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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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

“

 

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 25^th 

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

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 23^rd 
• 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)

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 3^rd 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

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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

 

Preamble

On 27th Feb, I accompanied one of my science collaborators Dr. Eleanor Velasquez – who is also our partner TERN’s (Terrestrial Ecology Research Network) Education Manager, to meet with her colleagues  Arun Singh Ramesh, Lachlan Charles and Javier Sanchez Gonzalez <Zooming from Madrid> at TERN HQ @University of Qld Long Pocket, Brisbane.

The meeting was primarily to discuss the data access and visualisation facilities that TERN offer.

We discussed all of the following data types that may be available to us going forward : –

TERN Landscapes / Land Observatory engages in Environmental reporting using remote sensing that is consistent across all sites. “TERN’s Landscape Monitoring platform conducts environmental monitoring and landscape observation using remote sensing techniques to characterise and monitor Australian ecosystems over time at a landscape and continental scale. The platform also undertakes specific modelling and synthesis activities (for clients) to extrapolate and interpolate from observational data to produce modelled data products”.

Data Types:

This area of their folio engages: Land cover dynamics and phenology (i.e. the study of cyclic and seasonal natural phenomena, especially in relation to climate and plant and animal life), Vegetation composition and diversity, Fire dynamics and impacts, Vegetation structural properties and Biomass, Field survey datasets, Airborne datasets, Corrected surface reflectance products and other environmental and landscape research data such as solar radiation, rainfall, and water vapour pressure.

TERN Ecosystem Surveillance
This element of TERN’s capacity involves a range of measurement and recording types – such as the use of LIDAR to scan environments and the collection of CO2 data from Eddy Covariance flux towers. This area tracks the direction and magnitude of change in Australia’s environments over time, through sampling and surveying flora, soil and some invertebrates.

ecoplots.tern.org.au 

TERN Ecosystem Processes
TERN’s Ecosystem Processes platform monitors the environment at a high level of detail at a small number of representative sites/key Australian biomes (called Super Sites) – of which TERN is one – categorised as a peri-urban site. 

Ozflux-tern/ ecoimages.tern.org.au

ecoimages.tern.org.au

Clearly these data set types offer a host of possibilities. The data set is predominantly numerical data although images also exist – and therefore suggests the need for computational analysis going forward.

At this stage the LIDAR data held, the historic data from SERF (e.g. the super site readings and the phenocams) and the atmospheric data may be of future interest to this project. I would expect further discussion in the future as more specific pointers to the need for such data may emerge. Thank you for the team at TERN and Dr. Eleanor Velasquez for making the visit so successful 🙂