DOCSLIB.ORG

New Zealand Fish Passage Guidelines for Structures up to 4 Metres Acknowledgements

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
New Zealand Fish Passage Guidelines for Structures up to 4 Metres Acknowledgements New Zealand Fish Passage Guidelines For structures up to 4 metres Acknowledgements The development of these guidelines was funded by contributions from the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (contracts C01X1002, C01X1524 and C01X1615), the Department of Conservation, Environment Canterbury, Fish and Game New Zealand, Greater Wellington Regional Council, Horizons Regional Council, Otago Regional Council, Northland Regional Council, Tasman District Council and Waikato Regional Council. We would like to thank the members of the New Zealand Fish Passage Advisory Group: David Boothway (Christchurch City Council), Alice Bradley (Ministry for the Environment), Matt Dale (Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, Bruno David (Waikato Regional Council), Kati Doehring (Cawthron Institute), Christopher Fern (Trustpower), Michael Greer (Greater Wellington Regional Council), Kelly Hughes (ATS Environmental), Trevor James (Tasman District Council), Megan Kennedy (NZ Transport Agency), Patrick Lees (Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd), Bryn Quilter (Tonkin & Taylor), Melissa Shearer (Environment Canterbury), Tom Stephens (DairyNZ) and Mark Webb (Fish & Game NZ) for their contributions to these guidelines. We would also like to thank Don Jellyman, Bryn Quilter, Laddie Kuta, and the members of the New Zealand Fish Passage Advisory Group for their contributions to reviewing this document. Our Funders: Prepared by: Paul Franklin Eleanor Gee Cindy Baker Sjaan Bowie (Department of Conservation) For any information regarding this report please contact: Dr Paul Franklin Scientist Freshwater Ecology +64-7-859 1882 [email protected] National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd PO Box 11115 Hamilton 3251 Phone +64 7 856 7026 NIWA CLIENT REPORT No: 2018019HN Report Date: April 2018 NIWA Project: END17201 Report Version No: 1.0 Quality Assurance Statement Reviewed by: Don Jellyman Formatting checked by: Alison Bartley Approved for release by: David Roper Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. 2 Executive summary ........................................................................................................... 10 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 16 1.1 Purpose of the guidelines and intended audience ................................................. 16 1.2 Scope of the guidelines ........................................................................................... 17 2 Why should fish passage be considered? .................................................................. 19 2.1 Freshwater fish and fisheries values ....................................................................... 19 2.2 Potential adverse effects of instream structures ................................................... 19 2.3 Characteristics of instream structures that impede fish movements .................... 20 2.4 Legislative requirements......................................................................................... 23 3 Planning and design considerations for fish passage at instream structures ............... 25 3.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 25 3.2 Design process ........................................................................................................ 25 3.3 Defining objectives and performance standards .................................................... 27 3.4 Principles of good fish passage design.................................................................... 29 3.5 Planning for instream works ................................................................................... 31 3.6 Monitoring and maintenance ................................................................................. 31 4 Design requirements for new instream structures .................................................... 34 4.1 What type of structure is best for fish passage? .................................................... 35 4.2 Culverts ................................................................................................................... 38 4.3 Weirs ....................................................................................................................... 60 4.4 Fords ....................................................................................................................... 66 4.5 Tide and flood gates ............................................................................................... 70 4.6 Stormwater management ponds ............................................................................ 72 5 Design requirements for remediation of existing instream structures for fish passage ................................................................................................................... 73 5.1 Assessing & prioritising structures for remediation ............................................... 73 5.2 Setting fish passage objectives for existing structures ........................................... 74 5.3 Good practice remediation design ......................................................................... 75 6 Built barriers: A special case for protecting native biodiversity .................................. 98 6.1 When must selective fish passage be considered? ................................................ 98 6.2 Which native fish may benefit from built barriers? .............................................. 100 6.3 Biological factors to consider in creating and maintaining a built barrier ........... 101 6.4 Setting objectives for built barriers ...................................................................... 102 6.5 Best practice design criteria and installation of built barriers .............................. 103 6.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 120 7 Monitoring fish passage success ............................................................................. 122 7.1 BACI survey ........................................................................................................... 124 7.2 Mark and recapture study .................................................................................... 126 7.3 Defining success .................................................................................................... 134 8 Knowledge gaps & research needs ......................................................................... 136 8.1 State-of-the-art in fish passage research methods .............................................. 136 8.2 Challenges for fish passage research and management in New Zealand............. 137 8.3 Critical knowledge gaps ........................................................................................ 138 8.4 The need for novel solutions and innovative approaches .................................... 140 9 Glossary of abbreviations and terms ...................................................................... 142 10 References ............................................................................................................. 145 Appendix A Legislative context – who manages fish passage? ............................ 161 Appendix B Legislation ..................................................................................... 165 Appendix C Legal definitions ............................................................................. 173 Appendix D Ecological considerations for instream structure design .................. 175 Appendix E What creates a barrier to fish movements? ..................................... 186 Appendix F Fish swimming speed look-up tables ............................................... 207 Appendix G Minimum design standards for fish passage at instream structures ...................................................................................... 208 Appendix H Remediation case studies ............................................................... 210 Appendix I Monitoring case studies ................................................................. 211 Tables Table 4.1: Types of road crossings over streams and relevant features of these crossings for fish passage. 37 Table 5.1: Examples of some possible ecological prioritisation criteria for fixing instream barriers. 74 Table 5-2: Common causes of fish passage problems and some possible mitigation solutions. 76 Table 5.3: Summary of design specifications for 'nature-like' rock ramp fishways for small-bodied fish. 78 Table 5.4: Guide to the number of baffles required for different culvert diameters. 89 Table 5.5: Changes in culvert capacity at different flows, for bare pipes and for pipes fitted with spoiler baffles. 91 Table 5.6: Coefficients for the generalizable relationship between Q* and y0/D for culvert baffles. 91 Table 6-1: List of key non-migratory galaxias that could have increased protection from a natural or built barrier to exclude invasive fish. 101 Table 6-2: Factors influencing fishes’ ability and likelihood of successfully negotiating barrier(s). 102 Table 6-3: Barrier types that have been found to protect native values. 108 Table 6-4: Design considerations for built (weir) barriers. 113 Table 7.1: The main benefits and drawbacks of various monitoring approaches. 123 Table D-1: Summary of fish swimming data for NZ species. 182 -1 Table F-1: Maximum
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Critical Habitat for Canterbury Freshwater Fish, Kōura/Kēkēwai and Kākahi
    CRITICAL HABITAT FOR CANTERBURY FRESHWATER FISH, KŌURA/KĒKĒWAI AND KĀKAHI REPORT PREPARED FOR CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL BY RICHARD ALLIBONE WATERWAYS CONSULTING REPORT NUMBER: 55-2018 AND DUNCAN GRAY CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL DATE: DECEMBER 2018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Aquatic habitat in Canterbury supports a range of native freshwater fish and the mega macroinvertebrates kōura/kēkēwai (crayfish) and kākahi (mussel). Loss of habitat, barriers to fish passage, water quality and water quantity issues present management challenges when we seek to protect this freshwater fauna while providing for human use. Water plans in Canterbury are intended to set rules for the use of water, the quality of water in aquatic systems and activities that occur within and adjacent to aquatic areas. To inform the planning and resource consent processes, information on the distribution of species and their critical habitat requirements can be used to provide for their protection. This report assesses the conservation status and distributions of indigenous freshwater fish, kēkēwai and kākahi in the Canterbury region. The report identifies the geographic distribution of these species and provides information on the critical habitat requirements of these species and/or populations. Water Ways Consulting Ltd Critical habitats for Canterbury aquatic fauna Table of Contents 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Methods ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Global Assessment of Parasite Diversity in Galaxiid Fishes
    diversity Article A Global Assessment of Parasite Diversity in Galaxiid Fishes Rachel A. Paterson 1,*, Gustavo P. Viozzi 2, Carlos A. Rauque 2, Verónica R. Flores 2 and Robert Poulin 3 1 The Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, P.O. Box 5685, Torgarden, 7485 Trondheim, Norway 2 Laboratorio de Parasitología, INIBIOMA, CONICET—Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Quintral 1250, San Carlos de Bariloche 8400, Argentina; [email protected] (G.P.V.); [email protected] (C.A.R.); veronicaroxanafl[email protected] (V.R.F.) 3 Department of Zoology, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +47-481-37-867 Abstract: Free-living species often receive greater conservation attention than the parasites they support, with parasite conservation often being hindered by a lack of parasite biodiversity knowl- edge. This study aimed to determine the current state of knowledge regarding parasites of the Southern Hemisphere freshwater fish family Galaxiidae, in order to identify knowledge gaps to focus future research attention. Specifically, we assessed how galaxiid–parasite knowledge differs among geographic regions in relation to research effort (i.e., number of studies or fish individuals examined, extent of tissue examination, taxonomic resolution), in addition to ecological traits known to influ- ence parasite richness. To date, ~50% of galaxiid species have been examined for parasites, though the majority of studies have focused on single parasite taxa rather than assessing the full diversity of macro- and microparasites. The highest number of parasites were observed from Argentinean galaxiids, and studies in all geographic regions were biased towards the highly abundant and most widely distributed galaxiid species, Galaxias maculatus.
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Fish Spawning and Migration Periods
    Freshwater Fish Spawning and Migration Periods Prepared for Ministry for Primary Industries November 2014 Prepared by: Josh Smith For any information regarding this report please contact: Josh Smith Freshwater Fish Technician Freshwater & Estuaries Phone +64 07 8567026 [email protected] National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd Gate 10 Silverdale Road Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216 PO Box 11115, Hillcrest Hamilton 3251 New Zealand Phone +64 07 8567026 NIWA CLIENT REPORT No: HAM2014-101 Report date: November 2014 NIWA Project: MPI15202 ISBN 978-0-473-32827-6 © All rights reserved. This publication may not be reproduced or copied in any form without the permission of the copyright owner(s). Such permission is only to be given in accordance with the terms of the client’s contract with NIWA. This copyright extends to all forms of copying and any storage of material in any kind of information retrieval system. Whilst NIWA has used all reasonable endeavours to ensure that the information contained in this document is accurate, NIWA does not give any express or implied warranty as to the completeness of the information contained herein, or that it will be suitable for any purpose(s) other than those specifically contemplated during the Project or agreed by NIWA and the Client. Contents Executive summary ............................................................................................................... 6 1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 25 Using Community Group Monitoring Data to Measure The
    25 Using Community Group Monitoring Data To Measure The Effectiveness Of Restoration Actions For Australia's Woodland Birds Michelle Gibson1, Jessica Walsh1,2, Nicki Taws5, Martine Maron1 1Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, 4072, Queensland, Australia, 2School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Melbourne, 3800, Victoria, Australia, 3Greening Australia, Aranda, Canberra, 2614 Australian Capital Territory, Australia, 4BirdLife Australia, Carlton, Melbourne, 3053, Victoria, Australia, 5Greening Australia, PO Box 538 Jamison Centre, Macquarie, Australian Capital Territory 2614, Australia Before conservation actions are implemented, they should be evaluated for their effectiveness to ensure the best possible outcomes. However, many conservation actions are not implemented under an experimental framework, making it difficult to measure their effectiveness. Ecological monitoring datasets provide useful opportunities for measuring the effect of conservation actions and a baseline upon which adaptive management can be built. We measure the effect of conservation actions on Australian woodland ecosystems using two community group-led bird monitoring datasets. Australia’s temperate woodlands have been largely cleared for agricultural production and their bird communities are in decline. To reverse these declines, a suite of conservation actions has been implemented by government and non- government agencies, and private landholders. We analysed the response of total woodland bird abundance, species richness, and community condition, to two widely-used actions — grazing exclusion and replanting. We recorded 139 species from 134 sites and 1,389 surveys over a 20-year period. Grazing exclusion and replanting combined had strong positive effects on all three bird community metrics over time relative to control sites, where no actions had occurred.
    [Show full text]
  • New Zealand Mudfish (Neochanna Spp.) Recovery Plan 2003–13
    New Zealand mudfish (Neochanna spp.) recovery plan 2003–13 Northland, black, brown, Canterbury and Chatham Island mudfish THREATENED SPECIES RECOVERY PLAN 51 New Zealand mudfish (Neochanna spp.) recovery plan 2003–13 Northland, black, brown, Canterbury and Chatham Island mudfish THREATENED SPECIES RECOVERY PLAN 51 Published by: Department of Conservation PO Box 10-420 Wellington, New Zealand Prepared by Rhys Barrier for Biodiversity Recovery Unit, Department of Conservation, Wellington Cover: Above, left: Northland mudfish (Neochanna heleios). Photo: Nicholas Ling. Above, right: Black mudfish (N. diversus). Photo: Nicholas Ling. Below, left: Brown mudfish (N. apoda). Photo: Nicholas Ling. Below, right: Canterbury mudfish (N. burrowsius). Photo: Tony Eldon. This report may be cited as: Department of Conservation 2003: New Zealand mudfish (Neochanna spp.) recovery plan 2003–13. Threatened Species Recovery Plan 51. Wellington, 25 p. The final version was prepared for publication by DOC Science Publishing, Science & Research Unit. Publication was approved by the Manager, Biodiversity Recovery Unit, Science Technology and Information Services, Department of Conservation, Wellington. All DOC Science publications are listed in the catalogue which can be found on the departmental web site http://www.doc.govt.nz © Copyright December 2003, New Zealand Department of Conservation ISSN 1170–3806 ISBN 0–478–22457–5 In the interest of forest conservation, DOC Science Publishing supports paperless electronic publishing. When printing, recycled paper is used wherever possible. Contents Abstract 5 1. Introduction 6 2. Past/present distribution and population 7 Canterbury mudfish 7 Brown mudfish 8 Black mudfish 9 Northland mudfish 10 Chatham Island mudfish 10 3. Cause of decline and present-day threats 11 4.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Species of Mudfish, Neochanna (Teleostei: Galaxiidae), from Northern New Zealand
    © Journal of The Royal Society of New Zealand Volume 31 Number 2 June 2001 pp 385-392 A new species of mudfish, Neochanna (Teleostei: Galaxiidae), from northern New Zealand Nicholas Ling* and Dianne M. Gleeson" A new species of mudfish, Neochanna, is described from Northland Neochanna heleios n sp is known from only three ephemeral wetland sites on the Kenken volcanic plateau and is abundant only at the type locality The new species has a head resembling that of the brown mudfish, Neochanna apoda, and a caudal region resembling that of the black mudfish, Neochanna diversus It can be distinguished from all Neochanna species in having a reduced number of pnncipal caudal fin rays (13 or less) Morphometnc and menstic comparisons with N apoda and N diversus are provided Keywords Neochanna Neochanna heleios mudfish new species, Northland, New Zealand INTRODUCTION The genus Neochanna Gunther (1867) comprises a group of galaxnd fishes from Australia and New Zealand commonly known as mudfishes (McDowall 1997) They are scale-less, elongate, tubular bodied fishes with blunt heads and small eyes, and are characterised by reduced or absent pelvic fins and few or absent endopterygoid teeth All New Zealand species are non-diadromous and usually occupy ephemeral habitats that dry out over summer- autumn months, where these fish aestivate in damp refugia such as mud or moss, or under tree roots and logs Neochanna apoda Gunther (1867), the brown mudfish, is considered the most specialised of the group with distinctly anguilliform characters It lacks pelvic
    [Show full text]
  • Aspects of the Phylogeny, Biogeography and Taxonomy of Galaxioid Fishes
    Aspects of the phylogeny, biogeography and taxonomy of galaxioid fishes Jonathan Michael Waters, BSc. (Hons.) Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, / 2- Oo ( 01 f University of Tasmania (August, 1996) Paragalaxias dissim1/is (Regan); illustrated by David Crook Statements I declare that this thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any tertiary institution and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, this thesis contains no material previously published o:r written by another person, except where due reference is made in the text. This thesis is not to be made available for loan or copying for two years following the date this statement is signed. Following that time the thesis may be made available for loan and limited copying in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968. Signed Summary This study used two distinct methods to infer phylogenetic relationships of members of the Galaxioidea. The first approach involved direct sequencing of mitochondrial DNA to produce a molecular phylogeny. Secondly, a thorough osteological study of the galaxiines was the basis of a cladistic analysis to produce a morphological phylogeny. Phylogenetic analysis of 303 base pairs of mitochondrial cytochrome b _supported the monophyly of Neochanna, Paragalaxias and Galaxiella. This gene also reinforced recognised groups such as Galaxias truttaceus-G. auratus and G. fasciatus-G. argenteus. In a previously unrecognised grouping, Galaxias olidus and G. parvus were united as a sister clade to Paragalaxias. In addition, Nesogalaxias neocaledonicus and G. paucispondylus were included in a clade containing G.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Biogeography and Ecology of Freshwater Fishes in The
    Comparative biogeography and ecology of freshwater fishes in the Breede and associated river systems, South Africa by Albert Chakona Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Ichthyology and Fisheries Science, Rhodes University, Grahamstown Supervisors: Dr. Ernst R. Swartz (South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity) Dr. Gavin Gouws (South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity) Prof. Paulette Bloomer (Department of Genetics, University of Pretoria) October 2011 Declaration I, the undersigned, hereby declare that the work contained in this thesis is, to the best of my knowledge, original. This thesis has not been previously submitted, either in part or in its entirety, for the award of any other degree at any other university. Signature: ………………………… Date: ……………………… ii Thesis summary Distribution patterns and levels of genetic diversity in extant taxa are a product of complex palaeogeographic processes and climatic oscillations as well as the species’ intrinsic ecological adaptations. The Cape Floristic Region of South Africa presents a unique system for studying the processes that promote species diversification and distribution patterns. This region has a high degree of endemism of both terrestrial and aquatic biota and is clearly isolated from neighbouring areas by the Cape Fold Mountains and the Great Escarpment. The objective of this study was to firstly examine the ecology of freshwater fishes belonging to the genera Galaxias, Pseudobarbus and Sandelia in the south-western CFR. This was followed by an assessment of the genetic diversity of these taxa. Unique lineages were identified and their distribution was mapped. The work aimed to explore the role of the region’s complex palaeogeographic and climatic history as well as the role of the species’ ecological adaptations in driving lineage diversification and shaping contemporary distribution patterns.
    [Show full text]
  • Table S1. Checklist of Parasite Taxa Detected in Fishes of the Galaxiidae Family
    Table S1. Checklist of parasite taxa detected in fishes of the Galaxiidae family. Country Fish species Parasite group Parasite taxa References Argentina Aplochiton zebra Acanthocephalan Acanthocephalus tumescens Fernández et al. 2012 Acanthocephalan Pomphorhynchus patagonicus Ortubay et al. 1994 Mollusc Diplodon chilensis Fernández et al. 2012 Cestode Ailinella mirabilis Fernández et al. 2012; Ortubay et al. 1994; Semenas et al. 1987 Ciliate Ichthyophthirius multifiliis Fernández et al. 2012 Ciliate Trichodina sp. Fernández et al. 2012 Myxozoan Myxobolus sp. Fernández et al. 2012 Nematode Camallanus corderoi Fernández et al. 2012 Nematode Contracaecum sp. Fernández et al. 2012 Nematode Hysterothylacium patagonense Fernández et al. 2012 Trematode Acanthostomoides apophalliformis Fernández et al. 2012; Ortubay et al. 1994; Semenas et al. 1987 Trematode Allocreadium sp. Fernández et al. 2012 Trematode Austrodiplostomum mordax Semenas et al. 1987 Trematode Derogenes sp. Ortubay et al. 1994; Semenas et al. 1987 Trematode Diplostomum sp. Fernández et al. 2012; Semenas et al. 1987 Trematode Steganoderma szidati Fernández et al. 2012 Trematode Stephanoprora uruguayense Fernández et al. 2012 Trematode Tylodelphys sp. Fernández et al. 2012; Ortubay et al. 1994 Galaxias maculatus Acanthocephalan Acanthocephalus tumescens Fernández et al. 2015a,b; Ortubay et al. 1994; Rauque et al. 2002, 2003; Revenga et al. 2005; Semenas & Trejo 1997; Trejo et al. 2000; Viozzi et al. 2009 Acanthocephalan Pomphorhynchus patagonicus Fernández et al. 2015b; Viozzi et al. 2009 Mollusc Diplodon chilensis Semenas 1999; Semenas & Brugni 2002; Semenas et al. 1994; Viozzi & Brugni 2001; Viozzi et al. 2009 1 Cestode Ailinella mirabilis Fernández et al. 2010, 2015a,b; Gil de Pertierra & Semenas 2006; Ortubay et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Powerful Fish in Poor Environments: Energetic Trade-Offs Drive Distribution
    Powerful fish in poor environments: Energetic trade-offs drive distribution and abundance in an extremophile forest-dwelling fish A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Zoology in the University of Canterbury by Richard S. A. White University of Canterbury 2013 1 Contents Abstract.....................................................................................................................................5 Chapter One: General introduction ......................................................................................... 7 Chapter Two: The abiotic-biotic stress tolerance trade-off in an extremophile forest-pool- dwelling fish: the habitat portfolio effect on distribution Abstract....................................................................................................................... 18 Introduction................................................................................................................. 19 Methods....................................................................................................................... 22 Results......................................................................................................................... 27 Discussion................................................................................................................... 33 Chapter Three: Deviations from metabolic theory of ecology drive local distribution and abundance in forest-pool-dwelling extremophile fish Abstract......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Download Article As 717.58 KB PDF File
    McIntoshAvailable on-lineet al: Galaxiid–trout at: http://www.newzealandecology.org/nzje/ interactions 195 special issue: Feathers to Fur The ecological transformation of Aotearoa/New Zealand The impact of trout on galaxiid fishes in New Zealand Angus R. McIntosh1*, Peter A. McHugh1,5, Nicholas R. Dunn2, Jane M. Goodman3, Simon W. Howard1, Phillip G. Jellyman1, Leanne K. O’Brien4, Per Nyström6 and Darragh J. Woodford1 1School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand 2Department of Zoology, University of Otago, 340 Great King Street, PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand 3Department of Conservation, Gisborne, New Zealand 4Ichthyo-niche, 26 Main South Road, Dunedin 9018, New Zealand 5Utah State University, 5290 Old Main Hill, Logan, Utah, 94322, USA. 6Department of Ecology, Ecology Building, Lund University, S-223 62 Lund, Sweden *Author for correspondence (Email: [email protected]) Published on-line: 16 October 2009 Abstract: Compared with the effect of invaders on the native terrestrial fauna of New Zealand, interactions between native fishes and introduced trout (sports fish in the generaSalmo , Oncorhynchus and Salvelinus) are less well known and there have been fewer efforts to remedy their effects. Trout have caused widespread reductions in the distribution and abundance of native galaxiid fishes, a family dominated by threatened species. The effects have been most severe on non-diadromous species (those lacking a marine migratory stage), which are commonly eliminated from streams by trout. Galaxiid populations in lakes, and those with migratory ‘whitebait’ stages, have also been affected, but the extent of the impacts are less understood.
    [Show full text]
  • Methodology to Survey and Monitor New Zealand Mudfish Species
    Methodology to survey and monitor New Zealand mudfish species CBER Contract Report 104 Nicholas Ling, Leanne K. O’Brien, Rosemary Miller, Michael Lake Methodology to survey and monitor New Zealand mudfish species Nicholas Ling1, Leanne K. O’Brien2, Rosemary Miller3, Michael Lake4 1 Centre for Biodiversity and Ecology Research, The University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand. [email protected] 2 Icthyo-niche. [email protected] 3 Taranaki Regional Council, Private Bag 713, Stratford 4332, New Zealand. [email protected] 4 Department of Conservation, Waikato Conservancy, Private Bag 3072, Hamilton, New Zealand. [email protected] This report should be cited as: Ling, N., O’Brien, L.K., Miller, R., Lake, M. 2009. Methodology to survey and monitor New Zealand mudfish species. CBER Contract Report 104. Department of Conservation and University of Waikato, Hamilton. 60 pp. Published by Department of Conservation Centre for Biodiversity and Ecology Research Waikato Conservancy The University of Waikato Private Bag 3072 Private Bag 3105 Hamilton Hamilton 1 July 2009 i Abstract Standard methods to survey and monitor NZ mudfish species involve Gee minnow traps for adults and hand nets for earlier life stages, although a range of methods have been used. A basic assessment of fish abundance can be gained from one night of trapping, however, estimates of fish density and sub- population size require repeated identical sampling events. In developing a study the objective needs to be well considered in order that the information collected addresses the particular research question. Study design and sampling effort are usually individualised to the type of habitat being sampled and resources available.
    [Show full text]