EcoLincNZ

Tag: ECOL608

  • The odd-shaped claw… is alone no more

    The odd-shaped claw… is alone no more

    I think most of us at some point in our lives experience loneliness. Even we as a species are alone, having separated from our closest relatives, chimps, several million years ago. We are also alone in our genus with the last of our Homo siblings species having gone extinct roughly 10 – 40 thousand years ago. Now, there is only us, Homo sapiens.

    For the Gradungulidae family of New Zealand’s spiders shared the same story until recently.

    Gradungulidae, the large clawed or odd-clawed spiders, is a family of spiders endemic to New Zealand and Australia. Gradungulids are identified by their asymmetrically large claws on the 1st and 2nd legs that they use to capture prey(giving rise to their ‘odd-clawed’ name).

    Until recently there were only three species of Gradungulidae found in New Zealand; Gradungula sorenseni, Pianoa isolata, and Spelungula cavernicola.

    Granungula sorenseni, Forster, 1955. Photo: Sebastian Doak.
    Photo taken 18 August 2021, sourced from Wikimedia Commons. Cc-by-4.0 license.
    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gradungula_sorenseni_-_Sebastian_Doak_-_151718791.jpeg

    Gradungula sorenseni has the widest distribution across NZ, in forests stretching from Nelson and Marlborough in the north, to western Southland and across the Foveaux Strait into Stewart Island in the south.

    Pianoa isolata is found only within the native beech (Nothofagaceae) forest of Waikaia Forest in central north Southland, where it gets its common name Piano Flat spider, named for a series of flats along the Waikaia River.

    Piano Flat spider, Pianoa isolata, Forster, 1987. Photo: Steve Kerr.
    Photo taken 11 February 2014, sourced from Wikimedia Commons. Cc-by-4.0 license.
    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Piano-flat-spider-steve-kerr-cc-by-01.jpg

    Spelungula cavernicola, has a more limited distribution, and is one of only two legally protected spiders, the other being the Katipo spider (Latrodectus katipo). Spelungula cavernicola is found, as its name implies, primarily in caverns or cave systems. It is present in the Oparara cave system north of Karamea on the upper west coast of the South Island, caves along the Heaphy River, and in the Motupipi cave region of Golden Bay.

    One of New Zealand’s two legally protected spiders, the Nelson Cave Spider, Spelungula cavernicola, Forster, 1987. Photo: Mark Anderson.
    Photo taken 15 July 2017, sourced from Wikimedia Commons. Cc-by-4.0 license.
    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:P1150023-001.jpg

    All of these species of New Zealand’s Gradungulids were described by New Zealand’s most accomplished arachnologist, Dr Ray Forster. While describing these species Dr Forster suspected that the actual diversity of the Gradungulids was much greater but he could not gather sufficient samples to captures this within his lifetime.

    This extra diversity has continued amongst New Zealand’s subsequent arachnologists. Over the last 20 years Gradungulids specimens have been diligently collected across their distributions to fill this gap within Grandungulid taxonomy (including The following people collected specimens over 20 years: Peter Michalik , Cor Vink , Martin Ramírez , Danilo Harms and Stephen Pawson).

    In 2015 a photo was uploaded by Andy MacDonald to iNaturalist of an unidentified species of Pianoa found in Mount Richmond Forest Park, Marlborough. This site is 600 km away from the known population of Pianoa isolata in Waikaia Forest! This find led to the discovery of another population of a different Pianoa species near Rarangi, Marlborough by Patrick Miller. Both of these discoveries were made by amateur naturalists, making this an amazing win for citizen science!

    .

    Unidentified Pianoa sp. (sp. means an unidentified species in the Pianoa genus) in Mount Richmond Forest Park. Photo: Andy MacDonald.
    Photo taken 17 October 2015, sourced from INaturalist. Creative Commons copyright. https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/2148126

    All of this research and specimen collection over the last 20 years has resulted in the discovery of two new species of Gradungulidae, with there likely being more!

    Specimens from Spelungula, Pianoa, and Gradungula were analysed using both DNA and traditional taxonomic methods and confirmed that there was enough difference in populations of Pianoa, and Gradungula to constitute different species!

    These two new species have been named Gradungula kahurangi sp. nov. (sp. nov. means new species) and Pianoa civis sp. nov. There are also likely to be another species of Pianoa and another two species of Gradungula, but these were unable to be confirmed due to a lack of adult specimens (where species differences are most obvious).

    The populations of Spelungula cavernicola found in the Oparara and Takaka cave systems were not found to be different enough to be two separate species, despite these two cave systems not being connected and roughly 70 km apart!

    Piano civis, sp. nov. male raised from a subadult by Cor Vink for taxonomic description.
    Photo: John Marris. Obtained with permission from John Marris and Cor Vink for use in this blog.

    This suggests that historically, and even currently, there may be travel of Spelungula cavernicola between cave systems, likely using the isolated caves of the Heaphy Valley. This is a rather impressive feat for a cave spider!

    This lines up with present research on Spelungula cavernicola being troglophiles (species that can live both in cave, but also on the surface) rather than troglobites (species that live exclusively in the permanent darkness of underground habitats, such as caves).

    Pianoa isolata, and Gradungula sorenseni now have new siblings, likely with more on the way! However, Spelungula cavernicola is still alone, an impressive testament to their ability to travel outside their cave systems which they depend on!

    Diversity of New Zealand Gradungulids appears to be concentrated in the northern part of the South Island. Research is ongoing, with potentially three more species to be described. Citizen science has played a crucial part in the discovery of these new species! So, get out there and get involved.

    Who knows there may be a new species out there waiting for you to find it!

    This blog was created by BSc (honours) student Max Singers as part of an assignment for ECOL608 and was based on the 2025 paper “Alone no more—Integrative taxonomy of New Zealand odd‐clawed spiders challenges the monotypy of Pianoa and Gradungula ( Araneae: Gradungulidae )” published in Systematic Ecology.

  • The pines are invading! Planting non-native species increases re-invasion

    The pines are invading! Planting non-native species increases re-invasion

    Soil is life

    I’m not sure if you’re aware, as I was not aware of this before coming to Lincoln University, but soil is very much alive. There are millions of organisms in a single handful of soil. These critters perform the majority of the ecosystem services provided by soils.

    In New Zealand, these organisms range from burrowing animals, to soil-dwelling invertebrates, to fungi, to microscopic bacteria and much more. So next time you walk on soil, think about how much life is beneath your feet.

    For plants, a major component of successful growth and survivability is the soil microbiota, such as bacteria, fungi, viruses, nematodes (tiny worms), and many more. I have much love for fungi in the soil microbiota, especially mycorrhizal fungi that are essential for plant growth.

    Mycorrhizal fungi form mutualistic relationships (beneficial for both organisms) with plant roots. The fungi extend their network to increase the nutrient intake in exchange for carbohydrates that the fungi cannot produce itself.

    There are two major types of mycorrhizal fungi, ectomycorrhizal fungi, which infect the outside of plant roots, and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF or endomycorrhizal), which infect the inside of plant roots.

    I did a project on ectomycorrhizal fungi abundance on red beech tree roots for SCIE393 where I took this photo of an ectomycorrhizal fungal fruiting body (mushroom) under the microscope (which I thought was very cool). This is really where my love for mycorrhizal fungi started to blossom.

    Ectomycorrhizal fruiting body under the microscope – Photo by Lucas Watkin (CC-BY-NC)

    Exotic plants are strong invaders

    That’s enough about me for now, time to talk about invasions from non-native plants. As I’m sure everyone who lives in New Zealand is aware, we live in an invaded country, full of exotic predators, pests, and weeds.

    While everyone tends to think of the worst invaders are pests like possums and mustelids, the worst invaders are actually the weeds. Approximately half of all the vascular plants in the wild in New Zealand are non-native. There are around 25,000 exotic plant species that have been introduced to New Zealand, with around 2,700 of these becoming wild. Compared to around 2,500 native plants, this is an insane numbers of exotic plants and so to conserve our native species, we must do something about all of these exotic species.

    From grassland to pineland: The rapid invasion of black pine into well grazed high country pasture – Photo by Jon Sullivan (CC BY-NC 2.0)

    One of the worst exotic plant species are wilding pines, such as lodgepole pine and radiata pine. Lodgepole pine was introduced into New Zealand in 1880 to combat erosion. Burning of forests, overgrazing, and introduced browsers, such as deer, goats and rabbits, were clearing the hillsides of our native plants, leading to more slips. The New Zealand government decided to plant exotic plants, specifically Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine to cover the hillsides and reduce erosion.

    These pines did stop the erosion, however, what was not anticipated was the enormous dispersal ability of these wilding pines. Seeds of wilding pines can survive for a decade in their cones, grow roughly anywhere, and can travel kilometers from their parent. There is now roughly 800,000 hectares of wilding exotics in the South Island alone, two thirds of which is lodgepole pine!

    Wilding pines of Flock Hill Station: The very many wilding pines coming out from the experimental forestry plots in adjacent Craigieburn Forest Park – Photo by Jon Sullivan (CC BY-NC 2.0)

    Be careful what you plant!

    This paper headed by Joanna Green has contributions from my lovely thesis supervisor Lauren Waller. In it they describe the effects of planting non-native plants on the soil microbiota, and how that can impact what grows there afterwards. They were specifically looking at how well lodgepole pines grow in soils that have been used and conditioned by exotic plant species.

    Joanna and Lauren started by using soils that had already been conditioned by 19 native and 20 exotic plant species from another two experiments by Warwick Allen and Lauren Waller. The soil microbiota, the nutrients in the soil, and other factors, like the pH of the soil, had been changed to best suit the plant that had been grown in that soil.

    An example of part of the soil microbiota that was conditioned were the ectomycorrhizal fungi. These fungi are required for successful growth by some of our native species, such as our beech, mānuka, and kānuka species. However, exotic species use different species of ectomycorrhizal fungi than our native species. Therefore, when exotic species are grown in soil they will grow well with their species of ectomycorrhiza.

    Basically, think of it like this. If you owned a garden and really liked roses, you would grow a lot of roses. You might grow some other plants but the focus of the garden would be on roses. Now, if someone else came in and took over the garden for themselves, they might not like roses as much but might really like petunias. They will then plant petunias in place of where the roses used to be, altering the state of that garden.

    In terms of ectomycorrhiza, they require associations to survive, so the native ectomycorrhiza species that were in the soil will die after their native plant partners are gone. Exotic ectomycorrhiza species associated with exotic plant species will then survive. Due to this, it will become a lot more difficult for our native species to grow back in that soil due to a lack of ectomycorrhiza that they can grow with. Conversely, it will be a lot easier for exotic plant species to grow in partnership with a large number of exotic ectomycorrhiza.

    Anyway, back to the paper. The researchers found that lodgepole pine grew better in soils that had been conditioned by exotic species, such as black alder, cocks-foot, spear thistle, gorse, and many more. And this was regardless of whether pines had been planted there or not! Lodgepole pine will have a much easier time establishing and invading into areas that have previously had exotic species growing there.

    Lodgepole pine tree near Lake Benmore – Photo by abcdefgewing (CC-BY-NC)

    So why does this matter?

    To conserve our native plants, sometimes we must plant them in areas that have previously grown exotic species. Joanna and Lauren’s research shows that the soil will be conditioned to favour growth of exotic species, and so growing native plants will be more difficult. It will also be a lot easier for exotic species, such as lodgepole pine, to re-invade and take over the conservation site. Therefore, conservation managers must be aware of this soil legacy and decisions must be made in order to manage this re-invasion potential.

    So, next time you want to plant an exotic plant, think about the soil, and whether you would rather plant a native instead.

    This article was prepared by postgraduate student Lucas Watkin, Master of Science in Conservation and Ecology, for an assignment in ECOL608 Research Methods in Ecology.

    Green, J. L., Waller, L. P., Allen, W. J., Orwin, K. H., Pelser, P. B., Smaill, S., & Dickie, I. A. (2025). Plant-soil feedback from non-native communities increases pine invasion and re-invasion potential. Plant Soil, 514(2), 2461-2474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-025-07528-x

    Featured image: Did somebody order pines? The rapid invasion of black pine into well grazed high country pasture – Photo by Jon Sullivan (CC BY-NC 2.0)

  • If friend-shaped, why not friend?

    If friend-shaped, why not friend?

    It’s a fair question.

    If an animal looks soft, furry, and, let’s be honest, kind of adorable… why wouldn’t we treat it like a friend? Picture a common brush-tailed possum, fluffy and wide-eyed, or a spiky little hedgehog snuffling through the undergrowth, both undeniably friend-shaped. They don’t exactly look like villains. In fact, they look like animals we might want to protect.

    But here’s the uncomfortable truth: in Aotearoa/New Zealand, these “friend-shaped” animals are responsible for some of the most devastating environmental damage across the country.

    A curious little hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus). It doesn’t look dangerous, but they are surprisingly harmful predators.
    Copyright CC BY-SA 3.0, by Tony Willis, from Wikimedia Commons

    Early in my veterinary career, I realised just how complicated it can be to care about the environment. I’d signed up to help animals, not to think about how their populations should be controlled. But here in Aotearoa, even the cutest animals can be a big environmental problem.

    The scale of the problem means pest management is essential. Conservationists must find a balance between the effectiveness of pest control techniques and animal welfare. This article explores how emerging technologies may help meet this challenge.

    Cute… but catastrophic

    Aotearoa’s wildlife is unique because it evolved for millions of years without land mammals. The only land mammals native to Aotearoa are, in fact, two species of bats. This isolation means many native birds nest on the ground, can’t fly well, and have limited natural defences against mammalian predators.

    When humans arrived, they brought mammals, like hedgehogs, rats, stoats, and possums, with them. This is when everything changed. A stoat might seem sweet and harmless, but it will kill more than it needs. Possums, while wide-eyed and cuddly, can change the types of trees in native forests.

    The stoat (Mustela erminea) is an adorable but efficient killer.
    Copyright CC BY-SA, 2.0 by Soumyajit Nandy, from Wikimedia Commons

    Introduced mammals have had a significant impact, contributing to widespread loss of biodiversity (variety of animals and plants) across Aotearoa. They have had a hand to play in the extinction of many native bird species and continue to threaten many more.

    So, while these mammals might look adorable and harmless, their impact is anything but. It’s not that these animals are bad, they’re just in the wrong place.

    Why we can’t just leave them alone

    It’s tempting to think, “can’t we just let nature take its course?” The problem is, this isn’t how nature originally worked here. These species were suddenly introduced by humans, and native birds didn’t have time to adjust. So the decline in bird species isn’t natural, it’s our fault, and without intervention, many more native species will be lost.

    The huia (Heteralocha acutirostris). A bird now extinct, lost in part to predation by introduced mammal predators.
    Copyright public domain (CC0-style, no known copyright restrictions in place), by Johannes Keulemans, from Wikimedia Commons

    This is why pest control is necessary. It’s not because we don’t like these animals, but rather we are trying to protect something even more vulnerable and important to Aotearoa’s history.

    The challenges of traditional methods

    Traditionally, pest control has relied on traps and toxins. While these methods are effective, they are not without their downsides. They can be costly, need regular checking and resetting, and pests often return quickly once control efforts stop.

    These methods have been under scrutiny for several reasons. One concern is how humane these methods are. Animal welfare remains an important consideration even when trying to reduce or eliminate pest populations. There are also concerns about their environmental impact, including whether the toxins are retained in the soil and waterways. In addition, is the risk of harm to non-target animals, including native birds and other wildlife not intended to be affected.

    Traditional DOC 200 trap. Using traditional traps requires substantial staff time, meaning that ongoing funding is needed to maintain them.
    Copyright CC BY-SA 4.0, by Kimberley Collins, from Wikimedia Commons

    Looking for better solutions

    The good news is that things are changing in some really exciting ways! A 2014 study by Dr Helen Blackie and her team reviewed a range of emerging technologies and research for long-term mammalian pest management, several of which are discussed below. The team brought together scientists, university researchers, commercial pest management organisations and iwi (indigenous Māori tribal groups) who worked collaboratively to design new tools that are more humane, better targeted to specific pest species, and more effective over long timeframes.

    Helen and her team develop new toxins to minimise animal distress. Some are even based on natural toxins derived from native plants, blending science with mātauranga Māori (traditional knowledge).

    Highly poisonous Tutu plant (Coriaria arborea) has been investigated as a potential source of new toxins.
    Copyright CC BY-SA 3.0 by Rudolph89, from Wikimedia Commons

    Another innovation presented in the study is “set and forget” traps. While these devices have existed for some time. Newer versions use artificial intelligence (AI) to ensure only target pest species activate them. Once installed, these traps can remain in place for long periods without the need for frequent checks or bait replacement, a big advantage over traditional traps.

    Smart trap that uses AI to target pest species while avoiding non-target species.
    Photograph by Dr Helen Blackie, used with permission.

    In the study, the group also helped develop traps that utilise new toxins in a clever way. When the specific pest interacts with the trap, a small dose of toxin is placed onto its coat. The animal then ingests it through grooming, reducing the risk of environmental contamination.

    In addition, the group is learning more about pest behaviour, specifically how animals move, feed, and interact at different population numbers. This helps determine the best places for traps, increasing the likelihood that pests will interact with them.

    People power in action

    As this study has shown, pest control isn’t just about technology. It’s about how people work together to protect the environment. In Aotearoa, pest control programmes rely on collaboration between iwi, conservation groups, and scientists. Each group brings different expertise to the work, from scientific knowledge to local and cultural understanding.

    When I discussed the new innovations with Dr Helen Blackie, she highlighted that some of the most successful pest control initiatives come from community-led groups. She emphasised that even though these groups may have fewer resources than larger programmes, they are still often highly effective. They work closely together with a strong commitment, enabling them to share ideas and adapt their approaches as needed. At the end of the day, pest control only works if people are willing to take part!

    So…why not friend?

    It’s okay to think these introduced mammals are cute, and the instinct to care about all animals is a good one. But, in Aotearoa, protecting native birds and plants requires managing introduced mammals. Not because they’re bad, not because they don’t deserve compassion, but because the balance has already been tipped, and without action, the consequences could be irreversible.

    With better tools, smarter strategies, and more collaboration, we’re moving toward a future where pest control is more effective, more humane, and more sustainable.

    And maybe that’s the real answer to the question, “if friend-shaped, why not friend?” Because sometimes, protecting one part of nature means making hard choices about another.

    Tough decisions need to be made in order to protect tiny native birds like the titipounamu (Acanthisitta chloris).
    Copyright CC BY-SA 4.0  by Melissa Boardman, from Wikimedia Commons

    How can you help?

    Looking after our environment is a shared effort, the more each of us does, the bigger the impact we can make. If you’re keen to take it further, organisations like Predator Free 2050, Department of Conservation, and Forest & Bird offer opportunities to get involved right across the country. Tools like Trap.NZ can also help you protect your own backyard and track your impact. Karawhiua!

    Written by veterinarian and animal lover, Kim Telford, a student at Te Whare Wānaka o Aoraki/Lincoln University. Inspired by a curiosity for how humans and animals intersect, as part of the ECOL 608 Research Methods in Ecology course.

    Explore the science: Blackie H, M., MacKay J.W., Allen W.J., Smith D.H., Barrett B., Whyte B.I., Murphy E.C., Ross J., Shapiro L., Ogilvie S., Sam S., MacMorran D., Inder S., Eason C.T. (2014) Innovative developments for long-term mammalian pest control. Pest Management Science, 70(3), 345-51. doi: 10.1002/ps.3627.

  • The genetic mystery behind “clonal” plants

    The genetic mystery behind “clonal” plants

    Hey plant lovers! Let me share something incredible with you about the plant world. Some clever plants have discovered a super cool way to multiply without needing seeds or pollen from other plants. It is called apomixis. Think of it as nature’s way of letting plants create mini-me versions of themselves. These amazing plants can thrive and spread their families far and wide, even when life throws them some challenges.

    Want to meet one of these botanical wonders? Say hello to Pilosella, which includes the common hawkweed. These remarkable plants are not just special because of their unique family-growing style, they also teach us lessons about how plants adapt and stay strong when their world changes around them.

    Apomixis: Nature’s Reproductive Shortcut

    In Pilosella, scientists found that this cloning trick is actually controlled by three special gene regions, kind of like switches on a circuit board:
    Switch 1: LOA – avoids meiosis, the normal gene-splitting step,
    Switch 2: LOP – avoids fertilisation, so eggs grow into plants without needing pollen,
    Switch 3: AutE – lets the plant build the food-filled tissue (endosperm) that supports the developing seed.
    Together, these three “super switches” turn regular sexual reproduction into a smooth, pollen-free process.

    The LOP locus: the key to clonal reproduction

    Let’s zoom in on one of those switches: the LOSS OF PARTHENOGENESIS locus, or LOP. It’s the part of the genome that tells the plant, “Hey, go ahead and make a seed, even without any pollen.” That means the egg cell doesn’t need fertilisation to start developing into a full plant.

    Using some clever genetic detective work, Ross Bicknell (former Plant and Food scientist), Chris Winefield (Lincoln University), and five other researchers mapped this LOP region to a small section of the genome, 654 thousand base pairs long (which is small, considering plant genomes can be billions of bases in total length). They did this using a special technique involving polyhaploids — basically, plants that carry only a single set of chromosomes, which helps make genetic signals easier to read.

    Click here if you would like to read the original paper.

    The role of the PAR gene and jumping DNA

    One especially interesting gene in the LOP region is called PARTHENOGENESIS, or PAR for short. This gene is a key player in apomixis, and it shows up in other plants like dandelions, too.

    Dandelion flower (left) and a seed head (right). From learn.colincanhelp.com/know-your-weeds-dandelions/

    Here’s where it gets wild: scientists found that the active version of PAR (the one that triggers cloning) carries a little hitchhiker — a transposable element, or “jumping gene”, stuck in its promoter region (the bit that controls when the gene turns on). This jumping gene acts like a sneaky switch that flicks PAR into high gear, telling the plant: “Start cloning!”

    Even cooler? This transposable element-based activation seems to have happened independently in different plant groups — dandelions, hawkweeds, and their cousin Hieracium all show this trick, but with slightly different transposable elements in different spots. It’s like nature reinvented the same superpower in different ways, a phenomenon known as convergent evolution.

    Check this review article if you want dig deeper on the “jumping gene”.

    So, are these plants just cloning machines?

    Not quite! For a while, scientists thought apomixis might be an evolutionary dead-end — after all, if you keep making copies of yourself, you might miss out on helpful mutations or adaptability and you steadily pick up flaws that you can’t get rid of. But Pilosella proves that’s not always the case. These plants can reproduce both ways: by cloning or by mixing genes with other plants. That means they can pass on their tried-and-true genetic blueprints or shuffle the deck when times get tough.

    In nature, this flexibility is a huge bonus. It lets them survive droughts, colonise poor soils, and hang in there when pollinators are scarce, and still adapt to new environments when needed. It’s the best of both worlds.

    Why this matters for the environment

    These clever plants are like nature’s survivalists. Their ability to reproduce without pollination means that they can spread quickly, especially in harsh places like dry grasslands or alpine meadows.

    But here’s the twist: sometimes they’re too good at it. In places like New Zealand, hawkweeds can become aggressive invaders, crowding out native plants. My own mother, for example, considers them total pests in her lawn!

    Scientists want to understand the genetic switches behind apomixis (like the LOP locus) to figure out how to manage or even control these fast-spreading plants, or perhaps one day harness apomixis for crop breeding.

    What this means for the future of plants and food

    Building on our exploration of the Pilosella plant and its unique LOP locus, let us dive into how plant genetics deepens our understanding of the natural world. As scientists examine these complex genetic blueprints, they uncovered valuable insights about:

    • How our green friends cleverly adapt to our changing climate
    • The super-smart ways that plants figure out how to survive and flourish in tough spots
    • Cool possibilities for helping crops grow better, even when the weather gets tricky

    But wait, there is more! This exciting research is not just about one plant, it is opening doors to better farming methods, helping protect our precious plant species, and finding clever ways to help plants weather the storms ahead.

    Let’s wrap this up

    Our exploration of Pilosella and its powerful LOP locus shows that even a so-called “weed” can teach us big lessons about evolution, resilience, and the future of farming.

    So next time you’re out for a walk and spot a humble hawkweed or dandelion, take a second look — you’re staring at a tiny miracle of plant reproduction, a living clue in one of nature’s greatest puzzles.

    This article was prepared by Bachelor of Science with Honours student Sienna Zeng as part of the ECOL608 Research Methods in Ecology course.

    References

  • Why don’t restored streams bounce back?

    In New Zealand, many would agree that fresh water is one of our most loved natural resources. We drink it, we swim in it, we use it to farm and to make a living, we even use it to generate our power! Unfortunately, especially in Canterbury after some major earthquakes, many of our streams and rivers are struggling. They look something like this:

    Kowhai River, Kaikōura. From Environment Canterbury, ND.

    In stream restoration, we want to return the features of a stream back to their original state, before things like urban development or introduced species affected the quality. This includes adding native plants, allowing fish to make their way out to sea or further upstream, and making sure farm animals can’t walk straight into the stream. All of these things and more can help us to make healthier waterways.

    It does not always go to plan, with some hardy introduced species putting a spanner in the works and refusing to co-operate with careful scientific methods. Imagine a beautiful stream that’s been through tough times—pollution, habitat destruction, earthquakes you name it. People step in – scientists, council members, developers, maybe the general public, and they work hard to restore it, but here’s the kicker: sometimes, things just don’t bounce back like they should. Why? That’s exactly what a recent study by Issie Barrett and her team set out to uncover.

    To understand why streams struggle to recover even after the most thorough restoration efforts, we need to understand a few key factors.

    1. Species Interactions: In a healthy stream, different plants and animals interact in specific ways, such as some animals eating others or different plants competing for space. When a stream is damaged and then restored, these interactions might not work the same way anymore. This can make it harder for the original species to come back and thrive.

    A particular species of snail, the New Zealand mud snail (P. antipodarum) is particularly good at living in these degraded streams, they thrive under pressure and limited food sources. These snails are perfect species to take over a degraded environment and reduce the recovery ability! So even when original species are introduced, such as the mayfly, the same food source now has double the competition, meaning a negative reaction – that habitat can’t provide that much food even in a restored state.

    New Zealand mud snail Potamopyrgus antipodarum. Photo Credit Michal Maňas 2014

    2. Negative Resistance: This is a big concept, which in essence means that even when the physical conditions of a stream improve (like cleaning up pollution or adding new habitats), the plants and animals in the stream don’t always come back as quickly or fully as hoped.

    During the stream’s degradation years, new species like the mud snails might move in – kind of like uninvited guests crashing a party. Even after things are cleaned up, these newbies can stick around and hog resources, making it harder for the original gang to make a comeback. This is what they call “negative resistance.” This can happen because the habitat is too degraded for the ideal species to thrive even if they did before.

    3. Resilience Mechanisms: This means the ability of a system to absorb and adapt to change, ultimately returning to the restored ideal. This is where our negative resistance comes into play. If the species or the system is already not functioning as it should, we are going to have a hard time creating a resilient system that can adapt to a changing environment and overcome any future issues.

    For example, a high level of nitrogen could change the make-up of the riverbed so drastically that a species sensitive to nitrates may never repopulate that system. Understanding the relationship between negative resistance and resilience is important for predicting and enhancing any successful restoration efforts.

    What can we do?

    Look at the Big Picture: When restoring a stream, it’s not just about fixing what we can see. We need to think about how all the different plants and animals interact with each other. This includes what nutrients are in the water and what microscopic invertebrates might be living in that water.

    Keep Checking In: It’s important to keep watching restored streams over time to make sure they’re getting better and to fix any problems that come up. If we don’t see an improvement in 5 or 10 years, there must be something else we can do.

    Be Flexible: Sometimes, we might need to change our restoration plans based on what we learn from watching how the stream responds. As scientists we have to be okay with admitting our first idea didn’t work, and then be willing to help come up with a better solution for the future.

    Vegetated drain in Canterbury with optimum riparian planting. Photo credit Jon Sullivan, ND.

    Why it matters

    Overall, there are some pretty complex systems that are at play in stream restoration projects. It is not as simple as putting in some better plants and some bigger, cooler rocks and hoping it will all work out in 10 years. By paying attention to how plants, animals, and the environment all work together, perhaps we can work towards a deeper understanding of the best ways to help our New Zealand streams thrive for many more generations to come.

    I think it would be pretty cool to keep swimming in our rivers and looking for fish in the summer, but next time you go to your local river, have a look and see what plants and other animals would really love to keep living there too.

    This article was prepared by Postgraduate Diploma in Environmental Management student Tayla Cross as part of the ECOL608 Research Methods in Ecology course.

  • Microbes matter in breaking down nitrogen in dairy pastures

    Our eyes are captivated by the breathtaking diversity of the living world, where billions of plants and animals enchant us with their variety and richness, thriving above ground or in water. But we often overlook the organisms beneath our feet, in the hidden world of soil, where an equally mesmerizing realm teems with life.

    E. R. Ingham: “Just one spoonful of soil can be home to millions of microbes“- the astonishing dynamic of these tiny, unseen organisms would blow our minds, if we only knew their story.

    I am fascinated by the biodiversity of the massive underground community. Countless small living things, such as microbes, insects, and earthworms, are tirelessly at work, busily breaking down organic matter and waste like leaf litter, faeces, and other dead organisms.

    Soil sample under the microscope, Image credit: © William Edge
    from Dreamstime.com CC BY-NC 2.0

    These organisms play fundamental roles in decomposition and also contribute to unlocking essential nutrients, like nitrogen and phosphorus, making these nutrients more available to plants. However, some microbial species can degrade useful substances, primarily affecting the cropping system and leading to lower crop yields in agriculture.

    In New Zealand, our grazing pastures face a significant challenge of soil microbes depleting essential nitrogen (N) in the soil. The NZ dairy industry has a substantial economic impact. A report by Sense Partners highlights that DairyNZ accounted for a quarter of New Zealand’s total export earnings (26 million) in 2023, making it a crucial contributor to national prosperity. For dairy farmers, “grass is green gold” because high-quality pasture is the key to their success, supporting healthy and productive livestock.

    Nitrogen boosts pasture supply, especially when N fertilizer is applied in mid to late spring. In most regions, this application results in an optimal and reliable grass response of around 10 to 15 kg DM/kg N. Why the need to apply synthetic fertiliser when nitrogen is abundant in the atmosphere, which contains 78% nitrogen. The catch is that atmospheric nitrogen is not directly available to most plants (except for legumes) due to its highly stable form (N2).

    Given the necessity of nitrogen fertilisers in grazing pasture systems, a go-to choice is urea. It’s most cost-effective and the most widely applied nitrogen fertiliser in NZ dairy pastures. The scale of its usage is staggering, with over 400,000 tonnes of urea being used annually in dairy farm systems since 2013.

    Two Cows by Martin Gommel | Flickr | CC BY-NC 2.0

    There is a downside. Ammonia-oxidizing soil microbes release an enzyme called urease that can break down over 80-90% of urea fertiliser when soil moisture is high. This leads to significant economic losses for farmers and contributes to environmental pollution through nitrate leaching.

    Note: Urea is the substance of solid nitrogen fertilizer, while urease is an enzyme found in plant tissues, fungi, bacteria, and some invertebrates, but not in animals.

    Dr. Hossein Alizadeh, a senior researcher in the Department of Agricultural Sciences at Lincoln University, leads a team focused on addressing the problem of nitrogen loss in soil. They have identified key culprits of rapid nitrogen loss in the soil – urease-producing microbes.

    By understanding these microbes better, the team can develop solutions to enhance the uptake of nitrogen nutrients by pastures and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is crucial because nitrogen from livestock urine and agricultural fertilisers converts to nitrous oxide (N2O), contributing to about one-sixth of New Zealand’s CO2 equivalent greenhouse gas emissions.

    To detect the nationwide urea degradation levels in dairy farm pastures, Dr. Alizadeh and his research team collected soil samples from various regions, including Auckland, Canterbury, Manawatu, Marlborough, Nelson, Otago, Taranaki, Waikato, Wairarapa, and the West Coast. The sampled pastures primarily consisted of ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) and white clover (Trifolium repens L.). Some grazing lands were relatively young, only nine months old, while others had 60 years of usage.

    To determine whether urease-producing microbes are present in different soil samples, researchers measured ammonium production. Urease breaks down urea and nitrogen in the soil converts to ammonia gas (NH3) and nitrate (NO3-) leaching. In the lab, if the urease producer actively breaks down urea and releases ammonia, the Petri dish with cultured microbes will show a pink colour (see Figure below). Additionally, to identify microbial bacteria and fungi, they applied the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) technique, morphological identification methods.

    Urease detection medium for isolation of soil urease producing microorganisms (left) and a purified urease (right). Own work CC BY-NC 2.0

    Hossein found some novel microbial species, such as Pochonia bulbillosa, Mariannaea elegans, and Gliomastixsp., which were reported for the first time for their urease production. The study also revealed variations in urease activity among the isolates and a diverse microbial community composition across different locations. For instance, in Nelson, bacteria were the dominant urease producers in the soil, while in Oxford, it was fungi, marking a significant discovery in soil microbiology.

    The groundbreaking research by Dr. Hossein and his team on identifying urease-producing microbes not only provides fundamental knowledge but also opens up possibilities for practical applications. The findings suggest the potential of manipulating these microbial populations in soil to reduce urease activity, a concept that is being further explored in the N-Bio Boost program led by Professor John Hampton of Seed Technology at Lincoln University. This project, funded by the New Zealand government and the fertilizer co-op Ravensdown, aims to harness a naturally occurring fungal species in the soil to enhance the nitrogen efficiency of plants, promising both environmental and economic benefits for New Zealand.

    So next time you are walking on pasture, pause and appreciate the busy world that is found under your feet!

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

    Alizadeh, H., Kandula, D. R. W., Hampton, J. G., Stewart, A., Leung, D. W. M., Edwards, Y., & Smith, C. (2017). Urease producing microorganisms under dairy pasture management in soils across New Zealand. Geoderma Regional, 11, 78–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2017.10.003

  • Seed coating: fungi protect maize from disease

    Did you know that seeds can wear coats, just like people? Different kinds of coats can be added to seeds to protect them for improved cultivation. How do seed-coatings work and what are the benefits for seeds wearing coats? There are several distinct strengths of seed coating. You will know a lot more about seed-coating, and a recent discovery that could be applied in maize seeds, after reading throughout this page.

    Recently, Federico Rivas-Franco, with colleages at Lincoln University and researchers around the world, discovered the benefits of coating maize seed with a kind of entomopathogenic fungi (Metarhizium species). Entomopathogenic is a technical word meaning insect killing, so this is a fungus that infects and kills insects. By adding a Metarhizium coating to maize seed, Federico found that maize plants grow taller than the untreated plants, when those plants are in the presence of the plant pathogenic fungus, Fusarium graminearum. That was a useful surprise!

    What’s more, the Metarhizium hyphae (the growing threads of the fungus) were observed growing on and in root tissues in all the Metarhizium treated maize with the coating. This showed that Metarhizium can live together with maize roots and had a consistent effect on defending maize plants from underground pests and plant pathogens (like Fusarium graminearum).

    Fusarium ear rot on maize
    Fusarium ear rot on maize.
    Image CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 by Thomas Lumpkin

    Many of you may be asking, what is Fusarium graminearum? It is a causative agent of several serious plant diseases. Fusarium graminearum can cause a devastating disaster on maize and lead to huge yield losses.

    Maize seeds, roots, stems and ears can all be easily infected by this fungal pathogen, which means maize plants are susceptible to Fusarium infections throughout the cultivation period. More terribly, not only maize, but also wheat, barley and rice can be infested by Fusarium. It is quite annoying, right? It can be expensive for farmers. What if people and stock eat the contaminated crops? The answer is they will get ill, and the symptoms including vomiting, stomach ache and so on. Fusarium infected maize can not be sold as food, so farmers need a solution to protect their crop from this nasty fungus.

    Metarhizium species are a kind of fungus that is generally used to biocontrol insect pests. However, the biocontrol ability of Metarhizium not only works for insects but also against plant pathogens like Fusarium. That’s quite the superpower!

    In 1870s, Metarhizium was first extracted and identified by a Russia scientist Élie Metchnikoff (Илья Ильич Мечников in Russian). He found that there were hypha growing from dead beetles. Initially, the hypha was white, then turned green, and then a darker green. After molecular techniques were introduced at the end of 20th century, new species of Metarhizium species have continued to be identified.

    How does Metarhizium combine with seed coats? In fact, it is microsclerotia, which is a resistant structure grown by the fungus, that is added into seed coats. Over the past decade, it has been discovered that entomopathogenic fungi are able to produce high concentrations of microsclerotia when grown in liquid media.

    Microsclerotia are desiccation tolerant and have excellent storage stability. More importantly, they are capable of producing high quantities of infective conidia (asexual spores) after rehydration. All these attributes make microsclerotia an excellent agent to be used in seed coating.

    Besides preventing plant diseases and pests, different seed coatings can also make seeds grow healthier and improve cold resistance (drought & moisture resistance as well). That’s because commercial seed coatings are composite products made up of combinations of insecticides, fungicides, compound fertilizers, trace elements, plant growth regulators or more other chemical or physical components. What’s more, same size and shape of coated seeds make it much easier for mechanical sowing.

    After using seed coatings, farmers don’t need to use as many insecticides and fungicides to protect the emerging young plants. This reduces the pollution in the environment and the insecticide (or fungicide) resistance of the plant.

    This research demonstrated the excellent potential for adding Metarhizium to commercial seed coatings for maize. We have seen the good outcomes in the experimental field. Let’s wait and see the next step for figuring out how best to do this in commercial production.

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

  • 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.