DOCSLIB.ORG

Marlborough's East Coast

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Marlborough's East Coast Council Meeting 24 June 2021 Separately Circulated Attachment (as indicated this is circulated separately to the Agenda) This attachment relates to Item 6 in your Agenda Attachment 6.3 – Technical Report (Version 4, June 2021) Document Control Version Date of Report Environment Planning Finance Council Meeting Committee Meeting Community Committee Meeting Version 1 22 March 2019 30 April 2019 16 May 2019 Version 2 28 June 2019 18 July 2019 8 August 2019 Version 3 1 November 2019 29 November 2019 12 December 2019 Version 4 June 2021 24 June 2021 File Ref: L225-16-04 Record No: 1966306 Marlborough's East Coast Contents 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Purpose .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2. Scope ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.3. Structure ............................................................................................................................ 2 1.4. Coastline photos ............................................................................................................... 2 2. The values of Marlborough’s East Coast environment present before the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake ........................................................................ 6 2.1. Cultural Values .................................................................................................................. 6 2.2. Archaeological sites ......................................................................................................... 6 2.3. Te Tau Ihu Iwi .................................................................................................................... 6 2.4. Coastal settlement history ............................................................................................... 7 2.5. Landscape ......................................................................................................................... 9 2.5.1. Physical processes ................................................................................................. 10 2.5.2. Natural hazards ...................................................................................................... 10 2.6. The natural habitats and ecosystems ........................................................................... 11 2.6.1. Terrestrial ecosystems ............................................................................................ 11 2.6.1.1. Dunes ..................................................................................................................11 2.6.1.2. Other indigenous vegetation ................................................................................12 2.6.1.3. Fauna ...................................................................................................................13 2.6.2. Marine ecosystems ................................................................................................. 15 2.6.2.1. Marine mammals .................................................................................................15 2.7. Commercial activity ........................................................................................................ 16 2.7.1. Commercial fishery ................................................................................................. 16 2.7.2. Agriculture ............................................................................................................... 16 2.7.3. Salt works at Lake Grassmere/Kapara Te Hau ...................................................... 16 2.8. Recreational activity ....................................................................................................... 16 3. Effects following the 2016 Kaikōura Earthquake on Marlborough’s East Coast environment ..........................................................................................18 3.1. Earthquake details .......................................................................................................... 18 3.2. Actions following the earthquake ................................................................................. 18 3.2.1. Central Government intervention ............................................................................ 18 3.2.2. Community groups formed ..................................................................................... 18 3.2.2.1. East Coast Protection Group (ECPG) ..................................................................18 3.2.2.2. Recreational Access with Education (RAwE) .......................................................19 3.2.3. Technical Advice Workshop ................................................................................... 19 3.3. Impacts of the earthquake on the landscape ............................................................... 19 3.3.1. Impact of vehicle tracks on the landscape.............................................................. 20 3.4. Impacts of the Earthquake on the Natural Habitats and Ecosystems ....................... 20 i Marlborough's East Coast 3.4.1. Impacts on the terrestrial ecosystems .................................................................... 20 3.4.1.1. Dunes ..................................................................................................................20 3.4.1.2. Indigenous vegetation ..........................................................................................20 3.4.1.3. Fauna ...................................................................................................................21 3.4.2. Impacts on the marine ecosystems ........................................................................ 24 3.4.2.1. Pāua ....................................................................................................................28 3.4.2.2. Shellfish ...............................................................................................................28 3.4.2.3. Marine mammals .................................................................................................28 3.5. Impacts of the earthquake on commercial activities .................................................. 28 3.6. Impacts of the earthquake on access and recreational activities ............................. 29 3.6.1. Public access .......................................................................................................... 29 3.6.2. Recreational activity ................................................................................................ 29 3.6.2.1. ECPG user surveys .............................................................................................33 3.6.2.2. UC MERG user survey ........................................................................................33 4. Restoration work to assist natural processes of recovery..........................34 4.1.1. Restoration plantings .............................................................................................. 34 4.1.2. Weed control ........................................................................................................... 34 4.1.3. Predator control ...................................................................................................... 34 5. Conclusion .......................................................................................................35 Appendix 1: Archaeological Sites (Maps 1-3) ......................................................36 Appendix 2: Indigenous Vegetation (Maps 1-3) ...................................................41 Appendix 3: Fauna (Maps 1-3) ...............................................................................60 Appendix 4: Marine ecosystems (Maps 1-3) ........................................................94 Appendix 5: Marine mammal locations (Maps 1-3) ..............................................97 Appendix 6: Access points ..................................................................................103 Appendix 7: Use of East Coast Maps (Maps 1-3) ...............................................104 Appendix 8: Vehicle access maps (Maps 1-3) ....................................................107 Appendix 9: ECPG information brochure ...........................................................110 Appendix 10: RAwE proposed voluntary code of practice ...............................112 Appendix 11: Technical experts ..........................................................................114 Appendix 12: Key values underpinning the ONL ...............................................115 Appendix 13: Acronyms .......................................................................................116 Appendix 14: Bibliography ..................................................................................117 ii Marlborough's East Coast Figure 1: Cape Campbell/Te Karaka before the earthquake. 2 Figure 2: Cape Campbell/Te Karaka after the earthquake. Photo Mark Davies Jan 2017. 2 Figure 3: Cape Campbell lighthouse - old and new light. 7 Figure 4: Kiosk containing information boards erected by the Peter family on land beneath the lighthouse. Photo: Peter family. 8 Figure 5: Chancet Rocks Scientific Reserve. 9 Figure 6: Waipawa Formation. Photo: Chris Hollis. 9 Figure 7: Needles Point. Photo: Jan Clayton-Greene, DOC. 10 Figure 8: Marlborough’s
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Development of Community-Based Monitoring Methods for Coastal Dunes of the Bay of Plenty Region
    Development of community-based monitoring methods for coastal dunes of the Bay of Plenty Region David Bergin and Michael Bergin Environmental Restoration Ltd June 2018 Papamoa College students surveying vegetation cover on the foredunes along a transect, Papamoa Beach A contract report prepared for the Bay of Plenty Regional Council by Environmental Restoration Ltd. This project has been undertaken in collaboration with the Coastal Restoration Trust of New Zealand and their research partners. For the Bay of Plenty coastal dunes, monitoring methods were developed with assistance and in collaboration with Chris Ward, Shay Dean, Courtney Bell and Hamish Dean of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. 1 Scope and content of this report The Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BOPRC) was one of the first councils to adopt a community‐ based approach to dune management in New Zealand following programmes that were initiated widely in New South Wales in the 1980s and expanded to other parts of Australia (Dahm et al. 2005). Extensive programmes now operate in many regions throughout New Zealand. In the Bay of Plenty region there are currently community Coast Care groups located from Waihi Beach in the west to Whangaparaoa on the east of the region involved in various aspects of dune restoration and management (Figure 1). They are formed by partnerships between the local community, iwi, district councils, the Department of Conservation and BOPRC working together to protect and restore beaches and coastal dunes (www.boprc.govt.nz/residents‐and‐ communities/care‐groups/coast‐care/). The Coast Care groups around the BOP region are involved in a wide range of activities to help protect the coastline, restore natural dune form and function, and are increasing awareness of coastal hazards and climate change in local communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Ficha Catalográfica Online
    UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL DE CAMPINAS INSTITUTO DE BIOLOGIA – IB SUZANA MARIA DOS SANTOS COSTA SYSTEMATIC STUDIES IN CRYPTANGIEAE (CYPERACEAE) ESTUDOS FILOGENÉTICOS E SISTEMÁTICOS EM CRYPTANGIEAE CAMPINAS, SÃO PAULO 2018 SUZANA MARIA DOS SANTOS COSTA SYSTEMATIC STUDIES IN CRYPTANGIEAE (CYPERACEAE) ESTUDOS FILOGENÉTICOS E SISTEMÁTICOS EM CRYPTANGIEAE Thesis presented to the Institute of Biology of the University of Campinas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of PhD in Plant Biology Tese apresentada ao Instituto de Biologia da Universidade Estadual de Campinas como parte dos requisitos exigidos para a obtenção do Título de Doutora em Biologia Vegetal ESTE ARQUIVO DIGITAL CORRESPONDE À VERSÃO FINAL DA TESE DEFENDIDA PELA ALUNA Suzana Maria dos Santos Costa E ORIENTADA PELA Profa. Maria do Carmo Estanislau do Amaral (UNICAMP) E CO- ORIENTADA pelo Prof. William Wayt Thomas (NYBG). Orientadora: Maria do Carmo Estanislau do Amaral Co-Orientador: William Wayt Thomas CAMPINAS, SÃO PAULO 2018 Agência(s) de fomento e nº(s) de processo(s): CNPq, 142322/2015-6; CAPES Ficha catalográfica Universidade Estadual de Campinas Biblioteca do Instituto de Biologia Mara Janaina de Oliveira - CRB 8/6972 Costa, Suzana Maria dos Santos, 1987- C823s CosSystematic studies in Cryptangieae (Cyperaceae) / Suzana Maria dos Santos Costa. – Campinas, SP : [s.n.], 2018. CosOrientador: Maria do Carmo Estanislau do Amaral. CosCoorientador: William Wayt Thomas. CosTese (doutorado) – Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Biologia. Cos1. Savanas. 2. Campinarana. 3. Campos rupestres. 4. Filogenia - Aspectos moleculares. 5. Cyperaceae. I. Amaral, Maria do Carmo Estanislau do, 1958-. II. Thomas, William Wayt, 1951-. III. Universidade Estadual de Campinas. Instituto de Biologia. IV. Título.
    [Show full text]
  • Beach Dynamics and Recreational Access Changes on an Earthquake-Uplifted Coast
    Beach dynamics and recreational access changes on an earthquake-uplifted coast Prepared for Marlborough District Council August 2020 Marine Ecology Research Group University of Canterbury Private Bag 4800 Christchurch 8140 ISBN 978-0-473-54390-7 (Print) ISBN 978-0-473-54392-1 (Online) For citation: Orchard, S., Falconer, T., Fischman, H., Schiel, D. R. (2020). Beach dynamics and recreational access changes on an earthquake-uplifted coast. Report to the Marlborough District Council, 42pp. ISBN 978-0-473-54390-7 (Print), ISBN 978-0-473-54392-1 (Online). Available online from https://hdl.handle.net/10092/101043 This work is made available under an Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) license. For further information please contact: [email protected] Ph: +64 3 369 4141 Disclaimer Information contained in report is provided in good faith based on the preliminary results of field studies, literature review and third party information. Assumptions relied upon in preparing this report includes information provided by third parties, some of which may not have been verified. The information is provided on the basis that readers will make their own enquiries to independently evaluate, assess and verify the information’s correctness, completeness and usefulness. By using this information you acknowledge that this information is provided by the Marine Ecology Research Group (MERG). Findings, recommendations, and opinions expressed within this document relate only to the specific locations of our study sites and may not be applicable to other sites and contexts. MERG undertakes no duty, nor accepts any responsibility, to any party who may rely upon or use this document.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF Download
    E-nEwslEttEr: no 77. April 2010 Deadline for next issue: Friday 14 May 2010 Guest message from the Treasurer It was with mixed emotions I attended the launch of the outstanding new publication “Threatened Plants of New Zealand” at the Department of Conservation national office a couple of weeks ago. Pride that the Network with its partners had supported and facilitated such a publication was tinged with sadness that the book showed that we are not making progress in the management of New Zealand’s biodiversity. This at the same time that funding for biodiversity management in general, and threatened species in particular, is under pressure both nationally and regionally. The irony is not lost in this the International Year of Biodiversity. What can we do about it? There are no easy answers but it has to start with each and every one of us and with the organisations we support and belong to. The work of the Network, and its achievements over the past 6 years, has been beyond what any of us could have imagined. Minister of Conservation The Hon. Kate Wilkinson Yet we need to do more. This work needs to speaks at the launch of Threatened Plants of New be managed in a coordinated and professional Zealand. manner. For that, we need resources and funding. Photo: Nadine Bott, Department of Conservation. One area of work that the Network supports is research into the conservation, protection and recovery of New Zealand’s threatened plant species and communities. The David Given Threatened Plant Scholarship was launched in 2008 with the first recipients being Drs Peter Heenan and Rob Smissen for their research into the conservation genetics and taxonomy of Convolvulus “glabrous”.
    [Show full text]
  • Polarised Light Microscopy: an Old Technique Casts New Light on Māori Textile Plants
    Polarised light microscopy: an old technique casts new light on Māori textile plants Rachel A. Paterson1, Bronwyn J. Lowe1*, Catherine A. Smith1, Janice M. Lord2, Roka Ngarimu-Cameron3 1Department of Applied Sciences/Te Tari Pūtaiao Whakahāngai, University of Otago/Te Whare Wānanga o Otāgo, PO Box 56, Dunedin/Ōtepoti 9054, New Zealand/Aotearoa 2Department of Botany/Te Tari Huaota o Otāgo, University of Otago/Te Whare Wānanga o Otāgo, PO Box 56, Dunedin/Ōtepoti 9054, New Zealand/Aotearoa 32806 State Highway 35, Hawai Bay, Opotiki 3197, New Zealand/Aotearoa Corresponding author: *[email protected] ABSTRACT Understanding the composition of an artefact has ramifications for advancing human history and behaviour knowledge, providing cultural information about trade, agricultural practices and adaptation to new environments. However, accurate plant identification from artefacts is problematic, since textile production, age, dirt and/or conservation treatments obscure morphological features, and specimen size and/or ethical considerations hamper modern analytical methods. This study tested the efficacy of polarised light microscopy (PLM) in the identification of New Zealand plant species commonly used in Māori textiles, and demonstrates that morphological and birefringent features observed using PLM have the potential to distinguish between- and within- plant genera. KEYWORDS Māori textiles, New Zealand flax, Phormium, Cordyline, Freycinetia, sign of elongation, modified Herzog test, plant material identification INTRODUCTION Accurate plant material identification is critical for advancing study of material culture, since an object’s composition provides an insight into its origin, additionally revealing important cultural information such as human interactions and emigration pathways (Schaffer 1981; Jakes et al. 1994). However, one of the main challenges for accurate identification of plant species in textile artefacts is the scarcity of distinct morphological features, evident from whole plants or individual leaves (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Te Reo O Te Repo – the Voice of the Wetland Introduction 1
    TE REO O TE REPO THE VOICE OF THE WETLAND CONNECTIONS, UNDERSTANDINGS AND LEARNINGS FOR THE RESTORATION EDITED BY YVONNE TAURA CHERI VAN SCHRAVENDIJK-GOODMAN OF OUR WETLANDS AND BEVERLEY CLARKSON Te reo o te repo = The voice of the wetland: connections, understandings and learnings for the restoration of our wetlands / edited by Yvonne Taura, Cheri van Schravendijk-Goodman, Beverley Clarkson. -- Hamilton, N.Z. : Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research and Waikato Raupatu River Trust, 2017. 1 online resource ISBN 978-0-478-34799-9 (electronic) ISBN 978-0-947525-03-3 (print) I. Taura, Y., ed. II. Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd. III. Waikato Raupatu River Trust. Published by Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research Private Bag 3127, Hamilton 3216, New Zealand Waikato Raupatu River Trust PO Box 481, Hamilton 3204, New Zealand This handbook was funded mainly by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (contract C09X1002).The handbook is a collaborative project between the Waikato Raupatu River Trust and Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research. Editors: Yvonne Taura (Ngāti Hauā, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Ngai Te Rangi, Ngāti Rangi, Ngāti Uenuku/Waikato Raupatu River Trust and Manaaki Whenua), Cheri van Schravendijk-Goodman (Te Atihaunui a Papārangi, Ngāti Apa, Ngāti Rangi), and Beverley Clarkson (Manaaki Whenua). Peer reviewers: Anne Austin (Manaaki Whenua), Kiriwai Mangan (Waikato Raupatu Lands Trust), and Monica Peters (people+science). Design and layout: Abby Davidson (NZ Landcare Trust) This work is copyright. The copying, adaptation, or issuing of this work to the public on a non-profit basis is welcomed. No other use of this work is permitted without the prior consent of the copyright holder(s).
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology, Habitat and Growth
    Technical Article No. 7.1 - ecology, habitat and growth INTRODUCTION Spinifex (Spinifex sericeus R.Br.) is the major Spinifex often occurs with other indigenous sand indigenous sand dune grass that occurs on binding species on the foredune including pingao foredunes throughout most of the North Island (Ficinia spiralis), nihinihi (sand convolvulus, and the upper part of the South Island. Sometimes Calystegia soldanella), and hinarepe (sand referred to as silvery sand grass, or kowhangatara, tussock, Poa billardierei). it is the dominant sand binding plant on the seaward face of the foredune where its long trailing runners and vigorous growth make it an ideal sand dune stabiliser. In many North Island dunes, spinifex forms a near continuous colony for long stretches of sandy coastline. Technical Handbook Section 7: Native vegetation on foredunes Technical habitat and growth 7.1 Spinifex - ecoloogy, Article No. 7.1 - Spinifex - ecology, habitat and growth PLANT DESCRIPTION Spinifex is a stout perennial grass with strong on both surfaces (McDonald, 1983). At intervals of creeping runners or stolons. Leaves are usually 10-15 cm, new nodes are formed from which roots 5-10 mm wide and up to 38 cm long (Craig, 1984). emerge, take root and eventually a discrete plant The stolons can be up to 20 m long with internodes will form where there is sufficient space that is up to 38 cm long. Each node produces adventitious independent of the original stolon (Hesp, 1982). roots and upright, silvery green leaves that are hairy Vigorous spinifex on a foredune showing the upright silvery green leaves and long creeping runners or stolons that spread rapidly to occupy bare sand.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoration Guidelines for the Ahipara Recreation Reserve, Mapere Block
    Restoration Guidelines for the Ahipara Recreation Reserve, Mapere Block Prepared by: Laura Shaft, CoastCare Coordinator Northland Regional Council Janeen Collings, Kai Arahi Taonga Rahui ki Muriwhenua Far North Threatened Plants Ranger Department of Conservation Finalised September 2010 Restoration Guidelines for Ahipara Recreation Reserve, Mapere Block Contents Summary……………………………………………………………………..…3 1. Introduction …………………………………………………. …………....4 2. Background and scope of this report…………………………………... 5 3. Site description……………………………………………………….…... 5 4. Natural dune form and function……………………………………...…10 5. Restoration Recommendations…………………………….………..…12 6. Rules and Regulations…………………………………………….….... 23 References………………………………………………………………....... 24 Other useful resources…………………………………………..…………..24 Useful websites……………………………………………….……………... 24 Appendices Appendix 1 – Historic aerial photographs of the study site…………..25 Appendix 2 – Guidelines for collecting seed and taking cuttings……28 Appendix 3 – Managing Biosecurity risk…………………………….... 29 - 2 - Restoration Guidelines for Ahipara Recreation Reserve, Mapere Block Summary The coastal environment represents one of the most dynamic and vulnerable eco-systems in New Zealand. The Ahipara Recreation Reserve is a highly sensitive environment both culturally and ecologically and contains estuarine, riparian and coastal dune habitats. It is situated in Ahipara in the Far North where there are increasing threats to healthy, fully functioning dunes systems. In the reserve vehicle and animal damage
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Planting Guide 1 for Detailed Information on Planning Your Coastal Planting, Site Preparation and Ecosourcing Plants
    Dune restoration, Long Bay Dune planting guide We can all be part of protecting, restoring and connecting Auckland's biodiversity. Dunes Vegetation plays an important role in the formation and stabilisation of coastal sand dunes. Residential development, recreational activities, farming practices and sand mining have contributed to the modification of coastal dunes. Dune vegetation has been damaged or destroyed, and this has led to dune instability and wind erosion. Introduced plant species such as marram (Ammophila arenaria) have been planted to try and stabilise these areas and in some areas have displaced native species. It is now recognised that native dune plants provide the best protection. Coloniser foredune plants, spinifex (Spinifex sericeus) and pingao (Ficinia spiralis), trap wind blown sand in the frontal dune (foredune) and have adapted to grow through accumulations of wind blown sand. The leaves and runners of these plants cause a reduction in the surface speed of wind. The reduction in wind energy results in the deposition of sand on and around these plants, naturally rebuilding dunes after erosion. The backdune area is the more stable area behind the foredune. In this area, conditions are slightly more sheltered and a wider range of species may be grown. Planning your coastal planting See Coastal planting guide 1 for detailed information on planning your coastal planting, site preparation and ecosourcing plants. Spacing of plants will differ depending on their growth form. For example, sand binding species and sedges need to be planted 0.5m apart to encourage vegetation cover, while trees and shrubs will only need to be planted at 1.0-1.5m centres.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX G Wildlands Ecological Assessment Report
    APPENDIX G Wildlands ecological assessment report ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF A PROPOSED FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION AT WAINUIOTOTO FARM, WHANGAPOUA R3160a ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF A PROPOSED FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION AT WAINUIOTOTO FARM, WHANGAPOUA Contract Report No. 3160a September 2014 Project Team: William Shaw - Field survey, report author Mieke Kapa - Field survey, report author Federico Mazzieri - GIS analysis and mapping Prepared for: Ross and Dee Mear Wellington 99 SALA STREET, WHAKAREWAREWA, 3010, P.O. BOX 7137, TE NGAE, ROTORUA 3042 Ph 07-343-9017; Fax 07-343-9018, email [email protected], www.wildlands.co.nz CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. METHODS 1 3. ECOLOGICAL CONTEXT 2 3.1 Landforms and catchments 4 3.2 Threatened land environments 4 3.3 Naturally uncommon ecosystems 5 3.4 Significant natural areas 5 4. SITE HISTORY 6 5. STATUTORY CONTEXT 8 6. VEGETATION AND HABITATS 8 6.1 Overview 8 6.2 Vegetation and habitat type descriptions 9 7. FLORA 16 8. FAUNA 17 9. ECOLOGICAL VALUES 19 10. POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS 21 11. ECOLOGICAL ENHANCEMENT AND MANAGEMENT 25 12. FUTURE MANAGEMENT 28 12.1 Management units 28 12.2 Restoration and revegetation plan 31 12.3 Weed management 32 12.4 Pest animal control and monitoring 33 12.5 Monitoring 34 13. LEGAL PROTECTION 34 14. CONCLUSIONS 35 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 35 REFERENCES 35 1. site photographs 37 2. List of vascular plants on Wainuiototo Farm 43 3. Statutory policy and plans 50 © 2014 Contract Report No. 3160a Reviewed and approved for release by: _______________________ W.B. Shaw Director/Principal Ecologist Wildland Consultants Ltd Wildland Consultants Ltd 2014 This report has been produced by Wildland Consultants Ltd for R.
    [Show full text]
  • Key Native Ecosystem Plan for Mātaikonā Coast 2016-2019
    Key Native Ecosystem Plan for Mātaikonā Coast 2016-2019 Contents 1. Key Native Ecosystem programme 1 2. Mātaikonā Coast Key Native Ecosystem 3 3. Landowners, management partners and stakeholders 4 3.1. Landowners 4 3.2. Management partners 4 3.3. Treaty partners 4 3.4. Stakeholders 4 4. Ecological values 5 4.1. Ecological designations 5 4.2. Ecological significance 5 4.3. Ecological features 7 5. Threats to ecological values at the KNE site 10 5.1. Key threats 10 6. Management objectives 13 7. Management activities 13 7.1. Ecological weed control 13 7.2. Revegetation 14 8. Operational plan 15 9. Funding contributions 16 9.1. Budget allocated by GWRC 16 9.2. Budget allocated by Masterton District Council (MDC) 16 Appendix 1: Site maps 17 Appendix 2: Nationally threatened species list 20 Appendix 3: Regionally threatened plant species list 22 Appendix 4: Revegetation plant list 23 References 24 Mātaikonā Coast 1. Key Native Ecosystem programme The Wellington region’s native biodiversity has declined since people arrived and the ecosystems that support it face ongoing threats and pressures. Regional councils have responsibility to maintain indigenous biodiversity, as well as to protect significant vegetation and habitats of threatened species, under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). Greater Wellington Regional Council’s (GWRC) Biodiversity Strategy 2015-251 sets a framework that guides how GWRC protects and manages biodiversity in the Wellington region in response to its legal requirements and has the following vision: Vision Healthy ecosystems thrive in the Wellington region and provide habitat for native biodiversity The Strategy provides a common focus across the council’s departments, and guides activities relating to biodiversity under this overarching vision and is underpinned by four operating principles and three strategic goals.
    [Show full text]
  • (Cypereae, Cyperaceae) Based on Molecular Phylogenetic Data
    Delimiting the genera of the Ficinia Clade (Cypereae, Cyperaceae) based on molecular phylogenetic data A. Muthama Muasya1,2 and Isabel Larridon2,3 1 Department of Biological Sciences, Bolus Herbarium, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, Cape Town, South Africa 2 Identification and Naming, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Richmond, Surrey, UK 3 Department of Biology, Systematic and Evolutionary Botany Lab, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium ABSTRACT Generic delimitations in the Ficinia Clade of tribe Cypereae are revisited. In particular, we aim to establish the placement of annual species currently included in Isolepis of which the phylogenetic position is uncertain. Phylogenetic inference is based on two nuclear markers (ETS, ITS) and five plastid markers (the genes matK, ndhF, rbcL and rps16, the trnL intron and trnL-F spacer) data, analyzed using model based methods. Topologies based on nuclear and plastid data show incongruence at the backbone. Therefore, the results are presented separately. The monophyly of the smaller genera (Afroscirpoides, Dracoscirpoides, Erioscirpus, Hellmuthia, Scirpoides) is confirmed. However, Isolepis is paraphyletic as Ficinia is retrieved as one of its clades. Furthermore, Ficinia is paraphyletic if I. marginata and allies are excluded. We take a pragmatic approach based on the nuclear topology, driven by a desire to minimize taxonomic changes, to recircumscribe Ficinia to include the annual Isolepis species characterized by cartilaginous glumes and formally include all the Isolepis species inferred outside the core Isolepis clade. Consequently, the circumscription of Isolepis is narrowed to encompass only those species retrieved as part of the core Isolepis clade. Five new combinations are Submitted 20 August 2020 made (Ficinia neocapensis, Ficinia hemiuncialis, Ficinia incomtula, Ficinia leucoloma, Accepted 18 December 2020 Ficinia minuta).
    [Show full text]