Chowilla Floodplain Icon Site Tree Condition survey data ...

1

Chowilla Floodplain Icon Site

Tree Condition survey data

May 2008 to May 2017

Produced by Todd Wallace

Riverwater Life Pty Ltd

2

Document History and Status Version Date released Released by Circulated to Formal comments received

from

1.0 13th June 2017 TW JW, AS, TH

1.1 26th Mar 2018 TW JW

Report produced by Riverwater Life Pty Ltd for the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, South Australian Government For further information contact: Dr Todd Wallace Riverwater Life Pty Ltd Nairne, SA [email protected] 0407 607 392

Disclaimer:

This report utilises data collected by the author in February and May 2017 to build on pre-existing survey data and condition reports provided by the Department. The author advises that the information contained in this report comprises general statements based on field observations. The information has been provided on the basis that the recipient assumes the sole responsibility for the interpretation and application of them. The author gives no warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or use of the results and comments contained in this report by the recipient or any third party.

The contents of this publication do not purport to represent the position of the Commonwealth of Australia or the MDBA in any way and are presented for the purpose of informing and stimulating discussion for improved management of Basin's natural resources. To the extent permitted by law, the copyright holders (including its employees and consultants) exclude all

liability to any person for any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses

and any other compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this report (in part or in whole) and any

information or material contained in it.

Copyright: With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority logo and photographs, all material presented in this document is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Australia licence (http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/). For the avoidance of any doubt, this licence only applies to the material set out in this document.

The details of the licence are available on the Creative Commons website (accessible using the links provided) as is the full legal code for the CC BY 4.0 AU licence ((http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legal code).

This report should be cited as:

Wallace, T.A. (2017) Chowilla Floodplain Icon Site Tree Condition survey data; May 2008 to May 2017. Report produced by Riverwater Life Pty Ltd for the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, South Australian Government (Final version released 26th March 2018)

Cover photo:

Black box woodland at Lake Limbra

mailto:[email protected]

http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legal

3

Acknowledgements

This project was funded through the Condition Monitoring program for the Chowilla Floodplain Icon Site through

The Living Murray program. The Living Murray is a joint initiative funded by the New South Wales, Victorian,

South Australian, Australian Capital Territory and the Commonwealth governments, coordinated by the Murray

Darling Basin Authority.

Thanks to Jan Whittle and Alison Stokes for ongoing project management assistance.

4

Table of Contents

Ecological Objectives and Targets .................................................................................................. 6

Tree condition - assessment method ............................................................................................... 6

Survey Timing ................................................................................................................................. 6

Interpretation of Tree Condition Index Scores ................................................................................. 7

River red gum – condition transition model: ..................................................................................... 7

Distribution of monitoring effort ........................................................................................................ 8

Alteration to the reporting frame. ..................................................................................................... 8

Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................. 14

Icon Site Scale ........................................................................................................................... 14

Results for tree condition at the assessment site scale: ............................................................. 19

Appendix A: River red gum: proportion of trees in each condition class. ........................................... 34

Appendix B: Black box: proportion of trees in each condition class. .................................................. 65

Appendix C: River cooba: proportion of trees in each condition class. .............................................. 96

References ..................................................................................................................................... 105

5

Background The Chowilla Floodplain and anabranch system is a significant ecological asset of the Murray-Darling

Basin and is part of the Riverland Ramsar wetland of international importance. It is part of The Living

Murray (TLM) Chowilla Floodplain and Lindsay-Wallpolla Islands icon site.

The Chowilla Floodplain covers 17,781 hectares located on the River Murray spanning the South

Australia, New South Wales border. It is the largest remaining undeveloped area of floodplain habitat

in the lower Murray-Darling system has highly diverse terrestrial and aquatic habitats, supporting

populations of rare, endangered and nationally threatened species as well as heritage-protected sites

of cultural significance.

The Chowilla Floodplain has undergone a severe decline in environmental condition due to river

regulation and increasing extractions. This decline was further seriously exacerbated with the low

inflows during the millennium drought.

The key threats to the Chowilla Floodplain are altered flow regimes, an elevated and altered

groundwater regime, obstruction to fish passage, as well as pest plants and animals. Flow regulation

and diversions have reduced flooding frequencies and durations, as well as elevating saline

groundwater levels which have significantly affected native fauna and flora. In particular, the health of

the River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) and Black Box (E. largiflorens) woodlands has

significantly declined.

Through The Living Murray First Step Decision (FSD), the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council

established three broad ecological objectives based on an understanding of the icon site’s

characteristics and ecological requirements.

• High value wetlands maintained;

• Current area of River Red Gum maintained; and

• At least 20% of the original area of Black Box vegetation maintained.

Through the Living Murray Condition Monitoring Program, a range of site-specific Ecological

Objectives and associated Ecological Targets have been developed. Tree Condition monitoring has

been undertaken annually since 2004 to enable assessment of the trajectory towards and

achievement of icon site ecological objectives. Since 2008 the standardised TLM tree condition

method has been implemented. This report presents the outcomes of monitoring undertaken in

Spring (August 2016) and an additional round of monitoring undertaken in May 2017 to inform

environmental watering priorities for 2017/18.

6

Maintain viable river red gum, black box and river cooba tree

communities

Ecological Objectives and Targets

The Ecological Objectives and Ecological Targets for river red gum (E. camaldulensis), black box (E.

largiflorens) and river cooba (A. stenopylla) condition are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Linkages between Icon Site specific Ecological Objective and Ecological Target for tree condition at Chowilla Floodplain.

Type Icon Site Ecological Objective Ecological Target*

River red gum Maintain viable River Red Gum populations within 70% (2,414 ha)of River Red Gum woodland

In standardised transects that span the floodplain elevation gradient and existing spatial distribution, >70% of trees will have a Tree Condition Index Score (TCI) ≥10 by 2020

Black Box Maintain viable Black Box populations within 45% (2,075 ha) of Black Box woodland


River Cooba

Maintain viable River Cooba (Acacia stenophylla) populations within 50% of existing River Cooba and mixed Red Gum and River Cooba woodland areas.


Tree condition - assessment method Surveys were undertaken between 2004-07 using either a 3 point, (dead, poor, good) or 6 point

index. Those methods have since been superseded. Since 2008, condition of trees has been

determined using the standardised TLM tree condition method (Souter et al., 2009). In brief, at each

location (see following sub-section for locations) the condition of 30 trees in a transect is assessed

visually for a range of parameters. Tree crown cover and density is scored according to seven

categories (Table 2). For this assessment the Tree Condition Index (TCI) is calculated by summing

the scores for crown extent and crown density for each individual tree.

Survey Timing Assessments are nominally scheduled to be undertaken in Spring with October-November the

preferred period. However, data has been collected at different times in some years because of

either (i) access limitations due to unmanaged or managed flooding, (ii) targeted assessments of

response to management actions, and (iii) collection of data to enable development of annual

watering bids. The influence of variation in timing of surveys between years needs to be considered

during interpretation of results as variable timing could create “noise” in the long-term trend/trajectory

due to seasonal variability in condition. How wide that inter-season variation actually is, is currently

an “unknown” and could be very difficult to untangle in highly stressed systems where water

availability will decline markedly during inter-flood periods.

7

Interpretation of Tree Condition Index Scores Information on the classification of TCI scores is provided in Table 2. A TCI score of 13-14 represents

a tree in excellent condition. A TCI score of 10-12 represents a tree in “good” condition. TCI scores

between 5 and 7, and between 8 and 9 are considered to represent trees in “poor” and “moderate”

condition respectively. In comparison, a TCI score of 4 or below is considered to have a sparse

crown and be in “very poor” condition. Trees with TCI scores ≥ 8 are expected to respond positively,

and increase to the next condition class in response to watering. The strength of the response

decreases as TCI scores decrease. Trees with low TCI scores have a slow response and need

multiple, back-to-back watering to stabilise condition and rebuild resilience. Trees with a TCI score =

0 are either (i) unlikely to respond to watering, or (ii) very near to the critical point of 'loss'.

Persistence of woodland/forest areas as a functioning habitat requires trees to be in good to

moderate condition. The threshold for management action specified in the Operations Plan for

Chowilla Creek Regulator and ancillary structures (Wallace & Whittle, 2014) is “Within the area that

can be influenced by management action(s), more than 10% of established viable† trees (river red

gums, black box cooba respectively) with DBH > 10 cm receive TCI scores ≤8” In this context, viable

trees are defined as those with TCI scores ≥2.

Table 2. Tree crown cover density categories and scores (Souter et al., 2009)

Score Description Percentage of assessable crown

0 None 0 %

1 Minimal 1-10 %

2 Sparse 11-20 %

3 Sparse – Medium 21-40 %

4 Medium 41-60 %

5 Medium – Major 61-80 %

6 Major 81-90 %

7 Maximum 91-100 %

River red gum – condition transition model:

Tree response to environmental watering is highly dependent on tree condition prior to inundation

(Casanova, 2015). Healthy trees are three times more likely to respond than stressed trees and thirty

times more likely to respond than defoliated trees (Souter et al., 2013). Casanova (2015) presents a

state shift model for the northern MDB based on information presented by Overton et al., (2014) and

Roberts and Marson (2011). An adapted version of the model, considered to be representative for

river red gums on floodplains of the lower River Murray, is presented in Table 4. The model indicates

that for trees that are in “good” (or better) condition at the start of the management regime, condition

is likely to maintained, and hence the ecological target is likely to be consistently met, with a 1-2 year

return interval for inundations. At a 2-3 year return interval, the ability to meet the ecological target on

a consistent basis may be spatially specific; i.e. appropriate soil moisture availability may not be able

to be maintained in areas overlying shallow saline groundwater. Rainfall in the years between

inundation events (e.g. high or low rainfall years) will also directly influence ability to meet the

ecological target. At a ≥3 year return interval, the ecological target is unlikely to met on a consistent

basis and a decline in condition may be expected. If trees are in moderate condition, a 2-3 year

return interval is likely to be sufficient to maintain condition, but not be sufficient to consistently meet

the target. A period of high frequency inundation (i.e. back to back watering) is likely to be required to

achieve the Ecological Target. At a ≥3 year return interval, a decline in condition may be expected.

8

Table 3. Score system for tree crown extent and crown density (a score is assigned for both parameters and then summed to provide a Tree Condition Index (TCI) score out of 14. Adapted from Wallace (2015)

TCI score Condition Description

0 Non-viable Tree may be dead or very near to the critical point of loss. A small proportion of trees may

respond to delivery of water, but are likely to be in a precarious condition i.e. response may not

be sustained and tree may not recover

2-4 Very poor Tree viable but in very poor condition and in a precarious condition i.e. continuation of dry

conditions is likely to lead to death. Trees with low TCI scores have a slow response. A single

watering may stabilise condition. Multiple, back to back watering will be required to achieve

"good" condition

5-7 Poor Most trees would be expected to respond positively to watering. Inundation may stabilise

condition or result in an improvement. Trees are likely to be at the edge of the resilience period,

i.e. continuation of dry conditions is likely to lead to a marked loss of condition. Multiple, back to

back watering is likely to be required to achieve "good" condition

8-9 Moderate Trees in this grouping may receive high scores for crown extent but low scores for crown density.

Most trees with TCI scores ≥ 8 would be expected to respond positively to watering and increase

to the next condition class. Trees are likely to be approaching the edge of the resilience period,

i.e. continuation of dry conditions is likely to lead to a marked loss of condition.

10-12 Good Trees are expected to have a moderate degree of resilience and should be able to withstand a

short dry period with minimal loss of condition. However, under dry conditions, some proportion

of these trees may decline to the next class within the next 12 months. Most trees would be

expected to respond positively to watering and increase to the next condition class.

13-14 Excellent Trees are expected to have a high degree of resilience and should be able to withstand a short

dry period with minimal loss of condition

Table 4. Condition transition model for the maintenance and decline in condition (state) of river red gum woodlands in the

lower River Murray. The model presented here is adapted from Casanova (2015) and needs to be validated based on

empirical data.

Condition TCI score Flood frequency required to maintain state

Dry period to cause a decline

Flood frequency required to cause recovery to “good”

Excellent 13-14 1 in 1-2 years for 2-8 months 2 years: excellent ↓ good

Good 10-12 1 in 1-2 years for 2-8 months 3 years: good ↓ medium

Moderate 8-9 1 in 2-3 years for 2-8 months 3 years: medium ↓ poor ≥2 years of 1 in 1 years: medium ↑ good

Poor 5-7 1 in 2-3 years for 2-8 months 3 years: poor↓ critical ≥9 years of 1 in 1-2 years: poor ↑ medium

Very poor

2-4 1 in 5 years for 2-8 months Death may be imminent; dependent on cumulative stress and timing of next inundation

Some trees may not be recoverable ≥9 years of 1 in 1-2 years: critical ↑ medium

Distribution of monitoring effort Distribution of monitoring effort for tree condition at the Icon Site scale is outlined in Tables 5-7.

Alteration to the reporting frame. The Ecological Target for floodplain tree condition specified in the 2016 revision of the Chowilla

Condition Monitoring Plan is:

In standardised transects that span the floodplain elevation gradient and existing spatial distribution, >70% of

trees will have a Tree Condition Index Score (TCI) ≥10 by 2020

9

The Ecological Target evolved out of the TLM Management Objectives (MDBC, 2006). The

abundance component (70%) of the Ecological Target for tree condition was not defined on specific

ecological criteria, but on a pragmatic recognition that within the existing spatial distribution of trees,

a substantial proportion of trees within a transect will have either (i) senesced as a result of natural

mortality, or (ii) died as a result of water stress. It was anticipated that once sufficient baseline data

was established, a review would facilitate identification of an achievable, site specific target. For

example, if 90% of the trees comprising the transects are viable, the Ecological Target should be

adjusted upwards to reflect this. Conversely, if only 40% of the trees comprising the transects are

viable, the specified target should be adjusted downwards.

Previous reports (Wallace, 2015; Wallace, 2016) have included all trees within the transects in

determining the % of trees with TCI scores ≥10. However, it is evident that whilst the existing

Ecological Target could be exceeded at some assessment locations, it will not be achievable at some

locations with the existing transect configurations. Wallace (2015) reported that in October 2015, the

mean percentage of dead trees in the transects was:

River red gums: 36.7 ±27.4 %

Black box: 25.5 ±20.6 %

River cooba: 56.5 ±20.6 %

Therefore, it would be sensible to consider adjusting the manner of reporting against the Ecological

Target. A target of 100% compliance could be achieved if the non-viable trees were accounted for in

the analysis. This could be facilitated by removing all dead trees from the transects. That approach is

not recommended, as systematic removal of dead trees from analysis would dramatically bias the

results, and will not facilitate a long-term assessment of rates of die-off (either event specific or

cumulative impacts). For example, assuming that only live trees were assessed and dead trees were

systematically removed from transects, over time, if all but one tree died in the transect (or quadrat),

the target could still be achieved despite a critical loss of habitat value. Replacing dead trees within

the transects is not straightforward; in transects where a large percentage of trees with DBH ≥ 10 cm

are dead, there will be a decadal (or longer) scale time lag in order for trees to germinate and survive

through the seedling and sapling stage and subsequently be able to be included in the analysis.

Given that some transects have a high proportion of dead trees, having less than 70% of trees with

TCI scores ≥10 in any given year is not necessarily an indication of failure. The need for

management action should be driven by (i) the condition and trajectory of the remaining trees, and (ii)

the status of the population demographic. Further, the measure of success should reflect the

condition of trees that have potential to be sustained via environmental watering.

It is recommended that a targeted workshop involving ecologists with regionally relevant experience

in assessing/monitoring changes in tree condition in response to wetting (environmental watering and

unmanaged floods) and drying (drought) is held to develop a standardised approach to reporting and

establish a consistent state-wide reporting of the condition of floodplain trees which are a key

ecological asset. In the interim, within the current document, reporting against the Ecological Target

has been adapted to:

10

In standardised transects that span the floodplain elevation gradient and existing spatial

distribution, ≥ 70% of viable trees† will have a Tree Condition Index Score (TCI) ≥10 by 2020

Viable trees would be deemed to be those receiving TCI scores ≥ 2. Therefore, in this report, trees

with TCI scores = 0 were removed from the determination of the percentage of trees with TCI scores

≥10. This is a key difference between this and previous annual reports. In order to provide a

mechanism to assess die-off, the percent of all trees with TCI scores = 0 is also presented.

11

Table 5. Distribution of Monitoring Effort for river red gum condition. Perm Creek = permanent creek; Temp Creek = temporary creeks including oxbows and flood-runners.

indicates survey undertaken. Green shading indicates Ecological Target met or exceeded

Assessment location Habitat type # of

transects

Transect #

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Feb

2015 Oct

2015 Aug

2016 May 2017

Boat Creek u/s of bridge Perm Creek 1 1

Boat Creek d/s of bridge Perm Creek 1 2

Monomon Creek Perm Creek 1 1

Pipeclay Creek u/s of weir Perm Creek 1 1

Pipeclay Creek d/s of weir Perm Creek 1 2

Punkah Creek (2) sheep X’ing Perm Creek 1 2

Punkah Creek (3) camp 27 Perm Creek 1 3





Brandy Bottle Wetland 2 1 & 2

Bunyip Hole Wetland 2 1 & 2

Pilby Lagoon Wetland 1

Pipeclay Billabong (main) Wetland 2 1 & 2

Pipeclay Billabong (far end) Wetland 1 5

Coppermine Waterhole Wetland 3 2, 3 & 4

Punkah Island Horseshoes Wetland 3 2, 3 & 6

Lake Littra Wetland 3* 3, 4 & 5

Werta Wert (north) Wetland 2 1-2

Werta Wert (mid) Wetland 2 3-4

Werta Wert (south) Wetland 3 5-7

Chowilla Horseshoe Temp Creek 2 3 & 4

Chowilla Island Loop Temp Creek 2 1 & 2

Chowilla Oxbow Temp Creek 1 1

Kulkurna Temp Creek 3 3,4 & 5

Monomon Island Horseshoe Temp Creek 3* 1, 3

Twin Creeks- floodrunner Temp Creek 3 1 &3

Woolshed Creek Temp Creek 3 1 & 4

Gum Flat Floodplain 1 6

Monomon Island Depression Floodplain 1 1

Punkah Creek Depression Floodplain 2 1 & 2

Twin Creeks -floodplain Floodplain 3 5

12

Table 6. Distribution of Monitoring Effort for Black Box condition at the Icon Site. Perm Creek = permanent creek; Temp Creek = temporary creeks including oxbows and flood-

runners. indicates survey undertaken. Green shading indicates Ecological Target met or exceeded. †Mixed species transect

Site Habitat # of

transects

Transect # 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Feb 2015

Oct 2015

Aug 2016

Feb 2017

May 2017

Brandy Bottle Wetland 1 3

Pilby Regulator Wetland 1 1

Coombool Wetland 1† S9-CRB

Lake Limbra Wetland 2 S17 & S18

Chowilla Horseshoe Temp Creek 2 5 & 6

Chowilla Loop Depression Temp Creek 1 1

Chowilla Oxbow Temp Creek 1 5

Kulkurna Temp Creek 3 6, 7 & 8

Punkah Creek Floodrunner Temp Creek 3 2, 3 & 4

Twin Creeks- Floodrunner Temp Creek 1 TCD 1

Gum Flat Creek Temp Creek 1 1

Boat Island 1 Floodplain 1 1

Boat Island 2 Floodplain 1 1

Twin Creeks – Floodplain Floodplain 1 TCD2

Twin Creeks – Floodplain Floodplain 1 TCH

Coach Road 1 Floodplain 1 1

Coach Road 2 Floodplain 1 2

Coppermine Complex 1 Floodplain 1 1







Ferry Landing Floodplain 1 1

Gum Flat Floodplain 2* 3 & 5

Monomon Island (S13CBB) Floodplain 1 S13CBB

Monomon Island Depression Floodplain 2 4 and 5

Monomon Creek Depression Floodplain 1 MCD 1

Monomon Creek Depression Floodplain 1 MCD 2

Pipeclay Island Floodrunner Floodplain 1

Outer Werty Floodplain 1

Werta Wert Floodplain 1 8

Punkah Creek High (S16CBB) Floodplain 1 S16CBB

13

Table 7. Distribution of Monitoring Effort for River cooba condition at the Icon Site. Perm Creek = permanent creek; Temp Creek = temporary creeks including oxbows and flood-

runners: indicates survey undertaken. Green shading indicates Ecological Target met or exceeded

Assessment location Habitat type # of

transects

Transect # 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Feb

2015 Oct

2015

Aug

2016

May 2017

Brandy Bottle Wetland 1 4

Chowilla Oxbow Temp Creek 2 2 & 3

Gum Flat Floodplain 2 2 & 4

Punkah Creek Floodrunner Floodplain 1 1

Twin Creeks Depression Floodplain 1 TCD3

Monomon Island Depression Floodplain 1

Punkah Creek Depression Floodplain 2 3 & 5

14

Results and Discussion Tree condition data is collected at the transect scale, where each transect is comprised of 30 trees.

Some assessment locations have multiple transects (Tables 5-7). At the Icon Site scale, the results

are pooled at the assessment location scale, and mean and standard error are reported.

The data is presented in the following sections to report against (i) the Ecological Target and (ii) the

threshold for management action. The percentage of trees in each Tree Condition Index score for

each assessment area (e.g. wetland) is shown in Appendix A (river red gum); Appendix B (black

box) and Appendix C (river cooba).

Icon Site Scale

River Red Gum

The influence of variability in sampling effort (due to site accessibility) between years (Table 5)

needs to be taken into account in interpretation of these results.

In May 2017, 50 RRG transects were assessed. Of those, only 5 failed to achieve the Ecological

Target. Only two assessment areas (Punkah Creek #2 and # 5) failed to meet the Ecological Target.

The pooled mean for all RRG transects indicates that at the Icon Site scale, 88% of viable trees had

TCI scores ≥10 in May 2017, markedly exceeding the Ecological Target (Figure 1A). In November

2013, the target was narrowly exceeded (71.5%), but the range in condition (as evidenced by the

standard error bars was substantially wider). In May 2017, only 5 of the 50 transects triggered the

management threshold. Based on the percentage of viable trees, the threshold for management

action was not triggered for the May 2017 survey (Figure 1B). This is the first time in the 2008-17

period that this result has been recorded. The data indicates that the percentage of non-viable trees

(TCI scores = 0) has stabilised at the Icon Site (Figure 1C), suggesting that the widespread die-off

and associated habitat damage has been arrested.

Black Box

The magnitude of effort directed at Black Box has increased markedly in recent years. This,

combined with the influence of variability in sampling effort (due to site accessibility) between years

(Table 6) needs to be taken into account in interpretation of these results.

In May 2017, 38 BB transects were assessed. Of those, 18 failed to achieve the Ecological Target.

Of 32 assessment areas, 18 failed to achieve the Ecological Target. The pooled mean for all BB

transects indicates that at the Icon Site scale, 67% of viable trees had TCI scores ≥10 in May 2017,

narrowly approaching the Ecological Target (Figure 2A). In October 2011 the target was narrowly

exceeded (73%), but the sampling effort has dramatically expanded in recent years (Table 6) such

that a direct comparison between these two survey periods is not possible at the Icon Site Scale. In

May 2017, 20 of the 38 transects triggered the management threshold. However, the pooled mean

percentage of trees exceeding the threshold for management action was only 14% during the May

2017 survey (Figure 2B). The disparity in conclusions that could be drawn from these results

highlight the importance of assessing the data at the assessment area and transect scale, and not

just at the Icon Site scale.

Despite the expansion of sampling effort, the data indicates that the percentage of non-viable trees

(TCI scores = 0) has stabilised at the Icon Site (Figure 2C), suggesting that the widespread die-off

and associated habitat damage has been arrested. The condition of existing viable trees suggests

that follow-up watering may be warranted to consolidate the recent improvement in condition.

15

River cooba

The influence of variability in sampling effort (due to site accessibility) between years (Table 7)

needs to be taken into account in interpretation of these results. The influence of increasing

monitoring effort for River Cooba also needs to be taken into account.

In May 2017, 10 River Cooba transects were assessed. Of those, none passed the Ecological

Target. The pooled mean for all Cooba transects indicates that at the Icon Site scale, 39% of viable

trees had TCI scores ≥10 in May 2017 (Figure 3A). In October 2012, 65% of trees had scores TCI

values ≥ 10, but as per BB, the sampling effort has expanded in recent years (Table 7) such that a

direct comparison between these two survey periods is not possible at the Icon Site Scale. In May

2017, all of the transects triggered the management threshold. The pooled mean percentage of

trees exceeding the threshold for management action was 41% during the May 2017 survey (Figure

3B). Despite the expansion of sampling effort, the data indicates that the percentage of non-viable

trees (TCI scores = 0) has stabilised at the Icon Site (Figure 3C), suggesting that the widespread

die-off and associated habitat damage has been arrested.

16

Figure 1 [A]. Percentage of viable river red gum trees within standardised transects with TCI scores ≥10. Horizontal reference line at 70% corresponds to the Ecological Target. [B] Percentage of viable river red gum trees with TCI scores in the range 2-8. Horizontal reference line at 10% corresponds to the Management Threshold. [C] Percentage of river red gum trees within standardised transects with TCI scores with TCI scores = 0 (no crown). Data points are the mean of results from all of the transects at the Icon Site, error bars are ±1 standard deviation. Lines between data points are presented for visual clarity only and do not imply TCI scores between sampling times.

A

Survey period

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ees

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

B

Survey period

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

C

Survey period

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ees

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

17

Figure 2 [A]. Percentage of viable black box trees within standardised transects with TCI scores ≥10. Horizontal reference line at 70% corresponds to the Ecological Target. [B] Percentage of viable black box trees with TCI scores in the range 2-8. Horizontal reference line at 10% corresponds to the Management Threshold. [C] Percentage of black box trees within standardised transects with TCI scores with TCI scores = 0 (no crown). Data points are the mean of results from all of the transects at the Icon Site, error bars are ±1 standard deviation. Lines between data points are presented for visual clarity only and do not imply TCI scores between sampling times.

A

Survey period

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

B

Survey period

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

C

Survey period

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

18

Figure 3 [A]. Percentage of viable river cooba trees within standardised transects with TCI scores ≥10. Horizontal reference line at 70% corresponds to the Ecological Target. [B] Percentage of viable river cooba trees with TCI scores in the range 2-8. Horizontal reference line at 10% corresponds to the Management Threshold. [C] Percentage of river cooba trees within standardised transects with TCI scores with TCI scores = 0 (no crown). Data points are the mean of results from all of the transects at the Icon Site, error bars are ±1 standard deviation. Lines between data points are presented for visual clarity only and do not imply TCI scores between sampling times.

A

Survey period

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

B

Survey period

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

C

Survey period

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

19

Results for tree condition at the assessment site scale:

Figure 4. Percentage of river red gum trees at temporary wetlands in good (TCI = 10-14) condition (green triangles), and percentage of established viable trees with TCI scores ≤8 (TCI = 2-8) (red circles). Black squares represent trees deemed to be non-viable (no foliage = TCI = 0). The broken blue horizontal reference line represents the Icon Site Ecological Target. The red horizontal reference line represents the management threshold for delivery of environmental water. Lines between data points are presented for visual clarity only and do not imply TCI scores between sampling times.

Brandy Bottle

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Bunyip Hole

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Coppermine Wetland

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Lake Littra

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Pipeclay Billabong (far end)

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Pipeclay Billabong (main)

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

20

Figure 4 continued. Percentage of river red gum trees at temporary wetlands in good (TCI = 10-14) condition (green triangles), and percentage of established viable trees with TCI scores ≤8 (TCI = 2-8) (red circles). Black squares represent trees deemed to be non-viable (no foliage = TCI = 0). The broken blue horizontal reference line represents the Icon Site Ecological Target. The red horizontal reference line represents the management threshold for delivery of environmental water. Lines between data points are presented for visual clarity only and do not imply TCI scores between sampling times.

Punkah Island Horseshoes

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Werta Wert North

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Werta Wert South

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Werta Wert Middle

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

21

Figure 5. Percentage of river red gum trees at temporary creeks in good (TCI = 10-14) condition (green triangles), and percentage of established viable trees with TCI scores ≤8 (TCI = 2-8) (red circles). Black squares represent trees deemed to be non-viable (no foliage = TCI = 0). The broken blue horizontal reference line represents the Icon Site Ecological Target. The red horizontal reference line represents the management threshold for delivery of environmental water. Lines between data points are presented for visual clarity only and do not imply TCI scores between sampling times.

Chowilla Horseshoe

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Chowilla Island Loop

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Chowilla Oxbow

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Kulkurna

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Monomon Island Horseshoe

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Twin Creeks

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

22

Figure 5 continued. Percentage of river red gum trees at temporary creeks in good (TCI = 10-14) condition (green triangles), and percentage of established viable trees with TCI scores ≤8 (TCI = 2-8) (red circles). Black squares represent trees deemed to be non-viable (no foliage = TCI = 0). The broken blue horizontal reference line represents the Icon Site Ecological Target. The red horizontal reference line represents the management threshold for delivery of environmental water. Lines between data points are presented for visual clarity only and do not imply TCI scores between sampling times.

Woolshed Creek

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

23

Figure 6. Percentage of river red gum trees at floodplain sites in good (TCI = 10-14) condition (green triangles), and percentage of established viable trees with TCI scores ≤8 (TCI = 2-8) (red circles). Black squares represent trees deemed to be non-viable (no foliage = TCI = 0). The broken blue horizontal reference line represents the Icon Site Ecological Target. The red horizontal reference line represents the management threshold for delivery of environmental water. Lines between data points are presented for visual clarity only and do not imply TCI scores between sampling times.

Gum Flat

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Monomon Island Depression

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Punkah Creek Depression

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

24

Figure 7. Percentage of river red gum trees at permanent creek in sites in good (TCI = 10-14) condition (green triangles), and percentage of established viable trees with TCI scores ≤8 (TCI = 2-8) (red circles). Black squares represent trees deemed to be non-viable (no foliage = TCI = 0). The broken blue horizontal reference line represents the Icon Site Ecological Target. The red horizontal reference line represents the management threshold for delivery of environmental water. Lines between data points are presented for visual clarity only and do not imply TCI scores between sampling times.

Boat Creek US

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Boat Creek DS

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Pipeclay Creek US weir

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Pipeclay Creek DS weir

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Punkah Creek 2

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Punkah Creek 3

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

25

Figure 7 continued. Percentage of river red gum trees at permanent creek in sites in good (TCI = 10-14) condition (green triangles), and percentage of established viable trees with TCI scores ≤8 (TCI = 2-8) (red circles). Black squares represent trees deemed to be non-viable (no foliage = TCI = 0). The broken blue horizontal reference line represents the Icon Site Ecological Target. The red horizontal reference line represents the management threshold for delivery of environmental water. Lines between data points are presented for visual clarity only and do not imply TCI scores between sampling times. .

Punkah Creek 4

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Punkah Creek 5

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Punkah Creek 6

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Punkah Creek 7

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

26

Figure 8. Percentage of black box trees at wetland sites in good (TCI = 10-14) condition (green triangles), and percentage of established viable trees with TCI scores ≤8 (TCI = 2-8) (red circles). Black squares represent trees deemed to be non-viable (no foliage = TCI = 0). The broken blue horizontal reference line represents the Icon Site Ecological Target. The red horizontal reference line represents the management threshold for delivery of environmental water. Lines between data points are presented for visual clarity only and do not imply TCI scores between sampling times.

Brandy Bottle

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Coombool S9CBB

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Lake Limbra

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

27

Figure 9. Percentage of black box trees at temporary creek sites in good (TCI = 10-14) condition (green triangles), and percentage of established viable trees with TCI scores ≤8 (TCI = 2-8) (red circles). Black squares represent trees deemed to be non-viable (no foliage = TCI = 0). The broken blue horizontal reference line represents the Icon Site Ecological Target. The red horizontal reference line represents the management threshold for delivery of environmental water. Lines between data points are presented for visual clarity only and do not imply TCI scores between sampling times.

Chowilla Horseshoe

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Chowilla Oxbow

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Gum Flat Creek

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Kulkurna

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Punkah Creek Floodrunner

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Twin Creeks TCD1

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

28

Figure 9 continued. Percentage of black box trees at temporary creek sites in good (TCI = 10-14) condition (green triangles), and percentage of established viable trees with TCI scores ≤8 (TCI = 2-8) (red circles). Black squares represent trees deemed to be non-viable (no foliage = TCI = 0). The broken blue horizontal reference line represents the Icon Site Ecological Target. The red horizontal reference line represents the management threshold for delivery of environmental water. Lines between data points are presented for visual clarity only and do not imply TCI scores between sampling times.

Twin Creeks TCD2

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

29

Figure 10. Percentage of black box trees at floodplain sites in good (TCI = 10-14) condition (green triangles), and percentage of established viable trees with TCI scores ≤8 (TCI = 2-8) (red circles). Black squares represent trees deemed to be non-viable (no foliage = TCI = 0). The broken blue horizontal reference line represents the Icon Site Ecological Target. The red horizontal reference line represents the management threshold for delivery of environmental water. Lines between data points are presented for visual clarity only and do not imply TCI scores between sampling times.

Coach Road 1

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Coach Road 2

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Ferry Landing

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Gum Flat

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Monomon Creek Depression MCD1

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14


Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

30

Figure 10 continued. Percentage of black box trees at floodplain sites in good (TCI = 10-14) condition (green triangles), and percentage of established viable trees with TCI scores ≤8 (TCI = 2-8) (red circles). Black squares represent trees deemed to be non-viable (no foliage = TCI = 0). The broken blue horizontal reference line represents the Icon Site Ecological Target. The red horizontal reference line represents the management threshold for delivery of environmental water. Lines between data points are presented for visual clarity only and do not imply TCI scores between sampling times.

Coppermine Complex 1

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14


Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14


Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14


Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14


Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14


Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

31

Figure 10 continued. Percentage of black box trees at floodplain sites in good (TCI = 10-14) condition (green triangles), and percentage of established viable trees with TCI scores ≤8 (TCI = 2-8) (red circles). Black squares represent trees deemed to be non-viable (no foliage = TCI = 0). The broken blue horizontal reference line represents the Icon Site Ecological Target. The red horizontal reference line represents the management threshold for delivery of environmental water. Lines between data points are presented for visual clarity only and do not imply TCI scores between sampling times.

Pilby Regulator

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Twin Creeks TCH

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Werta Wert High

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Outer Werty

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

32

Figure 11. Percentage of river cooba trees at the wetland site in good (TCI = 10-14) condition (green triangles), and percentage of established viable trees with TCI scores ≤8 (TCI = 2-8) (red circles). Black squares represent trees deemed to be non-viable (no foliage = TCI = 0). The broken blue horizontal reference line represents the Icon Site Ecological Target. The red horizontal reference line represents the management threshold for delivery of environmental water. Lines between data points are presented for visual clarity only and do not imply TCI scores between sampling times.

Figure 12. Percentage of river cooba trees at the temporary creek site in good (TCI = 10-14) condition (green triangles), and percentage of established viable trees with TCI scores ≤8 (TCI = 2-8) (red circles). Black squares represent trees deemed to be non-viable (no foliage = TCI = 0). The broken blue horizontal reference line represents the Icon Site Ecological Target. The red horizontal reference line represents the management threshold for delivery of environmental water. Lines between data points are presented for visual clarity only and do not imply TCI scores between sampling times.

Brandy Bottle

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Chowilla Oxbow

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

33

Figure 13. Percentage of river cooba trees at the floodplain sites in good (TCI = 10-14) condition (green triangles), and percentage of established viable trees with TCI scores ≤8 (TCI = 2-8) (red circles). Black squares represent trees deemed to be non-viable (no foliage = TCI = 0). The broken blue horizontal reference line represents the Icon Site Ecological Target. The red horizontal reference line represents the management threshold for delivery of environmental water. Lines between data points are presented for visual clarity only and do not imply TCI scores between sampling times.

Gum Flat

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14


Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Punkah Creek Depression

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Punkah Creek Floodrunner

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

Twin Creeks Depression

Year

1/1/

2008

1/1/

2009

1/1/

2010

1/1/

2011

1/1/

2012

1/1/

2013

1/1/

2014

1/1/

2015

1/1/

2016

1/1/

2017

1/1/

2018

% o

f tr

ee

s in

asse

ssm

en

t a

rea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

non-viable

TCI = 2-8

TCI =10-14

34

Appendix A: River red gum: proportion of trees in each condition class.

Figure A1a. Proportion of river red gums in each TCI score group at Boat Creek (upstream of weir) during the period spanning 2008-17.

Nov 2013 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Mar 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Oct 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

35

Figure A1b. Proportion of river red gums in each TCI score group at Boat Creek (downstream of weir) during the period spanning 2008-17.

Nov 2013 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Mar 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Oct 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

36

Figure A2. Proportion of river red gums in each TCI score group at Brandy Bottle during the period spanning 2008-17.

June 2008 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2009 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

July 2010 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2011 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

November 2013 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

February 2015 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 51)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

37

Figure A3. Proportion of river red gums in each TCI score group at Bunyip Hole during the period spanning 2008-17.

June 2008 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

September 2009 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100July 2010 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2011 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2012 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

March 2015 (n = 43)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

38

Figure A4. Proportion of river red gums in each TCI score group at Chowilla Horseshoe during the period spanning 2008-17.

March 2009 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2009 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2011 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2012 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100November 2013 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 59)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

39

Figure A5. Proportion of river red gums in each TCI score group at Chowilla Island Loop during the period spanning 2008-17.

March 2009 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

July 2010 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2012 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

March 2015 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 40)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 59)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

40

Figure A6. Proportion of river red gums in each TCI score group at Chowilla Oxbow during the period spanning 2008-17.

March 2009 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2009 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2012 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

March 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

41

Figure A7. Proportion of river red gums in each TCI score group at Coppermine Wetland during the period spanning 2008-17.


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2011 (n = 90)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2012 (n = 89)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Ocntober 2015 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 89)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

42

Figure A8. Proportion of river red gums in each TCI score group at Gum Flat during the period spanning 2008-17.

August 2008 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2009 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2009 (n = 28)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

July 2010 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2012 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

March 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

43

Figure A9. Proportion of river red gums in each TCI score group at Kulkurna during the period spanning 2008-17.

July 2008 (n = 90)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2009 (n = 90)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

December 2009 (n = 90)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2012 (n = 87)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 90)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 90)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 86)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

44

Figure A10. Proportion of river red gums in each TCI score group at Lake Littra during the period spanning 2008-17

December 2008 (n = 115)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2009 (n = 115)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2010 (n = 115)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

November 2011 (n = 115)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2012 (n = 115)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

November 2013 (n = 114)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 115)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 98)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 110)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

45

Figure A11. Proportion of river red gums in each TCI score group at Monomon Creek during the period spanning 2008-17.

Novmber 2013 (n = 18)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

March 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 27)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

46

Figure A11. Proportion of river red gums in each TCI score group at Monomon Island Depression during the period spanning 2008-17

October 2012 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

March 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

47

Figure A12. Proportion of river red gums in each TCI score group at Monomon Island Horseshoe during the period spanning 2008-17

July 2008 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2011 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2012 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

March 2015 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

48

Figure A13a. Proportion of river red gums in each TCI score group at Pipeclay Billabong (main basin of wetland) during the period spanning 2008-17

October 2012 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

March 2015 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

49

Figure A13b. Proportion of river red gums in each TCI score group at Pipeclay Billabong (far end of wetland) during the period spanning 2008-17

October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

50

Figure A14a. Proportion of river red gums in each TCI score group at Pipeclay Creek upstream of weir during the period spanning 2008-17

November 2013 (n =28)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100March 2015 (n = 25)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

51

Figure A14b. Proportion of river red gums in each TCI score group at Pipeclay Creek downstream of weir during the period spanning 2008-17

November 2013 (n =29)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100March 2015 (n = 27)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

52

Figure A15a. Proportion of river red gums in each TCI score group at Punkah Creek (transect 2; at Sheep Crossing) during the period spanning 2008-17

May 2008 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2010 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2011 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2012 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

53

Figure A15b. Proportion of river red gums in each TCI score group at Punkah Creek (transect 3; campsite 27) during the period spanning 2008-17

May 2008 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2010 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2011 (n = 29)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2012 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100November 2013 (n = 29)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

54

Figure A15c. Proportion of river red gums in each TCI score group at Punkah Creek (transect 4; campsite 24) during the period spanning 2008-17

May 2008 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2010 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2011 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2012 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

55

Figure A15d. Proportion of river red gums in each TCI score group at Punkah Creek (transect 5; campsite 25) during the period spanning 2008-17

May 2008 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2010 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2011 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2012 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017(n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

56

Figure A15e. Proportion of river red gums in each TCI score group at Punkah Creek (transect 6; campsite 26) during the period spanning 2008-17

May 2008 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2010 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2011 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2012 (n =30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

57

Figure A15f. Proportion of river red gums in each TCI score group at Punkah Creek (transect 7; campsite 31) during the period spanning 2008-17

May 2008 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2010 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2011 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

58

Figure A16. Proportion of river red gums in each TCI score group at Punkah Creek Depression during the period spanning 2008-17

Figure A17. Proportion of river red gums in each TCI score group at Punkah Island Horseshoes during the period spanning 2008-17.


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

March 2015 (n = 59)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

April 2008 (n = 90)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2009 (n = 90)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2012 (n = 88)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

59

Figure A18a. Proportion of river red gums in each TCI score group at Twin Creeks floodplain during the period spanning 2008-17.


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2009 (n = 29)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

July 2010 (n = 29)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2012 (n = 29)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 29)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

60

Figure A18b. Proportion of river red gums in each TCI score group at Twin Creeks floodrunner during the period spanning 2008-17.


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2009 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

July 2010 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2012 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

61

Figure A19a. Proportion of river red gums in each TCI score group at Werta Wert wetland (north basin) during the period spanning 2008-17.


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2010 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2012 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

March 2015 (n = 58)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

62

Figure A19b. Proportion of river red gums in each TCI score group at Werta Wert wetland (middle basin) during the period spanning 2008-17.


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2010 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2012 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

March 2015 (n = 58)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 59)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 59)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

63

Figure A19c. Proportion of river red gums in each TCI score group at Werta Wert wetland (south basin) during the period spanning 2008-17.


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2010 (n = 90)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2012 (n = 90)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

March 2015 (n = 74)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 90)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 90)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 78)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

64

Figure A20. Proportion of river red gums in each TCI score group at Woolshed Creek during the period spanning 2008-17.


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100April 2009 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100November 2011 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100October 2012 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100February 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100October 2015 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100August 2016 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 57)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

65

Appendix B: Black box: proportion of trees in each condition class.

Figure B1. Proportion of black box in each TCI score group at Boat Island transect 1 during the period spanning 2008-17.

Figure B2. Proportion of black box in each TCI score group at Boat Island transect 2 during the period spanning 2008-17.

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

66

Figure B3. Proportion of black box in each TCI score group at Brandy Bottle during the period spanning 2008-17.

June 2008 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2009 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

July 2010 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2011 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

67

Figure B4. Proportion of black box in each TCI score group at Chowilla Horseshoe during the period spanning 2008-17

March 2009 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100October 2009 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100October 2011 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2012 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

68

Figure B5. Proportion of black box in each TCI score group at Chowilla Island Loop Depression during the period spanning 2008-17

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

69

Figure B6. Proportion of black box in each TCI score group at Chowilla Oxbow during the period spanning 2008-17

March 2009 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100October 2009 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100October 2012 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100March 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

70

Figure B7. Proportion of black box in each TCI score group at Coach Road # 1 during the period spanning 2008-17.


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

March 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Feb 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

71

Figure B8. Proportion of black box in each TCI score group at Coach Road # 2 during the period spanning 2008-17.


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

March 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Feb 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

72

Figure B9. Proportion of trees (this is a mixed RRG and BB transect) in each TCI score group at Coombool during the period spanning 2008-17.


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100March 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100Feb 2017 (n = 28)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

73

Figure B10. Proportion of black box in each TCI score group at Coppermine Complex # 1 during the period spanning 2008-17.


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Feb 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

74


October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Feb 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

75


October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Feb 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

76



TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Feb 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

77


May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

78



October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

79

Figure B17. Proportion of black box in each TCI score group at Ferry Landing during the period spanning 2008-17.


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100March 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

80

Figure B18. Proportion of black box in each TCI score group at Gum Flat Creek during the period spanning 2008-17.


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

March 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Feb 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

81

Figure B19. Proportion of black box in each TCI score group at Gum Flat during the period spanning 2008-17

August 2008 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2009 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

July 2010 (n = 59)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2012 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

March 2015 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Feb 2017 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

82

Figure B20. Proportion of black box in each TCI score group at Kulkurna during the period spanning 2008-17.

July 2008 (n = 90)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2012 (n = 90)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 90)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 90)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

83

Figure B21. Proportion of black box in each TCI score group at Lake Limbra during the period spanning 2008-17.


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100March 2014 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100March 2015 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100August 2016 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100Feb 2017 (n = 59)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

84

Figure B22. Proportion of black box in each TCI score group at Monomon Creek Depression (MCD1) during the period spanning 2008-17.

March 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 26)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

85

Figure B23. Proportion of black box in each TCI score group at Monomon Creek Depression (MCD2) during the period spanning 2008-17.

March 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

86

Figure B24. Proportion of black box in each TCI score group at Monomon Island Depression during the period spanning 2008-17.

October 2012 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

March 2015 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 57)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

87

Figure B25. Proportion of black box in each TCI score group at Monomon Island S13CBB during the period spanning 2008-17

Figure B26. Proportion of black box in each TCI score group at Outer Werty during the period spanning 2008-17

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

88

Figure B27. Proportion of black box in each TCI score group at Pilby Regulator during the period spanning 2008-17.


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

March 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

89

Figure B28. Proportion of black box in each TCI score group at Pipeclay Island Floodrunner during the period spanning 2008-17.

Figure B29. Proportion of black box in each TCI score group at Punkah Creek High (S16CBB) during the period spanning 2008-17.

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Feb 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

90

Figure B30. Proportion of black box in each TCI score group at Punkah Creek Floodrunner during the period spanning 2008-17.

March 2008 (n = 90)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2009 (n = 90)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

July 2010 (n = 90)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2011 (n = 89)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2012 (n = 89)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 90)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 88)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 88)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

91

Figure B31. Proportion of black box in each TCI score group at Twin Creeks floodplain (TCH) during the period spanning 2008-17.


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

March 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Feb 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

92

Figure B32. Proportion of black box in each TCI score group at Twin Creeks floodrunner (TCD1) during the period spanning 2008-17.

March 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

93

Figure B33. Proportion of black box in each TCI score group at Twin Creeks floodrunner (TCD2) during the period spanning 2008-17.

March 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2016 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Feb 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

94

Figure B16. Proportion of black box in each TCI score group at Werta Wert during the period spanning 2008-17.


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

March 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Feb 2017 (n = 29)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 29)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

95

Figure B16. Proportion of black box in each TCI score group at S16CBB (Punkah Island) during the period spanning 2008-17

October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

96

Appendix C: River cooba: proportion of trees in each condition class.

97

Figure C1. Proportion of river cooba in each TCI score group at Brandy Bottle during the period spanning 2008-17.

June 2008 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2009 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

July 2010 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2011 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

98

Figure C2. Proportion of river cooba in each TCI score group at Chowilla Oxbow during the period spanning 2008-17.

March 2009 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2009 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2012 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

March 2015 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

99

Figure C3. Proportion of river cooba in each TCI score group at Gum Flat during the period spanning 2008-17.

August 2008 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100October 2009 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100July 2010 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2012 (n = 57)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100November 2013 (n = 59)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100March 2015 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

March 2015 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 60)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

100

Figure C4. Proportion of river cooba in each TCI score group at Monomon Island Depression during the period spanning 2008-17.

March 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100October 2015 (n = 28)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100August 2016 (n = 29)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 27)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

101

Figure C5. Proportion of river cooba in each TCI score group at Punkah Creek Depression during the period spanning 2008-17.

March 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 51)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

102

Figure C6. Proportion of river cooba in each TCI score group at Punkah Creek Floodrunner during the period spanning 2008-17.

March 2008 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

August 2009 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

July 2010 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2011 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2012 (n = 29)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n = 28)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

103

Figure C7. Proportion of river cooba in each TCI score group at Twin Creeks Depression during the period spanning 2008-17.

March 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100October 2015 (n = 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100August 2016 (n= 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

May 2017 (n= 30)

TCI sore

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

% o

f tr

ee

s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

104

105

References Casanova M.T. (2015) Review of water requirements for key floodpalin vegetation for the northern basin;

literature review and expert knowledge review. Draft Report produced for the Murray Darling Basin Authority

MDBC. (2006) The Chowilla Floodplain and Lindsay-Wallpolla Islands Icon Site Environmental Management Plan 2006–2007.

Overton I.C., Pollino C.A., Roberts J., Reid J., Bond N., Mcginness H., Gawne B., Stratford D., Merrin L.E., Barma D., Cuddy S.M., Nielsen D., Smith T., Henderson B., Baldwin D., Chiu G. & Doody T. (2014) Development of the Murray-Darling Basin PLan SDL Adjustment Ecological Elements Method. CSIRO Land and Water Flagship, Canberra.

Roberts J. & Marston F. (2011) Water regime for wetland and floodplain plants. A source book for the Murray−Darling Basin. National Water Commission, Canberra.

Souter N., Cunningham S., Little S., Wallace T., Mccarthy B., Henderson M. & Bennets K. (2009) Ground-based survey methods for The Living Murray assessment of condition of river red gum and black box populations. In: Version 11 (September 2009).

Souter N., Wallace T.A., Walter M. & Watts R. (2013) Raising river level to improve the condition of riparian river red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) on the lower River Murray, South Australia. Ecohydrology, 7, 334-344.

Wallace T.A. (2015) Chowilla Floodplain Icon Site Tree Condition survey data; May 2008 to November 2015. Report produced by Riverwater Life Pty Ltd for the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, South Australian Government.

Wallace T.A. (2016) Chowilla Floodplain Icon Site Tree Condition survey data May 2008 to August 2016. Report produced by Riverwater Life Pty Ltd for the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, South Australian Government. .

Wallace T.A. & Whittle J. (2014) Operations Plan for Chowilla Creek Regulator and ancillary structures V2.1. April 2014. Working Draft. Prepared for DEWNR and MDBA.

Date post:	15-Nov-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

Chowilla Floodplain Icon Site Tree Condition survey data ...

Documents