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 BA 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
Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46(12) 1589-1600 https://doi.org/10.1071/EA05218
Submitted: 15 August 2005 Accepted: 4 April 2006 Published: 10 November 2006
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.
Additional keywords: backswamp grazing, drained wetlands, field trials, sulfide oxidation.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the Acid Sulfate Soil Program (ASSPRO), a NSW government initiative, and administered by the Acid Sulfate Soil Management Action Committee (ASSMAC). It forms part of a PhD research project, jointly supervised by Southern Cross University, Lismore, and Agriculture NSW, Wollongbar.
Bronswijk JJB,
Nugroho K,
Aribawa IB,
Groenenberg JE, Ritsema CJ
(1993) Modeling of oxygen transport and pyrite oxidation in acid sulphate soils. Journal of Environmental Quality 22, 544–554.
Golez NV
(1995) Formation of acid sulfate soil and its implications to brackishwater ponds. Aquacultural Engineering 14(4), 297–316.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Harper JL, Benton RA
(1966) The behaviour of seeds in soil II. Journal of Ecology 54, 151–166.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Harper JL,
Williams JT, Sagar GR
(1965) The behaviour of seeds in soil I. Journal of Ecology 53, 273–286.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hyne RV, Wilson SP
(1997) Toxicity of acid-sulphate soil leachate and aluminium to the embryos and larvae of Australian bass (Macquaria novemaculeata) in estuarine water. Environmental Pollution 97(3), 221–227.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
Indraratna B,
Sullivan J, Nethery A
(1995) Effect of groundwater table on the formation of acid sulphate soils. Mine Water and the Environment 14, 71–84.
Jugsujinda A,
Prasittikhet J,
DeLaune RD,
Lindau CW, Gambrell RP
(1996) Ammonium nitrogen uptake by rice grown in acid sulfate soil under controlled redox conditions. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 46, 103–109.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Khan HR,
Rahman S,
Hussain MS, Adachi T
(1994) Growth and yield response of rice to selected amendments in acid sulfate soil. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 40(2), 231–242.
Lin C, Melville MD
(1993) Control of soil acidification by fluvial sedimentation in an estuarine floodplain, eastern Australia. Sedimentary Geology 85, 271–284.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lin C,
Melville MD,
White I, Wilson BP
(1995) Human and natural controls on the accumulation, acidification and drainage of pyritic sediments: Pearl River Delta, China and coastal NSW. Australian Geographical Studies 33(1), 77–88.
Minh LQ,
Tuong TP,
van Mensvoort MEF, Bouma J
(1997a) Contamination of surface water as affected by land use in acid sulfate soils in the Mekong River Delta, Vietnam. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 61, 19–27.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Minh LQ,
Tuong TP,
van Mensvoort MEF, Bouma J
(1997b) Tillage and water management for riceland productivity in acid sulfate soils of the Mekong delta, Vietnam. Soil and Tillage Research 42, 1–14.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Minh LQ,
Tuong TP,
van Mensvoort MEF, Bouma J
(1998) Soil and watertable management effects on aluminium dynamics in an acid sulphate soil in Vietnam. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 68, 255–262.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Poolpipatana S, Hue NV
(1994) Differential acidity tolerance of tropical legumes grown for green manure in acid sulfate soils. Plant and Soil 163, 131–139.
Rosicky MA,
Sullivan LA,
Slavich PG, Hughes RM
(2004a) Soil properties in and around acid sulfate soil scalds in the coastal floodplains of New South Wales, Australia. Australian Journal of Soil Research 42, 595–602.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rosicky MA,
Sullivan LA,
Slavich PG, Hughes RM
(2004b) Factors contributing to the acid sulfate soil scalding process in the coastal floodplains of New South Wales. Australian Journal of Soil Research 42, 587–594.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sammut J,
Melville MD,
Callinan RB, Fraser GC
(1995) Estuarine acidification: Impacts on aquatic biota of draining acid sulphate soils. Australian Geographical Studies 33(1), 89–100.
Sundstrom R,
Astrom M, Osterholm P
(2002) Comparison of the metal content in acid sulfate soil runoff and industrial effluents in Finland. Environmental Science & Technology 36(20), 4269–4272.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
White I,
Melville MD,
Wilson BP, Sammut J
(1997) Reducing acidic discharges from coastal wetlands in eastern Australia. Wetlands Ecology and Management 5, 55–72.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wilson BP,
White I, Melville MD
(1999) Floodplain hydrology, acid discharge and change in water quality associated with a drained acid sulfate soil. Marine and Freshwater Research 50, 149–157.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Woodhead AC,
Cornish PS, Slavich PG
(2000) Multi-stakeholder benchmarking: Clarifying attitudes and behaviour from complexity and ambiguity. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 40, 595–607.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
