Ray Thomas continues his comments on making progress in the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. In this article Ray describes the Regent Honeyeater Project he coordinated. Using this experience in large-scale restoration/reconstruction works, he has helpful ideas to share…specifically what were the factors that enabled the on-ground works to scale up to such a large degree.

A bit of background

The Regent Honeyeater Project was instigated in the early 1990’s to improve habitat for the regent honeyeater which is listed as Critically Endangered under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999). The works were focused in and around the Lurg Hills, just east of Benalla in northeast Victoria.

It is mostly farming country, but still retains many blocks of regrowth Mugga Ironbark on the drier foothills. The vegetation grades into Grey Box on the plains to the north, and into Red Stringybark/Red Box further up slope to the south.

Grazing has removed much of the understorey vegetation in many of these remnants. Fortunately the older reserves and many roadsides are excellent reference eco-types.

Community Engagement

A significant part of working with farmers was helping them with the issues they saw as serious such as dieback of farm trees, gully erosion, and lack of windbreaks for livestock. With talks to Landcare meetings and targeted visits to individual farmers, many people began to understand that restoring habitat could be very helpful for farming – just by restoring natural balances that had long since collapsed.

For example: plantings will attract birds and gliders to control insect pests that were seriously defoliating farm trees; creating wildlife corridors and placing nest boxes will attract possums to eat the mistletoe that was obviously out of balance in many areas. In the process, the work was improving stock shelter from freezing winter winds, reducing salinity, and halting erosion of creek banks, etc. It wasn’t asking people to give away land to the wildlife but encouraging wildlife to protect the farm for the long term. It can be (and needs to be) a win-win for everyone!

External support

I went to potential groups that have an interest in nature and education, to see if they may like to be part of the action. I gave many picture-based presentations to schools, universities, service clubs, bush walkers, bird observers, field naturalists, scouts, churches, etc, always focusing on the values we were protecting, the threats to those values, and most importantly, our proactive concrete steps that have multiple benefits for farmers as well as wildlife.

I had many teachers say that the only way for their students to learn this is just doing it. From seeing the successes of older sites, they know that it works.

University lecturers brought their classes for field trips to see the theory being enacted across sites of various ages, and then roll up their sleeves to assist in the restoration work.

It amounted to hundreds of farmers, scores of schools and universities, bushwalking clubs, Scouts, bird observers and other outdoor enthusiasts. This was more than 32,000 volunteers from across the wider community, over a period of 22 years.

Grants from governments at all levels, plus several philanthropic trusts, private donors, and in-kind contributions from many businesses all helped farmers to tackle projects that they otherwise just couldn’t afford.

Target sites

Flowering ironbarks are a major food reserve for honeyeaters, so these sites were our prime focus. Our work was a mix of restoring missing elements in degraded remnant sites, plus reconstruction on open sites that would add extra habitat value to the remnants. For example, habitat corridors to link sites together, and planting fertile sites adjacent to the bush remnants, which were mostly on the poorer soils.

We continued to work in the same geographic area for the life of the project, so that everyone could see signs of change literally growing before their eyes. This had a significant effect, as farmers could share their experience on the value it had for their farms. By comparison, spreading our efforts over the entire region would have missed this ‘critical mass’ point, as people realised this was working, and wanted to be part of it. This ‘people power’ changed the landscape!

Results

  • Approx 1700 ha of Box-Ironbark habitat was restored or reconstructed.
  • Threatened wildlife species were systematically monitored to quantify the ecosystem benefits.
  • Squirrel gliders, brush-tailed phascogales, and a mass of threatened woodland birds made significant gains over that time.
  • Weediness of sites is significantly decreasing.
  • Many plant species are successfully reproducing.

The long list of conservation awards is probably the simplest way to show the significance of the project.

Work processes

This powerful work force was carefully guided by good botanical and ecological understandings, so the best knowledge could be applied at a much larger scale. Our work was very carefully planned to achieve the best outcomes for the massive input of resources: grant money, volunteers’ efforts, and not least, people’s trust.

I get 95% seedling survival or more, and that is vital for this special UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Many volunteers commented on how well-organised our planting weekends were. They felt their efforts were valued and respected, and they really appreciated seeing the successful results from previous years.

Some practical insights may be worth sharing

  • What ability does the site have to recover by itself over time? Here we need to work with ecological processes and be proactive to stimulate them – e.g. using fire to trigger germination of seed in the soil. Sow Nitrogen fixing plants in sterile soils to pave the way for healthy canopy trees. Encourage leaf litter accumulation to stimulate soil fungal development and nutrient cycling. Planting of ecotonal zones needs to include a mix of species from both higher up and lower down the slope – this allows species dominance to develop by natural selection in the changing climate.
  • Take care to match plants to the varied soil types and moisture levels across a site. Knowing the vegetation type from personal experience is hugely important in this work, or many seedlings will be put in the wrong soil and can’t thrive.
  • Niche direct seeding by hand is very effective, and a whole lot more natural in appearance than by machine. On well-drained country, I always place seeds in slight depressions that will collect some rain; the extra moisture improves seed germination rates significantly! I have used this as a great educational exercise for local schools.
  • On the other hand, when replanting broad areas of dense weeds, I plant only the overstorey and larger shrubs as the first stage. These more robust plants dry out the site over a decade or more, and then the introduced grasses do poorly which allows the indigenous grasses to take over. With this approach, I have seen dense monocultures of Yorkshire fog grass Holcus lanatus go back to small dryland Danthonias and Stipas. Only then is it sensible to think about introducing the ground layer plants.
  • My work in local bushland reserves uses all these approaches. The canopy layer is mostly OK, but the understorey is usually greatly simplified due to past grazing. I’m planting the middle storey as the first step, and it’s on a broadly scattered basis to enable widespread seed dispersal in a few years’ time. I use spot spraying in the weedier areas of course, plus scalping off the top few cm of soil to remove weed seed from around each planting spot.
  • Perhaps most significantly, I’ve realised that restoration can never be a single pass operation. Some things can only be done after earlier interventions have produced a certain site ‘readiness’. For example, forget ground flora until the weed levels have been greatly reduced by trees and large shrubs drying out the site, combined with targeted spraying work.

Common mistakes

We probably all recognise many common mistakes in field work, and it’s a shame to see such a waste of funding, not to mention the human effort.

  • It appears that the goals/aims for a site are often not thought about, let alone addressed!! Is it understorey restoration in an open woodland? Is it targeted habitat for particular threatened wildlife? Is it primarily aesthetic/amenity value for the local community? Is it …??
  • Knowing the reference vegetation type is essential here. This is a combination of personal knowledge from many remnants on similar geology, and publications that record this info.
  • Achieving a particular habitat structure/density is vital, and clearly needs to take account of the mature size of various plants being reintroduced. It is just as important for many wildlife species as selecting the right plants, or perhaps even more so.
  • I was shocked to hear a comment recently, that the best way to plant is really close together, because ‘the dense growth reduces/eliminates the need for follow-up weeding.’ That was the prime consideration, and more important than the ideal vegetation structure for a particular habitat type.
  • The plant-and-forget approach is rather too common. This means most seedlings are lost to dense weeds, especially in fertile riparian sites. With no prior weed control and no follow up afterwards, the seedling survival can be 20% or less. Sadly, some people accept that as normal and okay.
  • Following a generalised planting guide for the wider region is all too common. This introduces species from different geological/ecological zones. It’s the Cootamundra wattle ‘weed’ scenario again.
  • But even our local indigenous plants are often put in the wrong terrain. I commonly see species from the sandy, granite foothills planted in grey box plains country, which has heavy, wet clay soils… and the reverse.
  • Poor planting technique: such as seedlings buried too deep in wet, heavy clay which is a sad waste of materials, labour, finances, and volunteers’ effort. On the other hand, plantings on dry rocky ridges benefit from a ‘bowl’ around each seedling, to catch extra rain in summer. Adjust the techniques to suit site conditions, and show people what’s best, as we work side by side with them.

Beginner groups clearly need guidance on many aspects of the process, and it’s obvious that the AABR community has much expertise to draw on. I think it would be good to read hopeful stories from members about their work.

It’s important to share and encourage each other in this important UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration.

Ray Thomas, Euroa, Victoria.

For more about the about the Regent Honeyeater Project go the EMR Project Summary on Regent Honeyeater Habitat Restoration Project  Published as part of the journal Ecological Management & Restoration.

Trees suffering from dieback because of too many leaf eating insects and no understory habitat for insect eaters.

A new block of planting among dieback affected trees will help the affected trees on a site recover.