沙漠研究 23-4, 193 -198 (2014 )－APCSEET2013 Refereed Papers－

Journal of Arid Land Studies

Selection of Appropriate Planting Methods and Tree Species
for Arid Land Afforestation in Western Australia
Hideki SUGANUMA*1), Toshiaki OMORI1), Nozomi SATO1), Hiroyuki HAMANO2), Nobuhide TAKAHASHI3)
Hajime UTSUGI4), Toshinori KOJIMA1) and Koichi YAMADA2)
Abstract: As one of the countermeasures against global warming, afforestation in arid land had been proposed and has been tested
from 1999. Four types of planting methods and 10 tree species were applied in afforestation test site. In this study, we reportanalyzed results of which types of planting methods and tree species were appropriate for afforestation in arid land of Western
Australia, by comparing biomass growth and survival ratio of planted trees. Multiple comparison analyses were adopted as above
described comparison. From our results, Eucalyptus camaldulensis was considered as the most suitable tree species for this arid landafforestation, and water-harvesting combined with hardpan blasting was revealed statistically effective to accelerate tree growth and tokeep high survival ratio of planted E. camaldulensis. Even biomass growth of afforestation site was less than 5 Mg ha-1 y-1, this value
was much higher than biomass growth of natural vegetation.
Key Words: Bio-energy resource, Carbon mitigation, Hardpan, Statistical analysis.

1. Introduction
Many kinds of countermeasures against global warming
have been proposed and tested all over the world, and thesecountermeasures are categorized as two groups. One isemission reduction such as technology developments onenergy saving and renewable energy productions. The otheris green house gas (GHG) sequestration such as carbon captureand storage (CCS), and afforestation. By focusing on
biomass utilization, Canadel and Raupach (2008) proposedthat two approaches to reduce the net increase in atmosphericcarbon dioxide concentrations are to replace fossil fuels withrenewable biomass or sequester carbon in trees. As one of
the carbon sequestration methods using trees, our researchteam had proposed large scale afforestation methods in arid
land, and has been tested afforestation experiments in Leonora,
Western Australia (Yamada et al., 1999, 2003; Kojima andEgashira, 2011).
In arid land, harsh environmental condition constrains plant
growth and survival, and then biomass productivity is usuallyquite low, however, there are some significant advantages, e.g.
almost no land use competition with agriculture in arid land,
and tremendously large distribution area. Thus, if some
applications overcome such disadvantages of arid land
environment and improve growth rate and survival ratio ofplanted trees, arid land afforestation should acquire hugeamounts of CO2 sequestration potential with the advantage of* Corresponding Author: h.suganuma.yf19.frx99@gmail.com

scale in arid area. Though there are many reports on carbon
mitigation in arid area (Glenn et al., 1993; Lal, 2001; Burrows
et al., 2002; Yamada et al., 2003; Harper et al., 2007; CSIRO,
2009), Australia do not have sufficient data (little empiricaldata) to inform policy makers in this area (Witt et al., 2011).
Thus, our reports based on long term afforestation should beconsidered as greatly contributing to policy making about arid
area of Western Australia, and then one of our experimental
results is reported in this article.

2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Research area
The research area of this study is Sturt Meadows (28˚40'S,
120˚58'E) near Leonora, located about 600 km from Perth, theprovincial capital of Western Australia. The range of ourresearch area is approximately 45 km east and west, and 50 km
north and south. The annual rainfall was calculated as 211
mm (Yasuda et al., 2001), and potential evapo-transpiration
was observed as 3400 mm y-1 (Yamada et al., 1999). Actual
rainfall from 2000 to 2012 was averaging 258 mm y-1 andranging from 141 to 440 mm y-1. This research area belongs
to the Murchison region of Interim Biogeographic
Regionalization of Australia (IBRA) Version 5.1 (Environment
Australia, 2000). The Murchison environment was describedas having Mulga (Acacia aneura) low woodlands, often rich inephemerals, on outcrop hardpan wash plains and fine-textured
quaternary alluvial and eluvial surfaces mantling granitic and（Received, August 20th, 2013; Accepted, February 17th, 2014）

3-3-1, Kichijoji-Kitamachi, Musashino, Tokyo, 180-8633, Japan
1) Dept. Materials and Life Science, Seikei University, Japan

3) Faculty of Textile Science and Technology, Shinshu University

2) Center for Low Carbon Society Strategy, Japan Science and Technology Agency

4) Forestry and Forest Product Research Institutegreenstone strata (Environment Australia, 2000).
The
dominant land use of this Murchison area is grazing of cattle
and/or sheep, and there are some sparsely distributed mine sitesof such as iron, nickel and gold. The average grazingpressure in this area was reported as 0.7 AE km-2 for cattle and
6.0 DSE km-2 for sheep. AE and DSE denote Animal
Equivalent (400 kg per head) and Dry Sheep Equivalent (40 kg
per head), respectively (Fisher et al., 2004).
From the land cover classification result (Suganuma et al.,2006a), this research area is classified as 5 types of land cover,i.e. Acacia forest and woodland, Eucalyptus forest andwoodland, bare ground, halophyte and hydrosol (salt lake).
In addition, the vegetation of the research area was described
as a mixture of Acacia open forests, Acacia open woodlands
and Acacia shrublands in the latest vegetation map; further
information is available on the National Land and Water
Resources Audit (2002).
2.2. Afforestation site
Among several types of afforestation sites established by
Yamada et al. (2003), the largest afforestation site named “SiteC” was chosen for this research. The coordinate of thisafforestation site is 121˚0'50''E, 28˚35'20''S, and this can bewatched by Google Earth. Ten tree species were selectedfrom native tree species in arid area of Australia as follows,
Acacia aneura, A. tetragonophylla, Casuarina obesa,
Eucalyptus camaldulensis, E. campaspe, E. griffihsii, E.
lesoueffei, E. salburis, E. stricklandii and E. torquata. But not
all the trees were planted in each afforestation sub-plot.
Four types of afforestation methods were tested in thisafforestation site as described on Figure 1. Afforestation
method 1 adopted water harvesting technique which gathers
surface runoff water by large rectangular mound.
Afforestation method 2 adopted the same water harvesting
technique as method 1, and also adopted hardpan blasting
technique invented by Yamada et al. (2003). Afforestation
method 3 adopted the same hardpan blasting technique as
method 2, and also adopted micro-catchment technique which
consist of small water harvesting mound around each plantedtree.
Afforestation method 4 adopted the same
micro-catchment and hardpan blasting techniques as method 3,
and also adopted additional hardpan blasting technique whichassumed to introduce more surface runoff water penetrating
into underground, and then supplying planted trees with moreavailable water.
The hardpan was typically distributed under arid andsemi-arid condition in Australia, and the hardpan distributing
around the research area is called Wiluna Hardpan, which isvery hard soil layer developed by progressive silica
cementation of deposits (Teakle, 1950: Bettenary andTable 1. Basic information of afforestation site.
Afforestation
area
[ha]

Tree
number[trees]Treedensity-1[trees ha ]Water harvesting

0.249

42

169.0

Water harvesting+
hardpan blasting

0.259
0.261
0.219
0.245
0.228
0.240
0.215
0.211
0.249
0.264
0.254

42
42
39
42
42
42
41
42
42
48
48

162.3
161.1
177.8
171.3
183.9
174.8
190.7
199.3
168.4
181.7
189.0

Afforestation methods
Method 1

Method 2

Micro catchment
+
0.105
18
hardpan blasting
Micro catchment
Method 4+
0.134
18
double hardpan-1
Average tree density is 177.7 trees ha （about 7.5 m spacing）
Method 3

171.9

134.0

Method 1: Water harvesting

Method 2: Water harvesting withhardpan basting

Step 0

Step 2

Step 1

Step 3

Method 3: Micro-catchment withhardpan basting

Surface runoff

Method 4: Micro-catchment withdouble hardpan basting

Surface runoff

Fig. 1. Conceptual images of each afforestation method. For method
2, step 0 indicates natural regolith condition with thick hardpan
layer (over 7 m). Step 1 indicates drilling the holes and filling
explosives. Step 2 indicates blasting hardpan layer and making
holes. Step 3 indicates filling holes and planting trees.

Churchward, 1974). Hardpan was reported as root impending
layer which restricts the rooting depth of plants (Hingston et al.,1998). Pracilio et al. (2006) also reported that the hardpan
constrained the growth of planted trees. Thus, methods 2, 3
and 4 were developed to overcome disadvantages derived from
hardpan layer.
Afforestation site was established on August 1999. Alltrees were planted with 7 m spacing, but actual tree density

varied because of the size of water harvesting mounds of each
sub-plot. The average tree density is 177 trees ha-1. The
average sub-plot size of methods 1 and 2 was 0.24 ha, and thatof methods 3 and 4 was 0.12 ha. The basic information ofafforestation site is summarized on Table 1. To promote
taking root of planted trees and to avoid tree death by drought,
averaging 8 mm month-1 irrigation water was supplied to eachplanted tree until March 2005 (Shiono et al., 2007). After
March 2005, the trees grew under completely rain fed
condition.
2.3. Statistical analysis
From tree census data from June 2000 to September 2012
and allometric equations made by Shiono et al. (2006) andSuganuma et al. (2006b), biomass (above and below groundbiomass) and survival ratio of each tree species of each sub-plot
were calculated. From these calculations, replanted trees were
excluded.
In addition, the allometric equations of E.
camaldulensis were applied to other Eucalyptus tree species
since there was no allometric equation for them.
Obtained data of biomass and survival ratio of each tree
species were grouped to each afforestation method, and thensummarized on scatter plots. From these scatter plots,
candidate data of appropriate combination of tree species andafforestation methods were chosen by rough criterion andstatistical analyses. The rough criterion were that survival
ratio was over 50% and over 3 tree individuals were survived,
because the tree species less than 50% survival ratio were
obviously inappropriate for arid land afforestation and small
sample number introduced large error and then the reliability ofstatistical analysis should be greatly declined.
The selected candidate data were tested by statisticalanalyses which were multiple comparison of difference of
population mean (Bonferroni, α=0.05) for biomass data, andmultiple comparison of difference of population rate
(Bonferroni, α=0.05) for survival ratio data using Excel
Statistics (Esumi Co. Ltd.). In the case of prerequisite ofstatistical analysis was denied, Steel-Dwass test which is
nonparametric test was adopted, alternatively. From thesestatistical analyses, appropriate combination of tree species andafforestation methods were selected.
2.4. Estimation of potential carbon sequestration amount
According to UNFCCC (2006) guideline of Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM) afforestation, potential
carbon sequestration amount by selected afforestation method
and tree species was calculated.
Since Australia iscategorized the country of Annex I parties of Kyoto Protocol,
afforestation activity inside Australia should be carried out
under Joint Implementation (JI) afforestation, originally, butthere was no guideline of JI afforestation and JI afforestation
was considered to be conducted under similar condition with
CDM afforestation, thus the guideline by UNFCCC (2006)
was used in this study.
According to UNFCCC (2006), carbon sequestered byplanted trees was categorized as “actucal net GHG removals
by sinks” in two carbon pools (above and blow groundbiomass), and was calculated as short term afforestation (20years) or long term afforestation (30 years). In this study,
long term was adopted and calculated as follows.
MAI×N×0.5×44÷12 (1)MAI denotes mean annual increment [Mg ha-1 y-1] and were
calculated from tree growth and tree density of each sub-plot.
N denotes afforestation length and was 30 years. 0.5 isconversion factor of biomass to carbon, which is used generally(e.g., Ragland et al., 1991). 44 and 12 were molecular mass of
CO2 and atomic mass of carbon, respectively.
MAI of each tree species could not be calculated actually
because there was no afforestation sub-plot consists of single
tree species. Thus, pseudo biomass was introduces to thisstudy, and was calculated as follows.
PB = B × D × S (2)PB, B, D and S denote pseudo biomass, average biomass of acertain tree species, tree density and survival ratio of a certain
tree species, respectively. This pseudo biomass (PB) was used
for calculation of mean annual increment (MAI) in this study.

3. Results and Discussion
Annual change of biomass and survival ratio of eachplanted tree species in afforestation sub-pot made byafforestation method 1 is shown as a scatter plots on Figure 2,
whose Y-axis is survival ratio [%] and X-axis is averagebiomass [kg tree-1]. From Figure 2, the survival ratio of E.
camaldulensis once dropped around 70%, but recovered fromnext year. This indicates that some trees of E. camalduensis
died apparently after stopping irrigation, which meant there
were no green leaves on those trees at the tree census held in
2006, but they have green leaves at the tree census held after
2007. Thus, apparently died trees of E. camaldulensis wereconsidered to regenerate by adapting dry condition. From
this figure, the tree species whose survival ratio maintained
over 50% were A. aneura, A. tetragonophylla and E.
camaldulensis, however, the survived tree number were lessthan 3 individuals for A. aneura, A. tetragonophylla, and thenthey were excluded from statistical analyses.
Figure 3 shows the annual change of biomass and survival
ratio of each planted tree species in afforestation sub-pots madeby afforestation method 2 as the same type of scatter plots.
From this figure, the tree species whose survival ratioSurvival ratio[%]

Survival ratio[%]

Average biomass [kg tree-1]

Average biomass [kg tree-1]

Fig. 4. Average tree biomass and survival ratio of afforestation method 3.
Each plot shows calculation results of tree biomass and survival ratio of
each tree species of each year (from 2000 to 2012).

Survival ratio[%]

Survival ratio[%]Fig. 2. Average tree biomass and survival ratio of afforestation method 1.
Each plot shows calculation results of tree biomass and survival ratio of
each tree species of each year (from 2000 to 2012).

Average biomass [kg tree-1]

Average biomass [kg tree-1]

Fig. 3. Average tree biomass and survival ratio of afforestation method 2.
Each plot shows calculation results of tree biomass and survival ratio of
each tree species of each year (from 2000 to 2012).

Fig. 5. Average tree biomass and survival ratio of afforestation method 4.
Each plot shows calculation results of tree biomass and survival ratio of
each tree species of each year (from 2000 to 2012).

maintained over 50% were A. aneura, C. obesa and E.
camaldulensis, and then their data were used for statisticalanalyses.
Figures 4 and 5 show the annual change of biomass andsurvival ratio of each planted tree species in afforestation
sub-pots made by methods 3 and 4 as the same type of scatterplots, respectively. The tree species whose survival ratio
maintained over 50% was only E. camaldulensis in both
figures, and then their data were used for statistical analyses.
By using data samples of selected tree species from Figures
2 to 5, statistical analyses which were multiple comparison ofdifference of population mean (Bonferroni, α=0.05) forbiomass data, and multiple comparison of difference of
population rate (Bonferroni, α=0.05) for survival ratio werecarried out and their results were summarized on Table 2.
From these results, the average biomass of E. camaldulensis, C.
obesa and A. aneura of afforestation method 2 weresignificantly the largest, 2nd largest, the smallest among theselected data, respectively. And for other sample data,probably because of sample number shortage (from 5 to 8
trees) and large values of standard deviation (around 100 kg
tree-1), obvious significant difference and/or similarity were not

Table 2. Selected combinations of tree species and survival ratio by
rough criterion.
Afforestation methods andplanted tree species
Method 1: E. camaldulensis

Average biomass-1[kg tree ]68.8 abSurvival ratio[%]
89.5 ab

Method 2: A. aneura

72.7

a

100

c

Method 2: C. obesa

203.5

b

75.0

a

Method 2: E. camaldulensis

352.6

c

96.4 bc

Method 3: E. camaldulensis

324.5 bc

100c

Method 4: E. camaldulensis

150.9 ab100cobserved, and then ranked as interim like ab or bc.
Significantly the highest survival ratio were judged as A.
aneura of afforestation method 2 and E. camaldulensis ofafforestation methods 3 and 4. The survival ratio of C. obesa ofafforestation method 2 was significantly the lowest. And forother sample data were not significantly different and/or similar.
Because of the sufficient sample number (from 29 to 71
trees), the significant differences of average tree biomassamong three tree species planted by afforestation method 2
were observed. The biomass of E. camaldulensis was about
4 times and 2 times larger than those of A. aneura and C. obesa,
respectively. From the standpoint of average biomass value,
C. obesa was also considered as appropriate tree species,however, significantly the lowest survival ratio depressed its
biomass productivity, which was calculated from pseudobiomass by equation (2). In addition, the decline of thesurvival ratio of C. obesa occured soon after stopping irrigation,and has been continued. Thus, C. obesa was judged as notsuitable tree species for arid land afforestation.
By comparing afforestation methods using the data of E.
camaldulensis, the average tree biomass of method 2 was 5
times larger than that of method 1, and their difference wasstatistically significant, thus hardpan blasting method wasconsidered as effective method for accelerating tree growth inarid area, where hardpan layer constrains plant growth. But
hardpan blasting cost too much, and CO2 emission ofafforestation site establishment was also higher than otherordinal afforestation methods, thus whether adopting hardpan
blasting method, or not, should be judged as another aspect, e.g.
life cycle assessment, in future study.
The average tree biomass and survival ratio of methods 2
and 3 were not significantly different. Thus, both water
harvesting techniques by large rectangular mound and micro
catchment combined with hardpan blasting were considered as
effective methods for arid land afforestation. Thus, whichtypes of water harvesting techniques were adopted should be
judged by another aspect (e.g. cost effectiveness).
Afforestation method 4 obviously had disadvantage of costand biomass productivity compared to afforestation methods 2
and 3, thus this method should be excluded from candidates ofafforestation methods in arid land.
By using the data of E. camaldulensis planted byafforestation method 2, which had the largest sample number,and equations (1) and (2), MAI and potential carbon
sequestration amount were calculated as 4.41 Mg ha-1 y-1 and
243 Mg-CO2e ha-1, respectively. For MAI of original
vegetation, which is Acacia woodland and open forest
dominated by A. aneura, was observed as about 0.2 Mg-CO2e
ha-1 y-1 (Suganuma et al., 2012), and that of similar vegetationin Queensland, which was Mulga open forest also dominatedby A. aneura, was reported as from 0.73 to 0.91 Mg-CO2e ha-1
Considering these data, E.
y-1 (Witt et al., 2011).
camaldulensis planted by afforestation method 2 was quite
effective for carbon mitigation in arid area of Western Australia.
In addition, since E. camaldulensis is native tree species andalso observed inside research area, and afforestation area
consists of plantation area (25%) and conservation area as it isfor water harvesting (75%), the impact to the naturalenvironment by applying this type of afforestation techniquesshould be reduced to the minimum.
On the other hand, comparing the growth rate of generalplantation and/or afforestation using Eucalyptus species intemperate and tropical area reported as over 25 Mg ha-1 y-1(Tzanakakis et al., 2009) and 45-60 m3 ha-1 y-1 (FAO, 2005),
4.41 Mg ha-1 y-1 is quite slow tree growth. From the report ofHassel and Associates (1996), the tree growth rate of 4.41 Mg
ha-1 y-1 is categorized as the lowest productivity of the
Eucalyptus forest. So this biomass growth rate is not so highin general. But comparing the carbon sequestration rate
which was from 1.4 to 2.6 Mg-CO2e ha-1 y-1 of Eucalyptus
woodlands in Queensland (annual rainfall: 200-800 mm)
reported by Burrows et al. (2002), about 8 Mg-CO2e ha-1 y-1
carbon sequestration rate (equivalent to 4.41 Mg ha-1 y-1
biomass growth rate) in our study area (annual rainfall: around
200 mm) was considered as relatively high in arid land. In
addition, since there are about 650,000 km2 area of the same
vegetation and the same land use as research area in Western
Australia (National Land and Water Resources Audit, 2002),
this arid land afforestation was considered to receive theadvantage of scale, and to have possibility of huge CO2
sequestration.

4. Conclusion
From afforestation experiments in Sturt Meadows in arid
area of Western Australia and statistical analyses, the E.
camaldulensis (native tree species) monoculture afforestation
with water harvesting combined with hardpan blasting
techniques was considered as the most appropriate
afforestation method for this arid area from the viewpoint ofbiomass productivity (i.e. carbon sequestration amount), and tohave the potential to sequester huge amounts of CO2 bymaking the most use of advantage of scale in future practice.
Acknowledgement
This work was conducted under the support of JSPS
KAKENHI Grand number 25304004, the Mitsui & Co., Ltd.
Environment Fund, the Global Environment Research Fund of
The Ministry of Environment of Japan (GHG-SSCP project),
and the Core Research for Evolution Science and Technology
fund (CREST) of Science and Technology Agency of Japan.

References
Bettenary E., Churchward H.M. (1974): Morphology andstratigraphic relationships of the Wiluna hardpan in arid
Western Australia. J. Geol. Soc. Aust., 21: 73-80
Burrows W.H., Henry B.K., Back P.V., Hoffmann M.B., Tait
L.J., Anderson E.R., Menke N., Danaher T., Carter J.,
McKeon G.M. (2002): Growth and carbon stock change in
eucalypt woodlands in northeast Australia: ecological andgreenhouse sink implications. Global Change Biol., 8:
769-784.

Canadell J.G., Raupach M.R. (2008): Managing forests forclimate change mitigation. Science, 320 (5882): 1456-1457.
CSIRO (2009): An Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
and Carbon Sequestration Opportunities from Rural Land
Use. CSIRO, Australia.
Environment Australia (2000): Revision of the Interim
Bio-geographic Regionalisation of Australia (IBRA) and thedevelopment of version 5.1. Summary report. Department ofEnvironment and Heritage, Canberra.
FAO (2005): Global forest resources assessment 2005 - main
report. FAO Forestry Paper.
Fisher A., Hunt L., James C., Landsberg J., Phelps D., Smyth
A., Watson I. (2004): Review of total grazing pressure
management issues and priorities for biodiversity
conservation in rangelands: A resource to aid NRNplanning. Desert Knowledge CRC Project Report No. 3.
Desert Knowledge of CRC and Tropical Savannas
Management CRC, Alice Springs.
Glenn E., Squires V., Olsen M., Frye R. (1993): Potential for
carbon sequestration in the drylands. Water Air Soil Pollut.,
70: 341-355.
Harper R.J., Beck A.C., Ritson P., Hill M.J., Mitchell C.D.,
Barrett D.J., Smettem K.R.J., Mann S.S. (2007): The
potential of greenhouse sinks to underwrite improved land
management. Ecol. Eng., 29: 329-341.
Hassall and Associates (1996): Sequestration of atmosphericcarbon dioxide in trees. Hassall and Associates, Australia.
Hingston F.J., Galbraith J.H., Dimmock G.M. (1998):
Application of the process-based model BIOMASS to
Eucalyptus globulus subsp. globulus plantations on
exfarmland in south western Australia I. Water use by trees
and assessing risk of losses due to drought. For. Ecol.
Manage., 106:141-156
Kojima T., Egashira Y. (2011): Arid Land Afforestation
against Global Warming. Corona publishing Co. Ltd.
Lal R. (2001): Potential of desertification control to sequester
carbon and mitigate the green house effect. Climatic Change,
51: 35-72.
National Land and Water Resources Audit (2002): Australia’s
native vegetation - A summary of the national land andwater resources audit’s Australian native vegetationassessment 2001. Commonwealth of Australia.
Pracilio G., Smettem K.R.J., Bennett D., Harper R.J., Adams
M.L. (2006): Site assessment of a woody crop where ashallow hardpan soil layer constrained plant growth. Plant
Soil, 288: 113-125.
Ragland K.W., Aerts D.J., Baker A.J. (1991): Properties ofwood for combustion analysis. Bioresour. Technol., 37:
161-168.
Shiono K., Suganuma H., Abe Y., Tanouchi H., Utsugi H.,

Saito M., Takahashi N., Kojima T., Yamada K. (2006):
Biomass growth estimation of an afforestation site andnatural forest in an arid land of Western Australia. J. Arid
Land Studies, 15(4): 251-254.
Shiono K., Abe Y., Tanouchi H., Utsugi H., Takahashi N.,
Hamano H., Kojima T., Yamada K. (2007): Growth andsurvival of arid land forestation species (Acacia aneura,
Eucalyptus camaldulensis and E. salubris) with hardpan
blasting. J. Arid Land Studies, 17(1): 11-22.
Suganuma H., Nagatani S., Abe Y., Tanouchi H., Kojima T.,
Yamada K. (2006a): Examination of the validity of standbiomass estimation using vegetation indices combined withvegetation classification in an arid area. J. Remote Sens. Soc.
Jpn., 26: 95-106.
Suganuma H., Abe Y., Taniguchi M., Tanouchi H., Utsugi H.,
Kojima T., Yamada K. (2006b): Stand biomass estimation
method by canopy coverage for application to remotesensing in an arid area of Western Australia. For. Ecol.
Manage., 222: 75-87.
Suganuma H., Ito T., Tanouchi H., Egashira Y., Kurosawa K.,
Kojima T. (2012): Estimation of carbon sequestration
potential using satellite image analysis and ground truth. J.
Arid Land Studies, 22(1): 69-72.
Tzanakakis V.A., Paranychianakis N.V., Angelakis A.N.
(2009): Nutrient removal and biomass production in land
treatment systems receiving domestic effluent. EcologicalEngineering, 35: 1485-1492
Teakle L.J.H. (1950): Red and brown hardpan soils of Western
Australia. J. Aus. Inst. Agr. Sci., 16: 15-17.
UNFCCC (2006): Guideline for completing CDM-AR-PDD
and CDM-AR-NM. -Clean development mechanism
guidelines for completing the project design document for
A/R (CDM-AR-PDD), the proposed new methodology for
A/R: Baseline and monitoring (CDM-AR-NM) version 4-.
UNFCCC.
Witt G.B., Noël M.V., Bird M.I., Beeton R.J.S. (Bob),
Menzies N.W. (2011): Carbon sequestration andbiodiversity restoration potential of semi-arid mulga lands ofAustralia interpreted from long-term grazing exclosures.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 141: 108-118.
Yamada K., Kojima T., Abe Y., Saito M., Egashira Y.,
Takahashi N., Tahara K., Law J. (2003): Restructuring andafforestation of hardpan area to sequester carbon. J. Chem.
Eng. Jpn., 36: 328-332.
Yamada K., Kojima T., Abe Y., Williams A., Law J. (1999):
Carbon sequestration in an arid environment near Leonora,
Western Australia. J. Arid Land Studies, 9: 143-151.
Yasuda H., Abe Y., Yamada K. (2001): Periodic fluctuation of
the annual rainfall time series at Sturt Meadows, the Western
Australia. J. Arid Land Studies, 11: 71-74.