Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN)

of 18

Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN) National Condition Workshop Series – Workshop 1 Date/Time: Wed 11th, Thur 12th and Fri 13th June, 2014, 09:00am – 05:00pm Location: Mt Lofty House, Adelaide Attendees: A/Prof Richard Thackway (VAST-UQ), Mr Gary Bastin (CSIRO, Alice Springs), Dr Teresa Eyre (Herbarium, QLD), Mr Ian Fox (TERN-UA), A/Prof Nikki Thurgate (TERN-UA), Dr Michael Schaefer (CSIRO, Canberra), Mr Ben Sparrow (TERN-UA), Mr Dominic Wundke (TERN-UA), Dr Bek Christensen (TERN-UQ), Dr Kristen Williams (CSIRO, Canberra), Prof Tim Clancy (TERN-UQ), Dr Anita Smyth (TERN-UA), Dr Stephen Van Leeuwin (DPaW, WA), Mr Sam Luccitti (Rio Tinto, WA), Dr Simon Ferrier (CSIRO, Canberra), A/Prof Alex Kutt (GHD), Mr Peter Lyon (DoE), Mr Randal Storey (DoE), Mr Mark Flanigan, Mr Cameron Allan (MLA, Orange), Mr David Parkes (DEPI, VIC)

Apologies: A/Prof Colin Yates (DPaW, WA), Mr Tony Rosling (DoE), Dr Peter Scarth (DSITIA, QLD), Prof Stuart Phinn (TERN-UQ), Dr Mike Fleming (OEH, NSW), Prof Andy Lowe (TERN-UA), Prof Simon Jones (RMIT), Ms Jasmine Muir (UQ), Dr Suzanne Prober (CSIRO, WA), Dr Ian Oliver (UoNE, NSW), Dr Andre Zerger (BOM), Mr Mark Cowan (DPaW, WA), Mr Nicholas Cuff (NT Gov), Mr Rob Brandle (SA Gov)

Minutes Wednesday, 11th June 2014 Workshop Overview – Introduction and welcome (Nikki Thurgate) NT welcomed all attendees and the attendees introduced themselves to the group. Presentations on previous biodiversity monitoring programs with relation to condition Peter Lyon and Randall Storey: Biodiversity monitoring – A national perspective Australian Government: Department of Environment, ERIN (Environmental Resources Information Network) Landscape Analysis Section PL: State of the Environment reports occur every 5 years. From reviewing previous editions, DoE have identified a need to address a lack of data to support the narrative of the overall environment reporting. The department would like to focus on nationally consistent reporting at a regional level with data to support decision making. Indicators of environmental health need to be simple, affordable, long-term, and pragmatic with only a small number of variables to monitor. Indicators should be nationally consistent and allow annual reporting on the environment portfolio. A clear distinction is made between surveillance monitoring and targeted/response monitoring. The Department recognises that we can’t answer every question, everywhere. RS: From an analytical perspective, environmental attributes need to be able to be compared consistently. Vegetation condition is compared between 1750 and current models. Current work is being done on creating connectivity products such as connectivity index. Improved condition information will help improve environmental models, this is considered by the department as the highest priority. To achieve this we need a national view of condition. PL: Surveillance monitoring is used as it emphasises a pragmatic focus, using thresholds and benchmarks to detect rapid change and inform decision making. Current projects are focussed on habitat and species populations, steering away from a pressure focus (pressure aware rather than pressure focussed). The Department is looking at the next steps, what can we do now and in the future?

of 18

2014/2015 Projects:

Ausplots/TERN- this workshop

Birdlife Australia – citizen science developing a national index

UQ environmental decisions NERP hub – non-avian fauna Future work will seek to headline environmental indicators for regional environmental reporting. There are disparate views on selecting environmental indicators and tension arising from the intended use of monitoring. We should recognise the validity of different views but also define a direction. For example, major vegetation groups are artefacts of different mapping exercises and different classifications which make them difficult to explain thereby eroding confidence in their utility. There is a need to step back and as a starting point find an agreed goal and agreed attributes as a starting point for future monitoring. This workshop has been designed to begin that conversation. (See PPT for more information) Richard Thackway: VAST 2 Condition assessment method University of Queensland The drivers of information are

Performance monitoring

Resource condition monitoring

Landscape monitoring These drivers are used in an adaptive management cycle. VAST uses a reference state defined by NVIS to compare all sites. This reference state is underlined by composition, structure and function. This information is relayed to land managers for use at their discretion. VAST – 2 utilises the LUMIS (land management information system) framework as the basis for its scoring system. The VAST systems are used to describe the cause and effects within the environment and have practical applications such as in mining rehabilitation sites and to create a narrative for the history of landscapes. Condition is used as a site term. Validation is done using expert knowledge of a particular system. (See PPT for more information) Gary Bastin: ACRIS and condition CSIRO GB presented on the work of ACRIS on assessing rangeland condition. Condition is a value judgement and a relative term as a state of being. Indicators selected to determine landscape function depending on the difficulty of collection and interrelation. Let stakeholders be the final judge of how the condition is and how acceptable or unacceptable it is for the intended use. How does management relate to improvement of condition? We must separate assessment from value judgements. (See PPT for more information) Cameron Allan: Biodiversity in agricultural landscapes Meat and Livestock Australia Changes to biodiversity influence the supply of ecosystem services therefore we need to consider land managers in any decision making. We need to provide a compelling case that improving biodiversity values simultaneously improves business. Scale and specificity is critical. Land managers need to understand all the variables; streamlined biodiversity monitoring can deliver this. (See PPT for more information) 10:40 – 11:10 Break for Morning Tea Teresa Eyre: BioConditon – Biodiversity condition assessing in Queensland Queensland Herbarium

of 18

TE presented on the BioConditon monitoring program in Queensland. Their approach is:

Educational

Site based

Quantifiable and repeatable Within the monitoring program, attributes are selected to allow quick analysis (less is more) and effective training is essential to gather informative data. Field sites are compared to best-on-offer (BOO) sites, which are specific to the region. (See PPT for more information) Stephen van Leeuwen: Condition – A Western Perspective Department of Environment and Conservation, WA SvL presented on the biodiversity monitoring programs in the Western Rangelands. He raised the question: Are condition protocols fit for purpose? SvL discussed managing expectations of stakeholders. Within their monitoring sites no condition assessment is used because the purpose is unclear and not repeatable. What is required is a condition assessment program that is rigorous, repeatable and enduring. (See PPT for more information) David Parkes: Habitat Hectares – Native vegetation condition (not biodiversity condition) Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria DP presented on the role of the Habitat Hectares program in assessing condition. He suggested there are improvements to be made but the program persisted as it met the needs of accountability. New policy has called for changes, some changes to the program include:

Removing weeds as a measure

Focussing on raw data collection

Change in proportional weighting to attributes

Reducing bias and variability in measurement

Equivalence vs sameness (exchangeability)

Using Bayesian networks to assess change Using benchmarks has difficulties but they must be used in an effective program. (See PPT for more information) Simon Ferrier: Estimating habitat condition using time series remote sensing and ecological survey data CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences SF presented on the current remote sensing work by CSIRO and its relation to condition. A condition definition is key to overall monitoring on a landscape scale but it has to be integrated with other factors. Remote sensing is not enough to describe condition; it must have correlation to site-based assessments. Natural variation is inherent and should be considered. New approach includes collaboration between remote sensing and bio assessment specialists. (See PPT for more information) Ben Sparrow: Ausplots – Current status of the program & data sample availability TERN, University of Adelaide Ausplots can be divided into two components- rangelands and forests. These TERN facilities provide surveillance monitoring capabilities across much of Australia. The program has been designed to address knowledge gaps using consistent methods (found in the Ausplots manual) and aim to provide repeat measures in the future. The methods were developed using extensive collaborative networks to arrive at a consensus (i.e. not unanimously agreed upon but a balanced compromise).

of 18

(See PPT for more information) Nikki Thurgate. The Purpose of this workshop: the what and how of condition. What – A definition. What does condition for biodiversity mean? What attributes do we need to collect in the field and/or remotely? This workshop is designed to answer these questions. Future workshop will consider how we collect these attributes. The goal of this workshop is to see what we can get a consensus on, there is strength in the current diversity of condition measures but we still need a way of addressing these concepts at a national level. These facilitate better public policy as knowing trends in condition allows the Commonwealth government to concentrate resources in a way that makes sense to the public. This project is being funded under the National Environmental Research Program which has used money from their emerging priorities stream to provide resources to TERN to facilitate this process. The AusPlots facility has been chosen to lead the project due to their experience in harnessing key stakeholders to arrive at a consensus on diverse problems. The body of work being undertaken under this project aims to step back from currently fragmented monitoring programs and reframe the questions of what we are measuring, why we are measuring it and what outcomes we are looking for. The body of work is designed around surveillance monitoring providing rapid, pragmatic and achievable outcomes to support decision making and policy setting. Setting the boundaries for a definition of condition – Interactive Group Exercise Groups were set a challenge: using Lego™, 4 groups were asked to build an example of a habitat in good condition. Groups were asked what aspects needed to be considered, and which aspects were explicitly about excluded.

of 18

Outcome: Rules of Engagement for a condition definition All groups ended up with ‘habitats’ that had similar characteristics. There was recognition of flora and faunal abundance and diversity measures, that a good landscape was heterogeneous and contained structural complexity, diversity and variability, there was a need to understand the healthy functioning of the landscape (most commonly displayed with waterways), that humans were an aspect of all landscapes who relied on good condition to provide ecosystem services and that there is a temporal component in any discussion of condition. The rules of engagement to be followed throughout the rest of the workshop were:

Tasks need to be clarified

Discussion of concepts was needed and could be done respectfully

We need to build on shared ideas/concepts

We need to move past uncertainty

We must remember the big picture and keep discussion in perspective

Collective development provides a more complete answer

That we can have fun

That sometimes we need to be creative in how we explore concepts

That leadership is important

That boundaries are needed Why condition? (group discussion) Why are we measuring and discussing condition?

As humans we inherently judge the condition of many things. Condition is a concept that is often seen as a value judgement we make, we ‘know’ when there has been a loss of some quality in the landscape.

There are land tenure issues and legislation which requires reporting on condition even though the concept is often ill-designed and rarely defined

State of the Environment reporting and similar frameworks need this information

The judgement of condition depends on the stakeholders e.g. 100% buffel grass pasture cover will be good condition for pastoralism but bad condition for biodiversity

We need to assess condition to ensure we are maintaining goods and services and also to monitor when we need to intervene or restore

of 18

We need to separate condition assessment from the value judgements- do we remove the human element?

Indicators of condition provide a shortcut to full measurement of biodiversity

Condition measures are often a pragmatic compromise

There is a need for simplicity and a common language

Measurement can be used to understand impacts of different land management strategies

Helps decision makers prioritise intervention by providing a common currency by which things are measured

There is a temporal aspect that must be considered when we ask ‘what is happening’ to a landscape

There are inherent issues in scalability that are not easily resolved

There are interdependencies in these discussions, we need empathy for all views and to recognise trade-offs, synergies and antagonisms

Condition is a multidimensional space so we need to convey a multidimensional message

For biodiversity it is important that we measure a whole system from which local measures can flow

Agreed measures: needs to be science based and repeatable, any value judgements are done by the stakeholder viewing the outcomes

Thursday, 12th June 2014 Learning from the past

Many of the programs featured yesterday have both overlaps and underlaps. A meta-analysis is needed to highlight where things converge and diverge

The short nature of funding cycles is a major impediment to this research

We are challenged to harvest the ‘golden thread’ by recognising that there can be a flow on from one funding source to another if we adequately engage partners. A long-term thread that can be followed from one project to another

To engage partners we need to create enduring networks, these are key to success of national-scale products

Competition between potential partners can have both positive and negative impacts. For example, healthy competition keeps science moving forward but institutional boundaries can be insurmountable when they are competing for the same limited resources

Fauna is often absent from condition assessment but needs inclusion

Many state agencies currently lack capacity to monitor and do field work which is a major impediment to a national program

We must respect the realities of scale and policy, these will not always be in agreement

There has been an absence of leadership in the field which creates confusion between the system developed and the outcomes needed. Need a roadmap with roles and responsibilities laid out for developing and publishing outcomes that are fit for purpose.

There have been a number of major reviews of condition already undertaken. Need the meta-analysis to ensure value is added by this program. Action: Dominic Wundke to work with the group to undertake analysis.

Defining condition: group work on consensus definitions on condition. The group decided to have a first attempt at defining condition for biodiversity. There was agreement that it needed to be a robust measure can then input into other processes which examine condition for other factors. It was seen as important that we explore both what the definition was and what is was not. The purpose of the condition definition was to inform decision making and policy. This gave the group a tight focus rather than an overly broad one. Other definitions may be needed for other purposes. For example grazing land condition would not function as a surrogate for overall biodiversity because the value judgement inherent in assessing a landscape for such a purpose is unsuitable. The group defined three levels of biodiversity, genes, species and ecosystems. These were compared with the base attributes that define condition: composition, function and structure (see below).

of 18

What the definition needs to be able to do.

To measure change from a reference state

To inform real world decision making

To have different dimensions which can be applied depending on your area of interest

Recognise that values for biodiversity may not adequately answer questions for other purposes

Include measures that encompass composition, structure and function

Need a pragmatic approach to link site to landscape approaches

Link to previous approaches learning from vegetation work done previously

Help guide the selection of attributes to adequately measure the above

Acknowledgement that there are limitations and explicitly address what it cannot do as well as what it can. With any definition the key is to articulate what it means, what it is useful for and when it is inappropriate. For this workshop the group agreed that we are studying condition as it relates to biodiversity, broadly at a community level but with a key site focus at the species level. At the scale of site we are dealing with individuals within an ecosystem. When we begin scaling up to a landscape level we are dealing with populations and communities. Previous condition assessments have focussed on vegetation as perennial vegetation is easy to observe and quantify. This definition and discussion is about all biodiversity and so will need to focus on expanding from a vegetation based view to a broader perspective. Macro or landscape level attributes are practical and feasible to report on at broad scales. The micro or site scale should be used to feed in to the macro view. Group definitions of condition. Participants were divided into four groups and asked to provide a consensus definition of condition. To help guide thinking participants were shown a word cloud generated from 25 definitions of condition, sourced from peer reviewed literature. The largest words represent the most commonly used terms (see below). Participants were surprised that vegetation was the most commonly used term and this was seen as enlightening as it highlighted the fundamental lack of consideration for other aspects of biodiversity in condition assessment.

composition

genes

species

ecosystems

of 18

Group 1. Condition for biodiversity1 means the degree of modification2 of an ecosystem3 relative to a reference state4 and determined through assessment of key attributes5

1 Variety of species (see 4 below) 2 Caused by humans 3 Combination of geology, soils, landform, vegetation and species 4 Unmodified best on offer acknowledging natural variability (climate) 5Composition, structure and function in a range of scales (site/landscape). Group 2. For native flora and fauna site condition is a measure of the relative retention* of the natural features that support use of the site (and contributes to persistence at a broader scale) by the species that are associated with that environmental type. In practice * requires benchmark/reference point *Features should cover key function, composition and structure *Snapshot the requires subsequent combination with past trends/future prognosis *Feeds into overarching assessment of persistence environmental health narratives Group 3. Relative measure of the state of a site - landscape continuum against a reference state described by function, composition, structure, of its biotic components with due consideration of the temporal dynamics of the benchmark Group 4. Relative measure of the state of the site-landscape continuum against a benchmark/reference state, described by function, structure and composition of its biotic components with due consideration of the temporal dynamics of the benchmark. Scope determines the how and where - local place of measurement (homogenous unit): fit for purpose, scalable and combinable Synthesizing definitions. The groups agreed that there were a number of common threads in these definitions.

The need to recognise natural (and human?) variation

The need for attributes/indicators/surrogates as whole systems can’t be measured

That measuring function, structure and composition is fundamental to assessing condition for biodiversity

That condition needs a reference state to be measured against The group further agreed that:

of 18

The assessment unit is a homogenous unit (that can be constantly mixed) that is scaleable and combinable with other measures

That benchmarks or other measures are NOT equal to a goal or ideal state. Condition is a statement of fact, not and attribute of value.

Each individual present was asked to then write down the ‘top 5’ words or concepts they associate with condition. These answers were then fed into a word cloud (see below).

Benchmarking and reference states. All prior information recognised that condition is relative to a reference state or benchmark (as displayed in the above word-cloud).

It was reiterated that bench marks are not equal to targets.

The best option is to find a physical example which is a fair representation of ‘good’ condition

However this will not always be possible and there is a need for recognition of these limitations

A good reference state is comparable and can be replicated

The reference state is relative to the homogenous unit that we are trying to assess

A reference state will often be best on offer (BOO) but defining what is BOO depends on data availability

Therefore there is a need for a conceptual framework that allows data to feed into it and will depend largely on expert knowledge. Action: designing conceptual frameworks for key systems - unassigned

Benchmarking will be an iterative process so that as more data is added to the conceptual framework we can improve our understanding of the system of interest and hence its condition

There must be acknowledgement of temporal variability

A control chart (where a deviation from a known quality is quantified and upper and lower control limits are defined beyond which the process is seen to cross some threshold). Action: deriving control charts for key ecosystem processes- unassigned

Fauna should be included as it is a key attribute that has been overlooked

Where we have information on fauna it should be included and incorporated

There is need for research into how fauna measures can be incorporated into condition measures

Can we set a reference site with imperfect knowledge? The group agreed that as long as limitations are recognised then it is preferable to start somewhere (i.e. the reference site many be imperfect) than to continually place problems in the ‘too hard’ category

of 18

Measuring condition is not the same as monitoring as site and there needs to be a distinction between the concepts

States and Territories would find it useful to have a template for how to operationalize measures of condition and the complex issues involved. Use of such a template would improve our ability to harness a national picture.

Group work: Landscape and site groups were asked to identify key attributes Site group

Site Landscape

Weeds Distance to different water types

Ground cover Connect/context

Organic litter (cover and depth) Edge ratio

Woody debris Patch size

Perennial native grass biomass (decreaser species) Fire metrics (=temporal)

Perennial grass cover (native) Total grazing pressure (=temporal)

Bare ground Land use history (=temporal)

Floristic species richness (and life form) Feral species and pathogen management history

Faunistic assemblage (vertebrates and groups) Property size

Shrub height cover (/density?) or all other strata (=structure) Canopy height conver (/density?)

Large trees (=hollows)

Overabundant native fauna (i.e. Manorina)

Tree health (number and type of dead tree

Soil attributes

Attributes for Assessing the Condition of Australia’s Biodiversity (many thanks to Richard Thackway for

contributing this section)

Build on the definition of condition

Aim to compare attributes of the Reference state to Transformation states over time for the following attribute groups

- Structure – i.e. Physical shape of the ecosystem i.e. plant community = surrogate

- Composition – species composition found in the ecosystem

- Function – ecological context of the ecosystem

Stratification

Need to develop a hierarchical concept of homogeneity and heterogeneity of scale

- Homogenous unit - model/map

- Level of heterogeneity - select levels

Temporal variability and change

Need to develop a conceptual way of handling short-tern dynamics and long-term change

- Temp and Rainfall

- Climate change projections

of 18

List of attributes1

Structure

Generally the following attributes groups can be measured/monitoring using RS and they related closely to vegetation.

Of course the Reference states for each of the following attributes will need to be modelled.

Canopy height2

Difference between the Reference state to Transformation states over time

Sources of data:

Radar and IceSat

Fractional Projective Cover (FPC)3


Sources of data:

Persistent-Green (AUSCover 20134) derived from Landsat and SPOT

Structural diversity 5


Strata – Upper, Middle, Ground6 7

Sources of data:

Lidar

Ground cover Dynamics


Ground cover height

Sources of data:

Landsat and SPOT

Ground cover density8

Sources of data:

Landsat and SPOT

1 See slide 24 in Using VAST to inform the development regional environmental accounts

http://www.slideshare.net/rthackway/thackway-abs-20130625 2 See slide 27 in Using VAST to inform the development regional environmental accounts


http://www.slideshare.net/rthackway/thackway-abs-20130625 4 http://www.auscover.org.au/xwiki/bin/view/Product+pages/Persistent+Green-

Vegetation+Fraction 5 See slide 27 in Using VAST to inform the development regional environmental accounts

http://www.slideshare.net/rthackway/thackway-abs-20130625 6 See slide 30 in Tracking the Transformation of Vegetated Landscapes (VAST)

http://www.slideshare.net/rthackway/thackway-eca-20130802 7 See slide 27 in Using VAST to inform the development regional environmental accounts


http://www.slideshare.net/rthackway/thackway-abs-20130625




http://www.auscover.org.au/xwiki/bin/view/Product+pages/Persistent+Green-Vegetation+Fraction

http://www.auscover.org.au/xwiki/bin/view/Product+pages/Persistent+Green-Vegetation+Fraction


http://www.slideshare.net/rthackway/thackway-eca-20130802



of 18

Composition

Generally the following attributes groups cannot be measured/ monitoring using RS. Hence environmental models will

need to be developed. Composition can be defined as associated with species or spatial patterns e.g. fragmentation

patterns.


Plants/Flora

Difference between change/s over time and space compared to natural regime /state

Reference state/Sites - Floristic classification coupled with whole of landscape models. Map of community types without

modification

- Full species list at sites - representative across a range of cover abundance (structure/dominance)

- Environmental data layers (GIS)

- Compositional modeling

- Help identify gaps to inform future sampling effort

Sources of data:

- Hyperspectral - Genre eg. Eucalyptus

- Temporal

Fauna


Sources of data:

- Hyperspectral - Genre eg. Eucalyptus

- Temporal

Reference Sites - Floristic classification coupled with whole of landscape models. Map of community types without

modification

- Full species list at sites - representative across a range of cover abundance (structure/dominance)

- Environmental data layers (GIS)

- Compositional modeling

- Help identify gaps to inform future sampling effort

Functional

The following attributes groups are a mix of what can be measured/monitoring using RS and environmental models.


Threat regimes

Fire regime

Difference between change/s over time and space compared to Reference regime /state

Sources of data:

Landsat and MODIS Fire scars9

Potential data layers:

- Extent

9 See slide 25 in Using VAST to inform the development regional environmental accounts



of 18

- Frequency

- Intensity

- Seasonality

Total grazing pressure regime


Sources of data:

- Species adversely affected

- Species increasers/decreasers

- DSE/ha

- Aerial surveys of selected species - density/ha

- - Functional species traits/groups / Find diversity => Natural response to natural disturbance e.g. Response to

fire, response to grazing


- Extent =>

- Frequency

- Intensity =>

- Seasonality =>

Drainage and riparian regime

Geographies:

- In stream flow

- Overland flow


- Extent

- Intensity

- Frequency

- Seasonality

- Duration

Predation Regime


Characteristics that could be considered:

Nature of predators

- Eruptive

- Long lived

- Guilds

- Behaviour

- Prey preferences

- Top order predators

Nature of Prey

- Eruptive

- Long lived

o Guilds

o Behaviour

o Prey preferences

o Top order predators

of 18

Soil Biology Regime



Digital Soils Atlas

Sources of data:

Digital Soils Atlas

– NB: issue of reliability of sampling particularly in rangelands

Soil Structure Regime



TBD

Sources of data:

Digital soil atlas – NB: issue of reliability of sampling particularly in rangelands

Soil Nutrients Regime



TBD

Sources of data:


Soil Hydrology Regime



TBD

Sources of data:


Operationalizing the list of attributes

1. Keep attribute change over time separate - does not assume a single scene

2. May aggregate groups e.g. into structural, composition and functional to tell different stories based on systems

understanding

3. Depending on what a client/s want or what our understanding is, we can mix and match.

of 18

Cut text – workshopping’s stream of consciousness

Remotely sensed attributes

Fractional Projective Cover (FPC) - green, non-green, brown (soil)

FPC projective cover

Radiometrics relating to soil /geology

DEM

- roughness

- elevation

- water flow

- etc.

Spectra

LAI

Greenness

Curing

GIS and Modeling

- Fragstats - connectivity

- compositional turnover modeling

- Spatial and temporal predictions

Inappropriate/incompatible practices +ve/-ve

- Threatening process models

- Fire regime

- Water regime

- soil regime

- competition from weeds

- Grazing regime - increasers/decreasers

- water points

- total grazing pressure, rabbits, camels etc.

- forestry regime

- urban regime - clearing, water reservoirs

of 18

- wild harvesting regime/control

- predation

- disease/pathogens

Friday, 13th June 2014 Revisiting what this workshop is about and what the future holds for this project This particular TERN activity has been funded and designed in partnership with the Commonwealth Department of Environment to start to build toward a national surveillance monitoring capacity. This project will help guide how such a capacity would operate and be designed and is tailored to allow the outcomes to be built upon to extend the utility of any products arising. TERN is an existing collaborative capability and this project expands that capability to enhance TERN and build beyond the measures already defined in the AusPlots facility manual ( http://www.tern.org.au/AusPlots-Rangelands-Survey-Protocols-Manual-pg23944.html). This will increase the usefulness and widen the applicability of the AusPlots program and hopes to help the Department in national reporting. It links on ground measurements (AusPlots and other monitoring programs) with spatial or landscape measurements (AusCover and modelling) and aims to bring together a way that we can monitor all of biodiversity rather than one or two surrogate measures. Addressing national reporting necessitates a collaborative approach, bringing together experts and practitioners in condition and monitoring, to progress the larger narrative. Future workshops will include two parallel condition workshops (how do we measure the identified attributes) at both the site and landscape scales. This will include a synthesis session that brings the groups back together to look at progress and agree on next steps. There will also be workshops addressing designing both a woodlands and a fauna protocol for AusPlots.

Potential outcomes of workshop 1. (note: for unassigned outcomes if you are keen to drive one please let the team know)

A short publication in an international journal that defines condition for biodiversity and reviews the history of the concept (Nikki T)

A second larger critical review that includes a meta-analysis of what has been done previously, what has worked, what hasn’t, and where there are overlaps and underlaps (Dom W). or this may be add

Fauna needs to be included in one or both publications as this has been largely overlooked and vegetation used as an unsatisfactory surrogate

A communication from the workshop that allows people who weren’t present to engage and input into what we have created (Bek C)

A criteria to evaluate why large scale collaborations do or do not work, and why there has been a lack of progress at the national level. This would also address what mechanisms are needed to enhance this and reduce tensions. This may include the ‘top 5’ issues that have prevented a national system unfolding or this may be a separate body of work

A need for advocacy and communication from participants to the broader community to help this program be meaningful

There was a broad agreement that we need to begin consolidating knowledge What will be addressed in future workshops

Change in condition (when do we intervene in a system)

How to measure condition attributes

How to create meaningful benchmarks in a few key ecosystems

How to measure priority non-avian fauna

What are key attributes?

http://www.tern.org.au/AusPlots-Rangelands-Survey-Protocols-Manual-pg23944.html

http://www.tern.org.au/AusPlots-Rangelands-Survey-Protocols-Manual-pg23944.html

of 18

A definition for biodiversity condition. Biodiversity condition is a relative measure of the status of the biota at and assessment site against a natural reference state, described by key attributes that reflect structure, function and composition for the relevant type. This is an interim definition and we encourage comment, refinement and suggestions from others.

Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN)

Documents

Transcript of Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN)