Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now to your line of "Buffalo in numbers dont necessarily 'destroy' land... "
Every introduced cloven hoofed animal in Australia has a deleterious effect on our fragile landscape,including the Angus steers we run here.
Well my statement is true - like I said they dont necessarily 'destroy' the land. Of course they will have some effect - as any introduced animal will but properly managed, just like the angus steers, they will not actually destroy the environment.
So how come some Buffalo literally starved themselves to death because of over population pre BTEC and in the process destroyed the landscape / ecosystem (flood plains) by opening up channels that allowed sea water to enter, thereby changing the environment and in some cases destroying it.
Afraid I don't have photos to post.
The same effect that Buffalo had on the wetlands in the north of Australia will also occur with any rise in sea levels (due to ?global warming?). Fresh water becomes sea water, grasses die off, fish die off, Magpie geese will move on.
I will say that I believe they are less likely to destroy the land in the drier areas than in the flood plain areas.
Well you answered this yourself Nigel - overpopulation!!!
Yes you are correct that the inland areas are more durable than the wetlands . Salt-water intrusion is the biggest issue, as you suggested. How big a problem I cannot say - the areas that become salty are old sea beds themselves anyhow... and it varies from area to area - not all floodplains are the same. It seems the Mary River and nearby and extended floodplains were hardest hit - perhaps not just because of the numbers of buffalo but the structure of the floodplain and tidal areas.
Interestingly - over on the country west of Darwin, buffalo are being re-introduced to combat the imbalance created on the floodplains there. The landscaped was changed by buffalo and domestic cattle and they need the buffalo back there to control the grass!!
|