Status Trend and Vulnerability in NZ's Indigenous Biodiversity. Susan

State, trends and vulnerability in New Zealand’s indigenous biodiversity

Susan Walker Manaaki Whenua - Landcare Research, Dunedin

Landcare Research LINK seminar Wellington, Friday 24th April 2015 Thanks

People Rachel McClellan, John Sawyer, James Reardon, John Barkla, John Leathwick, Nick Head, Ingrid Grüner, Phil Lyver, Hendrik Moller, Sarah Richardson, Andrea Byrom, Bill Lee, Adrian Monks, Andrew Gormley, John Innes, Rob Schuckard, David Melville, Phil Battley, Hugh Robertson, Adrian Riegen, Richard Allibone, Ron Moorhouse, Josh Fyfe, Kath Walker, Graeme Elliott, Liz Parlato, Craig Wilson, Kate Steffens, Simon Moore, Paul Bradfield, Jessica Scrimgeour, Andrew Smart, Brian Rance, Jeremy Rolfe, Rod Hitchmough, Avi Holzapfel, Richard Ewans, Dave Kelly, Theo Stephens, Ellen Cieraad, Joy Comrie, Andy Hutcheon, Jo Monks, Dave Towns, Hermann Frank, Deb Wilson, Richard Maloney, Fraser Maddigan, Anita Spenser

Organisations Ornithological Society of NZ, DOC, Landcare Research, NIWA, Wildland Consultants, University of Otago, University of Canterbury, Massey University, Kea Conservation Trust New Zealand’s biota

“Exquisitely strange”

Highly endemic Highly threatened

Bradshaw et al. 2010. Evaluating the relative environmental impact of countries. PLoS ONE 5. Vulnerability

NZ’s indigenous biodiversity

‘the variety of life’ or ‘the full range’ Some measure of abundance

ROBUST vulnerability gradient VULNERABLE Vulnerability

paradise duck

pukeko black backed gull NZ’s indigenous birds

moa saddleback Some measure of abundance tui robin kaka huia fantail weka rock wren kokako

ROBUST vulnerability gradient VULNERABLE Pākehā arrive Ship rats Humans settle Future state I NOW (c. 1850 AD) & pigs (c. 780 BP) Future state II ‘Green revolution’ (modern agriculture)

Some measure of abundance

ROBUST VULNERABLE Pākehā arrive Ship rats Humans settle Future state I NOW (c. 1850 AD) & pigs (c. 780 BP) Future state II ‘Green revolution’ (modern agriculture)

Some measure of abundance

LOSS

Some measure abundance of

ROBUST VULNERABLE Analogy Focus

Future state I: future representation

NOW: current representation

LOSS

Some measure abundance of

ROBUST VULNERABLE This talk

Part 1: Indigenous habitats and species between the lines

Part 2: A vulnerability-based framework to make the most difference, and its information needs

LOSS

Some measure abundance of

ROBUST VULNERABLE Indigenous cover in land environments

500 Level IV Land environments of LENZ % indigenous land cover left Indigenous cover land environments in SAFE RETAINED cover 2012 Indigenous

2006. Recent loss of indigenous cover in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 30: 30: Ecology of Journal Zealand New Zealand. New in cover indigenous of WalkerRecent loss 2006. al. et

500 Land environments500 Land (LENZ) cover 2002 Indigenous

Less than 30% indigenous cover cover left indigenous 30% than Less

Updated by Cieraad et al. (2014, in (2014, al. et by Cieraad Updated TO CLEARANCE VULNERABLE VULNERABLE CLEARED = 57% =

169–

prep 177 )

Indigenous cover in land environments

CLEARED

VULNERABILITY TO CLEARANCE % indigenous land cover left cover land RETAINED SAFE 500 Land environments (LENZ)

Cieraad, Walker, Price & Barringer 2015. An updated assessment of indigenous cover remaining and legal protection in New Zealand’s land environments. New Zealand Journal of Ecology in press Indigenous cover change in land environments (LCDB4)

2002 - 2012

Cieraad, Walker, Price & Barringer 2015. An updated assessment of indigenous cover remaining and legal protection in New Zealand’s land environments. New Zealand Journal of Ecology in press. Indigenous grassland loss rate increasing Indigenous grassland loss rate increasing

Study area Annual conversion rate Urban Mining 5,000 Cropland

4,000

Pasture 3,000 (hectares (hectares per annum)

2,000 of conversion of conversion 1,000 Wilding trees Rate Planted forest 0 1990 –2001 2001 –2008

Weeks et al. 2013. Past and recent conversion of indigenous grasslands in the South Island. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 30: 127–138 Primary driver of conversion More cows = more land

Cows ‘Effective hectares’ 700,000 200,000 North Canterbury North Canterbury South Canterbury South Canterbury Otago 180,000 Otago 600,000

160,000

500,000 140,000

120,000 400,000

100,000

300,000 80,000 Total cows (number ofTotal animals) Total effective hectares hectares (ha) effective Total 60,000 200,000

40,000

100,000 20,000 Year Year 0 0 2000 2001 2002 2005 2006 2007 2010 2011 2012 2013 1999 2001 2002 2004 2006 2007 2009 2011 2012 2013 1998 1999 2003 2004 2008 2009 1998 2000 2003 2005 2008 2010

Published statistics from LIC/Dairy NZ: New Zealand Dairy Statistics Annual Reports Legal protection across land environments

CLEARED

% protected 2012

500 Land environments (LENZ)

Legal protection 2012 (>96% DOC, <1% Councils, 2% Nga Whenua Rahui, 1% QEII)

Increase in CLEARED high elevation (esp. SI high country) Little change in low, flat, warm environments

% protected 2012 2004

500 Land environments (LENZ)

“… a number of lowland and montane environments have less indigenous vegetation and protection than was previously estimated”

Cieraad, Walker, Price & Barringer 2015. An updated assessment of indigenous cover remaining and legal protection in New Zealand’s land environments. New Zealand Journal of Ecology in press Status of naturally uncommon ecosystems Status of naturally uncommon ecosystems

Inland saline habitat, Central Otago Status of naturally uncommon ecosystems

Pic of ephemeral wetland here

Ephemeral wetland, Ashburton Basin Status of naturally uncommon ecosystems

Outwash plain, Upper Waitaki basin Status of naturally uncommon ecosystems IUCN categories

Not threatened Vulnerable Endangered Critical (37%) (14%) (24%) (25%)

2012

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Holdaway et al. 2012. Status assessment of NZ’s naturally uncommon ecosystems. Conservation Biology 26: 619–629. Status of naturally uncommon ecosystems Few are mapped, no formal status monitoring

Upper Waitaki basin Status of species Different biota, different vulnerabilities ‘At Risk’

Not threatened Naturally Relict Declining Threatened Extinct uncommon or recovering Vascular plants (2326 taxa)

2012

Freshwater fish (52 taxa)

2013

Reptiles (97 taxa)

2012

Birds (264 taxa)

2012

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Department of Conservation: http://www.doc.govt.nz/publications/conservation/nz-threat-classification-system/ 2002 2005 2008 2012 0%

“… the majority majority the Not threatenedNot restrictedto easternthe Island,South 20%

Department of of

… new uncommon Naturally of of Threatened taxa Conservation: Conservation:

40% ‘At Risk’ (de Lange et al. et al. 2009) Lange (de or recoveringor Relict http://www.doc.govt.nz/publications/conservation/nz

are genuinely genuinely are especially the the especially

60% Declining

at risk of extinction.atof riskMany … intermontane Vascular (2326 plants Threatened 80%

basins - threat Extinct - taxa) classification … ”

100%

- system

10 years /

‘At Risk’

Not threatened Naturally Relict Declining Threatened Extinct uncommon or recovering

Vascular plants (2326 taxa)

2012

2008

2005 10 years

2002

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Freshwater fish (52 taxa)

2013

2008 Changing threat status assessments

2005 11 years

2002

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Department of Conservation: http://www.doc.govt.nz/publications/conservation/nz-threat-classification-system/ Threatened fish endemic to South Island inland basins

Canterbury mudfish

Lowland longjaw galaxiids (x2 subspp.)

Bignose galaxiid

Flathead, Dusky, Upland longjaw galaxiid (x2 subspp.) Eldon’s, Roundhead (x4? subspp.) galaxiids

Shortjaw kokopu

Gollum galaxiid

Goodman et al. 2014. Conservation status of New Zealand freshwater fish, 2013. New Zealand Threat Classification Series 7. 12 p Declining endemic fish in South Island basins

Koaro

Torrentfish

Canterbury galaxiid Inanga

Longfin eel

Redfin bully Bluegill bully

Goodman et al. 2014. Conservation status of New Zealand freshwater fish, 2013. New Zealand Threat Classification Series 7. 12 p ‘At Risk’

Not threatened Naturally Relict Declining Threatened Extinct uncommon or recovering Reptiles (97 species)

2012

2008

2005 10 years

2002

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Hitchmough et al. 2013. Conservation status of New Zealand reptiles, 2012. New Zealand Threat Classification Series 2. 16 p Department of Conservation: http://www.doc.govt.nz/publications/conservation/nz-threat-classification-system/ Canterbury lizard species

Common name Status 2013 Status 2009 Rangitata skink Nationally Critical Rough gecko Nationally Vulnerable Declining West Coast green gecko Nationally Vulnerable Declining Scree skink Nationally Vulnerable Declining Spotted skink "Mackenzie Basin" Nationally Vulnerable Spotted skink "Central Canterbury" Nationally Vulnerable Large Otago gecko Declining Cryptic skink Declining Not Threatened Jewelled gecko Declining Canterbury gecko Declining Green skink Declining Southern long-toed skink Declining Common skink clade 4 Declining Not Threatened Common skink clade 5 Declining Not Threatened Marlborough mini gecko Not Threatened Common gecko Not Threatened Southern Alps gecko Not Threatened Pygmy gecko Not Threatened McCann's skink Not Threatened

Acknowledgement: Dr Marieke Lettink, Fauna Finders Hitchmough et al. 2013. Conservation status of New Zealand reptiles, 2012. New Zealand Threat Classification Series 2. 16 p ‘At Risk’

Not threatened Naturally Relict Declining Threatened Extinct uncommon or recovering Reptiles (97 species)

2012

2008

2005 10 years

2002

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Birds (264 species) 2012

2008

2005 10 years

2002

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Department of Conservation: http://www.doc.govt.nz/publications/conservation/nz-threat-classification-system/ Implications of low numbers

Traill et al. 2010. Pragmatic conservation targets in a rapidly changing world. Conservation Biology 143: 28–34 © Craig McKenzie Implications of low numbers

Number of NZ taxa recognised as threatened

300

plants 200 Number of threatened taxa 100 reptiles fw. fish

birds

0 2002 2012 Year Two areas of progress 1. Stabilisation of some of the most charismatic of New Zealand’s threatened species Stabilisation of some threatened species

Number of taxa translocated to 2010 (of weta, amphibians, reptiles, & birds)

Predator-fenced mainland Offshore & near-shore islands 15

5 Number of taxa translocated Number of taxa 0 Not threatened Naturally Recovering Declining Threatened uncommon relict

Burns et al. 2009. In: Fencing for conservation. New York, Springer. Pp. Bellingham et al. 2010. Island restoration. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 34: 11 Kelly & Sullivan 2010. Progress and prospects in NZ ecology. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 34: 20 Native waders Occupancy

South Island pied oystercatcher (Declining)

1970s 2000s Change

Walker and Monks in prep. based on Ornithological Society of New Zealand data in Bull et al. 1985 and Robertson et al. 2007 Native waders Occupancy

Pied stilt (Declining)

1970s 2000s Change

Walker and Monks in prep. based on Ornithological Society of New Zealand data in Bull et al. 1985 and Robertson et al. 2007 Native waders Occupancy

Banded dotterel (Nationally Vulnerable)

1970s 2000s Change

Walker and Monks in prep. based on Ornithological Society of New Zealand data in Bull et al. 1985 and Robertson et al. 2007 Native waders Occupancy

Wrybill (Nationally Vulnerable)

1970s 2000s Change

Walker and Monks in prep. based on Ornithological Society of New Zealand data in Bull et al. 1985 and Robertson et al. 2007 Native waders Occupancy

Black stilt (Nationally Critical)

1970s 2000s Change

Walker and Monks in prep. based on Ornithological Society of New Zealand data in Bull et al. 1985 and Robertson et al. 2007 Terns and gulls Occupancy

Black-billed gull (Nationally Critical)

1970s 2000s Change

Walker and Monks in prep. based on Ornithological Society of New Zealand data in Bull et al. 1985 and Robertson et al. 2007 Terns and gulls Black-billed gull (Nationally Critical) on four Southland rivers

100,000 Oreti 90,000

80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000 Mataura

40,000

Number of birds Number Aparima Counts 30,000 1977 – 2007

20,000 Declining 6% p.a (84% over 30 years) 10,000 Waiau

0 1973 1978 1984 1989 1995 2000 2006 McLellan 2008.The ecology and management of Southland’s black billed gulls. PhD thesis, University of Otago Terns and gulls Black-fronted terns (Nationally Endangered) 29 South Island rivers

decrease increase

Waitaki | o | Waimakariri (lower) | o | Counts repeated at Tasman | o | monitoring sites Rangitata (lower) | o | very high very Rakaia (lower) | o |

4 – 18 times, Matukituki | o | Hurunui | o | 1962 – 2008 Hunter | o | Hopkins | o |

Highflow FLOW Dart | o | Tekapo | o | 8 significant Shotover | o | Rees | o | decreases

Pukaki | o | Orari | o | Ohau | o | only site with sustained Manuherikia | o | Makarora | o | predator control Eglinton Medium flow | o | (aimed at mustelids) Cass | o | Ashburton | o | Ahuriri | o | Twizel | o | Opihi | o | Hakataramea | o | Conway | o | Cameron | o | Low flowLow Ashley | o | Ashburton (north branch) | o |

-20 -10 0 10 20 Annual rate of change (%) +/- 1.96 * SE O'Donnell & Hoare 2011. Population trends in black-fronted terns. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 35: 30–43 Terns and gulls Occupancy

Black-fronted tern (Nationally Endangered)

1970s 2000s Change

Walker and Monks in prep. based on Ornithological Society of New Zealand data in Bull et al. 1985 and Robertson et al. 2007 Forest and alpine birds

Decrease Increase Change in occupancy 1970s to 2000s

Increased in most places

Increased in some places, decreased in others

Decreased in most places

Walker and Monks in prep. Bull et al. 1985. The atlas of bird distribution in New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand, The Ornithological Society of New Zealand Robertson et al. 2007. Atlas of bird distribution in New Zealand 1999–2004. Wellington, New Zealand, The Ornithological Society of New Zealand Remaining extensive kiwi populations

Unmanaged Brown kiwi −3% pa

Projected decline curves

% remaining % Great spotted kiwi −2% pa

Years

Tokoeka −2% pa

Holzapfel et al. 2008. Kiwi (Apteryx spp.) recovery plan. Threatened Species Recovery Plan 60. Department of Conservation Changes in common forest birds over 3 decades with possum and wasp invasion

1974-1984 baseline Mt Misery, Nelson Significant increase Lakes National Park

6 5-minute bird

5 counts, 33 years, 4 Significant decrease 1974 – 2007

3 Declines not 2 No significant change evident above 1000m

Average number number of birds Average 1 0

Elliott et al. 2010. Declines in common widespread birds in a mature tempoerate forest. Biological Conservation 143: 2119–2126 Kaka sex ratios Without (left) and with (right) possums

Recent possum arrival 0.7 South Westland possum front c. 1990 0.6 Increasing time since 0.5 possum invasion islands free ratio

0.4 Hope 2007 Hope 2013 & possum & -

0.3 - Female:male 0.2 Stoat

0.1

0 Island Hope Stafford Haast kiwi Waitutu Nelson populations (<3% possum RTC sanctuary Lakes maintained with 1080) Elliott 2010 & 2013, DOC unpublished data

Kea disappearances, St Arnaud Range Repeated census (1988, 2011)

Consecutive beech masts 1999 & 2000 12 11 Beech mast 10 2006

6 3 different 4 birds

2 Number of female birds Number of female 0 1998 2011 Kemp, 2013. An update on the kea population at Nelson Lakes National Park. DOC unpublished data Areas of progress 2. Advances in mammalian predator management Halting or reversing mainland forest species declines is (largely) a matter of scaling up

Good Better Best with action present present with present state state action state with difference action made difference made difference made without without without action action action

Time O’Donnell & Hoare 2012. Bird recovery after pest control. Forest bird numbers New Zealand Journal of Ecology 36: 131–140 under sustained pest control, mid-Landsborough, South Westland

Significant increase Significant decrease

1080 drops 1998, 2000, 2004, 2009, fenn trapping for stoats from 2000 Forest bird relative abundance in four mainland islands under sustained pest control

Difference between mainland island and nearby non-treatment area over time

Podocarp forests Beech forests Boundary Stream, Hawke’s Bay & Hurunui , inland Canterbury & Trounson Kauri Park, Northland Rotoiti, Nelson Lakes National Park

Better

Relatiive Worse abundance of abundance birds

Time since onset of treatment (years) Time since onset of treatment (years)

Innes et al. 2010. What limits forest birds? New Zealand Journal of Ecology 34: 86–114 Kaka mortality and recruitment with and without predator control 1996–2000

14 Predator control No predator control

12 Mortality (deaths) 10 Recruitment (births) 8

after Moorhouse et al. 2003. Control of introduced mammalian predators improves kaka Nestor meridionalis breeding success…Biological Conservation 1190: 33–44. Powelliphanta snail populations (change in number per 100m2 per year)

No possum control Increasing frequency of possum control

Annual 2 Non-treatment Standard/biennial control ops control 4 3 2 1

-1 River Heaphy North Westland, Kakapo St Andrews Goat creek Goat 6 Mile Creek upper upper Creek -2 ridge Bellbird

MaoriGully Buller 14 species, Mackay downs Happy ValleyHappy Karamea Bluffs Mountain Creek Charming creek -3 16 sites, Glasseye

-4 monitored

Mean annual change in density Mean per change annual 100m

Ck between -5 1994 & 2003 Glasseye Sawyer

Bockett et al. 2004. Is possum control protecting Powelliphanta snails on the West Coast? DOC, unpublished data Pittosporum patulum with and without possum control Populations in Dobson, Huxley & Temple valleys Upper Waitaki, 2003 – 2010

400 No. LIVE plants

350 possum 300 control

250 Number of plants no possum 200 control

150 No. DEAD plants no possum control 100

50 possum control Number of plants 0 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Comrie, Head. DOC unpublished data Three credible reasons for growing numbers of species in decline

Number of NZ taxa recognised as threatened

300

plants 200 Number of threatened taxa 100 reptiles fw. fish

birds

0 2002 2012 Year

Reason No 1. Landscape-scale predator management evades us Numbers of Fiordland whio in managed populations (stoat trapping, translocations)

1 Pairs per km of rivers searched 0.9 Totals 0.8 28 pairs known 2007 0.7 44 pairs known 2011 0.6 Joes 0.5 Arthur Clinton 0.4 North Branch Worlesley/Castle 0.3 Cleddau

Number of pairs per per km Number of pairs 0.2

0.1 Neale Burn 0

Andrew Smart, DOC, unpublished data FOR ESTIMATED DECLINES IN THE ABSENCE OF MANAGEMENT SEE Whitehead 2010. Large-scale predator control increases population viability of a rare New Zealand riverine duck. Austral Ecology 35: 722–730 Whio Occupancy

Blue duck (Nationally Vulnerable)

1970s 2000s Change

Walker and Monks in prep. based on Ornithological Society of New Zealand data in Bull et al. 1985 and Robertson et al. 2007

Grand and Otago skinks in an experimental management trial, Macraes Flat, Otago

predator-proof fence vs intensive trapping vs

unmanaged Grand and Otago Skink Recovery Group, DOC unpublished data

complex predator manage Hoare to etAttempting al. 2007. of Wildlife Management1576– 71: last mainland Pukerua Four species d of Whitaker’sskink isappearanceof the Records the - prey interactions. Journal Journal interactions. prey

Bay, nearWellington,1984

population 1584

of lizard

Captures per 100 trap nights 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 2 4 6 8 1984 1984 Nationally Endangered Nationally Whitaker’s skink Not ThreatenedNot skink Copper

1988 1988 1992 1992 – 2006 1996 1996 2000

2000

2004 2004

10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 1984 0 1984 Declining Brown skink Declining Common skink 1988 1988 1992 1992

1996 1996 2000 2000

2004 2004 Reason No 2. Habitat conversion and species overexploitation continues

High country tussock and freshwater habitat conversion Number of NZ taxa recognised as threatened

300

plants 200

100 reptiles fw. fish Number of threatened taxa birds

0 2002 2012 Year Fyke net of longfin eels Longfin eel (Declining) Common skink, Rangitata riverbed Oligosoma aff. polychroma Clade 5 (Declining)

20 ha of remaining lizard habitat on the Canterbury Plains, cleared Autumn 2014

Pillow pimelea in the Upper Clutha Pimelea sericeovillosa subsp. pulvinaris (Declining)

Largest remaining population (10,000+ plants, Upper Clutha) disked in autumn 2014 Land use intensification also entails habitat conversion ‘Greenness’ changes in production landscapes,1970s to mid-2000s

0 00

Largest 0 00 increase

Growing Base 0 season 00 (winter) length greenness

Greatest decrease 0

Exploratory work with Robert Buitenwerf and Adrian Monks Canterbury plains ‘dryland’ kanuka remnants

Watering the Eyrewell Scientific Reserve

Culverden Scientific Reserve’s exotic grass sward

Shrubby tororaro, Kaitorete Spit (Muehlenbeckia astonii, Nationally Endangered)

Recovery of plants from browse, but no recruitment… Plant dimensions 2001 – 2012 14 Fenced plants Unfenced plants (n = 60) (n = 60) 12

3 in m

median size (fenced) 6

Plant volume 4 median size (unfenced)

0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Spenser, Head. DOC unpublished data Lepidium solandri , Nationally Endangered (photo: John Barkla) Dryland cress in Central Otago (Lepidium solandri , Nationally Endangered)

35 350 30 300 25 250 Rapid, simultaneous 20 200 demise of remaining 15 150 10 100 populations Number of plants 5 50 0 0 25 80 70 20 60 50 15 40 10 30 20 Number of plants 5 10 0 0 2001 2013 70 Time 60 50 Plant counts at five 40 remaining Central Otago 30 populations, 2001–2013 20 Number of plants 10 0 2001 Time 2013 Craig Wilson, DOC unpublished data Reason No 3. Climate change

Bird threat status changes 2008 to 2012, by group

10 9 8 6 4 3 2 2 2 1 threatened More 0 2 2 4 6 5 changed taxa bird of Number

8 threatened Less 8 10 Wandering albatrosses 600 Antipodean wandering albatross Declines and diminishing sex ratios 500

400 Numbers of birds estimated using mark- Males recapture methods, 1995 to present 300 Females 200 Number of birds

100 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

600 Gibson’s Wandering albatross

500

400

300 Males

200 Females Number of birds 100 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

Kath Walker & Graeme Elliot, personal unpublished data Hutton’s shearwaters in two Kaikoura colonies

Breeding success is ‘episodic’ and not explained by predation

90 Percentage of spring eggs (almost) fledged in summer 80 Kowhai River Colony 70 (no stoat control)

40 2013 % of% eggs 30

20 Shearwater Stream Colony (stoat control since 2009) 10

0 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Cuthbert & Somer, Bradfield, DOC unpublished data Titi on Rakiura over 70 years Harvest success from 9 ‘harvest diaries’

2.3

2.0 1.8 1.5 1.3 1.0

Harvest success Harvest 0.8 (Catch (Catch per unit effort) 0.5 0.3 0.0 1938 1948 1958 1968 1978 1988 1998

Henrik Moller et al., University of Otago, unpublished data Summing up Part I

Growing numbers of species in decline

• More and more New Zealand species are known to be, or are being, reduced to low numbers

• Predators, habitat conversion and overexploitation are the major causes

• Climate change is starting to exacerbate the effects of both

Goals

NZ’s indigenous biodiversity

‘the variety of life’

Some measure abundance of or ‘the full range’

ROBUST VULNERABLE Goals ‘Reverse the decline’

POSSIBLE GOAL I

NOW: current representation

LOSS

Some measure abundance of

ROBUST VULNERABLE Goals ‘Halt the decline’

POSSIBLE GOAL II: ‘Halt the decline’

NOW: current representation

LOSS

Some measure abundance of

ROBUST VULNERABLE Goals ‘Slow the decline’

POSSIBLE GOAL III

NOW: current representation

LOSS

Some measure abundance of

ROBUST VULNERABLE Difference is made by changing the fate of vulnerable biota

LOSS

DIFFERENCE MADE

Reverse the decline

LOSS Some measure of of abundance measure Some

Do nothing

ROBUST VULNERABLE Difference is made by changing the fate of vulnerable biota

LOSS

Halt the decline

LOSS Some measure of of abundance measure Some

Do nothing

ROBUST VULNERABLE Difference is made by changing the fate of vulnerable biota

LOSS

Slow the decline

LOSS

Maximise difference to the biodiversity goal (not to a site or sites) Some measure of of abundance measure Some

Do nothing

ROBUST VULNERABLE Difference is made by changing the fate of vulnerable biota FUTURE NOW: current representation

LOSS

Slow the decline

LOSS

Maximise difference relative to the future state, not the current state Some measure of of abundance measure Some

Do nothing

ROBUST VULNERABLE Difference is made by changing the fate of vulnerable biota

LOSS DIFFERENCE MADE

Do worse than nothing

Displacement activity kills “By failing to avert present or impending threats while pre-empting [actions] that could be more Some measure of of abundance measure Some effective… contributions can be irretrievably negative” (Pressey 2013) Do nothing

ROBUST VULNERABLE Pressey et al. 2004. Ecology Letters 7: 1035–1046; Walker et al. 2007. Conservation Biology 22: 48-59; Weeks et al. 2013. Environmental Conservation 40: 84-95 Four things you need to know

Four things you need to know

• Present and impending threats, and where • What biota are rare and vulnerable to those threats, and where • Effect of prospective management on threats • Effects of threats (with and without management) on biota

Vital Sites & Actions general framework

Effects of management on pressures [Management- Pressure Models]

Pressures Pressures with (e.g. pests, weeds, management land clearance)

Effects of pressures on biodiversity [Biodiversity Loss Models]

Current native Future native biodiversity biodiversity

NOW time FUTURE Vital Sites & Actions – a formulation • Present and impending Effects of threats, and where management on • What biota are rare and threats vulnerable to those threats, [Management- Pressure Models] and where

Threats (distribution & Threats with abundances of management predators) Effects of threats on species [Biodiversity Loss Models]

Current native Future native species species distributions (& distributions (& abundances) abundances)

NOW time FUTURE Vital Sites & Actions – a formulation • Present and impending Effects of threats, and where. management on • What biota are rare and threats vulnerable to those threats, [Management- Pressure Models] and where. • Effect of prospective Threats management on threats. (distribution & Threats with • Effects of varying levels of abundances of management threats on biota. predators) Effects of threats on species [Biodiversity Loss Models]

Current native Future native species species distributions (& distributions (& abundances) abundances)

NOW time FUTURE Where it’s at Outputs Planning Benefits of Vital sites Significance management

Reporting

Difference made by actions Inputs: identifies the essential biodiversity information for conservation action

Walker et al. 2012. NZ Journal of Ecology 36: 243-251. Journey not end point

Brings inventory, monitoring, management & research together •Targeted inventory & monitoring for species and threats to them designed to •Monitoring operation outcomes evolve and •Research and management experiments to improve models (pressure-biodiversity effects upgrade and management-pressure effects) and data •Improved concepts and analysis methods for disparate data sources •New spatial condition & pattern frameworks and information etc

Information for conservation action

Effects of management on pressures [Management- Pressure Models]

Pressures Pressures with (e.g. pests, weeds, management land clearance)

Effects of pressures on biodiversity [Biodiversity Loss Models]

Current native Future native biodiversity biodiversity

NOW time FUTURE Summing up Part 2

Information for conservation action

• Must focus on vulnerable biodiversity (and threats to it)

• Requires broader and different information than state and trend reporting, and is challenging

• Can be built over time, by multiple contributors, adding new areas of endeavour and new information

Thanks

Organisations Ornithological Society of NZ, DOC, Landcare Research, NIWA, Wildland Consultants, University of Otago, University of Canterbury, Massey University, Kea Conservation Trust