What did it used to look like? A case study from tall, wet mainland Mountain Ash forests prior to British invasion

IF 1.6 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 ECOLOGY
Austral Ecology Pub Date : 2024-04-20 DOI:10.1111/aec.13520
David Lindenmayer, Chris Taylor, Elle Bowd, Philip Zylstra
{"title":"What did it used to look like? A case study from tall, wet mainland Mountain Ash forests prior to British invasion","authors":"David Lindenmayer,&nbsp;Chris Taylor,&nbsp;Elle Bowd,&nbsp;Philip Zylstra","doi":"10.1111/aec.13520","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>There has been extensive commentary about historical First Nations' land management in Australia, including in tall, wet forests, and therefore their condition at the time of the British invasion in 1788. Popular texts have interpreted records kept by early British invaders to argue that extensive areas of tall, wet forest were kept open through frequent burning by the First Peoples. However, these interpretations conflict with historical and ecological evidence, which is rarely acknowledged in public discourse. Here, we present evidence about what Victorian Mountain Ash (<i>Eucalyptus regnans</i>) forests were like at the time of the British invasion. We show that at the time of the British invasion, most areas of mainland Mountain Ash forests were likely to have been naturally dense and wet, with: (1) overstorey trees spaced relatively widely; and (2) an understorey consisting of a cool temperate rainforest mesic layer. Ecological and physiological evidence suggests that Mountain Ash forests evolved under conditions where high-severity wildfire was comparatively rare, leading to patterns of landscape-level cover dominated by relatively mature forests. This is broadly consistent with reports from the First Peoples, early historical accounts, paintings, and photographs. These forests were not open or park-like, as may have been the case in some other Australian vegetation types. However, these forests were not <i>wilderness</i>, but places of significance to the First Peoples. Understanding forest structure at the time of the British invasion is critically important in establishing historical reference conditions for guiding appropriate restoration programmes, especially the reinstatement of traditional ecological knowledge, after long periods of post-British invasion disturbance and degradation. Notably, the dense, wet understorey that characterizes Mountain Ash forests should be recognized as an inherent and entirely natural part of the ecological dynamics of this ecosystem, with approaches to thin, burn, or remove it highly likely to be counterproductive and have a range of detrimental environmental effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":8663,"journal":{"name":"Austral Ecology","volume":"49 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aec.13520","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Austral Ecology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aec.13520","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There has been extensive commentary about historical First Nations' land management in Australia, including in tall, wet forests, and therefore their condition at the time of the British invasion in 1788. Popular texts have interpreted records kept by early British invaders to argue that extensive areas of tall, wet forest were kept open through frequent burning by the First Peoples. However, these interpretations conflict with historical and ecological evidence, which is rarely acknowledged in public discourse. Here, we present evidence about what Victorian Mountain Ash (Eucalyptus regnans) forests were like at the time of the British invasion. We show that at the time of the British invasion, most areas of mainland Mountain Ash forests were likely to have been naturally dense and wet, with: (1) overstorey trees spaced relatively widely; and (2) an understorey consisting of a cool temperate rainforest mesic layer. Ecological and physiological evidence suggests that Mountain Ash forests evolved under conditions where high-severity wildfire was comparatively rare, leading to patterns of landscape-level cover dominated by relatively mature forests. This is broadly consistent with reports from the First Peoples, early historical accounts, paintings, and photographs. These forests were not open or park-like, as may have been the case in some other Australian vegetation types. However, these forests were not wilderness, but places of significance to the First Peoples. Understanding forest structure at the time of the British invasion is critically important in establishing historical reference conditions for guiding appropriate restoration programmes, especially the reinstatement of traditional ecological knowledge, after long periods of post-British invasion disturbance and degradation. Notably, the dense, wet understorey that characterizes Mountain Ash forests should be recognized as an inherent and entirely natural part of the ecological dynamics of this ecosystem, with approaches to thin, burn, or remove it highly likely to be counterproductive and have a range of detrimental environmental effects.

Abstract Image

过去是什么样子?英国入侵前大陆高大潮湿的山白蜡森林案例研究
关于澳大利亚原住民历史上的土地管理,包括高大、潮湿森林的土地管理,以及 1788 年英国入侵时的土地管理状况,已有大量评论。通俗读物对早期英国入侵者保存的记录进行了解释,认为原住民通过频繁焚烧保持了大片高大潮湿森林的开放。然而,这些解释与历史和生态证据相冲突,而这些证据在公众讨论中很少得到承认。在此,我们提供了有关英国入侵时维多利亚山白蜡(桉树)森林的证据。我们的研究表明,在英国入侵时,大陆大部分地区的山地白蜡树森林很可能是自然茂密和潮湿的,其中包括(1) 林上树木间距相对较大;(2) 林下由冷温带雨林中层组成。生态学和生理学证据表明,山灰林是在严重野火相对罕见的条件下演化而来的,从而形成了以相对成熟的森林为主的地貌覆盖模式。这与原住民的报告、早期历史记载、绘画和照片大体一致。这些森林并不像澳大利亚其他一些植被类型那样开阔或像公园一样。然而,这些森林并不是荒野,而是对原住民具有重要意义的地方。了解英国入侵时的森林结构对于建立历史参考条件至关重要,以便在英国入侵后的长期干扰和退化之后,指导适当的恢复计划,特别是恢复传统生态知识。值得注意的是,山白蜡森林特有的茂密、潮湿的林下植被应被视为该生态系统生态动态中固有的、完全自然的组成部分,稀疏、烧毁或清除林下植被的方法极有可能适得其反,产生一系列有害的环境影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Austral Ecology
Austral Ecology 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
117
审稿时长
12-24 weeks
期刊介绍: Austral Ecology is the premier journal for basic and applied ecology in the Southern Hemisphere. As the official Journal of The Ecological Society of Australia (ESA), Austral Ecology addresses the commonality between ecosystems in Australia and many parts of southern Africa, South America, New Zealand and Oceania. For example many species in the unique biotas of these regions share common Gondwana ancestors. ESA''s aim is to publish innovative research to encourage the sharing of information and experiences that enrich the understanding of the ecology of the Southern Hemisphere. Austral Ecology involves an editorial board with representatives from Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Brazil and Argentina. These representatives provide expert opinions, access to qualified reviewers and act as a focus for attracting a wide range of contributions from countries across the region. Austral Ecology publishes original papers describing experimental, observational or theoretical studies on terrestrial, marine or freshwater systems, which are considered without taxonomic bias. Special thematic issues are published regularly, including symposia on the ecology of estuaries and soft sediment habitats, freshwater systems and coral reef fish.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信