The ‘UWA Future Farm 2050’ Project – testing multidisciplinary

options for future food production systems

Graeme B. Martina,b*, Matthias Leopolda,c, Michael P. Perringdk, Marit E. Kragte,

Philip E. Vercoea,b, Lynette K. Abbotta,c , Susan Baileyf, Rachel J. Standishdj,
Kenneth C. Flowera,d, Richard J. Hobbsd, Dominique Blachea,b, Keith R. Smettemg
Andrew L Guzzomih and J. Patrick G. Bealei
a
UWA Institute of Agriculture, bSchool of Animal Biology, cSchool of Earth and Environment, dSchool of Plant
Biology, eSchool of Agricultural & Resource Economics, fUWA School of Population Health, gSchool of Civil,
Environmental and Mining Engineering, hSchool of Mechanical and Chemical Engineering, iSchool of Architecture,
Landscape and Visual Arts, The University of Western Australia, Crawley 6009, Australia; jSchool of Veterinar y
and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, 90 South Street, Murdoch 6150, Australia; kForest and Nature Laboratory,
Ghent University, BE-9090, Gontrode-Melle, Belgium.

*Corresponding author: Graeme.Martin@uwa.edu.au

Summary
To cope with population projections for 2050, we must go beyond ‘business-as-usual’ in our food
production systems if we are to avoid further compromising the environment and human well-being.
Clearly, the challenges for future farming are multidisciplinary, and solutions can only be developed and
demonstrated on real-world farms. In contrast to traditional research stations, model farms aim to define
the ‘ideal’ farm (for their environment) but begin the transformation now and show that it is profitable.
Model farms can also strengthen links between food producers and food consumers, and between the
university and our communities, our industries, our local authorities and, most importantly, our schools.
This variety of challenges drove the establishment of UWA Future Farm 2050 on a commercial farm in
the south-west of Australia. The project is multidisciplinary, bringing together agricultural, environmental
and social scientists, economists, designers, engineers, farmers, social workers, and local and regional
stakeholders. It is also part of a growing international network of model farms within the Worldwide
Universities Network that includes North Wyke Farm Platform (Devon, UK) and the Thiruvazhamkunnu
Farm Initiative (Kerala, India). Clearly, the local environments of these farms vary greatly – temperate
grassland, mediterranean, and humid tropics – however, the questions are the same and only the solutions
differ.
Here, we outline the project but with an emphasis on the role of soil as the foundation of all agro-
ecological enterprises. In addition to a complete survey of our soils, we need a holistic assessment of
interactions among the atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere and biosphere – the ‘critical zone’ that
sustains terrestrial life – so we joined the international Critical Zone Exploration Network as the first
Critical Zone Observatory in the southern hemisphere. The data generated will help us to manage fertility,
emissions and nutrient leaching of our agricultural soils, and also support our management of the local
ecosystem. The major enterprises on the farm are ‘conservation cropping’, ‘clean, green and ethical’
livestock production, and re-vegetation of degraded land. People are paramount, so the project also
addresses the infrastructure and human relationships needed for the long-term sustainability of farmers
and rural communities. Finally, farming is a business so profitability is also a key measure of
performance. This project has far-reaching goals, will inform scientists and policy-makers world-wide,
and should be part of an international network of model farms that addresses the challenge of feeding
humanity.

  1
Introduction

Over the next few decades, our ability to meet humanity’s need for food will be challenged by
the forces of demand and supply: the demand for food will escalate while our capacity to
produce food will be compromised as agricultural land comes under pressure from climate
change, lack of water, soil degradation and urbanization. With a 50% increase in the global
human population predicted over the next 30 years, it is clear that we cannot continue with
traditional or ‘business as usual’ approaches. Whilst producing food for humanity, farming must
also seek solutions for biodiversity conservation and landscape degradation. This is an issue for
all of society, so participation in solutions will also depend on links between food producers and
food consumers, and between universities and communities, industries, local authorities and,
most importantly, schools. Given the complex, multidisciplinary interactions among these
factors, holistic solutions can be best evaluated and demonstrated on real-world farms, rather
than on traditional research stations (Eisler et al., 2014).

Therefore, rather than wait for problems to arise and then pursue solutions, we have established a
‘model farm’ project, UWA Future Farm 2050 (http://www.ioa.uwa.edu.au/future-farm-2050),
that aims to define the ideal farm for its environment and then implement it as a serious
alternative to current practices. The project is located on Ridgefield, a 1588 ha property near
Pingelly (S 32° 30’ 23” – E 116° 59’ 31”), in a major agricultural region (the ‘grain belt’) of
Western Australia (Figure 1). The climate is Mediterranean and the average annual rainfall is
about 445 mm, most of which falls in the cooler months (April to September).

Figure 1
A) General overview of the regions of Western Australia (WA) showing the location of the farm Ridgefield (white
circle with a cross) in the Grain Belt of WA.
B) Aerial photography of the Ridgefield with the eastern part of the adjacent Boyagin Nature Reserve. Sp: soil
profiles described in Figures 2-4, UTM coordinates zone 50H.

From the beginning in 2009, it was important that Ridgefield not be seen as a classical research
station that hosts a ‘patchwork’ of small trials. Instead, it aims to be a profitable business that
also accommodates the UWA Future Farm 2050 project and inspires research. To maintain
credibility in the industry, profit is a major indicator of success. The major income-generating
enterprises on Ridgefield are crops (cereals, canola) and livestock (meat, wool), but the project

  2
involves more than agriculture – it embraces biodiversity conservation, water and soil
management, the human environment, and community development. Thus, as well as the
traditional agricultural disciplines, researchers and educators in a variety of other fields are
involved, including architecture, landscape architecture, engineering, hydrology, geophysics,
rural development, sports science, and health science. In addition, in the local context, the
project aims to strengthen links between food producers and food consumers (primarily city
inhabitants), by engaging with industry, local authorities and schools (city and rural).

In this paper, we briefly outline the components of the UWA Future Farm 2050 project. We
highlight soil management because soils are the foundation of conservation activities as well as
agricultural production.

1) Natural Resources – Assessment and Management

Quantification of land resources through GIS and related technologies is essential for decision-
making on the farm. We have installed our own GIS transmitter and mapped the farm to 2 cm x2
cm squares matching the map to documentation for the landscape of Ridgefield, as well as the
surrounding areas, including the neighbouring conservation park (Boyagin). We have started to
build up web-GIS to make some data publically available, and to provide source material for
teaching and outreach activities.

With respect to the current income-earning enterprises, the current plan for land allocation is
designed to be agronomically sustainable and to have sufficient flexibility to allow responses to
fluctuations in climate and markets. Thus, at present, the plan is to have 570 ha dedicated to
grain crops every year, with 570 ha in pasture-crop rotation and 380 ha allocated to permanent
pasture or ecosystem management. In any year, about 50% of the arable area will be used for
crops.

Soil assessment and management

A complete survey and analysis of the soils of Ridgefield was essential so was begun
immediately after the farm was acquired and is continuing on an annual basis to increase the
depth of our knowledge of the primary resource. The soil database includes classical soil
descriptions, digital soil mapping, publically available web-GIS sources, hydrological
approaches and the integration of state-of-the-art shallow geophysical methods, such as electrical
conductivity and gamma radiometric mapping. It will provide a foundation for reliable
management decisions for land use. Students, at both undergraduate and postgraduate level, are
central to the data collection but they gain more than classical soil mapping skills because they
also learn to generate land capability assessments (van Gool et al., 2005). These assessments will
be used in future land-use decisions across the farm. Thus, students are integrated into the
commercial farm enterprise and into the UWA Future Farm project and they gain skills that are
highly desirable in modern agribusiness.

The holistic assessment of soils involves an understanding of interactions among the atmosphere,
hydrosphere, lithosphere and biosphere, in the entire space from the top of tree canopy down to
the aquifer, known as the ‘critical zone’ (CZ) in recent scientific literature (National Research
Council, 2001; Wilding & Lin, 2006; Brantley et al., 2007). Within this zone, energy is
transported and transformed and various weathering and soil formation processes enrich, leach
or transform organic and inorganic components, finally generating the zone that sustains most
terrestrial life (Anderson et al., 2004). Critical zone science is a study of the zone that sustains

  3
most terrestrial life (Brantley et al., 2007) and there is clear value in extending the concept to
zones above and below the surface of agricultural soils. Therefore, through the efforts of M
Leopold and D Gleeson, Ridgefield is now connected into an international trans-disciplinary
project, the Critical Zone Exploration Network (CZEN, www.czen.org), as the first CZ
Observatory (CZO) in the southern hemisphere. Ridgefield is an ideal location for studying
integrated processes, such as soil-water-plant-atmosphere interactions, and is now linked to
related studies in a global network of sites addressing similar research questions. The CZ sites
are arranged along global gradients of climate, lithology, duration of land use or weathering age,
and the Ridgefield CZO offers a unique combination of ancient soils in a semiarid climate
(Banwart et al., 2013) within this global network.

CZ studies commonly start by defining the ‘CZ architecture’ (Leopold et al., 2013) – the
physical composition of the shallow subsurface, including soils and underlying sediments and
weathering products. An understanding of the nature and properties of the subsurface allows a
first assessment of potential subsoil constraints, including those relevant to agricultural usage
and to inform ecological restoration. This first step is essential because south-western Australian
soils have experienced multiple phases of erosion, deposition and pedogenesis over a long time,
so we need to unfold the various processes involved to understand better the soil patterns on the
farm.

Much of Ridgefield is occupied by an old weathering profile (Gilkes et al., 2006) that can be
traced throughout the Darling Plateau down to the south-west of Western Australia (Figure 1).
The underlying bedrock of the Darling Plateau consists of the tectonically stable Yilgarn Craton,
an Archaean igneous and metamorphic rock that has been exposed to aerial weathering since the
mid-Proterozoic eon (Annand & Paine 2002). This long-term weathering resulted in a deeply
weathered ancient lateritic profile similar to those currently developing in the tropics. A
schematic overview of this weathering profile is given in Figure 2, and McCrea et al. (1990) and
Gilkes et al. (2006) provide more detailed descriptions. Laboratory methods used to generate the
subsequent data followed the procedures as described in Raymond & Higginson (1992) and
Coughlan et al. (2002).

The main characteristic of these deeply weathered profiles is an iron oxide-enriched hard
duricrust that overlays an intensively leached zone that is quartz- and kaolinite-rich, known as
the pallid zone. Ridgefield is located in an area where most of the old weathering profile has
been partially eroded. Remnants of the full profile, still capped by the duricrust, can be observed
at small outcrops at selected locations on the farm (the remaining areas of forest; Figure 1) and
throughout the wider region. The strong weathering during Tertiary times depleted most nutrient
elements and led to the formation of kaolinite as the primary clay mineral in the pallid zone
(Anand, 1984; McCrea et al., 1990). The Darling Range is a fluvially dissected landscape, so
parts of the old weathering profile were eroded and re-deposited along the slopes and valley
floors. Therefore, colluvial sediments together with material transported by fluvial and aeolian
processes form the majority of the parent materials of the soils now used for agriculture. In other
words, old, weathered and nutrient-deficient sediments and residuum form the parent material of
most soils on Ridgefield, and present challenging conditions for farming. However, nutrient
deficiency is not the only limiting soil factor for agriculture because low water-holding capacity,
water repellency, acidity, high density and salinity present additional constraints that often have
their origin in the old weathering profile.

  4
Figure 2. Generalised weathering profile in the Darling Range with site-specific images from Ridgefield.
Weathering products have been eroded and re-deposited throughout the area as colluvium and alluvium and form
the parent materials for most of the soils currently used for crops and pasture.

Soil Profile 1
This profile is found at the site indicated in Figure 2 and is typical of many areas of the Darling
Plateau. It is a shallow, rather sandy soil with a very large proportion of large gravels and
boulders. Apart from iron oxide formation, the pedogenesis in the B horizon is very weak. These
soils are currently not used for agriculture but native trees tend to grow well if their root system
finds access through the duricrust down into the pallid zone.

Agriculture is supported primarily by two soil profiles: Profile 2 (Figure 3) is from area used for
pasture whereas Profile 3 (Figure 4) is from an area used for cropping. Their physical-chemical
properties illustrate some of the most common constraints of Western Australian soils.

Soil Profile 2
The texture is classified as loamy sand with a clay fraction of 8.6% in the topsoil that falls to
2.1% at a depth of 35 cm. The high abundance of quartz sand together with the low cation
exchange capacity of the clay mineral (kaolinite) result in very low CEC values of 5.1–1.7
cmol(+) x kg-1. With the coarse soil texture, there is also a low water-holding capacity

  5
throughout the profile. Organic carbon is low (0.1–0.4 %) throughout the profile and, in
combination with the low clay content, causes moderately severe water repellency (King, 1981).
Water repellency limits infiltration at the beginning of the growing season and may cause severe
erosion during intense autumn storms (Harper et al., 2000). Soil pH(CaCl2) can be as low as 4.3,
indicating a need for lime. The electrical conductivity reaches 467 µS*cm-1 in the upper 35 cm of
the profile, a level of salinity affects the growth of agricultural species.

Figure 3. Physical and chemical properties for major soil horizons in an example of a soil currently used for grazing
on Ridgefield. For profile location see Figure 1. Profile classified according to the Australian Soil Classification
(Isbell, 1996).

Soil Profile 3
This profile represents an area that has been repeatedly used for crops of wheat and barley,
sometimes in rotation with pasture. It is located in a mid-hill position and is an example of the
better soils on the farm. The texture is a sandy loam with a clay content of 12–14 % in the upper
55 cm. Clay content increases with depth, reaching a maximum of 32% clay at 55 cm and
shifting the texture class to sandy clay. Bulk density rises from 1.5 g*(cm3)-1 to more than 1.8
g*(cm3)-1, thus limiting the available pore space and internal drainage, increasing the
susceptibility to water logging during the wet season in winter, and limiting the potential for
rooting below 55 cm. Soil pH(CaCl2) is between 5.5 and 5.9 and the electrical conductivity is
rather low with values between 89–43 µS*cm-1 throughout the profile. Organic carbon is 2.8% in
the top 12 cm, and falls rapidly to less than 0.2% below 55 cm. The severity of the water
repellency risk was estimated as low. CEC varies between 2 and 3 cmol(+)*kg-1 but increases
markedly to 15.5 cmol(+)*kg-1 in the clay-enriched B2 horizon.

Comparison of the two agricultural soil profiles

The constraints of sandy texture, low CEC and water-holding capacity, water repellency risk,
acidity and high salinity, are mostly inherited from the old laterite weathering profile that was
modified during a more semi-arid climate (McArthur, 1991). These constraints are common in
Western Australian soils. Nevertheless, these two soils on Ridgefield differ markedly, as
reflected in their contrasting land uses. Soil Profile 2, classified as a Brown Ortic Tenosol in the
Australian Soil Classification system (Isbell, 1996; McDonald, 2009), has constraints throughout
the entire solum. By contrast, Soil Profile 3 (a Brown Mesotrophic Chromosol) has constraints
that change with depth, a 55 cm deep zone, a clay content of more than 12% and thus a good

  6
water-holding capacity, a significant carbon stock, and acceptable acidity (above pH 5). CEC
values are still low but Soil Profile 3 is valuable and very suitable for crops. However, at a depth
of 55 cm, conditions change greatly. There is an abrupt increase in clay content with depth and
this profile is consequently considered to be a typical Australian duplex soil (Chittleborough,
1992). Duplex soils are widespread in Western Australia and present severe subsoil constraints.
Bulk densities of >1.8 g*(cm3)-1 do not allow crop roots to easily penetrate and greatly increase
susceptibility to water logging during the wet season. Nevertheless, the upper part of the profile,
which increases in thickness towards the toe slope to over 1 m, allows well-adapted crop species
to produce average yields of 2 t/ha on Ridgefield.

Figure 4. Physical and chemical properties for major soil horizons in an example of a soil currently used for
cropping on Ridgefield. For profile location see Figure 1. Profile classification according to the Australian Soil
Classification (Isbell, 1996).

The Ridgefield CZ observatory will provide baseline data on water repellency of top soils,
encroaching salinity, changes in water storage capacity due to soil degradation, and the role of
microbial communities in materials metres below the agricultural layer. For the UWA Future
Farm project, the activities of the CZO will allow better management of fertility, emissions, and
leaching, and the power of the CZO data will be magnified as measurements are repeated in the
coming years and we can assess the outcomes of our management strategies. Moreover, CZO
information will be integrated with climate models to help predict the impact of reduced rainfall
in the region.

International linkages are built into the CZEN. The UWA Future Farm project hosted the first
international summer school addressing CZ science questions in ancient soils in the southern
hemisphere in February 2015. This event allowed doctoral students and early career scientists to
extend their understanding of the ancient, highly weathered, leached and often water-repellent
soils that are typical of many areas of south western Australia.

Land resource allocation

The combination of data from the Critical Zone Observatory (CZO), hydrology, geography and
crop yields will allow us to devise a plan for the subdivision of the farm according to enterprise,

  7
and then progressively modify the plan as we gather new data. Land will be allocated on the
basis of suitability for cropping (continuous or rotational), grazing (continuous or rotational),
permanent native vegetation reserves (water courses, biodiversity corridors, erosion prevention,
and land otherwise unsuitable for productive agriculture) and infrastructure projects (buildings,
stock handling, communications, roads, fences, water capture).

2) Environmental Management and Restoration

As landowners and managers, farmers and graziers are responsible for about half of Australia’s
landscape (ABS,  2014) so they have played, and must continue to play, a significant role in
management and restoration of the environment and biodiversity. Government-funded initiatives
such as the Landcare Initiative, Caring for our Country, and Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI;
see below) were designed to help farmers conserve biological diversity and to reverse land
degradation (Hajkowicz, 2009). Environmental management and restoration can contribute
towards biodiversity conservation, productivity, and human well-being in Australia’s agricultural
landscapes.

There is significant potential for improving the conservation of biodiversity assets on Ridgefield.
The woodland remnant vegetation is representative of some of the historical vegetation cover
that existed within the Shire of Pingelly prior to extensive clearing for agricultural development
(Jenkins, 1997). Most of these remnants are located on lateritic breakaways and this land is not
suitable for agriculture, based on our land capability assessments. In general, the condition of the
upslope vegetation in these remnants is generally fair whereas the condition of the downslope
vegetation is mostly poor (weedy and nutrient enriched), probably because of grazing by sheep
and fertilizer/herbicide drift. The first step towards woodland recovery, fencing to exclude
grazing sheep (Standish et al., 2008), is already included in the land-use plan for Ridgefield. Our
plans for conservation of our woodland remnants has broader implications because such
remnants could act as ‘stepping stones’ to the neighbouring 6,700-hectare Boyagin Nature
Reserve, one of only two large nature reserves in the Shire, and another indicator of the original
landscape.

A second step towards improvement of the biodiversity assets of Ridgefield is the establishment
of native vegetation to improve connectivity among woodland remnants, buffer woodland
remnants from soil erosion, and alleviate land degradation. In particular, there is scope to plant
native vegetation alongside the water courses that run through the farm to initiate the restoration
of these riparian ecosystems (e.g., Nimbedilling Brook). This is the goal of City Kids to the
Country, a program that was initiated in 2011. Successive groups of school students germinate
thousands of individuals of selected species of native trees and shrubs in glasshouses and then
plant them in the riparian corridors. City Kids to the Country is one part of a broad outreach
program of the UWA Future Farm 2050 project that includes mini-research projects by students
from city schools as well as visits by students from regional schools. These projects strengthen
the understanding of soil, farming systems and biodiversity among teachers as well as their
students. Through these activities, the restoration activities have also engaged the wider
university community in UWA Future Farm 2050 project.

The value of our schemes for environmental management and restoration goes beyond
biodiversity conservation because there are also benefits for agricultural production (Zanaboni &
Lorenzoni, 1989; Plantinga & Wu, 2003; Lin et al., 2013; Standish & Hulvey, 2014; Kragt &
Robertson, 2014). The benefits for pasture output have long been known (Walpole, 1999) and
now detailed analyses are emerging of the benefits of retaining or reinstating elements that

  8
deliver significant ecosystem services to agriculture (Zhang et al., 2007; Kareiva et al., 2011;
Kremen & Miles, 2012). Of particular interest in Western Australia is the control of secondary
salinization by perennial species (Hatton & Nulsen, 1999). Three species can simultaneously
provide fodder for livestock (see below) and several other services or benefits (George et al.,
2012). Current agricultural systems might not be resilient in the longer term (Allison & Hobbs,
2004), so there is increasing interest in how they can gain resilience by incorporating structural
and functional aspects of native vegetation that better fit with local conditions (Lefroy et al.
1999).

‘Carbon farming’ opportunities

Given the long-term vision of the UWA Future Farm project, we will need to plan for the
management of carbon emissions and sequestration on Ridgefield. The concept of ‘carbon
farming’ recognizes the significant opportunities for reduction of carbon pollution by increasing
the amount of carbon stored on the land in the farming, forestry and land sectors. Those who
pursue such opportunities would hope to be rewarded through Government schemes like the
Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI), one of a range of policies aimed at mitigation of climate
change (Australian Government, 2014). While Australia’s ‘carbon farming’ policies have not
been finalised at the time of writing1, in principle, such schemes allow farmers and land
managers to earn carbon credits by taking on practices that increase carbon storage in soils or
vegetation, or reduce greenhouse gas emissions from their operations. Carbon credits could then
be sold on the voluntary market to parties needing or wishing to offset their emissions.
Methodologies that are eligible for carbon credits would be determined by the Government, and
include activities such as reforestation, native forest protection, avoided clearing, savanna fire
management and sequestration of soil carbon in grazing systems2.

One of the opportunities for carbon farming is tree plantings at paddock scale (Bradshaw et al.,
2013). As we have seen above, this activity has the potential to contribute more generally
towards biodiversity conservation, landscape health and agricultural productivity. It is generally
assumed that plantings of single species will sequester more carbon than plantings of multiple
species, leading to concerns among environmentalists that carbon farming is a ‘bioperverse’
initiative that will promote monocultures with low biodiversity values (Lindenmayer et al.,
2011), rather than sustainable farming, and even lead to reductions in funding for landscape
restoration projects. However, this might not be the case because evidence is emerging that
planting multiple species will sequester at least as much carbon as planting only the single most
productive species (Hulvey et al., 2013; Perring et al., 2015).

Furthermore, in the future, biodiversity plantings might also attract payment, so farmers could
earn income from this source plus carbon sequestration. Such incentive payments would be
additional to productivity gains from ecosystem services (e.g., Jack et al., 2008; Gordon et al.,
2011; Gilroy et al., 2014). The complexity of these issues can be best resolved through long-term
studies to assess trade-offs among the ecosystem services that can be provided by carbon
plantings, and how the delivery of such services can be achieved with attention to the design and
species composition of plantings. One such study has been instigated at Ridgefield (Perring et
al., 2012) as part of the TreeDivNet global network of research on biodiversity and ecosystem
functioning of woody ecosystems (www.treedivnet.ugent.be). Clearly, this endeavour will also
benefit from the activities of the CZO.
                                                                                                               
1
More information: http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/emissions-reduction-fund
2
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/reducing-carbon/carbon-farming-initiative/methodologies/methodology-
determinations

  9
In conclusion, it is anticipated that Ridgefield will eventually become an accredited carbon
provider, so that established permanent plantings, re-vegetation efforts and other efforts at
regeneration can gain credits for the carbon sequestered. We are exploring how agricultural
systems can incorporate structural and functional aspects of native vegetation in order to develop
a better fit with local conditions and hence a more resilient agricultural system (Lefroy et al.,
1999). In addition, new grazing systems that reduce methane emissions, based on inclusion of
native shrubs in permanently established pastures (Section 6 below), might also be eligible for
carbon credits through a CFI, whilst yielding benefits in terms of biodiversity and ecosystem
services.

3) Farm Infrastructure

Infrastructure development needs to deal with two types of need: those of the commercial
operation on Ridgefield, with a view to is essential to ‘future-proofing’ the farm, and those of the
broader UWA Future Farm 2050 project. These two needs are often complementary, but
sometimes conflicting, and can be very costly, so have to be introduced in a manner that takes
into account both priority and funding. For example, the original farm fences were very
dilapidated and needed to be replaced, but the total cost of re-fencing the whole farm in a single
operation was prohibitive. Additionally, it was likely that soil mapping coupled with machinery
and livestock considerations would reveal that previous fence layouts were not ideal. A fencing
plan was therefore formulated and with implementation spread over 5 stages, in order of
urgency.

The farm is currently ill served by its built infrastructure. At one end of the property is the old
homestead, surrounded haphazardly by a collection of open-fronted sheds that serve a range of
purposes, except shearing. The shearing shed itself is potentially a landmark structure but is in
need of restoration and conservation. At the other end of the property, over two kilometers away,
is a small second set of animals yards serving some of the needs for sheep management. The
bulk of the land lies between and is agglomerated around the geographical center of the farm.
The long-term plan is to re-locate the built infrastructure of the farming operation to the
geographical center of the farm. Architecture masters students have made developed designs that
combine animal facilities, field laboratories, a ‘visitors’ centre, and capacity for the efficient
deployment of machinery. Their studies concentrated on large-span prefabricated engineered
timber structures that can economically replace the typical steel-framed, corrugated-iron clad
agricultural structures that are scattered across the rural landscape of Australia. State-of-the-art
animal handling systems are to be designed for efficient low-stress movement and holding of
animals. All buildings are to be self-sufficient for water and electricity, a principle already
established for the new residence of the farm manager (see below).

Water management

Very few areas in our region have access to potable water so we are dependent on rainfall.
Within that context, one of our major goals is to avoid business decisions about the livestock
enterprises being controlled by water availability. To achieve this goal, a surface water
management plan for the farm is being implemented to provide a reliable water supply for 1500
sheep plus 200 kL per month for spraying and fire fighting.

Using analysis of runoff from paved (‘roaded’) catchments (Hollick, 1982; Laing, 1981), we
selected a configuration for a dam of 5500 m3 that would fail to fill in only 2 years out of 50.

  10
With a rainfall threshold of 5-6 mm, 3 ha of catchment would be required if we increased runoff
by reducing soil permeability with a binder (Lantzke, 2005). The binder is incorporated
thoroughly into moist soil by rotary harrows and then compacted with a heavy vibrating roller to
give a smooth durable surface. Runoff from this paved catchment is collected in a state-of-the-art
rectangular dam, with a top measurement of 56 x 43 m, a bottom measurement of 21 x 13 m, a
depth of 4.5 m, and a batter slope of 3.3:1 (17°). Runoff enters via slightly raised inlet pipes that
allow sediment to settle out on the upstream entrance point so the stored water is clean. Careful
excavation and compaction using a vibrating padfoot roller has ensured a good seal on the base.
After the base was compacted, the batters were side-cut to remove any loose material and then
given a final compaction. Topsoil was applied to the external batters and on top of the wall and
top-dressed with pasture to improve the integrity and aesthetic appeal.

In addition to deciding on a design, it was necessary to find an optimal site, a difficult issue
because of the prolific granite outcrops on ‘Ridgefield’. More than 20 sites were drilled and soil
samples were subjected to geotechnical testing. Test results that suggested that a dam would leak
forced the selection of another site. Test results also influenced the final construction process by
allowing decisions to mix soils for the walls, or locate excavated soils outside of the
embankment. For long-term planning, we will establish a system for monitoring hydrological
processes and the way they respond to changes in farm management – another example of where
deeper knowledge gained through the CZO will help farm management decisions.

Housing for people – on the farm and in the towns

Rural Western Australia has seen a significant exodus of population over the last 30 to 50 years
similar to that experienced in many areas of the world. One consequence is a dearth of local
builders and building skills from all but the largest rural centres, often hundreds of kilometres
from a jobsite, so transport of materials, skills and labour for conventional building projects is
very costly. A common solution has been to use modular transportable homes built to a standard
format, but poor quality materials and construction, compounded by wind and vibration damage
during transport at high speeds over long distances, has led to low-quality structures. Such
buildings are also ill-suited to their climatic environment and their landscape context.

For Ridgefield, we have used state-of-the-art design processes and innovative low-cost
construction processes to produce a modular building system that is factory-built to high
standards and incorporates environmentally efficient features. The prototype house built for the
Ridgefield farm manager was delivered in flat-pack modules ready for assembly in a short
timeframe. The house covers 170 m2, can be configured in three or four bedroom formats, and is
designed to be responsive to the climate and its particular location on the farm. Most important is
the roof – it is insulated in excess of R7.0, the highest rated category for domestic insulation
(AS4859; Standards Australia). The roof has deep eaves extending 1.2m beyond the perimeter,
keeping summer sun off the external walls while admitting as much warming winter sun as
possible.AS4859 compliant], and has deep eaves keeping summer sun off the walls while
admitting as much warming winter sun as possible. Rooms are equipped with opposing sets of
louvres to permit rapid cooling at night and to control airflow. The structural frame and floors
are built from renewable hardwood and timber certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (an
international not for-profit organization that promotes responsible management of the world’s
forests). The deep profile roof is clad with a corrugated metal sheet that is coated with ceramic
nanoparticles that reflects up to 40 % more heat than conventional corrugated sheet. Windows
are ‘low E glass’ and the external wall cladding is a fire-resistant low-density fibre cement sheet.

  11
Electrical systems are controlled by a Philips Dynalite smart wiring system that automatically
manages the lighting (all LED) to respond to daylight conditions.

The house is sited on ground that rises to about 30 m above the surrounding fields towards a
rocky outcrop with remnant woodland that offers shelter from the hot summer and cold winter
winds. The floor deck of the house rests on stilts that normally require simple 600 x 600 mm pad
footings but investigation of the soils on the site suggested a more robust platform was needed.
The soils vary in depth from 300 to over 1200 mm and are similar to Profile 2 (see above),
although a slightly higher clay content was evident in the deeper test drills. Because of this
inconsistency a sand and gravel platform was constructed and compacted in layers to provide a
consistent base for the adjustable steel stilts. The stilts assist summer cooling, reduce the risk of
termite infestation and mitigate the effects of seismic activity (the region experiences about 100
small tremors per year). Self-sufficiency in water is delivered by collecting rain from the roof
into two 128 kL tanks and all electricity is provided by photovoltaic panels (see below). The
Ridgefield house is a prototype that demonstrates our ability to alter radically the provision of
good quality climate responsive housing to rural and remote regions.

Electricity

Through the UWA School of Electrical, Electronic & Computer Engineering, Ridgefield is host
to a research project, Performance assessment of solar photovoltaic technologies in warm and
sunny climates. This project is investigating the effects of high operating temperatures and high
solar irradiation levels on the performance of two alternative state-of-the-art thin-film and bulk
crystalline silicon solar photovoltaic technologies, generating a total of 10 kWh, combined with
state-of-the-art batteries and monitoring. The outcomes of this project will inform the design of
all future buildings on Ridgefield.

4) Community relationships

A very important goal for UWA Future Farm 2050 is to be a valued member of the local
community. Our activities will influence the local economy and the impact will be measured in
student projects. As far as possible, farm purchases are made locally, university staff contribute
to community activities in the local towns, and the local community is invited to inspect the
project. Links have been made with the local high schools, and presentations given to the local
shires. In addition, there are other discipline-based activities focusing on development of
township infrastructure and community relationships.

Ridgefield is located on Gnaala Karla Boodja land where farmers, animals and legislatures have
influenced the landscape for over 200 years since colonial settlement. Since the acquisition of
the farm in 2009, a diverse range of disciplines has become involved in the variety of research
projects, as described in this paper, and the UWA Future Farm 2050 project has become a unique
and interesting space where academics from the arts and sciences sit side-by-side in a shared
vision. This is a rare opportunity to build upon existing processes, to challenge artificial
disciplinary boundaries, and to work alongside communities.

Of particular relevance to the vision of the UWA Future Farm 2050 project is the often poorly
recognized and complex social challenges caused by ecological overshoot, for which only a
trans-disciplinary approach can find solutions (Hajkowicz et al., 2012). To be successful, a trans-
disciplinary approach needs creative collaborations, trusting, respectful and productive
relationships with communities, and purposeful, planned processes that create spaces where

  12
there can be genuine sharing of perspectives, relationships and plans for action. The UWA Future
Farm 2050 project provides for these needs.

In late 2012, the discipline of Social Work (School of Population Health) developed and
implemented a plan that would allow students to understand the importance of dealing with
sustainability issues through the practice of ‘eco-social work’. The plan brings together social
and ecological domains through the purposeful inclusion of interdisciplinary collaborations,
urban and rural communities, non-human life, and the land. A community development approach
is used with students involved in two ways: i) Semester-long community projects (over 30
students to date); and ii) Field education (12-week full-time placements). These opportunities
provide the students and staff in social work with experience of a trans-disciplinary project
where the aim is to bridge gaps, blur boundaries and work together to solve problems, a step
towards addressing the complex social and ecological challenges facing our planet.

5) ‘Clean, Green and Ethical’ (CGE) Livestock Production

A prevalent view is that ruminant industries cause rather than solve problems (FAO, 2006) but,
to ensure the production of sufficient food for humanity, we need to consider all options,
including industries based on ruminant animals (Eisler et al., 2014). The value of ruminants is
that they can digest biomass that we humans cannot digest and convert it into food that we can
digest. Therefore, despite the pressures on ruminant production systems, a flock around 4000
female sheep is the second major commercial enterprise for Ridgefield. However, livestock
systems must not be studied in isolation from crop-based production systems, or in isolation
from problems in environmental management and conservation.

Our vision for livestock management recognizes the increasing international pressure for animal
products that are ‘clean, green and ethical’ (Martin et al., 2004). ‘Clean’ involves minimizing the
use of drugs, chemicals and hormones; ‘green’ involves minimizing the impact on the
environment (particularly, the greenhouse gas, methane); and ‘ethical’ focuses on animal
welfare. On Ridgefield, we will pursue this vision on two fronts – animal breeding and
alternative grazing systems. For breeding, we will use the power of genetics to optimize the
sheep flock for the needs of CGE management (Martin & Greeff, 2011). The immediate focus
will be on temperament (Blache & Bickell, 2010) and resistance to internal parasites and to
flystrike (Williams et al., 2010; Greeff et al., 2013).

Alternative grazing systems is a major activity because it meshes with the whole-farm, holistic
nature of the UWA Future Farm 2050 project. Work by PE Vercoe and DK Revell, recognized
with the 2013 Eureka Prize for Sustainable Agriculture, has inspired great interest in Australian
indigenous plant species, particularly the deep-rooted perennial shrubs. These species are
adapted to our climate and soils, and many of them offer other benefits, including abilities to
combat gastrointestinal nematodes, acidosis and methane emissions (Revell et al., 2008, 2013;
Kotze et al., 2009; Bickell et al., 2010; Hutton et al., 2012). In addition, during lambing, the
shrubs will effectively become ‘edible shelter’ and should improve lamb survival in inclement
weather (Oldham et al., 2008).

The shrubs will be incorporated into new grazing systems that operate in rotation with food crops
or are permanently established in areas of the farm where cropping is not feasible. The
permanent systems will most likely not be monocultures but mixtures of species of fodder
grasses, legumes and shrubs (Revell et al., 2008, 2013). The shrubs are expected to improve the
productivity of adjacent pasture by lowering saline ground water level, increasing soil carbon

  13
content, and reducing wind speed, thus lowering evaporative moisture loss from the soil and
providing shelter that protects soils and plants. The mix of species should also improve natural
resource management by providing a reservoir for beneficial invertebrates and increasing
biodiversity.

Ridgefield has been accepted by the FAO of the United Nations into its repository of best-
practice models in grassland, rangeland and pastoral management, allowing us to participate in a
synthesis of best practices that can be used in the development of technical and policy guidelines
for sustainable grassland management for a range of agro-ecological regions.
http://www.fao.org/nr/sustainability/grassland/best-practices/best-practices/en/

6) Conservation Cropping

Grain cropping (wheat, canola) is the largest source of income for Ridgefield and usually the
major crops in the ‘grain belt’ of south-western Australia. We will use ‘no till’ cropping, a
practice that has been extensively adopted by dry-land grain growers in our region (D’Emden et
al., 2008). Among its major benefits are timeliness of seeding in relation to autumn rainfall
events and the use of crop residues to reduce the risk of soil erosion by water and wind during
the hot, dry summer and autumn that follow harvest (Findlater et al., 1990). Crop residues also
offer protection against temperature extremes and should improve the retention of moisture,
particularly in autumn as seeding time approaches (Ward et al., 2012), two issues that will gain
importance with the drying climate that is predicted for our region as we head towards 2050. In
addition, no-till practices, especially with controlled wheel tracks, help maintain soil structure by
minimizing cultivation and compaction by machinery (Hamza & Anderson, 2005) and
increase soil microbial function associated with organic matter (Cookson et al., 2008). Other
practices that lead to retention of soil carbon in this region also need to be considered (Hoyle et
al., 2013).

At present no-till (or minimal till) practices rely solely on herbicides for weed control because of
the reduction or elimination of cultivation. A major challenge to ‘no-till’ cropping is the
accelerated evolution of weed resistance to herbicides, the result of a complex interaction
between the underlying genetics, weed management practices, and the biology of the weed
species (Renton et al., 2012; Norsworthy et al., 2012). To drive and sustainably maintain weed
populations to very low levels, not only will we combine best practice use of herbicides with
control of weed seeds at harvest (Walsh et al., 2013), we will also adopt state-of-the-art targeted
tillage technologies being engineered at the University of Western Australia (AL Guzzomi,
personal communication, 2016). The proposed targeted tillage system differs from robotic
mechanical weeders used in horticulture. It has been designed taking into consideration the
challenging large scale and rugged cropping environments common in Australia, is compatible
with tramline farming and re-introduces tillage into the minimal tillage environment.

Although not unique to no-till cropping, a similar problem of resistance is arising with
insecticides, so there is developing interest in holistic alternative approaches, as embodied in the
concepts of integrated weed management and integrated pest management (Llewellyn et al.
2007; Norsworthy et al., 2012; Macfadyen et al., 2014). We are exploring the potential of UAV
and UGV devices to facilitate remote sensing to map soils, crops and areas with pest infestations,
so that applications of fertilizers, chemicals and mechanical weeding can be targeted.

Whilst ultimately the ability for swarm robotics to assist with efficient large scale farming on
uneven topography is showing potential (AL Guzzomi, personal communication, 2016), feasible

  14
adoption is some years off. In the interim we are adopting those algorithms to plan fence
placement for more efficient single machinery use and depot placement. This will improve
profitability and reduce environmental impact.

On Ridgefield, we will confront these challenges, but we will also need to deal with competition
within the farm for land resources by other enterprises, particularly livestock and ecosystem
restoration (Fisher et al. 2011). The complexity of these interactions requires access to a whole-
farm model, as well as inputs from the CZO for soil water, temperature, erosion, fertility,
structure, and soil carbon (Hoyle et al., 2013).

Conclusions

The UWA Future Farm 2050 project, developed on a full-scale, commercial ‘model farm’,
encourages staff and students in a wide variety of university-based disciplines to engage with
agricultural industries and rural communities. The project incorporates research and modeling
within a commercial farming enterprise and offers opportunities for evaluation and
demonstration of innovative practices that integrate the major enterprises – livestock, cropping,
resource management and environmental restoration. Soil is the foundation of all of these
enterprises so we are surveying and analyzing our soils, but also moving towards a holistic
assessment of interactions among the atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere and biosphere (the
‘critical zone’). International relevance is ensured by connection to three global research
networks, the Critical Zone Exploration Network, the network on biodiversity and ecosystem
functioning of woody ecosystems, TreeDivNet, and the FAO repository of best practice models
in grassland, rangeland and pastoral management. Finally, in recognition of the importance of
people in meeting the challenges facing agriculture, we are developing innovative infrastructure
and community relationships. The involvement of the students and teachers of local and city
schools, as well as members of the local community, is an integral aspect of the project. There is
real scope for expanding the ‘model farm’ concept to a variety of geographical and socio-
economic environments and, should such moves be successful, the outcome must be greatly
improved options for ‘feeding the world without destroying the planet’.

Acknowledgements
The UWA Future Farm 2050 project is the result of wide-ranging discussions over several years with
many colleagues at the University of Western Australia who are involved in the Project. We are
particularly indebted to those with sufficient vision to understand our vision and then support the project,
including Professor Alan Robson (a soil scientist who was vice-chancellor of the University at time we
purchased Ridgefield) and Professor Kadambot Siddique (Director of the UWA Institute of Agriculture
within which the project finds its home). The development of the Ridgefield since it was acquired has
been driven largely by Ms Kristy Robertson, Dr Ian Williams and Mr Steven Wainewright. The initiation
of the water plan was largely the work of Mr David Stanton of the UWA Centre for Ecohydrology. We
are particularly indebted to Mr Bruce Ivers for his efforts in initiating City Kids to the Country, and to the
World-Wide Universities Network for support for the Critical Zone Exploration Network and for
supporting the internationalization of the model farm concept through Ensuring Sustainable and
Responsible Production of Healthy Food from Healthy Animals. For ensuring that the academics keep
their feet on the ground, we are grateful to Mr Ashley Herbert of Agrarian Management for his clear
focus on the farm business, and to Ms Christine Shervington for her clear focus on the university
business.

References

ABS 2014. Agricultural Commodities, Australia 2012–13. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.

  15
Allison, H.E. & Hobbs, R.J. 2004. Resilience, adaptive capacity and the "Lock-in" trap of the Western Australian
agricultural region. Ecology and Society, 9, 3. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art3.
Anderson, S.P., Blum, J., Brantley, S., Chadwick, O., Chorover, J., Derry, L. et al. 2004. Proposed initiative would
study Earth’s weathering engine. EOS, 85, 265–272.
Anand, R.R. & Paine, M. 2002. Regolith geology of the Yilgarn Craton, Western Australia: Implications for
exploration, Australian Journal of Earth Science, 49, 3–162.
Anand, R.R., Gilkes, R.J., Armitage, T.M. & Hillyer, J.W., 1985. Feldspar weathering in lateritic saprolite. Clays
and Clay Minerals, 33/1, 31–43.
Australian Government 2014. The positive list: Carbon Farming Initiative. Department of Environment, Canberra.
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/reducing-carbon/carbon-farming-initiative/activities-eligible-and-
excluded/positive-list (viewed 25 June 2014).
Banwart, S.A., Chorover, J., Gaillardet, J., Sparks, D., White, T., Anderson, S. et al. 2013. Sustaining Earth’s
Critical Zone. Basic Science and Interdisciplinary Solutions for Global Challenges. The University of
Sheffield, United Kingdom ISBN: 978-0-9576890-0-8, 48p.
Bickell, S.L., Durmic, Z., Blache, D., Vercoe, P.E. & Martin, G.B. 2010. Rethinking the management of health and
reproduction in small ruminants. In: Updates on Ruminant Production and Medicine; Proceedings of the 26th
World Buiatrics Congress, Santiago, Chile (Eds.: F. Wittwer, R. Chihuailaf, H. Contreras, C. Gallo, J. Kruze,
F. Lanuza, et al.), pp. 317–325. Andros Impresoroes, Chile.
Blache, D. & Bickell, S.L. 2010. Temperament and reproductive biology: emotional reactivity and reproduction in
sheep. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 39 (supplement), 401–408.
Bradshaw, C.J.A., Bowman, D.M.J.S., Bond, N.R., Murphy, B.P., Moore, A.D., Fordham, D.A. et al. 2013. Brave
new green world - Consequences of a carbon economy for the conservation of Australian biodiversity.
Biological Conservation, 161, 71–90.
Brantley, S.L., Goldhaber, M.B. & Ragnarsdottir, K.V. 2007. Crossing disciplines and scales to understand the
critical zone. Elements, 3, 307–314.
Chittleborough, D.J. 1992. Formation and pedology of duplex soils. Australian Journal of Experimental
Agriculture, 32, 815–825.
Cookson, W.R., Murphy, D.V. & Roper, M.M. 2008. Characterizing the relationships between soil organic matter
components and microbial function and composition along a tillage disturbance gradient. Soil Biology and
Biochemistry, 40, 763–777.
Coughlan, K., Cresswell, H. & McKenzie, N. 2002. Soil Physical Measurement and Interpretation for Land
Evaluation. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood Australia, 392 pp.
D’Emden, F.H., Llewellyn, R.S. & Burton, M.P. 2008. Factors influencing adoption of conservation tillage in
Australian cropping regions. Australian Journal of Agricultural Resource Economics, 52, 169–182.
Eisler, M.C., Lee, M.R.F., Tarlton, J.F., Martin, G.B., Beddington, J., Dungait, J.A.J. et al. 2014. Steps to
sustainable livestock. Nature (London), 507, 32–34.
FAO. 2006. Livestock’s Long Shadow – Environmental Issues and Options. Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Findlater, P.A., Carter, D.J. & Scott, W.D. 1990. A model to predict the effects of prostrate ground cover on wind
erosion. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 28, 609–622.
Fisher, J., Tozer, P. & Albrecht, D. 2011. Livestock in no-till cropping systems – a story of trade-offs. Animal
Production Science, 52, 197–214.
George, S.J., Harper, R.J. Hobbs, R.J. & Tibbett, M. 2012. A sustainable agricultural landscape for Australia: a
review of interlacing carbon sequestration, biodiversity and salinity management in agroforestry systems.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 163, 28–36.
Gilkes, R.J., Scholz, G. & Dimmock, G.M., 2006. Lateritic deep weathering of granite. Journal of Soil Science,
24/4, 523–536.
Gilroy, J.J., Woodcock, P., Edwards, F.A., Wheeler, C., Baptiste, B.L.G., Medina Uribe, C.A. et al. 2014. Cheap
carbon and biodiversity co-benefits from forest regeneration in a hotspot of endemism. Nature Climate
Change, 4, 503–507.
Gordon, A., Langford, W.T., Todd, J.A., White, M.D., Mullerworth, D.W. & Bekessy, S.A. 2011. Assessing the
impacts of biodiversity offset policies. Environmental Modelling & Software, 26, 1481–1488.
Greeff, J.C., Karlsson, L.J.E. & Schlink, A.C. 2013. Identifying indicator traits for breech strike in Merino sheep in
a Mediterranean environment. Animal Production Science, 54, 125–140.
Hajkowicz, S. 2009. The evolution of Australia's natural resource management programs: Towards improved
targeting and evaluation of investments. Land Use Policy, 26, 471–478.
Hajkowicz, S., Cook, H. & Littleboy, A. 2012. Our future world. Global megatrends that will change the way we
live. CSIRO, Australia.
Hamza, M.A. & Anderson, W.K. 2005. Soil compaction in cropping systems: a review of the nature, causes and
possible solutions. Soil and Tillage Research, 82, 121–145.

  16
Harper, R.J., McKissoc,k I., Gilkes, R.J., Carter, D.J. & Blackwell, P.S. 2000. A multivariate framework for
interpreting the effects of soil properties, soil management and landuse on water repellency. Journal of
Hydrology, 231–232, 371–383.
Hatton, T. & Nulsen, R.A. 1999. Towards achieving functional ecosystem mimicry with respect to water cycling in
southern Australian agriculture. Agroforestry Systems, 45, 203–214.
Hollick, M. 1982. Water harvesting in the arid lands. Scientific Reviews on Arid Zone Research, 1, 173–247.
Hoyle, F.C., D'Antuono, M., Overheu, T. & Murphy, D.V. 2013. Capacity for increasing soil organic carbon stocks
in dryland agricultural systems. Soil Research, 51, 657–667.
Hulvey, K.B., Hobbs, R.J., Standish, R.J., Lindenmayer, D.B., Lach, L. & Perring, M.P. 2013. Benefits of tree-
mixes in carbon plantings. Nature Climate Change, 3, 869–874.
Hutton, P.G., Durmic, Z., Ghisalberti, E.L., Flematti, G.R., Duncan, R.M., Carson, C.F. et al. 2012. Inhibition of
ruminal bacteria involved in lactic acid metabolism by extracts from Australian plants. Animal Feed Science
and Technology, 176, 170–177.
Isbell, R.F. 1996. The Australian Soil Classification: CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne 144 p.

Jack, B.K., Kousky, C. & Sims, K.R.E. 2008. Designing payments for ecosystem services: Lessons from previous
experience with incentive-based mechanisms. PNAS, 105, 9465–9470.
Jenkins, S. 1997. Native Vegetation on Farms Survey 1996. Resource Management Technical Report No. 164,
Department of Agriculture, Western Australia.
Kareiva, P., Tallis, H., Ricketts, T.H., Daily, G.C. & Polasky, S. (eds.) 2011. Natural Capital: Theory and Practice
of Mapping Ecosystem Services. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
King, P.M. 1981. Comparison of methods for measuring severity of water repellence of sandy soils and assessment
of some factors that affect its measurement. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 19, 275–285.
Kotze, A.C., O'Grady, J.O., Emms, J., Toovey, A.F., Hughes, S., Jessop, P. et al. 2009. Exploring the anthelmintic
properties of Australian native shrubs with respect to their potential role in livestock grazing systems.
Parasitology, 136, 1065–1080.
Kragt, M.E. & Robertson, M.J. 2014. Quantifying ecosystem services trade-offs from agricultural practices.
Ecological Economics, 102, 147-157.
Kremen, C. & Miles, A. 2012. Ecosystem services in biologically diversified versus conventional farming systems:
benefits, externalities, and trade-offs. Ecology and Society, 17(4), 40.
Lantzke, N. 2005. Increasing runoff to on-farm irrigation dams. Australian Viticulture, 9, 70–71.
Lefroy, E.C., Hobbs, R.J., O'Connor, M.H. & Pate, J.S. 1999. What can agriculture learn from natural ecosystems?
Agroforestry Systems, 45, 423–436.
Leopold, M., Völkel, J., Huber, J. & Dethier, D. 2013. Subsurface architecture of the Boulder Creek Critical Zone
Observatory from electrical resistivity tomography. Earth Surface Processes Landforms, 38, 1471–1431.
Lin, B.B., Macfadyen, S., Renwick, A.R., Cunningham, S.A. & Schellhorn, N. A. 2013. Maximizing the
environmental benefits of carbon farming through ecosystem service delivery. Bioscience, 63, 793–803.
Lindenmayer, D.B., Hulvey, K.B., Hobbs, R.J., Colyvan, M., Felton, A., Possingham, H. et al. 2012. Avoiding bio-
perversity from carbon sequestration solutions. Conservation Letters, 5, 28–36.
Llewellyn, R.S., Lindner, R.K., Pannell, D.J. & Powles, S.B. 2007. Herbicide resistance and the adoption of
integrated weed management by Western Australian grain growers. Agricultural Economics, 36, 121–128.
Macfadyen, S., Hardie, D., Fagan, L., Stefanova, K., Perry, K., DeGraaf, H. et al. 2014. Reducing insecticide use in
broad-acre grains production: an Australian study. PLOS One, 9(2):e89118. doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0089119
Martin, G.B. & Greeff, J.C. 2011. Genetic frontiers in the development of ‘clean, green and ethical’ management
systems for the extensive sheep industry. Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Animal
Breeding and Genetics, 19, 143–150.
Martin, G.B., Milton, J.T.B., Davidson, R.H., Banchero Hunzicker, G.E., Lindsay, D.R. & Blache, D. 2004. Natural
methods of increasing reproductive efficiency in sheep and goats. Animal Reproduction Science, 82-83, 231–
246.
McArthur, W. M. 1991. Reference Soils of South-western Australia. Australian Society of Soil Science Inc., W.A.
Branch: Perth.
McCrea, R.F., Anand, R.R. & Gilkes, R.J., 1990. Mineralogical and physical properties of lateritic pallid zone
materials developed from granite and dolerite. Geoderma, 47, 33–57.
McDonald, R.C., Isbell, R.F., Speight, J.G., Walker, J. & Hopkins, M.S., 2009. Australian Soil and Land Survey
Field Handbook (3rd ed.). Inkata Press: Melbourne.
National Research Council. 2001. Basic research opportunities in earth science. National Academy Press,
Washington DC, USA.

  17
Norsworthy, J.K., Ward, S.M., Shaw, D.R., Llewellyn, R.S., Nichols, R.L., Webster, T.M. et al. 2012. Reducing the
risks of herbicide resistance: Best management practices and recommendations. Weed Science, Special Issue,
31–62.
Oldham, C., Davidson, R., Gray, S., Milton, J. & Paganoni, B. 2008. Edible shelter increases survival of twin but
not single lambs born to Merino ewes in winter in Western Australia. Animal Production in Australia:
Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production, 27, 88.
Perring, M.P., Standish, R.J., Hulvey, K.B., Lach, L., Morald, T.K., Parsons, R. et al. 2012. The Ridgefield Multiple
Ecosystem Services Experiment: Can restoration of former agricultural land achieve multiple outcomes?
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 163, 14–27.
Perring, M.P., Jonson, J., Freudenberger, D. Parsons, R., Rooney, M., Hobbs, R.J. & Standish, R.J. 2015. Soil-
vegetation type, stem density and species richness influence biomass of restored woodland in south-western
Australia. Forest Ecology and Management, (accepted 11 February 2015).
Plantinga, A.J. & Wu, J. 2003. Co-Benefits from carbon sequestration in forests: evaluating reductions in
agricultural externalities from an afforestation policy in Wisconsin. Land Economics, 79, 74–85.
Rayment, G.E. & Higginson, F.R. 1992. Australian Laboratory Handbook of Soil and Water Chemical Methods.
Inkata Press: Melbourne, 330p.
Renton, M., Flower, K.C., Busi, R., Thornby, D., Airey, M.S., Manalil, S. et al. 2012. Modelling the effects of
ecology, management and genetics on the evolution of herbicide resistance with PERTH. Eighteenth
Australasian Weeds Conference, Developing Solutions to Evolving Weed Problems, Australia, pp. 275–278.
Revell, D.K., Durmic, Z., Bennell, M., Sweeney, G.C. & Vercoe, P.E. 2008. The in situ use of plant mixtures
including native shrubs in Australian grazing systems: the potential to capitalise on plant diversity for livestock
health and productivity. In: Harvesting Knowledge, Pharming Opportunities (ed. Skaife, J.F. & Vercoe, P.E.),
pp. 36–49. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Revell, D.K., Norman, H.C., Vercoe, P.E., Phillips, N., Toovey, A., Bickell, S. et al. 2013. Australian perennial.
shrub species add value to the feed base of grazing livestock in low- to medium-rainfall zones. Animal
Production Science, 53, 1221–1230.
Standish, R.J. & Hulvey, K.B. 2014. Co-benefits of planting species mixes in carbon projects. Ecological
Management & Restoration, 15, 26–29.
Standish, R.J., Cramer, V.A. & Yates, C.J. 2008. A revised state-and-transition model for the restoration of
woodlands in Western Australia. In: New Models for Ecosystem Dynamics and Restoration (ed. R.J. Hobbs &
K.N. Suding), pp. 169–187. Island Press, Washington.
Van Gool, D., Tille, P. & Moore, G. 2005. Land Evaluation Standards for Land Resource Mapping. Resource
Management Technical Report 298, Department of Agriculture of Western Australia.
Walpole, S.C. 1999. Assessment of the economic and ecological impacts of remnant vegetation on pasture
productivity. Pacific Conservation Biology, 5, 28–35.
Walsh, M., Newman, P. & Powles, S. 2013. Targeting weed seeds in-crop: a new paradigm for global agriculture.
Weed Technology, 27, 431–436.
Ward, P.R., Flower, K.C., Cordingley, N., Weeks, C. & Micin, S.F. 2012. Soil water balance with cover crops and
conservation agriculture in a Mediterranean climate. Field Crops Research, 132, 33–39.
Wilding, L.P. & Lin, H.S. 2006. Advancing the frontiers of soil science towards a geoscience. Geoderma, 131, 257–
274.
Williams, A.R., Karlsson, L.J.E., Palmer, D.G., Vercoe, P.E., Williams, I.H., Greeff, J.C. & Emery, D.L. 2010.
Relationships between faecal dry matter, worm burdens and inflammatory mediators and cells in parasite-
resistant Merino rams. Veterinary Parasitology, 171, 263–272.
Zanaboni, A. & Lorenzoni, G.G. 1989. The importance of hedges and relict vegetation in agroecosystems and
environmental reconstruction. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 27, 155–161.
Zhang, W., Ricketts, T.H., Kremen, C., Carney, K. & Swinton, S.M. 2007. Ecosystem services and dis-services to
agriculture. Ecological Economics, 64, 253–260.

  18