EcoLincNZ

Category: Species distributions

  • Jumping to the top of the world: new salticid spider species in the Southern Alps

    Spiders.

    Your reaction to that word might determine whether or not you finish reading this post, but try to bear with me — at least for a little while. While I can accept that most people aren’t nearly as fond of spiders as I am, I think all but the truly arachnophobic (it’s okay; I understand that you can’t help it) can agree that the jumping spiders are among the “cutest” and most acceptable spider groups. These active little hunters can often be found in or around the house, and their big binocular eyes and expressive “face” make them a lot more relatable than your average creepy-crawly. Well, most of them!

    A newly-described female Ourea petroides from the Ōtira River valley, Arthur’s Pass. © own work, 2022. CC-BY-NC.

    Jumping spiders, in the family Salticidae, are among the most well-researched spiders in the world, with over 6,500 species described. Meanwhile, the jumping spiders found in Aotearoa New Zealand – apart from the most commonly-encountered species – are very poorly known to science. There are thought to be around 200 species in NZ, with about 50 known well enough to be named. However, we can only reliably identify fewer than a dozen of them. Compare this with Australia, where hundreds of species are known already, and work to describe the rest is well under way.

    Not to be outdone by the Aussies, Lincoln University’s Robin Long, along with her supervisor Dr Cor Vink, decided to do something about that. For her Master’s project, Robin set out to catalogue and describe the jumping spiders found in some of NZ’s most remote and extreme environments: the rocky heights of the South Island’s alpine zone.

    Robin visited 21 different sites all over the Southern Alps, from Paparoa to Fiordland, collecting 170 jumping spider specimens (all by hand!) from up to 1,800 m above sea level — and logging some impressive hiking mileage in the process!

    Looking across the Ōtira River at a scree slope where Ourea petroides can be found, Arthur’s Pass. © own work, 2022. CC-BY-NC.

    Through DNA analysis and careful examination of microscopic features on each spider, Robin separated those 170 specimens into 12 new species, and determined that the group was so unlike others known to science that it represented a brand new genus (a group of closely-related species with a common ancestor). She named this genus Ourea because, like the ancient Greek mountain gods, many of the species were found to be associated with a specific mountain range.

    Many of NZ’s indigenous species are only found across quite small areas, often because of the (relatively) recent and rapid growth of our mountains — which even today continue to grow taller by around 7 mm per year. Formerly widespread species were split into separate populations by the tectonic uplift, and over the last few million years these now-isolated populations have diverged into new species. Robin’s jumping spiders, much like many other NZ alpine species, took advantage of the ample prey and new habitats created by the growth of these mountain ranges. Over time these spiders even developed cryptic colours and patterns that help to camouflage them against the particular rock types they live amongst.

    Magnificent moustache: a female(!) Ourea saffroclypeus from the Remarkables Range. © Robin Long, 2022. CC-BY-NC.

    Not content with merely describing a whole genus and a dozen new species, Robin also set about studying and describing the spiders’ behaviours when interacting with other members of the same species. Jumping spiders have exceptional eyesight, and are known for communicating with each other through visual displays that range from the bronze hopper’s simple leg-waving, all the way to the flamboyant, colourful dances (which often incorporate vibration as well) performed by the aptly-named peacock spiders.

    The four Ourea species that Robin observed in the lab each exhibited a unique set of behaviours when they met another spider, and these behaviours differed depending upon whether they met a member of the same or the opposite sex. Males postured fiercely at each other, squaring up in a face-to-face grappling contest with legs and fangs outstretched.

    When attempting to impress a female, males gestured with their legs and “zigzag-danced” their way closer, before attempting to reach out and gently stroke the female’s head. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this final move had quite mixed success! Females meeting each other were a bit more sensible, and usually made a few simple (though probably quite impolite) leg gestures at each other, before one or both turned away and went in the opposite direction.

    Despite the enormous amount of work that went into researching these spiders, Robin acknowledges that her almost 150-page thesis has only scratched the surface of the topic. Little is known of the spiders’ life histories or the individual species’ spatial distributions, and it’s “very likely” that there are additional species in the genus waiting to be discovered on other mountain ranges.

    Exquisite camouflage: Ourea petroides, Ōtira River valley, Arthur’s Pass. © own work, 2022. CC-BY-NC.

    Robin also suggests a similar study would likely uncover another distantly-related group of undescribed jumping spiders living quietly in the Southern Alps. This is a common problem with New Zealand’s invertebrate fauna: while we have a good general understanding of what’s around us, there are still huge gaps in our knowledge — and usually the studies that attempt to address this just end up revealing more unanswered questions!

    We have a rich history of brilliant people, like Robin, studying, documenting, and describing New Zealand’s unique invertebrate biodiversity, and there are still many new discoveries to be made in every corner of our little country. But, despite huge technological advances, research has dwindled in recent decades due to funding redirections and the restructuring of government services.

    Under the looming threats of climate change and habitat loss, we need to pay closer attention to the smallest and most enigmatic (if not always particularly cute) creatures that live alongside us, lest they disappear before we even have a chance to study them. Australia is well ahead of NZ in this regard, with funding and support for taxonomic studies provided through their world-leading ABRS scheme. I’m not much of a sports enjoyer, but beating the Aussies at this game is one trans-Tasman rivalry I could definitely get behind.

    This article was prepared by Bachelor of Science (Honours) student Dustin la Mont as part of the ECOL608 Research Methods in Ecology course.

  • Under the southern moss

    In popular media New Zealand is often portrayed as a ‘Lost World’. From Middle-earth to Narnia, from Skull Island to Mythic Greece, New Zealand has often stood in for a director’s idea of a mysterious place that time forgot. This started in the 1960s with In search of the Castaways, a cheesy Disney live action film. I’ve even done this myself in an article on New Zealand’s biological history and how the Lost World might be a useful theme with which to explore why we see such a special biodiversity here.

    A lost world?

    One way to make a place look ancient in a movie is to drape everything in moss. Moss-covered ruins and trees just look old and mysterious. Walking through the New Zealand bush we usually see a lot of moss, especially in the wetter parts of New Zealand. Moss wrapped around branches and in mounds on the ground gives the vibe that the forest has been unchanging and quiet for a long time.

    How accurate is this?

    Wendy Kentjens (with David Glenny from Landcare Research, and Tim Curran and Jon Sullivan from Lincoln University) wanted to find out what determines where moss (or bryophytes as they are technically called) grows. She has published a paper about it in NZ Journal of Botany.

    Her study site was at the Boyle River near Lewis Pass. At the site there are stretches of beech forest as well as manuka/kanuka areas. And there is a lot of moss, on the branches, on the ground, growing high in trees, even around the streams.

    Wendy collected moss samples to identify which species were present. She also looked at lots of environmental factors to see if they created patterns for mosses. She measured things like tree-trunk diameter, canopy cover, ground cover, species of plants, and habitat pH.

    Wendy busily trekked around 98 plots where she found 30 species of moss. There were a lot of differences between habitat types, with the stream areas having very different moss species to everywhere else. Beech forest communities were reasonably different to manuka communities, even though they were in close proximity. More moss was found on the damper and darker south sides of trees.

    And moss can be comfortable for a nap! Image from Adrian Paterson

    There are a lot of mosses growing in our forests. Are they ancient? Many of the areas at the Boyle, particularly the manuka/kanuka forest, are only a few decades old as they are recovering from being made into pasture. So, mosses are able to colonise and grow in these areas very quickly.

    When we look at a moss clad tree or boulder we shouldn’t automatically assume that it has taken centuries to accumulate. These forests are highly changeable systems and moss are just as opportunistic and quick to grow as the surrounding plants.

    Mosses may give off the old lost world vibe but they are as young and vibrant as the next plant or lichen. However, if production companies want to come here to spend lots of money on their next historical/fantastical/science-fictiony epic then I guess we can put up with it.

    Adrian Paterson is a lecturer in Pest-Management and Conservation at Lincoln University. He generally likes moss, and it does make him think of the Lost World!

  • Farming and biodiversity: what’s on 0.5% of Canterbury Plains?

    Imagine the Canterbury Plains blanketed in tall trees interwoven with small hardwoods. This beautiful, unique landscape is then singed into dry grassland with the arrival of Māori. Continue to imagine European settlers introduce weedy exotics that infest the landscapes, once again modifying the region. Now, picture the current landscape – a monotonous cover of dairy farms. Which of these images would you think is best for our native and endemic species?

    Prior to humans or today? (Think from an insect’s perspective)

    The plains have been a dynamic landscape ever since humans stepped foot in our vulnerable country. They will continue to experience dramatic changes in the future with the ever growing population leading to climate change, urban expansion and agriculture intensification.

    The 1940s saw the commencement of irrigation on the plains so that farmers could have a reliable water source to enhance the production of pasture and crops. Water facilitated the development of dairying from sheep farming, into the landscape we see today. Between 2002 and 2012, the Canterbury herd increased by 115%, accounting for 13.5% of the Aotearoa dairy herd.

    These drastic landscape changes have been detrimental to many of our precious native species by creating unfavourable conditions and habitats, species such as the bellbird (Anthornis melanura) have suffered. Some species, such as paradise shelducks (Tadorna variegata), have exploded in population numbers due to the favorable wet conditions caused from irrigating.

    Within the Canterbury Plains, less than 0.5% of this area is still the original remnant forest. Canterbury has been described as the most biological deprived and most modified environment in Aotearoa due to the intensification of agriculture. However, agriculture is a big portion of the country’s economy, bringing in approximately $10.6 billion (5%) of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

    The food and fiber sector are major employer, providing jobs to over 359,000 people. Not only does it feed New Zealanders, it is also a big player in the global food market. in order to come to terms with this environmental dilemma, farms need to incorporate more sustainable agricultural practices, to feed the world and to support biodiversity. Currently through education and awareness this is already becoming a point of discussion.

    There has been a push to introduce native vegetation into farming systems. Several studies have examined the impacts of intensive dairy farming on soil health, vegetation, and life below ground. Farmers are now starting to see the benefits of even simple things, such as planting native vegetation. Such plantings not only positively impact farms, but also our are good for our native species, from small bugs to cryptic skinks and chatty birds.

    Mike Bowie from Lincoln University, like me, grew up on a family farm, and went on to tertiary education in ecology. This brings a helpful perspective to topics around the interaction of agriculture and ecology. It led Bowie to check out the biodiversity in the Bankside dryland remnant that is surrounded by an intensive dairy farming landscape. The Bankside Scientific Reserve in a 2.6-hectare area established in 1969. Mike wanted to know how adjacent agricultural land impacts the soil composition and fauna in this reserve area.

    Aerial photograph of the Bankside Scientific Reserve with kānuka and matagouri dotted throughout. (From Bowie et al., 2015)

    In 1970, an initial vegetation survey was conducted by Molloy within the new reserve. Bowie’s survey in 2015 found that only 31% of plants that Molloy surveyed still remained and that 27 new exotic species were present. The fauna found in the remnant were different to that of the neighbouring agricultural land. Bowie discovered the presence of four native earthworm species along with six exotic species. The number of the exotic worm species decreased with distance into the reserve.

    Bowie and his fellow researchers found 112 specimens of invertebrates, including many beetles as well as a significant native species, the ground weta! Soil pH, nitrate, and phosphate levels were all lower in the reserve compared to the surrounding paddocks.

    These observations highlight the need to retain existing dryland remnants and to establish other reserves throughout the plains. A diverse landscape will support a diverse range of species. I think farmers and the community are now starting to see the value of incorporating native vegetation and agroecological principles into their system, such as mixed species pasture systems.

    We don’t all need to put three hectares away into a reserve. Even small steps, such as planting a row of diverse natives along a fence line or waterway, will make a huge difference, if many farms join in.

    One thing that is highlighted in this study is the need for continued maintenance of restoration and remnant projects. It is not a plant and leave situation (no pun was intended…). Weed and pest control should be continually applied in these areas to prevent exotic weeds and animals from becoming established and smothering and displacing the natives.

    An example of this is in practice Te Ara Kakariki group that is establishing green dots (tiny native areas) from the Southern Alps to Lake Ellesmere/Te Waihora on private properties. This increases the connectivity of native planting, further increasing the power that these small areas can make overall. Animals and invertebrates will be able to spread throughout these dots and over the region.

    Farming has transformed the landscape of the Canterbury Plains. Image from Adrian Paterson.

    Farmers are becoming more aware of sustainable principles through education from organisations such as Te Ara Kakariki, DairyNZ, Landcare trust, and councils. Through education, ecology is becoming more interwoven into their practices. It will be a trick balancing the need for feeding the world and protecting the environment. Ecology is an excellent way to find this balance in agriculture, it can be adapted to any farming system to suit their needs and desires.

    Mike wants to help bridge this gap, not only in this study, but also others that he has conducted throughout his time at Lincoln University. Mike has examined how native plantings encourage native and beneficial invertebrates on Canterbury dairy farms, plus many more. I too believe that ecology and agriculture can work together to create a more sustainable agriculture sector that can efficiently produce food and improve food security, whilst supporting the health of the soil, water and biodiversity.

    This article was prepared by Master of Science postgraduate student Sam Fitzgerald as part of her ECOL608 Research Methods in Ecology course.

    Further reading

    Practical guide for landowner and farmers for landcare

    Improving biodiversity – Beef + lamb

  • Detecting eDNA: everything, everywhere all at once

    Let’s say you want to know what animal species are present in a forest. You could walk along line transects and record the species visually observed. You could set up trail cameras to take pictures of passing animals for as long as there is enough space in the memory card and battery life in the cameras. You can use the acoustic survey method to study bats, birds, frogs, and even some monkey species, as they can be distinguished based on their sounds and calls.

    Depending on the size of your study area, making a list of the animal species present might take a several hours to several months because you will need to carry out various methods to identify them, which may also require species experts.

    These are well-established conventional methods for biodiversity monitoring, but is there no single method to find all the species in a given area at once? A one-size-fits-all t-shirt?

    There is a rapidly developing method that can identify a good portion of species in a given study area, including those living on the ground, in the ground, in the water, and even those flying in the air.

    Every organism contains genetic material called deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), passed down from parents to children. All organisms from the same species have very similar DNA.

    An illustration of the double-helix of the DNA molecule. Original public domain image from Wikimedia Commons

    This technology takes advantage of the traces that organisms leave of their DNA in their environment, whether feathers, skin, scales, urine, or faeces. These traces, known as environmental DNA (eDNA), can be found in soil, water, and air.

    This shiny new method is called DNA metabarcoding. Simply put, it identifies organisms by matching their DNA with reference DNA from the gene database or library. It is like matching the barcode of products when you check out at the supermarket.

    The process begins with collecting water or soil, or even air, samples from the study area. These samples typically contain genetic material from diverse organisms, including bacteria, plants, and animals.

    Once samples are collected from the field, they are brought to the laboratory. DNA is separated from the samples, amplified, and sequenced to generate vast amounts of genetic data that can be compared with existing DNA databases and reference libraries such as GenBank for species identification.

    Environmental DNA – An emerging tool in conservation for monitoring past and present biodiversity – Scientific Figure on ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-overall-workflow-for-environmental-DNA-eDNA-studies-with-examples-of-organisms-that_fig1_269724781 License: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

    DNA metabarcoding can detect a broad range of organisms at once, providing a snapshot of the species diversity within the study area. That way, you can avoid performing various sampling methods. How convenient is that!

    Of course, no method is perfect, even DNA metabarcoding. Since it is still developing, there are limitations. The public gene library has the DNA references of many species but this is still a small fraction of all the species on earth, so far. There can be contamination in the samples, which could disrupt the results. Errors can occur not only during sample collection in the field but also in the laboratory.

    Compared to DNA metabarcoding, conventional methods have stronger standardised techniques for sampling and for interpreting the datasets. Besides, in the context of biodiversity monitoring, conventional methods can provide detailed information, such as abundance, age, sex ratios, and individual animals’ special characteristics, such as colours and conditions, which DNA metabarcoding cannot tell us.

    Conventional methods are like pictures with tiny pixels portraying good resolution, but their taxonomic scope is limited, whereas those of DNA metabarcoding cover a broad range of species, but the resolution is coarse.

    Is there the best of both worlds?

    Yes! Robert Holdaway and colleagues, including Ian Dickie working at Lincoln University, suggested that combining DNA metabarcoding with conventional monitoring methods will benefit scientists in many ways.

    Using them together will enable scientists to test and improve the reliability and accuracy of our still-developing DNA metabarcoding method. Moreover, combining them will result in a higher chance of detecting species from the same lineage.

    Robert and colleagues provided three case studies in New Zealand that can benefit from the dynamic duo.

    First, the duo can be of advantage to the nationwide measurements of New Zealand’s biodiversity. They can provide greater taxonomic coverage and more thorough information on the relations among biodiversity, ecosystem functions, and services.

    Second, integrating DNA metabarcoding with Māori biodiversity monitoring approaches will bring more understanding to the Māori worldview of interconnections among living and non-living beings. Metabarcoding can enhance biodiversity inventories, identifying species important and relevant to Māori which are rare or hard to find using conventional methods.

    Third, combining DNA metabarcoding with traditional surveillance in detecting pest species at the early stage will secure native species and landscapes from harmful biosecurity threats, such as harmful pests and diseases.

    In addition, DNA results shared from various surveys using the dynamic duo will be added to the reference libraries making them more resourceful and convenient for future research. Having more reference DNA sequences of species in the reference libraries, like GenBank, will make biodiversity monitoring much easier by identifying species with just a few clicks.

    DNA metabarcoding is a rapidly developing and powerful tool for monitoring biodiversity. Integrating it into conventional methods will lead to a stronger method to get plausible results. Overall, as Robert and colleagues indicated, not only will they add value to New Zealand’s biodiversity and Māori culture, but they will also protect the native natural environment and species through early detection of pests.

    This article was prepared by Master of Science postgraduate student Zin Mar Hein as part of the ECOL608 Research Methods in Ecology course.

    Together, they will indeed make the best of both worlds for conservation.

  • Small animals show us the value of old natural forests

    Hambach. You are in Germany right now, halfway between Cologne and the Belgian border. I’d like to warmly welcome you to the Hambach forest – an ancient forest that is dominated by oak and hornbeam, representing a rare forest type in modern Germany. The Hambach forest is the last remnant of a forest that ranged over wide flat plains since the end of the last ice age around 12,000 years ago. Regrettably, it has become famous for being gradually absorbed by a vast hole!

    Tree house in the Hambach forest.
    CC BY-NC 2.0 by Tim Wagner, Flickr

    The Hambach forest used to range over an area of around 5 500 ha. During the past four decades, around 90 percent has already vanished. What remains today is not a normal forest anymore – idyllic, undisturbed, and peaceful. The forest is not only threatened by further sliding into the hole. In 2018, the Hambach forest also became the stage for one of the largest major police operations, owing to another curiosity about the Hambach forest: it is inhabited by people, living in tree houses. Occupying the forest, they want to protect what is left of it and demonstrate against the further expansion of the hole. However, since the forest is privately owned by the company that sacrifices it for the hole, activists were forced out of the forest with the help of police power – before occupying it again.

    So what is the gigantic hole? It is the result of four decades of open-cast coal mining in the Hambach region. However, its further growth will eventually take an end. For the year 2038, Germany has committed itself to complete the coal phase-out, a critical step for Germany’s energy transition. Until then, coal power stations in Germany can be fuelled by coal – extracted from German coal mines (“holes”), with a spectacularly bad impact on the climate. Still, based on the coal-phase out, the remaining part of the Hambach forest can be saved.

    Hambach open-cast coal mining hole.
    CC BY-SA 2.0 by Traveling Tourist, Flickr

    Growing up close to the Hambach forest, that received international attention in the environmental and climate movement, I’ve been concerned about one question for a very long time: How can we replace an ancient forest that is destroyed for mining purposes?

    “If we are moving several villages, people, and a motorway for the open-cast coal mining, why don’t we also move the forest?” That is how people in my region would have addressed this question in the past. Believe me or not, that’s exactly what has been done. At one end of the gigantic hole, the largest artifical hill worldwide was created and recultivated with trees. It serves the region now as a recreation area, comprising an about 70km network of hiking trails. “Forest is forest. There is no difference”, people say in my region. So why be concerned?

    But is it really that easy? Are humans really able to shape a new forest within a few years as a replacement for a destroyed ancient forest, that has the same value for biodiversity and people? And will the planted trees provide an appropriate habitat for all mammals, birds, insects, spiders, herbs, lichens and other important life forms that used to inhabit the lost forest?

    In many countries around the world, there are nowadays regulations regarding compensation and restoration measures that mining and other companies have to fulfil when their activities destroy land. However, in reality, is it always possible to restore an ecosystem that has undergone complete degradation from a natural forest to a mining site, back to its original state and biodiversity value? Otherwise, it is possible to shape a new ecosystem with the same values at another site – like it was aimed with the planted artifical hill as a compensation for the destruction of the Hambach forest? Fortunately, there are ecologists who have learned the answers to these questions. Closely monitoring the process of ecosystem restoration they can tell how successful undertaken restoration efforts are for biodiversity.

    So, now that we’ve already practiced thinking in great dimensions, let’s undertake a great jump to another mined forest – we’re jumping off Germany, over Italy and the Mediterranean Sea, crossing the Arabian Peninsula and the Indian Ocean, passing Australia and are finally landing in… Auckland! Well done! We’re standing here at the Hunua Quarry site, near Papakura in South Auckland. It is part of the Hunua ranges that consist of over 20 000 ha of native forest, comprising tawa, podocarp, kauri–hard beech, and taraire forest as main vegetation types.

    The Hunua Ranges.
    CC BY-NC 2.0 by Neil Hunt, Flickr

    The Hunua Quarry is managed by Winston Aggregates, New Zealand’s largest aggregates provider. As a restoration measure, in six years over 140 000 plants have been planted in this highly modified habitat after quarrying. The aim is to provide a new forest as a replacement of the forest area destroyed. Next to the restoration area, you can still recognize unrestored areas of exotic grassland that have established after quarrying, as well as undisturbed mature native forest.

    Researchers from Lincoln University (Mike Bowie and colleagues) studied the invertebrate communities at Hunua Quarry, including wetas, beetles, cockroaches, crickets, spiders, centipedes, earthworms, ants, flies, mites, moths, slugs and snails, amongst many others. Although rather small animals, invertebrates are essential for the functioning and health of ecosystems, thereby making an important contribution to biodiversity. The objective of their study was to develop a better technique for the assessment of restoration success after mining, using invertebrates as bioindicators. Bioindicators are species that react sensitively to changes in their environment so that they can be used to assess the quality of an ecosystem.

    The researchers collected invertebrates in the undisturbed mature forest, in restored areas, as well as in the unrestored exotic grassland. They compared how many and which invertebrates were living in the respective areas. Interestingly, the undisturbed mature forest, the restored areas, and the unrestored exotic grassland were characterized by very different invertebrate communities. The invertebrates found in the six-year-old restored areas were mostly still very unlike those found in the undisturbed mature forest. For instance, the researchers were able to collect eight times more cave weta in their pitfall traps in the undisturbed mature forest than in the restored areas. In addition to cave wetas, the mature forest also harboured many spiders and beetles. Hence, if the forest restoration process is successful, it is expected that more cave weta, spiders and beetles typical for mature forest will inhabit the restored sites in the next years. At the same time, fewer exotic snails, slugs and earthworms that were found to be characteristic for the unrestored exotic grasslands are expected.

    This beetle,
    Holcaspis mucronata,
    was found most abundant in the mature forest.
    CC BY 4.0 by Birgit E. Rhode, Wikimedia Commons

    The study identified several invertebrate species as bioindicators. These can be used in future studies to assess the success of forest restoration at mine or quarrying sites. The study findings have been recognized in several other invertebrate studies of different parts of the world, for example, in a global synthesis on how good forestry plantations are at providing habitats to native beetles in comparison to natural forests. In that study, restoration sites were considered as forestry plantations, being planted by humans for conservation purposes and therefore different from natural forests. Another study dealt with the effect of removing an invasive plant as a restoration measure on an Mediterranean island. It referred to the study at Hunua Quarry for the use of beetles as bioindicators to observe the effects of restoration.

    All in all, the study showed that invertebrates might tell us more about the quality of a forest than you would easily see yourself. Hence, studying invertebrates as bioindicators has great potential for making better decisions in ecosystem management and for restoration projects. I hope that research about restoration will also raise public awareness for the complexity of biodiversity and the needs for appropriate habitats. Perhaps, I will hear many people around the Hambach forest region in Germany say: “Forest is not like forest. We need to consider old natural forests as valuable habitats and save them from vanishing, not only for the sake of spiders and beetles.”

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

    Link to the research article:

    Bowie M, Stokvis E, Barber K, Marris J, Hodge S. 2018. Identification of potential invertebrate bioindicators of restoration trajectory at a quarry site in Hunua, Auckland, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 43.

    Read more:

    Donahue, Michelle Z. 2018. Is Germany’s Hambach Forest Doomed by Coal? National Geographic, April 13. https://web.archive.org/web/20190914181247/https:/www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/04/hambach-forest-germany-logging-coal-conservation-science/

    Coal exit will save Hambach Forest: activists. Deutsche Welle, January 27, 2019. https://www.dw.com/en/german-coal-exit-plan-will-save-hambach-forest-activists-say/a-47251256

  • Defend the buffer!

    “Hold the line! The invasives are coming!”

    “Captain, we’re losing ground! The phosphate is encroaching.”

    “Retreat to higher ground! It’s safer up there.”

    “Send in the spiders and beetles! Earthworms, you stay here.”

    “Defend the Buffer!!!” [insert battle cry]

    If the plants and insects at Bankside Scientific Reserve could talk, they would probably sound something like that. While this 2.6 ha protected area is home to important communities of native species, it is under threat of phosphate intrusion and the breaking-up of the local habitat. Humans have greatly altered the lowland Canterbury Plains of Aotearoa/New Zealand. With the recent switch to irrigated dairy farming, very few patches of undisturbed native dryland vegetation are left in the region. This change in land-use has led to a higher reliance on fertilizers as well as water for irrigation, which has come with its own set of challenges.

    Aggressive introduced weeds, pasture grasses and forbs, have also begun to dramatically alter the functioning of native plant communities. Remnant areas are both vulnerable and essential to maintaining native ecosystems (hence the need to defend the buffer). Mike Bowie and his team investigated one of these remnant areas, looking at soil chemistry, plant distribution, and soil invertebrates along transects at the Bankside Scientific Reserve. Their study identified the current conservation value of the reserve, assessed how persistence of native biodiversity changed along the pasture-reserve gradient, and evaluated the effects of the likely infringement of irrigation water and nutrients from adjacent farmland.

    The vegetation of Bankside Scientific Reserve had been studied previously by Malloy (1970), who provided a detailed catalogue of the flora, listing 66 native vascular plant species. Jenson & Shanks (2005 – unpublished DOC Report) also completed a one-day reassessment of the site, but recorded only 14 native species. Today, the vegetation at the reserve can be described as a patchwork of native woody shrubs, made up mainly of makahikatoa, matagouri, and dry grassland. As Mike and his team point out, the modified soil conditions seem to have made the reserve not as well suited for native species, and better for the invasion by exotic plants. Compared with detailed surveys prior to the dairy conversion, only 31% of the original 65 native vascular plant species were found in the current study, and 27 new exotic species had arrived since the original survey.

    As for the underground conditions, soil nutrient concentrations and pH were lower in the reserve than in the surrounding farmland, with peaks of nitrate and ammonium being recorded at the boundary. Meanwhile, soil phosphate was higher in lower-lying areas within the reserve. Four species of endemic (Megasolecidae) earthworms were found in the reserve, but not in the neighbouring pasture.

    Other cool finds included ground wētā (Hemiandrus sp.) and trap door spider (Cantuaria dendyi). A 2011 survey by Emberson et al. (2011) also found the large rare rove beetle, Hadrotes wakefieldi, and several species of long-horn beetles. As opposed to the earthworms, the diversity and abundance of beetles and spiders in the reserve was similar to that recorded at least 10 m into surrounding farmland.

    Another interesting take-away from this research, is the importance of areas of higher elevation. Although elevational differences between highest and lowest contours were <5 m in the study, the higher areas were very important in avoiding environmental change from agricultural drainage and effluents. They helped to maintain environmental conditions that were closest to the original habitat, providing the best-suited habitat for native plants and animals.

    Image created by Catherine Priemer

    The work of Mike Bowie and his team, along with previous studies, points out the significance of small remnant reserves for the conservation of indigenous invertebrates found in these rare dryland ecosystems. Their findings also suggest that lime and phosphate fertilisers may represent the main threats to dryland nature reserves in irrigated dairy landscapes. Above all, their research underlines the importance of the soil environment in sustaining the variety of plant, animal, and insect life in this unique environment.

    Taking the team’s findings into consideration, the maintenance of a buffer zone – a protected zone established around sensitive or critical areas – could be beneficial in lessening the impacts of human activity and land disturbance around remnants, such as Bankside Scientific Reserve. To do this, native species can be planted between agricultural and conservation areas, to help protect sensitive habitat. The key take-away: Defend the Buffer!

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

  • The legacy of Smaug: Exotic worms conquer New Zealand’s soils

    My armour is like tenfold shields, my teeth are swords, my claws spears, the shock of my tail is a thunderbolt, my wings a hurricane, and my breath death!” Smaug from The Hobbit, by JRR Tolkien.

    Wyrms or worms? It’s probably not the introduction you’d expect from your typical friendly neighbourhood earthworm, but as it turns out, they’re not as harmless as they may seem. Could it be that introduced specimens are actually taking over the home-soils of worms native to Aotearoa New Zealand?

    I am king under the mountain!
    Image by whadatobexy (CC)

    An invasion as ruthless as that of Smaug (you know, the “specially greedy, strong and wicked worm” described in JRR Tolkiens “The Hobbit”), when he drives the dwarves from their tunnels beneath the Lonely Mountain? Well, maybe.

    New Zealand is actually one of the countries with the highest number of endemic earthworms (“endemic” meaning they exist nowhere else in the world). It has over 200 different species, all of them in the Megascolescidae family.

    They thrive in soils of native vegetation but rarely survive in land used for agricultural purposes. For this reason, it’s fair to assume that the land-use-change, caused first by the Māori, then the Europeans, was not appreciated by the worms living in that ground. With the introduction of agriculture and pastures, it didn’t take long for native earthworms to disappear, only hanging on in areas that were still covered with the original vegetation.

    Twenty-three species of European earthworms (from the Lumbricidae family) were introduced. They quickly took over the changed habitats and ecological functions from their New Zealand worm-cousins, which themselves continued to live in exile, deep within the realms of untouched soils (this, and further information can be found here).

    Can we mingle?
    Image by Petr Kratochvil (CC0)

    As described here, European species have been moving from agricultural land into adjacent native vegetation. We know from other parts of the world, like the US, that the presence of invading exotic earthworms causes changes in the soil, such as nutrient levels. This has effects on the entire ecosystem as well as on the native worms living there.

    One of the first studies to look at the co-existence of the exotic and native earthworm species in New Zealand was done by researchers from Lincoln University in 2016. The study was called “Response of endemic and exotic earthworm communities to ecological restoration“. The goal of the project was to find out if endemic earthworm species would come back to recolonise areas where native vegetation has been restored. The study looked at  two sites, located on the east and on the west coasts of New Zealand’s South Island. On one of them, plant restoration had been happening for over 30 years, on the other for 8 years.

    The team of researchers excavated soil from each site and hand-sorted out all worms present. In the lab, they were carefully identified as either endemic or exotic. After the slimy work was done, the following conclusion was reached: the populations of endemic worms increases alongside the length of the restoration period. In the meantime, the population of exotics remained more or less stable.

    In restored sites exotic and endemic earthworms can co-exist in native soil. However, exotics may make life more difficult for New Zealand’s endemic worms, perhaps by making the soil less favourable for them, or just eating up the yummy leaf-debris. Further studies are urgently needed! However, despite these negative implications, are exotic earthworms just another invasive species in New Zealand, something we should get rid of to save the natives?

    Care for a handful?
    Image by Sippakorn Yamkasikorn (CC)

    The endemic worms are definitely not as feisty as JRR Tolkiens dwarves (I imagine them perhaps with more of a sedate and gentle character, more hobbit-like really, lots of second breakfasts and idling around the Shire). They most likely aren’t planning a revolt to reconquer their homeland that has been turned into pastures and cropland.

    Today, agriculture plays an immense role in New Zealand, and the European worms have become indispensable to the farmland areas, as as they provide many benefits in terms of waste recycling, soil fertility and crop productivity. This has encouraged efforts to continue increasing the dispersion of exotic earthworms in New Zealand’s agricultural land in recent years. It seems the exotic worms, like Smaug, are already hoarding the “gold” of the New Zealand’s fertile lowland agricultural soils and have begun expanding their sovereignty into the depths of the native land.

    Our native worms may need their own King Under the Mountain to come and save the day!

    This article was prepared by international exchange postgraduate student Nicola Wegmayr as part of the ECOL608 Research Methods in Ecology course.

    The study this blog is based on can be read here. It is the source of most of the factual knowledge that has been included.

    Boyer, S., Kim, Y.-N., Bowie, M., Lefort, M.-C., and Dickinson, N. (2016). Response of endemic and exotic earthworm communities to ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology, 24(6):717-721. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/rec.12416

  • 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.

  • Kiwi calling: when listening is not enough

    I don’t know about your’s, but my mum gets worried when I don’t respond to her phone calls for a few hours. Once, I can’t remember what I was doing, but I didn’t hear the phone ringing. When I finally checked my phone I saw about 17483 missed calls, oops. I can only wonder what went through her mind when I wasn’t responding: she was probably picturing me skydiving, in an ambulance, or lost in the woods during a hike.

    But what if she’d had a more statistical mindset and thought about why I hadn’t responded? Or even better: what if she’d thought about reasons why she could not detect me?

    Ecologists and conservationists consider something similar when analysing data obtained from searching an area for a certain animal species. An animal could be present at a certain site, but still go undetected. First, they have to consider what ecological reasons might have determined where the species was present or absent (for instance, where is there suitable habitat within the considered area). Second, they have to take into account what factors might have influenced the likelihood of actually observing the species (such as the distance from the observer, or the fact that the surveyor may not be skilled enough to recognise the species). These are defined, respectively, as occupancy (which is the same as saying “presence”) and detection probabilities, and can be estimated by using statistical models.

    Occupancy probability and detection probability are described by two different models and both of them will influence what will be observed during a survey. Taking into account that not all the animals will be observed is very important when attempting to accurately assess a species’ presence, which could otherwise be underestimated.

    A young roroa being released as part of the Operation Nest Egg programme. Image by Jon Sullivan on Flickr.

    Peter Jahn, James Ross, Darryl MacKenzie and Laura Molles, in a study published in 2022, wanted to know how accurate acoustic surveys of roroa-great spotted kiwi (Apteryx maxima) were between 2011-2015. During this time, 18 birds were translocated from the Hawdon Valley, in Arthur’s Pass National Park, to the Nina Valley, in Lake Sumner Forest Park, representing one of the initial efforts of the Operation Nest Egg programme. The researchers also wanted to compare kiwi presence before and after 2015, and between the two areas.

    They gathered data from a survey conducted in 2012-2013 by DOC in both the valleys and then repeated the methodology in 2017-2018. The technique they used was passive acoustic monitoring (PAM). PAM is effective when studying elusive species such as kiwi. Automatic recorders were deployed in the two study areas and left there for up to three weeks, activating just before sunset and switching off shortly after sunrise.

    The team analysed the kiwi calls recorded in each of the valleys. The goal was to find a model that would best describe the obtained data, and use it as a base to estimate occupancy and detection probability. Peter Jahn and colleagues wanted to know which factors were important in detecting the kiwi and looked at the study area (Nina and Hawdon Valleys), year, length of the survey night, breeding/non-breeding season, precipitation, wind speed, night length, varying recorder battery capacity.

    Similarly, my mum could have considered the fact that my phone may have been in silent mode, or had no service, or estimated the actual likelihood of me being in an ambulance. All of these factors could have influenced her imperfect detection of me.

    In both the study areas, the detection probability was found to be higher during the breeding season, to increase with longer survey nights and to be influenced by wind speed, rain accumulation and recorder sensitivity. Also, as expected, kiwi presence in the Nina Valley increased after the translocation, as it did in the Hawdon Valley. Moreover, it was found that the number of sites where kiwi calls were recorded increased in 2017-2018 in both the areas and that, in total, many more calls were detected in the Hawdon Valley than in the Nina Valley.

    The Hawdon Valley in Arthur’s Pass National Park. Image CC-BY-NC by Jon Sullivan on Flickr.

    Wait, the number of sites where calls were recorded and the presence of kiwi increased in the Hawdon Valley after kiwi were removed from there? How is that possible? Yeah, that was one surprising finding of the study. In fact, the researchers were expecting that occupancy would decrease after the birds’ removal, but what they found actually suggests that new pairs re-occupied the territories left inhabited by the translocated individuals.

    This is a promising result, because it means that such conservation strategy doesn’t necessarily negatively influence the population from which the individuals are taken. Also, the ongoing pest mammal control in the Hawdon Valley could have balanced the negative effect of the translocation. I guess the only thing left to do now is find out what makes kiwi desire those territories so much that they can’t stay away: maybe they have the most delicious earthworms of New Zealand?

    To conclude, these findings demonstrate that the species is reacting well to this reintroduction programme, considered that kiwi presence increased in the Nina Valley too. Furthermore, this study showed that combining occupancy estimates through statistical models with acoustic monitoring is very useful when studying the outcomes of kiwi’s translocations. However, if you, reader, can’t wait to know more about what happens to our dear kiwi when we move them around, sit back and read Peter Jahn’s PhD thesis: never stop learning.

    Finally, going back to my mum trying to “detect” me: I suggest the probability would increase a lot if she learned to call outside of my usual napping times!

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

    Jahn, P., Ross, J. G., MacKenzie, D. I., & Molles, L. E. (2022). Acoustic monitoring and occupancy analysis: Cost-effective tools in reintroduction programmes for roroa-great spotted kiwi. New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 46(1), 3466.

  • A foreign threat: New Zealand’s Invasive insects

    One of the many great fascinations of New Zealand is the absurd number of bugs found here that are found no where else on Earth. What’s a bug, you might ask? They’re the six-legged creepy crawlies you find everywhere. They are a part of your life, from the obnoxious house fly in your room to the big, bold beetle in the garden! Well, technically, I mislead you with the name bug. Bugs are a single group of piercing-sucking insects; the correct term to describe errant creepy crawlies is insects.

    Aside from being a nuisance in the home, what do New Zealand’s insects do? They provide excellent services to our ecosystem, whether churning up dirt, pollinating flowers, or controlling noxious weeds. They also serve as an essential part of the food web and are a key to the survival of many birds and lizards.

    A friendly, Robust grasshopper says hello! This photo I took in the Mackenzie district shows one of our largest grasshoppers. They’re excellent grazers of lichens and mosses. Historically they provided great nutrition for many birds and lizards.

    Despite their abundance, insects are massively understudied both globally and in New Zealand. We must understand how our insects contribute to our ecosystems and what might happen when new insect species arrive in our country. Species not previously found in New Zealand (nonindigenous creatures) have been a massive threat to New Zealand’s native biodiversity over the past 200 years.

    Of the non-indigenous species in New Zealand, much of the focus has been on mammals, like stoats, and plants, like wilding pines. This work is essential because these sorts of species have huge impacts on our environment and our economy. But what effects do the over 2000 introduced insect species have on New Zealand? A study by Brockerhoff (in 2009) featuring Lincoln University’s Dr Cor Vink, attempts to determine the threat of new insects to New Zealand’s ecosystems.

    The threat of introduced insects was recognised soon after European arrival. From what we know few of these species are capable of affecting native ecosystems aside from the well-studied Vespula wasp.

    The currently accepted view is that new insects do not generally hurt our ecosystems. However, as New Zealand’s ecosystems are often so understudied there is little way for us to measure the effects of new insects on the environment. Across most of the world, the arrival of new insects can be a catastrophe with substantial environmental and economic impacts.

    A photo by Will Frost of a typical Mackenzie Basin floodplain grassland. A habitat type threatened by new species of weevils and the expansion of dairy farming.

    So far New Zealand has avoided such a catastrophic invasion. Brockerhoff (2009) suggests that perhaps our intact native ecosystems repel insect invasions well compared to other parts of the world. While our forests have repelled invaders so far, the threat of climate change may alter the balance in the war of plants and insects.

    Brockerhoff (2009) aimed to investigate the effects of insect invaders across a range of New Zealand’s habitats. It was found that over 200 insects capable of damaging forests have been found in New Zealand but have had minimal impact on our native ecosystems. Several generalist moth species and a passion vine hopper have had minor effects without significant damage. In grasslands, several weevil species have been found all over New Zealand, even as high as 2800 metres, but their impact on the surrounding environment so far seems to be minor. These results suggest that all is well for New Zealand’s ecosystems. However, with rising temperatures creating more optimal conditions for invaders there could be an increase in foreign insect invaders.

    When species reach more significant numbers, their effects can start to worsen. Vespula wasps are well documented for their disruptive effects in beech forests. They feed on honey sap and compete with native birds for this resource. Worse still, these wasps predate on many native insects, some requiring a 90% reduction in Vespula wasps to survive.

    The Argentine ant spreading through New Zealand and is also of grave concern. In large numbers this ant has the ability to displace native ants and often eradicate many other native insects in the soil ecosystem.

    A photo by Will Frost showing a honey-dew beech forest from Craigieburn Forest Park which is threatened by Vespula wasps.

    So far many of the more harmful insect species are isolated to human-altered habitats. And insects which make it to intact ecosystems fail to make an impact. As these insect’s populations build over time and more begin to enter the country as temperatures warm the threat of invasion into native forests may increase.

    Many insects are selective of the plants they consume due to plant defences and palatability. This is true even for generalist insects that specialise on many plants. This likely explains why so far our plants have provided protection from so many would-be insect invaders.

    Honey dew being produced by scale insects. A rich food source for wasps. Photo from Adrian Paterson

    Brockerhoff (2009) suggests that for these reasons the greatest risks to our ecosystems now are from generalist insects, especially those which don’t rely upon plants. Generalist predators, like Vespula wasps, threaten the whole ecosystem’s natural processes. Due to their ability to consume the sugar produced by scale insects. These wasps prey on the majority of native fauna in beech forests to provide food for their young. When in huge abundances the composition of insects in the forest and availability of sugar sap is hugely reduced. If more generalist insect species with no natural predators were to arrive within New Zealand the impacts would be even greater.

    To reduce the threats to our ecosystems in future, introduction of more insects for biocontrol should not be taken lightly. We are fortunate that few exotic insects have been established in New Zealand’s native habitats. However, many of the subtle effects caused by invasive insects are not yet known, more study is needed to grasp how these effects are impacting the ecosystem.

    In the future, climate change and habitat disturbance could allow new insects to arrive and threaten our native ecosystems. We know enough now to say our environment is safe from hugely adverse effects; however, the future is uncertain. Developing a greater understanding of how these creepy crawlies subtly affect our ecosystems is paramount.

    This article was prepared by Master of Science postgraduate student Will Frost as part of the ECOL608 Research Methods in Ecology course.

    Brockerhoff, E. G., Barratt, B. I. P., Beggs, J. R., Fagan, L. L., (Nod) Kay, M.,K., Phillips, C. B., & Vink, C. J. (2010). Impacts of exotic invertebrates on new zealand’s indigenous species and ecosystems. New Zealand Journal of Ecology, Suppl.Special Issue: Feathers to Fur, 34(1), 158-174. https://newzealandecology.org/nzje/2916