Hostname: page-component-5f7774ffb-rjhn2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-02-19T16:29:51.674Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Marked reductions in rangeland shrubs and livestock carrying capacity over four decades

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2026

David J. Eldridge*
Affiliation:
Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Adrian Fisher
Affiliation:
Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia Earth and Sustainability Science Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
*
Corresponding author: David J. Eldridge; Email: d.eldridge@unsw.edu.au
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Historical data and monitoring can provide important information on how landscapes respond to environmental and human-induced change. We re-assessed plants, soils and livestock carrying capacity at a research station in eastern Australia after 42 years. We detected significant declines in the densities of key perennial shrubs (Atriplex vesicaria, Maireana astrotricha, Maireana pyramidata, -78%), an index of groundstorey plant quality (-8%), and the cover of erosion (-43%) between 1980 and 2022. Assessed ‘safe carrying capacity’ declined from 14.5 to 12.4 dry sheep equivalents per 100 ha over that period (-14.6%). These declines were evident in ranges and footslopes, but not on the plains. Shrubs declined by a similar percentage when assessed at a small spatial scale in one paddock. There was no clear indication that sheep stocking rates were driving temporal trends in plants. Rather, we attribute changes over more than 40 years to fluctuations in rainfall, and potentially, greater density of kangaroos and feral goats. Our study provides insights into moderately long-term changes in the biophysical attributes of rangelands and reinforces the importance of using historic data to assess environmental change as large areas of Earth become hotter and drier.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press

Impact statement

Long-term monitoring is essential for assessing the current status and trend of environmental resources. Monitoring is critically important in the world’s rangelands, where grazing and climate are major drivers of ecosystem change. We assessed rangeland change over 40 years at a research station in arid eastern Australia. Our study reveals marked declines in plant community structure and environmental quality, and the capacity of the landscape to support livestock. Such long-term studies are few, yet extremely valuable if we are to understand how rangelands change across long time scales.

A contribution to the Special Issue on the work of Professor Walt Whitford

This manuscript is a contribution to the Special Issue dedicated to the work of Professor Walt Whitford. During the latter part of his career, Walt was employed with the US Environmental Protection Agency where he undertook research to develop monitoring tools for drylands and deserts, and where he used long-term data to explore questions about deserts and their biota. Given his interests in monitoring and long-term data sets, it is appropriate that this study forms part of the Special Issue dedicated to his work.

Introduction

Rangelands cover more than half of Earth’s terrestrial ice-free land surface, support about 40% of its human population and provide animal products (meat, milk, hide and a form of currency) to millions of people worldwide (Godde et al., Reference Godde, Boone, Ash, Waha, Sloat, Thornton and Herrero2020). Yet, rangelands are at risk, from land-use intensification such as overgrazing, land clearing, timber harvesting and fossil fuel extraction, to climate-induced changes that lead to soil degradation, loss of productive potential and unsustainable livelihoods (Boone et al., Reference Boone, Conant, Sircely, Thornton and Herrero2018; Godde et al., Reference Godde, Boone, Ash, Waha, Sloat, Thornton and Herrero2020; Angerer et al., Reference Angerer, Fox, Wolfe, Tolleson, Owen and Ramesh2023). These effects are often incremental, disguising long-term changes that go unnoticed across generations (Sinclair, Reference Sinclair2005). Managing rangelands requires a long-term perspective, often over half a century, to capture changes in how they function and their likely temporal trajectory (e.g., Kleinhesselink et al., Reference Kleinhesselink, Kachergis, McCord, Shirley, Hupp, Walker, Carlson, Morford, Jones, Smith, Allred and Naugle2023). Given the close connection between climate and pastoralism, the predominant land use in rangelands (Eldridge et al., Reference Eldridge, Poore, Ruiz‐Colmenero, Letnic and Soliveres2016), resource monitoring is critical to provide managers with evidence that allows them to adapt to climatic and environmental fluctuations.

Australia’s rangelands have undergone substantial change in the relatively short period since European colonisation (~230 years). This has largely been due to land management practices that are not aligned with best practice rangeland science, and increases in exotic species such as goats, rabbits and, more recently, deer (Noble and Tongway, Reference Noble, Tongway, Russell and Isbell1987; Ludwig and Tongway, Reference Ludwig, Tongway, McKenzie, Hyatt and McDonald1992; Eldridge et al., Reference Eldridge, Poore, Ruiz‐Colmenero, Letnic and Soliveres2016). Sustained, long-term monitoring of rangeland quality (status) and trend (trajectory of change) has often been hampered by poor planning, high cost and a lack of sustained government and industry support (e.g., Vanderpost et al., Reference Vanderpost, Ringrose, Matheson and Arntzen2011), and is often limited to studies carried out by dedicated individuals (Kingsford, Reference Kingsford1999) or institutions over only a few decades (Sinclair, Reference Sinclair2005; McAlpine et al., Reference McAlpine, Thackway and Smith2014). Australia has a variable history of successful long-term rangeland monitoring programmes (McAlpine et al., Reference McAlpine, Thackway and Smith2014). For example, the Western Australian Rangeland Monitoring System (WARMS) with its complex of more than 1,600 sites (Watson et al., Reference Watson, Novelly and Thomas2007) was downgraded, and the Centralian Range Assessment Program in the Northern Territory (Bastin, Reference Bastin1977) has morphed into a multi-tiered system of monitoring the status of pastoral resources on more than 2,200 sites (Owen, Reference Owen2009) and long monitoring (NT 2009). Monitoring programmes are costly to sustain and rely heavily on infrastructural support from governments (Watson and Novelly, Reference Watson and Novelly2004; Novelly et al., Reference Novelly, Watson, Thomas and Duckett2008). There is now a move to replace extensive multi-site, state-based monitoring programmes with broad national programmes (e.g., TERN, Sparrow et al., Reference Sparrow, Foulkes, Wardle, Leitch, Caddy-Retalic, van Leeuwen, Tokmakoff, Thurgate, Guerin and Lowe2020) that are unlikely to be able to answer important questions about rangeland change simply because they lack sufficient replication in space and time.

Two rangeland programmes aimed to examine the status of rangelands in eastern Australia, across about 42% of the land area of New South Wales (NSW). These were the Western Lands Lease Management Plan scheme (WLLMP) and the NSW Rangeland Assessment Program (RAP). Much of the arid and semi-arid rangelands in NSW is held under leasehold tenure, with ownership vested in the Crown. In the mid-1960s, the Western Lands Commission engaged the NSW Soil Conservation Service to undertake detailed surveys of all pastoral leases in the Western Division of NSW. These surveys included an assessment of biophysical resources (plants, soils and erosion) and the condition of property infrastructure (roads, fences and watering points) to assess and map ‘safe carrying capacity’ for livestock (sensu Condon, Reference Condon and Stewart1968). The WLLMP surveys amassed considerable information on the status of pastoral leases at the time of the survey, but involved only a one-off survey.

In the late 1980s, the NSW Soil Conservation Service developed and operationalised a rangeland monitoring programme (NSW RAP, Green et al., Reference Green, Hart and Prior1994) to assess the condition of the main rangeland vegetation communities in the Western Division of NSW to enable land managers to make informed decisions about current and future management of rangelands. The term ‘condition’ is highly value-laden and context-dependent. For example, good condition sites for grazing might be characterised by a high biomass of palatable grasses. Conversely, good conditions for conservation might involve a mixture of woody plants and grasses, with lower biomass of palatable species. In this manuscript, we avoid the term condition or health, and focus on the status of the vegetation and soils. Under the RAP programme, annual measurements were made of plant community composition and production, woody plant density and cover, and the status of the soil at about 350 sites. Both the WLLMP and RAP programmes were discontinued in the early 2010s due to waning government support. Information from both programmes has subsequently been used to assess changes in woody plant density and cover (Booth and Barker, Reference Booth and Barker1979), bladder saltbush (Atriplex vesicaria) dieback (Clift et al., Reference Clift, Semple and Prior1987), to examine long-term trends in vegetation in the semi-arid woodlands (Eldridge and Koen, Reference Eldridge and Koen2003) and to report on the status and trend of Australia’s rangelands (Eyre et al., Reference Eyre, Fisher, Hunt and Kutt2011).

Here we report on a study in 2022 and 2025, where we reassessed a suite of biophysical attributes (plants, soils and erosion) of rangelands at Fowlers Gap, a pastoral property managed by the University of NSW, at two spatial scales (across the entire station and in one paddock). We subsequently compared our results with information collected: (1) once in 1982 across the whole station (WLLMP at scale of 1:50,000), (2) once in 1986 at a scale of 1:10,000 in one paddock only (North Mandleman’s Paddock) and (3) 20 times between 1990 and 2022 (as part of the RAP; 300 m × 300 m site). All reassessments used the same procedures as those used in the original surveys. We used Fowlers Gap as our model system to explore changes over a relatively long time because it has a long history of undertaking arid zone research, and maintains long-term stocking rate and climatic data (Hannah, Reference Hannah1984; Macdonald, Reference Macdonald2000). By comparing contemporary information on plants, soils and environments, we aimed to acquire a better understanding of long-term ecological change in the rangelands of western NSW.

Methods

Study area

The Fowlers Gap Arid Zone Research Station occupies 39,200 ha about 110 km north of Broken Hill, NSW, Australia (−31.30o, 141.71o). The climate is arid (aridity index = 0.17, Harwood et al., Reference Harwood, Donohue, Harman, McVicar, Ota, Perry and Williams2016) with most of the 240 mm average annual rainfall (Fitzpatrick et al., Reference Fitzpatrick, Stewart, Sutton and Eldridge2024) falling in summer. Temperatures range from 11.5 °C in winter to 27.3 °C in summer.

The geology comprises steeply dipping (up to 70°) Precambrian metasediments (overlain by Tertiary and Quaternary sediments and alluvium). Geomorphologically, the area comprises three broad landform types: (1) ranges and hills (Figure 1a), (2) undulating footslopes and terraces (Figure 1b) and (3) extensive alluvial plains (Figure 1c, Mabbutt, Reference Mabbutt and Mabbutt1972; Akpokodje, Reference Akpokodje1987). Soils of the ranges are generally shallow sandy loams, while the footslopes and terraces are dominated by red clay soils with a variable cover of quartz gibbers (Fisher et al., Reference Fisher, Fink, Chappell and Melville2014). The alluvial plains dominate the eastern side of the ranges, are dissected by floodouts and are subject to periodic flooding. Their soils are dominated by a mixture of clay soils and red duplex clay loams (Eldridge, Reference Eldridge1988). The vegetation represents a gradient in pastoral productivity from low productivity in the ranges to high productivity on the plains (Fitzpatrick et al., Reference Fitzpatrick, Stewart, Sutton and Eldridge2024).

Figure 1. Clockwise from top-left. (a–c) Images of the Ranges, Footslopes, and Plains. (d) Map of Fowlers Gap station showing the distribution of livestock watering points. The arrow indicates North Mandleman’s Paddock. Photographs: DJ Eldridge.

The vegetation is characterised by low woody and open shrub-steppe (Burrell, Reference Burrell and Mabbutt1973) dominated by shrubs and sub-shrubs of the family Chenopodiaceae. The dominant species on the ranges and footslopes are the tree Acacia aneura, shrubs Maireana astrotricha, A. vesicaria and Maireana pyramidata, and groundstorey plants Sclerolaena spp. The plains are dominated by Maireana aphylla and perennial grasses such as Astrebla spp. Patches of the shrub Acacia victoriae are scattered across the station, particularly along drainage lines.

Mapping the biophysical features: WLLMP Program

The WLLMP Scheme commenced in 1967 to assess the ‘safe carrying capacity’ of grazing leases in western NSW. This calculation of safe carrying capacity was based on the status of attributes that are known to influence carrying capacity. These included biophysical attributes, such as rainfall amount and seasonality, slope, soil type, the extent to which an area of land receives additional water from upslope (redistributed runoff), the type and degree of erosion and the characteristics of the vegetation (type, palatability and cover) across different parcels of land (land classes).

To assess carrying capacity, the characteristics of a given land class were compared with those on a well-managed property (the ‘base’ property) for which long-term data on carrying capacity were available. This base property, located in north-western NSW, received an average annual rainfall of 254 mm, with a typical land class (area of similar topography, soils and vegetation) having a gently undulating topography with deep red sandy soils dominated by open mulga (A. aneura) woodlands with woolly butt (Eragrostis eriopoda) pastures of moderate to high palatability and productivity. Long-term stocking records for the base property revealed that this land class supported 20 dry sheep equivalents (DSE) per 100 ha on average, with an average annual rainfall of 254 mm (Condon, Reference Condon and Stewart1968). The physical and biological attributes (rainfall, slope, topography, vegetation, erosion, etc.) of this particular land class were all given an index value of 1.0. So, for example, soils that were inherently less fertile, had lower moisture retention or higher erodibility than soils on the base landclass were assigned rating values <1.0. Conversely, rating values for plants that were considered superior in palatability, forage value or perenniality, or provided drought forage were given a rating value >1.0 (Condon, Reference Condon and Stewart1968).

Extensive rating tables were developed based on differences in rainfall, slope, soil fertility, water holding capacity and erodibility, the presence of additional run-off water, type, cover and density of different tree species (Condon, Reference Condon and Stewart1968). Rating tables were used directly by the NSW Soil Conservation Service to assign values to those factors for any land class being assessed. The rating values for all of the factors were then multiplied by the base rating of 20 to provide an overall ‘safe carrying capacity’ for a particular land class, assuming that the whole site is within the watering range of livestock (Condon, Reference Condon and Stewart1968). This required an assessment of the distribution of livestock watering points (Figure 1d). By mapping different land classes with different combinations of biophysical and biological attributes and calculating their safe carrying capacity, the Soil Conservation Service was able to derive a total number of livestock that they considered ‘safe’ for the whole property. Rating values produced using this procedure (Condon, Reference Condon and Stewart1968) were about 10% lower than the average DSE values run in the district; in other words, most pastoralists were running 10% more livestock than would be assessed under the WLLMP scheme.

We undertook two reassessments at Fowlers Gap using the same WLLMP procedure. In 2022, we reassessed 105 sites across the whole station using the same land class boundaries identified in 1982 at a scale of 1:50,000. The same rating tables were used to update information on the biophysical and biological characteristics of each land class. Second, in 2025, we reassessed changes in shrub density at a finer scale of 1:10,000 in North Mandelman’s Paddock (Plains). This paddock was originally assessed in by the first author in 1986 to determine pastoral loads across three soil types (clays, duplex soils and sands). The paddock was revisited in 2025 to determine shrub density at 72 locations across 17 land units using the same basic criteria used in the WLLMP procedure described above. In all WLLMP assessments, we are unable to present data for different shrub species (from the family Chenopodiaceae) as the original methodology lumped Maireana spp. and A. vesicaria shrubs together.

Monitoring rangelands: the RAP

In the mid-1980s, the NSW Soil Conservation Service launched the RAP. The programme aimed to determine the status of the main vegetation communities across large grazing leases in western NSW in order to make sound environmental decisions on rangeland management (Green et al., Reference Green, Hart and Prior1994). The programme emphasised the capacity of rangelands to produce forage and sustain grazing; therefore, in the context of grazing, preferred sites would be floristically diverse, dominated by perennial grasses, abundant plant biomass, little erosion and a lack of woody plant encroachment (Green et al., Reference Green, Hart and Prior1994). Thus, from a pastoral perspective, ‘healthy’ sites would be productive sites for livestock.

At each of about 350 sites, 52 quadrats of 0.5 m2 were placed along four transects centrally located within large plots of 300 m × 300 m. Annual measurements were made of plant species composition by biomass using the comparative yield, dry weight rank procedures (Friedel et al., Reference Friedel, Chewing and Basin1988) with photostandards (Friedel and Bastin, Reference Friedel and Bastin1988), the status of the soil, and the cover and density of woody plants, including both palatable and unpalatable. Two sites were established at Fowlers Gap, one in each of North Sandstone (Footslopes, Figure 1b) and Conservation (Plains, Figure 1c) paddocks. The sites were measured 16 times between 1990 and 2011, and again in 2022. In 2022, we measured the same features using the same protocols at 52 quadrats at both sites.

Statistical analyses

Differences among years and sites were examined using linear models with lme4 (Bates et al., Reference Bates, Mächler, Bolker and Walker2015) in the R statistical package (R 4.4.1 version, R Core Team, 2025). We used the JWileymisc package in R for general diagnostics (Wiley, Reference Wiley2025).

Results

Temporal changes in biophysical attributes and safe carrying capacity

We detected substantial changes over the 40-year period for both station and paddock surveys. For the station-wide WLLMP survey, the pasture rating index declined by an average of 8%, consistently across ranges, lowlands and plains (Figure 2a). This pasture rating index was based mainly on the palatability of different species to livestock and, to a lesser extent, their ability to provide a stable soil surface. The density of shrubs from the family Chenopodiaceae (Maireana and Atriplex) declined markedly (78%), particularly on the ranges (145%; Figure 2b). Declines in shrub density were unrelated to the original density, that is, sites with high density did not necessarily show the greatest declines. Surprisingly, the extent of erosion (percentage cover) also declined across all landscape types (43%), but most notably on the plains (Figure 2c). This was largely due to reductions in the extent of wind and water erosion (wind sheeting and scalding).

Figure 2. Differences in (a) the index of groundstorey plant cover (unitless, see Methods), (b) density of shrubs from the family Chenopodiaceae (shrubs ha−1), (c) cover of erosion (%), and (d) assessed livestock carrying capacity between 1982 and 2022 (dry sheep equivalents per 100 ha).

Overall, assessed ‘safe carrying capacity’ declined by 14.6% across the station, from 14.5 to 12.4 DSE per 100 ha. These declines were evident on the ranges and on the footslopes, but not on the plains (Figure 2d). We acknowledge, however, that in the 1982 study, 1,366 ha were considered ungrazed, that is, out of the grazing range of sheep (>3 km from water). However, when we accounted for these areas that are now fully watered (North Mandleman’s and Salt Paddocks), there is a slightly greater decline (11.9 dry sheep equivalents per 100 ha).

The percentage cover of bare soil changed markedly over the period of the study (Figure 3), particularly on the plains (Figure 3c), and this was closely related to rainfall (Figure 4a). For example, the cover of bare soil declined in 2011 with the marked increase in rainfall after a couple of very dry years, and vice versa for the period 2016–2020. Annual rainfall for Fowlers Gap was highly temporally variable, ranging from generally above-average between before 2000, to below-average rainfall in the second two decades (2000–2020). There were larger rainfall events in 2012, 2015 and 2016 (Figure 4a).

Figure 3. Temporal changes in the cover of bare soil (%) from 1985 to 2026 for ranges, footslopes and plains.

Figure 4. (a) Annual rainfall, (b) assessed grazing capacity, and (c) the relationship between grazing capacity and annual rainfall.

Examination of stocking records indicates average livestock numbers of 6,930 ± 2,583 (mean ± SD) dry sheep equivalents (Figure 4b) and a generally weak, though positive, relationship with increasing rainfall (R 2 = 0.12; Figure 4c). Long-term data on densities of residual herbivores (kangaroos and goats) indicated an average of 18.9 (± 6.0) grey and red kangaroos km−2 between 1990 and 2022 (based on aerial surveys by the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service). About 27,000 feral goats were removed from Fowlers Gap between 2009 and 2022. The number of livestock run on the station overall increased steadily until 1985, after which marked declines were apparent (Figure 4d).

The resurvey of North Mandelman’s Paddock also revealed major declines in shrub density over the 40 years (Figure 5a), consistent with the station-wide survey described above (Figure 5b). Specifically, the density of shrubs in the family Chenopodiaceae (Maireana species, A. vesicaria) declined by 86% on cracking and scalding clays, and 64% on duplex soils, but there was no change on sandy soils (Figure 5a). Importantly, extensive stands of A. vesicaria recorded in 1986 were completely absent in 2025. The presence of dead shrubs and woody hummocks suggests their demise over the past decade. Consistent with the station-wide survey, the cover of eroded soil declined by an average of 15% over the 40 years for sands (5%), clays (14%) and duplex soils (26%), though the high variability between 2010 and 2020 is noteworthy (Figure 3).

Figure 5. (a) Mean + SD in shrub density for North Mandleman’s Paddock on clay, duplex and sandy soils in 1986 and 2025. Data for 1986 include Maireana spp. and Atriplex vesicaria. 2025 data are for Maireana spp. only. (b) Normalised changes in station-wide shrub density. Negative values indicate substantial reductions, in shrub density, and vice versa.

Vegetation changes between 1990 and 2022

Using data from the RAP, we found marked declines in shrub density after about 2003 on the footslopes, and 2006 in the plains (Figure 6a and 6b). Plant richness showed marked fluctuations on both footslopes and plains (Figure 6c and 6d). There was a general, though non-significant trend of increasing plant richness with average annual rainfall at both sites (P > 0.05). We found a weak increase in plant richness with increasing shrub density (R 2 = 0.16), but only on the plains.

Figure 6. Changes in shrub density (a, b) and plant richness (c, d) at the Footslopes and Plains sites of the Rangeland Assessment Program.

Discussion

There were three major results of our study. First, livestock carrying capacity declined markedly (~15%) over the period, consistent with declines in rainfall and recent increases in the density of feral goats. Second, there were substantial reductions in both the cover and density of shrubs from the family Chenopodiaceae, indicating potential declines in habitat value and drought forage value for livestock. This was apparent at both the station level and the scale of an individual paddock. Finally, levels of erosion declined, consistent with improved land management at Fowlers Gap, where there has been a focus on smaller paddocks and more extensive watering points. Our study provides important insights into moderately long-term changes in rangeland attributes and reinforces the importance of using long-term rangeland data to assess environmental change as large areas of Earth move towards hotter and drier climates.

Marked declines in chenopod shrub density

Shrub cover declined markedly, particularly on the ranges, and for A. vesicaria, with strong reductions in cover and density. Shrubs are critically important components of rangeland ecosystems. They are known to form fertile islands in drylands (Eldridge et al., Reference Eldridge, Ding, Dorrough, Delgado-Baquerizo, Sala, Gross, le Bagousse-Pinguet, Mallen-Cooper, Saiz, Asensio, Ochoa, Gozalo, Guirado, García-Gómez, Valencia, Martínez-Valderrama, Plaza, Abedi, Ahmadian, Ahumada, Alcántara, Amghar, Azevedo, Ben Salem, Berdugo, Blaum, Boldgiv, Bowker, Bran, Bu, Canessa, Castillo-Monroy, Castro, Castro-Quezada, Cesarz, Chibani, Conceição, Darrouzet-Nardi, Davila, Deák, Díaz-Martínez, Donoso, Dougill, Durán, Eisenhauer, Ejtehadi, Espinosa, Fajardo, Farzam, Foronda, Franzese, Fraser, Gaitán, Geissler, Gonzalez, Gusman-Montalvan, Hernández, Hölzel, Hughes, Jadan, Jentsch, Ju, Kaseke, Köbel, Lehmann, Liancourt, Linstädter, Louw, Ma, Mabaso, Maggs-Kölling, Makhalanyane, Issa, Marais, McClaran, Mendoza, Mokoka, Mora, Moreno, Munson, Nunes, Oliva, Oñatibia, Osborne, Peter, Pierre, Pueyo, Emiliano Quiroga, Reed, Rey, Rey, Gómez, Rolo, Rillig, le Roux, Ruppert, Salah, Sebei, Sharkhuu, Stavi, Stephens, Teixido, Thomas, Tielbörger, Robles, Travers, Valkó, van den Brink, Velbert, von Heßberg, Wamiti, Wang, Wang, Wardle, Yahdjian, Zaady, Zhang, Zhou and Maestre2024), assembling critical resources such as water, sediment, seed, nutrients and organic matter beneath their canopies across different geomorphic contexts, that is, from ranges to alluvial plains (Fitzpatrick et al., Reference Fitzpatrick, Stewart, Sutton and Eldridge2024). Shrubs act as nurse plants for understorey protégé plant species (Soliveres et al., Reference Soliveres, Eldridge, Hemmings and Maestre2012) and a range of invertebrates and vertebrates (Shelef and Groner, Reference Shelef and Groner2011; Owen et al., Reference Owen, Zuliani, Goldgisser and Lortie2024). Shrubs are also critical for enhancing hydrological function and increasing soil carbon and nitrogen (Marquart et al., Reference Marquart, Eldridge, Geissler, Lobas and Blaum2020). A. vesicaria and Maireana spp., our main focal shrubs, are also important drought reserves for sheep (Graetz, Reference Graetz1976; Revell et al., Reference Revell, Norman, Vercoe, Phillips, Toovey, Bickell, Hulm, Hughes and Emms2013), depending on the salinity of sheep drinking water (Wilson, Reference Wilson1966). The loss or decline of a functional shrub community, therefore, represents a decline in habitat value, soil function, drought fodder reserve and ecosystem stability. At Fowlers Gap, this decline was strongest in the ranges where they comprise the main perennial structures due to the loss of other perennial woody plants, such as the tree A. aneura, through extensive tree removal to support the historic mining industry (Jones, Reference Jones2016). Goat browsing is focused on ranges, which are not preferred by sheep. It is likely, therefore, that grazing-induced loss of shrubs is due to goats, possibly exacerbated by a lack of summer rainfall.

Reinstatement of viable populations of A. vesicaria is likely to be difficult. The lack of summer rainfall has been shown to affect the germination and survival of A. vesicaria and Maireana spp. populations that require summer rainfall to recruit and establish juvenile plants (Eldridge et al., Reference Eldridge, Travers, Facelli, Facelli, Keith and Keith2017). A. vesicaria is also susceptible to grazing-induced disturbance, particularly during droughts (Eldridge et al., Reference Eldridge, Westoby and Stanley1990), where excessive defoliation prevents resprouting and leads to plant death (Leigh and Mulham, Reference Leigh and Mulham1971). Our observations at Fowlers Gap show that complete extirpation of A. vesicaria can be rapid. For example, Atriplex densities of >10,000 shrubs ha−1 were recorded in the footslopes during the RAP annual site visit in 2000, but by 2020, densities had crashed to around 1,500. By 2022, there was no evidence of any live A. vesicaria at the site. Previous studies have documented massive death of A. vesicaria at Fowlers Gap due to droughts, with only 30% regeneration (Westohy and Rice, Reference Westohy and Rice1979). We have no firm conclusion about when A. vesicaria disappeared from extensive areas in North Mandleman’s paddock, but it is likely to have been over the past decade, consistent with observations from other areas of the station.

The implications of substantial shrub decline are far-reaching as the station enters a new era as an experimental site designed to examine changes in soils and vegetation following the removal of all livestock in 2024. Studies are now underway to examine soil seedbanks of key species, such as A. vesicaria and A. aneura, and regeneration will likely require a combination of both engineering works and the reintroduction of viable seed. The station has a long history of restoration by the NSW Soil Conservation Service in the 1950s and 1960s, and more recently in the 1990s. Techniques tested included water ponding, ripping and pitting (Hannah, Reference Hannah1984), with best results at Fowlers Gap with contour furrowing (Wakelin-King, Reference Wakelin-King2011). Soil seedbanks in A. vesicaria are typically short-lived (Hunt, Reference Hunt2001) so that re-establishment in the absence of seed supplementation is likely to be protracted (Eldridge and Ding, Reference Eldridge and Ding2023). The lack of a viable soil seedbank will present huge obstacles to the successful reintroduction of A. vesicaria. Similarly, re-establishment of Maireana spp. is likely to be patchy, even with mechanical treatment (Haby, Reference Haby2017).

Long-term declines in erosion

Despite generally lower rainfall over the second two decades, the degree of erosion was substantially less in 2022 than in 1982. There are a number of potential explanations for this. First, a greater use of portable livestock watering troughs and flexible piping made from polyethylene has seen an increase in the number and distribution of livestock watering points since 1982, as the station sought to reduce grazing pressure around water (Macdonald, Reference Macdonald2000). In 1982, the NSW Soil Conservation Service estimated that 5.1% of the area of Fowlers Gap was unwatered, that is, further than 3 km from water, which is considered outside the watering range of sheep (Condon, Reference Condon and Stewart1968). There are now additional watering points on the eastern side of the station (Figure 1a and 1b). Second, the station has been consistently running sheep in smaller flocks. A combination of smaller flocks and more watering points has resulted in the reduction of large areas of scalding and clay pans, particularly on the plains. Finally, the level of erosion recorded in 1980 is likely a consequence of flow-on effects from early periods of degradation, much of which occurred around the margins of the creeks and alluvial fans (Walker, Reference Walker1991). The reductions in large-scale erosion observed during the last 40 years are consistent with observations elsewhere of regional declines in erosion, particularly large-scale declines across clay pans and other extensive rangeland areas (McKeon et al., Reference McKeon, Hall, Henry, Stone and Watson2004).

Conclusions

Our study reinforces the importance of long-term datasets to understand the nature of biotic and abiotic change in rangelands over relatively longer time periods. Australia’s rangelands occupy almost three-quarters of the terrestrial land area, yet we have relatively few long-term studies that can be used to track environmental change. Rangeland monitoring programmes, such as WARMS (Holm et al., Reference Holm, Burnside and Mitchell1987; Watson and Novelly, Reference Watson and Novelly2004; Novelly et al., Reference Novelly, Watson, Thomas and Duckett2008) and RAP (Eldridge and Koen, Reference Eldridge and Koen2003), and inventory programmes from the South Australian Pastoral Board have been substantially reduced in intensity or frequency or discontinued altogether, and few studies are running longer than 10 years, other than the Koonamore study in arid South Australia (Hall et al., Reference Hall, Specht and Eardley1964; Sinclair, Reference Sinclair2005) or those carried out by individual researchers. Information from studies such as this or similar (e.g., Lay and Lay, Reference Lay and Lay2025) represents an important repository of information that can be a useful tool to gauge changes in Australia’s rangelands against a backdrop of dramatic change.

Open peer review

For open peer review materials, please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/dry.2026.10018.

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request from the senior author. No artificial intelligence tools were used in this manuscript.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a grant from the Science Faculty, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Author contribution

Conceptualization and writing of initial draft: D.J.E. Graphics and modification: A.F. and D.J.E. Review and editing: D.J.E. and A.F.

Financial support

This study was supported by the University of New South Wales.

Competing interests

The authors declare none.

References

Akpokodje, EG (1987) The mineralogical relationship between some arid zone soils and their underlying bedrocks at Fowlers Gap Station, New South Wales, Australia. Journal and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales 120, 9099.Google Scholar
Angerer, JP, Fox, WE, Wolfe, JE, Tolleson, DR and Owen, T (2023) Land degradation in rangeland ecosystems. In Ramesh, S (ed.), Biological and Environmental Hazards, Risks, and Disasters. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 395434.Google Scholar
Bastin, GB (1977) The Centralian Range Assessment Program, Technical Bulletin 151. Alice Springs, NT. Agdex 320/10: NT Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries.Google Scholar
Bates, D, Mächler, M, Bolker, B and Walker, S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67, 148.Google Scholar
Boone, RB, Conant, RT, Sircely, J, Thornton, PK and Herrero, M (2018) Climate change impacts on selected global rangeland ecosystem services. Global Change Biology 24, 13821393.Google Scholar
Booth, CA and Barker, PJ (1979) ‘Inedible Shrub Regeneration in the North-West Corner of New South Wales.’ Research Bulletin No. 13. Sydney, NSW: NSW Soil Conservation Service.Google Scholar
Burrell, JP (1973) Vegetation of the Fowlers Gap Station. In Mabbutt, JA (ed.), Lands of the Fowlers Gap Calindary Area. New South Wales. Fowlers Gap Arid Zone Research Station, Research Series No. 4. Sydney: University of New South Wales, pp. 175195.Google Scholar
Clift, DK, Semple, WS and Prior, JC (1987) A survey of bladder saltbush (Atriplex vesicaria Heward ex Benth) dieback on the Riverine Plain of South-Eastern Australia from the late 1970s to 1983. The Rangeland Journal 9, 3948.Google Scholar
Condon, RW (1968) Estimation of grazing capacity on arid grazing. In Stewart, G (ed.), Land Evaluation. Melbourne, Australia: Macmillan, pp. 112124.Google Scholar
Eldridge, DJ (1988) Soil-landform and vegetation relations in the chenopod shrublands of western New South Wales. Earth-Science Reviews 25, 493499.Google Scholar
Eldridge, DJ and Ding, J (2023) Pitting fails to sustain increases in ecosystem structure in arid rangelands. Restoration Ecology 31, e13929.Google Scholar
Eldridge, DJ, Ding, J, Dorrough, J, Delgado-Baquerizo, M, Sala, O, Gross, N, le Bagousse-Pinguet, Y, Mallen-Cooper, M, Saiz, H, Asensio, S, Ochoa, V, Gozalo, B, Guirado, E, García-Gómez, M, Valencia, E, Martínez-Valderrama, J, Plaza, C, Abedi, M, Ahmadian, N, Ahumada, RJ, Alcántara, JM, Amghar, F, Azevedo, L, Ben Salem, F, Berdugo, M, Blaum, N, Boldgiv, B, Bowker, M, Bran, D, Bu, C, Canessa, R, Castillo-Monroy, AP, Castro, I, Castro-Quezada, P, Cesarz, S, Chibani, R, Conceição, AA, Darrouzet-Nardi, A, Davila, YC, Deák, B, Díaz-Martínez, P, Donoso, DA, Dougill, AD, Durán, J, Eisenhauer, N, Ejtehadi, H, Espinosa, CI, Fajardo, A, Farzam, M, Foronda, A, Franzese, J, Fraser, LH, Gaitán, J, Geissler, K, Gonzalez, SL, Gusman-Montalvan, E, Hernández, RM, Hölzel, N, Hughes, FM, Jadan, O, Jentsch, A, Ju, M, Kaseke, KF, Köbel, M, Lehmann, A, Liancourt, P, Linstädter, A, Louw, MA, Ma, Q, Mabaso, M, Maggs-Kölling, G, Makhalanyane, TP, Issa, OM, Marais, E, McClaran, M, Mendoza, B, Mokoka, V, Mora, JP, Moreno, G, Munson, S, Nunes, A, Oliva, G, Oñatibia, GR, Osborne, B, Peter, G, Pierre, M, Pueyo, Y, Emiliano Quiroga, R, Reed, S, Rey, A, Rey, P, Gómez, VMR, Rolo, V, Rillig, MC, le Roux, PC, Ruppert, JC, Salah, A, Sebei, PJ, Sharkhuu, A, Stavi, I, Stephens, C, Teixido, AL, Thomas, AD, Tielbörger, K, Robles, ST, Travers, S, Valkó, O, van den Brink, L, Velbert, F, von Heßberg, A, Wamiti, W, Wang, D, Wang, L, Wardle, GM, Yahdjian, L, Zaady, E, Zhang, Y, Zhou, X and Maestre, FT (2024) Hotspots of biogeochemical activity linked to aridity and plant traits across global drylands. Nature Plants. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-024-01670-7.Google Scholar
Eldridge, DJ and Koen, TB (2003) Detecting environmental change in eastern Australia: Rangeland health in the semi-arid woodlands. Science of the Total Environment 310, 211219.Google Scholar
Eldridge, DJ, Poore, AGB, Ruiz‐Colmenero, M, Letnic, M and Soliveres, S (2016) Ecosystem structure, function, and composition in rangelands are negatively affected by livestock grazing. Ecological Applications 26, 12731283.Google Scholar
Eldridge, DJ, Travers, SK, Facelli, AF, Facelli, JM and Keith, DA (2017) The chenopod shrublands. In Keith, DA (ed.), Australian Vegetation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 599624.Google Scholar
Eldridge, DJ, Westoby, M and Stanley, RJ (1990) Population dynamics of the perennial rangeland shrubs Atriplex vesicaria, Maireana astrotricha and M. pyramidata under grazing, 1980–87. Journal of Applied Ecology 27, 502512.Google Scholar
Eyre, TJ, Fisher, A, Hunt, LP and Kutt, AS (2011) Measure it to better manage it: A biodiversity monitoring framework for the Australian rangelands. The Rangeland Journal 33, 239253.Google Scholar
Fisher, A, Fink, D, Chappell, J and Melville, M (2014) 26Al/10Be dating of an aeolian dust mantle soil in western New South Wales, Australia. Geomorphology 219, 201212.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, C, Stewart, J, Sutton, A and Eldridge, DJ (2024) The fertile island effect is stronger for larger plants irrespective of ecosystem productivity. Cambridge Prisms: Drylands. 1, e3. https://doi.org/10.1017/dry.2024.4.Google Scholar
Friedel, MH and Bastin, GN (1988) Photographic standards for estimating comparative yield in arid rangelands. The Rangeland Journal 10, 3438.Google Scholar
Friedel, MH, Chewing, VH and Basin, GN (1988) The use of comparative yield and dry-weight-rank techniques for monitoring arid rangeland. Journal of Range Management 41, 430435.Google Scholar
Godde, CM, Boone, RB, Ash, AJ, Waha, K, Sloat, LL, Thornton, PK and Herrero, M (2020) Global rangeland production systems and livelihoods at threat under climate change and variability. Environmental Research Letters 15, 044021. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab7395.Google Scholar
Graetz, RD (1976) The influence of grazing by sheep on the structure of a saltbush (Atriplex vesicaria Hew. ex Benth.) population. The Rangeland Journal 1, 117125.Google Scholar
Green, D, Hart, D and Prior, J (1994) Rangeland Study Site Manual Part 1: Site Selection and Field Measurement Procedures. Condobolin: Soil Conservation Service of NSW.Google Scholar
Haby, NA (2017) Long-term revegetation success of severely degraded chenopod shrublands. The Rangeland Journal 39, 341354.Google Scholar
Hall, EAA, Specht, RL and Eardley, CM (1964) Regeneration of the vegetation on Koonamore vegetation reserve, 1926-1962. Australian Journal of Botany 12, 205264.Google Scholar
Hannah, R (1984) Research and related activities, 1966-1983. In Fowlers Gap Arid Zone Research Station, Research Series No. 7. University of New South Wales.Google Scholar
Harwood, T, Donohue, R, Harman, I, McVicar, T, Ota, N, Perry, J and Williams, K (2016) 9s climatology for continental Australia 1976–2005: Summary variables with elevation and radiative adjustment. v3. CSIRO. Data Collection. https://doi.org/10.4225/08/5afa9f7d1a552.Google Scholar
Holm, AM, Burnside, DG and Mitchell, AA (1987) The development of a system for monitoring trend in range condition in the arid shrublands of Western Australia. The Rangeland Journal 9, 1420.Google Scholar
Hunt, LP (2001) Low seed availability may limit recruitment in grazed Atriplex vesicaria and contribute to its local extinction. Plant Ecology 157, 5367.Google Scholar
Jones, D (2016) Evolution and significance of the regeneration reserve heritage landscape of Broken Hill: History, values and significance. Historic Environment 28, 4057.Google Scholar
Kingsford, RT (1999) Aerial survey of waterbirds on wetlands as a measure of river and floodplain health. Freshwater Biology 41, 425438.Google Scholar
Kleinhesselink, AR, Kachergis, EJ, McCord, SE, Shirley, J, Hupp, NR, Walker, J, Carlson, JC, Morford, SL, Jones, MO, Smith, JT, Allred, BW and Naugle, DE (2023) Long-term trends in vegetation on Bureau of Land Management rangelands in the western United States. Rangeland Ecology and Management 87, 112.Google Scholar
Lay, B and Lay, E (2025) Land, Lease and Lens. Long Term Trends in South Australian Rangelands Using Historic Photographs. Adelaide: Pastoral Board of South Australia and the Department of Environment and Water.Google Scholar
Leigh, JH and Mulham, WE (1971) The effect of defoliation on the persistence of Atriplex vesicaria. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 22, 239244.Google Scholar
Ludwig, JA and Tongway, DJ (1992) Monitoring the condition of Australian arid lands: Linked plant-soil indicators. In McKenzie, DH, Hyatt, DE and McDonald, VJ (eds.), Ecological Indicators. Boston, MA: Springer, pp. 765772.Google Scholar
Mabbutt, JA (1972) Geomorphology of the Fowlers Gap-Calindary area. In Mabbutt, JA (ed), Lands of the Fowlers Gap – Calindary Area, New South Wales, Research Series 4. University of New South Wales, pp. 8199.Google Scholar
Macdonald, BCT (2000) University of New South Wales Fowlers Gap Arid Zone Research Station-nearly 50 years of research. The Rangeland Journal 22, 531.Google Scholar
Marquart, A, Eldridge, DJ, Geissler, K, Lobas, C and Blaum, N (2020) Interconnected effects of shrubs, invertebrate‐derived macropores and soil texture on water infiltration in a semi‐arid savanna rangeland. Land Degradation and Development 31, 23072318.Google Scholar
McAlpine, C, Thackway, R and Smith, A (2014) ‘Towards an Australian Rangeland Biodiversity Monitoring Framework’. A Discussion Paper Developed from a Biodiversity Monitoring Workshop Convened by Australian Collaborative Rangeland Information System (ACRIS), Vol. 2013. Brisbane: University of Queensland.Google Scholar
McKeon, GM, Hall, WB, Henry, BK, Stone, G and Watson, IW (2004) Pasture degradation and recovery in Australia’s rangel ands: Learning from History. Queensland Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, Brisbane.Google Scholar
Noble, JC and Tongway, DJ (1987) Pastoral settlement in arid and semi-arid rangelands. In Russell, JA and Isbell, RF (eds), Australian Soils: The Human Impact. Australia: University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, pp. 217242.Google Scholar
Novelly, PE, Watson, IW, Thomas, PWE and Duckett, NJ (2008)The Western Australian Rangeland Monitoring System (WARMS) – Operating a regional scale monitoring system. The Rangeland Journal 30, 271281.Google Scholar
Owen, G (2009) Review of Land Cover Monitoring in the Northern Territory Dept of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport, Technical Report 11/2009D. Palmerston: Northern Territory.Google Scholar
Owen, E, Zuliani, M, Goldgisser, M and Lortie, CJ (2024) The importance of native shrubs on the distribution and diversity of reptiles and amphibians in the central drylands of southwestern USA. Biodiversity and Conservation 33, 21312151.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2025) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Revell, DK, Norman, HC, Vercoe, PE, Phillips, N, Toovey, A, Bickell, S, Hulm, E, Hughes, S and Emms, J (2013) Australian perennial shrub species add value to the feed base of grazing livestock in low-to medium-rainfall zones. Animal Production Science 53, 12211230.Google Scholar
Shelef, O and Groner, E (2011) Linking landscape and species: Effect of shrubs on patch preference of beetles in arid and semi-arid ecosystems. Journal of Arid Environments 75, 960967.Google Scholar
Sinclair, R (2005) Long-term changes in vegetation, gradual and episodic, on the TGB Osborn vegetation reserve, Koonamore, South Australia (1926–2002). Australian Journal of Botany 53, 283296.Google Scholar
Soliveres, S, Eldridge, DJ, Hemmings, F and Maestre, FT (2012) Nurse plant effects on plant species richness in drylands: The role of grazing, rainfall and species specificity. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 14, 402410.Google Scholar
Sparrow, BD, Foulkes, JN, Wardle, GM, Leitch, EJ, Caddy-Retalic, S, van Leeuwen, SJ, Tokmakoff, A, Thurgate, NY, Guerin, GR and Lowe, AJ (2020) A vegetation and soil survey method for surveillance monitoring of rangeland environments. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 8. DOI https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2020.00157Google Scholar
Vanderpost, C, Ringrose, S, Matheson, W and Arntzen, J (2011) Satellite based long-term assessment of rangeland condition in semi-arid areas: An example from Botswana. Journal of Arid Environments 75, 383389.Google Scholar
Wakelin-King, G (2011) Using geomorphology to assess contour furrowing in western New South Wales, Australia. The Rangeland Journal 33, 153171.Google Scholar
Walker, PJ (1991) Land Systems of Western New South Wales, Technical Publication No. 25. Sydney: Soil Conservation Service of NSW.Google Scholar
Watson, IW and Novelly, P (2004) Making the biodiversity monitoring system sustainable: Design issues for large scale monitoring systems. Austral Ecology 29, 1630.Google Scholar
Watson, IW, Novelly, PE and Thomas, PWE (2007) Monitoring changes in pastoral rangelands – The Western Australian rangeland monitoring system (WARMS). The Rangeland Journal 29, 191205.Google Scholar
Westohy, M and Rice, B (1979) Perennial saltbush killed by drought. Range Management Newsletter 79(3), 7.Google Scholar
Wiley, J (2025). JWileymisc: Miscellaneous Utilities and Functions. R package version 1.4.4 Available at https://joshuawiley.com/JWileymisc/.Google Scholar
Wilson, AD (1966) The intake and excretion of sodium by sheep fed on species of Atriplex (salt bush) and Kochia (bluebush). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 17, 155163.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Clockwise from top-left. (a–c) Images of the Ranges, Footslopes, and Plains. (d) Map of Fowlers Gap station showing the distribution of livestock watering points. The arrow indicates North Mandleman’s Paddock. Photographs: DJ Eldridge.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Differences in (a) the index of groundstorey plant cover (unitless, see Methods), (b) density of shrubs from the family Chenopodiaceae (shrubs ha−1), (c) cover of erosion (%), and (d) assessed livestock carrying capacity between 1982 and 2022 (dry sheep equivalents per 100 ha).

Figure 2

Figure 3. Temporal changes in the cover of bare soil (%) from 1985 to 2026 for ranges, footslopes and plains.

Figure 3

Figure 4. (a) Annual rainfall, (b) assessed grazing capacity, and (c) the relationship between grazing capacity and annual rainfall.

Figure 4

Figure 5. (a) Mean + SD in shrub density for North Mandleman’s Paddock on clay, duplex and sandy soils in 1986 and 2025. Data for 1986 include Maireana spp. and Atriplex vesicaria. 2025 data are for Maireana spp. only. (b) Normalised changes in station-wide shrub density. Negative values indicate substantial reductions, in shrub density, and vice versa.

Figure 5

Figure 6. Changes in shrub density (a, b) and plant richness (c, d) at the Footslopes and Plains sites of the Rangeland Assessment Program.

Author comment: Marked reductions in rangeland shrubs and livestock carrying capacity over four decades — R0/PR1

Comments

Dear editors

We would be grateful if you would consider our manuscript, which describes a long-term changes in vegetation at a research Institute in eastern Australia over 40 years.

Our manuscript details the extensive decline in shrubs and the resulting decline in safe carrying capacity for livestock across a 40 year period.

Our manuscript, if selected by the journal, would be best placed in the Special Issue dedicated to the work of Walter Whitford. Doctor Whitford was a keen supporter of monitoring in rangelands, so it is appropriate that this manuscript forms part of the special issue.

I am happy to provide further information if required.

Sincerely

David Eldridge

Review: Marked reductions in rangeland shrubs and livestock carrying capacity over four decades — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Dear authors,

You will find comments below aimed toward improving interpretability of this unique work. I have provided some citations to similar works that can help you describe your analyses.

Line comments:

20-25: Plant quality and erosion outcomes should be elaborated upon in Abstract. Please explain how erosion density declines.

168: additional water?

194: citation for this approach?

229: What about normality and outliers? What was your random intercept for the lmer model?

230: Helpful pubs to describe analyses:

Porensky, L.M., Derner, J.D., Augustine, D.J., Milchunas, D.G., 2017. Plant community composition after 75 yr of sustained grazing intensity treatments in shortgrass steppe. Rangeland Ecology & Management 70, 456–464 .

Raynor et al. 2021 in REM: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2020.09.005

Once the issues are fixed, I feel you are on your way to publication.

Review: Marked reductions in rangeland shrubs and livestock carrying capacity over four decades — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

I know the senior author (Eldridge) from various conferences and other interactions over the years but I don’t consider that either of us are likely to exert an undue influence on the other.

Comments

It is always good to see long (or at least moderately-long) term studies in the literature. They present a number of challenges in execution, and often interpretation, but are worthwhile because they document what CAN happen, even if the authors are not able to say why it happened with complete confidence.

As the authors say in the Conclusions there are very few examples of such studies in Australia.

The manuscript is written clearly and concisely. I have made a number of suggestions throughout, but none require significant re-write or re-analysis.

+++++++++++++++++

The terms ‘monitoring’, ‘condition’, ‘trend’, ‘change’ are used throughout. I don’t want to get into a highly technical, or pedantic, argument (and I know that the data sets are a combination of single and multi-temporal data) but could the authors please have a close check that the correct term is being used at each point in the manuscript. For example, two points in time is not a ‘trend’, but it can be called ‘change’. Assessing ‘condition’ is not a precondition for doing monitoring and not all monitoring produces a condition statement.

(Also check use of terms ‘assessment’, ‘mapping’, ‘health’, ‘quality’ – all related to range condition, monitoring, etc but my sense is that too many terms are used loosely/interchangeably throughout. For example, the word ‘quality’ is used in the Title, Abstract and Impact Statement, but nowhere else.)

Further, I would ask – ‘Condition for what?’. In the case of Fowlers Gap it is probably condition for pastoral purposes but it could be condition for landscape stability, or biodiversity, or something else. It would be good to get a clear statement within the manuscript of ‘condition for what’.

Abstract

Line 31 – why is the term ‘rangeland health’ used here? Health is a term which is difficult to define, laden with uncertainty. Why not just run with ‘rangeland quality’ as used in the title? It is also difficult to define, but at least its use throughout would be consistent. The same argument applies to ‘rangeland condition’ – which is also used widely in the manuscript.

Line 31 – Will everywhere be drier under climate change? I would be inclined to say ‘… as much of the Earth’s climate become hotter and drier’. Some parts of Australia at least (e.g. north-west Australia) have had a consistently good run of high rainfall years – the argument for climate change induced is at least as strong as for those areas which have seen a run of consistently low rainfall attributed to climate change.

Line 40 – I’d challenge the statement “Nowhere is monitoring more important than across the world’s rangelands, …”. I imagine that the scientists for whom the Great Barrier Reef or the Amazonian forest (etc) is their passion would contend that their own biota were more important than rangelands.

Line 59 – Is ‘capital’ an animal product? Seems odd to be lumped in here.

Line 68 – What does ‘assessment’ mean here? Is it ‘assessment of condition’ or assessment of carrying capacity’ or something else?

Line 73 – Not that I would die in a ditch over it, but it is common these days to use the term ‘European colonisation’ rather than ‘European settlement’.

Line 73 – I think it is ‘practices’ rather than ‘practises’.

Lines 86 and 87 – Regarding the statement “Monitoring programs are costly to sustain and rely heavily on infrastructural support from governments”. The two references below speak to the difficulties of maintaining long-term monitoring systems (in this case WARMS). No pressure to cite them of course, but they are there if you want them.

Novelly, P.E., Watson, I.W., Thomas, P.W.E. and Duckett, N.J. (2008). The Western Australian Rangeland Monitoring System (WARMS) – operating a regional scale monitoring system. The Rangeland Journal, 30, 271-281

Watson, I.W. and Novelly, P. (2004). Making the biodiversity monitoring system sustainable: design issues for large scale monitoring systems. Austral Ecology, 29, 16-30.

(Potentially useful also for the Conclusions section (Lines 359 to 371) where the demise of WARMS, RAP, etc is mentioned.

Lines 87-90. I’m a bit biased but I don’t have as much faith in the TERN program as do Eldridge and Fisher. There is little repeat assessment (at least so far) and TERN is reliant on Australian Government ‘soft money’ rather than as core programs of state/NT governments. I suspect that over the coming years and decades it will be as difficult to maintain the TERN Program as it proved to be with other rangeland monitoring programs.

Furthermore, the Sparrow et al (2020) paper is a description of method, rather than a description of the success or otherwise of the TERN Program. This was very common with state/NT systems also – publishing methods as a demonstration of the system, but without having an adequate, operational, sustainable monitoring system in place.

Line 102 – I agree with the authors, the WLLMP was not a monitoring program. I’m not sure why the authors initially say that it is. It was an assessment program, but there was no monitoring, (At line 162 it seems to be called ‘Mapping’, so why call it monitoring?).

Line 119 – Perhaps a bit pedantic, but I’d be inclined to say ‘reassessed some biophysical attributes’ (or key attributes maybe) rather than ‘reassessed the biophysical attributes’.

Line 127 – Not sure that the word ‘period’ is required – ‘… relatively long-time …’ is sufficient.

Lines 131-132. The aim (which is the last sentence in the Introduction) ‘… to explore the extent to which changing conditions might affect safe carrying capacity …’ is not mentioned in the Abstract. It is not well covered in the Discussion either. Up to the authors, but I’d be inclined to delete this phrase from the Introduction.

Line 142 – Reference to ENSO is often given in relation to rainfall but here it sits a bit oddly in a sentence about temperature. ENSO will have some influence on temperature but the rest of the sentence doesn’t give a clue about how ENSO affects temperature. It seems an odd sentence – as if the sentence was the result of an editing/Track Change mistake??

Line 152 – Perhaps insert the word ‘pastoral’ – as in ‘… a gradient in pastoral productvity’ – otherwise it could be NPP, or some other form of productivity.

Line 159 – Is the word ‘aphylla’ underlined for a reason (or is it just my eyesight?).

Line 179 – Stocking rate reported here in terms of DSE per 100 ha but elsewhere (e.g. Abstract and Line 246) it is expressed as DSE per ha. Be better for the reader if SR was expressed consistently throughout. (At Line 262 kangaroo numbers are expressed per km2, so that is three different ways of presenting stocking rate in the manuscript. Be better if they all used the same units – makes it much easier for the reader.)

Line 215 – Why is ‘health’ used here? Same issue with use of terminology throughout – especially since the title uses the word ‘quality’. Suggest making it consistent.

Lines 212 – 225. RAP was a genuine monitoring program but the word monitoring is not used to describe it here. Yet, ‘Mapping and monitoring’ is the title (Line 162) for the WLLMP section, which is not a monitoring program?? Perhaps it is an issue with the heading levels. Are lines 214 to 225 supposed to also be under the heading at Line 162?

Line 254 – ‘closely related to rainfall’ doesn’t tell the reader much. Could a bit more detail be added?

Line 253 and elsewhere – The metric ‘cover of bare soil’ is a slightly odd one (to me at least). The word ‘cover’ often applies to vegetation but here it is being used to mean the proportion of an area covered by bare ground. It is not wrong, but it might be worth adding a phrase or sentence to explain this – because I think it may confuse some readers. (Because a decline in erosion cover is ‘good’ whereas a decline in vegetation cover is ‘bad’).

Lines 270 & 271 – I would have preferred to see the change in density of chenopod shrubs presented separately for Maireana species and Atriplex vesicaria. Most Maireana species will have much lower turnover rates than A. vesicaria, so presenting the decline as a single percentage (86% and 64%) doesn’t tell me much.

Line 299 – as above, I don’t think climate change will necessarily lead to drier climates everywhere. I’d be inclined to say something like ‘.. as much of the Earth moves toward …’

Line 316 – missing a ‘the’ I think. ‘… support the historic mining industry …’

Line 344 – Will an international audience understand the term (and the use for) ‘poly pipe’?

Line 370 – I think there is a missing word between ‘a’ and ‘useful’.

General comment on the Discussion.

While I don’t disagree with any of the Discussion I must admit that “I wanted more …”.

It is difficult I know to be definitive about the causes of the changes observed, as the authors themselves acknowledge. However, I thought a bit more detail could have been provided about why some of the changes might have occurred. For example, lines 304 to 321 were mostly a summary of the importance of chenopods, what a decline means, grazing radius, etc – but none of this is new information gleaned from this study. I just wanted more focus on discussion of the results of this study and less on what other people have found.

References

I didn’t cross-check all the references but I don’t think Holm et al (1987) is cited in the manuscript.

Recommendation: Marked reductions in rangeland shrubs and livestock carrying capacity over four decades — R0/PR4

Comments

Dear Dr Eldridge,

Two reviewers have indicated a number of minor changes that will improve your work, and with which I agree.

The second reviewer has suggested a more in-depth discussion, although this would inevitably be somewhat speculative rather than directly supported by the results, given the descriptive nature of the study. In any case, I agree that some points in the discussion could be less open. For example, goat herbivory is assigned as a driver of changes in carrying capacity, but it is not further discussed in relation to changes in shrub density (that are tightly related to carrying capacity).

Decision: Marked reductions in rangeland shrubs and livestock carrying capacity over four decades — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Marked reductions in rangeland shrubs and livestock carrying capacity over four decades — R1/PR6

Comments

Already attached

Recommendation: Marked reductions in rangeland shrubs and livestock carrying capacity over four decades — R1/PR7

Comments

The authors have addressed previous minor comments in depth. No further changes are needed.

Decision: Marked reductions in rangeland shrubs and livestock carrying capacity over four decades — R1/PR8

Comments

No accompanying comment.