Search

The aim of this study was to quantify the relative effort for biodiversity surveys across the public forest estate in the south-west of Western Australia. We collated information on historical surveys into a metadatabase and recorded locations where surveys had been conducted in a spatial geodatabase. We then used multicriteria modelling to rank land conservation units on the basis of relative survey effort. The results indicated that the western, particularly the southwestern, parts of the study area were relatively well surveyed while eastern parts were relatively poorly surveyed. This is likely to reflect greater habitat loss and fragmentation of vegetation on the eastern margins of the forest estate where it adjoins the extensively cleared Western Australian wheatbelt. There was also an emphasis on monitoring biodiversity in forest habitats closer to the main population centres of the south-west. The results of this analysis provide a basis for assessing future survey needs for the region, which should also consider: patterns of distribution in species richness; the extent, connectivity and conservation status of native vegetation and the relative risks posed to biodiversity by infrastructure and industrial land uses. We discuss the potential limitations of the multicriteria modelling approach in the context of our study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) are State-Federal agreements underpinning the management of the majority of Australia's commercially productive native forests. Introduced between 1997 and 2001, they were designed to deliver certainty to forest industries while, simultaneously, guaranteeing environmental protection, including the conservation of biodiversity. Using examples, we argue that RFAs in some jurisdictions have failed to do either. We strongly recommend a comprehensive reassessment of RFAs. This is needed to: (1) take into account significant new knowledge on forest ecology and management that has been gathered in the past 20 years, including updated prognoses for some critically endangered species; (2) better evaluate the full range of wood and non-wood products and services provided by forests; (3) accommodate new methods of forest inventory and more environmentally sensitive silvicultural systems; and (4) better account for the impacts of natural disturbances, such as fires, on the area available for logging, sustained yield, and forest ecosystem integrity per se. Without a substantial overhaul of the RFAs, there is a significant risk of undervaluing the full range of native forest values, exacerbating species declines, and permanently damaging forest ecosystems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Shelterbelts are common features of farm landscapes that provide shelter for livestock and crops and timber but may also benefit wildlife. The importance of shelterbelt plant diversity for birds was investigated by a survey of 62 sites in the Central West region of New South Wales, Australia. An area search technique was used to assess bird occurrence. An all subsets and exponential regression analysis approach explored the relationships between woody plant diversity and avifauna diversity (using Hill's diversity index), whilst seasonal variations were analysed using restricted maximum likelihood. Sixty-six bird species, including many that are woodland-dependent, representing eight foraging guilds, were observed in the shelterbelts. More species of birds occurred and at higher density in more floristically diverse shelterbelts. Other factors found to influence avifaunal use of shelterbelts were woody plant density, shelterbelt width, structural complexity, tree height, crown cover index and elevation. Seasonal analysis confirmed the importance of these independent variables but also revealed the significance of shelterbelt's proximity to water during summer for birds using this habitat. This study shows that floristic diversity, amongst other factors, is a significant predictor of avifauna diversity in shelterbelts and suggests that shelterbelts may be designed to optimize their wildlife habitat and biodiversity conservation values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]