EcoLincNZ

Category: wildlife management

  • Sounds idyllic

    As a kid I explored the waters of the Marlborough Sounds. I caught my first fish there at seven years old and, one New Year’s day, my biggest snapper weighing about 25 pounds. I have been awed by watching fish and bird feeding frenzies- the food chain in practice. I learnt to dive off boats in emerald waters and spent many evenings watching the sunset and roasting s’mores at an isolated and tranquil DOC campsite. A place we call our “bach”.

    But I have never seen a Southern Right Whale, nor an Elephant Seal, or a Waitaha Penguin, in the Marlborough Sounds. Prior to my childhood it was a different Marlborough Sounds. Stephen Urlich and Sean Handley delve into the historical changes of this beautiful location, exploring how food webs have been disrupted since human settlement. The aim of the study was to address knowledge gaps by taking an integrated approach to examining how land use has impacted on coastal ecosystems.

    Stephen and Sean focused on keystone species. They traced the history of whaling in Port Underwood, within the Sounds. When John Guard’s first whaling ship entered the harbour in 1828, whales were abundant. Sadly, by 1836, there were 18 vessels sending out 70 whaling boats to chase these majestic creatures. Whaling led to a significant transformation of the Sounds’ ecosystem.

    Image by Author- Out in the Sounds

    Keystone species, like the Southern Right Whale, play a crucial role in transferring energy within the coastal food web. Their role as ecosystem engineers, essential for habitat formation, was lost by human greed. Sadly, as the authors remind us, the Southern Right Whale was not the first animal hunted by humans in the Sounds. During Maori colonisation, the Elephant Seal, New Zealand Fur Seal, New Zealand Sea Lion, and Waitaha Penguin were all harvested. Hunting led to the decline of the Fur Seal population and the local extinction of the Sea Lion, Elephant Seal, and the Waitaha Penguin.

    What is happening to our waterways? Who is responsible for the ongoing transformation of precious natural environments? Us. Once the habitats of the Marlborough Sounds flourished. The study highlights that in the past, there were various subtidal habitats formed by species such as giant kelp forests, as well as communities of hydroids and sponges. As early as 1863 there was dredging for oysters in the Tory Channel and trawling began in 1904. Both of these disturbed the habitat and permanently changed the landscape. Since the 1970s, commercial enterprises of dredging for subtidal green-lipped mussels has been destroying these habitats.

    The destruction has continued into my lifetime. For example, in the dramatic 2021 floods , my friends bach slid down a hill. A shocking destruction of a home filled with memories. But the hidden impact of mud slides is far more devastating. Mudslides cause excessive amounts of brown sediment to be displaced from the land, settling in the Sounds and leading to extensive physical disturbance to vulnerable habitats.

    Image by Author- Commercial Mussels Farms

    But why so brown? Once Europeans arrived the Sounds continued to change. By the 1970s pine plantations had become widespread and clear felling had begun. Harvested and existing forest makes up about 18% of the land surface in the Marlborough Sounds but contributes to around 65% of landslides in 2021 and 2022 (Hart, 2023). Over the last 50 years sediment accumulation rates skyrocketed and continue to remain elevated. This is seen clearly in the Havelock estuary, which increased soft mud habitat by 34 ha from 2001 to 2014. Steep indigenous forested areas also receive this rainfall but are unrepresented in the slip data.

    The idea of ecosystem-based management (EBM) is also promoted by Urlich and Handley as a way of improving the catchment management. The suggested aim for Marlborough Sounds would be to restore ecological functions so that biodiversity can be maintained. Marine protection is an important part of EBM in New Zealand. It helps to protect remaining high quality habitat and can help with the recovery of more diverse habitats. With proper management maybe one day we will be able to see the return of more mussel beds and marine mammals.

    Is New Zealand really ‘Clean and Green’? Maybe on the surface. But what is happening to habitats in places like the tranquil depths of the Marlborough Sounds? The factors impacting marine habitats are often not well understood. Urlich and Handley suggest that the Marlborough Sounds could rather be referred to ‘brown and down’. This is partially due to the fragmented nature of marine management, where various institutions operate at different scales under diverse legislation.

    Image by Author – My campsite “bach”

    Urlich and Handley highlight that the current marine protection of the Sounds is inadequate as there is only one fully protected reserve. The management of habitats outside this reserve has become an ongoing legal issue. Since the 1880s, calls for additional marine protection within the Sounds has been disregarded. Conservation effort in the Marlborough Sounds is extremely challenging. This study highlights the urgent need for transformative changes in the Marlborough Sounds. It is suggested that the EBM needs to focus on managing seabed disturbance, reducing sedimentation and including Matauranga Maori ecosystem-based management. The EBM has the opportunity to change the narrative back to clean and green from ‘brown and down’ by providing innovative management (Urlich & Handley, 2020).

    Now, when I go out in the Marlborough Sounds, where I was once catching multiple snapper, I am now spending days catching absolutely nothing. With hindsight I need to ask myself: was I part of the problem? Recreational overfishing has contributed to a decline in species.

    Additionally, where once I was surrounded by deep blue sea, now it is often a murky mix. It is time for Marlburians, and New Zealanders as a whole, to take responsibility. We don’t want a collapsing, deteriorating ecosystem. We want an ecosystem that thrives. We want to restore ecological resilience. We want generations to come and sit on remote beaches in the Sounds, benefiting from a thriving ecosystem.

    This article was prepared by Applied Science Postgraduate Diploma student Hannah Smit as part of the ECOL608 Research Methods Class. 

    Urlich. S.C., Handley. S.J. (2020). From ‘Clean and Green’ to ‘Brown and Down’: A synthesis of historical changes to biodiversity and marine ecosystems in the Marlborough Sounds New Zealand. Ocean and Coastal Management. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569120302593 

    Hart, M. (2023). Human activity a ‘dominant factor’ in Marlborough Sounds Slips. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/ldr/494507/human-activity-a-dominant-factor-in-marlborough-sounds-slips 

  • Wilderness and the New Zealand mind

    “Wilderness was the basic ingredient of American culture. From the raw materials of the physical wilderness, Americans built a civilization. With the idea of wilderness they sought to give their civilization identity and meaning.” – Roderick Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind

    Since the advent of the wilderness preservation movement in nineteenth-century America, protecting wild places has meant more than simply protecting pristine ecosystems. Despite the priceless value our world’s rapidly diminishing untouched landscapes hold for biodiversity conservation, wilderness preservation has first and foremost been a cultural mission.

    Doubtful Sound, Fiordland National Park – Rod Waddington, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

    Roderick Nash described wilderness not as a type of ecosystem but as a “state of mind.” Investigating this mindset reveals much about our reasons for protecting nature and what nature means to our society. The people of New Zealand decided very early on that its natural landscapes were worth protecting, especially its most wild and remote places. Wilderness areas are now considered a “defining characteristic” of New Zealand, with many citizens feeling a sense of “pride” and “identity” with these wild areas.

    Wild nature, as opposed to pastoral or modified landscapes, provides many people a source of connection to the natural world that transcends typical nature amenity values. People who visit wilderness areas report experiences of the sublime, of incredible beauty, of solitude and personal growth, of the unrivalled rewards of physical challenge and overcoming risk, and of a connection with nature that is no less than spiritual. But while wild places are by definition areas with as little human modification as possible, their preservation and meaning in society are entirely human.

    University of Lincoln researcher Kerry Wray wrote their doctoral thesis on the meaning behind New Zealander’s relationship with wilderness. Kerry identified how differences in wilderness valuation say much about the country’s human-nature relationship and its internal conflicts. Wray’s thesis covers how reasons for conserving nature can come from our desire for a life of meaning and connection and how this desire can direct the course of an entire nation.

    Nations, as well as individuals, look to their landscapes for identity. Where we come from often says much about who we are. New Zealand became one of the first countries in the world to establish national parks, starting in 1892. The government enacted legislation that officially recognised national parks as “areas of New Zealand that contain scenery of such distinctive quality, ecological systems or natural features so beautiful, unique, or scientifically important that their preservation is in the national interest.” They saw them as so valuable and essential to the essence of the country’s identity that they should also be preserved in “perpetuity.”

    Statue of Sir Edmund Hillary in Mount Cook/Aoraki National Park – Geof Wilson, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

    As the country set out to preserve its landscapes it did so in a way that reflected the collective personality of the nation’s citizens. The colonial inhabitants of this land saw themselves as pioneers and explorers. As the country transitioned from colony to statehood, it looked for ways to distinguish itself. It looked towards its unpeopled valleys, deep fjords, and soaring peaks.

    Vast swathes of wild New Zealand were and remain unlike any environment in Europe and the people that explored them saw themselves as likewise distinct. The country aimed to preserve areas for backcountry tramping and hunting, celebrating their cultural love of adventure, self-sufficiency, and exploration. And so, with a provision in the 1952 National Parks Act for remote places, the country became one of the earliest adopters of the wilderness preservation movement in the world, setting aside immense areas with policies more strict than any other country.

    There are now 6 designated wilderness areas in the country, with many more remote areas that are effectively managed as wilderness. Wilderness in New Zealand is now, mainly under the 1985 Wilderness Policy, legally considered a place undisturbed by humanity, free from infrastructure including the most basic of modifications, such as huts, bridges, signs, and even tracks.

    Wilderness preservation polices have now spread around the world, with leading international conservation organizations emphasising their immense ecological and cultural value, such as the European Commission’s issue of wilderness management guidelines, definitions, and calls for further preservation. The International Union for Conservation of Nature has created a global classification and management guidelines system for wilderness areas. There are also non-profits with storied conservation legacies, such as the Wild Foundation and Wilderness International. It was largely due to the inspired efforts of the Federated Mountain Clubs‘ love of remote back-country experiences that New Zealand wilderness now ranks among the most wild and protected in the world.

    The wilderness area of Fiordland National Park, now a World Heritage Area, is the largest and most representative of the country’s wild nature. It was here in 1773 that Captain Cook moored when plotting New Zealand on the world map. It was here in Fiordland that advancements in species conservation were made as early as the nineteenth century with the protection of entire off-shore islands and the conservation efforts of some of the world’s rarest birds, such as the kākāpō and takahē.

    In Fiordland, the ethos of wilderness preservation has led to the protection of the largest expanse of native forest in the country. For trampers, it is the most remote one can get on the mainland. However, it is also home to three of the nation’s Great Walks and a national park attracting nearly 1 million visitors a year.

    The Darran Mountains, Fiordland National Park – Dan Nelson, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

    “Fiordland National Park represents a legacy of every New Zealander, for every park visitor; a cherished corner of the world where mountains and valleys compete with each other for room, where scale is almost beyond comprehension, rainfall is measured in metres, and scenery encompasses the broadest width of emotions. It is a place of solitude, of retreat, of quiet rejuvenation… Welcome to Fiordland, land of the last retreat” – Department of Lands & Survey 1986

    The increasing demand for access to wilderness areas and their peripheries is not only putting pressure on these fragile ecosystems but on users’ values as well. For one person, the Fiordland wilderness means the Milford Highway and they may bemoan the lack of tracks that enter into deeper sections of the park. While for others, wilderness is not reached until hiking several days away from the Park into untracked valleys and may picket propositions to improve trails and build huts. How the Crown decides to manage these conflicting user expectations can direct the course of nature conservation in New Zealand as a whole, a country with more ecotourists and backcountry users every year.

    Which values will be prioritised? What interpretation of wilderness will be used in future? And, is the idea of wilderness always appropriate? Can it be harmful?

    Sign in Kauri National Park – Eli Duke, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

    With over a third of the country set aside for conservation and with one of the most extensive and strictly defined wilderness preservation systems in the world, New Zealand is a model case study in the phenomenon of wilderness preservation. But it is a phenomenon that is only beginning to come to terms with its colonial heritage.

    That word, wilderness, as well as its connotation, do not translate well out its Germanic language roots. Many people and cultures around the world have differing conceptions and values of wild places. And the Europeans who pioneered the idea paid little attention to human-nature relationships already present in these allegedly pristine or “Edenic” places.

    Indigenous peoples were the first to suffer from modern conservation strategies. Not only were they displaced from their lands but their heritage and legacy were ignored or erased. For example, nearly all wilderness areas in the United States were inhabited by native peoples before being designated. The European-American cultural idea of civilization vs wild nature imposed itself atop hundreds of years of indigenous peoples’ heritage with these ‘wild’ places. Wilderness preservation has led to the degradation of global indigenous heritage and even overt oppression.

    Countries around the world are now reassessing their relationship with nature conservation, including New Zealand. The future of Fiordland National Park, with its 800-900 year history of Māori inhabitation, has complex and competing human-nature relationships to be considered. Certain conservation lands throughout the country are now being reclaimed by iwi. Concessions are being made to allow customary use of natural resources across Crown Land. Wilderness areas are now being criticised for concealing indigenous heritage and restricting rights.

    The wilderness landscape of New Zealand played a large role in the creation of a national identity and a conservation agenda post-independence. Now again the idea of wilderness will play a role in how the country decides to manage its conservation lands and for whom.

    Nature conservation in New Zealand means more than saving the endangered birds. It has to do with culture, the quest for identity and beauty, and now, also, justice. There are many definitions of wilderness but all of them speak of a place somehow both lacking in humanity and a place to be sought, a wasteland and a wellspring of emotion, somewhere unmarked by human hands yet telling of our passions.

    The road into Aoraki Mount Cook National Park – /\ltus, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

    Kerry’s work is a landmark piece in the academic discussion of New Zealand wilderness management. The many intangible values of wilderness and its environmental justice issues make it a complex idea to study or even casually talk about. Yet, Kerry’s endeavor describes why wilderness values are so important and demonstrates that it is possible to study them and produce substantive ideas for addressing its many complex problems.

    William Cronon’s famous critique of wilderness preservation called wilderness a “monument to the nation’s past.” The mounting challenges to conservation lands press our eyes forward. How we decide to value our world’s diminishing wilderness speaks to how we will value nature all together and what the future landscape of this country will look like.

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

  • Repelling New Zealand’s deer: keeping the target on predators

    Imagine walking through the lush forests of New Zealand, where native birds sing and the ecosystem thrives. For many, the thrill of hunting deer adds to the adventure, as these animals are both prized game and an integral part of the environment. However, lurking within this paradise are predators, like possums and rats, which threaten the very fabric of this delicate ecosystem.

    To combat these problem predators, New Zealand has employed a controversial yet effective method: aerial 1080 poison drops. These toxins are effective against pests but can inadvertently harm other wildlife, including the beloved white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus).

    White Tailed Buck.
    Brad Smith. July 3rd 2006

    White-tailed deer are not native to New Zealand; they were introduced for hunting in the early 20th century. Despite being an introduced species, they have established a stable population and have become an important part of New Zealand’s hunting culture, especially the population on Stewart Island. Protecting them is crucial not only for maintaining biodiversity but also for supporting the recreational and economic benefits associated with deer hunting.

    Recent studies have shed light on how we can minimise this collateral damage by using deer repellents. Let’s dive into the findings and their implications for both wildlife management and conservation.

    New Zealand’s unique biodiversity is under constant threat from invasive species. Possums, rats, and stoats prey on native birds, insects, and plants, disrupting natural ecosystems. To protect these vulnerable species, aerial drops of sodium fluoroacetate, commonly known as 1080, are used. This toxin is highly effective at reducing predator populations, but it’s not without its drawbacks. One significant concern is the unintended by-kill of non-target species, such as the white-tailed deer.

    Intensive ground-based searches for white-tailed deer carcasses were conducted in the Dart Valley/Routeburn catchments following the aerial application of 1080 cereal pellets as part of the ‘Battle for the Birds’/Tiakina Ngā Manu predator control program in August 2014. Lincoln University PhD student Kaylyn Pinney, with her supervisors James Ross and Adrian Paterson, organised this search. Four areas, each 100 hectares in size, were searched over four days. The results were published in NZ Journal of Zoology.

    To estimate the effectiveness of their search, simulated deer carcasses were used. The success rate for finding these simulated carcasses was 78%. All actual white-tailed deer carcasses found contained traces of 1080 in their muscle tissue (ranging from 0.41 to 1.06 mg/kg). Based on these findings, researchers estimated that approximately 3.85 deer per 400 hectares died from 1080 poisoning. This translates to a potential mortality of about 146 white-tailed deer across the entire 15,215-hectare predator control area. These results suggest that recurrent predator control operations could impact the sustainability of white-tailed deer hunting. (For more on this see ‘Is it fair, for orcs and deer?’)

    Repellents are substances designed to deter animals from consuming certain items without causing them harm. In the context of predator control, deer repellents can be coated on 1080 baits to reduce the likelihood of deer ingesting the poison.

    Kaylyn Pinney then tested a deer repellent-coated 1080 bait to see if it could reduce the mortality of white-tailed deer during predator control operations. She tested two types of repellents: Epro Deer Repellent (EDR) and Pestex-DR. The study was divided into two parts: trials in a captive herd on the West Coast and monitoring of wild deer fitted with GPS collars in the Dart/Routeburn Valley in Otago, New Zealand.

    Routeburn Valley.
    yiwenjiang26, Routeburn vally closer up. March 10 2007.

    In the captive trials, five deer were presented with three types of cereal baits: non-repellent (NR), EDR-coated, and Pestex-DR-coated. The baits were placed in a controlled environment where deer could freely choose among them. The results were promising. The deer showed a clear aversion to the repellent-coated baits, with significantly less consumption compared to the non-repellent baits. The repellents appeared to be effective, though not infallible. One older buck did consume a single EDR-coated bait initially but avoided it afterward.

    The second part of the study involved monitoring ten wild deer equipped with GPS collars during a 1080 drop. To fit the deer with GPS collars, Kaylyn and crew captured the animals by tranquilising them and then attached the devices. Kaylyn could now track their movements and monitor their survival. The results were mixed. One deer, the youngest in the study, died from 1080 poisoning, suggesting that body size may play a role in susceptibility to the poison. Importantly, the study confirmed, however, that using EDR significantly reduced deer mortality compared to previous operations without repellents.

    While the study shows that repellents can reduce by-kill, there are challenges. Ensuring that every bait is adequately coated with repellent is crucial. Additionally, different deer may react differently to repellents, as observed with the older buck in the captive trial. Kaylyn suggests that using a lower concentration of 1080, such as 0.08%, could further reduce deer mortality, especially for smaller deer.

    The study also highlights the importance of understanding deer habitat use. The GPS collars allowed researchers to identify how much time the deer spent in different types of habitats. The varied exposure of the collared deer to the 1080 baits was influenced by their movement patterns and habitat preferences. Future studies should consider these factors to optimise bait distribution and minimize non-target impacts.

    1080 Warning Sign.
    Shaddon Waldie, 1080. July 30th 2009.

    These findings have significant implications for wildlife management and conservation in New Zealand. By using deer repellents like EDR and Pestex-DR, we can make predator control operations more targeted and reduce the unintended consequences for non-target species. This approach not only helps protect the native ecosystem but also addresses public concerns about the humane treatment of wildlife.

    The study underscores the need for continuous innovation and adaptation in conservation strategies. As we gain more insights into the behaviour and ecology of both target and non-target species, we can develop more effective and sustainable methods to preserve New Zealand’s unique biodiversity.

    The journey to protect New Zealand’s native species is complex and challenging. This study offers a glimmer of hope by demonstrating that deer repellents can significantly reduce the by-kill of white-tailed deer during aerial 1080 operations. While not perfect, these findings pave the way for more refined and humane conservation practices. As we continue to balance the needs of predator control with the protection of non-target wildlife, studies like this guide us toward a more sustainable and harmonious coexistence with nature.

    Imagine once again walking through those lush forests, now knowing that both the native birds and the majestic deer can thrive in a balanced ecosystem.

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

    Link to the main article

    Pinney, K. A., Ross, J. G., & Paterson, A. M. (2022). Assessing EDR and a novel deer repellent for reducing by-kill of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), during aerial 1080 operations. New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 49(3), 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/03014223.2021.1978510

    Additional Links and Further Reading

    New Zealand Department of Conservation

    The New Zealand Department of Conservation (DOC) website provides comprehensive information about New Zealand’s natural heritage, conservation efforts, and recreational opportunities. Key sections include:

    Parks & Recreation: Information on places to visit, activities, camping, and hiking.
    Nature: Details on native plants and animals, pest management, and habitats.
    Get Involved: Volunteering, funding opportunities, and educational resources.
    Our Work: Conservation projects, research, and monitoring programs.

    Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research

    The Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research website provides a wide range of information on New Zealand’s land environment and biodiversity. It covers research areas such as soil health, water management, biodiversity conservation, and climate change. Additionally, it offers resources for educators, data and mapping tools, and information on various conservation projects. The site also features sections for news, events, and opportunities for public involvement in environmental efforts.

    1080: An Overview

    The “1080: An Overview” page on the Predator Free NZ Trust website provides comprehensive information about the use of 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate) in New Zealand for predator control. It details what 1080 is, why it is used, its application methods, and its effectiveness. The page also covers the benefits and risks associated with 1080, including its impact on native species, non-target species, and the environment. Additionally, it includes examples of successful 1080 applications and addresses common concerns such as its impact on drinking water.

    Nugent, G., & Yockney, I. (2004). “Feral deer in New Zealand: current status and potential management.” New Zealand Journal of Zoology.
    This article discusses the status and management of feral deer populations in New Zealand.

    Morriss, G. (2007). “Epro Deer Repellent reduces by-kill of deer during aerial 1080 operations.” Landcare Research Report.
    This report provides detailed findings on the effectiveness of EDR in reducing non-target by-kill.

    Frampton, C. M., et al. (1999). “Efficacy of 1080 carrot baits in controlling possums.” New Zealand Journal of Ecology.
    This study examines the effectiveness of 1080 in controlling possum populations.

    Spalinger, D. E., et al. (1997). “Influence of learning and experience on foraging behavior of white-tailed deer.” Journal of Wildlife Management.
    This research explores how learning and experience affect deer foraging behavior.

    Bowen, L. H., et al. (1995). “Leaching rates of 1080 from RS5 cereal baits under simulated rainfall.” New Zealand Journal of Ecology.
    This paper discusses how environmental conditions affect the concentration of 1080 in baits.

    Pinney, M., et al. (2020). “Effectiveness of deer repellents in reducing non-target by-kill during predator control operations.” Journal of Wildlife Management.
    This study delves into the specific effects of deer repellents on non-target species during 1080 operations.

  • PredatorFreeNZ 2050: fantasy into reality

    High in the treetops of a lush forest, a group of native birds gathered together, their vibrant feathers glinting in the dappled sunlight. Excited chirps and melodic trills filled the air as they engaged in a lively conversation. Their voices carried the hopes and dreams of a restored ecosystem.

    Koru, a charismatic Tūī with iridescent feathers, fluttered his wings and cleared his throat. “Have you all heard the latest? The Humans are determined to make New Zealand predator-free by 2050!”

    The cheeky Kākāriki, a lively parakeet, interjected. “Can we truly reclaim our forests from the claws and jaws of those invaders?” A wise and observant Morepork owl, Ruru blinked his large, round eyes. “Is that so? Quite a lofty goal, but can they really do it?”

    Photo credit: CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Simeon W Flickr
    Red-crowned Kakariki, Photo credit: CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Simeon W, Flickr

    With its unique biodiversity, New Zealand is home to a huge array of species found nowhere else on Earth. However, many of these treasures face an existential threat from invasive predatory mammals, such as rats, stoats, and possums, introduced by human settlers centuries ago. These voracious predators ravage the native bird populations. Many species are now extinct, and more are now on the brink of extinction.

    Predator-Free New Zealand 2050 (PFNZ2050) was initiated in 2016 with an audacious aim of eradicating the most destructive trio of predators: possums, stoats, and rats; from New Zealand. This call for action echoed through the mountains and valleys, inspiring conservationists to make New Zealand, once again, a land of breathtaking beauty and thriving unique biodiversity. The ambitious aim of Predator Free 2050 is not without precedent. To date, New Zealand has successfully eradicated invasive mammals from 105 (admittedly much smaller) islands.

    In 2020, a journal article was published that assesses the feasibility and steps needed to achieve Predator Free 2050. it was written by James Ross, from the Centre for Wildlife Management and Conservation (CWMC) at Lincoln University, Grant Ryan from The Cacophony Project, Merel Jansen from the Department of Applied Biology, HAS University of Applied Sciences, Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands, and Tim Sjoberg, from the Taranaki Mounga Project. Together, these researchers have decades of experience controlling and monitoring pest mammals in New Zealand.

    The first step, removing predators with aerial 1080 poisoning and ground-based resetting traps, will help remove the majority of predators. A modified aerial 1080 approach, developed by Zero Invasive Predators (ZIP), can result in localised eradication. This was first tried in a 400-ha area at Mt. Taranaki in 2016, then at a 2,300-ha site in South Westland, using ground-based resetting traps. Regular servicing of resetting traps also gives better ground-based control results.

    Once pests have been eradicated from an area, the next big challenge is to defend the area from invasion. ZIP demonstrated how to defend predators from re-invasion in two sites using a “virtual barrier” of traps. A 2 km wide barrier of traps protected a 400-ha peninsula at Bottle Rock in the Marlborough Sounds. Using this virtual barrier of traps, ZIP prevented predators from re-invading at two sites, in the short term.

    Australian brushtail possums, initially introduced into New Zealand for the fur trade, and now one of the major pest mammals in New Zealand.
    Photo credit: CC BY-SA 2.0, Gnu Chris, Flickr

    Detecting the survivors is the next crucial phase for eradication, as any survivors can build a new population. The CWMC and Cacophony Project found that thermal cameras are 3.6 times more sensitive than trial cameras in detecting possums. Whilst trail cameras appear to improve detection rates, they do not always trigger when a small, fast-moving animal moves in front of them. These cameras also use infrared illumination at night, which may deter some animals.

    Thermal cameras are a new advanced technology that shows high sensitivity in detecting both small and large pest mammals. Because the motion detection is done using software, the sensitivity can easily be adjusted. Unlike trail cameras, thermal cameras do not require infrared illumination to operate at night.

    Videos collected by the thermal cameras are classified using AI technology (machine learning) trained on a library with more than 50,000 tagged videos. The AI can identify the animal species and only keep recordings for the target pests, which can be stored on-board the device or sent out using the cellular network.

    To achieve the PFNZ 2050 goal, detecting the last few individual pest mammals is complex and expensive. As a technical improvement in detection, ZIP has made an AI network of over 500 cameras across the Predator-free South Westland project area. The AI cameras use LoRa (low-powered radio technology) to send the information to solar-powered mini-satellites. The information is transferred to a web server that checks the information the next day. The AI cameras only need to be serviced twice a year to change the batteries. The AI cameras have reduced the time to detect one predator from around six weeks to just one day and have reduced the cost significantly.

    PFNZ2050 will require more innovative strategies, control tools, and wider public support to be successful in its ambitious challenge. Future control work will increasingly take place in and around urban areas. As such, the next most important advancement needs to be construct control tools that community groups can use. There should be a bottom-up-driven approach to community engagement in conservation so that as new technologies become available, the number and size of invasive mammal-free publicly and privately managed reserves can increase. In a recent study, people showed high support for species-specific toxins, but there is a shortage of funding for registration of these toxins.

    NZ has a 60-year history of eradicating pest mammals, from tiny 1-ha Maria Island to more than 11,000 ha Campbell Island, with suitable techniques and public support. This is an example of how the impossible becomes possible when passion, science, and community unite.

    With a final chorus of their harmonious calls, the native birds took flight, their wings carrying their hopes and aspirations to the corners of the land. From forests to cities, their songs echoed, touching the hearts of all who listened.


    This article was prepared by postgraduate student Mohamed Safeer as part of the ECOL 608 Research Methods in Ecology course for his Master of Pest Management degree.

  • Remove one NZ invasive mammal predator and another steps into its place

    Invasive species are a major concern for ecosystems worldwide, causing significant disruptions to native flora and fauna. Some mammals can have particularly devastating effects on local ecosystems due to their predatory nature. In the Hawke’s Bay, New Zealand, a recent study titled “Niche Partitioning in a Guild of Invasive Mammalian Predators” sheds light on the dynamics of invasive mammalian predators and their impact on the region’s native biodiversity.

    I’ll walk you through the key discoveries and explain why they hold immense importance in our understanding of niche partitioning and its implications for ecosystem management.

    Niche partitioning refers to the process by which species with similar ecological requirements coexist within an ecosystem by utilizing different resources or occupying different ecological niches. Niche partitioning reduces direct competition, promoting the coexistence of species that would otherwise struggle to survive in the same habitat.

    In Hawke’s Bay, a guild of invasive mammalian predators has established, comprising three key species: stoats(Mustela erminea), ferrets (Mustela furo), and feral cats (Felis catus). 

    These predators were introduced to New Zealand and have since wreaked havoc on many native bird populations. Recent studies have revealed an intriguing pattern of niche partitioning among these invaders, suggesting a potential balance within the guild.

    Camera traps were deployed in three seasons. Credit by Albert Salemgareyev/ACBK

    Researchers have observed distinct differences in the dietary preferences and hunting strategies among these invasive predators in Hawke’s Bay. These variations have allowed the species to exploit food, reducing direct competition and encouraging the peaceful coexistence of individuals.

    Stoats, being the smallest and most agile of the three predators, specialize in hunting rats, mice, and birds. Their slender bodies and keen sense of hearing enable them to pursue their prey with stealth and precision. Ferrets, on the other hand, are larger and more versatile, adapting to different types of prey or using various hunting techniques. Ferrets tend to target larger prey, such as rabbits and small hares, which they capture using their strength and speed. Feral cats, similar to stoats and ferrets, are solitary hunters, exhibiting a broader dietary range, preying on both small and medium-sized mammals, birds, and reptiles.

    While the predators may occasionally target overlapping prey species, they generally exhibit distinct foraging preferences and occupy different microhabitats. Stoats predominantly inhabit forested areas, where their excellent climbing abilities give them an advantage in pursuing prey in trees.  Ferrets, with their larger size and ground-based hunting strategies, are often found in open grasslands and shrublands. Feral cats, being highly adaptable, can exploit a range of habitats, from dense forests to human settlements.

    The phenomenon of niche partitioning among invasive predators in Hawke’s Bay has important implications for native species conservation. By occupying different ecological niches, these predators help reduce the burden on specific native animals in an indirect manner, allowing them to persist despite the presence of invaders.

    Bird species, in particular, have been heavily impacted by the invasion of mammalian predators. Native birds, such as kiwi, weka, and tui, have experienced population declines due to predation. However, the niche partitioning observed among invasive predators offers a glimmer of hope for the survival of some native bird species. For example, stoats target ground-dwelling birds, while ferrets focus on larger prey, like rabbits. This division of labour reduces the overall predation pressure on specific bird species and allows them to maintain a foothold in their respective habitats.

    Stoats are tricky to study. They are hard to find in the field and difficult to keep in captivity. Image from Adrian Paterson.

    Understanding the dynamics of niche partitioning among invasive mammalian predators can inform targeted conservation strategies. By recognizing the specific resources and habitats favored by each predator species, conservationists can create plans for managing natural areas that utilize the division of habitats to safeguard endangered native animals.
    Implementing effective trapping and removal programs, focused on the specific predators posing the greatest threat to certain bird species, can help alleviate their population declines.

    Habitat restoration initiatives aimed at enhancing native bird habitats, while creating barriers for invasive predators, can further support the survival and recovery of endangered species. For instance, Wellington, Zealandia is a 225-hectare fenced sanctuary dedicated to protecting and restoring native wildlife. The sanctuary is predator-free and provides a safe haven for endangered bird species like the tīeke (saddleback), kākā, and hihi (stitchbird). Zealandia also conducts active predator control outside the sanctuary to create a buffer zone for native birds.

    The study on niche partitioning among invasive mammalian predators in Hawke’s Bay offers valuable insights into the complex interactions within ecosystems and the potential consequences of invasive species on native biodiversity. These findings provide a foundation for conservation efforts and ecosystem management strategies aimed at mitigating the negative impacts of invasive predators on native flora and fauna. By understanding the dynamics of invasive species, we can work towards restoring and preserving the delicate balance of ecosystems, ultimately fostering a more sustainable future for our planet.

    Removing cats and ferrets from an ecosystem often has unforeseen consequences, as evidenced by the subsequent increase in site use by stoats. Stoats, cunning predators known for their ability to adapt to changing circumstances, have exploited the absence of cats and ferrets to their advantage. In the absence of these competitors, stoats have become more active during the day, closely following diurnal bird activity. This behavioral shift has raised concerns among conservationists, as it highlights the need for predator control measures to account for the specific hunting patterns and preferences of different predators.

    Failing to address this issue adequately could lead to a worse outcome for daylight birds, whose vulnerability to stoat predation may increase if their activities are not considered in predator control strategies. Therefore, it is crucial for ongoing conservation efforts to not only focus on removing invasive predators but also to consider the complex interactions among species and the potential cascading effects that may arise.

    This article was prepared by Master of International Nature Conservation student Albert Salemgareyev as part of the ECOL608 Research Methods in Ecology course. Albert won a prestigious Whitley Award for Conservation in 2023.

    Garvey, Patrick M., Alistair S. Glen, Mick N. Clout, Margaret Nichols, and Roger P. Pech. 2022. “Niche Partitioning in a Guild of Invasive Mammalian Predators.” Ecological Applications 32(4): e2566. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2566 

  • Toxins help rare birds

    As a birder, there is a unique and somewhat pure excitement to seeing a bird you’ve never seen before – at least that’s my experience. Spotting a “lifer” (a.k.a. a species ‘new to you’ in birding lingo) comes with a feeling of accomplishment, especially if the bird turns out to be rare. For example, I could still tell you when and where I saw my first California condor, Great bustard, or Rock wren/tuke. Some birders, or “twitchers” to separate them from more casual birdwatchers, even make somewhat of a sport out of seeing as many rare species as possible. I recommend watching “The Big Year” if you want to learn more about this and have a good laugh while you’re at it.

    As a conservation biologist, spotting a rare bird often brings about feelings other than excitement. After the initial high, it leaves a little bit of a bitter taste behind because, more often than not, there is a not-so-great reason why a bird is rare.

    I feel this particularly strongly when birdwatching in New Zealand, where introduced predators have wreaked havoc on the unique and vulnerable bird life and caused many species to disappear from large parts of their natural ranges. Many native birds now survive in wildlife sanctuaries and are difficult to spot in the wild.

    “Since the arrival of humans, [59 species of bird] have been recorded as lost to extinction as a result of changes to the landscape and the introduction of predatory mammals.”

    Te Mana o Te Taiao – Aotearoa New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy 2020

    While New Zealand’s charismatic rarities certainly are a great addition to any twitcher’s life list, I find it hard to forget that some of these species are on the brink of extinction. The birdwatcher and conservation biologist in me are at odds when I go birdwatching here, and I never know how to feel when spotting a rare bird. When I saw my first yellowheads/mohua near the Blue Pools by Haast Pass, I felt ecstatic and sombre at the same time – it’s quite the dilemma.

    Rock wren in Fiordland. © Antonia Ulle

    The upside is that New Zealanders know the value of their native wildlife and are committed to conserving it. Native birds, along with other indigenous species, are considered taonga and, as such, an important part of the country’s national identity – why else would a kiwi shooting laser beams have been such a popular design for New Zealand’s alternative flag back in 2015?

    Naturally, making rare species not as rare is one of the cornerstones of New Zealand’s Biodiversity Strategy, and protecting native birds is a national priority. This goal goes hand in hand with eliminating the mammals that threaten their existence.

    On a landscape scale, predator control often requires dropping 1080 (a biodegradable poison) from helicopters and planes in the rugged backcountry to target mammals in areas that are otherwise hard to reach. Experts say that for birds with a remote and inaccessible range, such as rock wrens, kiwi, blue ducks/whio, yellow-crowned parakeets or mohua, that this is currently the only practical management tool. Despite research showing that the aerial application of 1080 helps the recovery of native bird populations, this strategy is often criticised by members of the public for being indiscriminate and endangering the very species it is supposed to protect.

    So, how does DOC make sure native birds aren’t dropping dead left, right and centre when they use 1080 for predator control? The answer is research, research and … more research! Preliminary research, follow-up research, and intensive monitoring of bird populations during pest control operations, all help the people in charge understand how 1080 affects native birds with the aim of reducing their poisoning risk is as low as possible during any 1080 drop.

    Some of this important research was done here at Lincoln University when Jakob Katzenberger and James Ross investigated how mohua were affected by a pest control operation using aerial 1080 in the Catlins State Forest Park back in 1999. Intensive monitoring before and after the 1080 drop showed that the control operation didn’t have unwanted non-target effects for mohua. More specifically, the researchers concluded that mohua numbers didn’t differ significantly before and immediately after the control operation.

    While this might not seem like the most exciting result, it tells an important story – that 1080 worked and only killed what it needed to kill. Now, in case you’re wondering if these results still hold true since the research for this study was carried out over 20 years ago – rest assured, they do. Studies conducted in the Landsborough, Dart and Routeburn valleys since then have shown that both mohua numbers and nesting success increased following predator control using 1080. In 2006 and 2009, nesting success of mohua was on average twice as high after 1080 than without it in the Dart and Routeburn valleys, and in the summer of 2015 89% of mohua nests in the area were successful.

    Another key takeaway from the study by Katzenberger and Ross is that the timing of 1080 control operations is critical to maximise the benefits for native species. While the 1080 drop in 1999 did not affect mohua in the Catlins negatively, it could have provided more benefits had it been timed better. Monitoring showed that a predator boom caused by beech masting in the summer after the 1080 drop caused drastic declines in the resident mohua population. Applying 1080 after this masting event could have reduced predator numbers and, therefore, protected mohua more effectively by providing a “predator free” window for them to breed.

    Benefits of aerial 1080 for mohua from the 2014 “Battle for Our Birds” pest control operations in the Dart valley.
    © Department of Conservation 2016

    In 2014, DOC managed to protect mohua and other natives in a year of heavy beech masting with the “Battle for Our Birds” campaign by applying aerial 1080 just before predator numbers skyrocketed. Without predator control, that beech mast and the resulting high predator numbers would have been detrimental for the populations of native animals. This is an excellent example of how protecting native species is a learning process, and how research helps us learn, and improve conservation practices.

    What we can take from this is that 1080 works and that native birds do better where it is used. Researchers don’t just leave it at that though. A lot is still being done to make aerial 1080 baiting as “bird proof” as possible and ensure that birds gain the maximum benefit from it. Baits are improved continuously, sowing rates are reduced, and bird populations are carefully monitored. Overall, 1080 baiting has come a long way since it was first done, and now is an effective tool to protect native species. Some people may always oppose the use of 1080 no matter how loud the science talks, but, to use the words of Dr Nick Smith, New Zealand’s 6th Minister of Conservation, “reason must trump prejudice about poisons when the very species that define our country are at stake”.

    I consider myself lucky to have seen many of New Zealand’s birds, rare or not. Some of the encounters I’ve had here have been quite magical and, to be honest, almost cheesy. Like the time I was hiking Gertrude saddle in Fiordland, wondering if I would get to see a rock wren – only to have one poke its head around a rock to check me out while I was having lunch. Or when a family of mohua landed in the trees right next to me in Hawdon valley and I got to watch them for a good half an hour.

    Mohua in Hawdon Valley. © Antonia Ulle

    With research continuously improving how introduced predators are controlled, I hope that, in the future, encounters like this will once again become the rule rather than the exception.

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

    Katzenberger, J.K. & Ross, J.G. (2017). Mohoua ochrocephala abundance in the Catlins following aerial 1080 control. New Zealand Natural Science, 42, 1-8.

  • 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 .

  • 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.