Marloth Park Management Plan. - Nkomazi Local Municipality

Recommendations

Info

Plant community 4: The Spirostachys africana – Balanites maughamii Low bushland This plant community is approximately 390 ha in size, and dominated by broad-leaved panicum Panicum deustum from the Decreaser category. The sub-dominant grass from the same category are Guinea grass Panicum maximum and blue buffalo grass Cenchrus ciliaris also from the Decreaser category. Other grass species includes Annual three-awn Aristida adscensionis and common carrot-seed grass Tragus berteronianus from the Increaser IIc (3) category. The veld condition score of 779 (Table 3) indicate that the veld is in good condition. However, patch-selective grazing does occur. The grazing capacity is estimated at 4.53 ha per Graze Animal Unit. If all open areas on Marloth Park are accepted as suitable habitat for wildlife, 86 GAU (Table 3) can be sustained. If the landscaped garden habitats are excluded this plant community can still sustain 70 GAU (Table 4). However, if only the parkland and road reserves are considered as suitable habitat for animal species, only 37 GAU (Table 5) can be sustained without further degradation of the environment. Plant community 5: The Dichrostachys cinerea – Tragus berteronianus Low bushland This plant community is approximately 193 ha in size, and dominated by common carrot-seed grass Tragus berteronianus from the Increaser IIc (3) category. Although broad-leaved panicum Panicum deustum from the Decreaser category is sub-dominant, the presence of annual three-awn Aristida adscensionis from the Increaser IIc (3) category indicates over- utilisation. The veld condition score of 248 (Table 3) indicate that the veld is in poor condition. However, patch-selective grazing does occur. The grazing capacity is estimated at 8.58 ha per Graze Animal Unit. If all open areas on Marloth Park are accepted as suitable habitat for wildlife, 22 GAU (Table 3) can be sustained. If the landscaped garden habitats are excluded this plant community can still sustain 18 GAU (Table 4). However, if only the parkland and road reserves are considered as suitable habitat for animal species, only 10 GAU (Table 5) can be sustained without further degradation of the environment. Grazing capacity The long-term grazing capacities for Marloth Park is based on available habitat, with due consideration of environmental restrictions and future development implications. The grazing capacity of Marloth Park, if considered that all open areas are considered suitable habitat for game is 304 GAU. However, if the landscaped gardens are excluded from this calculation, only 247 GAU can be sustained. Worst-case scenario is where only the parkland and road reserves are considered suitable habitat for wildlife; in which case only 130 GAU can be sustained. © Ecological Associates/ Marloth Park 45
THE ASSESSMENT OF AVAILABLE BROWSE AND CALCULATION OF INTRODUCTION BROWSING CAPACITY In a vegetation type such as bushveld, it is of importance not only to estimate available grazing, but also available browse, as this component will contribute to the areas ecological carrying capacity. Browsers such as kudu Tragelaphus strepsiceros and intermediate feeders such as impala Aepyceros melampus melampus that utilise both graze and browse resources dominate herbivore populations on Marloth Park. Estimation of tree densities can furthermore, indicate areas of bush encroachment, where species are known for their invasive tendencies. In the early days of wildlife ranching, stocking rates were based solely on the forage, dry biomass requirements for cattle. Irrespective of their feeding behaviour wild southern African herbivores were stocked according to equivalences of Large Stock Units, based on their metabolic mass only. New conversion tables, which take different feeding behaviour and energy requirements of wild southern African ungulates, additionally to metabolic body mass, into consideration were only devised with the development of a technique to measure the available browse. With the advent of this technique a Browse Animal Unit was defined. Browsing capacity is defined as the number of Browse Animal Units that can be maintained in good condition in a certain area, without deterioration of the environment. A Browse Animal Unit was subsequently defined as the equivalent of a kudu Tragelaphus strepsiceros with a body mass of 140 kg, which browses exclusively. Several factors influence the browsing capacity. Not only the density of woody plants and their leaf production, but also the dominant browser population and their maximum browsing height, as well as the accessibility of the leaf material has to be taken into account. To consider these factors total browse is differentiated from available browse. Total browse encompasses all potentially edible woody plant material, whereas available browse includes only woody plant material available to the animals. For most browsers the maximum browse height is limited to 2 m, with the exception of giraffe Giraffa camelopardalis and elephant Loxodonta africana that can browse to a height of 5.5 m. Another factor is the species composition in each homogenous unit, as not all tree species are edible or selected by animals, and many trees develop mechanical and/ or chemical defence mechanisms such as thorns or tannins. The species composition affects the available browse, as the various species show differing phenology in the form of different patterns of leaf-emergence, flowering, fruiting and leaf- loss in the course of the year. © Ecological Associates/ Marloth Park 46
Page 1 and 2: Ecological Associates Environmental
Page 3 and 4: THE ASSESSMENT OF AVAILABLE BROWSE
Page 5 and 6: LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Location
Page 7 and 8: LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1: A li
Page 9 and 10: Three different scenarios are analy
Page 11 and 12: Ecosystems disturbed by clearing op
Page 13 and 14: INTRODUCTION Although only a few ve
Page 15 and 16: Figure 1: Location of the Marloth P
Page 17 and 18: GEOMORPHOLOGY Looking down from the
Page 19 and 20: Figure 4: Geology of the Marloth Pa
Page 21 and 22: Tonalitic granite and gneiss A sect
Page 23 and 24: Figure 6: Soil depth of the Marloth
Page 25 and 26: Figure 7: Land Types of the Marloth
Page 27 and 28: Figure 8: Land use in the Marloth P
Page 29 and 30: A 610.1 B 104.0 C 7.4 D 19.9 E 39.8
Page 31 and 32: INTRODUCTION VEGETATION CLASSIFICAT
Page 33 and 34: METHOD For an initial and broad sca
Page 35 and 36: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Analysis and
Page 37 and 38: The dominant grass species are broa
Page 39 and 40: The characteristic tree species are
Page 41 and 42: VELD CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND THE C
Page 43 and 44: Degradation gradients are models th
Page 45 and 46: The nearest grass species to each s
Page 47 and 48: Calculation of grazing capacity The
Page 49 and 50: Table 2: Contribution of ecological
Page 51: Table 3: Grazing capacities for the
Page 55 and 56: X Y D1 Y Dimensional measurements:
Page 57 and 58: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The browsing
Page 59 and 60: Table 6: Browsing capacities for th
Page 61 and 62: INTRODUCTION ESTIMATION OF HERBACEO
Page 63 and 64: The resulting Large Stock Units are
Page 65 and 66: INTRODUCTION GAME MANAGEMENT ON MAR
Page 67 and 68: STOCKING RATES Current stocking The
Page 69 and 70: Table 10: The current stocking dens
Page 71 and 72: Recommendations on stocking rates C
Page 73 and 74: High selectivity grazers Blue wilde
Page 75 and 76: Waterbuck Kobus ellipsiprymnus Ogil
Page 77 and 78: Space requirements: Kudu have range
Page 79 and 80: Recommendation: The range requireme
Page 81 and 82: Food preference: Steenbok utilise A
Page 83 and 84: Table 12: The potential stocking de
Page 85 and 86: Table 14: The potential stocking de
Page 87 and 88: Table 15: The recommended stocking
Page 89 and 90: The proteins may be less available
Page 91 and 92: When urea is incorporated into a ph
Page 93 and 94: Recommended intake for game is 150
Page 95 and 96: Ticks The main parasite of concern
Page 97 and 98: Figure 12: Sketch of Cyphostemma /C
Page 99 and 100: NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE WEEDS An invas
Page 101 and 102: Management plans need to be reviewe
Page 103 and 104:
Ricinus communis, Solanum sisymbrii
Page 105 and 106:
Although soil treatment with chemic
Page 107 and 108:
Planning errors must be expected, a
Page 109 and 110:
To further reduce grazing pressure
Page 111 and 112:
Lightning induced fires can also ca
Page 113 and 114:
TIME OF BURNING Least damage is cau
Page 115 and 116:
A low intensity fire will be achiev
Page 117 and 118:
Recommendations for Marloth Park Ma
Page 119 and 120:
Surface erosion will reduce water i
Page 121 and 122:
Several different types of waterhol
Page 123 and 124:
Stones Ground level Reinforced conc
Page 125 and 126:
For safety reasons these requiremen
Page 127 and 128:
Adaptive management Applying adapti
Page 129 and 130:
Figure 15: Location of the monitori
Page 131 and 132:
Appendix 1 (Continue) A list of tre
Page 133 and 134:
Appendix 2 (Continue) A list of gra
Page 135 and 136:
Appendix 3 (Continue) A list of for
Page 137 and 138:
Appendix 3 (Continue) A list of for
Page 139 and 140:
Appendix 4: Alien invaders found on
Page 141 and 142:
Appendix 5: Frequency occurrence of
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Appendix 6: Photographs of each veg
Page 157 and 158:
Appendix 6: Photographs of each veg
show all

Marloth Park Management Plan. - Nkomazi Local Municipality

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?