Experiment (2): Soil Biology @ the Artwork Site

As noted in this prior post, it has been particularly exciting to learn from A/Prof Caroline Hauxwell’s (Faculty of Science, School of Biology & Environmental Science.) extensive knowledge of the site and its soil biology.  (We had also engaged in fruitful discussions with here prior about the setup and the direction of the regeneration project).

Dr. Hauxwell has been using adjacent areas at SERF and part of the artwork/revegetation site for her research experiments into beneficial soil fungi – which have an end outcome to reduce pasture dieback that is caused by mealy bugs. (The bug in question is the paspalum mealybug, Heliococcus summervillei – and her work is of particular relevance to the pasture industry given that these invasive bugs devour Buffalo grass which is a key, commercial pasture grass, (and interestingly a notable environmental weed in conservation contexts). To do this work Caroline and her research team have become experts in isolating fungi from soils of forests and pastures.

Collecting soil samples along transects at SERF – across the artwork site (Image Keith Armstrong)

Immediately before, and following the burn of the SERF wet gulley/artwork site A/Prof Hauxwell had initiated a periodic soil sampling regime to learn how the fungal composition of the site might change according to the burn – something which also seemed very relevant to us given we needed proxy ways to determine the improvement of soil and plant health as the artwork process evolves.

So on 11/3/24 Dr. Eleanor Velasquez and I joined the soil sampling process at SERF – to understand and observe more about the scientific methods underway.

Soil samples from the artwork zone, collected and kept cool (Image Keith Armstrong)
Soil samples from the artwork zone (Image Keith Armstrong)
Artwork/site survey team, March 2024 (Image Keith Armstrong)
Site sampling notation (Image Keith Armstrong)

As per the prior study, samples would be taken in transects across the whole site (5 points per transect spanning the strip that we burned last year). Her students and postgraduate team had been analysing those soil samples for the presence of Purpureocillium (see prior soil biology investigation post).

Purpureocillium culture
Purpureocillium lilacinum culture. (https://www.adelaide.edu.au/mycology/fungal-descriptions-and-antifungal-susceptibility/hyphomycetes-conidial-moulds/purpureocillium)

Purpureocillium lilacinum is commonly isolated from soil, decaying vegetation, insects, nematodes and as a laboratory contaminant. It is also a causative agent of infection in human and other vertebrates (Luangsa-ard et al. 2011). 

Purpureocillium lilacinum (Subcultures from broth) (Image Keith Armstrong)

During our discussions we learnt that she would be continuing this work into 20924 – and she invited Eleanor and I to join her class which we have now done on a few occasions. The intentions of her study were to pursue three themes ..

  1. Soil Ecology: The isolation of facultative root endophytes, particularly P. lilacinum, to determine the effects of burning on abundance and diversity, and diversity within P. lilacinum.
  2. Media Development: Development of media for the production of P. lilacinum variants as an inoculum (that is – a liquid solution of the fungi that roots can grow through to make them resistant to Mealy bug) – which leads to the third area of interest
  3. The Good Bugs: The application of P. lilacinum variants as an inoculant against pasture mealybug.
Keith And Dr. Eleanor Velaqsquez in the soil biology lab, March 2024 (Image Keith Armstrong)

For me it has been a fascinating return to the analogue chemistry methods I remember only from Year 10 (!) – and has included both sampling soil to  the required protocol at SERF and then observing its analysis, culturing and the isolation of so called ‘morphotypes’ (in essence any of a group of different types of individuals of the same species in a population/individual fungi) for further growth on agar plate cultures. (An agar plate is a petri dish that contains a growth medium solidified with agar, and is used to culture microorganisms).

Student preparing soil solution containing bacteria onto an Agar plate (Image Keith Armstrong)
Soil fungi experiments with A/Prof Caroline Hauxwell, 2024 (Image Keith Armstrong)

Video of Agar Plate spreading

Inoculation medium/broth with dissolved fungi – ready for applying to grass plant roots (Image Keith Armstrong)
A mixture of different fungi to be described and isolated. (Image Keith Armstrong)
Notes on the composition (numbers of morphotypes and characteristics) of the fungi cultured over the past week – recorded by a student (Image Keith Armstrong)

The descriptions alone are evocative and the structure, form and ‘intelligence’ of this form suggest fruitful investigation ahead!

Preparing agar plates for the second stage of growth (Image Keith Armstrong)

The exciting idea that Caroline has raised – which further cements the fruitful connections emerging between the arts and sciences, is “to do a longitudinal study of the soil microbiome by adapting the sampling this year (across the burn site) to compare the dryer slope with the burned gully below.

Her (and our) interest would therefore be to see the changes in soil fungal diversity over time, particularly once trees are established.”  At this stage she is looking to do this highly technical, lab based work over several years – which will allow this project an extraordinary look into the health of the soil as the artwork develops. Exciting times ahead – so many thanks to A/Prof Hauxwell for your kindness, interest and engagement on this co-beneficial process 🙂

Purpureocillium lilacinum (Subcultures from broth) (Image Keith Armstrong)

 

 

Experiment (1): Visual Transects

Transect walks are a common method in conservation biology (Walpole and Sheldon 1999) and are used in participatory rural appraisal methods to uncover local information across landscapes (Chambers 1994). Transect walks involve walking in a straight line for a pre-defined distance, recording geographic coordinates every fifty meters or so, and writing down the kinds of environmental features around that point.(source)

Black and white image of bush with grass heads in the foreground.
Sunset @ SERF, Passive Regeneration Area (Image Keith Armstrong)

The first few weeks of any project involve processes of listening, observing and thinking through – and even more with a site like this that can only be interrogated through experience. Obviously open experimentation is valuable as part of this.

Sunset Visitor (Image Keith Armstrong)

Transect walking is something that I’d done with scientists before on other projects before – and was something that we’d done during the survey of plants during the winter before this project began (see list below this post) – walking over a few 100 metres – with posts set in the ground for surveying every  50 meters?

Cablecam setup, SERF passive regeneration area, 28/2/24 (Image Keith Armstrong)

It struck me that I could so something similar with a cable mounted camera – in order to record vegetation along the entire line rather than at set markers : Sure there would be camera blur – but maybe a time-lapse process taking stills would work better – these were my first experiments..

This method used time-lapse: NB need to debug the start stop nature of the unit – but the capture of sunset – And sharper images per frame are handy – esp. for cataloguing/identification purposes

Side views – offer capacity to experiment with other focal planes along continuous transect


Passive Plot, Species Map 1/7/23

The following species map was gathered by David Tucker and Gabrielle Lebbink on 17/7/23. NB this was a dry season assessment – and further species were evident after rains by Feb 2024.

Species No. Species Provenance Life Form (Perrenial/‌Annual-Graminoid/‌Forb/‌Shrub/‌Climber)
1 Cynodon dactylon Exotic PG
2 Digitaria spp.
(awaiting seed head to confirm and id  species
Exotic PG
3 Centella asiatica Native PF
4 Hypochaeris radiata Exotic PF
5 Imperata cylindrica Native PG
6 Fimbristylis spp. PG
7 Ageratum houstonianum Exotic PF
8 Sporobolus spp creber Native PG
9 Bidens pilosa Exotic AF
10 Polygala paniculata Exotic
11 Eragrostis brownii Native PG
12 Arundinella nepalensis Native PG
13 Alloteropsis semialata Native PG
14 Lobelia purpurascens Native PF
15 Sonchus oleraceus Exotic AF
16 Paspalum notatum Exotic PG
17 Eremochloa bimaculata Native PG
18 Wahlenbergia gracilis Native AF
19 Epaltes australis Native PF
20 Schenkia australis Native AF
21 Melinis repens Exotic PG
22 Velleia spathulata Native PF
23 Polygala spp Native
24 Phyllanthus virgatus Native AF
25 Cheilanthes sieberi Native AF
26 Big weed paspalum Exotic PG
27 Apiaceae spp

Maybe Ranunculus inundatus

Exotic PF
28 Cymbopogon refractus Native PG
29 Phyllanthus spp big
30 Lantana camara Exotic S
31 Dianella caerulea Native PG
32 Parsonsia straminea Native C
33 Passiflora suberosa Exotic C
34 Senna pendula Exotic S
35 Lomandra multiflora Native PG
36 Drosera spathulata Native AF
37 Aristida queenslandicum Native PG
38 Leucopogon juniperinus Native S
39 Gomphrena celesoides Exotic PH

 

 

Setup (5): Soil Biology Investigations (1)

Following discussions with the team – notably Gabrielle Lebbink and Eleanor Velasquez – we began to open up a new thread around the possibilities of soil inoculation – that is – finding ways to move material from eco active parts of the existing forest to the new sites.  This investigation is fuelled by/consistent with the need for the design of the artwork work to be of positive net benefit to the ecology of the emerging forest.

Gabrielle supplied some great information about ‘Re-wilding microbial/soil based communities’:

Contos P, Wood JL, Murphy NP, Gibb H. Rewilding with invertebrates and microbes to restore ecosystems: Present trends and future directions. Ecol Evol. 2021;11:7187–7200. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7597. Downloaded y on [02/02/2024].

This article offered us some pointers of how we may be able to enhance soil biodiversity (potentially a part of an art/science process of trslocation of materials from the current forest to teh regeneration zone).  I noted of that paper  ..

Re-wilding of Microbe Communities (Notes, KMA 7/2/24)

Notes from: Contos P, Wood JL, Murphy NP, Gibb H. Rewilding with invertebrates and microbes to restore ecosystems: Present trends and future directions. Ecol Evol. 2021;11:7187–7200. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7597. Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.7597 by National Health and Medical Research Council, Wiley Online Library on [02/02/2024].

CONTEXT:
Invertebrates/microbes are key drivers of landscape scale ecosystem functions such as nutrient recycling and carbon sequestration, but many of these may still be functionally absent decades after a restoration process. The aim of any restoration project should actually be to reinstate ecosystem function and reestablishment of self-organising communities; and yet restoration ecologists rarely consider invertebrates and microbes which these make up the vast bulk of biodiversity and may drive key ecosystem recovery processes. Currently there is limited use of this approach in re-wilding projects – and often poor understanding of its importance.

Stepwise restoration  – i.e. a species at a time – is becoming less realistic in a dynamic and rapidly changing world. Typical approaches to restoration involve plant only and plant and animal only approaches – which operate under what the authors call the ‘field of dreams paradigm’ –  i.e. that if you build the habitat they will come! Such attempts often therefore ignore the ‘unseen majority’.

Normally microbial species translocations are done for the benefit of other species (i.e. to encourage back butterflies or for the benefit of a particular plant health)) rather than for themselves per se (e.g. introduced AMF fungi) – without considering whole communities.  Furthermore, in most cases microbes are rarely monitored afterwards anyway. Hence some environments may remain functionally unrecovered 10 or 20 years later. NB The process of microbial re-wilding is more common in soil inoculation studies (soil transplants).

Diagram from paper showing how we might move material across the ‘Inhospitable Matrix’ that bounds the artwork site: “Leaf litter samples taken from remnant patches and moved into revegetation patches will carry a multitude of invertebrate and microbe species and individuals. Inset: detritivorous mites and springtails taken from a leaf litter sample”.

Whole of community microbial (and invertebrate?) rewilding is often practical due to ease of manipulation – e.g. in forest litter invertebrates and microbes (e.g. detritovores) are critical components – (see p7193). Whole of community rewilding typically involves transporting small subsets of whole habitats – normally from a nearby remnant site to a revegetation plot that maybe separated by an ‘inhospitable matrix’ – e.g. a pasture – and may include elements such as soil, dead wood and pond mud.

“Collecting soil from the whole rhizosphere region of large established trees is impractical. Collecting rhizosphere communities by sampling 1 m out from the base of trees using a soil corer is a viable methodologic approach and is a more targeted way of rewilding microbial communities than current soil inoculation studies. Previous research has demonstrated that rhizosphere signatures can be detected using this approach for microbe communities from rainforest plant species despite the complex overlapping root networks (Wood et al., 2020)”

Its critical to avoid failures which will result in overall net loss of biota in an already stressed environment). The authors therefore suggest considering:

  • suitability of renewed habitat to accommodate the microbes: The revegetation site should be ameliorated and receptive (physical and chemical limitations of soil) – and the source site very carefully scanned for invasives and pathogens.
  • dispersal limitations of some invertebrates and microbes
  • Distance of new site from existing vegetation ideally should not be far
  • May work better in cool wet conditions when microbes and invertebrates are active and closer to surface of litter level (n.b. authors outside Australia)

Broadly speaking a project should

  • Set restoration goals
  • Evaluate the restoration trajectory
  • Choose what to re-wild
  • Conduct post re-wilding monitoring
  • Evaluate success/failures.
“Litter communities contain a breadth of species, including trilobite cockroaches, Laxta granicollis (center), and armadillid isopods (top right). These taxa are often overlooked during rewilding projects, despite their immense contribution to biodiversity and their influence on ecosystem functions such as decomposition. Photo credit: L Menz”

See also this great podcast:  https://www.futureecologies.net/listen/life-in-the-soil

These interesting learnings   dovetailed with the research one of the other science academics  (A/Prof Caroline Hauxwell) who is investigating diversity of fungal communities in soil, including Purpureocillium, which is a interesting fungus associated with pasture health and resilience to pests and diseases. She is interested in the impacts of burning on beneficial fungal symbionts (and thus the artwork site is an ideal choice) – something that ties in with her work on management of the pasture mealybug Heliococcus summervillei, which causes ‘pasture dieback’ (research that is co-funded with Meat and Livestock Australia). A/Prof Hauxwell is one of Australia’s foremost experts in this area and her research is extensive and widely recognised.

Dr. Hauxwell had already independently set up an experiment to monitor the artwork areas pre and post burn – so we were all ears to her process! Generously she invited Eleanor and I to join her class and get involved in some of her soil science – we jumped at this opportunity as an interesting creative opening.

 

To get more of a handle on this work – here are some excerpts from an email that A/Prof Caroline Hauxwell subsequently wrote – as part of a group email  in Feb 2024.

We welcome, Keith Armstrong, who initiated the burn at SERF and who is very interested in this work. Welcome, Keith.

“For most of you the work really starts in week 3 with the field trip to collect soil samples at SERF.

The project work this year is a Deep Dive on Soil Endophytes. We’ll be focusing particularly on Purpureocillium lilacinum. The project builds on sampling that we did before and shortly after a burn site at SERF for capstone last year.

The student data identified changes in Purpureocillium abundance and distribution in the burned area.

Fungal culture (Image c/o Sean Martin, created with particiapnts at the 2021 Woodford Bio Lab)

We also know from our research that P. lilacinum isolates have significant morphological diversity, but ITS sequencing has shown only 1 sequence/variant. We hope to look a bit more closely at P. lilacinum diversity in this project. All groups will also have access to 3 PCR primers for Sanger sequencing: one to characterise fungi to genus (ITS) and 2 others to take a deep dive on the identity of P. lilacinum morphotypes. For reference see Naimul’s work on Metarhizium. (https://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Islam,_Shah.html) and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funeco.2022.101179.

Soil Ecologists: The isolation of facultative root endophytes, particularly P. lilacinum, the effects of burning on abundance and diversity, and diversity within P. lilacinum.

Media Types: Development of media for the production of P. lilacinum variants as an inoculum

Fungal culture (Image c/o Sean Martin, created with participants at the 2021 Woodford Bio Lab)

All students (plus artists and the science team) will take part in soil sampling .. at SERF. This will take soil samples at 5 points along a transect across a strip that was burned last year See picture attached). 2 sample points will be outside the burn, and 3 inside it. All  will plate out their soil samples onto selective media.

For further background of this process see a report of the 2021 lab run by A/Prof Caroline Hauxwell at Woodford

 

Setup (4): Team Planning for Re-planting

Pre 2000’s the accepted narrative for establishing reforestation projects was preparation >plant>photo opp> move on. 3 year post reforestation maintenance programs is now the narrative in most projects depending on location.(Marcus Yates, 2024)

The following are notes I’ve made to track the plan for the regeneration process:

Suggested Planting date in active site approx. Thurs April 25th 

Preparation

Slash the area 6 weeks prior to date of planting  21 March 2024

  • Position site pegs across gully from east -west
  • Spray 1m diameter circles around planning site with appropriate herbicide and emerging woody environmental weeds (Biactive – surfactant does not harm aquatic organisms) with the addition of Fulvic acid which increases biodegradability of the glyphosate molecule, increases soil carbon and reduces herbicide/water ration by 1/3) + a squirt of dishwashing liquid (breaks the surface tension of H2O thus increasing contact with the cuticle of leaves
  • Spray again 1 week prior to planting. April 18th 2024
Aerial burn site of regeneration area, SERF.
SERF Aerial burn Site (Image courtesy QUT REF Team)

Planting

  • Purchase selected spp from local nurseries. Ensures hardier stock grown from parent trees from the local provenance
  • Sun “harden’ stock in full sun for 2 weeks prior to planting April 9th 2024
  • Mechanical dig planting hole a day or two before planting date. April 23rd 
  • Must have adequate sub soil moisture on the day of the planting.Otherwise reschedule
  • Saturate plants on the morning of the planting
  • Group demonstration of the techniques used to eliminate/minimise transplant stress
  • Place inoculated soil in planting hole
  • Secure weed mat and tree guard. Tree guards create a micro climate of increased humidity and protects against the wind, reducing the plant losing moisture from transpiration (reduces transplant stress). Protects from herbicide overspray and animals grazing (wallabies and hares)
Overlapping eucalypt leaves
Overlapping Eucalypt Leaves, SERF, 2024 (Image Keith Armstrong)

Maintenance

  • Replant plant losses when suitable.
  • 6 -10 week Spray routines around plants and neighbouring woody weeds (dependent on local weather conditions and seasons)
  • Slash when required
  • Brush cut inter rows (when required)
  • Form prune to retain one leader when required (approx. 1st and 3rd month post planting)
  • Remove tree guards when tree is 3 x height of guard
  • Continued monitoring of natural regen
  • Interplant where required

Relevant read: 

https://ris.cdu.edu.au/ws/portalfiles/portal/72716695/Preece_et_al_2023_JEnvMgt.pdf

Tree planting plan for active regeneration area (Courtesy Marcus Yates)
Tree planting plan (Courtesy Marcus Yates)

Planned Planting: Species Layout

EM – Emergent species

C – Canopy species

Sp.- Space for sub canopy species and shrubs (or natural regen) as part of stage 2 planting. Est > April 2026 or when canopy semi closes

Setup (3): The Site/Scientific Intentions

The FAI project initiates a collaboration between ecological scientists, artists and land managers to conduct a forest regeneration processes, and over time use that forest’s growth to direct an experimental media arts practice. The  central aim of the science is to effectively restore a previously cleared forest (using both active and passive techniques): and as that process develops create speculative artworks that can be seen to illuminate the ‘agency’ and ‘non-human intelligence’ of that re-growth process. These hybrid artworks should, in some way, have capacity to either actively or passively support those re-growth processes and present new ways to communicate, interpret & ‘narrativise’ ecological change at that site.

SERF’s Regional Ecosystem Map: (Image Dr.. David Tucker)

Two adjacent sites have been chosen at SERF for this project that are a total of 14199.305 square metres (1.42 hectares), and were likely logged decades ago.

Aerial image of the artwork sites at SERF – active and passive (Image Dr. David Tucker)

They comprise a grassy slope currently rich in native grass species and a seasonally wet gulley current overrun by weedy grasses dotted by occasional trees. Both sites most likely previously had a grassy understory similar to the adjacent existing forest. The methodology has involved assessing information about what was there beforehand from the pre-clearing data as well as examining remaining adjacent vegetation. The plan is to set in place a process to ultimately replicate prior densities for tree, shrub and ground layers. The objective is to use passive regeneration methods across a grassed slope area, and some assisted regeneration (using seedlings and weed control) in the wetter gulley area. Some of those original tree cover types may no longer available locally.

The ‘active’ artwork site at SERF (Image Dr. David Tucker)

The science component will be managed by QUT SERF scientists (David Tucker and Gabrielle Lebbink) supported and informed by TERN’s Eleanor Velasquez, with the growing and maintenance processes managed by SERF’s Marcus Yates. The arts component of the project will be directed by Keith Armstrong.

The ‘passive’ artwork site at SERF (Image Dr. David Tucker)

SITE DETAILS

Site 1: Passive regeneration area – grassed sloping bank, last slashed in July 23.
7163.647 sq. m passively managed plot – likely similar to the dominant veg at SERF RE of concern 12.12.12: https://apps.des.qld.gov.au/regional-ecosystems/details/?re=12.12.12)

Eucalyptus tereticornis, Corymbia intermedia, E. crebra +/- Lophostemon suaveolens woodland on Mesozoic to Proterozoic igneous rocks).

We will encourage the transition process on this plot via selective slashing, mulching, weeding, and the introduction of fallen habitat trees & occasional selective planting under Marcus Yates management and with advice and input from Dr David Tucker, Marcus Yates, Dr. Gabrielle Lebbink and Dr. Eleanor Velasquez.

Site 2: Active regeneration area – grassed seasonal wet gulley area – was burnt in August 2023. 7035.658 sq. m actively managed plot – likely an ecotone associated with wet gullies RE12.3.6, which reflects the forest type further along the drainage line:(https://apps.des.qld.gov.au/regional-ecosystems/details/?re=12.3.6)

Melaleuca quinquenervia +/- Eucalyptus tereticornis, Lophostemon suaveolens, Corymbia intermedia open forest on coastal alluvial plains

weedy grass in foreground and mountain behind
Predominant weedy grass species in SERF active regeneration area gulley, Summer 2024 (Image Keith Armstrong)

Recommendations (Dr. Peter Young/Dr. David Tucker) include include staged plantings of a relatively simple mix of Emergent species (Eucalyptus tereticornis, (forest red gum, blue gum / red irongum), Corymbia intermedia (pink bloodwood), Corymbia tesselaris (Moreton Bay ash)) and Canopy species (Melaleuca quinquenervia (broad-leaved paperbark, paper bark tea tree),  Melaleuca salicina (willow bottlebrush), Lophostemon sauveolens (Swamp Box, Swamp Turpentine) and Guoia semiglauca (guioa or wild quince) with the expectation that many of the subcanopy and shrub species will passively regenerate through the dispersal of seeds from birds, water, wind  etc. following canopy closure and site capture from initial stage 1 planting. There is the potential for later infill planting if there are significant gaps

Burn Regeneration Area, SERF, Samford, Qld, 2023
Active Site – Burn day, SERF, Samford, Image Keith Armstrong
Burn Regeneration Area, SERF, Samford, Qld, 2023
Active Site – Burn day, SERF, Samford, Image Keith Armstrong