CSIRO Publishing blank image blank image blank image blank imageBooksblank image blank image blank image blank imageJournalsblank image blank image blank image blank imageAbout Usblank image blank image blank image blank imageShopping Cartblank image blank image blank image You are here: Journals > Australian Journal of Botany   
Australian Journal of Botany
Journal Banner
  Southern Hemisphere Botanical Ecosystems
blank image Search
blank image blank image
blank image
  Advanced Search

Journal Home
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Current Issue
Just Accepted
All Issues
Special Issues
Turner Review Series
Sample Issue
For Authors
General Information
Notice to Authors
Submit Article
Open Access
For Referees
Referee Guidelines
Review an Article
Annual Referee Index
For Subscribers
Subscription Prices
Customer Service
Print Publication Dates

blue arrow e-Alerts
blank image
Subscribe to our Email Alert or RSS feeds for the latest journal papers.

red arrow Connect with us
blank image
facebook twitter youtube

red arrow PrometheusWiki
blank image
Protocols in ecological and environmental plant physiology


Article << Previous     |     Next >>   Contents Vol 56(7)

Condition of fenced and unfenced remnant vegetation in inland catchments in south-eastern Australia

Sue V. Briggs A C, Nicola M. Taws B, Julian A. Seddon A, Bindi Vanzella B

A Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW, c/- CSIRO, GPO Box 284, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia.
B Greening Australia Capital Region, PO Box 538, Jamison Centre ACT 2614, Australia.
C Corresponding author. Email: sue.briggs@csiro.au
PDF (346 KB) $25
 Export Citation


Considerable areas of remnant native vegetation have been fenced in the last decade to manage grazing by domestic stock. This study investigated vegetation condition in comparative fenced and unfenced remnant vegetation in the mid–upper Murrumbidgee and Lachlan catchments in south-eastern Australia. Native species richness, native groundcover and overstorey regeneration were higher at fenced than at unfenced sites. Area of bare ground was lower at fenced sites. Exotic groundcover did not differ between fenced and unfenced sites. Native species richness was higher at sites fenced for longer and with no stock grazing; neither native nor exotic groundcover at fenced sites was related to time since fencing or stock grazing pressure. Some tree species regenerated at both fenced and unfenced sites (Blakely’s red gum, Eucalyptus blakelyi; tumbledown gum, E. dealbata, long-leaved box, E. goniocalyx; red stringbark, E. macrorhyncha), some regenerated at few fenced and few unfenced sites (white box, E. albens; yellow box, E. melliodora) and some regenerated at fenced sites but not at unfenced sites (grey box, E. microcarpa; mugga ironbark, E. sideroxylon; white cypress pine, Callitris glaucophylla). Although less robust than pre- and postfencing monitoring, the comparisons reported here provide a logistically feasible and relatively inexpensive assessment of effects of the sizeable public investment in fencing on vegetation condition.

Subscriber Login

Legal & Privacy | Contact Us | Help


© CSIRO 1996-2015