the AMLR remains (Table
4.37). This remaining vegetation
is predominantly mangroves
and inter-tidal saltmarsh,
with supra-tidal saltmarsh
and chenopod shrublands
extensively cleared. Over 70%
of remnant coastal vegetation
is sheltered tidal zones.
Photo: Tony Robinson
87
A little over 10% of the remnant
extent of sheltered tidal
vegetation is protected in
formal conservation areas.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Table 4.37 Sheltered tidal vegetation extent in the AMLR
Pre-European
24,142 ha
3% of region
Remnant
5,070 ha
21% PE extent
5% of remnant total
Protection*
2,480 ha
Public (protected)
1,212 ha
Public (not protected)
0 ha
Private (protected)
1378 ha
Private (not protected)
* see definitions Section 4.1
Types of sheltered tidal vegetation in the AMLR
Ecological communities that occur in sheltered tidal zones include:
• Pale Turpentine Bush Beyeria lechenaultii shrubland
• Swamp Paperbark Melaleuca halmaturorum woodland
• Saw-sedge Gahnia trifida/Gahnia filum sedgeland (T)
• Beaded Samphire Sarcocornia quinqueflora shrubland
• Nitre Bush Nitraria billardierei +/- Salt Bluebush Maireana oppositifolia chenopod shrubland
• Grey Mangrove Avicennia marina woodland
• Samphire Halosarcia spp. +/- Sclerostegia spp. shrubland.
Conservation status
Gahnia spp. sedgelands are considered threatened due to degradation as a result of drainage,
increased salinity and grazing. Although not formally recognised as threatened, coastal chenopod
shrubland on the northern Adelaide coastline has been heavily cleared.
Notable fauna and flora
The sheltered tidal zone supports the nationally threatened Bead Samphire (Nat. V).
The sheltered tidal zone provides a range of habitat features and supports a diversity of threatened
bird species, including the Slender-billed Thornbill (Nat. V) which inhabits the samphire flats. Other
species of conservation significance known from this area include threatened raptors (White-bellied
Sea-eagle, State E; Osprey, State E) and wading birds (Eastern Curlew, State V; Banded Stilt, State
V). In addition, tidal zones support the nationally threatened Little Tern (Nat. E), and the secretive
Australasian Bittern (State V) and Little Bittern (State E).
Condition
Much of the mangrove vegetation within the sheltered tidal vegetation is in good condition. In
places this vegetation is actually increasing in extent and encroaching on inter-tidal saltmarsh as
a result of sea level rise. However, some areas of mangrove are declining in health as a result of
sedimentation.
The condition of other ecological communities within the sheltered tidal zone is declining as a result
of industrial encroachment, weed invasion and alterations to tidal influence.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
88
Threats (not rated)
• Drought and climate change
• Ground-water extraction resulting in land subsidence
• Alteration to tidal inundation patterns
• Weed invasion
• Sedimentation
• Development.
Conservation priorities
Priorities for the sheltered tidal zone are control and/or eradication of weeds (Table 4.38). The main
threats to this zone are related to surrounding land uses, and opportunities to mitigate these impacts
need to be investigated.
Table 4.38 Active management of sheltered tidal vegetation in the AMLR
Vegetation condition
Amount
Active management priorities
Good condition
Common
Emphasis on preventing new incursions and
containing new outbreaks of priority weeds,
and controlling existing weed priorities,
particularly Suaeda baccifera (introduced
shrub) and weedy grasses.
Healthy mangroves with intact intertidal saltmarsh. Supra-tidal saltmarsh
and chenopod shrubland zone
virtually all cleared but some small
areas remaining. Mangroves
increasing in extent and encroaching
on saltmarsh. Weed invasion.
Fair condition
Rising sea levels as a result of land
subsidence and climate change is a major
threat. Strategies to address these threats
must be identified and implemented.
Some
Manage land-based hydrological impacts,
in particular improving storm-water quality
and reducing sediment loads.
Mangroves and saltmarsh intact,
supra-tidal saltmarsh and chenopod
shrubland zone absent. Mangroves
dead or in poor health due to
permanent inundation and
sedimentation. Weed invasion.
Poor condition
Mangrove zone intact, but inter-tidal
saltmarsh degraded and supra-tidal
zone absent. Inter-tidal saltmarsh
isolated from the sea by levees, with
consequent alteration to species
composition and vegetation
becoming more supra-tidal than intertidal. Weed invasion, in particular
African Boxthorn.
89
As above.
Rising sea levels as a result of land
subsidence and climate change is a major
threat. Strategies to address these threats
must be identified and implemented.
Some
Difficult to manage due to major alterations
to surrounding landscape (e.g. development,
levee banks).
Investigate possibility of altering levee banks
to allow inundation of saltmarsh.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
4.1.3 Conservation of species
This section details species that will require species-specific conservation or management efforts in
the AMLR, and sets conservation priorities and targets for each species group.
Both species that have declined or increased in abundance since European
settlement may require targeted conservation efforts in the AMLR
The native species of the AMLR have responded differently to the modification that has happened
in the region, with many species declining, others remaining stable, and some increasing in
abundance or distribution.
While many of the stable or common species will be conserved effectively through the conservation
efforts detailed at the landscape and ecological community level (including those species groups
that are poorly known), species that have declined or become more abundant may require
targeted conservation and/or management efforts.
Threatened species or species that are actively declining will require targeted efforts to manage
specific threats to their ongoing persistence. Many of these species have declined as they have
idiosyncratic requirements that are no longer met in the region, and conservation efforts will also
need to ensure that these requirements are met.
Species that have become more abundant in the region will require targeted effort to ensure that
these species – which can cause detrimental environmental, economic and social impacts – are
managed in a manner that does not detrimentally impact on their long-term conservation.
Native species that are located close to residential areas or areas used for agriculture may also
require targeted efforts. These species located in close proximity to other land uses can also lead
to unwanted detrimental impacts; impacts that can be caused irrespective of whether they are
present in large numbers or not.
Species that are only found in the AMLR need to be conserved to ensure they do
not become extinct
Endemic species – species that are only found in the AMLR – usually justify targeted conservation
efforts and status assessment. In many instances, these species will be formally listed as threatened.
Conservation priorities
This section defines conservation priorities and sets conservation targets for the following species
groups in the AMLR:
• Threatened species
• Declining species
• Endemic species
• Abundant native species and native species in conflict.
Threatened species
Species that decline in abundance or distribution to such an extent that their long-term survival
is considered to be at risk can be formally listed under legislation as threatened with extinction.
Threatened species lists are developed at a national level under the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and at a State level under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972
(NP&W Act).
Formally threatened species are assigned a conservation rating, based on the level of threat to
their continued survival. Species can be listed as extinct, extinct in the wild, critically endangered,
endangered, vulnerable or conservation dependent under the EPBC Act, and endangered,
vulnerable or rare under the NP&W Act.
Listing of a species as threatened may result when species are naturally rare, decline to low levels
due to their idiosyncratic requirements or extensive loss of habitat resources, or when the future
viability of a species is under a high level of threat.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
90
Nationally threatened terrestrial species of the AMLR
Fifteen fauna species of the AMLR are listed as threatened under the EPBC Act (see Table 4.40),
including two critically endangered, 8 endangered and 5 vulnerable species. This list includes
four species that are extinct in the AMLR and an additional six species that are considered to be
functionally extinct in the AMLR (i.e. they now occur only very infrequently and their ecological role
in the region has been lost).
Thirty-one flora species of the AMLR are listed as threatened
under the EPBC Act (see Table 4.41.). This includes two critically
endangered, 13 endangered and 16 vulnerable species. A
number of these species have not been recorded in the AMLR
within the last 20 or so years; these species may be extinct within
the region.
Recovery plans are prepared for species listed under the EPBC
Act. These plans detail the recovery actions that need to occur
to stop the decline of, and support the recovery of, threatened
species. Most of these plans are single-species recovery plans,
although multi-species recovery plans have been developed
more recently. Recovery plans that have been completed for
threatened species of the AMLR include single-species plans for
the Southern Brown Bandicoot and the MLR Southern Emu-wren
and a multi-species plan for 12 threatened orchids.
State threatened terrestrial species of the AMLR
Plum Leek-orchid
(Photo: Joe Quarmby)
Approximately 80 terrestrial extant species of fauna are listed as
threatened in South Australia under the NP&W Act in the AMLR.
This includes 14 species endangered, 19 vulnerable and 47 rare
species.
Two hundred and fifty-two terrestrial flora species considered extant in the AMLR are listed as
threatened in South Australia under the NP&W Act. This includes 48 endangered, 51 vulnerable and
153 rare species.
A revision of the threatened species schedules of the NP&W Act was recently adopted. This process
included a review of known population trends of species, and any other changes in knowledge of
species, including distribution and abundance, threats, and taxonomic revision. The review led to
an increased number of species being listed as threatened in the AMLR. This increase was in part
due to the use of broadened criteria for listing, in particular the criteria used to list species as rare.
However, many currently listed species were not able to be reviewed (in which case their rating did
not change). The NP&W Act does not currently include native fish.
State, or even National conservation ratings for threatened species do not necessarily reflect their
high conservation importance on a regional level. The AMLR region has many regionally threatened
and declining species which may not be highly threatened (or even listed) at a State or National
level. To prevent regional extinctions or further regional declines, such species may require focussed
recovery management. However, there is an urgent need to clarify decline trends for all threatened
species to inform immediacy of recovery management.
91
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
A regional multi-species recovery and threat abatement plan for the AMLR
Traditionally, the conservation of threatened species – including the development of recovery plans
and implementation of recovery actions – has been based on a single-species approach. However,
there is a limit to the rate at which recovery plans can be developed, and there are insufficient
resources available to implement species-specific recovery actions for all threatened species. The
need to rationalise the recovery planning and implementation processes is even more pronounced
given the increasing number of threatened species that are being listed.
A multi-species approach to threatened species planning has been conducted in the AMLR. The
Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species and Ecological Communities of Adelaide and
the Mount Lofty Ranges was adopted in 2009. This plan incorporates over 200 priority plant, bird,
mammal, reptile, amphibian and freshwater fish species, and a number of ecological communities
at risk in the region. The plan integrates prioritised recovery and threat abatement actions for these
threatened species and ecological communities. It is hoped that this approach will provide more
efficient and effective outcomes (across a wider range of species).
Threats
The threats to the threatened species of the AMLR are numerous and diverse, and include impacts
associated with habitat fragmentation and loss, spatial or temporal lack of required habitat
resources (e.g. food resources, breeding requirements), feral predators and altered disturbance
regimes (e.g. fire, grazing). On a broad level, the threats that affect threatened species are those
that affect their habitat, e.g. weed invasion and other land use pressure related impacts. A regional
level assessment of threats is limited because there are always site-specific threats which may
vary from one sub-population to the next, therefore smaller-scale planning is always required for
threatened species (and threatened ecological communities). Nevertheless, to identify regional
level significant threats to threatened flora, fauna and freshwater fish species, a comprehensive
threat assessment for the AMLR region has been undertaken as part of the Regional Recovery Plan
for Threatened Species and Ecological Communities of Adelaide and the Mount Lofty Ranges.
They are not presented here, however priorities have been reflected in Section 4.2 (Mitigation of
threatening processes). Similarly, management strategies and targets for the broader level threats
which affect species (e.g. climate change) are not presented here.
Conservation priorities
The conservation priorities for threatened species are to identify and implement recovery actions
(Table 4.39). This will include implementing actions detailed in existing recovery plans for species
present in the AMLR, and also the implementation of priority recovery actions developed through
Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species and Ecological Communities of Adelaide and the
Mount Lofty Ranges, which identifies priority species based on their regional threat level and other
related risk factors.
Increasing our understanding of trends in conservation status of species is also a priority, and
criteria to identify and evaluate trends in species that are threatened at a regional level should be
developed and implemented. This will allow a better assessment and monitoring of species that are
threatened or at risk within the AMLR.
Other important needs for improving recovery of threatened species involve improving our
management – particularly in regards to integrating and coordinating efforts (between
government, non-government and community groups) to better reflect regional priorities.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
92
Table 4.39 Conservation targets for threatened species
5yr
20yr
•
Actions in recovery plans for Southern Brown Bandicoots, MLR Southern Emu-wren
and MLR threatened orchids resourced and implemented, by 2015.
•
Implementation of actions in the regional multi-species recovery and threat
abatement plan (covering regional priority1 listed threatened flora and fauna
species and threatened ecological communities, and Nationally listed key
threatening processes) commenced, by 2015.
•
Regional rating framework and criteria to allow for robust and repeatable
assessment of trends in conservation status developed and implemented, by
2015.
•
No downward trend in conservation status occurring with a portion of species’
trends increasing (using assessment developed in action above) compared to
current situation, by 2030.
1 A prioritisation process to define priority species for conservation action in the AMLR has been
conducted. This process may exclude some legislatively listed threatened species that are present
in the AMLR, if implementing recovery actions for these species in the AMLR is not considered a
priority (e.g. species that are only occasionally present in the AMLR or where the core of a species
is located in another region).
Table 4.40 Nationally threatened fauna species of the AMLR
Category
Common name
Scientific name
Status in AMLR
Critically
Endangered
Spotted Quail-thrush
Cinclosoma
punctatum
anachoreta
Funct. Ext.
Orange-bellied Parrot
Neophema
chrysogaster
Extant
✓
Southern Brown
Bandicoot
Isoodon obesulus
obesulus
Extant
✓ draft, MLR
Burrowing Bettong
Bettongia lesueur
Extinct
✓ draft
Eastern Quoll
Dasyurus viverrinus
Extinct
Chestnut-rumped
Heathwren (MLR
subspecies)
Calamanthus
pyrrhopygius parkeri
Extant
✓ draft, MLR
Southern Emu-wren
(MLR subspecies)
Stipiturus malachurus
intermedius
Extant
✓ draft, MLR
Swift Parrot
Lathamus discolor
Funct. Ext.1
Regent Honeyeater
Xanthomyza phrygia
Funct. Ext.1
Endangered
Vulnerable
Recovery plan?
1
✓ draft,
Pygmy Bluetongue
Tiliqua adelaidensis
Extinct
Bilby
Macrotis lagotis
Extinct
Red-lored Whistler
Pachycephala
rufogularis
Extant
Malleefowl
Leipoa ocellata
Funct. Ext.1
✓
Plains-wanderer
Pedionomus torquatus
Funct. Ext.
✓ draft
Flinders Worm Lizard
Aprasia
pseudopulchella
Extant
Golden Bell Frog 3
Litoria raniformis
Not indigenous
✓ draft
4
1
✓ draft
Funct. Ext. denotes a species that is considered to be functionally extinct in the AMLR. This means
that the species now occurs only very infrequently in the AMLR and their ecological role in the
region has been lost.
2
(NC) indicates that a species is subject to taxonomic revision and the name reported here may be
non-current.
3
The Golden Bell Frog is not an indigenous species of the AMLR. It was introduced to the region.
4
Possibly a vagrant with extremely peripheral distribution in the AMLR.
1
93
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Table 4.41 Nationally threatened flora species of the AMLR
Category
Common name
Scientific name
Critically
Endangered
Hindmarsh Greenhood
Pterostylis bryophila
Blue Top Sun-orchid
Prasophyllum murfetii
Status
Recovery
plan?
✓
Thelymitra cyanapicata
Endangered
Vulnerable
Fat-leaf Wattle
Acacia pinguifolia
Mount Compass Oak-bush
Allocasuarina robusta
White Beauty Spider-orchid
Caladenia argocalla
✓
Pink-lip Spider-orchid
Caladenia behrii
✓
Coloured Spider-orchid
Caladenia colorata
✓ draft 3
Bayonet Spider-orchid
Caladenia gladiolata
✓
Stiff White Spider-orchid
Caladenia rigida
✓
Mount Compass Swamp
Gum
Eucalyptus paludicola
Mueller’s Eyebright1
Euphrasia collina ssp.
muelleri
Osborn’s Eyebright
Euphrasia collina ssp.
osbornii
✓
Monarto Mintbush
Prostanthera eurybioides
✓3
Hale Greenhood (NC)2
Pterostylis sp. Hale (R.Bates
21725)
Metallic Sun-orchid
Thelymitra epipactoides
✓3
Menzel’s Wattle
Acacia menzelii
✓3
Resin Wattle
Acacia rhetinocarpa
✓3
Winter Spider-orchid
Caladenia brumalis
Kangaroo Island Spiderorchid
Caladenia ovata
✓ draft 3
Hindmarsh Correa
Correa calycina var.
calycina
✓3
Finniss Helmet-orchid
Corybas dentatus
Clover Glycine
Glycine latrobeana
Bead Samphire
Halosarcia flabelliformis
Silver Daisy-bush
Olearia pannosa ssp.
pannosa
Pale Leek-orchid
Prasophyllum pallidum
Sandhill Greenhood
Pterostylis arenicola
Leafy Greenhood
Pterostylis cucullata
Large-fruit Groundsel
Senecio macrocarpus
Large-flower Groundsel
Senecio megaglossus
Butterfly Spyridium
Spyridium coactilifolium
Spiral Sun-orchid
Thelymitra matthewsii
✓
3
Hist.1
Hist.1
Coastal
✓ draft 3
✓ draft
✓3
✓3
✓
Hist.
✓ draft 3
Hist.1
✓3
1
1
Hist. indicates that a species has not been recorded in the AMLR since 1 January1984.
These species may no longer be present within the region.
2
(NC) indicates that a species is subject to taxonomic revision and the name reported here may be
non-current.
3
Species is included in National or regional Recovery Plans from outside AMLR region.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
94
Declining species
Many species in the AMLR are undergoing a continuing decline in distribution and/or abundance
but do not yet formally meet the criteria to be listed as threatened under the EPBC Act or NP&W Act.
Despite this, these declining species are considered a conservation priority because their decline
trajectory suggests that many of them will eventually become threatened with extinction.
Actions to halt and reverse
these declines should be
implemented as a priority
to prevent species from
becoming threatened.
Investment now is seen as a
cost-effective conservation
measure; acting now, rather
than neglecting species’
requirements until they have
declined to the extent of being
officially listed as endangered
or vulnerable, when resourceintensive recovery programs
Chestnut-rumped Thornbill – a declining bird species in the region
(Photo: Brian Furby)
are required. Furthermore,
identifying and managing the threatening processes contributing to the decline of numerous
species is likely to achieve multiple conservation outcomes, including even non-target species.
Finally, the formal process of listing species as threatened can be slow and difficult to
comprehensively review on a regular basis. Processes that rely on statutory lists for setting species
conservation priorities can be insensitive to ecological changes that are occurring.
Although species from many groups in the AMLR are likely to be declining (and possibly adding
to the ‘extinction debt’ in the future), birds are the only group for which a structured process has
been undertaken to identify declining species, and which has been used in the Regional Recovery
Plan for Threatened Species and Ecological Communities of Adelaide and the Mount Lofty Ranges
discussed above.
Declining birds of the Mount Lofty Ranges
A list of bird species considered to be declining in the AMLR has been developed using a
combination of approaches: by identifying species already listed under the EPBC Act and NP&W
Act, by using an expert panel of scientists and local ornithologists, and by using existing data for
birds in the AMLR to analyse temporal changes in reporting rates for species.
An initial list of 65 declining bird species was prepared. An analysis of the threats to these species
was undertaken, and recommendations were made for management and for improving our
knowledge base. These analyses and recommendations were in part incorporated into the AMLR
Regional Recovery Plan that has been prepared for the AMLR.
An ongoing regional monitoring program (The Mount Lofty Ranges Bird Survey) is underway by the
Nature Conservation Society of SA and the University of Queensland aiming to detect trends in
woodland birds in response to anticipated climate change, the extinction debt and to assist in the
planning of habitat restoration and rehabilitation.
Threats
The threatening processes responsible for the ongoing declines in non-threatened species are likely
to be contributing to the decline in threatened species. Including declining species in a regional
species-threat analysis is therefore likely to improve the outcomes of this process.
95
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Conservation priorities
The priority for declining species is to include them in planning for species conservation in the
region. Before this can occur, a process for evaluating regional trends in species distribution and
abundance and classifying species status as secure, declining or threatened should be developed
and implemented. This process should be integrated with State level assessments of species
conservation status.
The process undertaken to develop the declining bird list should be reviewed, and a similar approach
applied to other groups. The methodology for evaluating species status should be robust and
repeatable to enable species-specific and region-wide trends in status to be monitored and evaluated
(Table 4.42).
Table 4.42 Conservation targets for declining species
5yr
20yr
•
Develop and implement a repeatable process for evaluating regional trends in
species distribution and abundance to identify declines and classify the
conservation status of species, by 2015.
•
Include declining species for consideration in multi-species recovery plan
development and implementation, by 2015.
•
Identify connectivity-limited species (in fragmented landscapes) and identify
scale at which lack of connectivity occurs, by 2015.
•
No downward trend in conservation status occurring and some species’ trends
increasing (using assessment developed in action above) compared to current
situation, by 2030.
Endemic species
The AMLR contains many
species and sub-species that are
endemic to this region – that is,
they are not found anywhere
else in the world. Regional
extinction of any endemic
species represents global
extinction, therefore special
attention should be given to
ensuring that their conservation
requirements are addressed.
However, not all endemic
species or sub-species that occur
in the AMLR are considered
threatened (e.g. White-throated
Treecreeper).
Thelymitra cyanapicata – a regionally endemic orchid
(Photo: Joe Quarmby)
Endemic species of the AMLR
Some of the endemic species and sub-species in the AMLR are listed in Table 4.44.
Threats
The threatening processes applying to threatened species of the AMLR are likely to also apply to
endemic species. An analysis of threats applying to priority endemic species has been completed as
part of the multi-species recovery planning process for AMLR.
Conservation priorities
To ensure that the conservation requirements of endemic species are explicitly considered, priority
endemic species and sub-species of the AMLR have been included in the Regional Recovery Plan
for Threatened Species and Ecological Communities of Adelaide and the Mount Lofty Ranges (Table
4.43).
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
96
Table 4.43 Conservation targets for endemic species
5yr
Species endemic to AMLR included in multi-species recovery and threat abatement
plan, and implementation of recovery actions commenced, by 2015.
20yr
No currently non-threatened endemic species are listed under formal threatened
categories, by 2030.
The number of endemic species listed as threatened is reduced, compared to current
levels, by 2030.
Table 4.44 Significant endemic species of the AMLR1
Fauna
Common name
Scientific name
Status
Spotted Quail-thrush
Cinclosoma punctatum
anachoreta
Nat. CE
Chestnut-rumped Heathwren
(MLR subspecies)
Calamanthus pyrrhopygius
parkeri
Nat. E
Southern Emu-wren (MLR
subspecies)
Stipiturus malachurus
intermedius
Nat. E
Prasophyllum murfetii
Nat. CE
Mount Compass Oak-bush
Allocasuarina robusta
Nat. E
Pink-lip Spider-orchid
Caladenia behrii
Nat. E
Stiff White Spider-orchid
Caladenia rigida
Nat. E
Hindmarsh Correa
Correa calycina var. calycina
Nat. V
Finniss Helmet-orchid
Corybas dentatus
Nat. V
Butterfly Spyridium
Spyridium coactilifolium
Nat. V
Deep Creek Correa
Correa eburnean
Aldinga Dampiera
Dampiera lanceolata var.
intermedia
Mount Lofty Phebalium
Leionema hillebrandii
Mount Lofty Daisy-bush
Olearia grandiflora
Shade Tussock-grass
Poa umbricola
Plum Leek-orchid
Prasophyllum pruinosum
Hindmarsh Greenhood
Pterostylis bryophila
Mount Lofty Bush-pea
Pultenaea involucrata
Blue Top Sun-orchid
Thelymitra cyanapicata
Flora
1
97
Nat. CE
Nat. CE
This list is not exhaustive and is not intended to indicate all of the endemic species of the AMLR.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Abundant native species and native species in conflict
Some native species are more abundant or widespread than they used to be
The extensive modification of the AMLR has led to changes in the abundance and distribution of
native species, most notably with significant declines in a large number of species. However, some
native species in the AMLR have benefited from the extensive modification to the region.
The Little Corella – an abundant native species in the region
(Photo: Brian Furby)
Species that have been able
to adapt to changing land
use and habitat patterns have
become more abundant and/
or widespread than they were
prior to European settlement.
These species have often
become more dominant in
ecosystems, as other native
species have declined or
become extinct. Some native
species have been able to
access new or altered habitats
and expand their range. Some
species have adapted to the
resources provided by urban
habitats, and now live in close
proximity to humans.
The ability of some species to
use modified areas means that the biodiversity of the AMLR is not confined to remnants of native
vegetation. With the great reduction in the extent of pre-European vegetation in the region, and
the provision of new modified habitats, many native species now move across the landscape in
search of their habitat requirements.
Koalas, which are relatively abundant in the region, are considered to be introduced from Qld, NSW
and Vic prior to the 1940s (and subsequently used to seed a population in the Riverland). Koala
populations have greatly expanded in the AMLR to occupy much of the suitable habitat, and are
often reported in urban and peri-urban areas where they can come into conflict with dogs and
traffic.
Native species can be in conflict with other land uses
Native species, particularly those that are abundant, can cause unwanted detrimental economic,
social or environmental impacts, and can be regarded as pests. However, native species do not
have to be abundant to be regarded as pests. A native species can cause unwanted impacts even
if present only in low numbers. Native species that are in close proximity to humans and their land
uses can cause unwanted impacts, with wildlife found in urban and peri-urban areas particularly
likely to come into conflict with humans.
Abundant or impact-causing native species of AMLR
There are a number of native species in the AMLR that can cause unwanted detrimental impacts.
Notable species include mammals such as kangaroos, koalas and possums (Table 4.46), and
birds such as swooping birds, flocking birds and silver gulls (Table 4.47). Some of these species
are abundant, with impacts linked to localised congregations in large numbers; others are not
abundant yet can still cause unwanted impacts.
The unwanted impacts caused by native species in the AMLR vary in nature, and include
environmental damage (e.g. erosion of embankments and excessive grazing or browse pressure
on remnant vegetation or on revegetation projects), economic damage (e.g. grazing on crops
or pasture, damage to fences and houses), and social impacts (e.g. excessive noise, damage to
gardens and potential to generate health risks).
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
98
An integrated management approach that leads to a reduction in impacts
should be used
The best practice approach for managing the impacts of native species is to use an integrated
approach incorporating a variety of methods. Under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972, in
accordance with certain criteria, landholders can apply for a permit to destroy a specified number
of a native species that are causing detrimental impacts. While destruction may provide a solution
in some cases, in most cases it is likely that non-lethal techniques – such as exclusion netting, scare
guns, habitat modification or removal of certain resources – may be required in combination with
destruction; or that non-lethal methods will provide a solution without the need to destroy animals.
Often, long-term solutions are non-lethal.
Importantly, management approaches and actions need to be linked to ensure that the impacts of
a given species will be mitigated or minimised, rather than focussing on a reduction in the number
of the target species. It is also important to note that there may not always be a solution that
achieves the desired outcome and a greater acceptance of this by the community is required.
Community attitudes towards wildlife are important
Abundant species and impact-causing species are an important component of the region’s
biodiversity. Many of the impacts that they cause today are linked to changes that have been
brought about through human modification and settlement of the region.
The consequence of these changes is that humans and wildlife co-exist in modified habitats;
despite this close presence, people often have little appreciation or understanding of the native
species that are present in urban habitats and the habitat resources that these species require or
utilise. Increasing understanding of wildlife behaviour, the requirements of wildlife, and promoting
positive community attitudes and perceptions towards wildlife, are important components of
ensuring their effective management. A philosophy of ‘living with wildlife’ should be promoted and
adopted.
Conservation priorities
The conservation priorities for abundant species and native species in conflict in the AMLR include
the provision of a suite of management responses and actions that will lead to the mitigation of
unwanted impacts. This may require integration of current techniques, and/or the development of
new techniques and innovative solutions. Promoting pre-impact planning and early thinking about
when conflicts with native species may occur or arise is also important.
Our development and modification of the environment is responsible for advantaging species and
leading to their consequent unwanted impacts. Consequently, another priority is to develop and
incorporate a wildlife pre-impact planning approach into the development planning framework.
This will ensure that the development approval process requires identification of native species
that may be advantaged through specific developments and potential conflicts that may arise,
and that measures to avoid, mitigate and/or minimise the conflicts are implemented as the
development is undertaken (i.e. preventing impacts instead of implementing action to mitigate
impacts once the impacts have occurred).
Improving community perceptions and understanding of wildlife is also a priority; initially this will
involve benchmarking current community attitudes towards wildlife and their understanding of the
role of modified environments (e.g. urban areas) in providing habitat for native species.
Importantly, while providing management approaches that allow for impacts to be minimised,
management also needs to be conducted in a manner that does not compromise the viability of
populations of the species to ensure that they remain secure in the AMLR into the future (Table 4.45).
99
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Table 4.45 Conservation targets for abundant native species and native species-in-conflict
5yr
20yr
•
Decision-making frameworks incorporating integrated management of species
through lethal and non-lethal methods implemented, by 2015.
•
Community perceptions of wildlife benchmarked, by 2015.
•
Pre-impact planning approach1 for identifying potential native species impacts
and required mitigation measures developed, and integrated into development
planning framework, by 2015.
•
Management responses for emerging conflicts between kangaroos and
revegetation projects developed and implemented, by 2015.
•
Increased understanding of koala numbers, population trends and their impacts
on biodiversity, by 2015.
•
Increased research into the population ecology of key abundant native species
(e.g, Little Corellas) by 2015, to improve management decisions.
•
Community perceptions and attitudes towards ‘living with wildlife’ and impactcausing native species improved from current levels, by 2030.
•
Management frameworks for impact-causing species that lead to a reduction in
unwanted impacts implemented, by 2030.
•
No decline in conservation status of abundant or impact-causing species, in
2030.
Pre-impact wildlife planning for development should include a requirement for the development
approval process to identify native species that will potentially be advantaged through the
development and potential conflicts and impacts that may arise, and the requirement that
measures and management actions to avoid, mitigate and/or minimise the conflicts and impacts
are implemented as the development is undertaken.
1
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
100
Table 4.46 Notable abundant or impact-causing native species in the AMLR – Mammals
Species/species
group
Major impacts/
conflicts
Where?
Management responses
Western Grey
Kangaroos
Macropus
fuliginosus
Excessive grazing
pressure or trampling
of remnant
vegetation or on
revegetation
projects.
Northern and
central Mount
Lofty Ranges,
Fleurieu
Peninsula, periurban
environments.
A combination of non-lethal
methods, along with targeted
destruction in some situations, may
be required.
Suburbs of
Adelaide, periurban
environments,
central Mount
Lofty Ranges.
Management responses related to
increasing awareness of koala
behaviour, and preventing
impacts from occurring including:
placement of tree collars around
critical tree species to prevent
defoliation, and placement of
wildlife (koala) traffic signs at
hazardous sites where koalas have
been sighted.
Suburbs of
Adelaide, periurban
environments.
Management techniques detailed
in ‘Living with Possums strategy’,
including: increasing public
awareness of non-lethal methods
of possum management, use of
possum boxes as alternative
habitat, and preventing access
into roof spaces by blocking off
access points
Economic damage
to crops, pasture or
property.
Road/traffic risks.
Koalas1
Phascolarctos
cinereus
Potential for browse
pressure on remnant
vegetation.
Traffic disruptions.
Attacks by dogs.
Possums
Common
Brushtail Possum
Trichosurus
vulpecula
Social impacts
through use of
alternative shelters
for refuge (e.g. roof
spaces,) and
damage to
ornamental and fruit/
vegetable gardens
foraging for food.
Economic impacts
from repairs and
possum proofing of
house.
Non-lethal management
responses include: amending
revegetation planting design to
reduce edge effects, electric and/
or kangaroo proof exclusion
fencing, installation of swing gates
at well-used access points along
fencelines, and scaring regime
using lights, vehicles and noisegenerating devices to deter
kangaroos.
Where necessary, a permit can be
obtained to capture a possum in a
roof space and release the animal
back onto the same property.
The koala is considered not an indigenous species of the AMLR, being introduced to the region in
the 1930s and 1960s.
1
101
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Table 4.47 Notable abundant or impact-causing native species in the AMLR – Birds
Species/
species group
Major impacts/
conflicts
Where?
Management responses
Flocking
cockatoos
Economic damage
to crops and
property.
Willunga Basin
(particularly
Onkaparinga
area), Eastern
Flanks
(particularly
Strathalbyn area),
Fleurieu
Peninsula.
Develop and implement local
action plans for the management
of the impacts of the species,
including scaring techniques.
Adelaide plains
near-coastal
areas, where
food supplies are
available (e.g.
rubbish landfill
sites, waste
transfer stations,
food processing
factories,
populated
beaches) and
surrounding
areas.
Develop and implement local
action plans for the management
of the impacts of the species.
Economic damage
to orchards,
vineyards and
market gardens (e.g.
damage to fruit).
Northern
Adelaide Plains
and Adelaide
Hills.
Implement an integrated
management approach to
prevent and/or minimise impacts,
including: noise generating
devices, exclusion netting, and
ensuring crops are not planted
close to areas of remnant
vegetation that birds will use for
refuge. Destruction of a few
animals by shooting may also be
required to reduce impacts.
Grazing impacts on
improved pastures
and golf courses.
Adelaide Hills,
including
Clarendon,
Macclesfield and
Echunga areas.
Little Corella
Cacatua
sanguinea
Sulphur-crested
Cockatoo
Cacatua galerita
Galah
Cacatua
roseicapilla
Cumulative damage
to trees through
pruning behaviour
over many seasons.
Erosion of
embankments and
potential for
increased nutrient
loads in waterways.
Where necessary to reduce
impacts, a program to trap and
gas birds can be implemented
under a permit.
Research into population ecology.
Social impacts on
residents through
noisy roosting
behaviour, which
also has the potential
to generate heath
risks
Silver Gulls
Larus
novaehollandiae
Impacts related to
scavenging in large
numbers including
spread of disease
and contamination
of water storage
areas.
Potential bird strike at
airports.
Predation of the
eggs and chicks of
other species.
Orchard birds
Crimson
(Adelaide)
Rosella
Platycercus
elegans
adelaidae
Rainbow Lorikeet
Trichoglossus
haematodus
Musk Lorikeet
Glossopsitta
concinna
Australian
Wood Duck
Chenonetta
jubata
Social impacts from
fouling areas around
artificial lakes and
swimming pools.
Damage can be
of greater severity
during poor
environmental
conditions when
natural food
sources are in
short supply.
Implement integrated
management approach including
best practice principles for waste
management, public education to
encourage the public to refrain
from feeding wildlife and
potentially lethal methods (e.g.
egg oiling or egg pricking to curb
population increases).
Responses to prevent impacts,
including: planting crops away
from water bodies or planting a
screening strip of tall vegetation
around crops, noise-generating
devices and bird hides to minimise
duck presence, and exclusion of
ducks using overhead netting or
fishing line.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
102
4.1.4 Aquatic ecosystem conservation programs
How does this report address the needs of aquatic ecosystems?
This report provides a mechanism of dividing the AMLR region into ecologically meaningful management
units (landscapes and ecological communities) that assist in implementing priority conservation actions.
The planning and priority setting framework in this report is primarily based on terrestrial ecosystem
processes. Terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems interact and are exposed to many of the same
impacts. Consequently, the planning and priority setting presented in the previous sections (4.1.1,
4.1.2 and 4.1.3) is relevant to aquatic ecosystems. For example, the Riparian, Wetland and Sheltered
Tidal ecological communities form part of many of the aquatic ecosystems in the region. Also,
aquatic ecosystems can be found in many of the sub-regional landscapes.
However, the aquatic ecosystems of the AMLR may extend or link across landscapes (e.g. creeks
and rivers linking the higher elevation swamps with seasonal wetlands on the Adelaide plains
and estuaries on the coast). Also, some of the drivers of aquatic ecosystem type and condition
are different to those for terrestrial ecosystems. Therefore, the regional planning and priority
setting framework established in this report may not be entirely appropriate for identifying priority
conservation actions for aquatic ecosystems.
This report does not provide a planning and priority setting framework specific to aquatic
ecosystems as this is currently being developed through various collaborative national and state
projects. These and many other projects and programs currently underway at the national, state
and regional levels collectively aim to mitigate threats to aquatic ecosystems, and address some of
the root causes of these threats. This includes improving knowledge and documentation of aquatic
ecosystems, and facilitating better, more integrated management of aquatic ecosystems.
Many of these projects are not working in isolation and they aim to improve decision making across
jurisdictions on development impact assessment, what the priority conservation actions should be and
where, and provide a standard framework for monitoring and reporting on aquatic ecosystem condition.
This section summarises some of the key projects, plans and strategies that relate to aquatic
ecosystems. These initiatives will help users of the report to add to or refine the conservation priorities
and actions contained in the previous sections, which will enable better integration of terrestrial
and aquatic biodiversity management. Users of the report should seek further information on these
initiatives before conducting any works that may impact (positively or negatively) on aquatic
ecosystems. Further information on the initiatives listed in Appendix 1.2 and Appendix 1.3 can be
found by going to the website addresses provided in the tables.
Aquatic ecosystems consist of many different types
Using the definition of wetlands under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International
Importance, aquatic ecosystems comprise “…areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether
natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or
salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres”.
Using the classification system in the Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia, aquatic
ecosystems can be divided into three broad categories:
• Marine and coastal zone ecosystems (includes estuaries, and inter-tidal mangrove and
saltmarsh areas)
• Inland ecosystems (includes watercourses and swamps)
• Human-made aquatic environments (reservoirs, dams, salt pans, and wetlands or ponds that
manage stormwater and wastewater)
Aquatic ecosystems in the planning region include examples of all three categories. Scattered
throughout the region are many human-made wetlands (such as reservoirs, dams, wastewater/
stormwater treatment ponds and salt pans), seasonal and permanent watercourses, seasonal
and permanent freshwater lakes, swamps, mudflats and mangroves, estuaries and near-shore
environments including seagrass meadows and tidal systems.
103
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Aquatic ecosystems are important biodiversity assets
The large number and high diversity of aquatic ecosystem types in the AMLR is an indication of the
important biodiversity value of aquatic ecosystems. Aquatic ecosystems provide a range of ecosystem
and other services, including services that fulfil important economic, social and cultural needs.
The range of services provided by inland aquatic systems includes:
Ecosystem services
• Recycling nutrients and maintaining water quality
• Supporting biodiversity (providing refuge habitat, food and water, and facilitating the movement
of species across the landscape)
• Supporting vital ecological processes such as breeding requirements and important cues for
different life stages of flora and fauna
• Providing breeding and nursery areas for commercial and recreational fisheries
• Important feeding and breeding areas for resident and migratory shorebirds
Economic, social and cultural services
• Providing water for human consumption
• Providing water and nutrients for agricultural production and industries
• Supporting sites for urban development and industries such as boat building, power stations
and salt production
• Outlets for waste water and stormwater
• Providing important shipping channels and commercial harbours
• Stormwater and flood control
• Storm protection
• Supporting cultural heritage, tourism, lifestyle pursuits
Aquatic ecosystems also support many national, state and regionally threatened flora and fauna
species and communities, including:
• Bead Samphire (Halosarcia flabelliformis) - Nationally Vulnerable (EPBC Act 1999). Found on
Garden Island in Barker Inlet and in Port Gawler Conservation Park.
• Several flora species identified as regionally threatened in the AMLR Regional Recovery Plan that
are associated with the Wetland ecological community group (most of these species also have
a State or national rating). For example, Hibbertia tenuis (State and regionally Endangered), and
the AMLR endemic orchid species Thelymitra cyanapicata and Prasophyllum murfetti (both nationally
Critically Endangered, State and regionally Endangered). Note: the AMLR Regional Recovery
Plan identified the Wetland ecological community group as supporting the highest proportion of
threatened flora species in the AMLR region compared with any other broad vegetation groups.
• Golden Haired Sedge-skipper Butterfly (Hesperilla chrysotricha). One of the rarer butterflies in
the Adelaide Hills, now confined to a few swampy areas in the southern Fleurieu Peninsula (its
habitat is the regionally threatened Saw-sedge sedgeland).
• Several fish species classified as regionally threatened in the AMLR Regional Recovery Plan
including the regionally Endangered Southern Pygmy Perch (Nannoperca obscura) and River
Blackfish (Gadopsis marmoratus).
• The MLR sub-species of the Southern Emu-wren (Stipiturus malachurus intermedius) - Nationally
Endangered (EPBC Act 1999).
• Swamps of the Fleurieu Peninsula – Nationally Critically Endangered (EPBC Act 1999).
• Regionally threatened ecological communities: Swamp Gum over wet heath, Silky Tea-Tree
shrubland, Manna Gum +/- Candlebark riparian woodland and Saw-sedge sedgeland.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
104
There are 16 aquatic ecosystems listed as nationally significant in the Directory of Important
Wetlands in Australia, including four estuaries (see Table 4.48).
Many aquatic ecosystems are important feeding and breeding sites for internationally and
nationally significant migratory and threatened bird species (including EPBC Act listed species
and bird species listed under the CAMBA, JAMBA and ROKAMBA international migratory bird
agreements that seek to conserve migratory birds of the East Asia-Australasian Flyway). Coastal
areas are particularly important for migratory birds with key areas including Port Gawler
Conservation Park, Port River/Barker Inlet area, Onkaparinga River estuary (included in the
Port Noarlunga Reef Aquatic Reserve) and the Penrice Saltfields. The saltfields qualifies as an
internationally important site as part of the East Asia-Australasian Flyway network.
Also, the Barker Inlet – St Kilda area is nationally considered to be a good example of temperate
mangrove and saltmarsh communities, and is the largest area of mangroves in the Gulf. The St KildaChapman Creek and Barker Inlet Aquatic Reserves include these mangrove areas. The proximity of
this mangrove stand to Adelaide is considered to be an important feature, there being few other
similar stands in or near any major city in Australia.
Table 4.48 Nationally significant aquatic ecosystems in the AMLR as listed in the Directory of
Important Wetlands in Australia
Name (DIWA)1
Estuary
Ambersun - West Swamp
Barker Inlet & St Kilda
Fleurieu
Y
Northern Coastline
Cleland Perched Swamps
Central Lofty Ranges
Clinton
Northern Coastline
Congeratinga Swamp
Southern Fleurieu
The Coorong, Lake Alexandrina & Lake
Albert (peripheral to region only)
Eastern Plains & Barossa and Eastern Hills
Engelbrook Reserve
Central Lofty Ranges
Gold Diggings Swamp
Southern Fleurieu
Illawong Swamp
Southern Fleurieu
Maylands Swamp
Southern Fleurieu
Onkaparinga Estuary
Y
Southern Coastline & Willunga Basin
Port Gawler & Buckland Park Lake
Y
Northern Coastline
Stipiturus Conservation Park (Glenshera
Swamp)
Fleurieu
Tookayerta & Finniss Catchments
Fleurieu
Upper Boat Harbour Creek Wetlands
Southern Fleurieu
Washpool Lagoon
1
2
105
Landscape2
Y
Southern Coastline
Name given in the Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia
The landscapes as defined in this report
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Many aquatic ecosystems in the AMLR are in poor condition and are under threat
The aquatic ecosystems of the AMLR have been extensively modified over time to support human
settlement, economic development and to provide recreational opportunities.
The remaining extent of the vegetation communities associated with aquatic ecosystems is an
indication of the degree of impact on these systems. As stated in Part 2 the percentage clearance
of Inland Riparian, Wetland and Sheltered Tidal communities is 85%, 76% and 79% respectively.
Aquatic ecosystems have not only been modified by direct destruction and vegetation clearance,
but also impacts to the surface and groundwater resources that sustain them. Surface and ground
water catchments of the Mount Lofty Ranges contain significant watershed areas that provide
metropolitan Adelaide and peri-urban areas with domestic water supplies. Apart from the domestic
use of water, surface waters and groundwater sustain critical aquatic ecosystems that maintain
biodiversity within the Mount Lofty Ranges. These two aspects are intrinsically linked, the quality of
our domestic and agricultural water supplies depends on the health of aquatic ecosystems.
The few remaining aquatic ecosystems of the AMLR are subject to many threats and associated
impacts. These include:
• Direct destruction of wetlands (through clearance and drainage of wetlands to create new or
expand existing developments, or over-grazing of wetlands and fringing areas)
• Changes to water regimes including the volume, frequency, timing, duration and velocity
of flows (for example, through a change in land use such as intensive plantation forestry,
channelisation of waterways, and regulation and over-use of surface waters and groundwater)
• Declines in water quality (as a result of seepage from septic treatment systems, activities that
destabilise soils and exacerbate erosion, through inappropriate land-use practices that increase
salinity, or from high chemical and nutrient-laden runoff from urban, industrial and rural areas)
• Introduced plant and animal species (such as Weeping Willows, introduced grasses and pines,
introduced predators of native fish, e.g. Mosquito fish, Gambusia holbrookii, sheep and cattle).
Introduced species can reduce the amount of water available for native species, decrease
water quality, increase erosion and movement of sediment downstream, increase nutrient loads,
remove vegetation and contribute to losses of fauna such as fish, birds and invertebrates)
• Recreational activities (such as power boating, four-wheel driving, trail bike riding, camping and
fishing)
• Potential impacts of climate change and other severe climatic/weather events (such as sea
level rise and storm damage)
Aquatic ecosystem conservation and management involves many different land
tenures
Aquatic ecosystems, their supporting processes and threats extend over a wide variety of land
tenures including conservation parks, Heritage Agreements, marine parks, Aquatic Reserves (under
the Fisheries Management Act 2007), SA Water Land, Council reserves and private urban and rural
properties. Consequently, effective conservation and management of aquatic ecosystems will
require significant co-ordination of actions across all sectors of the community.
Regional conservation and management strategies and targets
The projects and programs listed in Appendix 1.2 and Appendix 1.3 will fill important knowledge
gaps and provide information and tools that will lead to more effective and integrated conservation
and management of aquatic ecosystems. The following table (Table 4.49) presents a brief summary
of some of the key knowledge and information gaps that are being addressed by the projects and
programs listed in the Appendices.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
106
Table 4.49 Summary of key information gaps that are being addressed to guide
regional management
National
level
State level
Regional
level
•
Development of a national list of high conservation value aquatic ecosystems
based on a set of tested, nationally consistent and agreed criteria (to assist in
identifying priority aquatic ecosystems)
•
Development of a set of nationally consistent and agreed aquatic bioregions
and an aquatic ecosystem type classification system to facilitate national, state
and regional reporting on aquatic ecosystem condition reporting that is
comparable across bioregions and jurisdictions
•
Mapping of aquatic ecosystem boundaries, and gathering and collation of
baseline information on aquatic ecosystems
•
Development of databases and mapping tools that can be accessed by
governments industries and the community, potentially through one access point
•
Development of conceptual models to identify aquatic ecosystem condition
indicators through capturing best current knowledge of ecosystem functions and
processes
•
Improved monitoring and understanding of shorebird populations, their habitats
and threats to improve development impact assessment and decision making
•
Improved understanding of the environmental water requirements of streams
and wetlands in the eastern and western Mount Lofty Ranges
Most of the work highlighted in the above table is work that is being done at a broader scale than
the AMLR. Nevertheless, it is important that regional managers use the results of this work as it is
designed to facilitate cross-regional and cross-jurisdictional conservation and management of
aquatic ecosystems. Also, the outcomes of this work will assist in determining regional investment
priorities and it is likely that they will be used to guide future national and State investment decisions.
Table 4.50 below lists key regional strategies and targets to guide regional conservation and
management of aquatic ecosystems in the next five years. Please refer to sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and
4.1.3 for other more specific targets that relate to aquatic ecosystems. Also, section 4.2 proposes
strategies to manage priority threats and threatening processes affecting both terrestrial and
aquatic biodiversity.
107
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Table 4.50 Key strategies and targets to guide aquatic ecosystem (AE) management
in the AMLR region
Increase understanding of aquatic ecosystems (to develop best practice management)
•
Fund additional research projects to fill gaps in aquatic ecosystem inventories and mapping by
2015, including work to improve the consistency of scale of current aquatic ecosystem
mapping in the AMLR through the SA AE GIS layer project (see Appendix 1.3) by 2015.
•
DEH and the AMLR and SA MDB NRM Boards to continue to work with DWLBC1 to develop
conceptual understandings of AE type processes and identify ecosystem threat and condition
indicators to develop best practice monitoring and management actions by 2015.
•
Fund on-ground trials of the conceptual models and the threat and condition indicators being
developed as part of the State-wide SA AE Program (see Appendix 1.3) by 2015.
•
Fund projects (including on-ground testing of existing models) to refine knowledge of the
environmental water requirements of aquatic ecosystems in the AMLR by 2015.
Improve data management
•
Link project databases and mapping into State information systems by 2015 (such as the
DWLBC Natural Resources Information Management System (NRIMS) and the DEH Biological
Data Project), to ensure that information is coordinated.
•
All documentation of aquatic ecosystem management and research is linked to State and
National aquatic ecosystem bioregionalistion and type classification systems by 2015 (to
achieve more efficient and integrated management of aquatic ecosystems and increase
funding opportunities). This target has links with adaptive management target below.
Adopt integrated and adaptive management processes
•
By 2015, State government, regional NRM Boards, local Councils, and other local and regional
managers adopt an adaptive management approach (on-going monitoring, reporting and
reviewing of management actions) using a framework that captures conceptual
understandings of ecosystem function and processes, against which management
interventions can be evaluated. Monitoring and reporting should use state and nationally
agreed standards and indicators to enable comparisons across regional, state and national
scales (refer to the framework developed as part of the SA AE Program (see Appendix 1.3).
Incorporate aquatic ecosystem requirements into development planning and assessment
•
The best available information on aquatic ecosystems is used in development planning and
impact assessment by 2015, including a mechanism to incorporate new information into
decision making as it becomes available
Improve community education and awareness
•
By 2015, fund additional education programs to increase understanding of aquatic ecosystem
biodiversity, requirements and threats, and to encourage adoption of appropriate
management actions
DEH = SA Department for Environment and Heritage, AMLR & SA MDB NRM Boards = Adelaide and
Mount Lofty Ranges & SA Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Boards, DWLBC =
SA Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation
1
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
108
4.2 Mitigation of threatening processes
Threatening processes are environmental factors, or practices, that threaten or could threaten the
survival or evolutionary development of species, populations, ecological communities or ecosystems.
Nationally important ‘key threatening processes’
Under the EPBC Act a threatening process is defined as a Key Threatening Process (KTP) if it
threatens or may threaten the survival, abundance or evolutionary development of a native species
or ecological community. There are 17 KTPs listed under the EPBC Act, nine of which are considered
relevant to the AMLR Region (excluding marine processes):
• Competition and land degradation by feral goats*
• Competition and land degradation by feral rabbits*
• Dieback caused by the root-rot fungus (Phytophthora cinnamomi)*
• Infection of amphibians with chytrid fungus resulting in chytridomycosis*
• Land clearance
• Loss of climatic habitat caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases
• Predation by feral cats*
• Predation by the European red fox*, and
• Psittacine circoviral (beak and feather) disease affecting endangered psittacine species*.
KTPs marked with an asterisk have an approved or draft National Threat Abatement Plan (TAP).
Once a threatening process is listed under the EPBC Act, a TAP can be put into place if it is shown to
be ‘a feasible, effective and efficient way’ to abate the threatening process.
AMLR threatening
processes
Fire can be both a threat to biodiversity and a valuable
management tool (Photo: Ian Tanner)
Table 4.51 below categories
the primary threats and
threatening processes
affecting the biodiversity
of the region. Note that
more detailed descriptions
of threats can be found in
the AMLR Regional NRM
Plan, and the Regional
Recovery Plan for
Threatened Species &
Ecological Communities of
Adelaide and Mount Lofty
Ranges 2009-2014.
In describing the threats for the region, a distinction between ‘current direct threats’ and
‘ecological stresses’ have been made. The categories of current direct threats in Table 4.51 below
combine and interact to cause a number of ecological stresses at multiple levels – ecosystem,
community and species. Threat abatement at the site scale is usually aimed at managing current
direct threats while habitat revegetation, restoration or reconstruction activities are often aimed
at managing ecological stresses (though they often may also involve on-going threat abatement
activities such as weed control). Ecological stresses include:
109
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
• Habitat fragmentation
• Edge effects, spatial and temporal provision of resources
• Ecosystem conversion, habitat loss and modification
• Ecosystem degradation
• Altered fire regimes
• Altered hydrological regimes
• Fragmentation of existing habitat (isolation of populations)
• Barriers to dispersal
• Reduced reproduction/ recruitment
• Edge effects
• Distance effects (isolation)
• Species mortality
• Road mortality
• Species disturbance
• Indirect species effects (e.g. inbreeding, loss of pollinator or host, increased competition)
To inform restoration priorities and strategies, further research and planning is required to determine
important ecological stresses particularly for threatened fauna species.
Grass-trees killed
by Phytophthora
(Photo: Kirstin Long)
Cattle grazing in wetland vegetation
(Photo: Joe Quarmby)
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
110
Table 4.51 Categories of direct threats impacting biodiversity in AMLR
Agriculture
Threats from grazing and agricultural expansion, intensification (e.g. hobby farms), and change in
agricultural land use.
Biological Resource Use
Threats from consumptive use (illegal and legal) of biological resources including both deliberate
and unintentional harvesting effects; also persecution or control of specific species. Specific threats
include: firewood harvest; rock removal; fishing; harvesting of aquatic resources; and hunting and
collection of wildlife.
Climate Change, Drought & Severe Weather
Threats from long-term climatic changes which may be linked to global warming and other severe
climatic/weather events that are outside of the natural range of variation, and which can
potentially cause local extinctions of vulnerable species or habitat.
Energy Production & Mining
Threats from production and harvesting of non-biological resources, e.g. mining of rock, sand and
production of salt.
Human Intrusions & Disturbance
Threats from human activities that alter, destroy and disturb habitats and species associated with
non-consumptive uses of biological resources, such as recreational activities and associated site
disturbance.
Invasive & Other Problematic Species & Genes
Threats from introduced and native plants, animals, pathogens/microbes, or genetic materials that
have or are predicted to have harmful effects on biodiversity (e.g. through predation, competition,
destruction or disease) following their introduction, spread and/or increase in abundance. Specific
concerns include: a range of weed species, Phytophthora, honey bees, foxes, uncontrolled and
feral cats, feral goats and deer, problematic native species (e.g. overabundant kangaroos),
introduced birds, introduced fish, uncontrolled dogs, genetic contamination, hybridisation and
genetically modified organisms.
Natural System Modifications
Threats from actions that convert or degrade habitat in service of “managing” natural or seminatural systems, often to improve human welfare. This includes fire management activities,
inappropriate fire regimes, inappropriate site management, and water management and use (e.g.
water regulation, diversion and extraction affecting flow and water quality).
Pollution & Poisoning
Threats from the introduction of exotic and/or excess materials such as chemicals, solid rubbish or
energy, from point and non-point sources.
Residential & Commercial Development
Threats from human settlements or other non-agricultural land uses with a substantial footprint.
Transportation & Service Corridors
Threats associated with the construction, use and maintenance of road, rail and utility services,
including vehicle related wildlife mortality.
Vegetation Clearance
Although vegetation clearance is primarily an historical threat in the region, nevertheless
incremental legal and illegal clearance continues (often caused by threats described above, such
as residential development).
111
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Priority threats in the AMLR region
Targets for priority threats and threatening processes affecting terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems
are proposed in Table 4.52. Threat mitigation strategies and targets which have been devised for
threats are presented under the following priority themes:
• Land use pressure
• Total grazing pressure
• Invasive species
• Drought and climate change
• Inappropriate fire regimes
Table 4.52 Key strategies and targets to guide threat abatement in the AMLR region
Reduce the impact of land use pressure
•
Provide improved and targeted information from biodiversity planning processes to agencies
responsible for regional planning and development, and ensure incorporation of information,
by 2015
•
Develop collaborative links to incorporate biodiversity planning results into DEH’s Protected
Areas on Private Land planning project, by 2015
•
Ensure collaboration and active contribution to Water Allocation Planning by key stakeholders
involved in biodiversity planning to ensure sustainable use of water resources and improvement
in hydrological regimes , by 2015
•
Develop collaborative links between agencies to ensure the provision of up to date information
on regional biodiversity conservation priorities to improve decision-making processes for legal
clearance matters, by 2015.
Reduce the impact of total grazing pressure
•
Strengthen collaboration between AMLR regional NRM Boards, DEH Abundant Species Unit
and regional biodiversity managers, and research institutions to review and improve total
grazing pressure management, by 2015
•
Develop best practice grazing guidelines aiming to enhance native biodiversity whilst
undertaking grazing as a livelihood, by 2015
•
Increase regional-based monitoring and research on grazing impacts caused by excessive
kangaroo populations to inform appropriate management options, by 2015
•
Develop and implement a duty of care as defined in the Natural Resources Management Act
2004, for all land managers based on performance indicators to manage excessive total
grazing pressure, by 2030.
Reduce the impact of invasive species
•
Implement invasive species related actions from the State Biosecurity Strategy, NRM Plans
and other invasive species plans that are relevant to the AMLR region, by 2015
•
Target invasive species management in areas according to the management principles and
results of this report, by 2015
•
Ensure invasive species management is coordinated across tenure and properties to maximise
effectiveness, by 2015
•
Conduct a review and comprehensive threat analysis to better determine the significance of
predation impacts on fauna biodiversity, by 2015
•
Determine feasibility and develop biodiversity-based performance indicators for pest
management activities where biodiversity outcomes are sought, by 2015
•
Implement improved hygiene control measures to prevent new infestations of weeds in
conservation areas, by 2015.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
112
•
Improve education and capacity for landholders, contractors and land management
agencies to implement best practice according to the Phytophthora Management Guidelines
(2006), by 2015.
•
Increase targeted educational programs and strengthen local government by-laws regarding
responsible cat and dog ownership, by 2015.
•
Support research into the ecology and management of priority invasive species threats
(such as feral cats, foxes, rabbits, Phytophthora and Weeds of National Significance), by 2015.
Reduce the impact of drought and climate change
•
Conduct risk analyses for priority threatened communities and species in conjunction with
predictive modelling of projected climate change impacts for the region, by 2015.
•
Incorporate results of further climate change research and knowledge into the next review of
this strategy, by 2020.
•
Incorporate priorities from this report into the development of the Cape Borda to Barossa
NatureLinks Plan, and integrate appropriate NatureLinks planning processes into the next
review of this report, by 2020.
Reducing the impact of inappropriate fire regimes
113
•
Determine priority regional-specific fire ecology knowledge gaps and initiate an adaptive
management program to address gaps, by 2015.
•
Strengthen collaboration between DEH Fire Management Branch, DEH regional managers,
other land managers, research organisations and CFS to review and improve fire management
practices, by 2015.
•
Improve systems for assessing the positive and negative cumulative impacts of prescribed
burning on biodiversity, through an adaptive management framework, by 2015.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
PART 5
Stakeholders
Effective partnerships and community engagement are important for increasing understanding and
awareness of biodiversity, sharing and improving knowledge on appropriate management actions
and carrying out those management actions in an adaptive, integrated manner with limited
resources. It is essential that successful partnerships are formed to achieve a balance between
biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of natural resources.
The biodiversity conservation strategies and targets proposed in this report span large spatial and
temporal scales. Achieving effective biodiversity conservation across these scales will require
substantial collaboration between all levels of government, non-government organisations, industry,
scientists, indigenous peoples and community groups.
The AMLR NRM Board, and the SA Murray Darling Basin NRM Board will provide a key mechanism for
delivery of biodiversity outcomes. However, as the region is the most densely populated in the State,
there are ongoing challenges to fully coordinate the diversity of government agencies, local community
groups, NGOs and other agencies involved with biodiversity management within the region.
Table 5.1 and Table 5.2 below highlight the diversity of stakeholders involved in the region and the
large number of land management administrative areas encompassed by the region. For example,
there are more than 40 Friends of Parks groups with DEH’s Adelaide Region. Similarly, there are 28
local government areas either wholly or partially encompassed by the region. The tables below do
not include the numerous private landholders who manage native vegetation for conservation.
Table 5.1 Summary of organisations involved in conservation management
National
Australian Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts
State
Department for Environment and Heritage
Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation
Department of Transport Energy and Infrastructure
Forestry SA
Primary Industries and Resources South Australia
Country Fire Service
SA Water
Non-government Environmental and allied Organisations
Conservation Council of SA
Field Naturalists’ Society
Greening Australia SA Inc
Native Orchid Society of South Australia
Nature Conservation Society of SA
Nature Foundation SA Inc
SA Native Fish Association
South Australian Farmers Federation
Threatened Plant Action Group
Threatened Species Network
Trees for Life
Weed Management Society SA
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
114
Regional
Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resource Management Board
AMLR NRM Sub groups (see below)
Various environmental community groups, e.g. Landcare Groups, Catchment Groups, Local Action
Planning Groups, Friends of Parks
Adjoining regions
South Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural Resource Management (NRM) Board
Northern and Yorke NRM Board
South East NRM Board
DEH Murraylands and South-East Regions
Regionally relevant Conservation/Recovery Programs and staff
Mount Lofty Ranges Southern Emu-wren and Fleurieu Peninsula Swamps Recovery Program
Threatened Fauna Ecologist (Heathy Ecosystems) (Adelaide Region DEH)
Southern Emu-wren/Fleurieu Peninsula Swamps Recovery Program
Murraylands Threatened Species Project
OBP Survey Co-ordinator
Threatened Flora Ecologist (Adelaide Region DEH)
Hindmarsh Tiers Biodiversity Group
Program Leader & MDBC Native Fish Strategy Coordinator PIRSA
South Para Biodiversity Project
Urban Forest Biodiversity Program/ Million Trees Program
Ecologist, River Murray Corridor Fauna
Ecologist, Threatened Mallee Birds
SA Water, Manager, Policy & Planning
Forestry SA, Conservation & Recreation Planning Unit
Local Government (see below for full list)
Indigenous Groups
Four Nations Governance Group (Kaurna, Ngarrindjeri, Ngadjuri, Peramangk and Nganguraku)
Research Institutions
CSIRO
University of Adelaide, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences
Flinders University, School of Biological Sciences
University of South Australia, School of Natural and Built Environments
115
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Table 5.2 Summary of land management agency administrative areas
Land Management Agency
Area
AMLR NRM Board
Southern Group
Whole
Fleurieu Group
Whole
Central Group
Whole
Northern Group
Whole
SA MDB NRM Board
Ranges to River Group
Partial
DEH
Adelaide Region (Southern Lofty District)
Whole
Adelaide Region (Fleurieu District)
Whole
Adelaide Region (Northern Lofty District)
Majority
Murraylands Region (Mallee District)
Partial
Murraylands Region(Riverland District)
Partial
South-East Region (Coorong District)
Partial
Urban Forests Biodiversity Program
Whole
Forestry SA
Mount Lofty Ranges Region
Majority
SA Water
Local Government Area
Adelaide City Council
Whole
Adelaide Hills Council
Whole
Alexandrina Council
Partial
Campbelltown City Council
Whole
City of Burnside
Whole
City of Charles Sturt
Whole
City of Holdfast Bay
Whole
City of Marion
Whole
City of Mitcham
Whole
City of Onkaparinga
Whole
City of Playford
Whole
City of Port Adelaide Enfield
Whole
City of Salisbury
Whole
City of Tea Tree Gully
Whole
City of Unley
Whole
City of Victor Harbor
Whole
City of West Torrens
Whole
Light Regional Council
Partial
Mid Murray Council
Partial
The Barossa Council
Majority
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
116
117
The City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters
Whole
The City of Prospect
Whole
The Corporation Of The Town of Walkerville
Whole
WholeThe District Council of Mallala
Partial
The District Council of Mount Barker
Whole
The District Council of Yankalilla
Whole
The Rural City of Murray Bridge
Partial
Town of Gawler
Whole
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
PART 6
Improving planning
integration, application
and knowledge
This section contains broad management strategies to address a wide range of issues relating
to planning integration, and thus implementation of on-ground activities (across landscapes,
communities and species). Due to the plethora of biodiversity-related management strategies
and plans currently administered at a variety of levels by various agencies (over various land
tenures), this section does not intend to be a fully comprehensive coverage of issues that affect
the management of biodiversity, rather only priority issues relevant to the AMLR region that would
influence the implementation of this report have been incorporated (Table 6.1). In particular, many
partnership, community engagement and education issues are achieved through broader
planning process, e.g. through DEH’s NatureLinks and No Species Loss.
Table 6.1 Strategies and targets – Improving planning integration, application and knowledge
Improve integration and application of biodiversity conservation planning in the region
•
Dedicate resources to coordinate implementation of the strategies contained in this report,
by 2011.
•
Implement ongoing review of the analyses in this report and integrate with other biodiversity
planning processes occurring in the region, by 2011.
•
Develop a dynamic framework to aid implementation (and to facilitate ongoing analysis
updates and performance reporting), by 2015.
•
Develop an implementation framework to align management priorities and target-setting
between all key government and non-government organisations, by 2011.
•
Undertake additional sub-regional (landscape) scale analyses to better define spatial priorities
areas to inform on-ground management, by 2011.
•
Review and update the approach and analyses undertaken in this report, by 2015.
Inform development planning and assessment decision-making processes
•
Prepare a ‘how to use’ education package to assist users of this report, by 2011.
•
Promote adoption and ownership of the report by key statutory agencies and other bodies,
by 2011.
Inform development planning and assessment decision-making processes
•
Promote adoption and ownership of the strategy by key statutory agencies and other bodies,
by 2011.
•
Conduct supplementary analysis and planning to define guidelines to improve biodiversity
considerations in development planning, by 2011.
•
Conduct supplementary analysis and planning to define guidelines to improve biodiversity
considerations in development planning, by 2011.
Improve biological data and base-line knowledge
•
Support regional projects developing ‘biodiversity baselines’ and vegetation condition targets,
by 2011.
•
Implement key knowledge gap actions in the Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species
and Ecological Communities of AMLR, by 2015.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
118
PART 7
References and
further reading
Part 1
Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board (2008). Creating A
Sustainable Future. An Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for the Adelaide and Mount
Lofty Ranges Region. Volume A - State of the Region Report. Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges
Natural Resources Management Board, Adelaide.
Armstrong, D. M., Croft, S. N. and Foulkes, J. N. (2003). A Biological Survey of the Southern Mount
Lofty Ranges, South Australia, 2000-2001. Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia.
Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (1996). The National Strategy
for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity. Department of the Environment, Sport and
Territories, Canberra.
Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (2001). Review of the National
Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity. Environment Australia, Canberra.
Cale, B. (2005). Towards a Recovery Plan for the Declining Birds of the Mount Lofty Ranges. Scientific
Resource Document for Birds for Biodiversity. Unpublished Report.
Crocker, R. L. and Wood, J. G. (1947). Some historical influences of the development of the South
Australian Vegetation Communities and their bearing on concepts and classification in ecology.
Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 71 (1): 91-136.
CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems. Ecosystem Services. Available from http://www.cse.csiro.au/
research/ecosystemservices.htm.
Department for Environment and Heritage (2005). Provisional List of Threatened Ecosystems of South
Australia (unpublished and provisional). Updated 2005.
Department for Environment and Heritage (2007). No Species Loss. A Nature Conservation Strategy
for South Australia 2007–2017. Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia (Available
from: http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/biodiversity/pub.html).
Department for Environment and Heritage (2008). Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Regional
Biodiversity Strategy Project Database. Unpublished data extracted and edited from departmental
data sources.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. About the EPBC Act. Available from
http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/about/index.html (accessed March 2009).
Department of Planning and Local Government. Planning the Adelaide we all want. Progressing
the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide. Draft for consultation. July, 2009.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Biodiversity Hotspots. Department of
the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. Available from http://www.environment.
gov.au/biodiversity/hotspots/index.html.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Threatened Ecological Communities
Under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Available from
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities.html.
Environment Australia (2001). A Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia. Third Edition.
Environment Australia. Canberra (Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/water/
publications/environmental/wetlands/directory.html).
Government of South Australia (2007). South Australia’s Strategic Plan. (Available from:
http://www.stateplan.sa.gov.au/).
119
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Green, P. S. (1994). Vegetation Ecology of the Central Mount Lofty Ranges. Department of Botany,
The University of Adelaide, Adelaide.
Hyde, M. K. (1995). The Temperate Grasslands of South Australia: their composition and conservation
status. Australian Heritage Commission.
Hyde, M. K. (1996). Eucalyptus odorata Woodland in South Australia. Report to Australian Heritage
Commission., Canberra.
Lange, R. T. (1976). Vegetation. Page 189. In: C. R. Twidale, M. J. Tyler, and B. P. Webb, eds. Natural
History of the Adelaide Region. Royal Society of South Australia, Inc., Adelaide.
Laut, P., Heyligers, P. C., Keig, G., E.Loffler, C.Margules, Scott, R. M. and Sullivan, M. E. (1977).
Environments of South Australia: Province 3: Mt. Lofty Block. Division of Land Use Research, CSIRO,
Canberra.
Oke, R. (1997). Conserving Adelaide’s biodiversity: a planned approach. Department for
Environment and Heritage, Adelaide, Australia.
PMSEIC (2002). Sustaining Our Natural Systems and Biodiversity. Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering
and Innovation Council.
South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board (2008). Regional NRM
Plan Volumes 1-4. Draft for Consultation. South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources
Management Board, south Australia.
Specht, R. L. (1972). The Vegetation of South Australia. 2nd. Government Printer: Adelaide.
Turner, M. S. (2001). Conserving Adelaide’s Biodiversity: Resources. Urban Forest Biodiversity Program,
Adelaide.
Twidale, C. R., Tyler, M. J. and Webb, B. P., eds. (1976). Natural History of the Adelaide Region. Royal
Society of South Australia Inc., Adelaide.
Tyler, M. J., Gross, G. F., Rix, C. E. and Inns, R. W. (1976). Terrestrial fauna and aquatic invertebrates.
Pages 121-129. In: C. R. Twidale, M. J. Tyler, and B. P. Webb, eds. Natural History of the Adelaide
Region. Royal Society of South Australia Inc., Adelaide.
Wallace, H. R., ed. (1986). The Ecology of the Forests and Woodlands of South Australia. The Flora
and Fauna of South Australia Handbooks Committee, Government Printer, South Australia, Adelaide.
Part 2
Adamson, R. S. and Osborn, T. G. B. (1924). The ecology of the eucalyptus forests of the Mount Lofty
Ranges (Adelaide District), South Australia. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 48:
87-145.
Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board (2008). Creating A
Sustainable Future. An Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for the Adelaide and Mount
Lofty Ranges Region. Volume A - State of the Region Report. Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges
Natural Resources Management Board, Adelaide.
Armstrong, D. M., Croft, S. N. and Foulkes, J. N. (2003). A Biological Survey of the Southern Mount
Lofty Ranges, South Australia, 2000-2001. Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia.
Bardsley, D. (2006). There’s a Change on the Way - an initial integrated assessment of projected
climate change impacts and adaptation options for natural resource management in Adelaide
and Mt Lofty Ranges region. DWLBC Report 2006/06. Government of South Australia, through
Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation, Adelaide.
Barker, W. R., Barker, R. M., Jessop, J. P. and Vonow, H. P., eds. (2005). Census of South Australian
vascular plants. 5th Edition. Journal of the Adelaide Botanic Gardens Supplement 1. Botanic
Gardens of Adelaide and State Herbarium, Adelaide.
Boomsma, C. D. and Lewis, N. B. (1980). The Native Forest and Woodland Vegetation of South
Australia (Bulletin 25). Woods and Forests Department, South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
120
Caldicott, R. (1977). Vegetation Clearance in the Mount Lofty Ranges. Town and Country Planning
Association.
Cale, B. (2005). Towards a Recovery Plan for the Declining Birds of the Mount Lofty Ranges. Scientific
Resource Document for Birds for Biodiversity. Unpublished Report.
Caton, B., Fotheringham, D., Lock, C., Royal, M., Sandercock, R. and Taylor, R. (2007). Southern
Fleurieu Coastal Conservation Assessment and Action Plan. AMLRNRM Board, Alexandrina Council,
City of Victor Harbor, Department for Environment and Heritage, Goolwa to Wellington LAP and
Alexandrina Council.
Daniels, C. B. and Tait, C. J. (2005). Adelaide. Nature of a City: The Ecology of a Dynamic City from
1836 to 2036. BioCity, Adelaide.
Department for Environment and Heritage (2008). Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Regional
Biodiversity Strategy Project Database. Unpublished data extracted and edited from departmental
data sources.
Government of South Australia (2007). Planning Strategy for Metropolitan Adelaide. Government of
South Australia, Adelaide.
Government of South Australia (2007). Planning Strategy for the Outer Metropolitan Adelaide
Region. Government of South Australia, Adelaide.
Griffin, T. and McCaskill, M., eds. (1986). Atlas of South Australia. South Australia Jubilee 150 Board
and Wakefield Press, Adelaide.
Harris, C. R. (1976). Vegetation Clearance in South Australia / Report of the Interdepartmental
Committee on Vegetation Clearance in South Australia. Department of the Environment, Adelaide.
Harris, C. R. (1982). Towards a historical perspective. Page 16. Reprinted from Proceedings, Royal
Geographical Society of Australasia South Australian Branch 1977. Royal Geographical Society of
Australasia, South Australian Branch, Adelaide.
Kraehenbuehl, D. N. (1996). Pre-European Vegetation of Adelaide: A Survey from Gawler River to
Hallett Cove. Nature Conservation Society of South Australia., Adelaide.
Lange, R. T. (1976). Vegetation. Page 189. In: C. R. Twidale, M. J. Tyler, and B. P. Webb, eds. Natural
History of the Adelaide Region. Royal Society of South Australia, Inc., Adelaide.
Laut, P., Heyligers, P. C., Keig, G., E.Loffler, C.Margules, Scott, R. M. and Sullivan, M. E. (1977).
Environments of South Australia: Province 3: Mt. Lofty Block. Division of Land Use Research, CSIRO,
Canberra.
Long, M. (1999). A Biological Inventory of the Mount Lofty Ranges, South Australia. Heritage and
Biodiversity Section, Department for Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs, South Australia.
Maiden, J. H. (1907). A century of botanical endeavor in South Australia. Rep. Aust. Adv. Sci. 11: 159-199.
Owens, H., ed. (2009). Census of South Australian Vertebrates. Department for Environment and
Heritage and the South Australian Museum, Adelaide, South Australia (in preparation, web product
only: http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/biodiversity/plants-animals/overview.html).
Paton, D. C., Prescott, A. M., Davies, R. J.-P. and Heard, L. M. (2000). The distribution, status and
threats to temperate woodlands in South Australia. In: R. J. Hobbs, and C. J. Yates, eds. Temperate
Eucalypt Woodlands in Australia: Biology Conservation, Management and Restoration. Surrey Beatty
& Sons, PTY Limited.
Robinson, A. C., Kasperson, K. D. and Hutchinson, M. N., eds. (2000). A List of the Vertebrates of
South Australia. Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide, South Australia.
South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board (2008). Regional NRM
Plan Volumes 1-4. Draft for Consultation. South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources
Management Board, south Australia.
121
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Specht, R. L. (1972). The Vegetation of South Australia. 2nd. Government Printer: Adelaide, Adelaide.
Suppiah, R., Preston, B., Whetton, P. H., McInnes, K. L., Jones, R. N., Macadam, I., Bathols, J. and
Kirono, D. (2006). Climate Change Under Enhanced Greenhouse Conditions in South Australia, An
Updated Report on: Assessment of Climate Change, Impacts and Risk Management Strategies
Relevant to South Australia. Climate Impacts and Risk Group, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric
Research.
Tait, C. J., Daniels, C. B. and Hill, R. S. (2005). Changes in species assemblages within the Adelaide
Metropolitan Area, Australia, 1836-2002. Ecological Applications 15 (1): 346-359.
Twidale, C. R., Tyler, M. J. and Webb, B. P., eds. (1976). Natural History of the Adelaide Region. Royal
Society of South Australia Inc., Adelaide.
Wallace, H. R., ed. (1986). The Ecology of the Forests and Woodlands of South Australia. The Flora
and Fauna of South Australia Handbooks Committee, Government Printer, South Australia, Adelaide.
Wood, J. G. (1937). The Vegetation of South Australia. Government Printer, Adelaide.
Part 3
Andrén, H. (1994). Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with
different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71 (3): 355-366.
Barrett, G. (2000). Birds on farms - ecological management for agricultural sustainability. Wingspan
10 (4): Supplement i-xvi.
Bennett, A. F. and Ford, L. A. (1997). Land use, habitat change and the conservation of birds in
fragmented rural environments: a landscape perspective from the Northern Plains, Victoria,
Australia. Pacific Conservation Biology 3: 244-261.
Craig, J. L., Mitchell, N. and Saunders, D. A., eds. (2000). Nature Conservation 5: Conservation in
Production Environments: Managing the Matrix. Surrey Beatty & Sons Pty Limited, Chipping Norton,
New South Wales.
DEH (Department for Environment and Heritage) (2007). Planning Concepts for the Conservation
of Biodiversity: Information to Support Natural Resources Management Planning. Unpublished
Document, Biodiversity Conservation Program, Science and Conservation Directorate.
Fahrig, L. (2002). Effect of habitat fragmentation on the extinction threshold: a synthesis. Ecological
Applications 12 (2): 346-353.
Ford, H. A. and Howe, R. (1980). The future of birds in the Mt Lofty Ranges. South Australian
Ornithologist 28 (4): 85-89.
Groves, C. R. (2003). Drafting a Conservation Blueprint: A Practitioner’s Guide to Planning for
Biodiversity. The Nature Conservancy, Washington, USA.
Mace, G. M., Possingham, H. P. and Leader-Williams, N. (2006). Prioritizing choices in conservation.
Pages Pp 17-34. In: D. W. Macdonald, and K. Service, eds. Key Topics in Conservation Biology.
Blackwell Publishing, Malden, USA.
McIntyre, S. and Hobbs, R. (1999). A framework for conceptualizing human effects on landscapes
and its relevance to management and research models. Conservation Biology 13 (6): 1282-1292.
McIntyre, S. and Hobbs, R. (2000). Human impacts on landscapes: matrix condition and
management priorities. Pages 301-307. In: J. Craig, N. Mitchell, and D. Saunders, eds. Nature
Conservation 5: Nature Conservation in Production Environments: Managing the Matrix. Surrey
Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton.
McIntyre, S., McIvor, J. G. and Heard, K. M., eds. (2002). Managing and Conserving Grassy
Woodlands. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
122
Pearson, S. M., Turner, M. G., Gardner, R. H. and O’Neill, R. V. (1996). An organism-based perspective
of habitat fragmentation. Pages 77-95. In: R. C. Szaro, and D. W. Johnston, eds. Biodiversity in
Managed Landscapes: Theory and Practice. Oxford University Press, New York.
Poiani, K. A., Merrill, M. D. and Chapman, K. A. (2001). Identifying conservation-priority areas in a
fragmented Minnesota landscape based on the umbrella species concept and selection of large
patches of natural vegetation. Conservation Biology 15 (2): 513-522.
Poiani, K. A., Richter, B. D., Anderson, M. G. and Richter, H. E. (2000). Biodiversity conservation at
multiple scales: functional sites, landscapes, and networks. (Cover story). Bioscience 50 (2): 133-146.
Possingham, H. (2000). The extinction debt: the future of birds in the Mount Lofty Ranges. The Harrier
June 2000: 2-3.
The Nature Conservancy. Ecoregional Assessments. Available from http://www.waconservation.org/
ecoregionalAssessments.shtml.
Tilman, D., May, R. M., Lehman, C. L. and Nowak, M. A. (1994). Habitat destruction and the extinction
debt. Nature 371: 65-66.
Wiens, J. A. (1997). Metapopulation dynamics and landscape ecology. Pages 43-62. In: I. A. Hanski, and
M. E. Gilpin, eds. Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics and Evolution. Academic Press, New York.
Part 4
Adamson, R. S. and Osborn, T. G. B. (1924). The ecology of the eucalyptus forests of the Mount Lofty
Ranges (Adelaide District), South Australia. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 48: 87-145.
Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board (2008). Creating A
Sustainable Future. An Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for the Adelaide and
Mount Lofty Ranges Region. Volumes A-D. Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources
Management Board, Adelaide.
Anon. Inland Grey Box Woodland Ecological Community - Nomination for Listing a Threatened
Ecological Community Under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Appendices 1-12 and the Draft EC Distribution Map. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.
au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/inland-grey-box-woodland.html.
Armstrong, D. M., Croft, S. N. and Foulkes, J. N. (2003). A Biological Survey of the Southern Mount
Lofty Ranges, South Australia, 2000-2001. Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia.
Australasian Legal Information Institute. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
1999 and Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2000. Available from
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/epabca1999588/ and http://www.austlii.edu.au/
au/legis/cth/consol_reg/epabcr2000697/ (accessed March 2009).
Australasian Legal Information Institute. National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972. Available from http://
www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/npawa1972247/.
Australasian Legal Information Institute. National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 Schedules 7, 8 and 9.
Available from http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/npawa1972247/ (accessed March 2009).
Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (1998). National Koala
Conservation Strategy. Commonwealth of Australia (Available from: http://www.environment.gov.
au/biodiversity/publications/koala-strategy/index.html).
Baker, J. L. (2004). Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South
Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report. Prepared for Coast and Marine Conservation
Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia.
Barker, W. R., Barker, R. M., Jessop, J. P. and Vonow, H. P., eds. (2005). Census of South Australian
vascular plants. 5th Edition. Journal of the Adelaide Botanic Gardens Supplement 1. Botanic
Gardens of Adelaide and State Herbarium, Adelaide.
Blakers, M., Davies, S. J. J. F. and Reilly, P. N. (1984). The Atlas of Australian Birds. RAOU and
Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.
123
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Bomford, M. and Sinclair, R. (2002). Australian research on bird pests: impact, management and
future directions. Emu 102 (1): 29-45.
Boomsma, C. D. (1948). I. The Ecology of the Fleurieu Peninsula, II. The Ecology of the Eastern Half of
County Hindmarsh. M. Sc. Thesis. University of Adelaide, Adelaide.
Boomsma, C. D. and Lewis, N. B. (1980). The Native Forest and Woodland Vegetation of South
Australia (Bulletin 25). Woods and Forests Department, South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia.
Bryan, B. A. (1995). The Ecological, Psychological and Political Issues Surrounding the Management
of Koalas in the Southern Mt. Lofty Ranges (Unpublished Masters Thesis). Maswon Centre for
Environmental Studies, The University of Adelaide.
Burgman, M. A. and Lindenmayer, D. B. (1998). Conservation Biology for the Australian Environment.
Surrey Beatty & Sons Pty Limited, Chipping Norton, New South Wales.
Cale, B. (2005). Towards a Recovery Plan for the Declining Birds of the Mount Lofty Ranges. Scientific
Resource Document for Birds for Biodiversity. Unpublished Report.
Carter, O. (2005). Draft Recovery Plan for Halosarcia flabelliformis (Bead Glasswort) in South
Australia, Western Australia and Victoria 2006- 2010. Department of Sustainability and Environment,
Heidelberg, Victoria.
Croft, S. J. (2006). Vegetation Condition of Eucalyptus dalrympleana ssp. dalrympleana
(Candlebark) Vegetation Types in the Mont Lofty Ranges. Dissertation submtted in partial fulfilment
of the coursework requirements for the degree of Master of Environmental Studies. Mawson
Graduate Centre for Environmental Studies. University of Adelaide, Adelaide.
Department for Environment and Heritage. Living with Wildlife. Available from http://www.
environment.sa.gov.au/biodiversity/living-with-wildlife/lw_wildlife.html.
Department for Environment and Heritage. Living with Wildlife Information Sheet: Swooping Birds
- How We Can Learn to Live With Them. Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide,
South Australia (Available from: http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/biodiversity/living-with-wildlife/
lw_wildlife_swooping.html).
Department for Environment and Heritage. Marine Parks. Available from http://www.environment.
sa.gov.au/marineparks/index.html.
Department for Environment and Heritage. Possums. Available from http://www.environment.sa.gov.
au/biodiversity/plants-animals/possums.html.
Department for Environment and Heritage. Sustainable Use - Kangaroo Conservation and
Management Program South Australia. Available from http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/
biodiversity/sustainable-use/kangaroo.html.
Department for Environment and Heritage. Threatened Species. Available from http://www.
environment.sa.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened-species/threatened.html (accessed March 2009).
Department for Environment and Heritage. Wetlands of South Australia. Available from http://www.
environment.sa.gov.au/biodiversity/wetlands/wetlands.html.
Department for Environment and Heritage (2005). Provisional List of Threatened Ecosystems of South
Australia (unpublished and provisional). Updated 2005.
Department for Environment and Heritage (2007). Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural
Resources Management Region Estuaries Information Package. Government of South Australia.
Department for Environment and Heritage (2007). The Kangaroo Conservation and Management
Plan for South Australia 2008-2012. Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide, South Australia
(Available from: http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/biodiversity/sustainable-use/kangaroo.html).
Department for Environment and Heritage (2007). Little Corella (Cacatua sanguinea) resource
document. Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide, South Australia (Available from:
http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/biodiversity/living-with-wildlife/little_corellas.html).
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
124
Department for Environment and Heritage (2008). Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Regional
Biodiversity Strategy Project Database. Unpublished data extracted and edited from departmental
data sources.
Department for Environment and Heritage & SA Arid Lands NRM Board (2008). South Australia Arid
Lands Biodiversity Draft. Region-wide Priority Actions.
Department for Environment and Heritage & Department of Water Land and Biodiversity
Conservation (2003). Wetlands Strategy for South Australia. Department for Environment and
Heritage, South Australia.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. About the EPBC Act. Available from
http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/about/index.html (accessed March 2009).
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Listed Key Threatening Processes.
Available from http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicgetkeythreats.pl.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Recovery Plans. Available from http://
www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/recovery.html (accessed March 2009).
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Threatened Ecological Communities
Under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Available from http://
www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities.html.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Waterwatch SA. Available from http://
www.sa.waterwatch.org.au/.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (2009). Technical Workshop Report:
Inland Grey Box Woodland, Wagga Wagga NSW, 26-27 March 2008. Draft for Public Consultation.
Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/inland-greybox-woodland.html.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts,. Ramsar Convention on Wetlands.
Available from http://www.environment.gov.au/water/environmental/wetlands/ramsar/index.html.
Department of the Environment and Water Resources (2007). EPBC Act policy statement 3.7 Peppermint Box (Eucalyptus odorata) Grassy Woodland of South Australia and Iron-grass Natural
Temperate Grassland of South Australia. (Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/
publications/peppermint-box-iron-grass-policy.html).
Department of the Environment and Water Resources (2007). Peppermint Box Grassy Woodland and
Iron-grass Natural Temperate Grassland - Map of Ecological Communities. (Available from: http://
www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/maps/peppermint-box-iron-grass.html).
Department of the Environment and Water Resources (2007). Southern brown bandicoot, Isoodon
obesulus Threatened Species Day fact sheet. Canberra (Available from: http://www.environment.
gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=68050).
Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation. Information Sheet: Assessing Bird
Damage in Vineyards. Available from http://www.dwlbc.sa.gov.au/assets/files/bio_pest_bird_asses_
damage.pdf.
Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation. Information Sheet: Determining Best
Practice Vineyard Management for Minimising Losses Due to Birds. Available from http://www.
dwlbc.sa.gov.au/assets/files/bio_pest_bird_guidline_min_loss.pdf.
Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation. Water Allocation Planning. Available from
http://www.dwlbc.sa.gov.au/water/allocation_plans/index.html.
Environment Australia (2001). A Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia. Third Edition.
Environment Australia. Canberra (Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/water/
publications/environmental/wetlands/directory.html).
125
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Fahrig, L. (2002). Effect of habitat fragmentation on the extinction threshold: a synthesis. Ecological
Applications 12 (2): 346-353.
Ford, H. A. and Howe, R. (1980). The future of birds in the Mt Lofty Ranges. South Australian
Ornithologist 28 (4): 85-89.
Fox, M. D. (1995). Conserving biodiversity: impact and management of exotic organisms. In: R.
A. Bradstock, T. D. Auld, D. A. Keith, R. T. Kingsford, D. Lunney, and D. P. Sivertsen, eds. Conserving
Biodiversity: Threats and Solutions. Surrey Beaty and Sons, Chipping Norton, NSW.
Garnett, S. T. and Crowley, G. M. (2000). The Action Plan for Australian Birds. Environment Australia,
Commonwealth of Australia.
Government of South Australia (2005). Estuaries of South Australia: Our Vision for the Future. Draft
Estuaries Policy and Action Plan for Public Consultation.
Green, P. S. (1994). Vegetation Ecology of the Central Mount Lofty Ranges. Department of Botany,
The University of Adelaide, Adelaide.
Griffin, T. and McCaskill, M., eds. (1986). Atlas of South Australia. South Australia Jubilee 150 Board
and Wakefield Press, Adelaide.
Haby, N. and Long, K. (2005). Recovery Plan for the Southern Brown Bandicoot in the Mount Lofty
Ranges, South Australia, 2004 to 2009. SA Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide.
Hammer, M., Wedderburn, S. and Van Weenen, J. (2007). Action Plan for South Australian Freshwater
Fishes: 2007-2012 Draft. Native Fish Australia (SA) Inc., Adelaide.
Harding, C. L. (2005). Wetland Inventory for the Fleurieu Peninsula, South Australia. Department for
Environment and Heritage, Adelaide.
Heddle, E. M. (1975). Effects of man on the vegetation in national parks of South Australia. PhD Thesis.
University of Adelaide, Adelaide.
Horgan, M. A. (1998). Home Range Behaviour and Sterilisation of the Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus)
on Kangaroo Island, South Australia. Bachelor of Science with Honours. Department of Zoology.
University of Adelaide.
Jackson, E. A. (1957). A Survey of the Soils and their Utilization in Portion of the Mt Lofty Ranges,
South Australia. Soils and Landuse Series 21. CSIRO Division of Soils.
JANIS (Joint ANZECC/MCFFA National Forest Policy Statement Implementation Sub-committee)
(1997). Nationally Agreed Criteria for the Establishment of a Comprehensive, Adequate and
Representative Reserve System for Forests in Australia. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Jessup, R. W. (1946). The ecology of the area adjacent to Lakes Alexandrina and Albert. Transaction
of the Royal Society of South Australia. 70 (1): 3-34.
Jones, D. (2002). Magpie Alert: Learning to Live with a Wild Neighbour. University of New South Wales
Press Ltd, Sydney, New South Wales.
Lamprey, S. E. and Mitchell, L. H. (1979). Biogeographical and Landform Survey of Fleurieu Peninsula
South Australia. Australian Heritage Commission, Adelaide.
Lange, R. T. (1976). Vegetation. Page 189. In: C. R. Twidale, M. J. Tyler, and B. P. Webb, eds. Natural
History of the Adelaide Region. Royal Society of South Australia, Inc., Adelaide.
Long, M. (1999). A Biological Inventory of the Mount Lofty Ranges, South Australia. Heritage and
Biodiversity Section, Department for Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs, South Australia.
Lunney, D. and Burgin, S. (2004). Urban Wildlife: More than Meets the Eye. Royal Zoological Society of
New South Wales, Mosman, New South Wales.
Lunney, D., Eby, P., Hutchings, P. and Burgin, S. (2007). Pest or Guest: the Zoology of Overabundance.
Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, New South Wales.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
126
Lunney, D., Munn, A. and Meikle, W. (2008). Too Close for Comfort: Contentious Issues in HumanWildlife Encounters. Royal Zoological Society of New South wales, Mosman, New South Wales.
Mackay, S., Pikusa, E., Arene, S., Edwards, C., Fee, B., Gabas, I., McEvoy, P., McNeil, D., Metzeling,
L., Marsh, N., Rooney, G. and Williams, T. (2008). Application of the Ecological Modeller Software
Tool to the Werribee River (Victoria) and Onkaparinga River (South Australia). eWater Cooperative
Research Centre, Canberra.
Major, R. E., Christie, F. J. and Gowing, G. (2001). Influence of remnant and landscape attributes on
Australian woodland bird communities. Biological Conservation 102 (1): 47-66.
Martin, R. and Handasyde, K. (1999). The Koala: Natural History, Conservation and Management.
Australian Natural History Series. University of New South Wales Press, Sydney.
McGilp, J. N. (1937). Southern movements of northern birds. South Australian Ornithologist 14 (4): 83-86.
McIntyre, S. and Hobbs, R. (1999). A framework for conceptualizing human effects on landscapes
and its relevance to management and research models. Conservation Biology 13 (6): 1282-1292.
McIntyre, S. and Hobbs, R. (2000). Human impacts on landscapes: matrix condition and
management priorities. Pages 301-307. In: J. Craig, N. Mitchell, and D. Saunders, eds. Nature
Conservation 5: Nature Conservation in Production Environments: Managing the Matrix. Surrey
Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton.
Melzer, A., Carrick, F., Menkhorst, P., Lunney, D. and John, B. S. (2000). Overview, critical assessment,
and conservation implications of Koala distribution and abundance. Conservation Biology 14 (3):
619-628.
Moritz, K. N. (2007). Draft Recovery Plan for the Nationally Endangered Osborn’s eyebright Euphrasia
collina spp. osbornii (W.R. Barker) 2007-2012. Report to the Species Listing, Recovery and Policy
Section, Australian Government Department of the Environment and Water Resources, Canberra.
Mount Lofty Ranges Southern Emu-wren and Fleurieu Peninsula Swamp Recovery Team (2007). Draft
Recovery Statement for the Fleurieu Peninsula Swamps 2007 - 2011. Conservation Council of South
Australia, Adelaide.
Mount Lofty Ranges Southern Emu-wren and Fleurieu Peninsula Swamps Recovery Team (2007).
Recovery Plan for the Mount Lofty Ranges Southern Emu-wren Stipiturus malachurus intermedius:
2006-2011. Conservation Council of South Australia Inc., Adelaide.
Mount Lofty Ranges Southern Emu Emu-wren and Fleurieu Peninsula Swamps Recovery Team (2007).
Protecting Fleurieu Peninsula Swamps and the Mount Lofty Ranges Southern Emu Emu-wren. A Guide
for Landowners, Land Advisers, Property Planners and Developers. Conservation Council of South
Australia Inc.
National Water Commission. National Water Initiative. Available from http://www.nwc.gov.au/www/
html/117-national-water-initiative.asp.
NPWSA (2001). Koala Survey in the Mount Lofty Ranges 2001 (Unpublished). Department for
Environment and Heritage, Adelaide.
Owens, H., ed. (2009). Census of South Australian Vertebrates. Department for Environment and
Heritage and the South Australian Museum, Adelaide, South Australia (in preparation, web product
only: http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/biodiversity/plants-animals/overview.html).
Parker, S. A. (1988). The origin of the populations of the Eastern Rosella inhabiting the Mount Lofty
Ranges and Adelaide Plains, South Australia. South Australian Ornithologist 30: 132.
Paton, D. C., Carpenter, G. and Sinclair, R. G. (1994). A second bird atlas of the Adelaide region. Part
1: changes in the distribution of birds: 1974-75 vs 1984 -85. South Australian Ornithologist 31 (7): 151193.
Paton, D. C., Carpenter, G. and Sinclair, R. G. (1994). A second bird atlas of the Adelaide region. Part
2: distribution maps 1984-1985. South Australian Ornithologist 31 (8).
127
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Penck, M., Torcello, J. C. and Sanderson, K. J. (1995). Observations of coexistence between Adelaide
and Eastern Rosellas (Platycercus spp.) in Adelaide. South Australian Ornithologist 32: 25-32.
Phillips, S. S. (2000). Population trends and the Koala conservation debate. Conservation Biology
14 (3): 650-659.
Pickett, M. (2007). Assessment of the Distribution, Habitat and Conservation Status of the Chestnutrumped Heathwren Hylacola pyrrhopygia parkeri in the Mount Lofty Ranges. Department for
Environment and Heritage (Unpublished report).
Possingham, H. (2000). The extinction debt: the future of birds in the Mount Lofty Ranges. The Harrier
June 2000: 2-3.
Quarmby, J. P. (2006). Recovery Plan for Twelve Threatened Orchids in the Lofty Block Region of
South Australia 2007 - 2012. Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia.
Robertson, E. L. (1999). Restoration of Grassy Woodland: Watiparinga Reserve Management Plan.
National Trust of South Australia, Adelaide.
Robertson, M. A. (1998). A Biological Survey of Grasslands and Grassy Woodlands of the Lofty Block
Bioregion South Australia 1995-1996. Department for Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs,
Adelaide.
Robinson, A. C. (1978). The Koala in South Australia. Pages 132-143. In: T. J. Bergin, ed. The Koala,
Proceedings of the Taronga Symposium on Koala Biology, Management and Medicine. Sydney 11th
and 12th March 1976. Zoological Parks Board of NSW: Sydney.
Robinson, A. C., Kasperson, K. D. and Hutchinson, M. N., eds. (2000). A List of the Vertebrates of
South Australia. Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide, South Australia.
Robinson, A. C., Spark, R. and Halstead, C. (1989). The distribution and management of the Koala
(Phascolarctos cinereus) in South Australia. The South Australian Naturalist 64 (1): 4-24.
Scholz, G. and Fee, B. (2008). A Framework for the Identification of Wetland Condition Indicators: A
National Trial - South Australia. Project DEP19 South Australian Wetland Condition Indicators (SAWI).
Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation, Adelaide.
Scoular, G. (1880). The geology of the Hundred of Munno Para. Part II - the upland Miocene and
fundamental rocks and economics. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 3: 106-128.
Seaman, R. L. (2002). Wetland Inventory for the Mount Lofty Ranges. Department for Environment
and Heritage, South Australia.
Seaman, R. L. (2002). Wetland Inventory of the Northern Agricultural Districts South Australia.
Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia.
Sinclair Knight Merz (2007). High Conservation Value Aquatic Ecosystems Project - identifying,
categorising and managing HCVAE. Final Report. Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd, Victoria (Available
through: http://www.environment.gov.au/water/publications/environmental/ecosystems/hcvae.html).
South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board (2008). Regional NRM
Plan Volumes 1-4. Draft for Consultation. South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources
Management Board, south Australia.
Specht, R. L. (1972). The Vegetation of South Australia. 2nd. Government Printer: Adelaide, Adelaide.
Specht, R. L. (1979). The sclerophyllous (heath) vegetation of Australia: the eastern and central states.
Pages 125-210. In: R. L. Specht, ed. Ecosystems of the World, Volume 9A, Heathlands and Related
Shrublands: Decsriptive Studies. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Specht, R. L. and Perry, R. A. (1948). The plant ecology of part of the Mount Lofty Ranges (1).
Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 72 (91-132).
Stratford, E., Mazur, N., Lunney, D. and Bennett, D. (2000). Managing the Koala problem:
interdiciplinary perspectives. Conservation Biology 14 (3): 610-618.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
128
Strathalbyn Naturalists Club, I., ed. (2000). Natural History of Strathalbyn & Goolwa Districts.
Strathalbyn Naturalists Club Inc., Strathalbyn.
Suding, K. N. and Gross, K. L. (2006). The dynamic nature of ecological systems: multiple states and
restoration trajectories. In: D. A. Falk, M. A. Palmer, and J. B. Zedler, eds. Foundations of Restoration
Ecology. Island Press, Washington.
Taylor, J. K. and O’Donnell, J. (1932). The soils of the southern portion of the Hundred of Kuitpo, South
Australia. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 56: 3-14.
Temby, I. (2005). Wild Neighbours: the Humane Apoproach to Living with Wildlife. Citrus Press,
Broadway, New South Wales.
Terrill, S. E. and Rix, C. E. (1950). The birds of South Australia: their distribution and habitat. South
Australian Ornithologist 19 (6-8): 53-100.
Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2001). Commonwealth Listing Advice on Isoodon obesulus
obesulus. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra (Available from:
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=68050).
Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2003). Commonwealth Listing Advice for the Swamps
of the Fleurieu Peninsula. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (Available
from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/fleurieu-swamps.html),
Canberra.
Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2005). Commonwealth Conservation Advice on
Chestnut-rumped Heathwren (Mt Lofty Ranges) (Hylacola pyrrhopygia parkeri). Department of the
Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra (Available from: http://www.environment.gov.
au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=67071).
Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2005). Commonwealth Listing Advice on Chestnutrumped Heathwren (Mt Lofty Ranges) (Hylacola pyrrhopygia parkeri). Canberra (Available from:
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=67071_.
Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2006). Commonwealth Listing Advice on Eucalyptus
paludicola. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra (Available
from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/eucalyptus-paludicolaadvice.pdf).
Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2007). Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Iron-grass
Natural Temperate Grassland of South Australia. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage
and the Arts, Canberra (Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/
communities/pubs/l-effusa.pdf).
Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2007). Commonwealth Listing Advice on Iron-grass
Natural Temperate Grassland of South Australia. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage
and the Arts, Canberra (Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/
communities/pubs/l-effusa.pdf).
Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2007). Commonwealth Listing Advice on Peppermint Box
(Eucalyptus odorata) Grassy Woodland of South Australia. Department of the Environment, Water,
Heritage and the Arts, Canberra (Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/
threatened/communities/pubs/e-odorata.pdf).
Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2008). Approved Commonwealth Conservation Advice
on Iron-grass Natural Temperate Grassland of South Australia. Department of the Environment,
Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra (Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/
biodiversity/threatened/communities/pubs/37-conservation-advice.pdf).
Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2008). Approved Conservation Advice for Eucalyptus
paludicola (Mount Compass Swamp Gum). Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and
the Arts, Canberra (Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/
species/pubs/64276-conservation-advice.pdf).
129
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2008). Commonwealth Conservation Advice on
Peppermint Box (Eucalyptus odorata) Grassy Woodland of South Australia. Department of the
Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra (Available from: http://www.environment.gov.
au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/pubs/36-conservation-advice.pdf).
Tilman, D., May, R. M., Lehman, C. L. and Nowak, M. A. (1994). Habitat destruction and the extinction
debt. Nature 371: 65-66.
Twidale, C. R., Tyler, M. J. and Webb, B. P., eds. (1976). Natural History of the Adelaide Region. Royal
Society of South Australia Inc., Adelaide.
Wallace, H. R., ed. (1986). The Ecology of the Forests and Woodlands of South Australia. The Flora
and Fauna of South Australia Handbooks Committee, Government Printer, South Australia, Adelaide.
Williams, M. and Goodwins, D. (1987). Conservation of biological diversity on the Fleurieu Peninsula.
Parts 1 and 2. The South Australian Naturalist 63 (2 and 3).
Willson, A. and Bignall, J. (2009). Draft Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species and
Ecological Communities of Adelaide and the Mount Lofty Ranges, South Australia Department for
Environment and Heritage, South Australia.
Wood, J. G. (1930). An analysis of the vegetation of Kangaroo Island and the adjacent peninsulas.
Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 48: 105-139.
Wood, J. G. (1937). The Vegetation of South Australia. Government Printer, Adelaide.
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
130
131
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
Local Agenda 21
(1992)
Convention on
Wetlands of
International
Importance (Ramsar
Convention 1971)
Convention on the
Conservation of
Migratory Species of
Wild Animals (Bonn
Convention 1979)
Convention on
International Trade in
Endangered Species
of Wild Fauna and
Flora (1975)
Convention on
Biological Diversity
1992
Development Act 1993
Environment Protection Act 1993
Estuaries of SA (Policy and Action Plan)
National Greenhouse Strategy (1998)
Resources Audit
National Land and Water National Objectives and
Targets for Biodiversity Conservation 2001–2005
National threatened species recovery plans for
species occurring in the AMLR
National Threat Abatement Plans for Key
Threatening Processes relevant to the AMLR
No Species Loss – A nature conservation strategy for SA
NatureLinks (2003)
Natural Resources Management Act 2004
Native Vegetation Act 1991
National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972
Living Coast Strategy for SA (2004)
DEH Draft Ecological Fire Management Guidelines for SA Parks
and Native Vegetation (2009)
National Framework for Management and
Monitoring of Australia’s Native Vegetation (2001)
National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s
Biological Diversity (1996)
Crown Lands Act 1929
Code of Practice for the Management of Native Vegetation to
Reduce the Impact of Bushfire (2009)
Coast Protection Act 1972
Coast and Marine Planning Policy
Blueprint for the SA Representative System of Marine Protected
Areas
Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary Act 2005
A Weed Strategy for SA
State
National Biodiversity and Climate Change Action
Plan 2004–2007
Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Water
Initiative
Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999
Directions for the National Reserve System: A
Partnership Approach (2005)
Biodiversity Conservation Research: Australia’s
Priorities (2001)
Conventions
Asia-Pacific
Migratory Waterbird
Conservation
Strategy: 2001–2005
National
International
Core relevance (drivers)
(adapted from DEH (2007) No Species Loss. A Nature Conservation Strategy for South Australia 2007–2017)
Appendix 1.1 Legislation & Policy Drivers
at International, National, State and Regional Level
Appendices
Water allocation
plans
Reserve
management
plans (under the
National Parks
and Wildlife Act
1972 and the
Wilderness
Protection Act
1992)
Regional
biodiversity plans
Natural resources
management
plans
Natural resources
management
plans
Marine plans
Development
plans
Regional
PART 8
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
132
Wildlife Conservation
Plan for Migratory
Shorebirds
Republic of KoreaAustralia Migratory
Bird Agreement
(ROKAMBA 2007)
Japan Australia
Migratory Bird
Agreement (JAMBA
1981)
China Australia
Migratory Bird
Agreement (CAMBA
1988)
Wetlands Policy of the Commonwealth Government
of Australia (1997)
Strategic Plan of Action for the National
Representative System of Marine Protected Areas
(1999)
Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997
Native Title Act 1993
Wilderness Protection Act 1992
Wetlands Strategy for SA
Tackling Climate Change: SA’s Greenhouse Strategy
Strategy for Aboriginal Managed Lands in SA
State of Environment reporting
State Natural Resources Management Plan 2006
South Australian Tourism Plan
South Australia’s Strategic Plan
River Murray Act 2003
Responsible Nature-based Tourism Strategy 2004–2009
Premier’s Round Table on Sustainability
Planning Strategy for SA
Phytophthora Management Guidelines (2006)
Native Fish Strategy for the Murray-Darling Basin
2003–2013
Agreement on the
Conservation of
Albatrosses and
Petrels (2001)
NRM Policies on management of declared plant & animal
species under NRM Act, & other NRM Policies for undeclared
weeds
Nationally Agreed Criteria for the Establishment of a
Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative
Reserve System for Forests in Australia (1997)
Agreements
State
National
International
Core relevance (drivers)
(adapted from DEH (2007) No Species Loss. A Nature Conservation Strategy for South Australia 2007–2017)
(continued)
Adelaide Coastal
Water Quality
Improvement
Plan (in
development)
Port Waterways
Water Quality
Improvement
Plan (May 2008)
Regional
133
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
DEH/DWLBC
DEH/DWLBC
Draft Estuaries
Policy and
Action Plan for
SA (2005)
DEWHA
Lead
Agencies1
SA Wetlands
Strategy for SA
(2003)
State
National
Water Quality
Management
Strategy
(NWQMS)
National
Plan/Strategy
Some of the actions are being addressed by other
projects listed in the table below (see links on right)
Specifies actions to achieve 5 key outcomes (related
to improving protection & management, developing
planning decision tools, community education, and
research & monitoring)
http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/coasts/index.
html
Public comment in June 2005. DEH is currently
reviewing submissions and amending the draft
document.
http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/biodiversity/
wetlands/wetlands.html
It provides direction for state and regional NRM
Plans.
Policy & Action Plan that aims to improve the health
of SA’s estuaries through a coordinated
management approach.
Provides objectives, actions and performance
measures to guide integrated management of AEs
in SA
While the strategy lacks currency (e.g. it refers to
legislation that is out of date), many of the actions in
the plan are still relevant to the management of AEs.
http://www.environment.gov.au/water/quality/
nwqms/
The main policy objective of the NWQMS is to
achieve sustainable use of the nation’s water
resources by protecting and enhancing their quality
while maintaining economic and social
development.
The NWQMS process involves community and
government development and implementation of a
management plan for each catchment, aquifer,
estuary, coastal water or other waterbody. This
includes use of national guidelines with local
implementation.
Implementation of the NWQMS in the AMLR includes
several SA EPA projects, such as the development of
Water Quality Improvement Plans (see table below)
Current status/uses
Developed to coordinate a national approach to
improving water quality in Australia’s waterways. It is
acknowledged in the National Water Initiative (NWI).
Description
Appendix 1.2 Key plans and strategies relevant to
aquatic ecosystem (AE) management in the AMLR
SA Estuary
Inventory, SAAE
Program, SA AE
GIS layer, EPA WQ
monitoring, AMLR
Estuaries
Information
Package, AMLR
NRM Plan
NRM Plans
NWI , SA EPA
WQIPs (and other
SA EPA Projects
Linkages to the
plans/projects
listed2
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
134
AMLR & SA
MDB NRM
Boards/
DWLBC
DEH
DEH (in
partnership
with DEWHA &
NRM Boards)
Water
Allocation
Plans (WAPs)
AMLR NRM
Region
Estuaries
Information
Package
Regional
Recovery Plan
for the AMLR
Pilot project to test feasibility of integrated regional
recovery and threat abatement actions.
Multi-taxa recovery plan that integrates prioritised
recovery and threat abatement actions for many of
the threatened species and ecological communities
within the AMLR.
Overview of the known environmental, social and
economic values for estuaries in the AMLR NRM
Region. Includes key information gaps and potential
directions to guide management.
NRM Boards are required under the NRM Act3 to
prepare WAPs for all Prescribed Water Resources in
their board area. The plans set the rules under which
water can be allocated on licences & describe the
water affecting activities that require a permit.
Environmental needs must be taken into account.
Each plan describes the current state of natural
resources in their region and specifies regional
targets, strategies and actions to help achieve an
integrated approach to natural resources
management.
Description
http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/biodiversity/
threatened-species/regional-recovery-pilot.html
Plan submitted to Commonwealth for adoption as a
Regional Recovery Plan under the EPBC Act4. Aims
to improve efficacy of regional management of
threatened species and increase capacity of NRM
boards to incorporate recovery actions into regional
NRM plans and investment strategies.
http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/coasts/index.
html
Good source of information on estuaries and guide
to priority management actions. Some of the
information gaps and potential directions are being
addressed by other projects in the table below.
http://www.dwlbc.sa.gov.au/water/allocation_
plans/index.html
In the planning region used in this report
there are 11 prescribed water resources,
3 have endorsed WAPs, 4 have draft WAPs
and 4 are managed under the Water Resources
(Penrice Exemption Regulation 1997).
http://www.nrm.sa.gov.au & http://www.amlrnrm.
sa.gov.au & http://www.samdbnrm.sa.gov.au
The targets in these plans that are relevant to AEs
have a broader focus than just AEs. Nevertheless,
actions in line with these targets will improve the
management and condition of AEs. Refer to plans
for further detail
Current status/uses
NRM Plans, other
recovery plans for
threatened
species and
communities in
the AMLR (not in
these tables)
AMLR NRM Plan,
SA Estuary
Inventory, SAAE
Program, MLR
EWRs, WAPs
NWI, NRM Plans,
MLR EWRs,
WaterRAT
WAPs, MLR EWRs,
SAAE Program
Linkages to the
plans/projects
listed2
The acronyms listed in this column are for other projects/plans listed in this and the table below.
NRM Act = Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (SA Government Act)
2
3
1
Lead agencies: DEH = SA Department for Environment & Heritage; DWLBC = SA Department of Water, Land & Biodiversity Conservation; AMLR NRM & SA MDB
NRM Boards = Adelaide and Mt Lofty Ranges & SA Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Boards.
AMLR & SA
MDB NRM
Boards
Lead
Agencies1
AMLR and SA
MDB Natural
Resources
Management
Plans (NRM
Plans)
Regional
Plan/Strategy
135
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
(intergovernmental
agreement between
Commonwealth & State/
Territory Governments)
Objectives include
establishing, regulatory
and planning based
system of managing
surface and
groundwater resources
optimising economic,
social and
environmental
outcomes.
DEWHA
National Water Initiative
(NWI)
(2) deal with overallocated or stressed
water systems.
(1) prepare water plans
with provision for the
environment
Provides the legislative
and policy framework,
committing states to
(amongst other things):
http://www.environment.
gov.au/water/
publications/
environmental/wetlands/
directory.html
- Source of information
on wetlands
- Associated database
stores detailed
information on each
wetland
- signatory countries
agree to manage sites
to maintain ecological
character
- Recognition for
internationally important
wetlands & listed
wetlands trigger EPBC
Act
Current uses/outputs
(Note: 16 in planning
region)
Mechanism to list of
wetlands of international
importance because of
their ecological,
botanical, zoological,
limnological or
hydrological
importance.
Description
- Recognition for
nationally important
wetlands
DEWHA
DEWHA
Lead Agencies1
- Mechanism to list
wetlands of national
importance
Directory of Important
Wetlands in Australia
(DIWA)
(Note: none in planning
region)
Ramsar Convention on
Wetlands of International
Importance
National
Program/ Project
Appendix 1.3 Key projects and programs relevant
to aquatic ecosystem (AE) management in the AMLR
http://www.nwc.gov.au/
www/html/117-nationalwater-initiative.asp
Refer to website
DIWA will remain.
However the HCVAE list
will replace DIWA for
managing priorities
under NWI
http://www.environment.
gov.au/water/
environmental/wetlands/
ramsar/index.html
Refer to website
Proposed Future
outcomes &/or gaps
NWI was driver behind
establishment of WAPs,
HCVAEs, MLR EWRs
Ramsar, HCVAE
DIWA, HCVAE
Linkages to the projects
listed2
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
136
DEWHA in co-operation
with states/territories
DEWHA in co-operation
with states/territories
High Conservation Value
Aquatic Ecosystems
(HCVAE)
Australian National
Aquatic Ecosystem
Classification Scheme
(ANAECS)
Lead Agencies1
Program/ Project
Review of state/territory
AE classification systems
to create a nationally
agreed framework for
naming/classifying AE
types
- Includes all Ramsar
sites, all East AsiaAustralasian Flyway sites
(internationally
important sites for
migratory waterbirds:
one in AMLR – Penrice
Saltfields), and some
World Heritage sites
(depending on
importance of AEs to the
site listing).
- Requirement under NWI
(clause 25x)
- Establish list of high
conservation value AEs
based on nationally
agreed criteria
Description
In progress
Interim list that requires
application and trialling
of the criteria
(representativeness,
diversity, distinctiveness,
vital habitat,
evolutionary history and
naturalness).
Current uses/outputs
- To be used by regions &
states in reporting on
wetland condition to
Federal Government
(potentially reporting by
Aquatic Bioregions)
- Establish a nationally
accepted set of names
for AE types that occur
across jurisdictions.
http://www.environment.
gov.au/water/
publications/
environmental/
ecosystems/hcvae.html
- Mechanism to achieve
national consistency in
identifying high
conservation value AEs
- Tool to assist identifying
priorities for funding/
management
Proposed Future
outcomes &/or gaps
HCVAE, AqB, SAAE
Program
NWI, ANAECS, Aquatic
Bioregions, SAAE
Program, Shorebirds
2020
Linkages to the projects
listed2
137
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
DEWHA
Birds Australia
(in
collaboration
with
Australasian
Wader Studies
Group, WWF
– Australia
and DEHWA)
Shorebirds
2020
Lead
Agencies1
Waterwatch
Australia
National
(continued)
Program/
Project
Builds and expands on existing count
sites and methods.
Co-ordinated national shorebird
monitoring program (migratory and
resident species) to collect data on
shorebird numbers over time, habitat
and location information and
information on threats.
Waterwatch groups conduct
biological and habitat assessments
plus physical and chemical water
tests.
It is a national community water
quality monitoring network that
encourages community to get
involved in the protection and
management of waterways and
catchments.
Waterwatch program was established
in1993.
Description
- Oct/Nov 08 national aerial and
on-ground survey of 907 important
wetlands in Australia (Ramsar & DIWA
wetlands). Final report released by June
2009 and the national database of
waterbird data will be publicly accessible
at: www.wetrivers.unsw.edu.au.
- Surveyed over 70 sites last summer
(nationally).
- Developed online counters toolkit and
trained volunteer counters.
- Mapped important shorebirds areas
(nationally).
- Developed a monitoring program that
will allow detection of national population
trends.
Over the last year:
Commonwealth Govt co-ordinates
activities across Australia and ensures
consistent standards, information sharing,
and support.
Local waterwatch facilitators and
co-ordinators support local groups.
Currently 3000 Waterwatch groups
monitoring water quality at over 7000 sites
throughout 200 catchments.
Current uses/outputs
Inform decision-makers
through analysis and
reporting (improve
development impact
assessment)
Determine long- and
short-term population
trends, explore causes of
these changes and
relationship between
habitat quality and
threats on the
distribution and
abundance of
shorebirds.
ID new wetlands of
important for shorebirds
http://www.waterwatch.
org.au/
See website
Proposed Future
outcomes &/or gaps
Ramsar
program,
DIWA, HCVAE
Waterwatch
SA, EPA
projects, NRM
Plans
Linkages to
the projects
listed2
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
138
DWLBC in
collaboration
with DEH,
EPA,NRM
Boards, other
state
jurisdictions,
DEWHA
DEH
SA Aquatic
Ecosystem GIS
layer (SA AE GIS
layer)
DWLBC/ DEH
SA Aquatic
Ecosystem
Program (SAAE
Program)
Aquatic
Bioregionalisation
(AqB)
State
Program/ Project
Lead
Agencies1
- Identification of gaps in
mapping and information on
AEs.
- Identification and some
collation of data sets containing
AE information.
- Mapping all AE extent &
distribution into a single GIS
spatial layer (using existing data).
Develop an approach for SA to
map and classify AEs, develop
conceptual models of
ecosystem function, determine
AE pressure and condition
indicators, and report on AE
condition at a range of scales
(national, state & regional).
Create ecologically meaningful
aquatic regions across SA.
Description
- Conceptual diagrams & indicators of AE
pressures and condition developed for all
AE types in SA.
- Interim AE type classification
system (still being refined) that
can be matched to interstate
classifications.
Many different data sets
brought together, but still in
progress. Has been used in
various state projects (see links
column).
- Conceptual models/diagrams
and AE pressures and condition
indicators developed for all AE
types in SA
- Identify wetland pressures &
condition (indicators from
conceptual models),
developed in line with
interstate models to help
achieve national consistency.
- Ultimately, a single GIS layer at a
consistent scale that links to various data
sets with AE information (based on unique
wetland identifier).
- Ground truthing & new mapping of AEs
where required.
- Gap analysis of AE mapping in
collaboration with NRM Boards.
- Adoption of framework by SA Govt, NRM
Boards and Federal Govt.
- On-ground trials of conceptual models
and indicators with NRM Boards (not yet
funded).
- Application of an agreed classification
methodology for all AEs in SA.
- Interim aquatic bioregions for
SA.
- Conceptual models/diagrams
of AE types to identify drivers of
ecosystem function and
processes.
- Completion of AE mapping in
collaboration with NRM Boards.
To divide AEs into more manageable units,
& create context for State & regional
bodies to report at national level on state
AEs.
Proposed Future outcomes &/or gaps
- Draft SA AE GIS layer (see
below).
Still being refined (interim
regions exist), being evaluated
as part of HCVAE criteria and
as part of SAAE Program.
Current uses/outputs
SAAE
Program,
ANAECS,
MLR EWRs,
WaterRAT,
WAPs.
SA AE GIS
layer, MLR
EWRs,
ANAECS,
HCVAEs,
AqB,
WaterRAT,
EPA WQ
HCVAEs,
ANAECS,
SAAE
Program
Linkages
to the
projects
listed2
139
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
DWLBC/AMLR &
SA MDB NRM
Boards
DWLBC
EPA WPO
(projects can
involve
collaboration
with other
organisations and
community)
Water-dependent
ecosystem Risk
Assessment Tool
(WaterRAT)
EPA Mt Lofty
Ranges
Watershed
Protection Office
(EPA WPO)
Lead Agencies1
Eastern & Western
Mt Lofty Ranges
Environmental
Water
Requirements
Assessment (MLR
EWRs)
State (continued)
Program/ Project
Established in 1998. Undertakes
projects and works that assist in
protecting and improving the
water resources in the Mt Lofty
Ranges watershed (area
encompassing Adelaide’s
existing and possible water
supply catchments)
GIS-based decision support
tool. Enables a preliminary
assessment of the potential
direct and cumulative impact
of development on water
resources and significant
ecosystems.
Conceptual models of stream
& wetland types (using
available hydrological and
ecological data) to determine
environmental water
requirements of AE
components (flora, fish,
macroinvertebrates &
geomorphology were the focus
of this study)
Description
http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/
wpo_about.html
Projects are on-going.
- Plans to create a version
accessible to public that
provides proponents with an
indication of likely approval
processes required and their
outcome.
http://e-nrims.dwlbc.sa.gov.au/
WaterRAT/MLR.aspx (internal
govt access only)
Project areas include:
on-ground-works, monitoring
programs, input into
development assessment and
planning policy, legislative
compliance, education.
- Gaps in the mapping of AEs
(see SA AE GIS layer project
above) and data on whether
AEs are groundwater or surface
water fed, limit the capacity of
this tool to effectively assess
impacts in all cases. Projects
that fill the above gaps will
improve this tool.
Funding required to test models
on-ground, monitor responses to
water availability & evaluate
environmental water
requirements of AE components
(and therefore water resource
management). This will also help
to fill gaps in data.
Proposed Future outcomes &/
or gaps
Access from internal State
government network only at this
stage (but will be available on
public website in 2009/10). Used
to inform an appropriate level
of assessment required by the
proponent to investigate and
address any consequential
impacts
Environmental water
requirements of streams and
wetlands in the AMLR region
determined using available
data conceptual models
Current uses/outputs
MLR EWRs, WAPs,
NRM Boards/Plans
NWI, SAAE
program, SA AE
GIS layer, MLR
EWRs, WAPs
NWI, WAPs, NRM
Boards/Plans, SA
AE GIS layer
Linkages to the
projects listed2
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
140
EPA
EPA Water Quality
Group
EPA
(Implementing
the National
Water Quality
Management
Strategies &
determining
environmental
values for State’s
waters)
EPA Water Quality
Group
Lead Agencies1
Water Quality
Improvement
Plans (WQIPs)
EPA monitoring of
State’s water
quality (EPA WQ
monitoring)
State (continued)
Program/ Project
Assessment of community
perceptions and values
regarding aquatic ecosystems
Detail strategies for water
quality improvement in a
defined area. They are
environmental management
plans that implement
Australia’s National Water
Quality Management Strategy
(NWQMS) and the National
Principles for the Provision of
Water for Ecosystems.
Statewide water quality
monitoring program of inland
watercourses (up to estuarine
influence), groundwater and
near-shore marine
environments
Description
Evaluation of effectiveness of
different workshop
methodologies
Results will inform EPA of values
to associate with different water
ways and how to protect these
values
http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/
water_quality.html
Refer to website: http://www.
epa.sa.gov.au/water_plan.html
Gap: assessment of estuaries
(this may be addressed through
SA Estuary Inventory Project –
see below)
Developing coastal & marine
condition assessment
methodology (e.g. Seagrass
and algal health)
Reviewing methodology to
potentially develop methods to
assess condition of
watercourses, placing greater
emphasis on ecological
parameters than in the past.
Proposed Future outcomes &/
or gaps
Currently running workshops in
Mt Lofty Ranges region and
Riverland
2. Adelaide Coastal Water
Quality Improvement Plan (in
development)
1. Port Waterways Water Quality
Improvement Plan (May 2008)
Two relevant to AMLR:
http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/
water_quality.html
Informs State of the Environment
Reporting.
Provides baseline data from
which to measure effectiveness
of actions/legislation in
improving state’s water quality.
Current uses/outputs
EPA WQ
monitoring, EPA
WPO activities,
NRM Plans
NWQMS, NWI ,
EPA WPO
activities , NRM
Plans, SA Estuary
Inventory (also
see project
below)
NRM Plans, EPA
WPO activities, SA
Estuary Inventory
Linkages to the
projects listed2
141
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
(SA Estuary
Inventory)
Statewide Estuary
Inventory
Waterwatch SA
State (continued)
Program/ Project
DEH
In SA,
Waterwatch is
supported by SA
Govt through
NRM Boards and
other
organisations
including local
government and
KESAB.
See Waterwatch
Australia.
Lead Agencies1
Field surveys to fill gaps in data.
Desktop collation of existing
information.
Mapping estuary boundaries
A waterway is defined as a
creek, dam, lake, groundwater
supply, wetland, river, estuary
or mangrove.
In SA Waterwatch is a network
of trained coordinators helping
people to care for the quality
of water in their local
waterways.
Description
In progress, contributions to SA
AEGIS layer, SAAE Program.
Program provides water quality
data, training in water quality
monitoring, community and
school education, help with
planning on-ground activities,
help with developing
monitoring plans.
Current uses/outputs
http://www.environment.sa.gov.
au/coasts/index.html.
Map books of estuaries and
summary information.
GIS layer available on web (see
estuary boundaries, select
estuary and access information
on the estuary).
Data source to inform
development planning and
impact assessment.
http://www.sa.waterwatch.org.
au/
See website
Proposed Future outcomes &/
or gaps
SA AE GIS layer,
SAAE Program,
Marine Planning
of DEH (see
below), EPA WQ
monitoring, Draft
Estuary Action
Plan and AMLR
Estuary
Information
Package (see
table above).
Waterwatch
Australia, EPA
projects, NRM
Plans
Linkages to the
projects listed2
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia
142
DEH
Wetland
Inventories
Field-based projects that
provide information on the
ecological, biological and
hydrological attributes of
wetlands (including mapping
of wetland boundaries).
Wetland inventory data informs
policy and assists planning and
decision making.
Recovery Program for the
nationally Endanagerd SEW
and nationally Critically
Endangered FPS Ecological
Community
Aim to protect representative
marine biodiversity and
ecosystem processes, and
contribute towards sustainable
fisheries management.
Proclaimed under the Marine
Parks Act 2007. Two in AMLR
region (they include 5 of the
estuaries in the AMLR).
Description
http://www.environment.sa.
gov.au/biodiversity/wetlands/
wetlands.html
Assists in the identification of
high conservation value
wetlands and the recognition
and inclusion of wetlands in
land-use planning, NRM and
management planning
practices.
Current recovery actions
include on-ground surveys,
monitoring, working with
landholders to improve swamp
protection & management.
Currently undergoing
community consultation,
boundaries may be revised,
management plans to be
developed by mid-2011.
Current uses/outputs
Gaps include: many wetlands
not able to be included in the
studies, some sites not yet
ground-truthed.
Three wetland inventories
completed in AMLR: Fleurieu
Peninsula (2005), Mt Lofty Ranges
(2002), Northern Agricultural
Districts (2002).
http://www.ccsa.asn.au
See website for further details.
http://www.environment.sa.gov.
au/marineparks/index.html
See website
Proposed Future outcomes &/
or gaps
NRM Plans, SA AE
GIS layer, SAAE
Program.
AMLR NRM Plans,
MLR EWRs
SA Estuary
Inventory, Draft
Estuary Action
Plan, NRM Plans
Linkages to the
projects listed2
2
1
The acronyms listed in this column are for other projects/programs listed in this and the previous table.
Lead agencies: DEWHA = Commonwealth Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts; DEH = SA Department for Environment and Heritage;
DWLBC = SA Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation; EPA = Environment Protection Authority (SA); PIRSA = Department of Primary Industries and
Resources SA; SARDI = SA Research and Development Institute; AMLR NRM & SA MDB NRM Boards = Adelaide and Mt Lofty Ranges & SA Murray-Darling Basin
Natural Resources Management Boards; CCSA = Conservation Council of South Australia.
CCSA/
MLRSEW&FPS
Recovery Team
DEH
Lead Agencies1
Mt Lofty Ranges
Southern Emuwren (SEW) and
Fleurieu Peninsula
Swamps (FPS)
Recovery
program
Regional
Encounter and
Upper Gulf St
Vincent Marine
Parks
State (continued)
Program/ Project
143
Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia