EcoLincNZ

Category: human

  • From stinky van adventures to restoration projects – the unseen potential of wastewater

    Picture this: you’re on a camping trip, enjoying the breathtaking view of one of the most beautiful lakes of Aotearoa New Zealand surrounded by snow-capped mountains, watching the incredible red colours of the sunrise, when suddenly a ghastly smell permeates the air. You quickly discover the source – a full wastewater tank in your camping van that urgently needs to be emptied.

    My friend Julia as she is emptying out the wastewater tanks of her van. Photo by Flora Brumen

    For those who have not experienced the dreadful smell of such a full wastewater tank, know that this is not easily forgotten. Standing in line at a dumping station, waiting to take your turn to get rid of your own disgusting fluids while someone is emptying their toilet container right in front of you, is a situation that brings shared discomfort to campers.

    Now, I may be exaggerating a little now, but you understand my point. Toilet tanks include so many chemicals, that it actually smells better than the tanks that collect just the wastewater from doing the dishes. However, it’s an experience that highlights the less glamorous side of camping but still unites people in their shared discomfort. It reminds us that wastewater is an unavoidable reality that affects us all, every day, not just while camping.

    The impact of wastewater goes beyond our noses. Uncontrolled discharge of wastewater poses a threat to human health, native freshwater species and ecosystems. In New Zealand, treated wastewater is often released into waterways or the ocean. Unfortunately, this can contaminate recreational surface waters with harmful bacteria and viruses.

    The consequences of this pollution are significant. Many popular swimming spots in Canterbury have been ranked unsuitable for swimming due to high levels of bacteria from human sewage found in the water. Last summer, heavy rainfall events worsened the situation, leading to increased runoff of faecal pathogens. Besides creating severe threats to human health and creating unsuitable recreational areas, the pollution also harms freshwater species and degrades aquatic ecosystems. In fact, a devastating 76% of the indigenous freshwater fish species are endangered or threatened, 46% of all lakes have poor water quality and 45% of New Zealand’s rivers are not suitable for swimming activities.

    What if we could turn the tables and use wastewater to actually help save our ecosystems? That’s exactly what a recent study under the direction of Alexandra Meister, a bio-waste scientist from ESR and the University of Canterbury, in collaboration with the Christchurch City Council and Lincoln University, suggests.

    The researchers carried out an experiment on Banks Peninsula, where they irrigated a site with native plant species with treated wastewater from the local treatment plant for three years. The research team made an exciting discovery: the native plants experienced significant growth with this wastewater regime. In fact, their plant height increased by an impressive 10% compared to plants not irrigated with treated wastewater.

    Site of the field experiment on Banks Peninsula, that was irrigated with treated wastewater. Photo by Meister, Gutierrez-Gines, Robinson (Kiwiscience)

    It doesn’t stop there. The soil at the experimental site showed no signs of an increase of potentially harmful elements – beyond what is normal in the soil – that could endanger humans or the environment. There may be exciting possibilities for combining restoration projects with wastewater application to land. By doing so, we could decrease the discharge of wastewater into our water bodies, but also promote the growth of native vegetation, leading to a potential recovery of native biodiversity.

    Of course, establishing native plants in these environments can be challenging if the species are not adapted to highly fertile soil conditions that are created by treated wastewater irrigation. One particular native plant, Mānuka (Leptospermum scoparium), was an obvious candidate for this experiment. This species has the ability to eliminate harmful soil pathogens and reduce the amount of nitrate leaking into water. Even though mānuka is not adapted to such nutrient-rich conditions, typically growing in low-fertility soils instead, the species responded well to irrigation and increased their growth.

    The success and safety of applying treated municipal wastewater to the land depend on two key factors: the quality of the wastewater and the characteristics of the local environment. Due to these unique considerations, it is crucial that each system is designed to specifically address these factors.

    Going forward, the researchers will continue their investigation by exploring various plants and soil types. They will continue to explore different plants and soil types, expanding our understanding of where and how wastewater irrigation can be utilised effectively.

    It’s time to shift our perception of wastewater. Instead of viewing it as something unseemly to get rid of, we need to recognize it as a valuable resource that can be multi-purposes. By finding innovative applications for treated wastewater, we can decrease its careless discharge and contribute to saving our environment and ecosystems.

    The success of using treated municipal wastewater as a valuable resource shows us how even the unpleasant smelling wastewater from our camper van adventures something associated with an unpleasant smell can turn into the sweet scent of environmental protection and restoration efforts.

    This article was prepared by Master of International Nature Conservation student Flora Bumen as part of the ECOL608 Research Methods in Ecology course.

    Meister, A., Li, F., Gutierrez-Gines, M. J., Dickinson, N., Gaw, S., Bourke, M., & Robinson, B. (2022). Interactions of treated municipal wastewater with native plant species. Ecological Engineering, 183, 106741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2022.106741

  • Oh the horror! What should scare us at Halloween

    It’s Halloween today. Although ‘trick or treating’ has started to catch on over the last couple of decades, Halloween has never been that big a deal here in NZ. Perhaps it’s because it happens in spring when everything is greening up, new life abounds around us, and we are starting to appreciate the lengthening days and warmth. In the northern hemisphere it is the opposite and perhaps lends itself to the sinister, the thinning of the veil between worlds, the slide into the difficult time of the year.

    Halloween – a time for ghouls and ghosts.

    Most obviously, Halloween is a time for horror movies and themes. Scary images show up on our screens and theatres and aim to frighten us. I’ve often thought that horror does not capture Halloween that well. Halloween is more about fey magics, creatures of legend appearing to drive uncanny bargains, the sense of the other, and perhaps a sense of dread. Horror seems like a small part of this.

    To be fair, I am not a horror fan. I am certainly not a gore and blood person. I enjoyed the old Hammer Horror films, was scared by “The exorcist”, and scarred by “The fly” (the old black and white version – “Help me…”). But I have stayed clear of slasher films and probably haven’t seen a full-on horror for, well, for a long time.

    What are people horrified by at Halloween? Mostly it is ghouls, witches, zombies, vampires, English rugby referees, and ghosts. But it seems to me that there are plenty of other things to be horrified about.

    What’s down that path….? Opportunity or threat?

    Cate Macinnis-Ng and a host of authors, including Will Godsoe from Lincoln, have published a paper in the Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand. In this they look at the potential threats and opportunities with the ongoing change in climate. The neat angle here is that they take perspectives from many different people and apply an ecological method, a horizon-scanning approach, to come up with ten for each.

    Most of the benefits revolve around the application of new technologies and the chance for major positive societal changes. The negatives are much more specific, more disease outbreaks, dealing with heat waves, increasing black swan events and so on. It is not difficult to read this and feel a real sense of alarm for the future.

    So, if you want some real dread this Halloween day, then this is an article to read. Perhaps under your bed covers with the torch. There are no bumps in the night, no jump cuts, no creepy faces in mirrors (although I guess NZ is a bit like a cabin in the woods).

    But there is plenty of dread and horror.

    Adrian Paterson is a lecturer at the Department of Pest-management and Conservation, Lincoln University.

  • Neighbourhood disputes, models, and a harmonious coexistence with elephants

    In my home country, Germany, we have cut down every bit of primeval forest. We hunted aurochs, brown bears, wolves, lynx and even beavers to extinction between the 17th and 19th centuries. After messing it all up like that, we now dare to tell other countries, that still hold on to their forests and wildlife, what to do with their nature.

    “Don’t hunt those animals you used to hunt sustainably for centuries; we think they are so charismatic”. Currently, wolves are slowly coming back to Germany, and immediately people (successfully) changed laws to permit their shooting if they prey on sheep because it is “not bearable” to live in close coexistence with wild animals like that. Apparently, wolves don’t belong to Germany anymore because…yeah, because what? Because humans live here?

    Now close your eyes and imagine you are a subsistence farmer. Oops, don’t close them, rather, continue reading! You can still imagine, though! Every day you’re working hard taking care of all the veggies and crops you planted to feed your family. One day you look up, and what you see is a massive giant, almost as tall as your house. That giant has destroyed everything you ever planted.

    African elephant (Loxodonta africana) drinking. Picture © Severin Racky (used with permission).

    Happily munching on the last corn cob, the elephant greets you with an intimidating “HEI!”. Sounds absurd? Well, this scenario is much more realistic than our Western culture’s perception of African savannas as a vast untouched wilderness with Simba and all his large mammal friends living their best lives, without humans in the picture and without “HEI”, Human-Elephant-Interactions.

    This perception of wild Africa has influenced our approach to mitigating HEI. A common attempt is to build physical barriers, such as fences, to separate humans and elephants, believing they could protect both parties. However, elephants are unbelievably strong and intelligent creatures, and they easily overcome these obstacles, leaving farmers caught in a perpetual battle to safeguard their livelihoods.

    I have personally witnessed elephants knocking over trees onto “elephant-proof” electric fences to get to the other side. No fence can hold back a herd of determined elephants. Fences, therefore, cannot be the only solution when both humans and elephants need to get their food from the same land. It doesn’t stop with crop and infrastructure damage, though; Humans and elephants die through HEI. Elephants are killing around 500 humans per year and humans return the favour.

    After bothering you with way too much bad news, at least I can tell you that science offers a glimmer of hope! Picture a team of brilliant minds huddled around computer screens, armed with data and determination. With powerful tools with mystical names like Agent-based modelling (ABM) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS), ecologists are unravelling the complexities of HEI to help us understand human-elephant interactions better. With these tools, the researchers can simulate scenarios and explore the factors determining conflict incidents, to develop effective measures to reduce the conflicts and to mitigate poaching. The models are needed because, due to plenty of ethical problems, these kinds of experiments could not be conducted in real life.

    In their study from 2021, Abel Mamboleo, Crile Doscher, and Adrian Paterson, from Lincoln University, simulated 18 scenarios, considering things like human population, elephant population, rivers, conservation corridors, and protected areas. They evaluated their impact on different HEI incidents, such as crop damage, human deaths, elephant deaths, and hidden impacts. The term “hidden impacts” refers to indirect consequences of HEI and includes fear restricting movements, missing school, or resulting health issues. For example, their “elephant-effects scenario (ES)” evaluated the effects of varying elephant populations on HEI, the “human-effects scenario (HES)” evaluated the effects of varying human populations on HEI, and the “environment-effects scenario” evaluated the effect of varying environmental parameters (distances to rivers, protected areas and corridors) on HEI.

    Using their models, the scientists identified hidden impacts of HEI (e.g. fear and resulting health issues or restricted movements depending on elephants) as the most challenging incidents to mitigate. Interestingly, maintaining a greater distance from rivers seemed to effectively reduce those hidden impacts. Now who would have thought that?

    Their model also indicated that most incidents of elephant crop damage occur within 1 km from rivers. Therefore, according to the model, it is possible to lower the risk of your crops being eaten and trampled by a grey giant by planting them further away from rivers (Yeah, good news!). Among the incidents studied, human deaths were found to be the easiest to reduce (more good news!). Fifteen out of the 18 scenarios lead to significantly fewer human deaths.

    African elephants drinking and playing at a waterhole. Picture © Severin Racky (used with permission).

    Distancing human activities from rivers, and creating conservation corridors and protected areas, seem to be an effective mitigation strategy. However, challenges remain. Reducing the deaths of elephants seems to be one of the most difficult tasks, with only six out of the 18 scenarios showing significantly fewer dead elephants. The number of elephant deaths was reduced in some scenarios, such as a so-called “ENS-River-Protect-Corridor”, in which the scientists modelled farms to be 7000 m away from rivers, protected areas and wildlife corridors.


    While no single scenario that the scientists played through was able to completely eliminate all incidents, their modelling provided valuable insights and recommendations for potential strategies to reduce HEI. With their models, the researchers showed that HEI is influenced by many different factors beyond the pure numbers of humans and elephants. Geographical and environmental features, such as rivers, protected areas, and corridors, and socioeconomic activities, also play crucial roles. With the approach of creating safe distances between human activities and critical areas, the researchers found practical strategies to minimize the deaths of both humans and elephants.

    The study’s findings, therefore, highlight the need to address the spatial relationship between humans and elephants and promote responsible settlement planning. Successful strategies for mitigating HEI require a holistic approach that balances the needs of both humans and elephants and prioritizes a healthy elephant population as well as the well-being of affected human communities.

    It is important to emphasize that models are just a tool, implementing solutions still needs to be done by our big, juicy human brains. For example, in all scenarios, the model suggested to just lower the population size of humans and/or elephants to mitigate HEI. Fewer humans, fewer elephants: fewer human-elephant interactions. Of course, both options are far away from an ethical or recommendable solution. If the elephant density is extremely high, relocating them to other areas could be a (very complicated and expensive) option.

    Wait a minute! Hey, German politicians, how come you haven’t thought about reducing the population size of humans in areas where the wolves are coming back? I heard many of us would love to live in New Zealand anyway. What about providing a free one-way ticket to New Zealand for every revengeful German sheep farmer who wants to kill wolves as a compensation measure?

    This article was prepared by Master of International Nature Conservation student Ronja Hardener as part of the ECOL608 Research Methods in Ecology course.

    Mamboleo, A. A., Doscher, C., & Paterson, A. (2021). A computational modelling approach to human-elephant interactions in the Bunda District, Tanzania. Ecological Modelling, 443, 109449. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2021.109449)

  • The secret life of elephants: ecological engineers and agricultural pests

    As a Kiwi, when I hear the word ‘pest’ my mind instantly goes to possums, stoats, rats and cats. These are some of the invasive mammals which are killing so many of our native species, most of which cannot be found anywhere else in the world. These lethal pests have turned us into killers as well; we promote and stand by numerous lethal methods for pest management, without batting an eyelid. Whilst some are made uneasy by the thought of trapping, poisoning or hunting these creatures, we still employ these measures as second nature.

    When talking about pest management in the past, I never quite understood the shock or disapproval from visitors from overseas. They get a certain look on their faces when they hear what we do to these mammals, many of which they are trying to protect at home. It seems to them that we have become somewhat apathetic to the lives of these creatures and accustomed to having blood on our hands in the name of pest management.

    Dead stoat, trapped in Fiordland National Park/ Avenue

    The way that I look at it, along with many other New Zealanders, is that I feel a strong sense of responsibility for protecting our native birds, lizards and plants. I do accept that these pests are simply trying to survive, on an island archipelago that they didn’t choose to live on.

    Some parts of the world, have a much larger agricultural pest issue: elephants. Hearing this, helped me to understand what others feel when we talk about pests in New Zealand. How can an elephant, such a majestic creature, be considered a pest?

    Of course, an agricultural pest differs in definition to the introduced conservation pests that we have in New Zealand, although reactions to these pests seem to be the same. In retaliation to the damage caused to local livelihoods or personal safety, some people have been reported to purposefully remove native elephant habitats or even employ lethal methods to control the “problem elephants”. I am now the one in shock, although in the grand scheme of things it’s not so dissimilar to our pest control strategies.

    Abel Mamboleo, as part of his PhD research at Lincoln University, asked the question, published in the Journal of Biodiversity & Endangered Species, of whether elephants were really the most disastrous agricultural pest animals or are they actually the agents of ecological restoration. He reviewed multiple studies and publications to obtain crucial information about elephants, agricultural pests and ecological restoration. All of this helped guide him towards the answer to this big question: are elephants a pest or an ecological blessing? He also wanted to summarise the existing knowledge to help both conservationists and local people create appropriate plans for sustainable management.

    Indian elephant bull in musth in Bandipur National Park/ CC-BY-SA 3.0 Yathin S Krishnappa.

    Human-elephant conflicts arise through any interactions between our two species that have negative impacts on social, economic or cultural life, on elephants, or on the environment. The most common feature of these interactions is crop-raiding. As human populations increase, our demand for land, water and food also increases. Consequently, historical elephant habitat is being infiltrated by human activities through agricultural development, limiting elephant habitats to small “ecological islands”. This means their usual dispersal routes are restricted and the competition for resources with humans increases.

    So, what happens when the natural habitat and resources of elephants are taken away? They search for food elsewhere, with the most abundant source being crops on surrounding farms. Elephants actually prefer agricultural crops to wild plants because they are more palatable, nutritious and readily available. For this reason, local people have labelled elephants as the most disastrous agricultural pests, because of the damage from elephants that they sustain. But is this a fair statement?

    Elephants were compared to the criteria an animal must fit to be considered a pest. These criteria include any animal that feeds on crops, damages buildings or stored food, injures people and kills livestock. When looking at it this way, yes, elephants by definition are pests. They damage stored and field crops, which ultimately affects human food security during drought seasons. However, to be labelled the most disastrous agricultural pest seems a bit extreme. In fact, for this to be the reality they must be causing massive economic damage to crops and property; more than other pests.

    While they do cause some local damage, Mamboleo found that they only cause moderate damage when compared to other pests. The damage inflicted by wild pigs actually far outweighs that of elephants and puts them in first place for the most disastrous agricultural pests. Elephants even sit behind rodents, European starlings, red billed quelea and desert locusts when looking at the line-up for the worst pest offenders in these areas. While it is true that elephants can inflict extensive damage, it is still significantly less than other pests. For local people, it is hard to see it this way as they have entire fields of crops decimated by these giants.

    People are seeing persistent crop damage and associating this with pest behaviour. Because their farms often closely border protected elephant habitats, it means people are seeing more severe crop-raiding and they’re seeing it more frequently. While on the other hand, the elephants just see more food. Naturally, the elephants are getting the blame and inheriting this new title; from a local perspective it is an obvious response.

    On the other hand, elephants are considered as agents of ecological restoration. Much like secret agents, they work inconspicuously to repair and re-establish ecosystem services that may have been damaged by human activities. A successful act of ecological restoration must be effective, efficient and engaging. This is otherwise known as the “triple E” principle, which serves as the guidelines for evaluating environmental restoration processes.

    Elephant in India/ CC-BY 4.0 Sanghavisrini

    Elephants are effective because their natural and physical abilities provide all sorts of environmental benefits to humans and other wildlife. They also have the ability to restructure their environments, sometimes opening up thick vegetation and helping their herbivore neighbours in the process.

    Elephants are also efficient because of their high level of intelligence and behaviours; they are able to perform productive ecosystem rehabilitation activities in a consistent and timely manner. Usually this is without the support of human intervention. Elephants have been branded “ecosystem engineers” or “mega-gardeners” because of their role in dispersing seeds, helping both wildlife and humans. Through ecological restoration, these elephants are replenishing cultural resources and socioeconomic conditions for humans and allowing re-connection with nature. Some would call that engaging. This ecosystem restoration allows humans and other wildlife to reuse otherwise damaged ecosystems.

    So what is the answer to whether elephants are the most disastrous agricultural pests or actually the agents of ecological restoration? This needs to be looked at from two separate viewpoints. Yes, they are pests, but they are not the most disastrous. And, yes, they are agents of ecological restoration. But they are both occurring simultaneously, depending on the perspective you view it. Can’t they be both?

    This article was prepared by Master of International Nature Conservation student Quinn O’Halloran as part of the ECOL608 Research Methods in Ecology course.

    Mamboleo, A.A., Doscher, C., & Paterson, A. (2017). Are elephants the most disastrous agricultural pests or the agents of ecological restorations? Journal of Biodiversity & Endangered Species, 5(185). doi:10.4172/2332-2543.1000185 .

  • A giant pest problem: elephants in the backyard

    New Zealand has a huge agricultural industry. It also has a pest problem. I myself have been out to a friends’ farm and was told to “squash a mouse if you see one”! Which I think we can all empathise with to an extent. When the little b*stards are eating your food, they might as well be infesting your wallet.

    Image CC-BY-SA Diego Delso on Wikimedia Commons: Elephants and humans live in close contact in Africa

    Now, think about scaling that up a couple of levels. You no longer have nuisance, albeit damaging, mice scurrying around your farm shed. Instead you have elephants, in herds of 11+, munching through entire fields and even ripping doors off your grain sheds. Stomping won’t quite suffice here (and may go the other way).

    This is an issue that Abel Mamboleo and his PhD supervisors, Chile Doscher and Adrian Paterson, at Lincoln University investigated in their JOJ wildlife and Biology paper in 2020. Instead of the standard numbers, quantities and figures you may expect in a science paper, here they take a slightly alternative approach to the topic. What do people think is happening in their backyards? After all, fear and perceptions are powerful things.

    To start with a bit of context – who are we talking about when referring to people? This study interacted with people in the region of Bunda, a very densely populated region in Tanzania. Much of its land is a part of the idyllic Serengeti ecosystem, and boasts an internationally renowned tourism hotspot.

    Bunda location within Tanzania – right next to the Serengeti: Image CC-BY-SA Macabe 5387 on Wikimedia commons

    These people rely heavily on farming. In fact, 80% of annual income in Bunda comes from this industry. You can imagine how devastating it is to have these creatures, as amazing and majestic as elephants may be, decimate their fields of crops.

    Elephants eating crops is not a new story. In fact, there are even somewhat humorous accounts of elephants eating rotten fruit in orchards and getting themselves rather drunk in the process. Thieving behaviour may even be tolerated – these giants are big money for tourism. However, in this particular context, such interactions are becoming more and more problematic. In this area, as the human population grows, human-elephant interactions also increase.

    Mamboleo went to this area to ask local people their thoughts about these interactions. Using interviews and questionnaires in local languages to ensure clear messages, they found that 88% of those asked thought these human-elephant interactions were on the increase. Furthermore, 79% of respondents reported these events were most common on farms.

    This in and of itself is not necessarily an issue. Local people had described the elephants as generally ‘docile’ and can even be safely approached to within 50 m. In the past, farmers have sometimes been able to simply scare elephants away themselves using traditional techniques, such as patrolling and fencing. Elephant ‘friendliness’ has even been suggested in other parts of Africa, with some suggesting elephants are going as far as to domesticate themselves. However, now, elephants are beginning to ignore these scaring techniques, some becoming bolder and potentially more dangerous.

    How is this affecting people?

    You can begin to see how conflicts between elephants and humans are likely to grow, with 32% of people thinking that elephants will react to seeing a person by killing them, and guarding crops being a main way for these people to protect their livelihoods. And for another large minority, 42% of those asked, they experienced elephants simply continuing to eat their crops in the presence of humans. Evidently, these people don’t have effective tools to deter elephants and protect their farms.

    Extreme measures: what to do next?

    We can see how people would be having a hard time with their elephant neighbours here. But what about the elephants?

    Elephants are protected in Tanzania. The people of Bunda know this. However, desperate times sometimes call for desperate measures. Therefore, occasionally, when an elephant is raiding crops, people may turn to lethal measures. Whilst few people who were interviewed list this as a response to seeing elephants raiding crops, Mamboleo raises the valid point that this number could be higher. Local people know that there could be consequences of authorities finding that illegal elephant kills had taken place in the Bunda region.

    Elephants & mice – really that different? Image by GlobalP from iStock

    This may seem like a drastic response. However, killing pests such as rats, rabbits and mice that eat crops in NZ doesn’t seem so drastic, does it? Of course, this is a very different situation – elephants are native to this area, and are endangered and protected. But this comparison does make you realise that wanting to kill the problem can be a fairly universal response.

    Mamboleo notes that cheap responses can be turned to in the absence of timely support from conservation authorities…so what can be done about that?

    Well, there are some cool things being done across Africa to help with these conflicts. For example, do you know that elephants are scared of bees? Who’d have thought. Some projects actually exist to build bee hives around fences to keep elephants away, and this seems to work pretty well. It also turns out that elephants don’t like spicy food – so chilli can be used in a similar way.

    Image by Kengee8 on Wikimedia Commons: Example of elephant-bee fence

    More ideas, such as this would, be very useful to help in these situations. Answering questions such as when are elephants most likely to visit the farms may also be helpful for targeted responses, Mamboleo says.

    Knowing how people feel, how they’re responding to the situation, and what they need to do to help them resolve the situation for the best outcomes for people and wildlife is a great first step here. That’s the valuable context needed to now take the next steps and make solutions that will work. Especially when we can’t just stomp on the problem!

    This article was prepared by Master of International Nature Conservation student Sally Sinclair as part of the ECOL608 Research Methods in Ecology course.

  • Kea pine for a new home?

    Kea, our smart alpine parrots, are sometimes a little too clever for their own good. They are a species struggling to maintain large and healthy populations. Part of their problem is that they are very curious and seem to be fascinated by what humans do, and more importantly, often live in human-influenced habitat. This is not such a good trait when it leads them to interact with hazards like lead or toxins, nor is it useful if they find human ‘junk’ food.

    This curiosity is also not helpful when we want to study kea. Many of the approaches that work with other bird species just fail for kea. Instead of going about their business they come and see what you are doing, and that’s not great for understanding key aspects of their life histories.

    Spot the kea at the top of the tree! Image by Adrian Paterson.

    I has some first-hand experience with researching kea about twenty five years ago, when I was a newly minted Lincoln University lecturer. I was helping Kerry-Jayne Wilson to supervise a masters student, Mark Jarratt. Mark was interested in how much lead, and other nasty waste, the kea were finding in the local Arthur’s Pass area, and consuming, in their habitat. For example, lead was present in paints, shotgun pellets and rubbish in the tips and kea were often observed eating it.

    Mark had to catch kea to take blood samples to check for lead contamination. Catching kea can be fairly challenging. They are not easily fooled and they can learn by observing others. Adding to the difficulty was that we had to keep the birds in captivity for an hour or so as part of the procedure. And this was a problem.

    We initially used a cage. We would capture a kea, put it in a holding cage, and then go and try and capture the next one. However, each kea would often figure out how to escape the cage. We would return to find a cage open and our patient free (and not likely to be so easily caught again). So then we took the cage with a kea into a small hut nearby, thinking that if the bird got out of the cage then they would at least be in the hut. Unfortunately, some of the kea managed to figure out how to open the windows in the hut. Moral: don’t work with animals smarter than you are!

    So, when PhD student Jodanne Aitken came to James Ross and me and wanted to do a project on kea, I was a little hesitant. However, Jodanne is nothing if not persistent, passionate and persuasive, and a project on kea was begun.

    Early morning in the plantation. The native forest in the distance was often commuted to and from by kea. Image by Adrian Paterson.

    Jodanne was interested in how kea move about and utilise the landscape. Much of her PhD work is in the Southern Alps around Arthur’s Pass, where she is using transmitters to figure out just how mobile kea can be. Is that kea you see gnawing your car wiper blades from the local valley or could it be from several mountain ranges away? More on that in future EcoLincNZ articles!

    Jodanne’s initial work was in looking at how kea might be using plantations of introduced pine and Douglas fir in the Nelson region. Forestry has become a dominant part of many regional landscapes, often hilly and where native forests once grew (and kea once flew). This is especially the case in the Nelson region. The question that Jodanne wanted to answer was whether these forestry plantations, typically monocultures with a lot of human activity, provide a net gain or loss for kea.

    Jodanne filming kea foraging behaviour. Image by Adrian Paterson.

    Are plantations the equivalent of barren wastes for kea, where there is little food and high densities of mammalian predators (not to mention hazards that humans introduce into an area)? Alternatively, do plantations offer new food resources and places to roost and nest? Of course there could be a range of outcomes from positive to negative.

    Jodanne was able to work in forestry blocks run by Nelson Forestry Limited. Local workers were key to providing Jodanne with almost real-time information on kea presence within blocks that were being actively harvested. One advantage of working in plantations were the forestry roads that gave rapid, if a little hair-raising, access to most of these areas.

    Jodanne was able to capture three kea and mount GPS trackers in fancy backpacks to collect movement data. She also observed kea during the morning and late afternoon-early evening periods for several months, mostly to record their feeding. Jodanne used direct and video observations to observe their foraging. Kea poo was also collected when available to get some physical information about diet.

    The kea with transmitters spread their time between the plantation areas and neighbouring native forest. The majority of time was spent in the pines where they foraged, roosted and nested. Kea were observed eating pine seed, as well as tissue stripped off newly harvested Douglas fir logs. The faecal samples, well the bits that could be identified, contained lots of invertebrates.

    Kea have discovered that they can strip the bark of newly harvested logs, scrape off the cambion tissue, chew this and get something nice out of it. (Maybe a bit like eating sweets?) This may be one of the attractions of being in plantations. Image by Adrian Paterson.

    In short, as summarised in a NZ Journal of Zoology paper, kea seemed to be using the pine plantations in similar ways to more natural areas. Good news! However, one of three kea that carried a GPS recorder was killed by a cat. So, there may be some significant risks for kea spending a lot of their time in these areas. ‘Swings and roundabouts’ as they say.

    Despite this being a relatively small scale study, it does indicate that we could learn a lot more about kea in these highly modified landscapes. Jodanne has taken this training and shifted her sights to a much larger scale project on kea movement in the Southern Alps and southern Westland.

    Kea are one of the smartest bird species on the planet but they still need our help to let them survive the arrival of the smartest mammal species and the changes that we have made. Understanding this clever species is fundamental to helping them. This tricky challenge has been accepted by Jodanne and her research colleagues.

    Article by Adrian Paterson, an Associate Professor in the Department of Pest-management and Conservation at Lincoln University.

  • Mātauranga Māori: the way of the past and future?

    During my time studying at Lincoln University I have noticed that there is a lack of Mātauranga Māori in our research and study methods. This lack of recognition for the value of Māori methods is concerning, although this could be related to the high demand for Māori academics throughout the country.

    New Zealand’s culture is unique. Understanding and participating in the Māori culture is a unique experience that is not replicated anywhere else around the world. Incorporating Mātauranga Māori research methods holds the potential to be beneficial for all research projects. There needs to be a clear understanding of Mātauranga Māori and how colonisation has affected Māori connections to their land. Mātauranga Māori is a modern term for the combined knowledge of Polynesian ancestors and the experiences of Māori living in the environment of New Zealand.

    Understanding how to incorporate cultural methods into research holds the potential to generate a greater understanding of unique ecosystems in New Zealand. There are many different methods and systems from Māori culture that can be used within research to help describe and understand the data being collected. Mātauranga Māori is a knowledge system that incorporates a Māori philosophical thought, world view and practice. Kaitiakitanga is described as a place-based customary responsibilities and practices of Māori who have a genealogical history that connects them to the land and it embeds a vital link between Māori and Papatuanuku (Earth Mother).

    Bernard Spragg. NZ

    Science knowledge underpins a large part of our day-to-day lives, and it’s questions encourage us to learn about the world we live in. Indigenous cultures have an advantage (to some degree of course) with their understanding of the land they inhabit, as their ancestors have spent centuries gathering information from medicine, food and historic events that directly relate to the land. Unfortunately, due to the dominance of traditional and classic research methods in science, much of this information has been disregarded and suppressed.

    Amanda Black from Lincoln University, along with lead author Tara McAllister and others, co-wrote a paper (published in 2020) deciphering Mātauranga Māori in New Zealand ecology. Her article discusses the benefits of understanding and incorporating Māori knowledge and practices in research cases. Indigenous knowledge and connections to the land and marine environments offer deep temporal and spatial insights that can reshape our understanding of biodiversity. Such knowledge can also help us to create new pathways to halt or slow the rate of biodiversity loss.

    The use of Mātauranga Māori within research allows us to re-shape our current understanding of the environment and provides improvements to address pressing environmental issues. ‘Two-eyed seeing’ is a metaphor that is used to assist people in conceptualising indigenous and western knowledge systems and to combine them in various ways that provide important insight for research.

    Using this system can enhance ecosystem management throughout New Zealand. For example, assigning legal personhood status to a natural ecosystem (such as when the New Zealand Parliament assigned the Whanganui River legal personhood) aligns with how Māori view themselves – an integral part of the ecosystem. Legal personhood provides a framework where activities of exploitation need to be evaluated against the impacts on the ecological health of the system as a whole.

    The Whanganui River, Kathrin & Stefan Marks

    Ecosystems as legal identities could provide a flexible and durable alternative to the current approach of regarding ecosystems and their natural services as ‘free’, which has led to their gradual decline. This is where the Kaitiakitanga system is important. It is the responsibility of everybody residing within New Zealand to understand how the speed and scale of urban and agricultural landscape change disrupts the relationship between people and their lands. The loss of links to nature has the possibility to damage the health and well-being of urban Māori (and all New Zealanders).

    The recurrent theme of the paper is the importance of co-development and co-creation of research through effective partnerships with Māori. The paper recognises that there is a lack of interaction with Māori regarding research. It also illustrates the need for scientists to move beyond a research process that involves either no or one-off consultation with Māori to a process that acknowledges Māori as Treaty partners.

    Being able to incorporate understandings from multiple knowledge systems is vital for a thorough understanding of the natural world, which is crucial in advancing the science of ecology within New Zealand. Understanding the indigenous knowledge systems/Mātauranga Māori of New Zealand and incorporating it into research priorities will improve the overall findings for researchers as they will have a more informed background of their area of study.

    The author Janie Kersten is a postgraduate student in the Postgraduate Diploma in Applied Science taught at Lincoln University. This article was written as an assessment for ECOL 608 Research Methods in Ecology.

  • Māori environmental values and assessments of ecological effects

    A resprouted pūriri tree. Photo/Paula Godfrey, December 2021

    I never imagined as a small child that growing up I’d be an ecologist, deciding the fate of trees we drove past, and maybe one day, the very trees I climbed. One of my favorite trees is a silver ponga (Cyathea dealbata) near our whare (house). The photograph below shows me as an 8-year-old sitting in my ponga tree. For several months a year, I couldn’t climb the ponga while it grew its new fronds. We were strictly not allowed to cause any tree to die without good reason and a blessing from Papatūānuku. As a child, my whānau and I spent a lot of time up trees and exploring the the lush bush of north Auckland.

    Sitting in my favourite ponga, 2002.

    As an ecologist working in botany, I get asked all the time what my favourite tree/plant is, and the answer changes depending on what’s looking particularly beautiful that week. Are the kōwhai (Sophora spp.) flowering? Have the kauri (Agathis australis) got new growth? Have the māhoe (Melicytus ramiflorus) produced another bumper crop? These are the factors that influence my answer.

    Take for example the pūriri tree (Vitex lucens). Pūriri has significant ecological value in its own right and is often my favorite tree. It produces flowers almost all-year round for tuī to feed on. It allows kereru to eat its berries and it even hosts NZ’s largest moth species (the massive green pūriri moths, Aenetus virescens).

    These trees are impossible to age, as the old specimens have hollow trunks and twisted hard wood, making traditional ageing techniques very difficult. It’s thought that pūriri are the longest living plant in NZ. As part of pūriri tree’s life cycle, they typically start looking sick, fall over and ‘resprout’ by producing roots along their trunk that sink into the ground. By doing so they form large areas of canopy from a single trunk, as now their trunk is prostrate. The photo above shows a pūriri tree which has been cut down and resprouted. The hollow trunk is visible on the right of the photo.

    Pūriri holds ecological values but also holds significant tangata whenua values. For me, as a Ngāpuhi (Northland iwi within the pūriri distribution area), I have a strong emotional connection to pūriri that is intertwined with its ecological value. How can that be?

    Well, pūriri is used as an infusion to wash the bodies of our tūpāpaku (deceased) and adorned with pūriri leaves as they decomposed. The bones are later gathered up and scraped clean, then placed within the pūriri tree in a kete. These days, we simply adorn our tūpāpaku with pūriri and lay them to rest within Papatūānuku. This is what my brothers, myself and Māmā did with our Pāpā. Learn more about this practice here.

    Cutting down a pūriri tree is like digging up a church cemetery without exhuming the bodies first, and in many cases, even today, this would happen without notification to the tīpuna (ancestors) of those who lay there.

    Laying Pāpa to rest. I am middle left. Note the pūriri leaves surrounding the body. Photo/ John Malcom, 2006.

    The issue of Māori values and the environment was brought to media attention (again) last year with the new marina works in Pūtiki bay, Waiheke Island, and the 2020 protests over Ihumātao, the historic stonefields in Auckland en-route to become a major housing development. Although Ihumātao was not a specific environmental issue, environment and ecology is undeniably intertwined.

    As an ecologist working for a private consultancy, or even a government organisation, such as Waka Kotahi, or a local council, you’ll come across new developments (or redevelopments) seeking resource consent. To gain resource consent you need to demonstrate as an ecologist that the environment is not going to be degraded, and that post-development you’ll end up with a ‘net ecological gain’. This is called an Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE).

    There is a recommendation to include tangata whenua rights in AEE’s (as per the Section 8 of the Resource Management Act 1991). In practice they are kept as separate documents, with no cross-over between cultural effects and environmental effects. How can AEE’s integrate tangata whenua rights as part of an ecological assessment and fulfil the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi?

    A sign at the Ihumātao protests. Photo/ RNZ, Dan Cook, March 2019.

    In 1998 Stuart Waddel thought about the same question. He undertook a study to recognise the indigenous rights in AEE’s and how to integrate them. He found that applicants for resource consents have no statutory requirements to contact tangata whenua when proposing a new development, it is only ‘good practice’ to do so. The AEE’s are used to inform the consenting authority (local councils) on the potential effects that the activity will have on the environment. Therefore, the contact with tangata whenua needs to be prior to the AEE being produced, not after. One good example of intergrating tangata whenua into an AEE is on the MacKays to Peka Peka Project by NZTA.

    Recognition of kaitiakitanga (guardianship) in the AEE’s is when it comes to identification of potential environmental impacts as important for achieving better environmental outcomes for all. The environmental values are interconnected with the mauri (essence/life force) of the area, and links spiritual, genealogical, cultural and physical values. Recognition of kaitiakitanga in AEE’s (because it’s respected within tikanga Māori (cultural practice)), cannot be defined by local councils or government as that would mean they are speaking for kaitiakitanga, which is reserved for tangata whenua to speak to.

    Waddel noted that Pākehā and Māori have long held differing views on the values of our environment, which has lead to contentious issues throughout the colonising history of NZ. Māori value the earth as a precious gift and follow strict rules on kaitiakitanga through kaitiaki (looking after) our environment in order to receive the life giving resources it provides. Māori also value different food sources to Pākehā, such as kahikatea berries. Pākehā tend to view the whenua (land) as a resource ripe for exploitation.
    Ensuring that the proposed development area will be able to be sustainably used for future generations and for mahinga kai (food gathering) is a meaningful environmental outcome that demonstrates that the environment will retain its mauri.

    Shaking the kahikatea berries down for eating, 2005.

    It is more important than ever to carry out pre-project consultation with tangata whenua groups (iwi, hapu, rūnanga) and listen to what they have to say. The real environmental outcomes are achieved when the korero (conversation) is received by the development team with a learning mindset, and tangata whenua recommendations are implemented early in the project. If you’re a bit stuck on where to start, the Bay of Plenty Regional Council has a good resource for iwi engagement on their website.

    Iwi engagement in AEE’s are beneficial for all. If AEE’s are done right, those hundred year-old pūriri trees would be here to stay and not replaced with a car park. If cultural considerations were implemented decades ago, we would have a much more natural environment, greater climate change resilience and many more trees to climb in our neighbourhoods.

    If you want to gain a deeper understanding of kaitiakitanga, I highly recommend reading the book Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimmerer who shares a Native American perspective which is similar to te ao Māori worldviews.

    Citation: Waddel, S. R. (1998). Restoring Kaitiakitanga: evaluating the recognition of indigenous rights in assessment of environmental effects (Doctoral dissertation, Lincoln University).

    The author Paula Godfrey is a postgraduate student in the Postgraduate Diploma in Applied Science taught at Lincoln University. This article was written as an assessment for ECOL 608 Research Methods in Ecology.