EcoLincNZ

Category: Uncategorized

  • Tricks of the underground trade: networking below the vines

    Life in the soil can be a tricky business for plants and microbes. Nutrients are a limited commodity for some, and competitors may swindle and cheat to gain the upper hand. Strategic partnerships are highly sought after enabling exchange of one commodity for another within elaborate networks.

    In a tough economy, well-connected networks promote resilience, sharing of ideas and opportunity to those participating in mutual exchange. However, an efficient network should be an intentional one. Making simple connections is one thing, but choosing the right friends and trade partners is another.

    Although it may not appear that obvious on the surface, most land plants are proficient networkers. Below ground, plants form selective partnerships with microorganisms in the soil to access nutrients, water, and protection from pathogens. Those with strong networks are favoured in times of scarcity and change.

    Fungal mycelium consisting of thread-like hyphae. Photo by Lex vB at Dutch Wikipedia, (CC0 1.0)

    Within soil communities, fungi known as mycorrhizae play a major role in the growth and survival of plants. It is estimated that more than 80% of vascular plants form partnerships with mycorrhizae, an ancient evolutionary network approximately 450 million years old.

    Mycorrhizae are of particular importance in the viticultural industry as grapevines are highly reliant on these partnerships for growth and nutrient uptake influencing grape composition, vine health and occurrence of disease. In fact, grapevines form associations with entire communities of mycorrhizae known as arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF).

    AMF form close associations within the root tissue of plant hosts through specialized tree-like structures called arbuscules. These allow exchange of mineral nutrients from the soil for carbon fixed by the plant host which is transferred through the extensive hyphal network in the soil. These hyphae form interconnected “superhighways” within the soil, linking neighbouring vines and nearby crops transferring nutrients, such as nitrogen, from one host to another.

    Arbuscule of Rhizophagus irregularis colonising a plant root. Photo by Hector Montero, Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

    AMF are highly diverse and have different effects on nutrient uptake and growth on grapevines. Depending on the situation, AMF can have positive, neutral, or negative effects on plant growth and stress resistance. However, under field conditions, plants are selective in the networks they build. These communities perform a diverse range of functions which collectively contribute to plant health and characteristics. Therefore, investing in the right trade partners is crucial.

    Until recently, the effects of whole AMF communities on grapevines had been largely unexplored. A research project at Lincoln University lead by Dr. Romy Moukarzel sought to understand how AMF different communities influence nutrient uptake and growth of different grapevine rootstocks. 

    In other words, who are the trade partners behind the vines and what is the return from these communities?

    To answer these questions, AMF communities were recovered from the roots of three different grapevine rootstocks across three different vineyards. Each rootstock was inoculated with its own (“home”) community or communities from other rootstocks (“away”) within three different vineyards. Vine growth, nutrient uptake, and chlorophyll levels were measured to find out if different communities had positive or negative effects on the different rootstocks.

    Consistent with previous work, different vineyards and rootstocks had their own unique communities. Growth and nutrient uptake differed depending on the composition of the community and rootstocks responded differently to the same communities. While some species in these communities improved nutrient uptake, others improved growth. In particular, a diverse community with a large representation of AMF of the Glomeraceae family resulted in the greatest increase in grapevine growth.

    In one vineyard, home advantage was also evident with “home” communities having greater increase in vine growth compared to “away” communities. Interestingly, when the amount of each AMF inoculum was equalised, home advantage was no longer observed.

    By changing the community composition, the positive effects on plant growth were reduced.

    New Zealand vineyard. Photo by Jorge Royan (CC BY-SA 3.0)

    Moukarzel and colleagues suggested that altering the composition may have resulted in competition between AMF leading to reduced positive effects on the host. AMF are known to compete for host resources, soil nutrients and colonisation sites. As a result, cooperation, and rivalry between AMF within different communities may have major implications for vine productivity.

    So, what can grapevines teach us about networking?

    Basically, choose your trade partners wisely. Identify friends and adversaries within the network and invest in those relationships with the greatest return.

    As proposed by marketing expert, Porter Gale: the so-called ‘new model’ of networking should focus less on ‘handing out as many business cards as possible’ and more on making connections based on how you want to grow. In other words, efficient networking should focus on investing in specific needs and interests. A well connected network with diverse partners offers wide opportunity and stability if components are co-operative.

    Overall, the findings generated from the study will be an invaluable insight towards leveraging AMF communities to target specific growth and nutrient requirements of grapevines. This is of particular importance to the viticultural industry as the composition of these communities play an important role in determining vine health, yield, nutrition, grape composition, and wine characteristics.

    Featured image: vineyard inter-row by rawpixel.com (CC0 1.0)

    While this study has provided a step towards understanding the communities below the vines, soil is a complex system with a wide range of players and there is much to learn about the orchestration of these networks. There are likely many more tricks of the underground trade to uncover.

    Moukarzel, R., Ridgway, H. J., Waller, L., Guerin-Laguette, A., Cripps-Guazzone, N., & Jones, E. E. (2022). Soil Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Communities Differentially Affect Growth and Nutrient Uptake by Grapevine Rootstocks. Microbial Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-022-02160-z

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

  • Buried treasure: the hidden gems of alpine peatland

    Growing up, I had a fascination with pirates.

    I’m not sure if it was the fact that they stole buried treasure, sailed the seven seas, and broke all the rules or if I liked that they used the term “swashbuckling” to describe themselves. All I know is that I wanted to be exactly like Captain Jack Sparrow. Granted, Johnny Depp does quite well at making Jack Sparrow seem like the best and worst pirate at the same time, which definitely influences the likeability and comedy factor of the character.

    Peat Area in Perigi village, Pangkalan Lampam District, Ogan Komering Ilir Regency.
    Photo by Rifky/CIFOR cifor.org, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 (Flickr)

    For the majority of the first Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, Sparrow, with the help of his slightly awkward, bumbling, and unlikely traveling companion, Will Turner (played by Orlando Bloom), attempts to chase down his precious pirate ship and crew of the Black Pearl.

    To steal back his ship and find treasure along the way, Sparrow and Turner must make their way through various tunnels and streams until they finally reach the be-all-and-end-all of all treasure rooms, full of the loot that the pirates have collected over the years.

    Oftentimes, to get to these places of “great treasure”, the pirates would use maps to find the hidden jewels they so desired, and if they were underground, well, they would dig for them!

    But what if hidden gems are not always jewels?

    Even Sparrow, the death-defying pirate who escapes prison, steals ships, drinks copious amounts of rum and loves treasure, says:

    “Not all treasure is silver and gold, mate.”

    Treasure is “wealth stored up or hoarded, something of great worth or value” and “a collection of precious things,” according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary. In terms of natural resources, water is a treasure.

    Water is crucial for humans. Water is also a critical worldwide currency and supports life as we know it. Beyond using water for cooking, cleaning, or washing, water is critical for supporting agricultural crops, farms and, therefore, our food sources. In many communities, water also has a spiritual value, more than a monetary or physical value. In New Zealand, the Whanganui River even has personhood status, highlighting just how important water is.

    Considered a natural treasure, water is extremely precious in dry, arid regions with little rainfall or annual precipitation, meaning plants and animals must adapt to limited water sources. The same applies to agriculture; farmers must adapt in dry regions, using water sparingly and wisely. In these regions, it is essential to understand where water comes from and goes to and how it is potentially stored underground upstream from agricultural land.

    Buried treasure, some might say.

    In the arid Chilean Andes, this treasure is buried in mountain peatland.

    Peatlands are wetlands with layers of compact and partially decomposed plants and organic material (i.e., dead and decaying plants) in water-logged soil. If you’ve heard of the “Tollund Man” (a well-preserved body from the Iron Age), then you’ve heard of peatland. Peatland may have standing water or vast swaths of very soggy ground, as pictured below. This makes it difficult to immediately understand their capacities to hold water.

    Great Kemeri Bog, Latvia. Photo by: Runa S. Lindebjerg, CC BY 2.0 (Flickr)

    Shelly MacDonell (Lincoln University) and a team led by Remi Valois and Nicole Schaffer investigated the ability of Chilean peatland in the Elqui Valley to store water and estimated its role in delivering water to agricultural areas via streams.

    The researchers chose a peatland (bofedal) in Spanish, called “Piuquenes” for their study because of its central location compared to surrounding peatlands and its elevation (approximately 3000 meters above sea level), making it a great representation of other Chilean alpine peatlands. This peatland was also chosen based on a proposal to place a dam at the edge of Piuquenes for agricultural water control downstream.

    To study the inner workings of Piuquenes, the researchers had to look below the surface. Picture someone on the beach using a metal detector to find potentially valuable items under the surface (like a modern-day pirate), and that is a very simplified view of the tools used to visualize the geology and structure of the peatland below the surface. However, using Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) and Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT), the researchers were able to create a 3D image of what might be under the surface. Through this 3D image, they could calculate the potential storage capacity (volume) of the studied peatland and estimate the role of high-alpine peatland in the area’s water cycle.

    According to estimates by researchers, the peatland itself could hold between 164,000 and 243,000m3 of water. That’s between 66 and 97 Olympic-sized swimming pools worth of water!

    The study found that the Piuquenes peatland can actually contribute water to lower agricultural regions downstream. However, the peatland is also vulnerable to water loss through evapotranspiration, which is a fancy word for water that evaporates and is lost from the vegetation and soil.

    Despite this water loss, researchers determined that Piuquenes was still important for supporting the surrounding ecosystems and could still act as a significant reservoir (i.e., source of water) for downstream agriculture and livestock grazing. They also discovered that the peatland could shield the area from drought impacts because of its water capacity. This means Piuquenes peatland could deliver water to grazing and low land agricultural areas via streams and limit the most severe effects of drought even in low-rain seasons.

    In addition to storing water, the Piuquenes peatland can also help produce soil from the slow build-up of decaying plants, store carbon, help plants grow and provide watered grazing areas for livestock.

    Understanding the inner workings of Piuquenes advances our knowledge of high-alpine peatland and its natural benefits to lowland agriculture. This study also adds valuable information to the discussion of if and how a dam should be built at the edge of this high-alpine peatland.

    Piuquenes, although located in the Chilean Andes, is an excellent example of how critical preserving and conserving peatlands worldwide.

    Studies have further investigated the secrets and treasures of peatlands, such as the carbon storage capacity, internal chemistry and nutrient cycling effects on methane emissions, proving that peatland continues to be a valuable ecosystem and that there is indeed treasure hidden beneath the surface.

    Peatland in Torronsuo National Park, Tammela, Finland. Photo by: Tero Laakso, CC BY 2.0 (Flickr)

    Current efforts have also focused on how to conserve these valuable landscapes and how local management initiatives could be applied worldwide. For example, Global Peatlands Initiative is a group dedicated to informing people about the importance of peatlands and keeping you updated on peatlands around the world.

    I’m pretty sure Jack Sparrow wasn’t referring to peatland as the treasure in his quote about silver and gold, but he was on the right track. If only he had known about the inconspicuous treasure hidden in the high reaches of the Andes!

    So, next time you’re on a swashbuckling adventure, keep your eyes open for what might be lurking under the surface and could be even more precious than silver or gold.

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

    P.S. Here is a really cool (and short) video about Peatland Protection from the UN!

  • 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.

  • 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

  • Island life, saviour of the wrybill

    I’ve never been so pleased to see the braids of a river than when I finally escaped the jaws of the Waimakariri Gorge in my kayak, as part of the Coast to Coast race. A braided river brings not just relief from roaring bluff corners, and the threat of capsizing my kayak, but a peaceful place that unusual birds decide to call home.

    Rakaia River, NZ (Geoff Leeming, 2006, CC BY-NC 2.0, via flickr)

    One such creature is the Wrybill or Ngutu parore. It’s the only bird in the world with a laterally curved beak (bending to the side)! Sadly, this little bird faces many threats. In 2008 some optimism was found in the research of Duncan, Hughey, Cochrane and Bind (River Modelling to better manage mammalian predator access to islands in braided rivers). The paper explained how particular characteristics of braided rivers could be used to support successful breeding of braided river birds, including our wee friend, the Wrybill.

    Braided rivers are made up of multiple threads of flowing water, with islands found between the threads. The researchers knew that these islands provided a safe place for endangered breeding birds, with the water flowing around them providing a partial barrier to a major threat –

    Wrybill
    (57Andrew, 2007, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0, via flickr)

    introduced mammalian predators, such as hedgehogs, rats, mice, stoats, weasels, ferrets and cats.

    It was already known that water extraction, narrowing and stop-banking of rivers impacted the flow of water in the braids, but little was known about the optimal flow of water or the required characteristics of the islands to support breeding birds. Models were used to determine the number and area of islands needed for successful breeding. The researchers found that certain levels of water flow preserve islands large enough for nesting (larger than 2 hectares) and protect the area from mammalian predators or weed invasion. This information was used to recommend abstraction rates on braided rivers during peak breeding season. They did conclude that using photos in the research would increase understanding of how islands change in different flows.

    One of the authors, Ken Hughey, was from Lincoln University and his PhD, back in 1985, looked at factors impacting the breeding of braided river birds in Canterbury. He studied five different birds: Wrybill, Banded dotterel, Black-fronted tern, Pied stilt, and the South Island pied oystercatcher. Among other things, Ken found that higher levels of predation on birds occur where there were lower flows of water and lower numbers of channels or threads in the river. He recommended that minimum flow levels should be higher during the breeding season to protect the nesting birds. The 2008 study builds on this understanding and provides information not just about the flow of water needed, but also the size of the islands required to protect the nesting birds.

    This study has been used in subsequent research in New Zealand around maintaining river flows in braided rivers. This is unsurprising given braided rivers are rare around the world and Canterbury is known as New Zealand’s braided river hotspot. The themes within the research were around maintaining river flow levels, predator and weed control, maintaining river islands, and water abstraction. Advances since this work seems to be focussed on weed control and the impacts of hydropower to braided river systems.

    It appears that the messages about the importance of minimum flows and island size in braided rivers for breeding birds are getting through. The Regional Council in Canterbury (ECAN) refers to the importance of flows in preserving the ecology of the river for breeding river birds in the Canterbury Water Management Strategy and the Canterbury Land and Water Regional plan. The knowledge that came from the research by Duncan, Hughey, Cochrane and Bind, and subsequent research, has clearly shown how local communities think about braided rivers and informed how they care for them. This is demonstrated by the Ashley Rakahuri River Care Group in 2022, when they made a submission to the ECAN to raise concerns about gravel extraction on the Ashley Rakahuri River and how this will impact the islands needed by birds to breed safely.

    This approach also appears to complement work by the Predator Free 2050 campaign regarding pest control within braided river environments. I was intrigued as to how the authors felt the research was received and asked one of them, Ken Hughey, about the impact. He said it ultimately led to high flows being recommended and resourcing for predator control on the islands. Sounds like a great result!

    New Zealand Map (mhx, 2010, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0, via Flickr)

    Undertaking research consumes your life while you are doing it. It is fascinating to see the journey from conception to the completed work and then how it informs environmental work moving forward.

    The Wrybill is still classed as vulnerable and there is work to be done, but this research has added valuable insight into flow regimes for braided rivers. It has highlighted the importance not just preserving islands for breeding birds, but ensuring they are above a certain size. It has prompted further research, and informed councils and charitable groups on how to best support endangered braided river birds, like our wee friend the Wrybill. I’m sure there shall be some grateful kayakers out there too! I shall sign off this blog with an image of the Wrybill making the most of his unique laterally curved beak.

    This article was prepared by Master of Environmental Policy and Management student Katherine Manning as part of the ECOL608 Research Methods in Ecology course.

    Wrybill/Ngutuparore (Shellie, 2016, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0, via Flickr)

    Here is a full citation for the article:

    Duncan, M.J., Hughey, K.F.D., Cochrane, C.H., Bind, J. (2008) River modelling to better manage mammalian predator access to islands in braided rivers. Exeter, UK: British Hydrological Society 10th National Hydrology Symposium: Sustainable Hydrology for the 21st Century, 15-17 Sep 2008. 487-492

  • 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 .

  • Life near the edge: same dung, different day

    Although I was vaguely aware of dung beetles and their role in the ecosystem, I finally became interested in them while participating in giraffe research in South Africa. I’ll never forget the time when I was finishing up my giraffe work for the day and I stopped to watch a couple of dung beetles who were squabbling over a single ball of dung (poop). What I had perceived to be a relatively gentle disagreement escalated quickly when I watched one demolish the other with a long-time favourite move from the World Wrestling Foundation, the Brainbuster. You know the one.


    Dung beetles play an essential role in the environment. However, they fly a bit under the radar, which is why they are often called nature’s “unsung heroes.” There are over 100 species of dung beetle, each choosing one of three strategies: rolling, tunneling, or dwelling in dung. Not only do they eat and live in animal dung, but they increase the freak by reproducing in it and burying it. This ensures their offspring have plenty of food for when they hatch. 

    As gross as it is, this burying behavior strongly limits the growth of vertebrate parasites, which is tremendously helpful to the rest of the ecosystem. They help remove animal dung from the surface environment with incredible efficiency and speed. In some places, the beetles can eliminate a pile of dung in less than 10 minutes, where the ground would otherwise be carpeted with it.

    Dung beetles are very widespread, found in many different habitats across all continents except Antarctica. Like many species, dung beetles appear to be harmed by the break-up of natural environments. This fragmentation reduces the size of undisturbed, or core, habitat in the centre and creates isolated habitat patches. The environment along the edge of a habitat is usually quite different from the core. In forests, for example, it’s typically windier and sunnier at the edge of the forest than in the centre. 

    Edges are not only susceptible to environmental challenges, but also to human impacts. They are more vulnerable to fire, as well as illegal harvesting or collecting of plants or animals by humans, simply because they are more easily accessible. Some of these impacts along the edges don’t stay localized, but can radiate into the core habitat as well.

    Edges are in fact an important habitat, because they support species that like transitions between different habitats. However, as humans continue to break up large habitats, with roads or communities for example, the amount of edge habitat increases, while core habitat shrinks. This challenges the animals that rely on core habitat. Additionally, the edges of habitats typically support fewer species than the core. We don’t want to consistently change habitats around the world to ones that support similar and fewer species. 

    Buffer zones are areas around a sensitive, often legally protected, environment that are typically managed to reduce edge impacts on the borders of a sensitive area. Sometimes buffer zones have methods to exclude humans or livestock, such as fences. Sometimes they are simply designated areas without active protection measures. Relatively little is understood about how effective buffer zones actually are for some species.

    Back to dung beetles, we typically see fewer individuals and a less diverse group of dung beetles along habitat edges than in the core, because they are a group that tends to be quite affected by human activities. For example, because they are in constant contact with dung, they are exposed to pesticides that livestock ingest, which has been causing population declines. But how do buffer zones impact dung beetle diversity and density along the edge of protected habitats?

    Andrew Barnes and his colleagues, including the late Rowan Emberson from Lincoln University, decided to find out. The montane rainforests in Sub-Saharan Africa are shrinking rapidly, largely due to deforestation for agriculture and grazing. There is also nearby habitat decline that often comes with agriculture. The Ngel Nyaki forest reserve in Nigeria is a heavily fragmented area. To test how dung beetles would respond to increasing edge effects, the researchers applied experimental habitat restoration treatments to certain areas along the edges. For the restoration, researchers excluded livestock with fencing, created and maintained firebreaks to help block fire, and allowed passive natural regrowth of the floral community. This combined restoration occurred in 200 metre buffer zones over the course of three years.

    The impact of these buffer zones was remarkable. In the forest next to the restoration area, the dung beetle population size increased by over 50% compared to the unrestored areas. Perhaps more important was the difference between dung beetle populations in the edge and habitats. Before the restoration, there were many more species of dung beetles in the habitat core and relatively few in the edge. After the restoration, that difference disappeared, meaning that the buffer zones successfully mitigated the challenges that are typical of edges for dung beetles. The restoration also led to the return of certain species that had previously locally disappeared in the degraded habitat.

    These changes are incredibly pronounced and occurred after only three years and with small levels of restoration. While firebreaks do require active maintenance, it is encouraging that even relatively minor land-use changes around protected areas can make a world of difference for many species. Relatively few studies have been completed about the effectiveness of buffer zones, so this is a single, but vital, drop in a much larger pot of conservation decisions. 

    After all, we want all dung beetle species to survive, no matter how gross or freaky, to tidy up after vertebrates and perhaps to get more inspiration for wrestling moves.

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

    Barnes, A.D., Emberson, R.M., Chapman, H.M., Krell, F-T., & Didham, R.K. (2014). Matrix habitat restoration alters dung beetle species responses across tropical forest edges. Biological Conservation, 170: 28-37. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.12.006

  • Testing new bait coatings for conservation

    Mickey Mouse and Scabbers the Rat, are causing biodiversity loss in Aotearoa, New Zealand. They are committing crimes against some of our most endangered wildlife and arriving uninvited to the party. Protecting our taonga falls into the hands of conservationists and wildlife managers. New research plays a vital role in protecting our precious taonga.

    Menacing mouse – a little creature creating a big problem. Photo by Nils Fleischeuer (CC BY-NC)

    Would you be surprised to read that mice (Mus musculus) have been recorded eating live albatross (300 times their size)? I sure was! How could a little mouse possibly kill a bird known for having the largest wingspan in the world? Sadly, lots of albatross die from mouse predation every year. When mice aren’t eating albatross, they dine on many species of insects, chicks, eggs and lizards.

    If mice are so terrible, what about rats? There are three species of rat in Aotearoa, the Norway rat Rattus norvegicus, Black rat Rattus rattus and the Polynesian rat Rattus exulans. They are all bad news – they kill adult birds, chicks, snails and insects. They also compete for food that should be there for our native fauna.

    Due to the negative impacts of these rodents, and other introduced predators, many of New Zealand’s most critically endangered fauna are whisked away to predator-free off-shore islands. Some are protected behind expensive predator-resistant fences. PHEW, job completed, right? Not so fast!

    Despite eviction notices, Micky and Scabbers can wriggle their way back into our protected areas. Maybe it’s a quick hop along a fallen tree that bridges the now not so “predator-resistant” fence or a long swim to an off-shore island. When they do appear, we need to have proven tools in the toolbox to deal with them. One of the tools to control them is cereal poison bait.

    These baits are like your breakfast cereal in that they are made from similar ingredients – apart from the poison! Picture this: you reach for your new box of breakfast cereal in the morning and notice an open, very much neglected, box of cereal sitting at the back of your pantry. It’s been there for so long you can’t remember opening it (or you’ve just been ignoring it for many months). It smells stale and has gone slightly soggy, so you bin it, knowing full well that it will taste nasty.

    A good rat is a dead rat! Photo by Jacqui Geux, iNaturalist NZ, (CC-BY)

    Bait stations are used to protect the bait from the rain. However, just like you with your open box of stale cereal, mice and rats also have preferences when it comes to eating their cereal. The longer that bait is stored inside bait stations, the less palatable it is to rodents, the less they eat and the longer it continues to sit and weather.

    To make things worse, the bait stations are often irregularly serviced, so wildlife managers need a bait that stays palatable to mice and rats for as long as possible. This is an issue on remote predator-free islands and fenced predator-resistant sanctuaries that have difficult access and limited funds. Stale or mouldy bait in particular will not control rodents if they aren’t even going to eat it.

    If only there was a way to prevent baits from absorbing moisture and going mouldy – keeping the bait fresh for longer so that mice and rats were more likely to eat it when they come across it …

    This is where researchers at Lincoln University (NZ), James Ross and colleagues, had an idea to coat the baits in a material that will do just these things. Also the material will not reduce the palatability of the baits to mice and rats. To test this idea, they created an experiment using two coatings, Polyvinyl butyral (PVB) and Shellac. Shellac is already used as a food glaze and as a coating to mask the bitter taste of Paracetamol/Acetaminophen. Shellac is also fully biodegradable, which makes it environmentally friendly.

    The coatings were tested using four combinations of the aforementioned substances. First, they had to ensure the new coatings didn’t reduce the palatability compared to uncoated baits. If mice and rats do not eat the new bait coatings, it would be a waste of time to test them further. If Whitakers coated your favourite chocolate bar in something strange, you might take one bite and decide that the new “sardines & whipped cream” coated chocolate bar was not your vibe.

    This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 518244606_bcc3409a3a_c.jpg
    An easy pill to swallow – A Panadol tablet, commonly coated in Shellac. (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) Photo by venana, Flickr. 

    The researchers also had to measure whether coated pellets remained palatable after extended environmental exposure because this is highly likely how mice and rats will find the baits in the real world. In the experiment the coatings were placed on the food the captive rats and mice were fed on. Mice, and more so rats, are neophobic (afraid of new things). So placing new food in their cages might affect the results in such a way that the researchers are measuring the wrong thing. Putting the coatings on their food means their wary responses will be minimised, since they eat rodent pellets every day. After the mice and rats had munched their way through their favourite snacks, the bowls were weighed, and the results were in – Shellac for the win.

    There were differences between the bait coating combinations; Shellac was the most palatable, it performed the best for both mice and rats. Shellac out preformed the PVB coating and the mix of PVB/Shellac. This experiment demonstrated that mice and rats are picky eaters and highlights the importance of testing the different coating types. Coatings, although no thicker than 500 micrometers (really thin), will affect how much mice and rats will eat. Ironic given that mice and rats will eat out of a trash can – now we know they are fussily searching for the “best rubbish”.

    This research is a step in the right direction for conservation in Aotearoa. I call it a small win for the native fauna. With Shellac showing promising signs, researchers and wildlife managers can test the new bait coatings in the field. Wild Mickey and Scabbers can try out some of the mould free, ‘fresh as can be’ Shellac bait. So next time Mickey and Scabbers arrive uninvited to the party, it may be the last thing they do.

    This article was prepared by Master of Pest Management student Nils Fleischeuer as part of the ECOL608 Research Methods in Ecology course.