Rangeland condition is a function of soil erosion and pasture condition
DPIRD's rangelands officers use the matrix of soil erosion extent and pasture condition ratings to arrive at the rangeland condition score (good, fair or poor) for each monitoring site or lease inspection point during assessments. Lessees and managers are informed of when rangelands officers will be visiting their lease and they are invited to accompany officers during assessments.
The matrix for rangeland condition
Rangeland condition matrix | Pasture condition rating | Pasture condition rating | Pasture condition rating |
---|---|---|---|
Soil erosion rating 0 | Good | Fair | Poor |
Soil erosion rating 1 or 2 | Good | Fair | Poor |
Soil erosion rating 3 | Fair | Poor | Poor |
Soil erosion rating 4 or 5 | Poor | Poor | Poor |
Pasture condition ratings
# | Rating | Description |
---|---|---|
1 | Excellent or very good | for the land unit/vegetation type, the compositions and cover of shrubs, perennial herbs and grasses is near optimal; free of obvious reductions in palatable species or increases in unpalatable species, or the habitat type supports vegetation which is predominately unattractive to herbivores and is thus largely unaltered by grazing. |
2 | Good | Perennials present include all or most of the palatable species expected; some less palatable or unpalatable species may have increased, but the total perennial cover is not very different from optimal. |
3 | Fair | Moderate losses of palatable perennials and/or increases in unpalatable shrubs or grasses, but most palatable species and stability desirables still present; foliar cover is less than on comparable sites rated 1 or 2 unless unpalatable species have increased. |
4 | Poor | Conspicuous losses of palatable perennials; foliar cover is either decreased through general loss of perennials or is increased by the invasion of unpalatable species. |
5 | Very poor | Few palatable perennials remain; cover is either greatly reduced, with much bare ground arising from loss of stability desirables, or has become dominated by a proliferation of unpalatable species. |
Soil erosion ratings
Rating | Severity | Percentage of assessment area affected |
---|---|---|
0 | No accelerated erosion present | 0% |
1 | Slight erosion | <10% |
2 | Minor erosion | 10–25% |
3 | Moderate erosion | 25–50% |
4 | Severe erosion | 50–75% |
5 | Extreme erosion | 75–100% |
Types of erosion to be assessed
Code/rating | Erosion type present |
---|---|
A | Microterracing/sheeting |
B | Scalding/capping |
C | Pedestalling |
D | Rilling/guttering |
E | Guttering/gullying |
F | Accelerated accretion of soil material |
Soil surface condition categories
Rangeland condition is also indicated by soil surface characteristics, as part of landscape functional analysis. Soil surface condition describes the soil’s capacity to retain water, and to remain stable and productive under variable conditions (Table 5). Note: these condition categories are recommended in the pastoralist managed site assessments – Grassland sites.
Condition | Description |
---|---|
Very good | stable soil surface (no topsoil loss occurring); many physical barriers, including decomposing litter, live plants and fallen timber, to retard water flows and promote infiltration |
Good | soil surface is mostly stable (no or little topsoil loss occurring); some accumulated litter and live plants; minor evidence of loss of water or litter from site |
Fair | some signs of topsoil loss; some litter, but with little evidence of decomposition; reduced obstructions to intercept water flows, including few live plants |
Poor | significant topsoil loss; minimal litter present; few obstructions to intercept water flows |
Very poor | almost total loss of topsoil; exposed soil surfaces are impermeable; very few objects to intercept water flows; no accumulated litter; no live plants. |
Management options
DPIRD's rangelands officers provide advice on management options for maintaining or improving rangeland condition and can help organise group training workshops on sustainable rangeland management and remediation/rehabilitation techniques where resources are available.
References
Payne, AL, Kubicki, A, Wilcox, DG & Short, LC 1979, 'A report on erosion and range condition in the west Kimberley area of Western Australia', Technical bulletin 42, Western Australian Department of Agriculture, viewed 21 November 2016 http://researchlibrary.agric.wa.gov.au/tech_bull/54/.
Payne, AL, Van Vreeswyk, AME, Pringle, HJR, Leighton, KA & Hennig, P 1998, 'An inventory and condition survey of the Sandstone–Yalgoo–Paynes Find area, Western Australia', Technical bulletin 90, Department of Agriculture, Western Australia.