Local peoples’ knowledge and perceptions of Australian wattle (Acacia) species invasion, ecosystem services and disservices in grassland landscapes, South Africa

Figures & data

Table 1. Demographic, education and economic data for the two land user groups: commercial and communal farmers and livestock ownership. HH = household, LSU = Large Stock Units.

Respondent attributes	Commercial (n = 12)	Communal (n = 65)
Gender (%Male)	92	71
Mean age (years)	56 ± 14.2	53 ± 15.6
Education (mean no. years)	8 ± 2.2	5 ± 2.8
Education (mean no. having tertiary) per HH	2 ± 1.5	0 ± 0.4
Mean no. receiving a social grant per HH	0 ± 0.8	2 ± 2.4
Mean no. wage earners per HH	2 ± 1.4	1 ± 0.9
HH with livestock (%)	100 ± 0	80 ± 0.4
Mean no. cattle per HH	284 ± 209.1	8 ± 11.1
Mean no. goats per HH	3 ± 9.2	8 ± 12.4
Mean no. sheep per HH	61 ± 92.5	9 ± 24.9
Mean no. horses per HH	8 ± 6.2	1 ± 2.9
Mean no. LSU/HH	330 ± 221.8	14 ± 17.1

Table 2. Land users' knowledge and perceptions of wattle in the Umzimvubu catchment (percentage of households answering in affirmative).

			Statistics
Questions (% yes)	Commercial	Communal	χ^2, df, p-value
Do you know what wattle is?	100	100	0; 1; 1.00
Are you aware it is invasive?	100	99	0.2; 1; 0.693
Is it spreading?	58	100	29.0; 1; <0.001
Do you know the causes of spread?	100	95	0.6; 1; 0.463
Do you want wattle?	100	42	13.9; 1; <0.001

Figure 1. Land user ranking of the areas where wattle is most abundant on communal and commercial land (χ² = 4.9; df = 4; p = 0.296).

Figure 2. Land user views of the vectors of wattle spread on communal and commercial land (χ² = 17.1; df = 6; p < 0.05).

Table 3. Land users’ preferred level of wattle abundance in different parts of the landscape (Data are percentage of all households that suggested particular preference). Each respondent was asked if they would prefer to have more wattle on different landscapes, if wattle was maintained at current levels, reduced, or completely removed from each landscape. NB: All respondents were asked to give an opinion, based on the current levels of wattle invasion, on each landscape – so totals may not add up to 100%.

				Statistics
Landscape	Preference	Commercial	Communal	χ^2; df; p-value
Grazing areas	Current	0	9	0.60; 1; 0.44
	Less	42	42	0.0; 1; 0.99
	None	0	46	9.1; 1; 0.003
Streams	Current	0	4	0.1; 1; 0.45
	Less	17	25	0.4; 1; 0.55
	None	14	59	15; 1; <0.001
Old croplands	Current	0	2	0.2; 1; 0.67
	Less	8	11	0.6; 1; 0.80
	None	0	74	23; 1; <0.001
Homesteads	Current	0	4	0.4; 1; 0.54
	Less	0	5	0.6; 1; 0.45
	None	0	86	23.5; 1; <0.001

Table 4. Land users’ views of the negative impacts of wattle (ecosystems disservices). Values are the percentage of each land user group that suggested a particular disservice.

			Statistics
Ecosystem disservices	Commercial	Communal	χ^2; df; p value
Reduces grass	83	92	1.0; 1; 0.32
Takes up grazing area	75	80	0.0; 1; 0.89
Not easy to locate livestock	50	40	0.4; 1; 0.52
Increases chances of livestock theft	50	28	2.3; 1; 0.13
Reduces water flows	66	39	3.3; 1; 0.70
Provides shelter for predators	0	22	3.2; 1; 0.76
Provides hiding for criminals	17	34	1.4; 1; 0.24
Destroys homes	0	8	1.0; 1; 0.32
Increases need for buying livestock feed	17	2	6.2; 1; 0.01
Reduces livestock body condition	42	65	2.2; 1; 0.14
Reduces livestock reproduction	42	68	3.0; 1; 0.09
Impacts on livestock grazing patterns	42	72	4.3; 1; 0.04
Reduces livestock income	50	65	1.0; 1; 0.32

Table 5. Land user views of the ecosystem services provided by wattle species to communal and commercial households (values are the percentage of each land user group that suggested a particular service).

	Farming type		Statistics
Ecosystem Services	Commercial	Communal	χ^2; 1; p-value
Fuelwood	83	98	6.2; 1; 0.01
Fencing poles	67	49	1.2; 1; 0.27
Construction poles	0	29	4.3; 1; 0.11
Kraaling material	0	11	1.4; 1; 0.23
Source of income	17	2	6.2; 1; 0.01
Medicine	0	11	1.4; 1; 0.23
Shelter for livestock	50	9	12.8; 1; <0.001
Food for livestock	8	2	1.8; 1; 0.17
Job creation	8	0	5.5; 1; 0.02