Abstract
Mechanized approaches to the rehabilitation of degraded rangeland have been extremely popular since the early 1930s but their effectiveness depends on climatic and environmental conditions (e.g. soil texture, pre‐treatment plant cover). We evaluated the effects of pitting, a popular rehabilitation technique based on the creation of elongated soil depressions (pits), on ecosystem structure from 14 trials conducted at 10 sites across an extensive area (~100,000 km 2 ) of rangelands in eastern Australia. Averaged across all sites and rehabilitation times, pitting had a significant positive effect on the cover of perennial forbs and annuals, and suppressed bare ground compared with untreated sites. However, these treatment effects varied with different site conditions such as soil texture, and pre‐treatment rainfall and plant cover among individual sites. Pre‐treatment plant cover, and rainfall in the 3 months prior to measurements increased the effects of pitting on litter cover, and time since treatment increased the relative effect of pitting on annual plant cover. Negative effect of pitting on the cover of bare soil declined with increasing rainfall. Soil moisture was generally greater beneath pits than either control soils or soils between the pits (inter‐pits). Despite some positive effects on annual plant and litter cover, pitting effects were generally short lived, suggesting that a single pitting treatment may fail to achieve long‐term rehabilitation. Given that these field trials were conducted half a century ago under conditions of higher average rainfall, the prognosis for the success of pitting under current conditions of lower rainfall and higher temperature is generally poor.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 10
Claim · model-written summary
Pitting increased perennial forb and annual cover relative to untreated sites.
Verbatim
e0“pitting had a significant positive effect on the cover of perennial forbs and annuals, and suppressed bare ground compared with untreated sites”
Claim · model-written summary
Pitting suppressed bare ground relative to untreated sites.
Verbatim
e0“pitting had a significant positive effect on the cover of perennial forbs and annuals, and suppressed bare ground compared with untreated sites”
Claim · model-written summary
Site conditions modified pitting effects.
Not reportedTaxonDirection
Verbatim
e0“these treatment effects varied with different site conditions such as soil texture, and pre‐treatment rainfall and plant cover among individual sites”
Claim · model-written summary
Greater prior plant cover and rainfall increased the pitting effect on litter cover.
Verbatim
e0“Pre‐treatment plant cover, and rainfall in the 3 months prior to measurements increased the effects of pitting on litter cover”
Claim · model-written summary
Time since treatment increased the relative pitting effect on annual plant cover.
Verbatim
e0“time since treatment increased the relative effect of pitting on annual plant cover”
Claim · model-written summary
Greater rainfall weakened the negative pitting effect on bare soil cover.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Negative effect of pitting on the cover of bare soil declined with increasing rainfall”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil moisture was generally greater beneath pits than in control or inter-pit soil.
- Treatment
- pitse0
- Outcome
- Soil moisturee0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- control soils or soils between the pitse0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Soil moisture was generally greater beneath pits than either control soils or soils between the pits (inter‐pits)”
Claim · model-written summary
Pitting effects were generally short lived.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“pitting effects were generally short lived”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude that a single pitting treatment may fail to achieve long-term rehabilitation.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“a single pitting treatment may fail to achieve long‐term rehabilitation”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors expect poor pitting success under current lower rainfall and higher temperature.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“the prognosis for the success of pitting under current conditions of lower rainfall and higher temperature is generally poor”