Cited by 19

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Modelling the effects of water-point closure and fencing removal: A GIS approach

Graz, F. Patrick, Westbrooke, Martin E., Florentine, Singarayer K.·2012·Journal of Environmental Management

Abstract

Artificial water-points in the form of troughs or ground tanks are used to augment natural water supplies within rangelands in many parts of the world. Access to such water-points leads to the development of a distinct ecological sub-system, the piosphere, where trampling and grazing impact modify the vegetation. This study aims to consolidate existing information in a GIS based model to investigate grazing patterns within the landscape. The model focuses on the closure of water-points and removal of fences on Nanya Station, New South Wales, Australia. We found that the manipulation of water-points and fences in one management intervention may change grazing activity in a way different to that which would be experienced if each had been modified separately. Such effects are further modified by the spatial distribution of the water-points and the underlying vegetation.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.03.014

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The effect of the pastoral frontier on areas of rangeland in western NSW were discernible and degrading.

    “In particular, biogeographic and botanical studies on vegetation within pastoral blocks in western NSW illustrate that the effect of the pastoral frontier on these areas of rangeland were discernible and degrading (Graz, Westbrooke, & Florentine 2012; Pickard 1991; Westbrooke 2012; Westbrooke & Miller 1995).”
  • Pastoral impacts to vegetation around tanks have been described by Graz et al. as the cause for microbiomes or piospheres due to extensive changes to vegetation around waterpoints and fences at Nanya station, NSW.

    “Furthermore, the pastoral impacts to the vegetation around tanks have been described by Graz et al. as the cause for microbiomes or piospheres due to the extensive nature of the changes to the vegetation around waterpoints and fences at Nanya station, NSW (Graz, Westbrooke, & Florentine 2012, p. 187).”
  • Biogeographic and botanical studies on vegetation within pastoral blocks in western NSW illustrate that the effect of the pastoral frontier on these areas of rangeland were discernible and degrading.

    “In particular, biogeographic and botanical studies on vegetation within pastoral blocks in western NSW illustrate that the effect of the pastoral frontier on these areas of rangeland were discernible and degrading (Graz, Westbrooke, & Florentine 2012; Pickard 1991; Westbrooke 2012; Westbrooke & Miller 1995).”
  • The pastoral impacts to the vegetation around tanks have been described by Graz et al. as the cause for microbiomes or piospheres due to the extensive nature of the changes to the vegetation around waterpoints and fences at Nanya station, NSW.

    “Furthermore, the pastoral impacts to the vegetation around tanks have been described by Graz et al. as the cause for microbiomes or piospheres due to the extensive nature of the changes to the vegetation around waterpoints and fences at Nanya station, NSW (Graz, Westbrooke, & Florentine 2012, p. 187).”

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. Dick, 1975, A map of the climates of Australia, Queensl. Geogr. J., 333
  2. Fensham, 2008, Water-remoteness for grazing relief in Australian arid-lands, Biol. Conserv., 141, 1447, 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.03.016 · DOI
  3. Fernandez-Gimenez, 2001, Vegetation change along gradients from water sources in three grazed Mongolian ecosystems, Plant Ecol., 157, 101, 10.1023/A:1014519206041 · DOI
  4. Florentine, 2005, Invasion of the noxious weed Nicotiana glauca R. Graham after an episodic flooding event in the arid zone of Australia, J. Arid. Environ., 60, 531, 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2004.07.015 · DOI
  5. Graetz, 1978, A method for the analysis of piosphere data applicable to range assessment, Rangel. J., 1, 126, 10.1071/RJ9780126 · DOI
  6. Heshmatti, 2002, The piosphere revisited: plant species patterns close to waterpoints in small, fenced paddocks in chenopod shrublands of South Australia, J. Arid Environ., 51, 547, 10.1016/S0140-1963(02)90969-9 · DOI
  7. James, 1999, Provision of watering points in the Australian arid zone: a review of effects on biota, J. Arid Environ., 41, 87, 10.1006/jare.1998.0467 · DOI
  8. Jeltsch, 1997, Simulated pattern formation around artificial waterholes in the semi-arid Kalahari, J. Veg. Sci., 8, 177, 10.2307/3237346 · DOI
  9. Joseph, 2006, Comparing continuous map surfaces, GeoWorld, 24
  10. Landsberg, 2002, Scale-related effects of grazing on native plant communities in an arid rangeland region of South Australia, J. Appl. Ecol., 39, 427, 10.1046/j.1365-2664.2002.00719.x · DOI
  11. Lange, 1969, The Piosphere: sheep track and dung patterns, Rangel. J., 22, 396, 10.2307/3895849 · DOI
  12. Moleele, 2002, More woody plants? The status of bush encroachment in Botswana’s grazing areas, J. Environ. Manage., 64, 3
  13. Orr, 1980, Effects of sheep grazing Astrebla grassland in central western Queensland. 1. Effects of grazing pressure and livestock distribution, Aust. J. Agron. Res., 31, 797, 10.1071/AR9800797 · DOI
  14. Pringle, 2004, Predicting the distribution of livestock grazing pressure in rangelands, Aust. Ecol., 29, 31, 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2004.01363.x · DOI
  15. Röder, 2007, Adaptation of a grazing gradient concept to heterogeneous Mediterranean rangelands using cost surface modelling, Ecol. Model., 204, 387, 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.01.022 · DOI
  16. Thrash, 1998, Impact of large herbivores at artificial watering points compared to that at natural watering points in Kruger National Park, South Africa, J. Arid Environ., 38, 315, 10.1006/jare.1997.0331 · DOI
  17. Thrash, 1998, Impact of water provision on herbaceous vegetation in Kruger National Park, South Africa, J. Arid Environ., 38, 437, 10.1006/jare.1997.0318 · DOI
  18. Thrash, 2000, Determinants of the extent of indigenous large herbivore impact on herbaceous vegetation at watering points in the north-eastern lowveld, South Africa, J. Arid Environ., 44, 61, 10.1006/jare.1999.0452 · DOI
  19. Thrash, 1999, The nature and modelling of piospheres: a review, Koedoe, 42, 73, 10.4102/koedoe.v42i2.234 · DOI
  20. Westbrooke, M.E., Christie, F.J., Cook, S., Florentine, S.K., Gell, P., Graz, F.P., 2010. Biodiversity impacts of ground tank closure in southeast Australian rangelands. Presented at the Proceedings Australian Rangeland Society 16th Biennial Conference, Australian Rangeland Society, Bourke, New South Wales.
  21. Westbrooke, 2005, Arid land vegetation dynamics after a rare flooding event: influence of fire and grazing, J. Arid Environ., 61, 249, 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2004.09.004 · DOI
  22. Westbrooke, 1998, Vegetation and flora of the Scotia 1:100 000 map sheet, far western New South Wales, Cunninghamia, 5, 684

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Graz, F. P., Westbrooke, M. E., & Florentine, S. K.
Venue
Journal of Environmental Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-08
Volume
104
Pages
186-194
ISSN
0301-4797
Cited by
19
References
0
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review