Corresponding author: John T. Hunter ( jhunter8@bigpond.com ) Academic editor: Jürgen Dengler
© 2020 John T. Hunter, Vanessa H. Hunter.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Hunter JT, Hunter VH (2020) Montane mire vegetation of the New England Tablelands Bioregion of Eastern Australia. Vegetation Classification and Survey 1: 37-51. https://doi.org/10.3897/VCS/2020/48765
|
Aims: To use unsupervised techniques to produce a hierarchical classification of montane mires of the study region. Study area: New England Tablelands Bioregion (NETB) of eastern Australia. Methods: A dataset of 280 vascular floristic survey plots placed across the variation in montane mires of the NETB was collated. Vegetation types were identified with the aid of a clustering method based on group averaging and tested using similarity profile analysis (SIMPROF) and through ordinations using Bray-Curtis similarity and non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS). A hierarchical schema was developed based on EcoVeg hierarchy and was circumscribed using positive and negative diagnostic taxa via similarity percentage analysis (SIMPER) and importance based on summed cover scores and frequency. Results: We defined one macrogroup to include all montane mire vegetation of the NETB and within these two groups and twelve alliances. Conclusions: Our study re-enforced the separation of bogs from other montane mire systems and confirmed the separation of fens and wet meadows, a distinction that previously had not been independently tested. Based on our results many existing montane mire communities of the NETB have been ill-defined at multiple hierarchical levels, leading to confusion in threat status and mapping. Additionally, nearly half of the alliances we recognise were found to have no correlates within current classification systems, which necessarily has implications for the effectiveness of current conservation planning.
Taxonomic reference: PlantNET (http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/, accessed June 2016).
Abbreviations: BC Act = Biodiversity Conservation Act; EPBC Act = Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act; NETB = New England Tablelands Bioregion; NMDS = non-metric multidimensional scaling; PCT = plant community type; RE = regional ecosystem; SIMPER = similarity percentage analysis; SIMPROF = similarity profile analysis.
Australia, bog, EcoVeg, fen, marsh, New England Tableland Bioregion, similarity percentage analysis (SIMPER), wet meadow, unsupervised classification
The first step in understanding the distribution, rarity and interrelationships of vegetated systems is description and classification (
Australia is a dry continent, and thus, the more common and widely distributed wetlands are those that are impermanent in nature; that is, they may ‘wet-up’ once a year, multiple times a year or once within several decades, often not associated with seasonal patterns, but are dry more often than they are wet (
The montane region bordering northern New South Wales and south east Queensland has been defined as the New England Tableland Bioregion (NETB) based on its unique biological and environmental elements (
Bogs of the NETB are characterised by altitudes above 850 m a.s.l, commonly on nutrient poor sites with low pH, saturation occurring seasonally or sporadically, and shallow standing water infrequent (
Fens within the NETB are found along watercourses and flat to concave valley floors generally associated with mineral rich substrates (
Lagoons within the NETB may be best described as semi-permanent or ephemeral marshes (
The sod tussock grasslands would likely be classed as spring fed and floodplain wet meadows within the mire classification (
Within the state of New South Wales, vegetation has been described into units called plant community types (PCTs), which are considered an equivalent to an association level of nomenclature (
Currently within certain Australian jurisdictions the development of vegetation community types is based almost solely on floristic classification techniques with little or no influence of environmental factors, although types may contain environmental terms as descriptors secondarily to floristics (
A concerted and comprehensive effort has been placed on plot-based sampling of the montane wetlands of the NETB in order to describe phytosociological units through unsupervised means (
The study region encompasses the New England Tablelands Bioregion (NETB; 30,000 km2; Figure
Data from 280 full vascular floristic survey plots were collated from wetlands within the NETB. The plots were sampled on public lands, where possible first preference was to occurrences within state conservation reserves and secondarily within private reserves or travelling stock reserves. Conservation reserves are un-grazed by non-native animals while travelling stock reserves are only periodically grazed by non-native animals with grazing regulated by state government authorities. Thus non-native animal grazing was absent or minimal and tightly controlled. Standard plot sizes were 20 m × 20 m. Species were scored using a six-point modified Braun-Blanquet system based on percentage foliage cover (
Primer E (ver. 7.0.11; Quest Research Limited; Ivybridge, Devon, UK) was used for data exploration, whereby an initial triangular resemblance matrix using Bray-Curtis similarity co-efficient was created without transformation, as the Braun-Blanquet scoring was considered a pre-treatment. Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) in two and three dimensions was also created. Clustering was achieved through group averaging and the similarity profile tested using similarity profile analysis (SIMPROF) permutation tests (999 iterations). SIMPROF tests the statistical significance of every node within a dendrogram starting from the top of the dendrogram and (all points within a single group) and highlighting only those groups which show within group multivariate structure. The EcoVeg approach (
Similarity percentage analysis (SIMPER) identifies the species driving differences between selected types. SIMPER uses the Bray–Curtis similarity measure (Primer E ver. 7.0.11; Quest Research Limited; Ivybridge, Devon, UK) to identify positively and negatively diagnostic taxa across vegetation types. Taxa with combined high fidelity and cover were also identified and listed for diagnostic purposes and type delineation. Attempts to place current eastern Australian state based noncultural units was derived by comparing diagnostic and non-diagnostic taxa from SIMPER results.
The results of our analyses were used to define mid to lower level classification levels (macrogroup, group and alliance) based on EcoVeg terminology. It should be noted that although EcoVeg uses the alliance and association as does the Braun-Blanquet approach, the nomenclatural and procedural roles are distinct. Previous unsupervised cluster analyses using Kulzynski similarity measure have been performed and published on subsets of these datasets defining vegetation units at approximately the association level (see
Collectively, all mires within the NETB were defined as NETB montane mires (Level 5 – macrogroup) (Table
Circumscription of mires of the New England Tableland Bioregion (NETB) of eastern Australia. Descriptions include positive and negative diagnostic and negatively associated species, common dominant taxa (based on cumulative frequency and cover) and notes for each unit. Positive diagnostic species are listed in order of decreasing contribution to group identity. Common taxa are listed in decreasing order of cumulative frequency and cover within each identified group.
Hierarchy | Positive diagnostic (SIMPER) | Negative diagnostic (SIMPER) | Common taxa | Notes and distribution |
---|---|---|---|---|
Macrogroup: | Baeckea omissa, Glyceria australis, Leptospermum gregarium, Carex gaudichaudiana | NA | NA | Restricted to the NETB commonly at altitudes above 800 m and rainfall above 700 mm per annum |
Scientific Name: Baeckea – Carex - Glyceria mires. | ||||
Colloquial: New England Tableland montane mires | ||||
Group 1: | Baeckea omissa, Epacris microphylla, Leptospermum gregarium, Gonocarpus micranthus, Goodenia bellidifolia, Baloskion stenocoleum, Lepidosperma limicola, Callistemon pityoides, Hakea microcarpa, Entolasia stricta | Glyceria australis, Carex gaudichaudiana, Carex appressa, Poa sieberiana, Pennisetum alopecuroides, Epilobium billardierianum, Stellaria angustifolia | Baeckea omissa, Epacris microphylla, Baloskion stenocoleum, Lepidosperma limicola, Goodenia bellidifolia, Leptospermum gregarium, Gonocarpus micranthus, Lepyrodia scariosa, Leptospermum arachnoides, Callistemon pityoides | Commonly found on nutrient poor sites with low pH. Often with a prominent shrub layer and forming a peat layer. Often on granite, acid volcanic and metasedimentary rock types |
Scientific Name: Baeckea omissa – Lepidosperma limicola New England Tableland montane bog mires | ||||
Alliance 1-1: | Baeckea omissa, Epacris microphylla, Leptospermum gregarium, Gonocarpus micranthus, Goodenia bellidifolia, Baloskion stenocoleum, Lepidosperma limicola, Callistemon pityoides, Hakea microcarpa, Entolasia stricta | Aristida jerichoensis, Comesperma retusum, Schoenus brevifolius, Caustis flexuosa, Tricostularia pauciflora, Eragrostis elongata, Melichrus procumbens | Lepidosperma limicola, Baeckea omissa, Thelionema caespitosa, Drosera binata, Caustis flexuosa, Tricostularia pauciflora, Schoenus brevifolius, Geranium solanderi | Commonly found along the entire eastern half of NETB in higher rainfall areas. Structurally a shrubby sedgeland or sedgeland |
Scientific Name: Baeckea omissa – Epacris microphylla shrubby bog | ||||
Alliance 1-2: | Lepidosperma gunnii, Comesperma retusum, Aristida jerichoensis, Caustis flexuosa, Dampiera stricta, Thelionema caespitosa, Austrostipa pubescens | Callistemon pityoides, Baloskion stenocoleum, Hakea microcarpa | Lepidosperma limicola, Xyris operculata, Lepyrodia scariosa, Drosera binata, Drosera spatulata, Baloskion fimbriatum, Amphibpogon strictus, Thelionema caespitosum, Caustis flexuosa | Generally restricted to the higher rainfall extreme north east of the NETB. Sometimes with a dominant shrub layer. Structurally a sedgeland or shrubby sedgeland |
Scientific Name: Lepidosperma gunnii – Lepidosperma limicola herbaceous bog | ||||
Group 2: | Glyceria australis, Carex gaudichaudiana, Juncus australis, Carex appressa, Poa sieberiana, Geranium solanderi, Pennisetum alopecuroides | Baeckea omissa, Lepidosperma limicola, Leptospermum gregarium, Gonocarpus micranthus, Goodenia bellidifolia, Lepyrodia scariosa, Callistemon pityoides, Entolasia stricta, Xyris complanata, Banksia spinuolsa, Epacris obtusifolia, Xyris operculata | Glyceria australis, Carex gaudichaudiana, Carex appressa, Poa sieberiana, Geranium solanderi, Pennisetum alopecuroides, Juncus australis, Carex disticha, Epilobium billardiarianum, Isachne globosa, Stellaria angustifolia, Themeda triandra | Commonly found nutrient rich sites with moderate to high pH. Shrubs rarely present and dominated by sedges, grasses and forbs. Usually restricted to basalt or higher nutrient metasediment rock types. Often forming a peat layer |
Scientific Name: Glyceria australis – Carex gaudichaudiana New England Tableland fen, wet meadow and ephemeral marsh mires | ||||
Alliance 2-1: | Carex appressa | Myriophyllum variifolium, Lachnagrostis filiformis, Eleocharis acuta, Paspalum distichum, Amphibromus sinuatus, Ottelia ovalifolia, Potamogeton tricarinatus, Amphibromus pithogastrus, Isolepis fluitans | Carex appressa, Carex gaudichaudiana, Eleocharis acuta, Geranium solanderi, Stellaria angustifolia, Pennisetum alopecuroides, Juncus australis, Haloragis heterophylla, Epilobium billardiarianum | Commonly found on medial to lower rainfall areas of the NETB within central and western areas. A sedgeland |
Scientific Name: Carex appressa herbaceous fen | ||||
Alliance 2-2: | Carex gaudichaudiana, Isachne globosa, Epilobium billardierianum, Stellaria angustifolia, Geranium solanderi, Cyperus sphaeroideus | Isachne globosa, Scrirpus polystachyus, Viola caleyana, Lycopus australis, Baloskion stenocoleum, Lythrum salicaria | Carex gaudichaudiana, Isachne globosa, Epilobium billardiarianum, Stellaria angustifolia, Geranium solanderi, Carex appressa, Scripus polystachyus, Carex disticha, Lythrum salicaria, Cyperus sphaeroideus, Baumea planifolia | More commonly found within higher rainfall areas of the NETB, particularly in the eastern half. A sedgeland |
Scientific Name: Carex gaudichaudiana – Isachne globosa herbaceous fen | ||||
Alliance 2-3: | Philydrum lanuginosum – Potamogeton tricarinatus, Cynodon dactylon, Cardamine paucijuga, Persicaria elatior, Lythrum salicaria | Lachnagrostis filiformis, Eleocharis acuta, Eleocharis gracilis, Paspalum distichum, Hydrocotyle tripartita, Glyceria australis. | Eleocharis pusilla, Cynodon dactylon, Myriophyllum variifolium, Philydrum lanuginosum, Potamogeton tricarinatus, Lythrum salicaria. | Found often on wet mud and retreating lagoon margins and around the margins of more permanent sedgeland on the edge of lagoons. |
Scientific Name: Philydrum lanuginosum – Potamogeton tricarinatus herbaceous ephemeral marsh and fen | ||||
Alliance 2-4: | Lachnagrostis filiformis | Myriophyllum variifolium, Eleocharis acuta, Eleocharis gracilis, Paspalum distichum, Hydrocotyle tripartita, Glyceria australis, Ranunculus inundatus | Lachnagrostis filiformis, Cyperus gunnii, Geranium solanderi, Rumex brownii | Found on wet mud associated with retreating lagoon margins. Often very weedy. A sedgeland or herbfield |
Scientific Name: Lachnagrostis filiformis herbaceous wet meadow or marsh | ||||
Alliance 2-5: | Myriophyllum variifolium, Eleocharis acuta, Lachnagrostis filiformis, Hydrocotyle tripartita, Eleocharis gracilis, Ranunculus inundatus, Paspalum distichum, Glyceria australis, Juncus australis, Eleocharis sphacelata, Isotoma fluviatilis | Carex appressa, Isachne globosa, Carex gaudichaudiana, Carex disticha, Lythrum salicaria | Myriophyllum variifolium, Glyceria australis, Eleocharis dietrichiana, Eleocharis sphacelata, Eleocharis acuta, Eleocharis gracilis, Potamogeton tricarinatus, Panicum obseptum, Nymphoides geminata, Eleocharis pusilla, Lachnagrostis filiformis, Amphibromus nervosus, Ranunculus inundatus, Nymphoides montana | Almost exclusively found on basalt substrates at the top of the Great Dividing Range within the central areas of the NETB. Primarily restricted to ephemeral lagoons. A herbfield or sedgeland |
Scientific Name: Myriophyllum variifolium – Eleocharis acuta herbaceous ephemeral marsh | ||||
Alliance 2-6: | Glyceria australis | Gonocarpus micranthus, Hypericum japonicum, Themeda triandra | Glyceria australis, Pennisetum alopecuroides, Geranium solanderi, Carex disticha, Carex gaudichaudiana, Poa sieberiana, Lachnagrostis filiformis | Found throughout but more common within central areas of the NETB. A wet tussock grassland |
Scientific Name: Glyceria australis grassy wet meadow | ||||
Alliance 2-7: | Juncus australis | Carex tereticaulis, Dianella longifolia, Veronica gracilis, Hydrocotyle laxiflora | Juncus australis, Carex disticha, Pennisetum alopecuroides, Ranunculus lappaceus, Lotus uliginosus, Gonocarpus micranthus, Carex gaudichaudiana, Glyceria australis, Poa sieberiana | Found in open cold air drainage areas often on the margins of damper wet meadows and on the upper margins of lagoons. A rushland, herbfield or wet tussock grassland |
Scientific Name: Juncus australis – Cenchrus purpurascens herbaceous wet meadow | ||||
Alliance 2-8: | Asperula conferta, Carex tereticaulis, Hydrocotyle laxiflora | Themeda triandra, Schoenus apogon, Glyceria australis, Haloragis heterophylla, Carex appressa | Carex tereticaulis, Asperula conferta, Hydrocotyle laxiflora, Geranium solanderi, Dianella longifolia, Veronica gracilis, Ranunculus lappaceus, Poa sieberiana, Pennisetum alopecuroides, Carex gaudichaudiana | Found on sandy soils sometimes associated with the drier margins of lagoons or around drier margins of wetter meadows. A wet tussock grassland or fen |
Scientific Name: Carex tereticaulis – Asperula conferta herbaceous wet meadow and fen | ||||
Alliance 2-9: | Poa sieberiana, Themeda triandra, Pennisetum alopecuroides, Schoenus apogon, Haloragis heterophylla | Carex gaudichaudiana, Cyperus gunnii, Glyceria australis, Carex tereticaulis, Daucus glochidiatus, Viola hederacea, Caesia calliantha | Eleocharis atricha, Leptorhynchos squamatus, Juncus subsecundus, Hydrocotyle tripartita, Sporobolus creber, Calotis scapigera, Pennisetum alopecuroides, Schoenus apogon, Dichelachne macrantha, Carex inversa | Found in cold frost drainage valley floors that are periodically damp and around the margins of wetter meadows such as Alliance 2-6 and lagoon margins. A wet tussock grassland |
Scientific Name: Poa sieberiana – Themeda triandra grassy wet meadow | ||||
Alliance 2-10: | Leptorhynchos squamatus, Schoenus apogon | Carex tereticaulis, Asperula conferta, Hydrocotyle laxiflora, Dianella longifolia, Geranium solanderi, Carex gaudichaudii. Veronica gracilis | Eleocharis atricha, Leptorhynchos squamatus, Juncus subsecundus, Hydrocotyle tripartita, Sporobolus creber, Calotis scapigera, Pennisetum alopecuroides, Schoenus apogon, Dichelachne macrantha, Carex inversa | Found restricted to lagoons that are largely dry for extended periods and often only become damp rather than inundated. A herbfield or wet tussock grassland |
Scientific Name: Leptorhynchos squamatus – Schoenus apogon herbfield |
Comparison with existing hierarchical classifications within eastern Australia. Plant Community Types (PCT), class and formation are part of the current New South Wales vegetation classification schema and Regional Ecosystems are what are the Queensland equivalent of association.
Hierarchy |
PCT ( |
Class (Keith 2004) | Formation (Keith 2004) | Regional Ecosystem (Sattler and Williams (1999) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Macrogroup: New England Tableland montane mires | NA | Temperate Montane Grasslands; Montane Bogs and Fens; Montane Lakes | Grasslands; Freshwater Wetlands | NA |
Group 1: Baeckea omissa – Lepidosperma limicola New England Tableland montane bog mires | NA | Montane Bogs & Fens | Freshwater Wetlands | Regional ecosystem 13.12.7 – Sedgeland along small drainage lines and soaks at high altitude |
Alliance 1-1: Baeckea omissa – Epacris microphylla shrubby bog |
PCT 607: Montane bogs (in part); 518: Heath swamps wetland on leucogranite and granite (not in |
Montane Bogs & Fens | Freshwater Wetlands | Regional ecosystem 13.12.7 – Sedgeland along small drainage lines and soaks at high altitude |
Alliance 1-2: Lepidosperma gunnii – Lepidosperma limicola herbaceous bog | PCT 582: Sedgeland fens wetland of impeded drainage | Montane Bogs and Fens | Freshwater Wetlands | NA |
Group 2: Glyceria australis – Carex gaudichaudiana NETB fen, wet meadow and ephemeral marsh mires | No equivalent | Temperate Montane Grasslands | Grasslands | No equivalent |
Alliance 2-1: Carex appressa herbaceous fen | PCT: 574 Tea-tree riparian shrubland/heathland wetland | Montane Bogs and Fens | Freshwater Wetlands | Regional ecosystem 13.12.7 Sedgeland along small drainage lines and soaks at high altitude |
Alliance 2-2: Carex gaudichaudiana – Isachne globosa herbaceous fen | PCT 582: Sedgeland fens wetland of impeded drainage | Montane Bogs and Fens | Freshwater Wetlands | NA |
Alliance 2-3: Philydrum lanuginosum – Potamogeton tricarinatus herbaceous ephemeral marsh and fen | No equivalent | Montane Lakes | Freshwater Wetlands | NA |
Alliance 2-4: Lachnagrostis filiformis herbaceous wet meadow or marsh | No equivalent | Montane Lakes | Freshwater Wetlands | NA |
Alliance 2-5: Myriophyllum variifolium – Eleocharis acuta herbaceous ephemeral marsh. | PCT 500: Upland wetlands | Montane Lakes | Freshwater Wetlands | NA |
Alliance 2-6: Glyceria australis grassy wet meadow | No equivalent | Temperate Montane Grassland | Grassland | No equivalent |
Alliance 2-7: Juncus australis – Cenchrus purpurascens herbacous wet meadow | No equivalent | No equivalent | ?Grassland | NA |
Alliance 2-8: Carex tereticaulis – Asperula conferta fen and wet meadow | No equivalent | No equivalent | No equivalent | NA |
Alliance 2-9: Poa sieberiana – Themeda triandra grassy wet meadow | PCT 586: Snow Grass – Swamp Foxtail tussock grassland sedgeland | Temperate Montane Grassland | Grassland | No equivalent |
Alliance 2-10: Leptorhynchos squamatus – Schoenus apogon herbfield | No equivalent | No equivalent | No equivalent | NA |
Splicing the dendrogram at a similarity of 16, we further defined 12 alliances all of which are delineated at a level which shows statistical evidence of multivariate structure via SIMPROF (Figure
Comparison of species density and general environmental data for each alliance.
Hierarchy | Mean species density per 400 m2 | Elevation (m a.s.l.) | Mean vegetation height (m) | Water depth (m) | Rock type |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Alliance 1-1: | 27 | 940–1372 | 0.2–6 | 0–0.2 | Granite, acid volcanic, basalt |
Scientific Name: Baeckea omissa – Epacris microphylla shrubby bog | |||||
Alliance 1-2: | 22 | 920–1040 | 0.2–3 | 0–0.2 | Granite |
Scientific Name: Lepidosperma gunnii – Lepidosperma limicola herbaceous bog | |||||
Alliance 2-1: | 18 | 446–1120 | 0.3–1.2 | 0–0.2 | Granite, metasediment, acid volcanic, basalt |
Scientific Name: Carex appressa herbaceous fen | |||||
Alliance 2-2: | 18 | 780–1400 | 0.3–1 | 0–0.2 | Granite, metasediment, basalt, sediment |
Scientific Name: Carex gaudichaudiana – Isachne globosa herbaceous fen | |||||
Alliance 2-3: | 14 | 800–1000 | 0.1–1 | 0–0.5 | Granite |
Scientific Name: Philydrum lanuginosum – Potamogeton tricarinatus herbaceous ephemeral marsh and fen | |||||
Alliance 2-4: | 10 | 800–1300 | 0.1–1 | 0 | Basalt, granite |
Scientific Name: Lachnagrostis filiformis herbaceous wet meadow or marsh | |||||
Alliance 2-5: | 13 | 1040–1400 | 0.1–1 | 0–1.5 | Basalt, granite |
Scientific Name: Myriophyllum variifolium – Eleocharis acuta herbaceous ephemeral marsh | |||||
Alliance 2-6: | 11 | 700–1400 | 0.2–1.2 | 0–0.2 | Granite, metasediment, acid volcanic, basalt, shale, sediment |
Scientific Name: Glyceria australis grassy wet meadow | |||||
Alliance 2-7: | 8 | 1200–1350 | 0.2–1 | 0–0.1 | Basalt, Metasediment |
Scientific Name: Juncus australis – Cenchrus purpurascens herbaceous wet meadow | |||||
Alliance 2-8: | 22 | 1000–1350 | 0.5–1.5 | 0 | Metasediment, sediment |
Scientific Name: Carex tereticaulis – Asperula conferta herbaceous wet meadow and fen | |||||
Alliance 2-9: | 17 | 980–1350 | 0.15–1.2 | 0 | Granite, metasediment, basalt, mudstone, acid volcanic |
Scientific Name: Poa sieberiana – Themeda triandra grassy wet meadow | |||||
Alliance 2-10: | 11 | 930–1100 | 0.15–0.3 | 0 | Basalt |
Scientific Name: Leptorhynchos squamatus – Schoenus apogon herbfield |
Synoptic table of the most important species (≥ 5% mean constancy or ≥ 50% constancy in at least one alliance) of mire alliances of the New England Tableland Bioregion. Values in the columns are percentage constancies. Species with 50% or more in at least one alliance are listed under the alliance where they reach the highest constancy. Those species that did not reach 50% constancy in any of the alliances are listed under “Companion species” according to decreasing mean constancy. See Suppl. material
Alliance | Mean | 1-1 | 1-2 | 2-1 | 2-2 | 2-3 | 2-4 | 2-5 | 2-6 | 2-7 | 2-8 | 2-9 | 2-10 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of plots | 59 | 5 | 22 | 77 | 4 | 14 | 57 | 87 | 5 | 7 | 36 | 4 | |
Alliance 1-1 | |||||||||||||
Baeckea omissa | 13.5 | 100 | 60 | – | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Epacris microphylla | 16.1 | 100 | 80 | – | 7 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 6 | – |
Gonocarpus micranthus | 11.3 | 76 | 40 | 5 | 4 | – | – | – | – | 2 | – | 9 | – |
Leptospermum gregarium | 5.9 | 71 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Baloskion stenocoleum | 11.9 | 63 | 60 | – | 20 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Callistemon pityoides | 4.9 | 59 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Hakea microcarpa | 6.0 | 55 | – | – | 11 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 6 | – |
Alliance 1-2 | |||||||||||||
Austrostipa pubescens | 8.3 | – | 100 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Dampiera stricta | 9.0 | 8 | 100 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Goodenia bellidifolia | 14.7 | 73 | 100 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 3 | – |
Persoonia oleoides | 8.7 | 4 | 100 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Pteridium esculentum | 9.8 | 10 | 100 | – | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 6 | – |
Dillwynia phylicoides | 7.0 | 4 | 80 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Entolasia stricta | 11.1 | 53 | 80 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Hovea heterophylla | 6.7 | – | 80 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Leptospermum arachnoides | 10.6 | 47 | 80 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Petrophile canescens | 7.3 | 8 | 80 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Aristida jerichoensis | 5.0 | – | 60 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Banksia spinulosa | 7.6 | 31 | 60 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Dianella caerulea | 5.5 | 6 | 60 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Lepidosperma gunnii | 5.8 | 10 | 60 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Lepidosperma limicola | 9.3 | 51 | 60 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Lepidosperma tortuosum | 5.5 | 6 | 60 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Leptospermum minutifolium | 6.3 | 10 | 60 | 5 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Lepyrodia scariosa | 7.9 | 35 | 60 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Lindsaea linearis | 6.5 | 18 | 60 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Lomandra multiflora | 7.0 | 14 | 60 | – | – | – | – | – | 4 | – | – | 6 | – |
Melichrus procumbens | 5.2 | 2 | 60 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Pimelea linifolia | 6.2 | 14 | 60 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Rytidosperma indutum | 5.0 | – | 60 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Selaginella uliginosa | 5.3 | 4 | 60 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Stylidium graminifolium | 6.0 | 12 | 60 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Alliance 2-1 | |||||||||||||
Carex appressa | 14.9 | 2 | – | 100 | 37 | – | – | 4 | 10 | – | – | 26 | – |
Rubus anglocandicans | 17.4 | 2 | – | 64 | 37 | – | – | 6 | 27 | 20 | 50 | 3 | – |
Rumex crispus | 15.6 | – | – | 64 | 46 | – | 31 | 21 | 8 | – | 17 | – | – |
Verbena bonariensis | 19.0 | – | – | 64 | 26 | 33 | 31 | 6 | 26 | – | 33 | 9 | – |
Alliance 2-2 | |||||||||||||
Holcus lanatus | 41.8 | 4 | – | 41 | 100 | 33 | 8 | 45 | 64 | 80 | 67 | 59 | – |
Carex gaudichaudiana | 19.9 | 2 | – | 23 | 98 | 33 | – | 26 | 17 | 20 | 17 | 3 | – |
Epilobium billardierianum | 15.1 | 6 | – | 41 | 78 | – | – | 28 | 16 | – | – | 12 | – |
Stellaria angustifolia | 14.3 | 2 | – | 27 | 76 | – | – | 17 | 9 | – | – | 15 | 25 |
Isachne globosa | 7.7 | 24 | – | – | 65 | – | – | 2 | 1 | – | – | – | – |
Geranium solanderi | 24.7 | 37 | 40 | 45 | 63 | – | 8 | 6 | 32 | 20 | 33 | 12 | – |
Cyperus sphaeroideus | 7.3 | 2 | – | 27 | 50 | – | – | 9 | – | – | – | – | – |
Alliance 2-3 | |||||||||||||
Philydrum lanuginosum | 8.8 | 2 | – | – | 4 | 100 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Asperula conferta | 14.0 | – | – | 9 | – | 67 | – | 4 | 14 | – | 33 | 41 | – |
Brachyscome tenuiscapa | 8.4 | 2 | – | – | – | 67 | – | – | 8 | – | – | 24 | – |
Carex breviculmis | 10.2 | – | – | – | – | 67 | – | – | 9 | – | 17 | 29 | – |
Plantago lanceolata | 24.8 | 2 | – | 41 | 7 | 67 | – | 6 | 30 | 40 | 33 | 47 | 25 |
Alliance 2-4 | |||||||||||||
Lachnagrostis filiformis | 25.5 | 4 | – | 23 | 17 | – | 100 | 74 | 18 | – | 17 | 3 | 50 |
Conyza bonariensis | 17.0 | – | – | 27 | 11 | – | 77 | 17 | 26 | 40 | – | 6 | – |
Trifolium repens | 24.3 | – | – | 32 | 26 | 33 | 54 | 17 | 42 | 40 | – | 47 | – |
Alliance 2-5 | |||||||||||||
Myriophyllum variifolium | 12.1 | 2 | – | – | 7 | 33 | – | 100 | 3 | – | – | – | – |
Alliance 2-6 | |||||||||||||
Glyceria australis | 22.8 | – | – | 9 | 11 | 67 | – | 26 | 100 | 20 | – | 41 | – |
Cirsium vulgare | 32.8 | 6 | – | 50 | 52 | – | 31 | 23 | 79 | 60 | 33 | 35 | 25 |
Alliance 2-7 | |||||||||||||
Juncus australis | 29.3 | – | – | 41 | 26 | 33 | – | 38 | 49 | 100 | 17 | 47 | – |
Cenchrus purpurascens | 26.8 | 10 | – | 36 | 17 | 33 | – | 19 | 31 | 80 | 17 | 53 | 25 |
Carex disticha | 10.8 | – | – | 5 | 35 | – | – | – | 18 | 60 | – | 12 | – |
Alliance 2-8 | |||||||||||||
Carex tereticaulis | 8.5 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | – | – | 100 | – | – |
Anthoxanthum odoratum | 23.5 | 2 | – | 9 | 43 | 33 | 15 | 15 | 32 | – | 83 | 50 | – |
Carex inversa | 11.0 | 2 | – | 14 | 28 | – | – | 4 | 3 | – | 50 | 6 | 25 |
Alliance 2-9 | |||||||||||||
Poa sieberiana | 23.3 | 14 | – | 9 | 4 | 67 | – | 2 | 30 | 20 | 33 | 100 | – |
Hypochaeris radicata | 31.9 | 22 | – | 50 | 30 | – | 69 | 17 | 26 | 40 | 33 | 71 | 25 |
Themeda triandra | 14.6 | 35 | – | – | – | 67 | – | – | 5 | – | – | 68 | – |
Schoenus apogon | 14.3 | 29 | – | 9 | 4 | – | – | 15 | 12 | – | – | 53 | 50 |
Haloragis heterophylla | 14.3 | 8 | – | 36 | 28 | 33 | – | 9 | 8 | – | – | 50 | – |
Alliance 2-10 | |||||||||||||
Leptorhynchos squamatus | 8.8 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | 3 | – | – | – | 100 |
Paspalum dilatatum | 35.3 | – | – | 73 | 20 | 33 | 31 | 34 | 25 | 60 | 33 | 15 | 100 |
Eleocharis atricha | 6.3 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 75 |
Hydrocotyle tripartita | 15.6 | – | – | 23 | 22 | – | 8 | 47 | 6 | – | – | 6 | 75 |
Juncus subsecundus | 8.7 | 16 | – | 5 | 4 | – | – | 4 | – | – | – | – | 75 |
Eragrostis curvula | 5.5 | – | – | 5 | – | – | – | 2 | 9 | – | – | – | 50 |
Phleum pratense | 4.5 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 4 | – | – | – | – | 50 |
Sporobolus creber | 5.6 | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 15 | 50 |
Companion species | |||||||||||||
Ranunculus lappaceus | 15.3 | 18 | – | 14 | 39 | 33 | – | 4 | 12 | 20 | 17 | 26 | – |
Taraxacum officinale | 15.3 | 2 | – | 14 | 22 | 33 | 8 | 13 | 43 | – | 33 | 15 | – |
Euchiton sphaericus | 11.2 | 14 | – | 9 | – | 33 | 15 | 6 | 13 | 20 | – | 24 | – |
Ammi majus | 10.5 | – | – | – | – | – | 46 | – | 26 | – | 33 | 21 | – |
Rumex brownii | 10.3 | – | – | 18 | 2 | 33 | 8 | 2 | 16 | 20 | – | 24 | – |
Ranunculus inundatus | 9.5 | – | – | 9 | 24 | 33 | – | 36 | 6 | – | – | 6 | – |
Persicaria prostrata | 8.5 | – | – | 18 | – | – | 38 | 4 | – | – | 17 | – | 25 |
Eleocharis acuta | 8.4 | – | – | 36 | 9 | – | – | 47 | 6 | – | 0 | 3 | – |
Festuca elatior | 8.4 | – | – | 32 | 48 | – | – | – | 4 | – | 17 | – | – |
Persicaria hydropiper | 8.3 | – | – | 23 | 30 | – | – | 19 | 8 | 20 | – | – | – |
Hypericum gramineum | 8.1 | 29 | 20 | 5 | 7 | – | – | 2 | 3 | – | – | 6 | 25 |
Lythrum salicaria | 8.0 | 4 | – | 5 | 48 | 33 | – | – | 3 | – | – | 3 | – |
Lomandra longifolia | 7.9 | 29 | 20 | – | 4 | 33 | – | – | – | – | – | 9 | – |
Hemarthria uncinata | 7.3 | 2 | – | 9 | 9 | – | 8 | 28 | 6 | – | 17 | 9 | – |
Poa labillardieri | 7.3 | – | 40 | 5 | 9 | 33 | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | – |
Juncus usitatus | 7.3 | 2 | – | 18 | 9 | 33 | – | 0 | 4 | – | – | 21 | – |
Phalaris aquatica | 6.8 | 12 | – | 14 | – | – | – | – | 27 | – | 17 | 12 | – |
Rumex conglomeratus | 6.8 | – | – | 23 | 13 | – | – | – | 23 | 20 | – | 3 | – |
Hypericum japonicum | 6.7 | 16 | – | 5 | 20 | – | – | 6 | 1 | 20 | – | 12 | – |
Cynodon dactylon | 6.6 | – | – | 9 | – | 33 | – | 11 | 3 | 20 | – | 3 | – |
Eleocharis sphacelata | 6.2 | 4 | – | 5 | 24 | – | – | 38 | 3 | – | – | – | – |
Setaria pumila | 6.0 | 6 | – | – | 7 | – | – | 4 | 4 | – | 17 | 9 | 25 |
Eleocharis pusilla | 5.9 | – | – | – | 11 | 33 | – | 15 | 6 | – | – | 6 | – |
Prunella vulgaris | 5.8 | 6 | – | 14 | 17 | – | – | 2 | 4 | 20 | – | 6 | – |
Viola hederacea | 5.8 | 22 | 20 | – | 4 | – | – | – | – | – | 17 | 6 | – |
Geranium neglectum | 5.7 | – | – | – | 2 | – | 38 | 2 | 3 | – | 17 | 6 | – |
Eleocharis gracilis | 5.4 | – | – | 5 | 17 | – | – | 40 | 3 | – | – | – | – |
Juncus fockei | 5.4 | – | – | 5 | 11 | – | 8 | 34 | 1 | – | – | 6 | – |
Oxalis perennans | 5.3 | 4 | – | 5 | – | – | – | – | 3 | – | 17 | 35 | – |
Rorippa palustris | 5.2 | – | – | – | – | – | 38 | 6 | 1 | – | 17 | – | – |
Sorghum leiocladum | 5.2 | 4 | – | – | – | 33 | – | – | 1 | – | – | 24 | – |
A comparison of the placement of NETB montane mires with the currently published classification systems (PCT, class, formation, RE) shows only some congruence with our results (Table
We have successfully applied a consistent classification section to montane mire vegetation within the NETB using unsupervised techniques which have highlighted a number of differences with the current classifications used within eastern Australia. Although the EcoVeg approach typically considers ecological criteria, this is currently not the accepted general practice used in defining vegetation types within New South Wales or for state and federal listings of threatened communities. We believe our classification allows a better and more consistent understanding of the floristic relationships between these montane wetland types that co-occur within the NETB. The current New South Wales classification schema includes bogs and fens within the same class separate from wet meadows (Keith 2004). Our results and those of
Previous research has shown that bogs within the NETB are ecologically and functionally distinct dominated by taxa with traits dissimilar to those of the sympatric other wetland types such as fens and wet meadows (
Our numerical analysis approach has highlighted a deficiency in previous supervised or semi-supervised techniques to describe the variation within mires within the NETB. Nearly half of the alliances we have circumscribed are not represented within published state PCTs and even less of the 28 previously published associations are currently recognised as accepted PCTs (
What we consider as a single macrogroup is distributed across three classes and two formations within the New South Wales system which calls for the need to review the clarity and consistency of those accepted higher hierarchical levels (
Most of the NETB mires are currently listed as endangered communities on state and national acts (
Upland wetlands (lagoons) are a geomorphologically defined landscape element that contains a number of vegetation types within it (
The most distinctive alliance, largely restricted to lagoons (2-5 Myriophyllum variifolium – Eleocharis acuta ephemeral marsh), is the least likely to be temporally present and often within only a proportion of the lagoon area and yet it is used to define the wetland. A more detail temporal understanding of the dynamics of this system is required (
Supervised techniques have also led to the confusion in the determination of other state listed threatened montane mires within the NETB. Threatened community listings within state and federal acts are meant to be based on floristic distinctiveness. Fens dominated by either Carex gaudichaudiana or Carex appressa are peat forming and, closely aligned within our analyses but they are distinct from bogs, and do not occur within the same threatened community listings. Montane bogs are listed as endangered on the state BC Act as “Montane peatlands and swamps of the New England Tableland, New South Wales North Coast, Sydney Basin. South East Corner, South Eastern Highlands and the Australian Alps bioregions”. This determination includes what we have circumscribed as bogs and fens, including fens that are dominated by Carex gaudichaudiana but not other fen types (
Classification within Australia has largely been driven by the need to manage natural resources from both conservation and production perspectives and is linked to mapping outputs with a recent emphasis on unsupervised modelling techniques such as segmentation (
Our results and those of other recent work (
J.T.H. and V.H.H. conceived and undertook all field work. J.T.H. completed all analyses and J.T.H. wrote the majority of the manuscript with V.H.H. providing comment and additional text.
We wish to thank the late Dr. Dorothy Bell for her assistance in collecting data and the many discussions that help our understanding of the wetland systems of the NETB.
John T. Hunter (Corresponding author, jhunter8@bigpond.com), ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5112-0465
Vanessa H. Hunter (vhhunter@bigpond.com)