CSIRO Publishing Home Books & CDs Journals About Us Shopping Cart
Animal Production Science
  Continuing Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture
You are here: Journals > Animal Production Science   
Search
 
 
  Advanced Search
   
Journal Home
General Information
Scope
Editorial Board
Editorial Contacts
Awards and Prizes
Print Publication Dates
Sites of Interest
Online Content
For Authors
For Referees
How to Order

 Most Read
Visit our Most Read page regularly to keep up-to-date with the most downloaded papers in this journal.

 Early Alert
Subscribe to our email Early Alert or RSS feeds for the latest journal papers.

 

Techniques for revegetation of acid sulfate soil scalds in the coastal floodplains of New South Wales, Australia: ridging, mulching and liming in the absence of stock grazing

M. A. Rosicky A C, P. Slavich B, L. A. Sullivan A and M. Hughes B

A Centre for Acid Sulfate Soil Research, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW 2480, Australia.
B Department of Primary Industries, Agriculture, Wollongbar Agricultural Institute, Bruxner Highway, Wollongbar, NSW 2477, Australia.
C Corresponding author. Email: mark.rosicky@scu.edu.au


Abstract

Two revegetation field trials were undertaken on chronically bare acid sulfate soil scalds on grazing properties in the Hawkesbury and Macleay catchments of New South Wales, Australia. The aim was to test the effectiveness of various low cost and readily accessible techniques to encourage revegetation (via existing seedbank or surrounding vegetation) of the scalded sites. The trial at the more efficiently drained Hawkesbury site used a combined treatment of ridging (R), mulching (M) and liming (L) (i.e. R–M–L) compared with a control, within a fenced area. At the more waterlogged Macleay site, various elements of the combined treatment (i.e. R, M, R–M, R–L, R–M–L) were compared with a control, within a fenced area. Vegetation occurrence, biomass and species were tested, along with pertinent soil parameters (pH, salinity, soil moisture, soluble metals). Soil testing was undertaken at 2 depth levels to represent the seed germination zone (0–1 cm), and the potential root zone (1–10 cm). At the Hawkesbury site, the combined treatment (R–M–L) caused significantly greater vegetation occurrence and biomass, lower salinity, higher pH and increased soil moisture. At the Macleay site, results were more variable, but similar to the Hawkesbury trial as the site dried out. Mulching was the single most important treatment. All mulched sites had significantly more vegetation than the control, reaching 100% coverage in the R–M–L plots. Stock exclusion alone produced minimal results. Ridging alone was counterproductive. Liming without mulching caused proliferation of an insubstantial and transient vegetation species (Isolepis inundata). Most interesting was the different vegetation species encouraged by the different mulch treatments: treatment M was dominated by the sedge, Eleocharis acuta; treatment R–M was an even mix of Eleocharis acuta and native water-tolerant grasses (Paspalum distichum and Pseudoraphis paradoxa); treatment R–M–L was dominated by the aforementioned native grasses. These grasses are highly favoured for both economic (highly palatable to stock) and environmental (thick mulch cover, self seeding) objectives. The results demonstrate that revegetation of acid sulfate soil scalds is possible, and different treatments can influence vegetation species composition.

Keywords: backswamp grazing, drained wetlands, field trials, sulfide oxidation.

Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46(12) 1589–1600    doi:10.1071/EA05218
Submitted: 15 August 2005    Accepted: 4 April 2006    Published: 10 November 2006





   
Subscriber Login
Username:
Password:  

 View
Issue Contents
PDF (422 KB) $25
Export Citation
 Tools
Print
Email this page
    


 
Top  Email this page
 


Legal & Privacy | Sitemap | Contact Us | Help

CSIRO

© CSIRO 1996-2010