DOCSLIB.ORG

Sanctuary Mountain Maungatautari Restoration Plan 2019–2029

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sanctuary Mountain Maungatautari Restoration Plan 2019–2029 Sanctuary Mountain Maungatautari Restoration Plan 2019–2029 Prepared for: Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust June 2019 Sanctuary Mountain Maungatautari Restoration Plan 2019–2029 Contract Report: LC3464 John Innes, Corinne Watts Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research Bruce Burns University of Auckland With contributions from other members of, and advisors to, the Maungatautari Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel: Aaron Barnsdall (Mana Whenua Trustee) Geoff Churchill (Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust) Professor Bruce Clarkson (University of Waikato) Poto Davies (Maungatautari Mana Whenua) Dr Catherine Kirby (University of Waikato) Cheridan Mathers (Hamilton Zoo) Dr Shelley Langton-Myers (EcoQuest Education Foundation) Robyn Nightingale (Maungatautari Mana Whenua) Dr Kate Richardson (Waikato Regional Council) Tony Roxburgh (Waipa District Council) Alan Saunders (Waikato Regional Council) Dr Andrew Styche (Department of Conservation) Dr Kiri Wallace (University of Waikato) Dr Janelle Ward (Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust) Reviewed by: Approved for release by: Robyn Simcock Gary Houliston Scientist Portfolio Leader – Enhancing Biodiversity Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research Disclaimer This report has been prepared by Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research for Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust. If used by other parties, no warranty or representation is given as to its accuracy and no liability is accepted for loss or damage arising directly or indirectly from reliance on the information in it. Contents Summary ............................................................................................................................................................... vii Glossary ................................................................................................................................................................. xii 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Vision and nurturing of the project ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of the Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Plan period ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Links to other plans and documents ..................................................................................................... 4 1.5 What the plan is not ..................................................................................................................................... 5 2 History of Māori connection and relationship .............................................................................. 5 3 European arrival and influence ........................................................................................................... 7 4 Project history ........................................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Pest-fence project conception and implementation ...................................................................... 8 4.2 MEIT governance, infrastructure, adjacent landowners, staff and visitors .......................... 10 5 Restoration frameworks ..................................................................................................................... 10 5.1 Ecological restoration, ecological integrity, and desired future ecological states ........... 11 5.2 Restoration visions and objectives ...................................................................................................... 14 5.3 Connectivity between Maungatautari and surrounding landscapes ..................................... 15 6 Maungatautari species ........................................................................................................................ 19 6.1 Plants ............................................................................................................................................................... 19 6.2 Birds ................................................................................................................................................................. 21 6.3 Bats .................................................................................................................................................................. 28 6.4 Tuatara, geckos and skinks ..................................................................................................................... 29 6.5 Frogs ................................................................................................................................................................ 33 6.6 Fish ................................................................................................................................................................... 33 6.7 Aquatic invertebrates................................................................................................................................ 34 6.8 Terrestrial invertebrates ........................................................................................................................... 34 6.9 Fungi ................................................................................................................................................................ 37 6.10 Significant species for iwi ........................................................................................................................ 37 7 Maungatautari ecosystems ............................................................................................................... 39 7.1 Defining ‘ecosystems’ ............................................................................................................................... 39 7.2 Historical/past ecosystems ..................................................................................................................... 39 7.3 Current ecosystems ................................................................................................................................... 40 8 Survey ........................................................................................................................................................ 42 8.1 Data collation ............................................................................................................................................... 43 8.2 Palaeoecological survey .......................................................................................................................... 43 9 Biodiversity monitoring ...................................................................................................................... 43 9.1 Biodiversity monitoring to date ........................................................................................................... 44 ~ iii ~ 9.2 Recommended biodiversity monitoring ............................................................................................ 45 10 Social/cultural monitoring ................................................................................................................. 47 11 Research ................................................................................................................................................... 48 11.1 Research completed .................................................................................................................................. 48 11.2 Possible future research ........................................................................................................................... 49 12 Climate change ...................................................................................................................................... 50 13 Using the smaller exclosures for optimum conservation gain ............................................ 51 14 Education ................................................................................................................................................. 52 14.1 Students.......................................................................................................................................................... 52 14.2 Outreach ......................................................................................................................................................... 53 15 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. 53 16 References ............................................................................................................................................... 54 Appendix 1. Indigenous vascular plants recorded at Maungatautari ........................................... 61 Appendix 2. Birds observed on Maungatautari during 2002 to 2017 .......................................... 68 Appendix 3. Invertebrates recorded at Maungatautari ...................................................................... 69 Appendix 4: Fungi recorded at Maungatautari ..................................................................................... 77 Appendix 5 – Published, available and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Annotated Checklist of Wisconsin Handsome Fungus Beetles (Coleoptera: Endomychidae)
    The Great Lakes Entomologist Volume 40 Numbers 3 & 4 - Fall/Winter 2007 Numbers 3 & Article 9 4 - Fall/Winter 2007 October 2007 An Annotated Checklist of Wisconsin Handsome Fungus Beetles (Coleoptera: Endomychidae) Michele B. Price University of Wisconsin Daniel K. Young University of Wisconsin Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Price, Michele B. and Young, Daniel K. 2007. "An Annotated Checklist of Wisconsin Handsome Fungus Beetles (Coleoptera: Endomychidae)," The Great Lakes Entomologist, vol 40 (2) Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle/vol40/iss2/9 This Peer-Review Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Biology at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Great Lakes Entomologist by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Price and Young: An Annotated Checklist of Wisconsin Handsome Fungus Beetles (Cole 2007 THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOLOGIST 177 AN Annotated Checklist of Wisconsin Handsome Fungus Beetles (Coleoptera: Endomychidae) Michele B. Price1 and Daniel K. Young1 ABSTRACT The first comprehensive survey of Wisconsin Endomychidae was initiated in 1998. Throughout Wisconsin sampling sites were selected based on habitat type and sampling history. Wisconsin endomychids were hand collected from fungi and under tree bark; successful trapping methods included cantharidin- baited pitfall traps, flight intercept traps, and Lindgren funnel traps. Examina- tion of literature records, museum and private collections, and field research yielded 10 species, three of which are new state records. Two dubious records, Epipocus unicolor Horn and Stenotarsus hispidus (Herbst), could not be con- firmed.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Zealand Rain Forest: a Comparison with Tropical Rain Forest! J
    The New Zealand Rain Forest: A Comparison with Tropical Rain Forest! J. W. DAWSON2 and B. V. SNEDDON2 ABSTRACT: The structure of and growth forms and habits exhibited by the New Zealand rain forest are described and compared with those of lowland tropical rain forest. Theories relating to the frequent regeneration failure of the forest dominants are outlined. The floristic affinities of the forest type are discussed and it is suggested that two main elements can be recognized-lowland tropical and montane tropical. It is concluded that the New Zealand rain forest is comparable to lowland tropical rain forest in structure and in range of special growth forms and habits. It chiefly differs in its lower stature, fewer species, and smaller leaves. The floristic similarity between the present forest and forest floras of the Tertiary in New Zealand suggest that the former may be a floristically reduced derivative of the latter. PART 1 OF THIS PAPER describes the structure The approximate number of species of seed and growth forms of the New Zealand rain plants in these forests is 240. From north to forest as exemplified by a forest in the far north. south there is an overall decrease in number of In Part 2, theories relating to the regeneration species. At about 38°S a number of species, of the dominant trees in the New Zealand rain mostly trees and shrubs, drop out or become forest generally are reviewed briefly, and their restricted to coastal sites, but it is not until about relevance to the situation in the study forest is 42°S, in the South Island, that many of the con­ considered.
    [Show full text]
  • Coleoptera: Endomychidae: Leiestinae) with a Checklist and Nomenclatural Notes Regarding Fossil Endomychidae
    Zootaxa 3755 (4): 391–400 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2014 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3755.4.5 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:13446D49-76A1-4C12-975E-F59106AF4BD3 Glesirhanis bercioi, a new genus and species from Baltic amber (Coleoptera: Endomychidae: Leiestinae) with a checklist and nomenclatural notes regarding fossil Endomychidae FLOYD W. SHOCKLEY1& VITALY I. ALEKSEEV2 1Department of Entomology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, MRC 165, Washington, DC 20013-7012, U.S.A. Email: [email protected] 2Department of Zootechny, Kaliningrad State Technical University, Sovetsky av. 1. 236000, Kaliningrad, Russia. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract A new genus and species of handsome fungus beetle, Glesirhanis bercioi gen. nov., sp. nov. (Coleoptera: Endomychidae: Leiestinae) is described from Baltic amber. The newly described genus is compared with all known extant and extinct genera of the subfamily. A key to the genera of Leiestinae including fossils and a checklist of fossil Endomychidae are provided. The status of two taxa previously placed in Endomychidae, Palaeoendomychus gymnus Zhang and Tetrameropsis mesozoica Kirejtshuk & Azar, is discussed, and a new status for the latter, elevating it to the family-level as Tetrameropseidae status nov., is proposed. Key words: new genus, new species, new status, Coleoptera, Endomychidae, Leiestinae, Baltic amber, Tertiary, Eocene, key, checklist, fossil Introduction Baltic amber (succinite) constitutes the largest known deposit of fossil plant resin and the richest repository of fossil insects of any age. Unfortunately, most references to Coleoptera in Baltic amber are only determined to family or generic levels.
    [Show full text]
  • Keystone Species: the Concept and Its Relevance for Conservation Management in New Zealand
    Keystone species: the concept and its relevance for conservation management in New Zealand SCIENCE FOR CONSERVATION 203 Ian J. Payton, Michael Fenner, William G. Lee Published by Department of Conservation P.O. Box 10-420 Wellington, New Zealand Science for Conservation is a scientific monograph series presenting research funded by New Zealand Department of Conservation (DOC). Manuscripts are internally and externally peer-reviewed; resulting publications are considered part of the formal international scientific literature. Titles are listed in the DOC Science Publishing catalogue on the departmental website http:// www.doc.govt.nz and printed copies can be purchased from [email protected] © Copyright July 2002, New Zealand Department of Conservation ISSN 11732946 ISBN 047822284X This report was prepared for publication by DOC Science Publishing, Science & Research Unit; editing by Lynette Clelland and layout by Ruth Munro. Publication was approved by the Manager, Science & Research Unit, Science Technology and Information Services, Department of Conservation, Wellington. CONTENTS Abstract 5 1. Introduction 6 2. Keystone concepts 6 3. Types of keystone species 8 3.1 Organisms controlling potential dominants 8 3.2 Resource providers 10 3.3 Mutualists 11 3.4 Ecosystem engineers 12 4. The New Zealand context 14 4.1 Organisms controlling potential dominants 14 4.2 Resource providers 16 4.3 Mutualists 18 4.4 Ecosystem engineers 19 5. Identifying keystone species 20 6. Implications for conservation management 21 7. Acknowledgements 22 8. References 23 4 Payton et al.Keystone species: the concept and its relevance in New Zealand Keystone species: the concept and its relevance for conservation management in New Zealand Ian J.
    [Show full text]
  • Otanewainuku ED (Report Prepared on 13 August 2013)
    1 NZFRI collection wish list for Otanewainuku ED (Report prepared on 13 August 2013) Fern Ally Isolepis cernua Lycopodiaceae Isolepis inundata Lycopodium fastigiatum Isolepis marginata Lycopodium scariosum Isolepis pottsii Psilotaceae Isolepis prolifera Tmesipteris lanceolata Lepidosperma australe Lepidosperma laterale Gymnosperm Schoenoplectus pungens Cupressaceae Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani Chamaecyparis lawsoniana Schoenus apogon Cupressus macrocarpa Schoenus tendo Pinaceae Uncinia filiformis Pinus contorta Uncinia gracilenta Pinus patula Uncinia rupestris Pinus pinaster Uncinia scabra Pinus ponderosa Hemerocallidaceae Pinus radiata Dianella nigra Pinus strobus Phormium cookianum subsp. hookeri Podocarpaceae Phormium tenax Podocarpus totara var. totara Iridaceae Prumnopitys taxifolia Crocosmia xcrocosmiiflora Libertia grandiflora Monocotyledon Libertia ixioides Agapanthaceae Watsonia bulbillifera Agapanthus praecox Juncaceae Alliaceae Juncus articulatus Allium triquetrum Juncus australis Araceae Juncus conglomeratus Alocasia brisbanensis Juncus distegus Arum italicum Juncus edgariae Lemna minor Juncus effusus var. effusus Zantedeschia aethiopica Juncus sarophorus Arecaceae Juncus tenuis var. tenuis Rhopalostylis sapida Luzula congesta Asparagaceae Luzula multiflora Asparagus aethiopicus Luzula picta var. limosa Asparagus asparagoides Orchidaceae Cordyline australis x banksii Acianthus sinclairii Cordyline banksii x pumilio Aporostylis bifolia Asteliaceae Corunastylis nuda Collospermum microspermum Diplodium alobulum Commelinaceae
    [Show full text]
  • Temporal Development and Regeneration Dynamics of Restored Urban Forests
    Temporal Development and Regeneration Dynamics of Restored Urban Forests By Katherine de Silva A thesis submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Masters in Ecology & Biodiversity School of Biological Sciences Faculty of Sciences Victoria University of Wellington October 2019 Supervisors: Stephen Hartley. Director of the Centre of Biodiversity & Restoration Ecology, Victoria University of Wellington Kiri Joy Wallace. Postdoctoral Fellow, Environmental Research Institute, University of Waikato. Katherine de Silva: Temporal Development and Regeneration Dynamics of Restored Urban Forests, © October 2019. 2 ABSTRACT Urban forest restoration programmes are a key tool used to initiate, re-create or accelerate the succession of forest species; improving ecosystem services, function, resilience and biodiversity. Succession is a temporal shift in species dominance driven by abiotic and biotic influences, but over decadal timescales the trajectory and success of restoration plantings in degraded urban environments can be hindered. To facilitate the successful reconstruction of forest ecosystems from scratch, an understanding of the temporal patterns in planted forest development, dynamics of seedling regeneration and dominant drivers of seedling diversity is required. Using a chronosequence approach, permanent plots were established at 44 restored urban forests aged 5 to 59 years since initial plantings took place, across five New Zealand cities between Wellington and Invercargill. Vegetation surveys were undertaken and data on micro- climate were collected. This study examined the 1) temporal dynamics of restored urban forest development and seedling regeneration and 2) dominant drivers of seedling regeneration. Data were analysed using linear regression models, breakpoint analysis and mixed-effects modelling. Early forest development (<20 years) exhibited the most changes in canopy composition and structure, forest floor dynamics, seedling community and microclimate.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Charts for Native to the West Booklet
    26 Pohutukawa • Oi exposed coastal ecosystem KEY ♥ Nurse plant ■ Main component ✤ rare ✖ toxic to toddlers coastal sites For restoration, in this habitat: ••• plant liberally •• plant generally • plant sparingly Recommended planting sites Back Boggy Escarp- Sharp Steep Valley Broad Gentle Alluvial Dunes Area ment Ridge Slope Bottom Ridge Slope Flat/Tce Medium trees Beilschmiedia tarairi taraire ✤ ■ •• Corynocarpus laevigatus karaka ✖■ •••• Kunzea ericoides kanuka ♥■ •• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• Metrosideros excelsa pohutukawa ♥■ ••••• • •• •• Small trees, large shrubs Coprosma lucida shining karamu ♥ ■ •• ••• ••• •• •• Coprosma macrocarpa coastal karamu ♥ ■ •• •• •• •••• Coprosma robusta karamu ♥ ■ •••••• Cordyline australis ti kouka, cabbage tree ♥ ■ • •• •• • •• •••• Dodonaea viscosa akeake ■ •••• Entelea arborescens whau ♥ ■ ••••• Geniostoma rupestre hangehange ♥■ •• • •• •• •• •• •• Leptospermum scoparium manuka ♥■ •• •• • ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• Leucopogon fasciculatus mingimingi • •• ••• ••• • •• •• • Macropiper excelsum kawakawa ♥■ •••• •••• ••• Melicope ternata wharangi ■ •••••• Melicytus ramiflorus mahoe • ••• •• • •• ••• Myoporum laetum ngaio ✖ ■ •••••• Olearia furfuracea akepiro • ••• ••• •• •• Pittosporum crassifolium karo ■ •• •••• ••• Pittosporum ellipticum •• •• Pseudopanax lessonii houpara ■ ecosystem one •••••• Rhopalostylis sapida nikau ■ • •• • •• Sophora fulvida west coast kowhai ✖■ •• •• Shrubs and flax-like plants Coprosma crassifolia stiff-stemmed coprosma ♥■ •• ••••• Coprosma repens taupata ♥ ■ •• •••• ••
    [Show full text]
  • RESEARCH Factors Limiting Kererū (Hemiphaga Novaeseelandiae) Populations Across New Zealand
    CarpenterNew Zealand et al.: Journal Limiting of Ecology factors for(2021) kerer 45(2):u 3441 © 2021 New Zealand Ecological Society. 1 RESEARCH Factors limiting kererū (Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae) populations across New Zealand Joanna K. Carpenter1* , Susan Walker1 , Adrian Monks1 , John Innes2 , Rachelle N. Binny3,4 and Ann-Kathrin V. Schlesselmann1 1Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research, Private Bag 1930, Dunedin, New Zealand 2Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research, Private Bag 3127, Hamilton, New Zealand 3Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research, PO Box 69040, Lincoln, New Zealand 4Te Pūnaha Matatini, Centre of Research Excellence, New Zealand *Author for correspondence (Email: [email protected]) Published online: 25 June 2021 Abstract: Kererū declined rapidly following European settlement in New Zealand, and they remain at a reduced density. We assessed three sources of information to test the hypothesis that predation by introduced mammals and abundance of food resources are the two major factors determining kererū abundance across New Zealand. First, we reviewed the literature on factors affecting the vital rates of kererū. This analysis showed that predation is the cause of most nest failures and deaths in kererū. Second, we examined data from a major database of bird sanctuary outcomes across New Zealand to evaluate long-term responses of kererū to intensive pest control at local scales. Kererū detections did not always increase following predator control, which suggests that food supply or forest area may be more important limiting factors at some sanctuaries. Third, to understand the factors underlying temporal and spatial kererū distribution patterns at a national scale, we assessed changes and patterns in kererū local occupancy through time using data from the 1969–1979 and 1999–2004 editions of the Atlas of Bird Distribution in New Zealand.
    [Show full text]
  • Best Practice Techniques for the Translocation of Whiteheads (Popokatea, Mohoua Albicilla)
    Best practice techniques for the translocation of whiteheads (popokatea, Mohoua albicilla) Ralph Powlesland and Kevin Parker Cover: Whitehead, Tiritiri Matangi Island. Photo: Martin Sanders. © Copyright April 2014, New Zealand Department of Conservation Published by the Terrestrial Ecosystems Unit, National Office, Science and Capability Group, Department of Conservation, PO Box 10420, The Terrace, Wellington 6143, New Zealand. Editing and design by the Publishing Team, National Office, Department of Conservation, PO Box 10420, The Terrace, Wellington 6143, New Zealand. CONTENTS Abstract 1 1. Introduction 2 2. Animal welfare requirements 3 3. Transfer team 3 4. Time of year for transfer 3 5. Number of transfers 4 6. Composition of transfer group 4 7. Sexing whiteheads 4 7.1 Appearance 4 7.2 Measurements 5 7.3 DNA sexing 6 8. Ageing whiteheads 7 9. Capture 7 10. Transfer to base for ‘processing’ 7 11. Processing the birds 8 12. Temporary housing in aviaries 10 12.1 Capture in the aviary on transfer day 12 13. Feeding 14 14. Whitehead husbandry 15 15. Transfer box design 15 16. Transport 16 17. Release 17 18. Post-release monitoring 17 18.1 Purpose 17 18.2 Recommended monitoring 19 19. Record keeping 19 20. References 21 Appendix 1 Details of report contributors 23 Appendix 2 Feeding protocol for whiteheads being held in temporary aviaries 24 Appendix 3 Recipes for whitehead foods 25 Best practice techniques for the translocation of whiteheads (popokatea, Mohoua albicilla) Ralph Powlesland1 and Kevin Parker2 1 606 Manaroa Road, Manaroa, RD 2, Picton, New Zealand [email protected] 2 Parker Conservation, Auckland, New Zealand parkerconservation.co.nz Abstract This document outlines best practice techniques for the translocation of whiteheads (popokatea, Mohoua albicilla).
    [Show full text]
  • Researchcommons.Waikato.Ac.Nz
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Research Commons@Waikato http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/ Research Commons at the University of Waikato Copyright Statement: The digital copy of this thesis is protected by the Copyright Act 1994 (New Zealand). The thesis may be consulted by you, provided you comply with the provisions of the Act and the following conditions of use: Any use you make of these documents or images must be for research or private study purposes only, and you may not make them available to any other person. Authors control the copyright of their thesis. You will recognise the author’s right to be identified as the author of the thesis, and due acknowledgement will be made to the author where appropriate. You will obtain the author’s permission before publishing any material from the thesis. Identifying Host Species of Dactylanthus taylorii using DNA Barcoding A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science in Biological Sciences at The University of Waikato by Cassarndra Marie Parker _________ The University of Waikato 2015 Acknowledgements: This thesis wouldn't have been possible without the support of many people. Firstly, my supervisors Dr Chrissen Gemmill and Dr Avi Holzapfel - your professional expertise, advice, and patience were invaluable. From pitching the idea in 2012 to reading through drafts in the final fortnight, I've been humbled to work with such dedicated and accomplished scientists. Special mention also goes to Thomas Emmitt, David Mudge, Steven Miller, the Auckland Zoo horticulture team and Kevin.
    [Show full text]
  • MAUNGATAUTARI ECOLOGICAL ISLAND TRUST Annual General Meeting Unconfirmed Minutes 22 October 2019
    MAUNGATAUTARI ECOLOGICAL ISLAND TRUST Annual General Meeting unconfirmed Minutes 22 October 2019 unconfirmed minutes of the Annual General Meeting of the Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust held in Te Manawa o Matariki room at the Don Rowlands Complex, Mighty River Domain at Lake Karāpiro on Tuesday, 22 October 2019 commencing at 6.00m. 1 Opening Karakia – Taiapa Kara; Mihi Whakatau – Johnson Raumati; and MEIT response – Simon Anderson 2 Present Poto Davies (co-Chair), Don Scarlet (Acting co-Chair), Aaron Barnsdall, Graham Parker, Maryanne Sambells Simon Anderson, Steve Cooper, Clare Crickett, Joce Dawkins, Neville Dawkins, Gabrielle Dela Rue, Anne Deulin, George Dingle, Antonia Eames, Ruth Etches, Joyce Fleming, Margaret Gasquoine, Adua Geremia, Ron Guest, Beth Guest, Angela Harris, John Innes, Bryan Jenkin, Nanette Jenkin, Taiapa Kara, Colleen Lecky, Pam Lemming, Helen Lewis, Alan Livingston, Rod Lugton, Rosemary Lugton, Linda McCarter, Nigel McCarter, David Mans, Graham Mayall, Craig Montgomerie, Brent Montgomerie, Robyn Nightingale, Kurarangi Paki, Elaine Parkinson, Annie Perkins, Pat Quin, Johnson Raumati, Clare Ravenscroft, Sue Reid, Dan Ritchie, Tony Roxburgh, Sally Sheedy, Neil Smith, Carol Tauroa, Lance Tauroa, Tao Tauroa, Kiri Joy Wallace, Brian Walton, Harry Wilson Phil Lyons, Sue Dela Rue, Daniel Howie, Nathalia Jellyman, Jessica Meade, Maureen Poole, Daniel Scanlon, Ricki-Lee Scanlon, Ally Tairi, Janelle Ward 3 Apologies The apologies from Rahui Papa, Gary Dyet, John Erica, Raewyn Jones, Raewyn Kirkham, James Matthews, Jim Mylchreest, Dylan Newbold, Vaughan Payne Ashley Reid, Bruce Scott, Graham Scott, Dene Sambells, Pam Walton were accepted. unconfirmed Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust AGM Minutes – 22 October 2019 Page 1 4 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION OF TRUSTEES On behalf of the Trust, Acting Co-Chair Don Scarlet welcomed everyone to the 2019 AGM and introduced all current Trustees present at the meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • Arachnid Ecology in New Zealand, Exploring
    1 Arachnid ecology in New Zealand, exploring 2 unknown and poorly understood factors. 3 James Crofts-Bennett. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 “A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the degree of Master of Science [1] in Botany [2] at the 21 University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand” 22 2020 23 1 24 Index 25 26 Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………5. 27 Chapter 1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………...7. 28 1.1 The importance of spiders………………………………………………………...7. 29 1.2 The influence of habitat structural complexity on spider distribution and 30 abundance…………………………………………………………………………......8. 31 1.3 Invasive rodents in the context of New Zealand Araneae………………………...9. 32 1.4 Thesis structure and aims………………………………………………………..14. 33 Chapter 2. The effect of habitat structural complexity on spider abundance and diversity..15. 34 2.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………..15. 35 Figure 2.1: Seasonal deciduous vegetation cover…………………………...16. 36 Figure 2.2: Seasonal deciduous vegetation cover with mistletoe parasites…16. 37 2.2 Methods…………………………………………………………………………17. 38 Figure 2.3: Examples of foliage samples……………………………………18. 39 Table 2.1: Sampling locations, dates and host data…………………………19. 40 2.2.1 Statistical Analyses……………………………………………………………20. 41 2.3 Results…………………………………………………………………………...20. 42 Figure 2.4: Total invertebrates sampled in summer, plotted………………..22. 43 Figure 2.5: Total invertebrates sampled in winter, plotted………………….23. 44 Table 2.2: Paired t-tests of host plant invertebrate populations……………..25. 45 2.4 Discussion……………………………………………………………………….26. 46 Chapter 3. A novel non-kill Araneae trap: test with regards to vegetation type versus 47 location 48 effects………………………………………………………………………………………..28. 49 3.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………...28.
    [Show full text]