The detection of Phytophthora Taxon “Agathis” in the second round of surveillance sampling - with discussion of the implications for kauri dieback management of all surveillance activity

A J Beauchamp Shared Services Threats and Transformation Department of Conservation for Joint Agency Kauri Dieback Response 18 April 2013

Executive summary

Kauri dieback caused by Phytophthora taxon “Agathis” (PTA) (Beever et al. 2009), has been the subject of a joint agency response since 2009. Surveillance 2 aimed at a more comprehensive assessment of the location of PTA and its movement (Beauchamp 2011a). It added to the information from Surveillance 1 and a targeted assessment at Waipoua (Beauchamp 2011b, 2011c, 2011d). It also added to the surveying of the Auckland region, done by Auckland Council using different methods of data collection and only one assessment laboratory at Plant and Food Research (Nick Waipara, pers comm.).

Surveillance 2 sampled 89 sites and took 212 samples (Fig 1). Eighty five percent of the samples included Kauri from seedlings to iconic large trees. Sites lacking Kauri include other vegetated areas of native bush and plantations associated with kauri plantations in the Coromandel and farm sites.

The overall picture that emerges from all surveillance and sampling is that four forested areas have parts that contain a lot of foci; Waipoua, Waitakere, Punaruku and Aotea/Great Barrier Island. There are also extensive areas of small patches and reserves in the predominantly rural area between Auckland and the Brynderwyns that are contaminated. Sites at Aotea/Great Barrier Island, Centennial Park (Waitakere) and Tomarata all showed signs of dieback in the late 1960s and early 1970s and sampling in Surveillance 2 suggests this was PTA. Tree rings from the site at Centennial Park, and the plantation evidence from Waipoua nursery from trees planted in 1955-56 (at least), suggests that PTA was active in at least Waipoua and Waitakere, and the Tomarata rural area in the 1950s. The spread on Great Barrier Island and within Punaruku could be the result of forest service activity which moved soil to and within these sites as seedlings or on machinery, and/or local movement that may include goats and pigs.

PTA has not been detected in areas or the Northern forests outside of isolated plantations at Raetea and Omahuta, or in the Hunua Ranges or the Coromandel and Kaimai forests. It is present in the rural blocks on the Awhitu Peninsula in South Auckland.

The conclusions that can be reached from this sampling are:

 The results of sampling and a lack of symptomology in Kauri over large areas suggest that PTA is absent at sites within contaminated forests, and is potentially absent or still restricted to plantations near some large Kauri forests. It is not too late to save many natural sites from contamination.

1  The symptomology that is considered to generally be characteristic of PTA in kauri is not ubiquitous and cannot be used in all cases to identify positive sites. Kauri at Glenbervie and Punaruku are living with PTA and are not currently showing the extent of classic symptomology that would be expected from such widespread contamination. The environmental and other likely reasons for this are worth investigating.

 Some Kauri that were planted at Glenbervie are probably from the same stock as plantations at Waipoua and Raetea, where classic symptomology and deaths are occurring.

 Sampling now suggests that the dispersal of PTA from Waipoua nursery was quite restricted and potentially occurred through only one cohort of seedlings planted in the 1955-56 period in Waipoua, Raetea, Glenbervie and Aotea/Great Barrier Island. Some sites in Waipoua and Great Barrier Island need further assessment. The full investigation of this dispersal route should be undertaken because it is the likely source of movement of material to other amenity plantings (Omahuta). Isolation of some planted forests (Raetea) and amenity plantations (Omahuta) by fencing could control or slow the spread of PTA to natural areas. Such areas can be useful to allow key science on oospore destruction and natural longevity to be established.

 There is no information to suggest that PTA was spread from Sweetwater or other NZFS nurseries. The positive sites at Raetea and Punaruku and Glenbervie may be the result of poor equipment hygiene when the forests were blanked1 or due to animal (human, goat, pig) movement from contaminated plantings.

 PTA is present on farmland and has the potential for being moved on and between farms by stock and farming activity. PTA is not present in all farmland and mechanisms should be investigated with the farming and transport sectors to reduce the risk of spread within farmland and especially to farmland in the areas north of the Brynderwyns, South Auckland and the Coromandel.

 PTA appears to be being spread by pigs, and maybe other animals. The spread of pigs from contaminated forest to uncontaminated ones represents a high risk. There is the potential for pig spread within existing contaminated regions: in the Waitakere Ranges; in the Brynderwyn Ranges; Waipu and through Mareretu; Waipoua and surrounding forests; Glenbervie and Punaruku to Rawhiti; and on Great Barrier Island. Pigs could also spread material from the small foci in other forests at Omahuta and Raetea.

 There are some existing sites that were not sampled in Surveillance 2 but could add to the current information. Ad-hoc sampling of potentially infected sites and follow-up of their potential vector routes should remain a focus of the programme.

1 Blanking is the process of planting into areas of a plantation where tree death has occurred.

2 1.0 Background

The second round of surveillance sampling was designed to add to the information that has been collected on kauri dieback at other sites, and to complete a more comprehensive coverage of the sites with Kauri (Beauchamp 2011a). It follows some follow-up of surveillance 1 sites and resolution of issues related to temperature monitoring during sample transport (Beauchamp 2012).

The sampling aimed at investigating further some of the track and road issues investigated in Surveillance 1 and other issues including:

 presence in iconic trees and stands  the potential for animal/farmland transport of PTA  misidentification at sites where past science has taken place,  presence on islands lacking large animal (non-human) vectors  spread by New Zealand Forest Service (NZFS) activities and nurseries including looking at sites where planting was a complete failure  presence in natural sites within the full range of kauri, including those important to hapu.

It was initially considered that sampling would include both soil and cork cambial sampling but no final method has been developed for cork cambial sampling. The results comprise soil sampling alone.

The leadership team of the joint agency wanted the soils sampling process to be an open tender, and requested that the sampling area be divided into three so that tangata whenua could bid for the work. The successful contractors were Wildlands Ltd., who sampled the areas south of Whangarei, and the operations group of Te Roroa, who sampled the area north of Whangarei. Both of these contractors had handled previous soil sampling contracts for the Joint Agency, so no further training was required ( Beauchamp et al. 2012).

There had been some difficulty with the interpretation of Surveillance 1 results, and there was suspicion that samples had been temperature compromised during transport. This was resolved in the Waipoua sampling (Beauchamp 2011c).

This report is not intended to be an environmental assessment of the drivers of Kauri dieback. It includes an assessment of some data collected during sampling but not the detection probabilities of the sampling (Beauchamp 2011b, 2012).

3 2.0 Methods

Field sampling was undertaken between 24 Oct 2012 and 14 Dec 2012 by two teams of two samplers using the sampling protocol (Beauchamp et al. 2012). Sites were chosen to target specific aspects of vectoring or areas of interest (see section 3). The reasoning behind each site chosen was not made obvious to the sample collectors, but they were encouraged to phone if the sites had no kauri present. Some forestry sites were known (Athenree) and likely (Punaruku, Riverhead, ) to lack plantation kauri but could have kauri seedlings and rickers present.

The full range of samples at some other sites were not taken as I had instructed the samplers that due to the reduction in allocated budget to the labs that only 80 sites worth (three trees per site) could be sampled. Most of the reduction was in areas found to be lacking kauri and in kauri sites on positive farm sites, where we were assessing the non-kauri associated distribution of oospores.

I was not aware of the location of sites on the ground in the Coromandel and relied on stock maps to define the location of specific sites. Mistakes were made in the positioning of sites aimed at plantations in Puketi, Tairua and Valley. Samples taken at these sites should have been interpreted as control sites ((samples 61-66 and samples 180-187) and in the Tairua plantation (samples 207-210) in the Coromandel). These results are discussed in this report in relation to expectation of spread and detection of PTA.

The laboratory procedures were those used in the first surveillance and the Waipoua sampling, however, the number of labs we required to test each sample was reduced from three to two2. Landcare received all samples and downloaded temperature probe information for all sample movement to and between labs. All samples were allocated by Stan Bellgard (Landcare Research) to two of the three labs (Landcare, Plant and Food, SCION) and Landcare Research compiled the results (Bellgard 2013).

The minimum field data was loaded by the contractors (DOCDM-1141591 (northern) and DOCDM-1141600 (southern) and the results from the labs were loaded (Appendix 1), after checking the interim report from the contractors and the labs (DOCDM-1145165; Bellgard et al. 2013). An assessment of the detection probabilities of the first 26 sites was carried out using PRESENCE (DOCDM- 1133757, Beauchamp 2012). This and previous assessments (Beauchamp 2011b, 2012) formed the basis for auditing the labs for consistency of application of the soil sample assessment protocol.

In this report a site is a group of three samples (trees) unless otherwise stated (Appendix 1). At a non-kauri site samples covered the same footprint of a positive kauri ricker. All sites were sampled in the way defined in the sampling protocol. A soil sample comprised the combined soil of 8 cardinal 125g soil samples taken near the trunk and the drip line of each tree (Beauchamp et al. 2012). The symptomology expression was assessed using the raw data collected by the samplers (Appendix 4, Beauchamp et al. 2012, DOCDM-770774). The only exception was the treatment of feeder-root health. Sites were assessed as poor when feeder roots were absent or only dead with few live roots in the 8 holes; as moderate when feeder roots were

2 The reduction in the number of laboratories was due to a balance between cost, sample validation and the relatively poor detection probabilities for the test method.

4 present as live and dead roots, and as high when sampling encountered only few dead or only live roots at most sites.

The maps of sites from all surveillance were generated by Andrew McDonald (NRC).

5 3.0 Sampling site choice

Surveillance 2 added to previous sampling. Forests that had been covered in previous sampling were excluded unless there was a specific piece of information that would add to our understanding of the distribution or vectoring of PTA.

Distribution and aerial surveillance

In 2010 soil samples around suspect or known PTA contaminated trees were taken at Raetea plantation, Waipoua and Trounson Kauri Park to test isolation methods and to develop a tailored method for the detection of PTA, because the test method used up until that time had extremely poor detection potential (Bellgard et al. 2010). These methods identified the Waitakere Ranges, Raetea plantation, Waipoua, Trounson Kauri Park, Logues Bush, Robert Hastie Scenic Reserve, Albany Scenic Reserve and Pakiri Scenic Reserve as positive for PTA.

The first round of surveillance covered forests within the northern sector but did not cover the Coromandel Ranges or Kaimai Ranges. Some forests, like Warawara were not sampled due to access issues in the first round of surveillance. In the second round of surveillance sampling took place at all of these places to get an overall picture of the status of these forests.

Limited aerial surveillance was done to select sites for sampling in Waipoua. Auckland Council undertook intensive helicopter aerial surveillance over the Waitakere Ranges, Hunua Ranges (Jamieson et al. 2012) and the joint agency undertook fixed wing flights over Aotea/Great Barrier Island (Jamieson 2012a) and the Coromandel Ranges (Jamieson 2012b), the forests and rural kauri remnants between Whangarei-Tomarata, and Whangarei-Punaruku. Auckland Council followed up the Waitakere and Hunua surveys with ground-truthing assessment before the contracts for the second round of surveillance took place (Auckland Council Surveillance Report 2011).

In Surveillance 2 trees seen in the fixed wing flights south of Whangarei in the Mareretu Forest, Pukekaroro and on private land on the escarpment of the Brynderwyns were included for sampling. The Coromandel survey only picked up one site where ground investigation was warranted and this site is registered for ad hoc sampling.

Natural sites

There were a number of forests that were not sampled, or were inadequately sampled, in previous surveillance. These included Te Paki and Warawara in the far north, sites in eastern Northland and the Coromandel and Kaimai Ranges.

In Surveillance 2 emphasis was placed on sites where there was human contact (roads and tracks) or there was old growth stands in these forests.

Sites important to iwi/hapu

In the Waipoua sampling Te Roroa decided on the appropriateness of sampling sites, including sites that were of importance to them. We indicated to the Roopu that we were prepared to sample other sites of importance to iwi without any requirement for

6 them to indicate why such sites were important. We would work with them to address the sampling at these sites.

In Surveillance 2 sites near Rawhiti and one in Warawara were included in the sampling plan.

Iconic trees and stands

The term “Iconic” was used here to refer to large named trees that are referred to in books (Hackett & Sale 1986), or as part of mapping by kauri 2000 (www.kauri2000.co.nz/coromandel_kauri_giants.html).

In Surveillance 2 we sampled the larger “Iconic” trees that are or have been accessible to the public and visited frequently. The sampling included 3 the larger trees (Devcich, Manaia and Square Kauri) in the Coromandel Ranges, and Tuahu in the Kaimai Ranges.

Farm lands where PTA is present

Cattle are implicated in moving other Phytophthora species (La Manna et al. 2008). Cattle have been used in log recovery in Kauri forests, and it was once common practice to use bush areas for winter fodder (Beauchamp & Waipara 2011). Many areas of unfenced bush are still trampled by stock. If PTA is present in these areas then it could be moved by stock to new sites in mud. Infected ricker kauri tend to fall within months or at most a few years after death, and areas of under-grazed forest that now appear to lack kauri may have formally held kauri.

PTA has been detected on a number of farms in the area between the Waitakere Ranges and the Brynderwyn Ranges. It is also present on properties at the tip of the Awhitu Peninsula in South Auckland (Beauchamp & Waipara 2011, DOCDM- 863979). At one site, Logue’s Bush, there were investigations in the 1970s (Dave Bartrum, pers. comm.) of trees that at that time matched the PTA symptomology seen on Great Barrier Island (Gadgil 1974; Beauchamp 2010). However, these investigations came to the conclusion that the death of the kauri there were due to drought stress (NZFS files). However, the research programme initiated by Ross Beever (Landcare Research) prior to 2009 detected PTA in cork cambial samples from the Logues Bush Reserve (Nick Waipara, pers. comm.). In addition, an inspection of a property near Kaiwaka pointed to PTA and movement issues on farms (Beauchamp & Waipara 2011).

In Surveillance 2, the Logues farm 1970s sites, the Kaiwaka farm and two others where PTA was present were chosen to assess farm vectoring potential. In addition, sites that could potentially have been contaminated by stock but are now fenced (seen in aerial surveillance) were tested.

Sites where previous science has suggested PTA presence

Before 2010 scientists used a laboratory method that isolated Phytophthora, including P. cinammomi, but not PTA with certainty3. P. cinamommi was frequently

3 This is due to the inadequate drying of the sample, issues with changes in the genetics of the bioassay catcher lupin, and potentially the type of agar used to grow the Phytophthora.

7 found in Kauri forests (Podger & Newhook 1971), and there was disagreement about the importance of P. cinnamomi in Kauri death, which may have biased the rigor that some scientists pursued causative organisms (P. Gadgil, pers. comm.). Previous dieback that has been attributed to P. cinamommi may have been caused but PTA. We were able to identify from photos one of the two dieback sites that Podger and Newhook (1971) assessed in 1966-70, and are trying to find the other site (Nick Waipara, pers. comm.).

In Surveillance 2 the kauri dieback site well described by Podger and Newhook (1971) at Centennial Park was sampled to see if PTA was present. Another site was sampled in the Cascades where one of many permanent plots were established.

Islands lacking large animal (non-human) vectors

There are a few larger offshore islands that hold natural populations of kauri. These islands may represent areas where kauri can be protected from many factors that could cause spread (human and cattle movement). Auckland Council has sampled Waiheke Island (Nick Waipara, pers com.) and there has been sampling of any suspect trees on Hauturu/Little Barrier. PTA has not been detected on these islands.

In Surveillance 2 we looked at “canopy compromised” sites on Kawau Island which is one of the few others with kauri present.

NZFS early plantings

Kauri have been planted in natural forest areas and in plantations since at least the 1930s from trees grown in early nurseries at Waipoua. At Waitangi the remnant of a larger plantation from 1936 was sampled in Surveillance 1 and found to be clear. Another 1947 plantation is mentioned at Waitangi but we do not hold any records that isolate it. There are records of an early amenity planting at Broadwood. There were links between PTA spread and the later Waipoua nursery, so it was important we looked at the results of earlier planting.

In Surveillance 2 we sampled one tree that may be all that remains of the 1947 plantation at Waitangi and the amenity at Broadwood.

NZFS Waipoua nursery plantings

The Waipoua nursery site was used from 1939 until 1966 and the Sweetwater Nursery was used between 1974 and 1987. There are records of nurseries at Kaikohe and Tairua being used for the production of a small number of kauri seedlings, some time between the mid 1950s and 1964 (John Beachman, pers comm.). The Cambridge Nursery also produced kauri seedlings.

The first round of surveillance and that at Waipoua looked at the plantations associated with the Waipoua Nursery and their relationship with the management of the nursery (Morrison 1956; Morrison & Lloyd 1972). The previous Waipoua targeted sampling (Beauchamp 2011c) did not find that the nursery site was contaminated but did establish further nursery associated contaminated plantations. In addition, the sampling established that there were foci in the catchments surrounding the nursery. There is an indication that with changes to nursery practice that the contamination that is associated with at least the 1955-56 plantings was controlled.

8 In Surveillance 2 we tested the north block at Trounson which was planted between 1955 and 1966 from Waipoua stock to see if this area was contaminated by the 1955 planting. However it was near the contaminated foci in the main block of Trounson Kauri Park so could have been cross contaminated, so we added sites in other forests to check the full range of earlier extant plantings.

We do not know how long in the absence of the host the oospores of PTA will remain viable or if plantations that were complete failures were lost due to PTA or other causes. Sites that were planted with kauri that failed, or where some trees were lost, were frequently replanted or “blanked” (replanting the sites of dead seedlings) at a later date (i.e. Raetea, Omahuta) (Hackett 1983). However, some sites at Punaruku and Riverhead, were not blanked.

In Surveillance 2 we targeted natural regeneration at the 1950 Punaruku plantation site and Riverhead sites.

NZFS Sweetwater nursery plantings

There is conflicting evidence about the dieback status of the Sweetwater nursery, and some indication in Surveillance 1 that there may be PTA contamination or cross contamination between Waipoua and Sweetwater planting at some sites.

In Surveillance 2 Glenbervie was sampled to see if the positive result obtained during Surveillance 1 in the area planted in 1974 was corroborated and the contamination there was more extensive. Sampling also targeted forests like Tairua, Athenree where there were multiple plantings over time and where there may be cross contamination potential or the potential for spores to remain despite kauri now not inhabiting these sites. One forest, at Waihou, only had Sweetwater stock planted within it so it was also sampled.

In addition, we sampled natural kauri sites at Puketi (near failed plantation sites) and Glenbervie close to the plantations and in the Coromandel forests where there are sites with kauri near plantations of unknown PTA status.

In Surveillance 2 we also undertook further sampling of one lesioned tree and other areas at Punaruku where there had been helicopter logging and intensive management (Hackett 1983).

Sweetwater Nursery

There are confusing verbal and written records on the dieback status of seedlings during production at the Sweetwater Nursery (Jim Cox, interview; 1985 review document). We are also unsure about where all the equipment that had been at the Waipoua nursery went when that site was abandoned. In the first round of surveillance we sampled Glenbervie plantations and found that a 1974 plantation that was isolated from the 1949-56 plantings was positive for PTA. Subsequent assessment indicates that the road the 1974 plantation was on was that used to access NZFS housing and that the roading equipment that was used throughout the NZFS Northland forests was based out of Glenbervie. It is possible that the 1974 site was cross contaminated from the earlier plantations.

The site of the NZFS nursery at Sweetwater is still being used as a private nursery and even in the absence of kauri was considered worth sampling to see if we could pick up active oospores. The forest service may also have planted kauri on site.

9

4.0 Results

Figure 1 – Distribution of PTA samples sites and status in Surveillance 2

10 Surveillance 2 sampled 89 sites and took 212 samples (Fig. 1). Eighty five percent of the samples sampled kauri. Sites lacking Kauri include other vegetated areas of native bush and plantations associated with kauri plantations in the Coromandel and farm sites.

PTA was detected at 20 sites (25%) with kauri. This included 11 sites on the 4 farms, 4 sites in plantations, 4 sites in bush (all associated with farms and plantations) and 1 site associated with historic science investigations. Twenty one of the sites were on farmland and 10 of these sites were areas not associated with kauri trees. PTA was detected at one site on a muddy cattle race below a contaminated kauri stand.

Pukekaroro was the only new site that had no relationship with past targeting (Fig 1).

PTA was not detected in 36 natural sites that were randomly placed in natural forests from Te Paki and Warawara in the north to the Coromandel and Kaimai Ranges, or at sites in eastern Northland forests and Kawau Island where deaths or canopy reduction suggested sampling was prudent.

Table 1 – Categories of sites sampled

Sites types PTA undetected Coromandel non kauri bush 8 Farmland kauri and farm sites 20 26 Iconic trees 4 Kawau Island 6 Iwi - Rawhiti sites 6 Natural Bush kauri sites 6 69 Sweetwater Nursery 3 Kauri Plantations 5 47 Tairua forest non-kauri sites 6 Past science kauri sites 3 3

4.1 Distribution of positive PTA and non-detected sites

Natural distribution of kauri

The soil sampling found no PTA at Te Paki in the only remaining regenerating kauri there. No PTA was found at three sites in the Warawara near road ends associated with forestry activity in the 1940’s. The two targeted failed plantations at Puketi were not sampled (1953 and 1954; J. Beachman, pers. com.) but natural sites near forestry activity 3 km away were. No PTA was detected at these sites.

In north eastern Northland and Auckland there are forests where the trees are naturally poorer in foliage. PTA was not detected at two sites beside the toll highway 1 km south of the Puhoi tunnels (Waiwera). No PTA was also detected at sites of interest to iwi near Rawhiti.

There were few sites sampled that were greater than a kilometre from roads or other infrastructure. The exception were trees that were spotted newly dead from the air in the areas south of the Brynderwyns in 2012. No PTA was detected at the sites seen from the air in the Mareretu and at one site on the Brynderwyn escarpment west of

11 the infected Robert Hastie reserve site. However, PTA was detected at the site on the side of Pukekaroro. This is likely to be associated with past farming.

No PTA was detected in any of the natural areas sampled in the Coromandel and Kaimai Range despite trees in the natural areas and in the surrounding native forests showing lesion activity. This added to the non detections in the plantation in the Kakatarahae Kauri Sanctuary, plantations and Tairua undertaken in Surveillance 1.

Iconic trees and stands

No PTA was detected near the Devcich Kauri, the Square Kauri, Manaia or Tauhu where there is considerable human access.

Farm lands were PTA is present

The Kaiwaka farm was sampled; within the contaminated stand, along a stock trail and a gate between contaminated sites, isolated kauri within neighbouring fields and in upland gullies. PTA was isolated from the contaminated stand, isolated trees on the margin of the field margin, and on the stock route through the contaminated forest. PTA was not isolated from the gate site and an upland gully site in a neighbouring field.

A Logues farm site near where Ron Lloyd carried out investigations in the early 1970s and put the kauri deaths down to drought was positive for PTA, as was another site on the farm 1.3 km away. Both sites were >2.5 km from the positive Logues Bush sites.

The Rodney farm was sampled at four sites where there were kauri exposed to stock, and three sites where there were no Kauri. The latter sites included a race, stockyard and muddy track to gate through bush with Kauri trees. PTA was found at three of four sites with kauri but none of the other sites.

The Awhitu farm was sampled at three kauri sites, a stockyard, two races and a paddock. PTA was only detected at the sites with existing kauri trees.

Suspect regeneration on the side of Pukekaroro (near Kaiwaka) was positive. This site is also within the region where there are positive kauri forests on the margins of farmland. The stock access history of this site needs further investigation.

Sites where previous science has suggested PTA presence but without positive identification

PTA was detected in all trees at the Centennial Park site where Podger and Newhook considered deaths were due to P. cinamommi. PTA was not detected at the Cornwallis site where the Kauri sampled were saplings showing leaf dieback in shrubland.

12 Islands lacking large animal (non-human) vectors

Canopy poor sites were investigated on Kawau Island. No PTA was detected there and this adds to the lack of detection on Hauturu and Waiheke Islands.

Full duration of NZFS plantation plantings

There are records that kauri were planted in the Waitangi Endowment forest in 1936 and in 1947. We have not been able to find any stock maps to verify the latter planting. The only tree that we know about outside of the 1936 plantation was soil sampled in Surveillance 2 and no PTA was detected. PTA was not found in the Broadwood amenity stand.

PTA was not detected in the north block of Trounson Kauri Park planted in 1955 and 1961-66 from Waipoua nursery stock; despite this site being only 100 m from the contaminated foci in the Trounson main block.

PTA was not isolated from soil in the kauri regeneration at the 1950 failed plantation site at Punaruku. However, PTA was detected at the 1963 plantation at the site of the helicopter logging on a side spur and a tree showing lesions near the river and below the road that enters the valley. The data indicates widespread contamination despite the almost total lack of suspect symptomatic trees, and no obvious canopy dieback.

Sampling at Glenbervie confirmed that the 1974 plantation is contaminated and that all the 1949-55s plantations are contaminated. PTA was not recovered from samples taken from a site in block 69 that received supplementary under-planting some time after 1974, c.6 km from the plantations.

The Sweetwater nursery site was negative. This included samples from around a healthy kauri on the site.

No plantations were located at Waihou, a forest that only had Sweetwater nursery stock planted within it. PTA was not detected from samples taken around natural kauri at these sites.

PTA was also not isolated from the 1949, 1950 and 1951 plantations sampled at Tairua or the neighbouring non kauri plantations planted in 1982-84. The Coromandel plantations planted in 1949 and then between 1979 and 1983 were missed due to my misreading a forestry boundary. They appear at a distance to not have canopy loss (John Beachman, pers. comm.).

Plantation sites that were a complete failure

The sites sampled that were complete kauri plantation failures in the 1950s were at Punaruku and Riverhead. We are very confident that the site at Punaruku was identified, and less confident that the site at Riverhead was sampled. Kauri seedlings and rickers were found at both sites and no PTA was detected.

13 4.2 Relationship between positive sites and symptomology

Sample site detection

One Hundred and eighty samples were taken from around kauri. Ten of the 33 positive samples (30.3%) were only detected as positive by one of the two testing labs. The remaining positive samples (69.7%) were detected as positive by both testing laboratories. The overall detection probability was 85% (se = 4%) but modelling still suggested that the labs were detecting samples differently (Beauchamp 2013). Landcare was the only lab to isolate PTA from Glenbervie samples, while the Punaruku 1963 and helicopter sites were only detected as positive by one of the other labs.

Four of twenty sites (20%) that were positive were picked up in the sampling of tree 2 or tree 3. At two of these sites, Raetea and Punaruku, there is evidence that the samples taken followed the uncontaminated site protocol and the positive sample was at least 50 m from the primary tree. This shows the difficulty of detecting PTA from a single tree at suspect sites as the trees that tested positive at both sites lacked lesions and had healthy crowns.

Canopy and lesion symptomology

There was a significant reduction in canopy health in the kauri sampled as positive and opposed to those where PTA was not detected (Chi-squared 36.72, df.=1, P<0.01; Fig 2). Two of the four samples where PTA was not detected, but where the trees had severe canopy dieback and some lesion activity, were from the positive sites at Kaiwaka and Pukekaroro. The other trees suffering severe dieback were the Devcich Kauri which appears to be old and dying and a tree at Mareretu that was the targeted tree from the aerial survey.

Trees at 7 locations and from 8 sites had good crown condition but were positive for PTA (Glenbervie, Raetea, Punaruku 1963 plantation and helicopter logging sites, Logues bush and the farms at Logues, Kaiwaka and Awhitu). Four of these trees were the initial trees selected for those sites, and three of these trees had collar lesions. The lesions were old and less then 50% of the collar in one tree; old and less than 10% another and old and new and less than 10% in the third.

Two substantially contaminated locations, Glenbervie and Punaruku, had all but one tree scored in the “good condition” category. Neither of these sites would have been sampled as the result of aerial surveillance. The canopy health in these forests exceed those in areas elsewhere on eastern Northland where no PTA was detected (Brynderwyn, Waiwera, Kawau Island).

14

Figure 2 – Canopy status and status of Kauri Dieback soil sampling results

120

100

80

60

40 Kauri sampled

20

0 Severe dieback Some branch Foliage thinning Good condition dieback

PTA positive Not detected

Fifteen of the positive samples at 13 sites had lesions and 18 positive samples at 11 of the sites lacked lesions. Positive trees showed the full range of canopy and lesions states (Table 2) which is consistent with a root disease that is acting generally in a stand of trees. Active lesions were generally obvious over less than 10% of the circumference of the trunk (Table 3). Trees could die without showing any collar symptoms, but generally that tree or neighbouring trees had lesions by the time it reached the “dead branch” stage (71%, n = 7).

Table 2 – Number of sample trees with dry inactive basal lesions and their circumference coverage Old resin coverage (%) on bowl Canopy condition None <10 10 to 50 51 to 80 81 to 100 All samples

Dense foliage 90 23 3 1 2 Foliar loss 16 10 4 2 1 Foliar loss & stem dieback 8 1 4 3 3 Dead branches 2 3 1 2 1

Positive samples Dense foliage 8 2 1 Foliar loss 1 6 2 1 Foliar loss & stem dieback 2 1 2 2 Dead branches 2 2 1

15

Table 3 – Number of sample trees with fresh active basal lesions and their circumference coverage

Fresh resin coverage (%) on bowl Canopy condition None <10 10 to 50 51 to 80 81 to 100 All samples

Dense foliage 103 13 3 Foliar loss 20 12 1 Foliar loss & stem dieback 12 6 1 Dead branches 5 4

Positive samples Dense foliage 10 1 Foliar loss 2 7 1 Foliar loss & stem dieback 2 5 Dead branches 1 4

The height of fresh lesions was also not indicative of the presence of PTA (Fig. 3). PTA was detected near trees with lesions extending from ground level up to over a metre above the collar.

There were 11 sites where PTA was undetected that had 13 kauri with fresh lesions >50 cm high. These trees were broadly distributed throughout the natural distribution of kauri and could indicate Armillaria or other fungal infections (Fig 4).

Figure 3 - Height (cm) of lesions in the trees sampled with and without PTA

14 12 10 8 6 4

Number of Kauri of Number 2 0 <20 20-50 51-100 >100

Positive PTA Undetected

16

Figure 4 – Height (cm) of lesions in Kauri trunks at sites with PTA and those where PTA was not detected

16 14 12 10 8 6 4

Number ofKauri 2 0 <20 20-50 51-100 >100

Positive PTA Undetected

Feeder-root health

Trees that are infected with PTA had poorer feeding root scores (Chi-squared = 24.4, df. = 1, P<0.01; Fig. 5). All 6 ricker sites that had poor feeder root presence were positive for PTA. PTA was not detected at the two ricker sites with high feeder root presence.

Figure 5 – The combined subjective assessment of root mass in samples and their relationship with PTA status

120

100

80

60

40

Number of Kauri of Number 20

0 low feeder root mass moderate feeder root mass high feeder root mass

positive undetected

Pig rooting

Pig rooting was present at 5 sites. One site at Punaruku was positive but the tree where the rooting was detected was not identified as PTA positive. The other areas included Mareretu Forest, Tairua and the Coromandel Forest.

17

Fig 6 – Distribution from adhoc sampling, Auckland Council surveillance, Waipoua, Surveillance 1 and 2 Waipoua.

18 Table 4 – Range of activities that could be considered at a range of sites where PTA was detected and not detected

Tracks and Pigs/Stock Hygiene Signs and Actions Ad Hoc Research roads behaviour sampling PTA positive forests

Waipoua, Waitakere, Close public Control to low Clean on the Full engagement Treat the whole Low priority. Assess why at Punaruku and Great tracks and muddy levels and way out on site and designed area as Treat Punaruku and Barrier Island roads until non keep away is imperative. cleaning stations for contaminated for symptomology as Glenbervie mud transfer or from public Cleaning individual access management. positive. Search there so much cleaning stations tracks stations placed points Review the status of adjoining forests kauri is not prevent transfer of at sites inside forests that are to Waipoua for showing mud from the and outside the connected to symptomology. symptoms. area. Install forest Waipoua and Search and test Assess vehicle cleaning Punaruku other areas near cleaning facilities for Punaruku for stations management Interim action of symptomology design. vehicles on site restricting public and test sites access to areas and showing any tracks to mitigate canopy decline. soil borne spread by track users PTA positive discrete sites

Trounson Kauri Park Maintain public to Maintain pig Clean in and Cleaning stations Treat the whole Sample any Assess the high level, re- free out. Public for camp and for car area as suspect trees presence of establish access only to park. Establish a contaminated for outside of the PTA in non hydrology formed tracks network of cleaning management known infection Kauri forest and boardwalks stations on the setting up cleaning site management lines stations at management locations

19 Table 4 cont. Tracks and Pigs/Stock Hygiene Signs and Actions Ad Hoc Research roads behaviour sampling Omahuta amenity Prevent camping Fence stand to Maintain dry Closure signage Decide on methods Sample any Assess planting at the old prevent cattle road access and PTA of destruction of suspect trees in methods of headquarters site. and pig access information for the Kauri at the site the Omahuta and destruction of Provide dry turn public on site after phosphite trial Puketi forests oospores around area at to gain the the site for use maximum when the gate is information on closed. oospore treatment and longevity Raetea plantation Close public Fence stand to Closure signage Decide on methods Sample any Assess tracks through the prevent cattle and PTA of destruction of suspect trees in methods of plantation to and pig access information for the Kauri at the site the vicinity of destruction of vehicle and foot public on site after phosphite trial Victoria Valley oospores use. Provide to gain the alternative access maximum to the forest if information on needed. oospore treatment and longevity Louges Bush and Close public track Fence to Individual Decide on the value Low priority. Albany Scenic until it is upgraded control pig and hygiene for of maintaining Treat Reserve stock management public access and if symptomology as movement. personnel so bring tracks up to positive. Eradicate or standard control pigs. Glenbervie Close areas to Consider Clean on the Closure signage Engage with forest Low priority. Assess why at public access fencing way out. and PTA owner to discuss Treat Punaruku and unfenced sites. information for the the options for the symptomology as Glenbervie Eradicate or public on site site and the issues positive. there is so control pigs. with forest much forest management within not showing the site. symptoms

20

Table 4 cont. Tracks and Pigs/Stock Hygiene Signs and Actions Ad Hoc Research roads behaviour sampling

Sites where PTA has not been detected

Te Paki, Herekino, Hygiene Need to be vigilant Use Priority Omahuta, Puketi, important before about any protocol to Warawara, Mareretu, access symptomology in sample sites Hunua, Coromandel, these areas Kaimai, Hauraki Islands. Rural sites with PTA and where PTA is not detected

Rural Northland and Fence any kauri Control to Individual Consult with the Use Priority Auckland that is positive for eradicate hygiene rural sector, protocol to PTA or that is to access or protocols for transport and sample sites be retained in the stock and the each site. services sector and rural environment. presence of Signage as individual farmers Mitigate access pigs. required by land about PTA and mud transport owner. management in the from farming rural environment to activity. find ways of dealing with PTA on a landscape scale. Find support if needed to contain PTA on individual farms with the farmers concerned.

21

Discussion

Surveillance 2 aimed at a more comprehensive assessment of the location of PTA and its vectoring. It has added to the information collected by survey and surveillance at Waipoua (Beauchamp 2011c; Fig. 6) and more comprehensive surveying of the Auckland region using a mix of surveillance methods (intensive aerial helicopter surveillance and follow-up of all symptomatic trees; and the Plant and Food lab for PTA assessment post 2011 Nick Waipara, pers. comm.).

The overall picture that emerges from all active and passive surveillance and sampling is that four natural forested areas have regions that contain a lot of foci; Waipoua, Waitakere, Punaruku and Aotea/Great Barrier Island. There are also extensive areas of small patches and reserves in the predominantly rural area between Auckland and the Brynderwyns that are contaminated. Sites at Aotea/Great Barrier Island, Centennial Park (Waitakere) and Tomarata all showed signs of dieback in the late 1960s and early 1970s and sampling in Surveillance 2 suggests this was PTA. Tree rings from the site at Centennial Park, and the plantation evidence from Waipoua nursery from trees planted in 1955-56 (at least), suggests that PTA was active in at least Waipoua and Waitakere, and the Tomarata rural area in the 1950s. The spread on Great Barrier Island and within Punaruku could be the result of forest service activity which moved soil to and within these sites as seedlings or on machinery, and then local movement that may include goats and pigs (Krull 2012; Krull et al 2012). The key to controlling the spread of PTA may now rest in controlling soil movement in both local and regional scales.

PTA has not been detected in areas or the Northern forests outside of isolated plantations at Raetea and Omahuta, or in the Hunua Ranges or the Coromandel and Kaimai forests. PTA has also not been detected using soil and cambial samples from Tairua plantations in the past (Stan Bellgard, pers. comm.). It has also not been detected on the offshore islands. PTA is present in the rural blocks on the Awhitu Peninsula but there is little information on other rural areas with kauri south of Auckland.

The results of all surveillance activity needs to be linked with actions to ensure that we now move to engage others to manage the situation and control, and in some cases potentially stop, the spread based on current knowledge. I summarise some of the actions that may be possible at some sites in Table 4. This is not comprehensive and represents my view not that of the Joint Agency. All responses will need discussion with landowner and in some cases industry groups to find solutions that can be mutually agreed upon. Some actions cannot be instigated until further development of methods to remove/clean and collect contaminated material and treating oospores (Dick & Kimberley 2013). However, industry may already have solutions to aspects like vehicle washing and hygiene, contaminated material containment and treatment, equipment heat treatment options. Recycled steam may be readily available for maintaining the required time temperatures for treating earth moving equipment used in forestry. The rural farm and service industries are also likely to be able to supply key information and solutions to PTA spread by stock movement within farms and when transporting them.

The types of actions that we take are very dependent on the accuracy of our knowledge of the biology of PTA and its hosts and that we have identified all the principal vectors and hosts.

22 There is currently little information on the following areas that would potentially call into question our knowledge and the need for further surveillance:

 There are multiple strains of PTA that are very distinctly different in their expression.  There are plants that act as asymptomatic hosts for PTA with kauri stands  There are air borne or water born vectoring mechanisms that are not evident in current dispersal  There are unidentified areas of asymptomatic or recently contaminated kauri holding PTA  A host of PTA has the capacity to maintain the oospore presence in the absence of kauri  Our test method is not adequate to pick up all or certain types of contaminated sites.

We currently are looking at the host issue but P&I consider that we have tested far too few plants that have an association with kauri to be sure that we just tie PTA to Kauri. Landcare will report on some host testing in June 2013.

The most concerning result in the surveillance is that at Glenbervie. In both Surveillance 1 and 2, the only lab to find these plantations to be positive for PTA was LANDCARE. At this site LANDCARE has returned 8 positive samples from 5 sites and both Plant and Food and SCION have returned 12 non-detected results from those same samples. Glenbervie and the nearby Punaruku sites do not express PTA symptomology as characteristically as other sites. Glenbervie is considered to have been contaminated at or about the time of planting in 1955, and Punaruku was extensively managed from 1956. There may be other areas that we have not tested that are positive for PTA. LANDCARE has isolated the strains of the extracted PTA and will report on their similarity in future. If the strains at Glenbervie and Punaruku are similar to other sites then there must be a reason why two labs have not detected PTA in 5 sites in this area and why the symptomology is different.

During Surveillance 2 we requested that the labs be audited primarily to see if there were differences in their application of the bioassay testing procedure. Our desire was to use any one Lab to do future ad-hoc testing, and if at all possible to lift the detection probability of the labs to the same level. The results of Surveillance 2 still do not provide the level of assurance that ad-hoc sampling of single trees assessed at one lab using the bioassay method is the best sampling strategy to use (Beauchamp 2013). However, Landcare has just announced that it has a genetic tool to test the material caught on the catcher plants, or from bulk soil directly (Than et al. 2013). We did not use this method in Surveillance 2 because if was in development, not part of the protocol using the three labs, and was not validated. It offers a means of doing further and potentially cheaper and more time effective surveillance and ad hoc sampling.

The current work on PTA has found that it is primarily a root disease that at some sites expresses itself with collar lesions. We are still to receive the research on where PTA is in the tree and therefore what could potentially release oospores into the environment. We currently assume that there is no air-born component from insect frass or long-distance water movement (Randall et al. 2010). If there are vector mechanisms that we have failed to take in account then we may need to reconsider management options.

The outcomes set in the long term management programme were:

23

 PTA-free sites remain disease free  Known PTA-infected sites are contained  The impacts of PTA and is management are reduced within infected sites  The spread of PTA is slowed to all kauri areas  Effective working partnerships between the crown, Maori, and regional authorities acting collectively in New Zealand’s best interests in management of PTA

The research, surveillance and ad hoc sampling undertaken suggests that we have a broad understanding of where PTA is and that we have some mechanisms of stopping and slowing the spread. If we have correctly identified all the potential movement methods and hosts then we should investigate methods like felling and fellowing to cleanse oospores from some contaminated sites; fencing and controlling access to contaminated sites and eliminating stock and pig access. Sites like Raetea and Omahuta represent source sites for potential contamination of large areas of forest and their management may be critical in at least slowing the spread. Other sites like islands offer potential sites for long-term management.

Some sites are too poorly known at present to undertake on site management. Here the key message of the programme remains one of cleaning the soil and any organic material from footwear, stock and equipment before moving to another location or another patch of bush. We have an understanding of what parameters we need to meet to decontaminate that material (Dick & Kimberley 2013) and a series of best practice guidelines to inform the public and managers on what they need to do in dealing with tracks and contaminated dead timber.

Activities that are key to reducing the spread of PTA are:

 Engagement and discussion with; iwi and hapu, forest and rural landowners, members of the pubic and the managers of public lands about PTA options and the management options they can own to control PTA..

 Designing means for cleaning footwear and vehicles and treating that material so that oospores are not moved to new sites.

 Bringing on board the services of pig hunters to control pigs and to assist in the control of the movement of pigs between PTA and other sites.

 Not releasing pigs and other feral animals from contaminated sites into forests where PTA has not been detected.

 Searching for and following up new potentially symptomatic sites especially those outside known distribution, and especially sites neighbouring those with large number of foci

 Undertaken ad-hoc sampling to increase knowledge about the distribution of PTA and confidence we have identified all dispersal agents

 Continue to source historic and archival information to identify any other additional sites linked to the PTA distribution identified to date (e.g. plantings) 

24 In addition there are a number of areas of research that need to be completed.  Undertaking further host testing

 Undertaking research to find PTA resistant kauri

 Finding ways to activate and kill oospores in the field

 Historic research to tie up the loose ends on plantations and amenity plantings and other historic vector routes

 Complete research on phosphite, where PTA is in the tree, and methods of dealing with contaminated soil.

There may also be other research that needs to be initiated.  Assessing the long-term consequences of the loss of kauri from forest ecosystems  Find methods of control that can be applied to a stand of kauri trees simultaneously (c.f. individual tree treatment) that are appropriate in a kauri ecosystem

 Social and cultural impact of the loss of kauri

The kauri dieback programme is entering a key stage in its planning cycle. It does not have the money for further surveillance, and little money for extensive ad hoc sampling. There are a number of key research areas that need to be finished post 2014, especially phosphite trials (Horner & Hough 2012) that may well be needed to control PTA within iconic trees or stand. The public have invested a considerable amount of money in getting the programme to where it is at today, and we need to provide the to landowners who manage our forests with our honest considered opinion on where we have got to with assessing and dealing with a disease that threatens a keystone species in the northern New Zealand forests and a number of Iconic trees.

Acknowledgements

I thank MPI staff, Fiona Bancroft, Lynn McIlveen, and Liz Clayton for assistance with contracting the collection of samples and the laboratories. I also thank the many communication and other activities of the Planning and Intelligence, Engagement and Behaviour Change and Roopu members of the programme. John Beachman, Nick Waipara, Stacey Hill, Jeannie McInnes, Ross Johnstone and Lynnell Greer are thanked for their assistance with site selection and for managing the contractors and the communication with LANDCARE lab staff. Chris Green and Nick Waipara are thanked for providing comments on the draft of this document. I thank the Department of Conservation staff who assisted the sampling contractors with logistics and contacts to enable the work to be done.

I also thank Trevor Birch and Nick Ranger and their respective teams for collecting the samples and supplying datasheets and notes on sites. I especially thank Stan Bellgard and his team for sample management and record keeping and Margaret Dick and Ian Horner and their respective teams for sample analysis. Stan Bellgard is thanked for the critical role he played in the quality control of the programme and its reporting.

25 Literature cited

Auckland Council 2011. Kauri Health in the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park 2008-2011 – Update Report File No.: CP2011/06946 100pp

Beauchamp, A.J. 2010. New Zealand Forest Service activity as a potential vectors for the spread of Phytophthora sp. ‘taxon Agathis’ - A GAP’s analysis. Department of Conservation, DOCDM-647265. 38 pp.

Beauchamp, A.J. 2011a. PTA Surveillance Plan 2 – Version 2.2 Kauri Dieback Long Term Management Programme - July 2011. 43 pp.

Beauchamp. A.J. 2011b. Phytophthora taxon Agathis (PTA) surveillance one detection probabilities – an assessment using PRESENCE. Department of Conservation, Northland Conservancy. DOCDM-797471. 10pp.

Beauchamp, A.J. 2011c. Waipoua sample and site detection probabilities. Department of Conservation, Northland Conservancy. DOCDM-876936. 7pp.

Beauchamp, A.J. 2011d. Assessment of the “Draft report Analysis of kauri dieback soil samples, Phase 1 -- Summary Interim Report” -Contract: 12239.

Beauchamp, A.J. 2012a. Phytophthora taxon Agathis (PTA) – the first third of the Surveillance two samples detection probabilities. Department of Conservation, Northland Conservancy DOCDM-1134583. 5pp.

Beauchamp A.J.; Dick M.; Bellgard, S. 2012. Soil Survey method for Phytophthora taxon Agathis – Version 2.4. DOCDM-1047422. 11pp.

Beauchamp, A,J. 2013. Surveillance 2 sample and site detection probabilities. Department of Conservation, Northland Conservancy DOCDM-1188756. 15pp.

Beauchamp, A.J.; Waipara, N. 2011. Farmland vectoring of PTA – version 2 DOCDM-863978.

Beever, R.E.; Waipara, N.W.; Ramsfield, T.D.; Dick, M.A.; Horner, I.J. 2009. Kauri () under threat from Phytophthora? Geotechnical report PSW-GTR- 211. LANDCARE RESEARCH.

Beever, R.E.; Bellgard, S.E.; Dick, M.A., Horner, I.J.; Ramsfield, T.D. 2010. Detection of Phytophthora taxon Agathis (PTA): final report. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 82pp.

Bellgard, S.E. 2010. Northland expedition results – March 2010. Report to the Department of Conservation. DOCDM-574767 6pp.

Bellgard, S.E. 2013. Analysis of kauri dieback soil and tissue samples. 54 pp. MPI Contract: 16139.

Bellgard, S.E.; Dick, M.A.; Horner, I.J. 2011. RFQ 12239: PTA Soil Detection Plan; , Coromandel Forest Park, Puketi, Herekino and Waipoua forests, July–October 2011. Phase 1, Part II. Contract: RFQ 12239. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 56 pp.

26 Dick M.A.; Kimberley, M.O. 2013. Deactivation of oospores of Phytophthora taxon Agathis. SCION. 23pp.

Gadgil, P.D. 1974. Phytophthora heveae a pathogen of kauri. New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science. 4: 59-63.

Hackett, J.C. 1983. Kauri forest management review. Kauri management unit New Zealand Forest Service. 90pp.

Hackett, J.C.; Sale. E.V. 1986. The World of the Kauri. Reed Methuen Publishers.

Horner, I.J.; Hough, E.G. 2012. Phosphorous acid for controlling Phytophthora taxon Agathis in Kauri: Field Trials. Plant and food research. SPTS no: 7189. 11pp.

Jamieson, A. 2012a. Aerial survey of kauri dieback on Aotea/Great Barrier Island. Contract 15483 – Trial survey. 15pp.

Jamieson, A. 2012b. Reconnaissance survey of Kauri distribution on . Ministry of Primary Industries. 19pp.

Jamieson, A. Hill, L. Waipara, N. 2012. Survey of Kauri dieback in the Hunua Ranges and Environs. Auckland Council. 13pp.

Krull, C.R.; Choquenot, D.; Burns, B.R.; Stanley, M. 2013. Feral pigs in a temperate rainforest ecosystem: Disturbance and ecological impacts. Biol Invasions Published online Springer DOI 10.1007/s10530-013-0444.9 13pp.

Krull, C. 2012. Feral pig impacts and management of the Waitakere Ranges. School of Biological Sciences University of Auckland. Report to Auckland Council. 11pp.

La Manna, L.; Collantes, M.; Bava, J.; Rajchenberg, M. 2008. Seedling recruitment of Austrocederus chilensis in relation to cattle use, microsite environment and forest disease. Ecologia Austral 18: 27-41.

Morrison, F.T. 1961. A report on the northern arboretum – Waipoua Forest. NZ Forest Service unpublished report. 15pp.

Morrison, F.T. 1955. Nursery propagation of kauri at Waipoua Forest. New Zealand Journal of Forestry 7: 42-52.

Morrison, F.T.; Lloyd R.C. 1972. Artificial establishment of New Zealand kauri at Waipoua Forest. New Zealand Journal of Forestry 17: 264-273.

Podger, F.D.; Newhook, F.J. 1971. Phytophthora cinamommi in indigenous plant communities in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Botany 9: 625-638.

Randall, S.D; Burns, B.R.; Bellgard, S.E.; Beever, R.E. 2010. Fishing for Phytophthora in the Waitakere Ranges, Auckland, New Zealand. (poster www.landcareresearch.co.nz)

Than, D. J., Hughes, K. J. D., Boonhan, N., Tomlinson, J. A., Woodhall, J. W., Bellgard, S. E. 2013. A TaqMan real-time PCR assay for the detection of Phytophthora ‘taxon Agathis’ in soil, pathogen of Kauri in New Zealand. Forest Pathology. DOI: 10.1111/efp.12034

27 Appendix 1 – Surveillance 2 results

Sample Sample Site type Location Landcare P&F Scion sample site Code Name detection detection

1 Tree 1 plantation Trounson Kauri Park 0 0 - undetected undetected 2 Tree 2 plantation Trounson Kauri Park - 0 0 undetected undetected 3 Tree 3 plantation Trounson Kauri Park 0 - 0 undetected undetected 4 Tree 1 plantation Trounson Kauri Park 0 0 - undetected undetected 5 Tree 2 plantation Trounson Kauri Park - 0 0 undetected undetected 6 Tree 3 plantation Trounson Kauri Park 0 - 0 undetected undetected 7 Tree 1 plantation Trounson Kauri Park 0 0 - undetected undetected 8 Tree 2 plantation Trounson Kauri Park - 0 0 undetected undetected 9 Tree 3 plantation Trounson Kauri Park 0 - 0 undetected undetected 10 Tree 1 plantation Glenbervie Forest PTA 0 - positive positive 11 Tree 2 plantation Glenbervie Forest - 0 0 undetected positive 12 Tree 3 plantation Glenbervie Forest PTA - 0 positive positive 13 Tree 1 plantation Glenbervie Forest PTA 0 - positive positive 14 Tree 2 plantation Glenbervie Forest - 0 0 undetected positive 15 Tree 3 plantation Glenbervie Forest 0 - 0 undetected positive 16 Tree 1 plantation Glenbervie Forest 0 0 - undetected undetected 17 Tree 2 natural Glenbervie Forest - 0 0 undetected undetected 18 Tree 3 natural Glenbervie Forest - 0 0 undetected undetected 58 Tree 1 plantation Broadwood 0 - 0 undetected undetected 59 Tree 2 plantation Broadwood 0 - 0 undetected undetected 60 tree 3 plantation Broadwood 0 - 0 undetected undetected 55 tree 1 plantation Raetea - 0 0 undetected positive 56 tree 2 plantation Raetea PTA PTA - positive positive 57 tree 3 plantation Raetea - 0 0 undetected positive

28 Sample Sample Site type Location Landcare P&F Scion sample site Code Name detection detection

52 Tree 1 plantation Raetea 0 0 - undetected undetected 53 Tree 2 plantation Raetea - 0 0 undetected undetected 54 tree 3 plantation Raetea 0 0 - undetected undetected 67 Tree 1 plantation Waitangi Endowment 0 0 - undetected undetected 61 Tree 1 natural Puketi 0 0 - undetected undetected 62 Tree 2 natural Puketi - 0 0 undetected undetected 63 tree 3 natural Puketi 0 - 0 undetected undetected 64 Tree 1 natural Puketi 0 0 - undetected undetected 65 Tree 2 natural Puketi - 0 0 undetected undetected 66 tree 3 natural Puketi 0 - 0 undetected undetected 68 Tree 1 nursery Sweetwater - 0 0 undetected undetected 69 Tree 2 nursery Sweetwater 0 - 0 undetected undetected 70 tree 3 nursery Sweetwater 0 0 - undetected undetected 71 Tree 1 natural Te Paki - 0 0 undetected undetected 72 Tree 2 natural Te Paki 0 - 0 undetected undetected 73 tree 3 natural Te Paki 0 - 0 undetected undetected 74 Tree 1 natural Te Paki - 0 0 undetected undetected 75 Tree 2 natural Te Paki 0 - 0 undetected undetected 76 tree 3 natural Te Paki 0 - 0 undetected undetected 77 Tree 1 natural Te Paki - 0 0 undetected undetected 82 tree 1 natural Punaruku 0 0 - undetected positive 83 tree 2 natural Punaruku - 0 PTA positive positive 84 tree 3 natural Punaruku 0 - 0 undetected positive 85 Tree 1 plantation Punaruku PTA 0 - positive positive 86 tree 2 plantation Punaruku - 0 0 undetected positive

29 Sample Sample Site type Location Landcare P&F Scion sample site Code Name detection detection

87 tree 3 plantation Punaruku 0 - 0 undetected positive 78 Tree 1 plantation Punaruku - 0 0 undetected undetected 79 Tree 2 plantation Punaruku 0 0 - undetected undetected 80 tree 3 plantation Punaruku - 0 0 undetected undetected 81 Tree 1 natural Punaruku PTA - PTA positive positive 131 Tree 1 natural Warawara 0 - 0 undetected undetected 132 Tree 2 natural Warawara 0 0 - undetected undetected 133 tree 3 natural Warawara - 0 0 undetected undetected 134 Tree 1 natural Warawara 0 - 0 undetected undetected 435 Tree 2 natural Warawara 0 0 - undetected undetected 136 tree 3 natural Warawara - 0 0 undetected undetected 137 Tree 1 natural Warawara 0 - 0 undetected undetected 138 Tree 2 natural Warawara 0 0 - undetected undetected 139 tree 3 natural Warawara - 0 0 undetected undetected 140 Tree 1 iwi natural Rawhiti 0 - 0 undetected undetected 141 Tree 2 iwi natural Rawhiti 0 0 - undetected undetected 142 tree 3 iwi natural Rawhiti - 0 0 undetected undetected 143 Tree 1 iwi natural Rawhiti 0 - 0 undetected undetected 144 Tree 2 iwi natural Rawhiti 0 0 - undetected undetected 145 tree 3 iwi natural Rawhiti 0 0 - undetected undetected 19 Tree 1 natural Logues Bush - PTA 0 positive positive 20 Tree 2 natural Logues Bush PTA PTA - positive positive 21 Tree 3 natural Logues Bush - 0 0 undetected positive 22 Tree 1 natural Mangawhai 0 - 0 undetected undetected 23 Tree 2 natural Mangawhai 0 0 - undetected undetected

30 Sample Sample Site type Location Landcare P&F Scion sample site Code Name detection detection 24 Tree 3 natural Mangawhai - 0 0 undetected undetected 25 Tree 1 farm Logues Farm PTA - 0 positive positive 26 Tree 2 farm Logues Farm 0 0 - undetected positive 27 Tree 3 farm Logues Farm - PTA PTA positive positive 28 Tree 1 farm Logues Farm PTA PTA - positive positive 29 Tree 2 farm Logues Farm - PTA PTA positive positive 30 Tree 3 farm Logues Farm 0 - 0 undetected positive 31 Tree 1 natural Waiwera 0 0 - undetected undetected 32 Tree 2 natural Waiwera - 0 0 undetected undetected 33 Tree 3 natural Waiwera 0 - 0 undetected undetected 34 Tree 1 natural Waiwera 0 0 - undetected undetected 35 Tree 2 natural Waiwera - 0 0 undetected undetected 36 Tree 3 natural Waiwera 0 - 0 undetected undetected 37 Tree 1 farm Kaiwaka PTA PTA- positive positive 38 Tree 2 farm Kaiwaka - PTA PTA positive positive 39 Tree 3 farm Kaiwaka - PTA PTA positive positive 40 Tree 1 farm Kaiwaka - PTA PTA positive positive 41 Tree 2 farm Kaiwaka 0 - 0 undetected positive 42 Tree 3 farm Kaiwaka 0 0 - undetected positive 43 Tree 1 farm Kaiwaka - 0 0 undetected positive 44 Tree 2 farm Kaiwaka PTA - 0 positive positive 45 stock track farm Kaiwaka 0 0 - undetected positive 46 stock track farm Kaiwaka - 0 0 undetected positive 47 stock track farm Kaiwaka PTA - PTA positive positive 48 Paddock gate farm Kaiwaka 0 0 - undetected undetected 49 Tree 1 farm Kaiwaka - 0 0 undetected undetected 50 Tree 2 farm Kaiwaka 0 - 0 undetected undetected 51 Tree 3 farm Kaiwaka - 0 0 undetected undetected 88 Tree 1 natural Mareretu 0 0 - undetected undetected

31 Sample Sample Site type Location Landcare P&F Scion sample site Code Name detection detection

89 Tree 2 natural Mareretu - 0 0 undetected undetected 90 tree 3 natural Mareretu 0 - 0 undetected undetected 91 Tree 1 natural Mareretu 0 0 - undetected undetected 92 Tree 2 natural Mareretu - 0 0 undetected undetected 93 tree 3 natural Mareretu 0 - 0 undetected undetected 94 Tree 1 natural Pukekaroro PTA PTA - positive positive 95 tree 2 natural Pukekaroro - PTA PTA positive positive 96 tree 3 natural Pukekaroro 0 - 0 undetected positive 97 Stockyard farm Rodney 0 0 - undetected undetected 98 Muddy track farm Rodney - 0 0 undetected undetected 99 tree 1 farm Rodney 0 - 0 undetected positive 100 tree 2 farm Rodney PTA PTA - positive positive 101 tree 3 farm Rodney - PTA PTA positive positive 102 Tree 1 farm Rodney PTA - PTA positive positive 103 tree 2 farm Rodney PTA PTA - positive positive 104 tree 3 farm Rodney - 0 0 undetected positive 105 Tree 1 farm Rodney 0 - 0 undetected undetected 106 Tree 1 farm Rodney PTA PTA - positive positive 107 tree 2 farm Rodney - PTA PTA positive positive 108 Gate to gully farm Rodney 0 - 0 undetected undetected 109 Tree 1 plantation Riverhead 0 0 - undetected undetected 110 Tree 2 plantation Riverhead - 0 0 undetected undetected 111 tree 3 plantation Riverhead 0 - 0 undetected undetected 112 Tree 1 science Centennial Park, Waitakere PTA PTA- positive positive 113 tree 2 science Centennial Park, Waitakere - PTA0 positive positive 114 tree 3 science Centennial Park, Waitakere PTA - PTA positive positive 115 Tree 1 science Cornwallis 0 0 - undetected undetected 116 Tree 2 science Cornwallis - 0 0 undetected undetected

32 Sample Sample Site type Location Landcare P&F Scion sample site Code Name detection detection

117 tree 3 science Cornwallis 0 - 0 undetected undetected 118 tree 1 farm Awhitu 0 0 - undetected positive 119 tree 2 farm Awhitu - 0 0 undetected positive 120 tree 3 farm Awhitu PTA - 0 positive positive Muddy 121 Paddock farm Awhitu 0 0 - undetected undetected 122 Tree 1 farm Awhitu - PTA PTA positive positive 123 tree 2 farm Awhitu PTA - PTA positive positive 124 tree 3 farm Awhitu 0 0 - undetected positive 125 Stock track farm Awhitu - 0 0 undetected undetected 126 Tree 1 farm Awhitu PTA - PTA positive positive 127 tree 2 farm Awhitu 0 0 - undetected positive 128 tree 3 farm Awhitu - 0 0 undetected positive 129 Wet ? farm Awhitu 0 - 0 undetected undetected 130 Stockyard farm Awhitu 0 0 - undetected undetected 146 Tree 1 island Kawau Island, North Cove - 0 0 undetected undetected 147 Tree 2 island Kawau Island, North Cove 0 - 0 undetected undetected 148 tree 3 island Kawau Island, North Cove 0 0 - undetected undetected 149 Tree 1 island Kawau Island, Bon Accord Harbour - 0 0 undetected undetected 150 Tree 2 island Kawau Island, Bon Accord Harbour 0 - 0 undetected undetected 151 tree 3 island Kawau Island, Bon Accord Harbour 0 0 - undetected undetected 152 Tree 1 natural Wairongomai - 0 0 undetected undetected 153 Tree 2 natural Wairongomai 0 - 0 undetected undetected 154 tree 3 natural Wairongomai 0 0 - undetected undetected 155 Tree 1 natural Rapurapu - 0 0 undetected undetected 156 Tree 2 natural Rapurapu 0 - 0 undetected undetected 157 tree 3 natural Rapurapu 0 0 - undetected undetected 158 Tree 1 plantation Waihou - 1982 - 0 0 undetected undetected

33 Sample Sample Site type Location Landcare P&F Scion sample site Code Name detection detection

159 Tree 2 plantation Waihou - 1982 0 - 0 undetected undetected 160 tree 3 plantation Waihou - 1982 0 0 - undetected undetected 161 Tree 1 plantation Waihou - 1982 - 0 0 undetected undetected 162 Tree 2 plantation Waihou - 1982 0 - 0 undetected undetected 163 Tree 1 iconic Devcich Kauri 0 0 - undetected undetected 164 Tree 1 iconic Tanehui, Manaia - 0 0 undetected undetected 165 Tree 1 iconic Square Kauri, Tapu 0 - 0 undetected undetected 166 Tree 1 natural near Kapowai Ecological Area 0 0 - undetected undetected 167 Tree 2 natural near Kapowai Ecological Area - 0 0 undetected undetected 168 tree 3 natural near Kapowai Ecological Area 0 - 0 undetected undetected 169 Tree 1 natural near Kapowai Ecological Area 0 0 - undetected undetected 170 Tree 1 natural Waiomu Ecological Area - 0 0 undetected undetected 171 Tree 2 natural Waiomu Ecological Area 0 - 0 undetected undetected 172 tree 3 natural Waiomu Ecological Area 0 0 - undetected undetected 173 Tree 1 natural Waiomu Ecological Area - 0 0 undetected undetected 174 Tree 2 natural Waiomu Ecological Area 0 - 0 undetected undetected 175 tree 3 natural Waiomu Ecological Area 0 0 - undetected undetected 176 Tree 1 natural Manaia - 0 0 undetected undetected 177 Tree 2 natural Manaia 0 - 0 undetected undetected 178 Tree 1 natural Manaia 0 0 - undetected undetected 179 Tree 2 natural Manaia - 0 0 undetected undetected 180 Tree 1 bush control Coromandel Forest Park - 1949 0 - 0 undetected undetected 181 Tree 2 bush control Coromandel Forest Park - 1949 0 0 - undetected undetected 182 Tree 1 bush control Coromandel Forest Park - 1977 - 0 0 undetected undetected 183 Tree 2 bush control Coromandel Forest Park - 1977 0 - 0 undetected undetected 184 Tree 1 bush control Coromandel Forest Park - 1978 0 0 - undetected undetected 185 Tree 2 bush control Coromandel Forest Park - 1977 - 0 0 undetected undetected 186 Tree 1 bush control Coromandel Forest Park - 1983 (Broken Hills) - 0 0 undetected undetected

34 Sample Sample Site type Location Landcare P&F Scion sample site Code Name detection detection

187 Tree 2 bush control Coromandel Forest Park - 1983 (Broken Hills) 0 - 0 undetected undetected 188 Tree 1 natural Bluff Stream 0 0 - undetected undetected 189 Tree 2 natural Bluff Stream - 0 0 undetected undetected 190 tree 3 natural Bluff Stream 0 - 0 undetected undetected 191 Tree 1 natural Wairoa Stream 0 0 - undetected undetected 192 Tree 2 natural Wairoa Stream - 0 0 undetected undetected 193 tree 3 natural Wairoa Stream 0 - 0 undetected undetected 194 Tree 1 iconic Tuahu 0 0 - undetected undetected 195 Tree 1 plantation Athenree (Katikati) 1957 - 0 0 undetected undetected 196 Tree 2 plantation Athenree (Katikati) 1957 0 - 0 undetected undetected 197 Tree 1 plantation Athenree (Katikati) 1983 0 0 - undetected undetected 198 Tree 2 plantation Athenree (Katikati) 1983 - 0 0 undetected undetected 199 tree 3 plantation Athenree (Katikati) 1983 0 - 0 undetected undetected 200 Tree 1 plantation Tairua - 1949 0 0 - undetected undetected 201 Tree 2 plantation Tairua - 1949 - 0 0 undetected undetected 202 Tree 1 plantation Tairua - 1950 0 - 0 undetected undetected 203 Tree 2 plantation Tairua - 1950 0 0 - undetected undetected 204 tree 3 plantation Tairua - 1950 - 0 0 undetected undetected 205 Tree 1 plantation Tairua - 1951 0 - 0 undetected undetected 206 Tree 2 plantation Tairua - 1951 0 0 - undetected undetected 207 Tree 1 plantation control Tairua - 1982 - 0 0 undetected undetected 208 Tree 2 plantation control Tairua - 1982 0 - 0 undetected undetected 209 Tree 1 plantation control Tairua - 1984 0 0 - undetected undetected 210 Tree 2 plantation control Tairua - 1984 - 0 0 undetected undetected 211 Tree 1 plantation control Tairua - 1983 0 - 0 undetected undetected 212 tree 2 plantation control Tairua - 1983 - 0 0 undetected undetected

35

36