Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-d6ndz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-01T11:27:06.139Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Marked reductions in rangeland shrubs and livestock carrying capacity over four decades

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2026

David J. Eldridge*
Affiliation:
Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Adrian Fisher
Affiliation:
Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia Earth and Sustainability Science Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
*
Corresponding author: David J. Eldridge; Email: d.eldridge@unsw.edu.au
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Historical data and monitoring can provide important information on how landscapes respond to environmental and human-induced change. We re-assessed plants, soils and livestock carrying capacity at a research station in eastern Australia after 42 years. We detected significant declines in the densities of key perennial shrubs (Atriplex vesicaria, Maireana astrotricha, Maireana pyramidata, -78%), an index of groundstorey plant quality (-8%), and the cover of erosion (-43%) between 1980 and 2022. Assessed ‘safe carrying capacity’ declined from 14.5 to 12.4 dry sheep equivalents per 100 ha over that period (-14.6%). These declines were evident in ranges and footslopes, but not on the plains. Shrubs declined by a similar percentage when assessed at a small spatial scale in one paddock. There was no clear indication that sheep stocking rates were driving temporal trends in plants. Rather, we attribute changes over more than 40 years to fluctuations in rainfall, and potentially, greater density of kangaroos and feral goats. Our study provides insights into moderately long-term changes in the biophysical attributes of rangelands and reinforces the importance of using historic data to assess environmental change as large areas of Earth become hotter and drier.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Clockwise from top-left. (a–c) Images of the Ranges, Footslopes, and Plains. (d) Map of Fowlers Gap station showing the distribution of livestock watering points. The arrow indicates North Mandleman’s Paddock. Photographs: DJ Eldridge.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Differences in (a) the index of groundstorey plant cover (unitless, see Methods), (b) density of shrubs from the family Chenopodiaceae (shrubs ha−1), (c) cover of erosion (%), and (d) assessed livestock carrying capacity between 1982 and 2022 (dry sheep equivalents per 100 ha).

Figure 2

Figure 3. Temporal changes in the cover of bare soil (%) from 1985 to 2026 for ranges, footslopes and plains.

Figure 3

Figure 4. (a) Annual rainfall, (b) assessed grazing capacity, and (c) the relationship between grazing capacity and annual rainfall.

Figure 4

Figure 5. (a) Mean + SD in shrub density for North Mandleman’s Paddock on clay, duplex and sandy soils in 1986 and 2025. Data for 1986 include Maireana spp. and Atriplex vesicaria. 2025 data are for Maireana spp. only. (b) Normalised changes in station-wide shrub density. Negative values indicate substantial reductions, in shrub density, and vice versa.

Figure 5

Figure 6. Changes in shrub density (a, b) and plant richness (c, d) at the Footslopes and Plains sites of the Rangeland Assessment Program.

Author comment: Marked reductions in rangeland shrubs and livestock carrying capacity over four decades — R0/PR1

Comments

Dear editors

We would be grateful if you would consider our manuscript, which describes a long-term changes in vegetation at a research Institute in eastern Australia over 40 years.

Our manuscript details the extensive decline in shrubs and the resulting decline in safe carrying capacity for livestock across a 40 year period.

Our manuscript, if selected by the journal, would be best placed in the Special Issue dedicated to the work of Walter Whitford. Doctor Whitford was a keen supporter of monitoring in rangelands, so it is appropriate that this manuscript forms part of the special issue.

I am happy to provide further information if required.

Sincerely

David Eldridge

Review: Marked reductions in rangeland shrubs and livestock carrying capacity over four decades — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Dear authors,

You will find comments below aimed toward improving interpretability of this unique work. I have provided some citations to similar works that can help you describe your analyses.

Line comments:

20-25: Plant quality and erosion outcomes should be elaborated upon in Abstract. Please explain how erosion density declines.

168: additional water?

194: citation for this approach?

229: What about normality and outliers? What was your random intercept for the lmer model?

230: Helpful pubs to describe analyses:

Porensky, L.M., Derner, J.D., Augustine, D.J., Milchunas, D.G., 2017. Plant community composition after 75 yr of sustained grazing intensity treatments in shortgrass steppe. Rangeland Ecology & Management 70, 456–464 .

Raynor et al. 2021 in REM: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2020.09.005

Once the issues are fixed, I feel you are on your way to publication.

Review: Marked reductions in rangeland shrubs and livestock carrying capacity over four decades — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

I know the senior author (Eldridge) from various conferences and other interactions over the years but I don’t consider that either of us are likely to exert an undue influence on the other.

Comments

It is always good to see long (or at least moderately-long) term studies in the literature. They present a number of challenges in execution, and often interpretation, but are worthwhile because they document what CAN happen, even if the authors are not able to say why it happened with complete confidence.

As the authors say in the Conclusions there are very few examples of such studies in Australia.

The manuscript is written clearly and concisely. I have made a number of suggestions throughout, but none require significant re-write or re-analysis.

+++++++++++++++++

The terms ‘monitoring’, ‘condition’, ‘trend’, ‘change’ are used throughout. I don’t want to get into a highly technical, or pedantic, argument (and I know that the data sets are a combination of single and multi-temporal data) but could the authors please have a close check that the correct term is being used at each point in the manuscript. For example, two points in time is not a ‘trend’, but it can be called ‘change’. Assessing ‘condition’ is not a precondition for doing monitoring and not all monitoring produces a condition statement.

(Also check use of terms ‘assessment’, ‘mapping’, ‘health’, ‘quality’ – all related to range condition, monitoring, etc but my sense is that too many terms are used loosely/interchangeably throughout. For example, the word ‘quality’ is used in the Title, Abstract and Impact Statement, but nowhere else.)

Further, I would ask – ‘Condition for what?’. In the case of Fowlers Gap it is probably condition for pastoral purposes but it could be condition for landscape stability, or biodiversity, or something else. It would be good to get a clear statement within the manuscript of ‘condition for what’.

Abstract

Line 31 – why is the term ‘rangeland health’ used here? Health is a term which is difficult to define, laden with uncertainty. Why not just run with ‘rangeland quality’ as used in the title? It is also difficult to define, but at least its use throughout would be consistent. The same argument applies to ‘rangeland condition’ – which is also used widely in the manuscript.

Line 31 – Will everywhere be drier under climate change? I would be inclined to say ‘… as much of the Earth’s climate become hotter and drier’. Some parts of Australia at least (e.g. north-west Australia) have had a consistently good run of high rainfall years – the argument for climate change induced is at least as strong as for those areas which have seen a run of consistently low rainfall attributed to climate change.

Line 40 – I’d challenge the statement “Nowhere is monitoring more important than across the world’s rangelands, …”. I imagine that the scientists for whom the Great Barrier Reef or the Amazonian forest (etc) is their passion would contend that their own biota were more important than rangelands.

Line 59 – Is ‘capital’ an animal product? Seems odd to be lumped in here.

Line 68 – What does ‘assessment’ mean here? Is it ‘assessment of condition’ or assessment of carrying capacity’ or something else?

Line 73 – Not that I would die in a ditch over it, but it is common these days to use the term ‘European colonisation’ rather than ‘European settlement’.

Line 73 – I think it is ‘practices’ rather than ‘practises’.

Lines 86 and 87 – Regarding the statement “Monitoring programs are costly to sustain and rely heavily on infrastructural support from governments”. The two references below speak to the difficulties of maintaining long-term monitoring systems (in this case WARMS). No pressure to cite them of course, but they are there if you want them.

Novelly, P.E., Watson, I.W., Thomas, P.W.E. and Duckett, N.J. (2008). The Western Australian Rangeland Monitoring System (WARMS) – operating a regional scale monitoring system. The Rangeland Journal, 30, 271-281

Watson, I.W. and Novelly, P. (2004). Making the biodiversity monitoring system sustainable: design issues for large scale monitoring systems. Austral Ecology, 29, 16-30.

(Potentially useful also for the Conclusions section (Lines 359 to 371) where the demise of WARMS, RAP, etc is mentioned.

Lines 87-90. I’m a bit biased but I don’t have as much faith in the TERN program as do Eldridge and Fisher. There is little repeat assessment (at least so far) and TERN is reliant on Australian Government ‘soft money’ rather than as core programs of state/NT governments. I suspect that over the coming years and decades it will be as difficult to maintain the TERN Program as it proved to be with other rangeland monitoring programs.

Furthermore, the Sparrow et al (2020) paper is a description of method, rather than a description of the success or otherwise of the TERN Program. This was very common with state/NT systems also – publishing methods as a demonstration of the system, but without having an adequate, operational, sustainable monitoring system in place.

Line 102 – I agree with the authors, the WLLMP was not a monitoring program. I’m not sure why the authors initially say that it is. It was an assessment program, but there was no monitoring, (At line 162 it seems to be called ‘Mapping’, so why call it monitoring?).

Line 119 – Perhaps a bit pedantic, but I’d be inclined to say ‘reassessed some biophysical attributes’ (or key attributes maybe) rather than ‘reassessed the biophysical attributes’.

Line 127 – Not sure that the word ‘period’ is required – ‘… relatively long-time …’ is sufficient.

Lines 131-132. The aim (which is the last sentence in the Introduction) ‘… to explore the extent to which changing conditions might affect safe carrying capacity …’ is not mentioned in the Abstract. It is not well covered in the Discussion either. Up to the authors, but I’d be inclined to delete this phrase from the Introduction.

Line 142 – Reference to ENSO is often given in relation to rainfall but here it sits a bit oddly in a sentence about temperature. ENSO will have some influence on temperature but the rest of the sentence doesn’t give a clue about how ENSO affects temperature. It seems an odd sentence – as if the sentence was the result of an editing/Track Change mistake??

Line 152 – Perhaps insert the word ‘pastoral’ – as in ‘… a gradient in pastoral productvity’ – otherwise it could be NPP, or some other form of productivity.

Line 159 – Is the word ‘aphylla’ underlined for a reason (or is it just my eyesight?).

Line 179 – Stocking rate reported here in terms of DSE per 100 ha but elsewhere (e.g. Abstract and Line 246) it is expressed as DSE per ha. Be better for the reader if SR was expressed consistently throughout. (At Line 262 kangaroo numbers are expressed per km2, so that is three different ways of presenting stocking rate in the manuscript. Be better if they all used the same units – makes it much easier for the reader.)

Line 215 – Why is ‘health’ used here? Same issue with use of terminology throughout – especially since the title uses the word ‘quality’. Suggest making it consistent.

Lines 212 – 225. RAP was a genuine monitoring program but the word monitoring is not used to describe it here. Yet, ‘Mapping and monitoring’ is the title (Line 162) for the WLLMP section, which is not a monitoring program?? Perhaps it is an issue with the heading levels. Are lines 214 to 225 supposed to also be under the heading at Line 162?

Line 254 – ‘closely related to rainfall’ doesn’t tell the reader much. Could a bit more detail be added?

Line 253 and elsewhere – The metric ‘cover of bare soil’ is a slightly odd one (to me at least). The word ‘cover’ often applies to vegetation but here it is being used to mean the proportion of an area covered by bare ground. It is not wrong, but it might be worth adding a phrase or sentence to explain this – because I think it may confuse some readers. (Because a decline in erosion cover is ‘good’ whereas a decline in vegetation cover is ‘bad’).

Lines 270 & 271 – I would have preferred to see the change in density of chenopod shrubs presented separately for Maireana species and Atriplex vesicaria. Most Maireana species will have much lower turnover rates than A. vesicaria, so presenting the decline as a single percentage (86% and 64%) doesn’t tell me much.

Line 299 – as above, I don’t think climate change will necessarily lead to drier climates everywhere. I’d be inclined to say something like ‘.. as much of the Earth moves toward …’

Line 316 – missing a ‘the’ I think. ‘… support the historic mining industry …’

Line 344 – Will an international audience understand the term (and the use for) ‘poly pipe’?

Line 370 – I think there is a missing word between ‘a’ and ‘useful’.

General comment on the Discussion.

While I don’t disagree with any of the Discussion I must admit that “I wanted more …”.

It is difficult I know to be definitive about the causes of the changes observed, as the authors themselves acknowledge. However, I thought a bit more detail could have been provided about why some of the changes might have occurred. For example, lines 304 to 321 were mostly a summary of the importance of chenopods, what a decline means, grazing radius, etc – but none of this is new information gleaned from this study. I just wanted more focus on discussion of the results of this study and less on what other people have found.

References

I didn’t cross-check all the references but I don’t think Holm et al (1987) is cited in the manuscript.

Recommendation: Marked reductions in rangeland shrubs and livestock carrying capacity over four decades — R0/PR4

Comments

Dear Dr Eldridge,

Two reviewers have indicated a number of minor changes that will improve your work, and with which I agree.

The second reviewer has suggested a more in-depth discussion, although this would inevitably be somewhat speculative rather than directly supported by the results, given the descriptive nature of the study. In any case, I agree that some points in the discussion could be less open. For example, goat herbivory is assigned as a driver of changes in carrying capacity, but it is not further discussed in relation to changes in shrub density (that are tightly related to carrying capacity).

Decision: Marked reductions in rangeland shrubs and livestock carrying capacity over four decades — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Marked reductions in rangeland shrubs and livestock carrying capacity over four decades — R1/PR6

Comments

Already attached

Recommendation: Marked reductions in rangeland shrubs and livestock carrying capacity over four decades — R1/PR7

Comments

The authors have addressed previous minor comments in depth. No further changes are needed.

Decision: Marked reductions in rangeland shrubs and livestock carrying capacity over four decades — R1/PR8

Comments

No accompanying comment.