Multiple targeted mitigation measures should be incorporated and incentivised in catchment management plans
Results from this study support fencing as an effective method of improving the ecological integrity of headwater streams. However, such measures can be costly (Byers et al., 2005; Bayley and Li, 2008; Rawluk et al., 2014), impractical (Sheffield et al., 1997) and unattractive to farmers and other land managers (Graz et al., 2012). To avoid a one-size-fits-all approach, Schulte et al. (2009) promoted targeting fencing schemes to critical source areas, while Kilgarriff et al (2020) found that fencing areas according to agricultural intensity to be a cost-effective solution. Similarly, fencing and cattle exclusion alone may not be sufficient to restore the ecological condition of impacted watercourse and thus should not be considered a cure-all, but rather one measure in a suite of mitigation measures that could be integrated into wider management plans (Brannan et al., 2000; Schulte et al., 2009; Collins et al., 2010; Smolders et al., 2015).Further research on the socio-economic costs of fencing and costs associated with provision of an alternative water supply (if necessary) as part of integrated catchment management plans is required.