Register      Login
The Rangeland Journal The Rangeland Journal Society
Journal of the Australian Rangeland Society
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > RJ > RJ06015
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 28(1)

Value for money? Investment in weed management in Australian rangelands

Tara G. Martin A C and Rieks D. van Klinken B
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems; Current address: Centre for Applied Conservation Research, Department of Forest Sciences, University of British Columbia, 3041-2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada.

B CSIRO Entomology and CRC for Australian Weed Management, 120 Meiers Road, Indooroopilly, Qld 4068, Australia.

C Corresponding author. Email: tara.martin@ubc.ca

The Rangeland Journal 28(1) 63-75 https://doi.org/10.1071/RJ06015
Submitted: 17 February 2006  Accepted: 14 March 2006   Published: 29 May 2006

Abstract

Increased awareness of the threat posed by non-native species to biodiversity and productivity has prompted an unprecedented commitment and investment in weed management activities throughout rangeland Australia. Since the launching of National Weeds Program in 1996 under the first phase of the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT), there has been a substantial increase in coordinated and strategic investment in weed management across the rangelands. Almost AU$25 million of Australian Government funding has been invested in projects specifically targeting Weeds of National Significance (WONS) that occur in the rangelands (14 species) and a further AU$56 million on projects conducted in the rangelands that included a weed management component. Substantial funding has also been invested by other levels of government, non-government organisations and landholders. We review this investment in relation to the level of funding, the types of weeds targeted, the range of projects undertaken and the effectiveness of these projects within Australia’s rangelands. Achievements include successful eradications, preventions, early interventions, containments, mitigation of impacts, increased awareness of weed threats and general capacity to respond to weed management issues.

Our review highlights several areas that, if addressed, will result in a substantial increase in the effectiveness of weed management efforts. These include: addressing discrepancies between states/territories in terms of funding and commitment to weed management; resolving conflicts between stakeholders in relation to the cost-benefit of non-native pasture grasses; encouraging projects that consider the broader natural resource management context of weed infestations; encouraging projects that examine weed complexes or the impacts of weeds in habitats with high biodiversity values such as riparian zones; and detecting and controlling weeds in the early stages of establishment. Finally, the collection of baseline information and alignment of reporting schedules with the longer term benefits of weed management projects will allow an assessment of the effectiveness of weed management projects and more strategic allocation of resources in the future.

Additional keywords: arid landscapes, biodiversity conservation, exotic, non-native, pastoral.


Acknowledgments

This paper would not have been possible without the expertise and assistance of the following people: Alice Beilby, Delphine Bentley, B. Binns, Greg Campbell, Richard Carter, Richard Clarkson, Damian Collopy, Stuart Cowell, Kendrick Cox, Steve Csurhes, Mick Everitt, Ann Ferguson, Kerrie Jocumsen, Peter Kendrick, Annie Keys, Sarah Legge, Philip Maher, Nathan March, Cam McDonald, Juanita Movigliatti, Stewart Noble, John Thorp, Richard Watkins, Annemarie Watt, Michael Weston, Jenny White, Brent Williams and Steve Wingrave. Richard Carter and Nathan March provided valuable comments on this manuscript.


References


Altman J. C. , and Whitehead P. J. (2003). ‘Caring for country and sustainable indigenous development: opportunities, constraints and innovations.’ Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research (CAEPR) Working Paper No.20/2003. (The Australian National University: Canberra.) Available online at: www.anu.edu.au/caepr/Publications/WP/CAEPRWP20.pdf (accessed 25 March 2006)

Anon. (1999). ‘National weeds strategy: a strategic approach to weed problems of national significance.’ Rev. edn. Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Forestry Ministers. (Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra.)

Anon. (2004). Director of National Parks Annual Report 2004–05. Commonwealth of Australia. Available online at: www.deh.gov.au/parks/publications/annual/04-05/uluru.html (accessed 23 March 2006).

Ashley M. , Storrs M. J. , and Brown M. (2002). Caring for country: community based mimosa management on Aboriginal lands of the Top End of the Northern Territory. In: ‘Proceedings of the 3rd International Mimosa Symposium’. (Eds M. Julien, G. Flanagan, T. A. Heard, B. Hennecke, Q. Paynter and C. Wilson.) pp. 106–109. (CSIRO: Darwin.)

Butler D. W., Fairfax R. J. (2003) Buffel grass and fire in a gidgee and brigalow woodland: a case study from central Queensland. Ecological Management and Restoration 42, 120–125.
| Crossref |
(accessed 24 March 2006)

Woinarski J. C. Z., Brock C., Armstrong M., Hempel C., Cheal D., Brennan K. (2000) Bird distribution in riparian vegetation in the extensive natural landscape of Australia’s tropical savanna: a broad-scale survey and analysis of a distributional data base. Journal of Biogeography 27, 843–868.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1