Last week on Channel 9’s Sunday Program, Reece Turner from The Wilderness Society stated: “We haven’t seen any scientific evidence to show that biodiversity is being impacted negatively by these woody weeds.”
Sunday reporter Ross Coulthart then asked Turner, “Do you accept that there are woody weed areas causing major environmental damage?” Turner’s response to the question was: “No. We don’t accept there are major environmental damages being caused by woody weeds.”
Mr Doug Menzies, in a media release from NSW Regional Community Survival Group, said that The Wilderness Society needs to drop its emotive rhetoric on land clearing in western NSW and urgently review the scientific literature on how infestations of woody weeds degrade the landscape.
The media release continued:
“The Channel 9 footage showing vast tracts of land degraded by woody weeds clearly showed how little understanding Reece Turner has on this issue. Turner needs to get off his bum and make the effort to review the scientific literature that details the negative environmental impacts of woody weeds,” Mr Menzies said.
Below are just some of the published scientific journals and reports that confirm the destructive impact of infestations of woody weeds on the environment:
Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Scrub and Timber Regrowth in the Cobar-Byrock district and other areas of the Western Division, NSW. February 1969.
“The density of timber and scrub regrowth on level loamy soils, which would normally run little water, is such that the small open spaces between clumps are completely bare and becoming wind sheeted and water sheeted. This class of country thus becomes a mosaic of bare, wind and water sheeted patches on which nothing can grow, interspersed with small clumps of thick scrub.”Alchin, B.M., Proude, C.K., and Condon, R.W. (1979). Control of Woody Weeds in Western NSW. Proceedings of the 7th Asian-Pacific Weed Science Conference.
“Regrowth of woody weeds is a major problem over millions of hectares on the rangelands of western NSW. The regrowth reduces pasture growth, increases management costs and results in soil erosion.”Control of Woody Weeds. Woody Weeds Taskforce. Information Sheet 5. September 1990.
“Woody weeds are native shrubs which have encroached formerly open lands of western NSW. The encroachment has lowered pastoral productivity, reduced botanical and faunal diversity, reduced land values and increased the risk of water and wind erosion. Much of the area has now changed and is dominated by a dense understorey of shrubs. It has been estimated that 20 million hectares of western NSW are either already encroached or highly susceptible to woody weed encroachment.”Booth, C.A., King, G.W., and Sanchez-Bayo, F. (1996). Establishment of woody weeds in western NSW. 1. Seedling emergence and phenology. Rangeland Journal. Vol. 18, Issue 1. pp 58-79.
“While the semi-arid range lands of Australia have historically been regarded as amongst the nation’s greatest assets, millions of hectares have unfortunately deteriorated considerably due to the spread of unpalatable native shrubs on open grazing lands. As a consequence of the reduced feed available on infested land, livestock and native animals graze more heavily on unaffected areas, which in turn become more susceptible to erosion and to further invasion by shrubs.”Daly, R.L., and Hodgkinson, K.C. (1996). Relationships between grass, shrub and tree cover on four landforms of semi-arid eastern Australia, and prospects for change by burning. Rangeland Journal. Vol. 18, Issue 1. pp 104-117.
“The range of grass, shrub and tree levels present in the Louth region of western NSW was determined in an area where woody weeds are considered to be rampant, and the prospects for change by burning were evaluated. The survey confirmed the perception of pastoralists, administrators and scientists that shrub cover is unacceptably high for pastoralism throughout much of the region. Additionally, the perennial grass cover was very low and this would increase the instability of forage supply to pastoral herbivores.”CSIRO. Media Release – “No Half Measures to Deal with Woody Weeds.” May 15, 1998.
“Woody weeds have been a problem for more than a century. Since the first two decades of pastoral settlement, there has been a vast area affected by increasing density of the shrubs, largely as a result of declining fire frequency. Some 35 million hectares or 25 per cent of NSW is affected.” Dr Jim Noble, CSIRO Wildlife and Ecology.Blueprint for a Living Continent. A Way Forward from The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists (Nov 2002).
“Clear distinction needs to be made between the need to stop broadscale clearing of remnant native vegetation and the need to control shrub invasion in the semi-arid and arid pastoral areas of Australia. This part of Australia has been managed by indigenous Australians for 45,000 years, using fire. Since European settlement these fire management practices have changed which is causing environmental damage in some areas.”
Landholders in western NSW and Queensland may have felt some relief last Sunday with well known journalist Ross Coulthart acknowledging the very real problem of invasive woody weeds. But it appears the Wilderness Society is now going to ignore the event and the issues it raised. There has been no official response from the organisation; no media release attempting to justify their position. I guess this strategy makes it difficult for landholders to get any traction on the issue in the mainstream media? How do you have a debate when one side won't debate?
Toxic Woody Weeds; most staffers these days in The Wilderness Society have never done-the-Chemistry, sufficent to know that there are powerfully toxic or 'allelopathic' (other plant deterring) Woody Weeds, in the large and growing List of statewide Woody Weeds(WW's); these Toxic WW's (=TWW's) include the Most-toxic one yet found, Camphor laurel - with up to 18 toxins in its many Types, and now/already the dominant weed species across all-Shires of the northeast of New South Wales; their toxicity rises with global warming, especially for certain Types.....as confirmed by tests on-leaves done by UK Government
laboratory at Kew Botanic Gardens in 2002.....and known-observable from the large numbers of native birds, now seen-dying in hot weather/extremely hot and humid weather, as well as in Mass Native Bird Death Events(MNBDE), since 1955 in-this-region, by professional observers, and recorded to include thousands of native pigeons having-fed upon the fruit of Camphor' trees.
Other TWW's to increase their Toxicity, and hence to become more-poisonous with Global Warming(++ inc./elevated carbon dioxide concentrations) include Wild Tobacco (narcotic toxins), Broad-leaved Privet(ack. in U.S. textbooks as also seasonally 'killing native birds', since 2000),
Thorny Coral Tree - with its piscicides(fish poisons), and Castor Oil Plant - ack. in the Guinness Book of Records(2005) as being "the most poisonous plant species in the world".
By not addressing the toxins-rising poisonous issue, and not even reckoning that toxicity is correlated to the demise and disappearance of a whole range of native fauna IN THIS REGION (+ prob. other regions as well), the Wilderness Society has 'lost its duty of care' to the established wilderness/es it has already helped create!
Yours, Joe A Friend (a foundation member of TWS!)
Independent Scientist, Research Ecologist,
& Author. http://www.camphorlaurel.com (ph)0266214878
Mob#0427022069.
Camphor laurel Research Centre, Lismore, NSW.
I wasn't really selling Flinders as hay as such Ian. My thoughts are that the most nutritious and economical way to harvest grass is via the animal eating it out in the paddock.
Native grasses respond well to grazing and perrenials will readily thicken up.
It's the over grazing bit they dislike.
I doubt that 'ol man drought wiped them out either....you know we're talking about systems that are thousands of years old. Plenty of droughts in that time.
What has changed is our ability to reduce and even remove natures rest from the equation.
Your view on relative palatability is interesting as I've seen stock noticably favour different species in certain conditions. Old Man saltbush is one that comes to mind...grazed traditionally the stock don't seem to bother with it unless conditions are really crook or when there is a particularly good soft winter.
OK, I'll add a bit. Just remember that while there is a lot of journal literature on the mitchell grass area, I don't need to read it regularly, so might be a bit rusty.
In 30+ years, I saw large areas of mitchell grass across western Qld wiped out by drought, and re-establish when seasons suited it - it is a lot more picky on this as you go south from Julia Ck, and in ashy downs. I've seen few instances where grazing would be the main suspect. I have also seen large areas of Aristida wiped out by drought and the mitchell grass survive.
WRT flinders - remember good condition mitchell grass has a basal cover of around 5%, which leaves 95% of the area for the winter herbage, flinders etc if the season suits. So in many cases, I think flinders is another state in the state and transition sequence, but prior history is probably in play if it's growing on a claypan area.
Only from one source of anecdotal evidence have I heard that mitchell grass thickened after introduction of domestic livestock. Could be, as mitchell grass is the only native grass I can recall that definitely appreciates grazing.
The palatability and lasting qualities of flinders might be being oversold here - most of these perennial grass materials (including buffel)are low in protein when there is sufficient bulk to harvest. This can be overcome with molasses-urea. But post-harvest management needs to be aware that mitchell grass deaths increase when it's used below the third node. From diet work, palatability is relative. Eg a buffel plant in a paddock of buffel is a take-or-leave proposition. A buffel plant in a paddock of Aristida is high palatability. I don't remember either mitchell or flinders standing out in the palatability stakes.