River red gum woodland River red gum woodlands are distinguished from forests by their reduced tree height and density, and understorey plants. Woodlands form at greater distances from rivers than do forests, where minor differences in soil and topography reduce flooding frequency and duration. Trees which make up River red gum woodlands source their water primarily from groundwater and/or ponded surface water. |
 |
|
The preference curves and other information used by MFAT to assess this species/group in this river zone is presented below. Click on the 'information' buttons  and links for more explanation. |
 |
Interpretation:
Over what months of the year does adult vegetation prefer to be inundated with floodwater in order to maintain its condition?
More information:
MFAT Technical Manual [PDF 2.9 MB] |
|
Evidence:
The ideal timing for inundation of River red gum woodland is late winter to spring, reflecting the natural flow regime. River red gum woodland is more common in downstream reaches of the Murray and thus the natural flooding probably extended a few weeks later into the end of spring, compared to River red gum forests.
Confidence level: A
Sources:
Bren, L. J. (1987). The duration of inundation in a flooding river red gum forest. Aust. For. Res. 17: 191-202.
Bren, L. J. (1988). Flooding characteristics of a riparian red gum forest. Aust. For. Res. 51: 57-62.
Bren, L. J. and Gibbs, P. (1986). Relationships between flood frequency, vegetation and topography in a river red gum forest. Aust. For. Res. 16: 357-370.
Bren, L. J., O'Neill, I. C. and Gibbs, P. (1987). Flooding in the Barmah Forest and its relation to flow in the Murray-Edward River system. Aust. For. Res. 17: 127-144.
Chesterfield, E. A. (1986). Changes in the vegetation of the river red gum forest at Barmah, Victoria. Aust. Forestry. 49: 16-27.
Dexter, B. D, Rose, H. J. and Davies, N. (1986). River regulation and associated forest management problems in the River Murray red gum forests. Aust. Forestry. 49: 4-15.
|
 |
Interpretation:
For what length of time (in days) does adult vegetation prefer to be inundated for during a flood in order to maintain its condition?
More information:
MFAT Technical Manual [PDF 2.9 MB] |
|
Evidence:
River red gum woodland is slightly less tolerant to extended floods compared to River red gum forest. More frequent or extended watering would tend to convert the woodland structure into a more dense forest structure.
Confidence level: A
Sources:
Bren, L. J. (1987). The duration of inundation in a flooding river red gum forest. Aust. For. Res. 17: 191-202.
Bren, L. J. (1988). Flooding characteristics of a riparian red gum forest. Aust. For. Res. 51: 57-62.
Bren, L. J. and Gibbs, P. (1986). Relationships between flood frequency, vegetation and topography in a river red gum forest. Aust. For. Res. 16: 357-370.
Bren, L. J., O'Neill, I. C. and Gibbs, P. (1987). Flooding in the Barmah Forest and its relation to flow in the Murray-Edward River system. Aust. For. Res. 17: 127-144.
Chesterfield, E. A. (1986). Changes in the vegetation of the river red gum forest at Barmah, Victoria. Aust. Forestry. 49: 16-27.
Dexter, B. D, Rose, H. J. and Davies, N. (1986). River regulation and associated forest management problems in the River Murray red gum forests. Aust. Forestry. 49: 4-15.
Roberts, J. (2001). Large Plants. In: Rivers as Ecological Systems: the Murray-Darling Basin. Young, W. J. (ed.). pp.187-222. Murray-Darling Basin Commission.
|
 |
Interpretation:
What is the preferred length of the dry period (in months) since the last flood?
More information:
MFAT Technical Manual [PDF 2.9 MB] |
|
Evidence:
This preference curve has been adjusted from the SRP default setting by REG G.
Confidence level: C
Sources:
Expert knowledge and judgment.
Note: More recent advice suggests that the SRP default curve should be used in place of this curve in future versions of MFAT. |
 |
Interpretation:
Is the overall sequence of 'good' and 'bad' years sufficient to maintain the condition of adult vegetation in the long-term?
More information:
MFAT Technical Manual [PDF 2.9 MB] |
|
Evidence:
The default parameters for this curve are based on advice from Bill Young (SRP), and agreed by the REG vegetation discussion group. The parameters will need calibrating for each locality.
Confidence level: C
Sources:
SRP and REG vegetation discussion group, expert knowledge, judgment and calibration.
|
|
|
Interpretation:
Thresholds are set for 'good' (e.g. 0.7) and 'bad' (e.g. 0.2) years. A 'memory counter' starts at 0 and keeps a running tally of 'good' and 'bad' years for a flow scenario. The memory counter rewards good years by 'incrementing' the score, and penalises bad years by 'decrementing' the score by a specified amount. For example, an increment of 3 and a decrement of 1 means that 3 'bad' years can be cancelled out by one 'good' year. |
|
Evidence:
The good/bad year thresholds and the increment and decrement default values for the flood memory curve are based on advice from Bill Young (SRP), and agreed to by the REG vegetation discussion group. The parameters may need calibrating for each locality.
Confidence level: C
Sources:
SRP and REG vegetation discussion group, expert knowledge, judgment, and calibration. |
 |
Interpretation:
What is the preferred average depth of water (in cm) across the floodplain during a flood for the establishment of one year old seedlings?
The 'average depth' of water across a flooded area is different from the actual depth of water than individual plants at a specific location prefer or tolerate. It is calculated based on a volume-area relationship for the floodplain.
More information:
MFAT Technical Manual [PDF 2.9 MB] |
|
Evidence:
An average depth of 1 metre across the floodplain ensures adequate watering of red gum seedlings. Larger (or deeper) floods might cause seedlings to be immersed in water for too long a period and result in drowning. (This curve can be customised for conditions specific to each floodplain).
Confidence level: A
Sources:
Dexter, B. D. (1978). Silviculture of the river red gum forests of the central Murray floodplain. Proc. Roy. Soc. Vic. 90: 175-194.
Heinrich, P. (1990). The eco-physiology of riparian river red gum. Final report, AWRC, October 1990.
Marcar, N. E. (1993). Waterlogging modifies growth water use and ion concentration in seedlings of salt-treated E. camaldulensis, E. tereticornis, E. robusta, and E. globulus. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 20: 1-13.
Roberts, J. (2001). Large Plants. In: Rivers as Ecological Systems: the Murray-Darling Basin. Young, W. J. (ed.). pp.187-221. Murray-Darling Basin Commission.
|
 |
Interpretation:
What is the preferred length of time that the floodplain is inundated for during a flood (in days) for the establishment of one year old seedlings?
More information:
MFAT Technical Manual [PDF 2.9 MB] |
|
Evidence:
A flood is needed to re-charge soil moisture to ensure seedling survival. However, if the flood is too long it will result in water-logging and oxygen stress. The optimum duration for inundation is around 2-4 weeks.
Confidence level: A
Sources:
Dexter, B. D. (1978). Silviculture of the river red gum forests of the central Murray floodplain. Proc. Roy. Soc. Vic. 90: 175-194.
Heinrich, P. (1990). The eco-physiology of riparian river red gum. Final report, AWRC, October 1990.
Marcar, N. E. (1993). Waterlogging modifies growth water use and ion concentration in seedlings of salt-treated E. camaldulensis, E. tereticornis, E. robusta, and E. globulus. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 20: 1-13.
Roberts, J. (2001). Large Plants. In: Rivers as Ecological Systems: the Murray-Darling Basin. Young, W. J. (ed.). pp.187-221. Murray-Darling Basin Commission.
|
 |
Interpretation:
What is the preferred time of the year (calendar months) for the flow sequence* that is required for seed germination?
*The required flow sequence is a dry period following an inundation event, occurring within a 30 day period.
More information:
MFAT Technical Manual [PDF 2.9 MB] |
|
Evidence:
The germination timing indicates the dry period following a flood when seeds are most likely to germinate. The best conditions for germination timing will be in late spring following late winter - spring flooding.
Confidence level: A
Sources:
Dexter, B. D. (1978). Silviculture of the river red gum forests of the central Murray floodplain. Proc. Roy. Soc. Vic. 90: 175-194.
|
| |
|
