Plants protect from climate impacts

August 2, 2011

Native vegetation must be restored to protect Australia’s unique ecosystems from the impacts of climate change, according to scientists from the Australian National University.

A review published this week in the international, peer reviewed journal Climatic Change, found that large-scale restoration of native vegetation was the most frequently recommended action in the scientific literature to counter effects on biodiversity.

Lead author, Dr Don Driscoll from the Fenner School of Environment and Society at the ANU, said protection of biodiversity needed to be included in any government policy on climate change.

“Reducing the area of native vegetation cleared is the most important action to take. But in areas that are already over-cleared, revegetation is essential.”

“It is pleasing to see that some of the Government’s climate change policies are directed at reducing the threat that climate change poses to native plants and animals by allocating carbon tax revenue to restoration and landscape-scale planning.

“Carbon revenue provides a realistic means of funding revegetation. But climate change policy must also include safeguards that ensure biodiversity is protected, in addition to providing financial disincentives for emitting carbon.”

Dr Driscoll said the review identified additional policies that would lead to faster reduction in the risks to biodiversity.

“An overwhelming finding from our review is that there are many policy and management actions that can be taken now that would result in a rapid reduction in the threats of climate change to biodiversity,” he said.

“These are mainly actions that avoid further impacts such as stopping the introduction of new invasive species and preventing further habitat loss.

“National efforts must include engagement in international negotiations on climate change conventions, trade and conservation conventions.”

Dr Driscoll said the review also identified the need to fine-tune expectations of the extent to which we exploit natural resources.

“Water extraction, grazing and logging have well-recognised impacts on native ecosystems. These impacts are set to increase with climate change, so we suggest that re-evaluation and modification of the way that natural resources are managed is critical,” he said.

“Our review also shows that lack of knowledge is not a defence for not taking action now. We found that for the vast majority of threats to biodiversity, enough ecological knowledge and policy options already exist to make effective changes.

“If policy makers act today they can have a real impact on how the crisis will unfold over coming decades.”

Explore further: Koalas feel the heat

Related Stories

Koalas feel the heat

May 4, 2011

The Australian koala is vulnerable to climate change, with the iconic Australian marsupial's habitat likely to be restricted to the highly urbanised areas of eastern and southern Australia under a hotter and drier climate, ...

Aspects of prescribed burning questioned by experts

February 18, 2011

The scientists (from The University of Western Australia, Kings Park and Botanic Garden, and Kew) argue that deliberately increasing the frequency of fires may lead to ecosystem degradation and loss of biodiversity.

Rivers buckle under pressure from climate, dams

March 21, 2011

Climate change is likely to intensify the alarming rate of degradation of the world’s rivers and wetlands unless water resources are better managed, according to a special issue of the international scientific journal ...

Recommended for you

'Smoke rings' in the ocean spotted from space

December 11, 2017

Researchers from the University of Liverpool have spotted the equivalent of smoke-rings in the ocean which they think could 'suck-up' small marine creatures and carry them at high speed and for long distances across the ocean.


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

1 / 5 (5) Aug 02, 2011
Is this another environmental scare story in the thirty-nine (39) year battle (2011-1972 = 39) to avoid the danger of nuclear annihilation by servitude to a one-world government?

See information posted today on Professor Curry's blog about the futility of trying to put the Climategate genie back in the bottle.


With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
3 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2011
published this week in the international, peer reviewed journal Climatic Change

Are you jealous omatumr? Climategate? The only climategate is you guys being paranoid about your own agenda. You are in this AGW ball of wax just like the rest of us. Sucks doesn't it?
1 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2011
Thanks, Howhot.

AGW is as real SSM (Standard Solar Model), OSN (Oscillating Solar Neutrinos), and other politically correct, consensus "science" dogma.

I am in fact grateful that the response of world leaders and scientific organizations to Climategate exposed the plan adopted in secrecy by international agreement between East and West on 21-28 Feb 1972 to save the world from the danger of annihilation in nuclear warfare by compromising the integrity of government funded science.


We physically survived in an increasingly totalitarian world government with tightly controlled information for the past four decades.

Thanks to Climategate and the brave souls who challenged fraudulent climate science, our basic civil rights and the integrity of all fields of science may yet be restored.
1 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2011
Omar, In many respects I agree with you. Your a man of science, and know how big science works. Me, I'm just a computer geek that reads too much. Enjoy the weather, and ask yourself why it's seems hotter than you used to remember. Because it is, and it will only get worst. See the Sun has been at a minimum and it still has been getting hotter and hotter. The heat is AGW.
1 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2011
Omar, In many respects I agree with you. Your a man of science, and know how big science works. Enjoy the weather, and ask yourself why it's seems hotter than you used to remember. Because it is, and it will only get worst. See the Sun has been at a minimum and it still has been getting hotter and hotter. The heat is AGW.

Yes. It has been hot. Darn hot.

It was even hotter about 54 years ago in ~1957, when I was an undergraduate student in Pittsburg, Kansas and daily temperatures reached ~112-113 F for a few days.

CO2 was the exhaust gas from our once booming economy. CO2 is gaseous plant food. It did not cause global warming. If it did, government climatologists would not need to hide and manipulate temperature data.

For an updated review of Climategate and the Collapse of Western Economies and the US Space Program, see Addendum, p 9


2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2011
Omar; I'm not talking politics. Just CO2 science. You have the first step that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (there are worst like water and methane but they don't linger around for thousands of years.) CO2 is gaseous plant food; true! And million year oil, coal, and shale oil are all millions of year of sequestered plants that turned CO2 into that oil, coal and gas.

While releasing all of that CO2 (by burning coal, oil and gas) none is going back into earth. In other words, our generation has saturated the atmosphere with millions of years of CO2 we released all at once over 30 years.

People love there energy. Do you see the problem now my friend?

And as much as people want to deny and keep the status quo, the worst the problem gets.

I'm from Kansas, I know what summers are like. 112 is pretty hot. Dodge had some amazing 100 heat this week, the week before and the week before. All not normal. If not for the occasional thunderstorm who know what the cactus would look like.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.