ORCID Profile
0000-0002-6779-8948
Current Organisations
University of Melbourne
,
Melbourne Water
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 10-04-2014
DOI: 10.1111/ACV.12121
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 09-2013
DOI: 10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2013.04.034
Abstract: Private property accounts for much of the planet's arable land, and most of this has been cleared for agricultural production. Agricultural areas retain only fragments of their original vegetation and this has been detrimental to many native plant and animal species. Habitat restoration and revegetation may be able to reconnect and enlarge existing remnant areas in agricultural landscapes and, thereby, enhance native plant and animal communities. However, conservation initiatives will be successful only if landowners actively participate in restoration actions. This study used four hundred postal questionnaires to assess the degree to which landowners in two regions of south-eastern Australia adopt restoration activities, their opinions regarding remnant and revegetated land and their management actions in these areas. One hundred and seventy nine completed questionnaires were received. Three quarters of respondents had undertaken restoration on their property or were planning to revegetate in the future. Landcare members were most likely to have previously revegetated and future revegetation intentions were best predicted by previous restoration activities and a primary income source that was off-farm. Landowners were more likely to manage restored and remnant areas if they perceived threats such as weeds, pest animals and fire risk would be detrimental to their property, than to enhance environmental outcomes. These results indicate that landowners are interested in restoring natural areas, but without greater assistance to restore ground layers and manage perceived threats posed by fire and invasive plants and animals, restoration actions will not have their desired bio ersity benefits.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 09-2012
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 25-02-2021
DOI: 10.1111/EMR.12465
Abstract: Collaborations between researchers and practitioners are vital to ensure mutual learning to inform scientific and on‐ground outcomes and government policy. Communicating outcomes from these collaborations benefit land management and restoration projects. The Ecological Society of Australia (ESA) Practitioner Engagement Working Group (PEWG) showcases and communicates applied ecological research projects, driven by partnerships between researchers and practitioners, and promotes the value of these links to on‐ground action. In December 2019, the PEWG ran the Practitioner Engagement for On‐ground Outcomes symposium at the ESA annual conference in Launceston, Tasmania, to highlight key factors that enable and limit effective collaboration in ecological projects. Overall, 17 speakers from a range of government, Indigenous and non‐government organisations delivered presentations on ecological issues. Here, we focus on six presentations that revealed eight key enablers of effective science‐practice partnerships. Of these, six related to principles underpinning translational ecology (collaboration, commitment, communication, decision‐framing context, engagement and process buy‐in). Two additional enablers were highlighted – innovation and robust science, and longevity and flexible timelines. This symposium provided a stream‐lined approach to communicate the factors which enable successful projects to a broad audience. To enhance effective researcher‐practitioner collaborations, improved practice and greater innovations in future ecosystem management projects, as well as both new and long‐term funding streams, will be required.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 14-09-2016
DOI: 10.1111/EMR.12224
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 06-2013
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 26-05-2004
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2014
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 20-08-2018
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 09-2021
DOI: 10.1111/EMR.12503
Abstract: Restoration planting is undertaken widely in rural landscapes to promote more sustainable land use, such as reforesting agricultural land, and to enhance nature conservation. Land managers and community groups have a key role in delivering these actions and can also contribute to monitoring the outcomes. Here, we describe a monitoring protocol developed to assist practitioners to assess the survival of plant species in restoration plantings and report results of a trial of the protocol from 123 monitored plots at 62 sites across Victoria. On average, 61% of plants per site (all species combined) survived and 77% of the species planted persisted after the first summer post‐planting. Rates of survival varied considerably among plant species, with differences in outcomes evident across bioregions. Overall, the survival of plantings (all species combined) was greater at sites with higher mean annual rainfall and where plants were protected by guards. Widespread adoption of monitoring will assist project managers to better understand how plants survive and grow, and to adaptively manage revegetation programmes under a changing climate. A co‐ordinated monitoring effort will require resources for on‐ground monitoring, as well as an online database for data storage, collation, analysis and reporting.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 03-09-2020
DOI: 10.1111/REC.13242
Abstract: Landscape‐scale habitat restoration has the potential to return ecosystem functions and services and mitigate the loss of native flora and fauna. However, restoration projects rarely monitor the effectiveness of restoration efforts, such as quantifying the establishment success (survival) of the planted species. We monitored a landscape‐scale revegetation program in south‐eastern Australia that planted 5 million plants representing 35 native species over a 4‐year period (2012–2015). We assessed the restoration effectiveness across years to evaluate how different lifeforms survived over time and the factors that influenced the differential survival of lifeforms and in idual plant species 3 months (spring) and 9 months (after summer) post‐planting. Establishment success varied across years with survival lowest in the 2015 planting season. Survival of different lifeforms after summer were associated with site‐level variables (e.g. mean maximum temperature, rainfall, and soil type) with survival generally declining due to high temperatures, low rainfall, and for species planted on sandy or saline soils. Maximum temperature, rainfall, and soil type were the most important predictors of compositional change in the 20 species commonly planted across years, with two saltbush species ( Atriplex paludosa ) and one eucalypt species ( Eucalyptus fasciculosa ) having the highest survival, while one sedge species ( Juncus kraussii ) and two grass species ( Poa poiformis and Puccinellia stricta ) had among the lowest observed survival. These results highlight the importance of monitoring establishment success through survival to detect changes in the composition of lifeforms and species to guide future re‐plantings aimed at returning the desired plant ersity.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 05-04-2016
DOI: 10.1111/REC.12355
Location: Australia
No related grants have been discovered for Sacha Jellinek.