The following observations were made from the range of monitoring techniques used , including visual or photo monitoring , land condition assessment , remote sensing and analysis of repeat LiDAR :
• Project sites on productive soils had a very positive response to livestock exclusion and planned grazing practices , with increased plant biomass , improved ground cover , improvement in gully profiles and stabilisation of gully channels .
• Project sites on more fragile , less productive soils also demonstrated positive responses for livestock exclusion and planned grazing practices but the lower fertility , generally , provided a slower response . However , even sites dominated by Indian couch were capable of high levels of biomass production in average to good seasons .
• Very active gully heads , on productive and the less productive soil sites , were still susceptible to gully head progression even with good catchment ground cover and plant biomass , unless water was removed from the system ( e . g . via diversion banks ) or gully heads were stabilised through earthworks or other intervention .
• A number of severely scalded sites had trials of mechanical , livestock exclusion and livestock impact treatments .
o Ripping and reseeding may have a role in assisting with rehabilitation of scalded sites ( the addition of ameliorants e . g . gypsum and spread hay or “ bale grazing ” using livestock may improve the outcomes ).
o Biological carpeting , using high numbers of camping livestock , at the severely-scalded Strathalbyn alluvial gully site was very successful , with stable vegetation cover established within two wet seasons .
o At Dunn ’ s paddock at Strathalbyn , the impact of marsupial exclusion and management on the recovery of a severely-scalded landscape was demonstrated by an exclusion fence .
• There was limited evidence the application of livestock treatments , such as planned ( rotational ) grazing practices or high density ( or ultra high density ) grazing practices , accelerated the improvement of land condition at the project sites . On project sites where livestock were excluded , there was little observable or measured benefit from livestock exclusion compared to planned grazing practices .
• Planned grazing practices , however , provided significant production ( e . g . graze days / ha / mm of rainfall ), profitability ( e . g . kg of liveweight gained ) and groundcover benefits , where the pasture biomass used by livestock was closely monitored , and the retention of ground cover at the end of the dry season was a serious management consideration .
Small , effective changes across the whole landscape are a lot less risk , a lot more permanent and will work .
6
‘ The project was obviously designed predominantly to respond to existing erosion - but I think you can continue to pursue how these
new grazing practices ( and mindsets ) act to prevent future erosion by improving ground cover and overall soil and vegetation health . I think this is the far more valuable and cost effective mechanism to reduce erosion from grazing lands and protect the GBR .’ ( Feedback from a field day attendee , May 2019 )