Ecosystem conservation in multi-tenure reserve networks: The contribution of land outside of publicly protected areas

Page 1

1School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia.2Present address: The Nature Conservancy, 60 Leicester Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia. Tel: +61-3-8346-8604; fax: +61-3-8346-8602.Email address: [email protected]*Corresponding author

PACIFIC CONSERVATION BIOLOGY Vol. 14: 250–262. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Sydney. 2008.

Ecosystem conservation in multi-tenure reservenetworks: the contribution of land outside of

publicly protected areas

JAMES A. FITZSIMONS1,2* and GEOFF WESCOTT1

Multi-tenure reserve networks have been developed as a mechanism to improve cross tenure management andprotection of biodiversity, but also as a means of accounting for biodiversity assets managed for conservation outsideof protected areas on public land. We evaluated the contribution of multi-tenure reserve networks to enhancing thecomprehensiveness and representativeness of ecosystems in publicly protected areas, using three Australian casestudies. All networks contributed to enhancing comprehensiveness and representativeness, but this contribution variedbetween networks and between components of those networks. Significantly, components on private land and “otherpublic land” in all three networks greatly enhanced the protection of some ecosystems at a subregional scale. TheGrassy Box Woodlands Conservation Management Network, in particular made a substantial contribution to conservation,with most components protecting remnants of an endangered and under-represented ecosystem. Multi-reserveconservation networks not only act to protect threatened and under-reserved ecosystems, but they also provide amechanism to account for this protection. Thus, multi-tenure reserve networks have the potential to provide increasedknowledge and understanding to conservation planning decision making processes.

Keywords: Ecosystem conservation, Reserve systems, Multi-tenure reserve networks, Surrogates, Reservation targets,Private land, Biosphere reserves, Conservation management networks.

INTRODUCTION

Establishing protected area systems is awidespread and important component ofbiodiversity conservation efforts (Margules andPressey 2000; Gatson et al. 2006), and there isincreasing emphasis on ensuring they arecomprehensive, adequate and representative(CAR). This has mainly been done through thereclassification of public land to national parksand nature reserves or through the acquisitionof private land to add to the public reserveestate. In Australia, private lands managed forbiodiversity conservation are increasingly beingrecognized and included in state and nationalreserve system accounting frameworks (e.g.,Smith 2001; Fitzsimons 2006; Park 2006).However, in fragmented landscapes effectivebiodiversity conservation requires managementacross all tenures at a landscape scale. Multi-tenure reserve networks have been developed asa mechanism to improve cross tenuremanagement and protection of biodiversity, butalso as a means of accounting for biodiversityassets managed for conservation outside of thepublic protected area estate (Thiele and Prober1999; Fitzsimons and Wescott 2008a). This latterpoint is particularly pertinent given the limitedknowledge of what is being protected on privateland through various conservation mechanisms(e.g., Fitzsimons and Wescott 2001; Langholzand Krug 2004; Merenlender et al. 2004) andthe general lack of data sharing by protected

area agencies worldwide (Bertzky and Stoll-Kleemann 2009).

Biosphere reserves and conservation manage-ment networks are characteristic models of themulti-tenure reserve network approach. Bio-sphere reserves are concerned primarily withintegrating biodiversity conservation withecologically sustainable development across avariety of land tenures and uses. A conservationmanagement network is a network of propertieswith remnant vegetation managed for conser-vation, the managers of those properties andother interested parties.

Multi-tenure reserve networks are establishedfor multiple aims such as improving thecomprehensiveness, adequacy and representa-tiveness of the reserve system, increasing thesecurity of conservation tenure, increasingecosystem connectivity, and facilitating moreintegrated management of similar ecosystems.Landholders usually become involved in multi-tenure reserve networks for a variety of reasons,but mainly for conservation of natural assets ontheir properties and information exchange(Fitzsimons and Wescott 2007). The purposes ofmulti-tenure reserve networks differ somewhatfrom targeted private land conservationprogrammes which often have a primarypurpose of improving CAR levels at juris-dictional or national scales. Where multi-tenurereserve networks are unique is that they are

Page 2

FITZSIMONS and WESCOTT: ECOSYSTEM CONSERVATION IN MUTI-TENURE RESERVE NETWORKS 251

actually “on-ground” entities of landholders andmanagers, usually within a defined geographicor ecological boundary, that agree to managetheir properties consistent with others in thenetwork (Prober et al. 2001; Eddy 2007).

This paper analyses and evaluates thecontribution that multi-tenure reserve networksmake to enhancing the ecological com-prehensiveness and representativeness of theexisting public protected area system. To achievethis goal, we analyse vegetation typesrepresented within networks, as surrogates forbiodiversity assemblages, in the context ofgeographic extent, conservation threat, andlevels of protection of these vegetation types ata subregional level.

METHODS

Descriptions of study area

Three case studies in southeastern Australiawere the focus of this research – the BookmarkBiosphere Reserve (BBR), Grassy BoxWoodlands Conservation Management Network(GBWCMN) and Gippsland Plains ConservationManagement Network (GPCMN) (Fig. 1). Thesenetworks were the most advanced in theirdevelopment at the time of our research andwhich facilitated comparisons between ecosystemreservation levels within different networkstructures and different Australian jurisdictions.The BBR (now known as the RiverlandBiosphere Reserve) is located in the MurrayMallee and Riverland areas of South Australia

and includes large former pastoral propertiesand smaller privately-owned properties alongthe Murray River. The GBWCMN incorporatesa number of relatively small remnants of mainlygrassy white box woodland vegetation, oftenfound on cemeteries and travelling stock routesin the largely cleared inland slopes of NewSouth Wales (NSW) from north of the Victorianborder to south of the Queensland border. TheGPCMN includes a number of public landnature conservation reserves, as well as privatereserves owned by the Trust for Nature, andprivately owned land managed under binding ornon-binding agreements focused towardsprotecting plains grassy woodlands, lowlandforests, and wetlands (refer to Fitzsimons andWescott 2005).

Selecting and obtaining datasets for analysis

We collected geospatial data for multi-tenurereserve networks, native vegetation, andprotected areas for the study areas andsurrounding bioregions from the natureconservation agencies of Victoria, NSW, andSouth Australia in December 2001-January2002, and updated vegetation data for the RiverMurray in 2006. Habitat and vegetation types,or other environmental units are increasinglyused in conservation planning and auditing(Faith et al. 2001), particularly in Australia(NLWRA 2002; NRMMC 2005). However,Australia lacks a consistent and detailed nativevegetation categorization or mappingprogramme (Sun et al. 1997; NLWRA 2001;Hnatiuk 2003). Each agency and/or jurisdiction

Fig. 1. Location of the Bookmark Biosphere Reserve, Grassy Box Woodlands Conservation Management Network and Gippsland PlainsConservation Management Network in Australia.

Page 3

252 PACIFIC CONSERVATION BIOLOGY

has different vegetation classifications anddifferent dataset availability (for full details seeFitzsimons 2004).

Bookmark Biosphere Reserve

Native vegetation mapping in the SouthAustralian Murray Mallee, South Olary Plainsand Western Murray Flats and River Murrayregions combines floristic and general structuralclasses of the dominant vegetation which areused in combination for this analysis. Themapping was based on interpretation of aerialphotographs at different scales (i.e., 1:40,000 forMurray Mallee and Western Murray Flats,1:20,000 for the River Murray corridor, and1:86,600 for the South Olary Plains).

Gippsland Plains Conservation ManagementNetwork

Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVCs) havebeen mapped and digitized for all of the Stateof Victoria by the Department of Sustainabilityand Environment (DSE) and its predecessors,and are used as the primary vegetationclassification for the State. EVCs representcombinations of floristic communities withstructural, physiognomic and floristic affinitiesthat exist under a common regime of ecologicalprocesses within a particular environment(CVRFASC 1996; Woodgate et al. 1996; Parkeset al. 2003). In the Gippsland Plains region,EVCs are mapped at a scale of 1:25,000 fromaerial photograph interpretation. The predicteddistribution of the EVCs prior to Europeansettlement (pre-1750) has also been modelledand mapped using information from existingremnant vegetation, climate, altitude, landform,and soils/geology (Oliver et al. 2002; Parkes etal. 2003). The mapping of some ecosystems,such as wetlands, using the EVC classification isvariable throughout Victoria, but moreconsistent in Gippsland (Robertson andFitzsimons 2004).

Grassy Box Woodlands Conservation Manage-ment Network

A number of vegetation classifications andresultant datasets have been produced acrossvarious areas of the NSW inland slopes.However, there remains a lack of consistentmapping of vegetation throughout this region(Benson 1999; NPWS 2000, 2001). Finer scalevegetation layers currently only exist forlocalized areas (see NPWS 2000, 2001, 2002)and even then different classifications are beingused (e.g., compare Austin et al. (2000) withSeddon et al. (2002)). Thus, we base our analysisfor this network on vegetation informationprovided by the coordinating body of theGBWCMN and previously published infor-mation for the inland slopes region. Dominant

overstorey species and understorey structure wasprovided by the CMN, while further informationwas gained from the Australian HeritageCommission where available (AHC 2003).

Spatial analysis

We conducted the spatial analysis of vegetationdistribution and protection for the BBR andGPCMN within a geographic informationsystem (ArcView GIS 3.3). The lack of suitablevegetation layers for the subregions of theGBWCMN precluded subregional summaries ofvegetation type occurrence for this network. Thedominant overstorey species and understoreystructure were used to delineate vegetationoccurrence and differences amongst componentsof this network.

We made calculations of the area of vegetationtypes occurring within network components andpublic protected areas in the surroundingsubregions. We grouped the presence ofparticular vegetation types in network com-ponents according to the Conservation LandsCategorisation (CLC) (described in Fitzsimons andWescott 2004, 2005) to assess the contributionthat various categories made to vegetationprotection. The CLC classifies land managed forconservation by manager and level of protection(i.e., 1.1 — Public protected areas with highlevel of protection; 1.2 — Public protected areaswith lesser level of protection; 1.3 — otherreserves; 2.1 — other public land with bindingconservation agreement; 2.2 — other publicland with non-binding agreement; 3.1 —protected Indigenous land; 4.1 — private landowned by an organization with bindingconservation agreement; 4.2 — private landowned by an individual with bindingconservation agreement; 4.3 — private landowned by an organization with a non-bindingconservation agreement; 4.4 — private landowned by an individual with a non-bindingconservation agreement, and; Other).

There are inconsistencies in vegetation classifi-cation between the networks, which are anhistorical culmination of different classificationsystems used in different parts of Australia tosuit different purposes. Nonetheless, within thecontext of conservation planning, these are theunits that are actively used by the respectivejurisdictions, and thus allow intra-jurisdictionalcomparisons and analysis within nationalreporting frameworks such as the NationalReserve System.

RESULTS

Representation of subregional vegetation typesin multi-tenure reserve networks and publicprotected areas

Due to the varying scales, classificationsystems, and coverage of vegetation mappingbetween the three jurisdictions, the number of

Page 4

FITZSIMONS and WESCOTT: ECOSYSTEM CONSERVATION IN MUTI-TENURE RESERVE NETWORKS 253

vegetation units represented in subregions,public protected areas and multi-tenure reservenetworks allowed for only limited comparison.The clearance and/or modification of nativevegetation have affected the Gippsland Plainand the NSW inland slopes to a similar extent(i.e., 21.5% and 20.7% of the original vegetatedextent remaining, respectively). In contrast, thesubregions surrounding BBR have nearly threetimes, or 56.6%, of the proportion of originalvegetation remaining (Table 1). The proportionof the extant vegetation reserved ranged fromrelatively high in the Gippsland Plain (36%) tolow for inland slopes of NSW (6.4%) (Table 1).Of the networks, BBR contained the highestpercentage of subregional vegetation (31.9%)while GPCMN (4.0%) and GBWCMN (0.1%)had substantially less.

Contribution of networks to ecosystem pro-tection at the subregional scale

The contribution BBR made to enhancing aCAR reserve system varied. A number of largecomponents in BBR meant that of the 49vegetation units occurring in BBR, 28 hadgreater than 40% of their subregional areawithin the Biosphere Reserve. However, 15vegetation units had greater than 40%representation in public protected areas and afurther 10 had greater than 20% in publicprotected areas (Table 2). Nonetheless, for 14vegetation types the area represented in BBRwas more than double that of representation inthe public protected area estate at thesubregional level. Notably, the Dodonaea viscosaLow Shrubland, Eucalyptus cyanophylla/E. socialisOpen Mallee, and Myoporum platycarpum LowWoodland vegetation types, all virtuallyunreserved in South Australian public protectedareas, had 52 ha, 924 ha, and 643 ha protectedwithin BBR, respectively (Table 2).

Assessments of the contribution to the com-prehensiveness and representativeness of thereserve system is limited without details onexactly how much has been cleared. On theGippsland Plains, the mapping of the pre-1750distribution of vegetation allowed a moredetailed assessment of the contribution to CAR.Over 30% of the endangered Plains GrassyWoodland remaining in the Gippsland Plainsubregion occurs within the CMN, while thenetwork protects over 70% of the remainingendangered Sandy Flood Scrub (Table 3). Theformer occurs mainly within Trust for Naturereserves and conservation covenants on privateland, while the latter was mainly within publicland water frontages. Of those vegetation typesthat had <100 ha in the public protected areaestate, most occurred along the edge of the

Tabl

e 1.

Num

ber

and

area

or

vege

tati

on t

ypes

rep

rese

nted

in

subr

egio

ns,

publ

ic p

rote

cted

are

as a

nd m

ulti

-ten

ure

rese

rve

netw

orks

.

Net

wor

kFo

cus

subr

egio

nsPu

blic

pro

tect

ed a

reas

in

subr

egio

nsM

ulti

-ten

ure

rese

rve

netw

orks

No.

of

Are

a of

% o

f%

of

Are

a of

% o

fex

tant

exta

ntsu

breg

ion

No.

of

Are

a of

vege

tati

onN

o. o

fm

appe

dsu

breg

iona

lve

geta

tion

Subr

egio

nve

geta

tion

mai

ntai

ning

vege

tati

onex

tant

in p

ublic

vege

tati

onve

geta

tion

vege

tati

on i

nun

its

1 ar

ea (

ha)

(ha)

vege

tati

onun

its

vege

tati

onpr

otec

ted

area

sun

its

(ha)

netw

orks

Boo

kmar

k11

64,

189,

579

2,36

9,41

756

.661

373,

941

15.8

4975

6,99

931

.9B

iosp

here

Res

erve

Gip

psla

nd13

21,

248,

550

268,

608

21.5

6995

,830

35.7

1910

,740

4.0

Plai

nsC

onse

rvat

ion

Man

agem

ent

Net

wor

kG

rass

y B

ox?

10,6

56,8

722,

204,

698*

20.7

?14

0,13

5*6.

4+?

1,25

00.

1W

oodl

ands

Con

serv

atio

nM

anag

emen

tN

etw

ork

*sou

rced

fro

m N

LWR

A L

ands

cape

Hea

lth i

n Au

stra

lia (

Mor

gan

2001

).

Page 5

254 PACIFIC CONSERVATION BIOLOGY

Table 2.The subregional area and reservation levels of Regional Vegetation Units occurring in the Bookmark Biosphere Reserve

Area in Area in % in Area in % offocus public public BBR subregional

Regional Vegetation Unit subregions protected protected (ha) area(ha) areas (ha) areas in BBR

Acacia spp., Dodonaea spp., Senna artemisiodes ssp., 12,179 3,830 31 8,000 66Eremophila spp. Open Shrubland

Acacia stenophylla Low Woodland 356 157 44 271 76Agrostis avenacea Tussock Grassland 256 8 3 21 8Angianthus tomentosus Herbland 336 252 75 299 89Atriplex lindleyi +/- Sclerolaena muricata Low Shrubland 3,846 2,018 52 2,608 68Atriplex rhagodioides Shrubland 2,148 964 45 1,202 56Atriplex vesicaria +/- Maireana sedifolia Low 382 290 76 296 77Open Shrubland

Casuarina pauper Low Woodland 95,293 26,797 28 26,854 28Casuarina pauper Very Low Open Woodland 285,879 7,587 3 7,097 2Chenopodium nitrariaceum Shrubland 271 82 30 134 49Disphyma crassifolium Very Open Mat Plants 1,707 464 27 1,582 93Dodonaea viscosa Low Shrubland 486 0 52 11Dodonaea viscosa Open Shrubland 108 71 66 79 73Eragrostis australasica, Muehlenbeckia florulenta 751 679 90 702 93Open Tussock Grassland

Eucalyptus camaldulensis Open Forest 3,175 931 29 1,422 45Eucalyptus camaldulensis Woodland 5,792 1,375 24 1,613 28Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Acacia stenophylla Woodland 260 72 28 98 38Eucalyptus camaldulensis, E. largiflorens Open Forest 832 553 66 652 78Eucalyptus camaldulensis, E. largiflorens Woodland 9,439 3,647 39 4,704 50Eucalyptus cyanophylla, +/- E. socialis Open Mallee 6,456 2 0 926 14Eucalyptus dumosa, E. socialis Open Mallee 37,912 11,201 30 30,287 80Eucalyptus gracilis, E. oleosa Very Open Mallee 90,863 574 1 209 0Eucalyptus gracilis, E. oleosa, +/- 616,770 117,276 19 372,626 60Eucalyptus socialis Open Mallee

Eucalyptus largiflorens +/- E. camaldulensis Woodland 519 83 16 348 67Eucalyptus largiflorens Low Open Forest 3,136 1,262 40 1,862 59Eucalyptus largiflorens Low Open Woodland 10,484 4302 41 6,034 58Eucalyptus largiflorens, Acacia stenophylla Low Open Forest 1,176 666 57 777 66Eucalyptus largiflorens, E. camaldulenisis Open Forest 311 99 32 20 6Eucalyptus leptophylla, E. socialis Open Mallee 15,124 444 3 66 0Eucalyptus porosa, Acacia stenophylla Low Open Woodland 1 1 41 1 95Eucalyptus socialis, +/- E. oleosa Open Mallee 374,892 156,525 42 254,792 68Poaceae spp., Herb spp., with emergent trees 14,957 3101 21 6,707 45Open (tussock) Grassland

Halosarcia spp. and/or Sclerostegia spp. Low Shrubland 7,997 1804 23 2,697 34Juncus kraussii Sedgeland 23 0 0 0 1Lycium spp., Sclerostegia spp., Disphyma spp., 51,441 337 1 836 2Nitraria spp. Low Open Shrubland

Maireana brevifolia Low Open Shrubland 436 1 0 6 1Maireana pyramidata Low Open Shrubland 101,599 2,050 2 4,947 5Maireana sedifolia Low Open Shrubland 301,803 6,872 2 6,551 2Melaleuca halmaturorum Very Low Open Forest 5 0 0 0 0Melaleuca lanceolata +/- Eucalyptus largiflorens 1,350 552 41 1,003 74Low Open Forest

Muehlenbeckia florulenta Tall Shrubland 11,778 4,732 40 5,626 48Myoporum platycarpum Low Woodland 1,362 1 0 646 47Pachycornia triandra Low Open Shrubland 1,016 369 36 623 61Phragmites australis +/- Typha domingensis +/- 1,303 156 12 217 17Schoenoplectus validus Closed Tussock Grassland

Polycalymma stuartii Herbland 94 27 29 46 49Sarcocornia quinqueflora Low Closed Shrubland 83 16 20 17 20Sclerolaena tricuspis, S. brachyptera Low Open Shrubland 1,566 785 50 1,121 72Sporobolus virginicus or S. mitchellii Tussock Grassland 1,498 257 17 272 18Typha domingensis or T. orientalis Sedgeland 171 5 3 50 29

Page 6

FITZSIMONS and WESCOTT: ECOSYSTEM CONSERVATION IN MUTI-TENURE RESERVE NETWORKS 255

subregion and only small areas were representedwithin the GPCMN.

Contribution of network components toecosystem conservation

Of the 49 vegetation types represented withinBBR, four occurred in each CLC, excluding“other”, while a further three occurred in all butone. Five occurred only within private landcomponents (Table 4). Five vegetation types wererepresented solely within private land com-ponents owned by organizations with binding(CLC 4.1), or non-binding agreements (CLC4.3), or individuals with non-binding agree-ments (CLC 4.4).

Within the GPCMN, Plains Grassy Woodlandand Heathy Woodland were represented in eachCLC category, while Damp Sands Herb-richWoodland was represented in all categoriesexcept for CLC 2.2 (Table 5). Notably, PlainsGrassy Woodland, an endangered ecosystem,occurred in the greatest number of separatecomponents (26) and was the fourth highestprotected ecosystem (1,515 ha). EstuarineWetlands had the highest representation (2,840ha), mostly within the Gippsland Lakes Reserve.No vegetation types represented within theGPCMN occurred solely on private landcomponents.

The majority of GBWCMN components(71.1%) had a White Box Eucalytus albensoverstorey, while Yellow Box E. melliodora,Blakely’s Red Gum E. blakelyi and Grey Box E.microcarpa were present on a fewer number of

sites. Most components also contained a grassyunderstorey (87%) (Table 6). Of those overstoreyspecies rarely recorded in the network Long-leaved Box E. goniocalyx, Red Box E.polyanthemos, Snappy Gum E. rossii and MuggaIronbark E. sideroxylon were only present in theTarcutta Hills Reserve (CLC 4.1), which isowned by Bush Heritage Australia, aconservation land trust. A small number of siteshad no overstorey species listed which may haveresulted from past removal (effectively formingderived native grasslands), or from a vegetationtype listed in which the overstorey species couldnot be ascertained.

DISCUSSION

Relative contribution of networks and theircomponents to biodiversity conservation

Some ecosystems are more vulnerable tothreatening processes including subsistence orresource extraction than other ecosystems.Determining the relative protection ofvulnerable ecosystems is therefore an importantmeans of assessing the effectiveness of reservesystems (Pressey et al. 2002). As much of thefocus of current conservation programmes forprivate land is driven by recognition of thevulnerability of particular vegetation types, suchmeasures are particularly pertinent to multi-tenure reserve networks. The contribution ofeach of the networks and their components toenhancing the comprehensiveness, representa-tiveness, and adequacy of the reserve system isdiscussed separately below.

Table 3. The subregional area and reservation levels of Ecological Vegetation Classes occurring in the Gippsland PlainsConservation Management Network.

Area in % of % of pre- % of extantPre-1750 Current public Area in current 1750 subregional

extent extent protected CMN extent in extents in area inEcological Vegetation Class (ha) (ha) areas (ha) (ha) public public GPCMN

Coastal Dune Scrub Mosaic 10,514 8,756 5,193 9 59.3 49.4 0.1Coastal Saltmarsh 11,111 9,732 6,299 64 64.7 56.7 0.7Damp Sands Herb-rich Woodland 53,699 16,122 8,744 1,911 54.2 16.3 11.9Dry Valley Forest 315 67 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.8Estuarine Wetland 7,851 15,375 8,075 2,840 52.5 102.9 18.5Heathy Woodland 60,492 36,106 15,759 2,241 43.6 26.1 6.2Limestone Box Forest 1,166 585 89 34 15.2 7.6 5.8Lowland Forest 169,194 36,998 5,187 60 14.0 3.1 0.2Lowland Herb-rich Forest 1,208 75 3 <1 4.2 0.3 0.1Plains Grassy Woodland 151,008 4,850 897 1,515 18.5 0.6 31.2Riparian Scrub 11,662 1,827 465 11 25.4 4.0 0.6Sand Forest 0 2,257 393 559 17.4 – 24.8Sand Heathland 14,597 12,349 10,826 22 87.7 74.2 0.2Sandy Flood Scrub 2,447 397 138 280 34.8 5.6 70.4Sedge Wetland 2,218 1,050 383 204 36.5 17.3 19.4Shrubby Dry Forest 8 51 0 7 0.0 0.0 13.4Swamp Scrub 163,391 7,983 1,652 3 20.7 1.0 0.0Water Body (Natural/artificial) 27,441 47,157 10,750 434 22.8 39.2 0.9Wetland Formation 1,289 6,821 2,120 546 31.1 164.5 8.0Notes: 1) Some EVCs, particularly wetlands, have a greater area of extant vegetation mapped than that mapped for pre-1750 occurrence due to the vagaries ofpre-1750 modelling for some ecosystems and/or wetland classification.2) Only those vegetation types with some representation in the GPCMN displayed.

Page 7

256 PACIFIC CONSERVATION BIOLOGYTa

ble

4. A

rea

of R

egio

nal

Vege

tati

on U

nits

pro

tect

ed w

ithi

n C

onse

rvat

ion

Land

s C

ateg

orie

s an

d nu

mbe

r of

com

pone

nts

prot

ecti

ng t

he v

eget

atio

n ty

pe i

n th

e B

ookm

ark

Bio

sphe

re R

eser

ve.

Con

serv

atio

n L

ands

Cla

ssif

icat

ion

Reg

iona

l Ve

geta

tion

Uni

tA

rea

(ha)

No.

of

com

pone

nts

1.1

1.2

1.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

Oth

Tota

l1.

11.

21.

34.

14.

24.

34.

4O

thTo

tal

Acac

ia s

pp.,

Dod

onae

a sp

p.,

Senn

a ar

tem

isio

des

ssp.

,4,

761

3,03

90

00

020

00

8,00

04

20

00

01

07

Ere

mop

hila

spp

. O

pen

Shru

blan

dAc

acia

ste

noph

ylla

Low

Woo

dlan

d11

114

02

<1

018

00

270

21

11

01

00

6Ag

rost

is a

vena

cea

Tuss

ock

Gra

ssla

nd0

00

<1

020

00

200

00

10

10

02

Angi

anth

us t

omen

tosu

s H

erbl

and

4825

20

00

00

029

91

10

00

00

02

Atri

plex

lin

dley

i +

/- S

cler

olae

na m

uric

ata

1,06

61,

272

265

00

05

02,

608

41

20

00

10

8L

ow S

hrub

land

Atri

plex

rha

godi

oide

s Sh

rubl

and

1,12

353

11<

10

150

01,

202

51

21

01

00

10At

ripl

ex v

esic

aria

+/-

Mai

rean

a se

difo

lia L

ow7

289

00

00

0<

129

62

10

00

00

14

Ope

n Sh

rubl

and

Cas

uari

na p

aupe

r L

ow W

oodl

and

23,5

473,

307

00

00

00

26,8

541

10

00

00

02

Cas

uari

na p

aupe

r Ve

ry L

ow O

pen

Woo

dlan

d2,

883

4,21

40

00

00

07,

097

21

00

00

00

3C

heno

podi

um n

itrar

iace

um S

hrub

land

110

63

00

015

013

43

12

00

01

07

Dis

phym

a cr

assi

foliu

m V

ery

Ope

n M

at P

lant

s1,

150

431

10

00

00

1,58

22

12

00

01

06

Dod

onae

a vi

scos

a L

ow S

hrub

land

00

00

00

520

520

00

00

01

01

Dod

onae

a vi

scos

a O

pen

Shru

blan

d41

370

00

01

079

31

00

00

10

5E

ragr

ostis

aus

tral

asic

a, M

uehl

enbe

ckia

flo

rule

nta

611

91<

10

00

00

702

21

10

00

00

4O

pen

Tus

sock

Gra

ssla

ndE

ucal

yptu

s ca

mal

dule

nsis

Ope

n Fo

rest

769

302

201

182

4982

<1

1,42

26

15

21

11

118

Euc

alyp

tus

cam

aldu

lens

is W

oodl

and

946

444

102

120

7336

01,

613

81

55

01

20

22E

ucal

yptu

s ca

mal

dule

nsis

, Ac

acia

ste

noph

ylla

Woo

dlan

d40

580

00

00

098

21

00

00

00

3E

ucal

yptu

s ca

mal

dule

nsis

, E

. la

rgifl

oren

s O

pen

Fore

st10

951

119

00

140

065

22

13

00

10

07

Euc

alyp

tus

cam

aldu

lens

is,

E.

larg

iflor

ens

Woo

dlan

d1,

924

2,24

145

634

3316

<1

<1

4,70

45

15

41

11

119

Euc

alyp

tus

cyan

ophy

lla,

+/-

E.

soci

alis

Ope

n M

alle

e3

00

50

091

90

926

10

01

00

10

3E

ucal

yptu

s du

mos

a, E

ucal

yptu

s so

cial

is O

pen

Mal

lee

24,4

842,

784

03,

019

00

00

30,2

874

10

10

00

06

Euc

alyp

tus

grac

ilis,

E.

oleo

sa V

ery

Ope

n M

alle

e0

00

193

00

132

209

00

01

00

11

3E

ucal

yptu

s gr

acili

s, E

ucal

yptu

s ol

eosa

, +

/-29

5,42

840

,678

036

,396

00

124

037

2,62

65

20

50

02

014

Euc

alyp

tus

soci

alis

Ope

n M

alle

eE

ucal

yptu

s la

rgifl

oren

s +

/- E

. ca

mal

dule

nsis

Woo

dlan

d30

18

170

022

00

348

51

10

10

08

Euc

alyp

tus

larg

iflor

ens

Low

Ope

n Fo

rest

833

889

5319

2968

00

1,89

14

14

41

10

015

Euc

alyp

tus

larg

iflor

ens

Low

Ope

n W

oodl

and

3,75

01,

854

155

529

121

120

06,

034

51

23

11

20

15E

ucal

yptu

s la

rgifl

oren

s, A

caci

a st

enop

hylla

257

459

340

00

280

777

41

20

00

10

8L

ow O

pen

Fore

stE

ucal

yptu

s la

rgifl

oren

s, E

. ca

mal

dule

nisi

s O

pen

Fore

st8

80

40

00

020

11

01

00

00

3E

ucal

yptu

s le

ptop

hylla

, E

. so

cial

is O

pen

Mal

lee

00

066

00

00

660

00

10

00

01

Euc

alyp

tus

poro

sa,

Acac

ia s

teno

phyl

la L

ow0

01

00

00

01

00

10

00

00

1O

pen

Woo

dlan

dE

ucal

yptu

s so

cial

is, +

/- E

ucal

yptu

s ol

eosa

224,

045

15,9

110

14,8

360

00

025

4,79

24

10

10

00

06

Ope

n M

alle

ePo

acea

e sp

p.,

Her

b sp

p.,

wit

h em

erge

nt3,

919

2,69

10

800

017

06,

707

51

01

00

20

9tr

ees

Ope

n (t

usso

ck)

Gra

ssla

ndH

alos

arci

a sp

p. a

nd/o

r Sc

lero

steg

ia s

pp.

1,45

483

147

117

220

125

02,

697

51

43

11

10

16L

ow S

hrub

land

Tabl

e 4

— c

ontin

ued

Page 8

FITZSIMONS and WESCOTT: ECOSYSTEM CONSERVATION IN MUTI-TENURE RESERVE NETWORKS 257Ta

ble

4. —

con

tinue

d

Con

serv

atio

n L

ands

Cla

ssif

icat

ion

Reg

iona

l Ve

geta

tion

Uni

tA

rea

(ha)

No.

of

com

pone

nts

1.1

1.2

1.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

Oth

Tota

l1.

11.

21.

34.

14.

24.

34.

4O

thTo

tal

Junc

us k

raus

sii

Sedg

elan

d0

00

00

0<

10

<1

00

00

00

10

1Ly

cium

spp

., Sc

lero

steg

ia s

pp.,

Dis

phym

a sp

p.,

728

00

108

00

00

836

30

01

00

00

4N

itrar

ia s

pp.

Low

Ope

n Sh

rubl

and

Mai

rean

a br

evifo

lia L

ow O

pen

Shru

blan

d1

00

00

50

06

10

00

01

00

2M

aire

ana

pyra

mid

ata

Low

Ope

n Sh

rubl

and

2,91

92,

027

00

00

10

4,94

72

20

00

01

05

Mai

rean

a se

difo

lia L

ow O

pen

Shru

blan

d2,

750

3,80

20

00

00

06,

551

11

00

00

00

2M

elal

euca

hal

mat

uror

um V

ery

Low

Ope

n Fo

rest

<1

00

00

00

0<

11

00

00

00

01

Mel

aleu

ca l

ance

olat

a +

/- E

ucal

yptu

s la

rgifl

oren

s31

833

135

40

00

00

1,00

32

13

00

00

06

Low

Ope

n Fo

rest

Mue

hlen

beck

ia f

loru

lent

a Ta

ll Sh

rubl

and

2,79

82,

087

242

130

018

918

00

5,62

65

15

40

11

017

Myo

poru

m p

laty

carp

um L

ow W

oodl

and

30

00

00

643

064

61

00

00

01

02

Pach

ycor

nia

tria

ndra

Low

Ope

n Sh

rubl

and

192

189

234

00

80

062

35

12

00

10

09

Phr

agm

ites

aust

ralis

+/-

Typ

ha d

omin

gens

is +

/-14

040

4<

10

312

021

75

15

10

01

013

Scho

enop

lect

us v

alid

us C

lose

d Tu

ssoc

k G

rass

land

Poly

caly

mm

a st

uart

ii H

erbl

and

318

<1

00

06

046

21

10

00

10

5Sa

rcoc

orni

a qu

inqu

eflo

ra L

ow C

lose

d Sh

rubl

and

16<

10

00

00

016

11

00

00

00

2Sc

lero

laen

a tr

icus

pis,

S. b

rach

ypte

ra L

ow68

443

44

00

00

01,

121

21

20

00

00

5O

pen

Shru

blan

dSp

orob

olus

vir

gini

cus

or S

. m

itche

llii

Tuss

ock

Gra

ssla

nd17

474

45

013

30

272

51

31

01

10

12Ty

pha

dom

inge

nsis

or

T. o

rien

talis

Sed

gela

nd5

20

00

430

050

31

00

01

00

5

Tabl

e 5.

Are

a of

Eco

logi

cal

Vege

tati

on C

lass

es p

rote

cted

wit

hin

Con

serv

atio

n La

nds

Cat

egor

ies

and

num

ber

of c

ompo

nent

s pr

otec

ting

the

veg

etat

ion

type

in

the

Gip

psla

nd P

lain

Con

serv

atio

n M

anag

emen

t N

etw

ork

Con

serv

atio

n L

ands

Cla

ssif

icat

ion

Eco

logi

cal

Vege

tati

on C

lass

Are

a (h

a)N

o. o

f co

mpo

nent

s

1.1

1.2

1.3

2.2

4.1

4.2

4.4

Tota

l1.

11.

21.

32.

24.

14.

24.

4To

tal

Coa

stal

Dun

e Sc

rub

Mos

aic

09

00

00

09

01

00

00

01

Coa

stal

Sal

tmar

sh0

640

00

00

640

10

00

00

1D

amp

Sand

s H

erb-

rich

Woo

dlan

d47

81,

147

120

043

111

121,

911

51

30

25

117

Dry

Val

ley

Fore

st0

01

00

00

10

01

00

00

1E

stua

rine

Wet

land

<1

2,77

953

00

80

2,84

01

13

00

10

6H

eath

y W

oodl

and

1,64

634

83

2014

374

92,

241

31

11

23

112

Lim

esto

ne B

ox F

ores

t0

340

00

00

340

10

00

00

1L

owla

nd F

ores

t59

02

00

00

602

01

00

00

3L

owla

nd H

erb-

rich

For

est

00

<1

00

00

<1

00

10

00

01

Plai

ns G

rass

y W

oodl

and

799

2021

155

246

104

801,

515

61

51

37

326

Rip

aria

n Sc

rub

00

110

00

011

00

20

00

02

Sand

For

est

364

00

00

6113

455

92

00

00

23

7Sa

nd H

eath

land

156

00

01

022

11

00

01

03

Sand

y Fl

ood

Scru

b11

70

160

10

01

280

10

11

00

25

Sedg

e W

etla

nd14

716

40

1324

020

45

11

03

20

12Sh

rubb

y D

ry F

ores

t0

00

00

70

70

00

00

10

1Sw

amp

Scru

b0

30

00

00

30

10

00

00

1W

ater

Bod

y -

Nat

ural

or

man

mad

e0

345

890

00

<1

434

01

30

00

15

Wet

land

For

mat

ion

204

342

00

00

054

61

10

00

00

2

Page 9

258 PACIFIC CONSERVATION BIOLOGY

Bookmark Biosphere Reserve

More than twice the amount of subregionalvegetation was represented BBR than in thepublic protected area estate alone. As such, itmay have been expected that the larger areaprotected within BBR made it more likely tocontribute to comprehensiveness andrepresentativeness than the other networks,however this was not the case. Most land to thenorth of the Murray Riverine corridor israngeland, and while the region has beendegraded to varying extents from livestockgrazing, it remains largely uncleared. As thereare a number of large public protected areas inthis region, most vegetation types arerepresented to some extent in the reservesystem.

The large adjoining pastoral stations ofGluepot, Taylorville, Danggali, Calperum andChowilla within BBR contributed to bothsignificant ecological integrity and replication ofvegetation types reserved. Yet in the contextof enhancing the comprehensiveness and re-presentativeness of the existing protected areaestate, the smaller private components withinthe riverine corridor contributed to a greaterextent. For example, the Eucalyptus cyanophylla/E. socialis Open Mallee, considered a poorlyconserved community in urgent need of furtherreservation (Neagle 1995 in Kahrimanis et al.2001), is represented on two private landcomponents within BBR which protect over 900ha. The Myoporum platycarpum Low Woodland,is almost unrepresented in public protectedareas, but has 643 ha on one privatecomponent.

Table 6. Overstorey species and understorey structure represented in Grassy Box Woodlands Conservation ManagementNetwork components.

Conservation Lands ClassificationOverstorey species No. of components*

Common name Scientific name 1.3 2.1 2.2 4.1 4.2 4.4 Total

White Box Eucalytus albens 4 5 14 1 0 3 27Yellow Box Eucalyptus melliodora 0 4 3 0 0 0 7Blakely’s Red Gum Eucalyptus blakelyi 0 3 1 1 0 0 5Grey Box Eucalytpus microcarpa 1 1 2 1 0 0 5Cypress-pine Callitris sp. 1 1 2 0 0 0 4Hickory Wattle Acacia implexa 0 0 1 1 0 0 2Kurrajong Brachychiton populneus 1 1 0 0 0 0 2Rough-barked Apple Angophora floribunda 0 1 0 0 0 0 1Fuzzy Box Eucalyptus conica 0 0 1 0 0 0 1Long-leaved Box Eucalyptus goniocalyx 0 0 0 1 0 0 1Red Stringybark Eucalyptus macrorhyncha 0 0 1 0 0 0 1Red Box Eucalyptus polyanthemos 0 0 0 1 0 0 1Snappy Gum Eucalyptus rossii 0 0 0 1 0 0 1Mugga Ironbark Eucalyptus sideroxylon 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

Understorey structure

Grassy (incl. forbes) 4 8 16 1 1 4 34Shrubby 0 1 2 0 0 0 3Unknown (not listed) 0 0 2 0 0 0 2*Some sites may have more than one dominant overstorey species or understorey structure combination.

Gippsland Plains Conservation ManagementNetwork

Although not contributing to comprehensive-ness (i.e., protection of previously unreservedecosystems), the spread of Plains GrassyWoodlands across 26 individual GPCMNcomponents is a significant contribution torepresentativeness. This ecosystem is consideredendangered at the Gippsland Plains subregion(DSE 2004) and listed as a threatened ecologicalcommunity under state legislation. This isimportant as even though Plains Grassy Wood-lands were targeted as part of a widerconservation strategy in the Gippsland Plainsregion (Edwards and Traill 2001), the ecosystemwas not the sole focus of the CMN (seeFitzsimons 2004 for further details).

Grassy Box Woodlands Conservation Manage-ment Network

The majority of the components within thisCMN include Grassy White Box Woodlands.Originally covering some several millionhectares of the sheep-wheat belt of southeasternAustralia, less than 0.05% of these woodlandsremain in near-original condition (Prober 1996).As a result, the Grassy White Box Woodlandcommunity is listed as a nationally endangeredcommunity under Commonwealth and statelegislation. Despite this, depletion figures for thecommunity across its range are not readilyestablished. Estimates of depletion appearconsistent at the catchment scale, ranging from5–6% of the original extent remaining (Austinet al. 2000; NPWS 2002; Seddon et al. 2002).Benson (1991) estimated that approximately

Page 10

FITZSIMONS and WESCOTT: ECOSYSTEM CONSERVATION IN MUTI-TENURE RESERVE NETWORKS 259

90% of White Box and Yellow Box-Blakely’s RedGum Woodland associations were lost when theCentral Western Slopes of NSW were firstsettled, with the remaining remnants heavilygrazed since.

Almost all other components in the GBWCMNprotected one or more of Grey Box, Yellow Boxor Blakely’s Red Gum woodlands. None of thesegrassy woodland communities are common,most have been substantially cleared and all arepoorly reserved (Benson 1989; NPWS 2001).Fuzzy Box is considered the most poorlyrepresented box woodland in conservationreserves in NSW (Benson 1999), and occurs inone component in the GBWCMN. However, asProber et al. (2001) acknowledge, rangewidesurveys of the extent and quality of Grey Box,Fuzzy Box E. conica and Bimble Box E. populneaGrassy Woodlands are urgently needed toimprove ecological understanding and targetspecific remnants for conservation.

All subregions in which the GBWCMN occursare relatively poorly reserved (i.e., all less than2% reserved, and less than 1% in total,Fitzsimons and Wescott 2008b). This highlightsboth the suitability for agriculture and theconsequent high vulnerability status of mostecosystems within this region to clearing. Assuch, the contribution of the GBWCMN to bothcomprehensiveness and representativeness isconsidered very high as almost all of thevegetation communities represented within itwould be considered endangered and poorlyreserved.

Implications for conservation

As demonstrated above, multi-tenure reservenetworks can have an important role as amechanism to increase the comprehensivenessand representativeness of ecosystems currentlynot represented or poorly represented in thepublic reserve system. Attempts to accuratelycompare the contribution of the networks tocomprehensiveness, representativeness, andadequacy were hampered somewhat bydifferences in vegetation classification, variationsin scale of mapping and completeness ofmapping. Although the finer the scale ofvegetation mapping allows for more detailedassessments of biodiversity to be made, it alsomakes the task of achieving the objectives ofCAR more difficult due to an increased numberof vegetation classes (Saunders 1998).

Accepted measures for determining theadequacy of a reserve or a reserve network formaintaining the species or communities they aredesigned to protect are not yet well developed.Taken in its literal sense, determining adequacyrequires detailed ecological knowledge of eachof the species (and other components of

biodiversity) occurring within a reserve orreserve network. For most parts of the world,such data do not exist. Although progresstowards comprehensiveness and representa-tiveness may enhance the adequacy of thereserve system, this is not always the caseparticularly for small remnants but morequantifiable measures may be in the form ofreserve size, shape and connectivity (Rothley2006; Fitzsimons and Wescott 2008b).

While vegetation types are a commonlyused surrogate for biodiversity, there areacknowledged limitations (e.g., they may notnecessarily represent distinct faunal assemblages;Mac Nally et al. 2002). Further, a reliance onbroad-scale attributes and an emphasis onrepresentation in reserve establishment has beencriticized by some scientists who suggest thatunique areas and hotspots for biodiversity maybe missed (e.g., Brooks et al. 2004). It isimportant to recognize that all three networksprotected attributes important for conservationbesides representing vegetation communities.BBR is the last stronghold for the nationallyendangered Black-eared Miner Manorinamelanotis (Baker-Gabb 2001), with Gluepot andTaylorville Stations providing some of the bestexamples of old-growth mallee, the plantformation required for the species’ survival. Anationally threatened herb, the DwarfKerrawang Rulingia prostrata, is also present ona number of properties (particularly privateproperties) within the Gippsland Plains CMN(Foreman 2000). Such examples highlight apotential shortcoming in using vegetation typesalone as a measure of contribution to CARobjectives, particularly when some multi-tenurenetworks focus on conserving a range of sites,many for the purpose of providing habitat fora particular threatened species (e.g., the SuperbParrot Project (Platt 2001) and the Mount LoftyRanges Southern Emu-wren Recovery Program(Environment Australia 1998; Prober et al.2001)). In such cases, the conservation of non-remnant features such as overstorey trees maybebe just as important for the objectives of thenetwork as the protection of more intact patchesof remnant vegetation. Furthermore, a variety ofstates (e.g., structure, quality) of the samevegetation type may be required to protect thevarious biotic components throughout theirrange (Robinson 1999).

The presence of multi-tenure reservenetworks within a particular region acts tohighlight the plight and/or conservation valueof the ecosystems. This often results in increasedinvestment of resources from outside of thatimmediate region. For example, land purchaseby both governments and non-government landtrusts has occurred in each of the three networks

Page 11

260 PACIFIC CONSERVATION BIOLOGY

since their establishment, as well as in othernetworks (e.g., Fitzherbert 2004; Fitzsimons et al.2004, 2006, 2008). In each case, the pre-existingpresence and structure of the respective networkin part influenced these purchases.

The classification of vegetation types not onlyaffects their estimated extent, reservation levelsand conservation status, it can also haveimplications for the level of protection affordedunder legislation. This is particularly relevantfor a number of vegetation communitiesrepresented within the networks. For examplethe White Box Grassy Woodland is currentlylisted as an endangered community under theCommonwealth’s Environment Protection andBiodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act whereas thiscommunity falls within a broader White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely’s Red Gum Woodlandcommunity under the NSW Threatened SpeciesConservation Act 1995. In the Australian CapitalTerritory, the Yellow Box-[Blakely’s]Red GumGrassy Woodland is listed as an endangeredecological community under the NatureConservation Act 1980. Although listing anecological community (or species) under state orterritory legislation may afford a similar degreeof legislative protection as listing under Federallegislation, the ability to gain funding forconservation activities associated with thecommunity maybe lessened if not listed underthe EPBC Act. This potentially has implicationsfor the funding of existing or future networks,particularly through the Federal Government(see Fitzsimons 2004), and especially in light ofthe Commonwealth’s failure to adequatelymaintain the list of threatened ecologicalcommunities (e.g., Macintosh 2004).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Comments by R.A. Leidy, Dianne Simmonsand an anonymous referee on earlier drafts ofthis paper were greatly appreciated. TheVictorian Department of Sustainability andEnvironment, South Australian Department forEnvironment and Heritage, Planning SA, NSWNational Parks and Wildlife Service and thevarious networks provided geospatial datasetsfor this analysis. JAF received financial assistancefrom a Deakin University Postgraduate ResearchScholarship during this research.

REFERENCES

AHC, 2003. Australian Heritage Commission Register of theNational Estate Database. Available: <http://www.ahc.gov.au> [Accessed 21 January 2003].

Austin, M. P., Cawsey, E. M., Baker, B. L., Yialeloglou, M.M., Grice, D. J. and Briggs, S. V., 2000. PredictedVegetation Cover in the Central Lachlan Region. FinalReport of the Natural Heritage Trust Project AA1368.97. CSIRO Wildlife and Ecology, Canberra.

Baker-Gabb, D., 2001. Recovery Plan for the Black-earedMiner Manorina melanotis 2002–2006: Conservation ofold-growth dependent mallee fauna. Department forEnvironment and Heritage, Adelaide.

Benson, J., 1989. Establishing priorities for the conservationof rare or threatened plants and plant associations inNew South Wales. Pp. 17–82 in The Conservation ofThreatened Species and Their Habitats ed by M. Hicksand P. Eiser. ACIUCN Occasional Paper No. 2.Australian Committee for IUCN, Canberra.

Benson, J., 1991. The effect of 200 years of Europeansettlement on the vegetation and flora of New SouthWales. Cunninghamia 2: 343–370.

Benson, J., 1999. Setting the Scene: The Native Vegetationof New South Wales. Background Paper No. 1. NativeVegetation Advisory Council of New South Wales,Sydney.

Bertzky, M. and Stoll-Kleemann, S., 2009. Multi-leveldiscrepancies with sharing data on protectedareas: What we have and what we need for theglobal village. J. Environ. Manage. 90: 8–24.

Brooks, T. M., da Fonesca, G. A. B. and Rodrigues, A. S.L., 2004. Protected areas and species. Conserv. Biol.. 18:616–618.

CVRFASC, 1996. Comprehensive Regional Assessment EastGippsland — Environment and Heritage Report.Ecological vegetation classes: the practical intersectionof a vegetation classification and planning forbiodiversity conservation and ecological management(Appendix G). Commonwealth and Victorian RegionalForest Agreement Steering Committee, Canberra.

DSE, 2004. Conservation status of Ecological VegetationClasses in Victorian Bioregions 2004. Department ofSustainability & Environment, Melbourne.

Eddy, D., 2007. The Monaro Grassland ConservationManagement Network: Reconnecting the sward. Ecol.Manage. Restor. 8: 165–176.

Edwards, R. and Traill, B., 2002. Getting beyond fielddays: targeting extension to protect threatenedecosystems on private land. Ecol. Manage. Restor. 3:229–231.

Environment Australia, 1998. Recovery Plan for the Mt.Lofty Ranges Southern Emu-wren (Stipiturus malachurusintermedius) 1999–2003. Mt Lofty Ranges SouthernEmu-wren Recovery Team, Environment Australia,Canberra.

Faith, D. P., Margules, C. R., Walker, P. A., Stein, J. L. andNatera, G., 2001. Practical application of biodiversitysurrogates and percentage targets for conservation inPapua New Guinea. Pac. Conserv. Biol. 6: 289–303.

Fitzherbert, K., 2004. Our first reserve in Victoria. BushHeritage News Summer: 1–3.

Fitzsimons, J. A., 2004. The Contribution of Multi-tenureReserve Networks to Biodiversity Conservation. PhDthesis, School of Ecology & Environment, DeakinUniversity, Melbourne.

Fitzsimons, J. A., 2006. Private protected areas?Determining the suitability for incorporatingconservation agreements over private land into theNational Reserve System: A case study of Victoria.Environ. Plann. Law J. 23: 365–385.

Fitzsimons, J. A., FitzSimons, P. and Ashe, C., 2004. Furtherstrategic additions to Victoria’s public protected areasystem: 2002–2004. Victorian Nat. 121: 214–225.

Page 12

FITZSIMONS and WESCOTT: ECOSYSTEM CONSERVATION IN MUTI-TENURE RESERVE NETWORKS 261

Fitzsimons, J. and Wescott, G., 2001. The role andcontribution of private land in Victoria to biodiversityconservation and the protected area system. Aust. J.Environ. Manage. 8: 142–157.

Fitzsimons, J. A. and Wescott, G., 2004. The classificationof lands managed for conservation: existing andproposed frameworks, with particular reference toAustralia. Environ. Sci. Policy 7: 477–486.

Fitzsimons, J. A. and Wescott, G., 2005. History andattributes of selected Australian multi-tenure reservenetworks. Aust. Geogr. 36: 75–93.

Fitzsimons, J. A. and Wescott, G., 2007. Perceptions andattitudes of land managers in multi-tenure reservenetworks and the implications for conservation. J.Environ. Manage. 84: 38–48.

Fitzsimons, J. A. and Wescott, G. 2008a. Evolvinggovernance arrangements in multi-tenure reservenetworks. Environ. Conserv. 35: 5–7.

Fitzsimons, J. A. and Wescott, G., 2008b. The role of multi-tenure reserve networks in improving reserve designand connectivity. Landsc. Urban Plann. 85: 163–173.

Fitzsimons, J. A., Williams, C. and FitzSimons, P., 2006.Ecological attributes of strategic additions to Victoria’spublic protected area estate: 2004–2005. Victorian Nat.123: 134–145.

Fitzsimons, J. A., Williams, C., Walsh, V., FitzSimons, P. andU’Ren, G. 2008. Ecological attributes of strategic landacquisitions for addition to Victoria’s public protectedarea estate (2006–2007). Victorian Nat. 125: 140–149.

Foreman, P., 2000. Conserving threatened plants andcommunities in Victoria: the Protected Area Network.Danthonia 9(2): 1, 4–5.

Gaston, K. J., Charman, K., Jackson, S. F., Armsworth, P.R., Bonn, A., Briers, R. A., Callaghan, C. S. Q.,Catchpole, R., Hopkins, J., Kunin, W. E., Latham, J.,Opdam, P. F. M., Stoneman, R., Stroud, D.A. and Tratt,R., 2006. The ecological effectiveness of protectedareas: The United Kingdom. Biol. Conserv. 132: 76–87.

Hnatiuk, R., 2003. Classification of plant communities. Pp.212–229 in Ecology: An Australian Perspective ed byP. Attiwill and B. Wilson. Oxford University Press,Melbourne.

Kahrimanis, M. J., Carruthers, S., Oppermann, A. andInnes, R., 2001. Biodiversity Plan for the SouthAustralian Murray-Darling Basin. Department forEnvironment & Heritage, Adelaide.

Langholz, J. A. and Krug, W., 2004. New forms ofbiodiversity governance: non-state actors and theprivate protected area action plan. J. Int. Wildlife LawPolicy, 7: 9–29.

Mac Nally, R., Bennett, A. F., Brown, G. W., Lumsden, L.F., Yen, A., Hinkley, S., Lillywhite, P. and Ward, D.,2002. How well do ecosystem-based planning unitsrepresent different components of biodiversity? Ecol.Appl. 12: 900–912.

Macintosh, A., 2004. Why the Environment Protection andBiodiversity Conservation Act’s referral, assessment andapproval process is failing to achieve its environmentalobjectives. Environ. Plann. Law J. 21: 288–311.

Margules, C. R. and Pressey, R. L., 2000. Systematicconservation planning. Nature 405: 243–253.

Merenlender, A. M., Huntsinger, L., Guthey, G. and Fairfax,S. K. 2004. Land trusts and conservation easements:who is conserving what for whom? Conserv. Biol. 18:65–75.

Morgan, G., 2001. Landscape Health in Australia: A RapidAssessment of the Relative Condition of Australia’sBioregions and Subregions. Environment Australia andNational Land & Water Resources Audit, Canberra.

Neagle, N., 1995. An Update of the Conservation Status ofthe Major Plant Associations of South Australia.Department of Environment and Natural Resources,Adelaide.

NLWRA, 2001. Australian Native Vegetation Assessment2001. National Land & Water Resources Audit,Canberra.

NLWRA, 2002. Australian Terrestrial Biodiversity Assess-ment 2002. National Land & Water Resources Audit,Canberra.

NPWS, 2000. Preliminary Bioregional Vegetation Project(Stage 1): Brigalow Belt South, Western RegionalAssessments. Resource and Conservation AssessmentCouncil, Sydney.

NPWS, 2001. New South Wales South West Slopes BioregionScoping Study Draft Report. NSW National Parks &Wildlife Service, Hurstville.

NPWS, 2002. The Native Vegetation of the Boorowa Shire.NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service, Hurstville.

NRMMC, 2005. Directions for the National Reserve System— A Partnership Approach. Natural ResourceManagement Ministerial Council, Canberra.

Oliver, I., Smith, P. L., Lunt, I. and Parkes, D., 2002. Pre-1750 vegetation, naturalness and vegetation condition:What are the implications for biodiversity conservation?Ecol. Manage. Restor. 3: 176–178.

Park, H., 2006. Fragments of forest management, a privatepractice: An assessment of the implementation of theRegional Forest Agreements on private land in theSouthern and Eden regions of NSW. Aust. J. Nat. Resour.Law Policy 10: 183–218.

Parkes, D., Newell, G. and Cheal, D., 2003. Assessing thequality of native vegetation: The ‘habitat hectares’approach. Ecol. Manage. Restor. 4: S29–S38.

Platt, S., 2001. Land for Wildlife: triggering natureconservation in rural Victoria. Ecol. Manage. Restor. 2:5–16.

Pressey, R. L., Whish, G. L., Barrett, T. W. and Watts, M.E., 2002. Effectiveness of protected areas in north-eastern New South Wales: recent trends in sixmeasures. Biol. Conserv. 106: 57–69.

Prober, S. M., 1996. Conservation of the Grassy White BoxWoodlands: rangewide floristic variation andimplications for reserve design. Aust. J. Bot. 44: 57–77.

Prober, S. M., Thiele, K. R. and Higginson, E., 2001. TheGrassy Box Woodlands Conservation ManagementNetwork: picking up the pieces in fragmentedwoodlands. Ecol. Manage. Restor. 2: 179–188.

Robertson, H. A. and Fitzsimons, J. A., 2004. Hydrology orfloristics? Mapping and classification of wetlands inVictoria, Australia, and implications for conservationplanning. Environ. Manage. 34: 499–507.

Robinson, D., 1999. Lowering the goals? Habitatrequirements of vertebrates and other wildlife groupsin Victoria’s Northern Plains and how well they matchup. Pp. 49–59 in Down to Grass Roots: Proceedings ofa Conference on the Management of GrassyEcosystems, Victoria University, St Albans 9-10 July1998 ed by V. Craigie and C. Hocking. Department ofConservation and Natural Resources and ParksVictoria, Melbourne.

Page 13

262 PACIFIC CONSERVATION BIOLOGY

Rothley, K. D., 2006. Finding the tradeoffs between thereserve design and representation. Environ. Manage. 38:327–337.

Saunders, D., 1998. Towards a representative system ofconservation reserves for Victoria. Pp. 49–55 inCelebrating the Parks: Proceedings of the FirstAustralian Symposium on Parks History, MountBuffalo, 16–19 April 1998 ed by E. Hamilton-Smith.Rethink Consulting, Melbourne,

Seddon, J., Briggs, S. and Doyle, S., 2002. Little RiverCatchment Biodiversity Assessment. A report forthe TARGET project. NSW National Parks and Wild-life Service and CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems,Canberra.

Smith, S., 2001. Getting paid to keep your native forests!Paper presented to the National Forum — Taking Careof the Bush: Nature Conservation on Private Land,Perth 21–23 March 2001. Available: http://www.ntwa.com.au/forum/paperSSmith.pdf

Sun, D., Hnatiuk, R. J. and Neldner, V. J., 1997. Review ofvegetation classification and mapping systemsundertaken by major forested land managementagencies in Australia. Aust. J. Bot. 45: 929–948.

Thiele, K. R. and Prober, S. M., 1999. Reserve concepts andconceptual reserves: options for the protection offragmented ecosystems. Pp. 351–358 in TemperateEucalypt Woodlands in Australia: Biology,Conservation, Restoration and Management ed by R.J. Hobbs and C. J. Yates. Surrey Beatty and Sons,Chipping Norton.

Woodgate, P. W., Peel, B. P., Coram, J. E., Farrell, S. J.,Ritman, K. T. and Lewis, A., 1996. Old-growth foreststudies in Victoria, Australia: concepts and principles.Forest Ecol. Manage. 85: 79–94.