Most changes over time in the extent and condition of native vegetation types can be accounted by changes in Land use and land management practices (LMP). Obvious changes and trends in the structure, composition and function of native vegetation can be detected using remote sensing. While environmental models are helpful they must access site data on the effects that LMP have on essential environmental variables. More subtle changes in native vegetation extent and condition must be directly measured using ground-based observations of the interactions to attribute cause and effect to natural processes and LMP. Ideally we need an information system which informs the survey, classification and mapping and modelling of LMP at various scales

1. Application of land management
information to improve the tracking of
changes and trends in the extent and
condition of native vegetation
Richard Thackway
Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation
Brisbane
28 October 2015

2. Outline
• Set the context why land management practice (LMP)
information is important?
• How do LMP change vegetation extent and condition
• Need for a systems approach to collect LMP data
• Case studies at site level – application of LMP
• Opportunities to monitor and report and regional scales
• Where to from here
• Conclusions

3. Setting the context
• Most changes over time in the extent and condition of native
vegetation types can be accounted by changes in LU and LMP
• Obvious changes and trends in the structure, composition and function
of native vegetation can be detected using remote sensing
• While environmental models are helpful they must access site data on
the effects that LMP have on essential environmental variables
• More subtle changes in native vegetation extent and condition must be
measured using ground-based observations of the interactions
– Cause and effect of natural processes and LMP
LU = Land use
LMP = land management practices

4. The case for linking LMP and effects on
structure, composition & function
• Land management practices (LMPs) are the ‘drivers’ that have been,
are, or maybe used to transform landscapes and ecosystem services
• Some threats in reality, are LMPs that are not adequately resourced e.g.
– Late dry season wildfire
– Invasive native animals
– Feral animals
– Weeds
• A decision not to use LMP to manage/control or intervene is still a LMP
decision that can have an effect on structure, composition & function
• NB: some changes in structure, composition & function are due to
natural drives e.g. drought, floods, cyclones, climate change

5. Modification of sites and landscapes
Indigenous
land
management
First
explorers
Grazing
Degreeof
resilience/condition
Tracked
vehicles
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Time
Reference state
Long
term
rainfall
Long term
disturbance
e.g. wildfire,
cyclones
Revegetation
Condition
classes
Weeds
Ferals
2015
Prescribed
burning
Same ecosystem i.e. vegetation type

6. Why is
native
vegetation
extent and
condition
important?
Yapp, Walker and Thackway 2010
VAST 1 Residual/unmodified*
VAST II1 Transformed
* Reference

7. How do management practices
change vegetation condition over
time?

8. How do land managers modify structure, composition &
function (i.e. resilience) over time?
LMP that focus on soil
LMP that focus on
native vegetation
Regenerative capacity/ function
Vegetation structure &
Species composition
1. Soil hydrological status
2. Soil physical status
3. Soil chemical status
4. Soil biological status
5. Fire regime
6. Reproductive potential
7. Overstorey structure
8. Understorey structure
9. Overstorey composition
10. Understorey composition
LMP = Land Management Practices
Focussing on 10 key criteria

9. Common interventions designed to influence
structure, composition & function
Various interventions:
Land management practices (LMP) are used to influence ecological building blocks at sites
and landscapes by:
• Modifying …
• Removing and replacing …
• Enhancing …
• Restoring …
• Maintaining …
• Improving …
Various purposes:
Including wood production, biodiversity conservation, water quality, minimize detection
To achieve the desired mix of ecosystem services (space & time)

10. Time series: T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 Land management practices that effect vegetation structure, composition and function i.e.
extent and condition
Key criteria that land managers
deliberately or inadvertently
change
Restoration and
rehabilitation
Growth,
maturity and
reproduction
Harvest
biomass or
productivity
Monitoring
health &
vitality
No activity
Degrade,
extirpate or
remove
and/or replace
1. Soil hydrological status (Fn)
2. Soil physical status (Fn)
3. Soil chemical status (Fn)
4. Soil biological status (Fn)
5. Fire regime (Fn)
6. Reproductive potential (Fn)
7. Overstorey structure (St)
8. Understorey structure (St)
9. Overstorey composition (Co)
10. Understorey composition (Co)
Need a framework for collecting LMP and their
effects on extent and condition
Criteria
Fn = functional
St = structural
Co = compositional
LMP = Land Management Practices
LUMIS = Land use and management information system

11. How does LUMIS work?
LUMIS is a framework
• to compile and classify management practices /actions into 6 themes:
– Water
– Plants/Vegetation
– Animals
– Soil
– Air
– Business
• That focuses on what land managers are managing vegetation for i.e the
LMP they are using
– Establishing and rehabilitating
– Improving and maintaining growth and condition
– Harvesting plant products and/or removing waste incl. weeds
– Monitoring health, vitality and condition
– No activity or interventions
– Degrading, extirpating or removing and/or replacing
LUMIS = Land Use and Management Information System

12. What has all this got to do with
assessing the effects that land
management practices on native
vegetation condition over time?

13. Concepts and definitions
• Resilience = the capacity of an plant community to recover
toward a reference state following a change/s in land
management
• Change in condition of a plant community (type) is due to
effects of land management practices on indicators of:
– Vegetation structure
– Species composition
– Regenerative capacity
• Transformation = changes in vegetation condition over time
• Condition, resilience and transformation are assessed relative
to a fully natural Reference state
Vegetation condition
(a composite index)

14. Compiling the effects that LMP have on native
vegetation condition over time
LMP = Land Management Practices
Effects on attributes, attribute
groups and diagnostic attributes
Time
Cause
LUMIS

15. Year Source:
Year
LU & LMP Source:
LU & LMP
Effects of land use and
management on criteria and
indicators of vegetation
condition
Source:
Effects
1800
1840
2015
Establish a chronology of data and information of
causes and effects /observed & measured responses
LU = Land Use, LMP = Land Management Practices
LUMIS

16. WA Wheatbelt
BOM rainfall
anomaly
1900-2010
(modelled 5 km
resolution)
Derived from
monthly
modelled
rainfall data
obtained from
http://www.lon
gpaddock.qld.go
v.au/silo/
Rainfall
anomaly
relative to
mean

17. VAST = Vegetation Assets States and Transitions
NVIS = National Vegetation Information System
VIVIVIIIIII0
Native vegetation
cover
Non-native vegetation
cover
Increasing modification caused by use and management
Transitions = trend
Vegetation
thresholds
Reference
for each veg
type (NVIS)
A framework for assessing modification of
native vegetation condition
Condition states
Residual or
unmodified
Naturally
bare
Modified Transformed Replaced -
Adventive
Replaced -
managed
Replaced -
removed
Thackway & Lesslie (2008) Environmental Management, 42, 572-90
Diagnostic attributes of VAST (classes):
• Vegetation structure
• Species composition
• Regenerative capacity
VAST-2 criteria
and indicators
Change & Trend
NVIS

19. Generate total indices for ‘transformation site’ for each year of the
historical record. Validate using Expert Knowledge
• Compile and collate effects of land
management on criteria (10) and
indicators (22) over time.
• Evaluate impacts on the plant
community over time
Transformation site
• Compile and collate effects of
land management on criteria
(10) and indicators (22)
Reference state/sites
Score all 22 indicators for ‘transformation site’ relative to the
‘reference site’. 0 = major change; 1 = no change
Derive weighted indices for the ‘transformation site’ i.e. regenerative
capacity (55%), vegetation structure (27%) and species composition (18%)
by adding predefined indicators
General process for tracking change over time

20. Components
(3)
Criteria
(10)
Description of loss or gain relative to pre settlement indicator reference state
(22)Regenerativecapacity
Fire regime Change in the area /size of fire foot prints
Change in the number of fire starts
Soil hydrology Change in the soil surface water availability
Change in the ground water availability
Soil physical
state
Change in the depth of the A horizon
Change in soil structure.
Soil nutrient
state
Nutrient stress – rundown (deficiency) relative to soil fertility
Nutrient stress – excess (toxicity) relative to soil fertility
Soil biological
state
Change in the recyclers responsible for maintaining soil porosity and nutrient recycling
Change in surface organic matter, soil crusts
Reproductive
potential
Change in the reproductive potential of overstorey structuring species
Change in the reproductive potential of understorey structuring species
Vegetationstructure
Overstorey
structure
Change in the overstorey top height (mean) of the plant community
Change in the overstorey foliage projective cover (mean) of the plant community
Change in the overstorey structural diversity (i.e. a diversity of age classes) of the stand
Understorey
structure
Change in the understorey top height (mean) of the plant community
Change in the understorey ground cover (mean) of the plant community
Change in the understorey structural diversity (i.e. a diversity of age classes) of the plant
Species
Composition
Overstorey
composition
Change in the densities of overstorey species functional groups
Change in no.s of indigenous overstorey species relative to the number of exotic species
Understorey
composition
Change in the densities of understorey species functional groups
Change in no.s of indigenous understorey species relative to the number of exotic species

21. 1
3
10
22
Components
(3)
Vegetation
Transformation
Score
(1)
Criteria
(10)
Vegetation
Structure
(27%)
Overstorey
(3)
Understorey
(3)
Species
Composition
(18%)
(2)
UnderstoreyOverstorey
(2)
Regenerative
Capacity
(55%)
Fire
(2)
Reprod
potent
(2)
Soil
Hydrology
(2)
Biology
(2)
Nutrients
(2)
Structure
(2) Indicators
(22)
VAST-2 – benchmark scoring of the effects of use and
management of native veg (indicators) over time

22. Case studies using VAST-2
Data and information used to populate the 22
indicators are derived either by direct measure in the
field or from expert models or a combination of both

23. Three sites with different land management histories

24. Reference plant community type: Sub-tropical rainforest

25. Source: J.W. Beattie. NSW State Library
Phillip Is, South Pacific
Source: Peter Coyne
Reference
1906

26. Reference plant community type: Cool temperate rainforest

27. Source: Forestry Commission NSW
Mount Boss State Forest, NSW
1961
Reference
Source: Ross Peacock

28. Reference plant community type: Tussock grassland

29. Regionalecosystem8.12.13a
Regionalecosystem8.12.13b
Source: Jeanette Kemp
North Molle, IsReference
2009
Source: Jeanette Kemp

30. Why do we need to collect data on
• land management practices /actions
When we already collect
• attributes on vegetation structure,
composition and function?

31. http://data.auscover.org.au/xwiki/bin/view/Product+pages/BurntArea+DoB+MODIS+CDU
1986 ongoing annual
Monitoring Burnt Area and Approximate Day of Burn
VAST-2 indicators 1 & 2
MODIS
Landsat

32. Source: http://www.clw.csiro.au/aclep/soilandlandscapegrid/ViewData-QuickView.html
Available Water Capacity
VAST-2 Indicator 3 & 4

33. Source: http://www.clw.csiro.au/aclep/soilandlandscapegrid/ViewData-QuickView.html
Bulk density
VAST-2 Indicator 6

34. Source: http://www.clw.csiro.au/aclep/soilandlandscapegrid/ViewData-QuickView.html
Organic Carbon
VAST-2 Indicator 10

35. Composites of persistence green cover and ALOS PALSAR HH and HV Source: Richard Lucas
Overstorey height, cover & structural diversity
Structural indicators 13, 14 & 15

36. Overstorey height, cover & structural diversity
Structural indicators 13, 14 & 15
Source: Peter ScarthPolygons based on Landsat FPC (persistent green) and Allos radar backscatter at 25m
Vertical structure from IceSat . Mantuan Downs, Qld

37. .
Persistent Green Fraction derived from Landsat archive
min
max
mask
Not per
Overstorey foliage cover
Structural indicator 14
Source: http://data.auscover.org.au/xwiki/bin/view/Product+pages/Landsat+Fractional+Cover
1986 ongoing annual

38. 0
20
40
60
80
100
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year
FPC
Source: Tim Danaher
1986 ongoing annual
Overstorey foliage cover
Structural indicator 14

39. Ground Cover
Structural indicator 17
Source: http://data.auscover.org.au/xwiki/bin/view/Product+pages/Landsat+Fractional+Cover
Red areas are
bare ground
Green is
showing green
cover
Blue is
showing non-
green veg
cover

40. Ground Cover
Structural indicator 17
Source: Phil Tickle CRCSI

41. Monitoring Ground Cover
VAST-2 indicator 17
Source: Phil Tickle
Belconnen naval transmitter station, ACT

42. Why has the collection and development of
LMP been so neglected?

43. Some reasons why LMP data are neglected
• LMP are regarded as too complex in space and time
• Ecologists tend to regard LMP as high noise : signal i.e. social science
• Cheaper to collect, classify and interpret post hoc patterns in RS images
• Lack of recognised LMP standards: survey, classification & mapping
• Knowledge of the effects of LMP on ecosystem structure, composition
and function is held locally
• Cheaper not to measure management systems but to assign a code of
practice e.g. public forestry

44. More work needs to done
• Remote sensing and environmental models of extent and condition of
types provide variable answers - definitely not 100%
• Challenge - to systematically collect/compile, site data over time on
– effects on LMP on key indicators of vegetation extent and condition

45. What can land managers do?
• Systematically record, collect and compile land management practices
• Develop a capacity to use the LUMIS framework
• Develop an understanding of resultant changes & trends in key veg
/ecological attributes i.e. adaptive management
– Structure, composition and function of the native vegetation
• Work with public/private land management agencies to develop and
implement systems to track outcomes of adaptive management
• Access and use government generated multi-spatial and multi-temporal
whole of landscape datasets in day-to-day management & give feedback

46. Conclusions
• There are many opportunities for public-private partnerships to collect
LMP data and the observed effects on vegetation extent and condition
• LUMIS was developed as Commonwealth /state agency partnership but
it has not been published and therefore is largely unused
• Compiling and synthesizing site-based LMP data over time provides
powerful insights into patterns observed in time series remote sensing
• Ideally we need an information system which informs the survey,
classification and mapping and modelling of LMP at various scales

47. More info & Acknowledgements
More information
http://www.vasttransformations.com/
http://portal.tern.org.au/search
http://aceas-data.science.uq.edu.au/portal/
Acknowledgements
• University of Queensland, Department of Geography Planning and Environmental Management for
ongoing research support
• Many public and private land managers, land management agencies, consultants and researchers have
assisted in the development of VAST & VAST-2
• I gratefully acknowledge the assistance of following researchers for access to, and use of their research:
Peter Coyne (Phillip Island, Norfolk Island Territory, South Pacific); Ross Peacock (ex-mount Boss State
Forest compartment 77, Willi Willi National Park, Hastings-Macleay Group of the World Heritage Site
Gondwana Rainforests); Keith McDonald (North Molle Island, (northern and central section), Molle
Group, Cumberland Islands, Qld)