Native Vegetation Condition: Site to Regional Assessments

  • Andre Zerger
  • Philip Gibbons
  • Julian Seddon
  • Garth Warren
  • Mike Austin
  • Paul Ryan
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)


There is an increasing emphasis in Australia on the use of vegetation condition information for regional conservation planning. The use of site-based vegetation condition assessments is a relatively mature management application with methods developed for different landscapes (e.g. rangelands and riparian) and to support a variety of natural resource management requirements (property vegetation planning or market-based instruments). On the other hand, the creation of regional-scale maps of native vegetation condition is still a developing methodology. This chapter argues that regional-scale maps of native vegetation condition are an important tool to complement site-based assessments. When combined they can provide a powerful integrated tool for regional conservation planning. Through a case study we describe a methodology for extending site-based data to maps of two vegetation condition attributes based on the BioMetric site assessment method. The case study, in the Murray Catchment in New South Wales, Australia, illustrates how an understanding of faunal response to native vegetation condition can be combined with modelled data to develop regional conservation planning maps. A spatial data aggregation approach is applied to model outcomes to address concerns about uncertainty and data confidentiality.


Normalise Difference Vegetation Index Vegetation Condition Topographic Position Regional Assessment Airborne Laser Scanning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson R P, Lew D, Peterson AT (2003) Evaluating predictive models of species’ distributions: criteria for selecting optimal models. Ecological Modelling 162:211–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin MP (2002) Spatial prediction of species distribution: an interface between ecological theory and statistical modelling. Ecological Modelling 157:101– 118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayers D, Seddon J, Briggs S, Doyle S, Gibbons P (2007) Interim vegetation types of NSW developed for the BioMetric tool. Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) unpublished, p 7Google Scholar
  4. Catling PC, Burt RJ (1995) Studies of the ground dwelling mammals of Eucalypt forests in south-eastern New South Wales: the effect of habitat variables on distribution and abundance. Wildlife Research 22:271–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cawsey EM, Austin MP, Baker BL (2002) Regional vegetation mapping in Australia: a case study in the practical use of statistical modelling. Biodiversity and Conservation 11(12):2239–2274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clevenger AP, Wierzchowski J, Chruszcz B (2002) GIS generated, expert-based models for identifying wildlife habitat linkages and planning mitigation passages. Conservation Biology 16(2):503–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cunningham RB, Lindenmayer DB, Crane M, Michael D, MacGregor C, Montague- Drake R (2008) What factors influence bird biota on farms? Putting restored vegetation into context. Conservation Biology (in press)Google Scholar
  8. Dare PM, Zerger A, Pickett-Heaps CA (2002) Investigation of space borne and airborne remote sensing technologies for mapping manna gum (Eucalyptus viminalis) health in south-eastern Australia. Asian Journal of Geoinformatics 3(1):63–69Google Scholar
  9. Drielsma M, Manion G, Ferrier S (2007) The spatial links tool: automated mapping of habitat linkages in variegated landscapes. Ecological Modelling 200(3–4):403–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferrier S, Watson G, Pearce J, Drielsma M (2002) Extended statistical approaches to modelling spatial pattern in biodiversity in north-east New South Wales I Species-level modelling. Biodiversity and Conservation 11(12):2275–2307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Franklin J, McCullough P, Gray C (2000) Terrain variables used for predictive mapping of vegetation communities in Southern California. In: Wilson JP, Gallant JC (eds) Terrain analysis: principles and applications. John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Frescino TS, Edwards Jr TC, Moisen GG (2001) Modelling spatially explicit forest structural attributes using generalised additive models. Journal of Vegetation Science 12:15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gallant JC, Wilson JP (2000) Primary topographic attributes. In: Wilson JP, Gallant JC (eds), Terrain analysis: principles and applications. John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Gibbons P, Ayers D, Seddon J, Doyle S, Briggs S (2005) BioMetric Version 18 a terrestrial biodiversity assessment tool for the NSW property vegetation plan, developer operational manual. Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW), unpublishedGoogle Scholar
  15. Goldney D, Wakefield S (1997) Assessing farm bushland. In: Charles Sturt University and Orange Agricultural College (ed) Save the bush toolkit. Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  16. Guisan A, Zimmermann NE (2000) Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecological Modelling 135(2–3):147–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hinsley SA, Hill RA, Gaveau DLA, Bellamy PE (2002) Quantifying woodland structure and habitat quality for birds using airborne laser scanning. Functional Ecology 16:851–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lehmann A, Overton JMcC, Leathwick JR (2003) GRASP: generalised regression analysis and spatial prediction. Ecological Modelling 160:165–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Levesque J, King DJ (1999) Airborne digital camera image semivariance for evaluation of forest structural damage at an acid mine site. Remote Sensing of the Environment 68:112–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lucas RM, Tickle PK, Witte C, Milne AK (2001) Development of multistage procedures for quantifying the biomass, structure and community composition of Australian woodlands using polarimetric radar and optical data. In: Proceedings of the International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, 9–13 July 2001, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  21. Ludwig JA, Eager GN, Bastin VH, Chewings VH, Liedloff AC (2002) A leakiness index for assessing landscape function using remote sensing. Landscape Ecology 17:157–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McElhinny C, Gibbons P, Brack C, Bauhus J (2005) Forest and woodland stand structural complexity: its definition and measurement. Forest Ecology and Management 218:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McElhinny C, Gibbons P, Brack C, Bauhaus J (2006) Fauna-habitat relationships: a basis for identifying key stand structural attributes in Australian Eucalypt forests and woodlands. Pacific Conservation Biology 12:89–110Google Scholar
  24. Miles C (2001) NSW Murray Catchment biodiversity action plan. Nature Conservation Working Group, Murray Catchment, New South Wales, p 86Google Scholar
  25. Moisen GG, Frescino TS (2002) Comparing five modelling techniques for predicting forest characteristics. Ecological Modelling 157(2–3):209–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Newell GR, White MD, Griffioen P, Conroy M (2006) Vegetation condition mapping at a landscape-scale across Victoria. Ecological Management and Restoration 7(S1):65–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Newsome AE, Catling PC (1979) Habitat preferences of mammals inhabiting heathlands of warm temperate coastal, montaine and alpine regions of southeastern Australia. In: Specht RL (ed) Ecosystems of the World Volume 9A: Heathlands and related shrublands of the world. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  28. Oliver I, Jones H, Schmoldt DL (2007) Expert panel assessment of attributes for natural variability benchmarks for biodiversity. Austral Ecology 32(4):453–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Overton J, Lehmann A (2003) Predicting vegetation condition and weed distributions for systematic conservation management: an application of GRASP in the central South Island. Science for Conservation (220), Department of Conservation, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  30. Parkes D, Newell G, Cheal D (2003) Assessing the quality of native vegetation: the ‘habitat hectares’ approach. Ecological Management and Restoration 7(S1):29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pearce J, Ferrier S (2000) Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using logistic regression. Ecological Modelling 133(3):225–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Perkins I (2002) Harrington Park stage 2 ecological assessment: final report. Ian Perkins Consultancy Services and Aquila Ecological Surveys, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  33. Pressey RL, Nicholls AO (1989) Efficiency in conservation evaluation: scoring versus iterative approaches. Biological Conservation 50:199–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Scarth P, Phinn S, (2000) Determining forest structural attributes using an inverted geometric-optical model in mixed Eucalypt forests, southeast Queensland, Australia. Remote Sensing of the Environment 71:141–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tongway D, Hindley N (2004) Landscape function analysis: a system for monitoring rangeland function. African Journal of Range and Forage Science 21:109– 113Google Scholar
  36. USEPA (2007) Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 11 September 2007, Scholar
  37. Wallace J, Furby S (1994) Assessment of change in remnant vegetation area and condition. CSIRO Mathematical and Information Sciences and Agriculture Western Australia. Available at remveg/vegassess_all.html.Google Scholar
  38. Wallace J, Behn G, Furby S (2006) Vegetation condition assessment and monitoring from sequences of satellite imagery. Ecological Management and Restoration 7(S1):31–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Watson J, Freudenberger D, Paull D (2001) An assessment of the focal-species approach for conserving birds in variegated landscapes in southeastern Australia. Conservation Biology 15:1364–1373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. White DA, Kimerling JA, Overton SW (1992) Cartographic and geometric components of a global sampling design for environmental monitoring. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 19(1):5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Woodgate PW, Peel WD, Ritman KT, Coram JE, Brady A, Rule AJ, Banks JCG (1994) A study of the old-growth forests of East Gippsland. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  42. Zerger A, Gibbons P, Jones S, Doyle S, Seddon J, Briggs SV, Freudenberger D (2006) Spatially modelling native vegetation condition. Ecological Management and Restoration 7(S1): 37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zerger A, Warren G, Austin M, Gibbons P, Seddon J (2007) Implications of scale change on native vegetation condition mapping. In: Oxley L, Kulasiri D (eds) MODSIM 2007 International Congress of Modelling and Simulation. Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand, 10–13 December 2007, Canterbury, New Zealand. Available at MODSIM07/papers/21_s46/ImplicationsOfScale_s46_Zerger_.pdfGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andre Zerger
    • 1
  • Philip Gibbons
    • 2
  • Julian Seddon
    • 3
  • Garth Warren
    • 1
  • Mike Austin
    • 1
  • Paul Ryan
    • 1
  1. 1.CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems ACTAustralia
  2. 2.Fenner School of Environment and SocietyThe Australian National University, ACTAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW)ACTAustralia

Personalised recommendations