4.7 Article

Impacts after four years of experimental trampling on alpine/sub-alpine environments in western Tasmania

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Volume 67, Issue 4, Pages 339-351

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0301-4797(02)00218-9

Keywords

walker impacts; recreational trampling; vegetation; soils; alpine; sub-alpine; environmental management; Tasmania; Australia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Experimental trials were undertaken over four years to assess the impact of recreational trampling in undisturbed alpine and sub-alpine vegetation communities in the Western Arthur Range, western Tasmania. Data on 'pad' formation due to human trampling were collected using vegetation cover assessments, biomass estimates and detailed cross-sectional surface profiles. In sub-alpine buttongrass and alpine herbfield, prolonged and sustained damage may occur after 100 passes by walkers. The environmental threshold of the flat alpine herbfield site was breached, after 200 passes. Plant morphology was one determinant of resistance and resilience, with upright woody shrubs and tall tussock graminoids most vulnerable to sustained trampling damage. Cushions are susceptible to trampling impacts at 500 passes. Loss of vegetation cover peaks 6-12 months after trampling. Our results show that pads formed with as few as 30-100 passes per annum and tracks form at between 100 and 500 passes per annum. Two years after the cessation of trampling, there is some small recovery in vegetation cover after 30 and 100 passes per annum applied for three years, but no evidence of recovery at the 500 pass treatments. The low trampling threshold and slow recovery rates in western Tasmania suggest that concentrating walkers on a minimal number of sites may be the best management option for these untracked alpine and sub-alpine environments. Crown Copyright (C) 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available