sanctuaries, biodiversity responses to pest control
Post on 07-Dec-2021
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Sanctuaries, & biodiversity responses to pest control
John Innes, Rachelle Binny
Andrea Byrom, Neil Fitzgerald, Alex James, Roger Pech
Manaaki Whenua - Landcare Research
LINK seminar, Wellington, 19 October 2017 Fitzgerald Colbourne
Outline
• What and where are NZ’s sanctuaries?
• Major pest management regimes
• Importance of monitoring with standard methods
• Some Maungatautari results
• What can we learn from monitoring in fenced sanctuaries and mainland islands?
• Biodiversity monitoring database
• A meta-analysis of outcomes for sanctuaries
John
Innes
Rachelle
Binny
House mouse
Brushtail possum
Cat
Hedgehog
Ship rat
Stoat
Norway rat
Feral goat
Red deer
Ferret
Weasel
Fallow
deer
Rabbit
Dog
Nga
Ma
nu
Im
ag
es
Nga
Ma
nu
Im
ag
es
What are ‘biodiversity sanctuaries’?
Sites that:
• experimentally restore NZ ecosystems to indigenous dominance
and full species complement
• control or eradicate a broad suite of pests with best practice techniques
• reintroduce missing species
• manage a permanent and substantial risk of pest reinvasion
• inspire and galvanise communities to local conservation
We identified 82 such projects on or near the
NZ mainland
Map: Neil Fitzgerald, 8 Aug. 2017
SANCTUARIES
Mean area:
Stoats 2780 ha
Possums 1860 ha
Rats 940 ha
Total area:
50,500 ha
0.18% NZ
Goals
Unacceptable damage? at this site
Pest control Best practice?
Pest control 101
Residual pest abundance? Number killed
Use SOP indices
Biodiversity
outcomes?
Major regimes
1. Repeated aerial 1080
a) Ospri for Tb/DOC for forest health
b) Battle for our Birds (timed for mast)
c) 2-3 yearly – sustained ship rat control
2. Mainland island
- kaka, kiwi, kokako, robin, whio, tree weta
3. Fenced sanctuary/island
- hihi, tieke, takahe, kakapo, tuatara, giant weta
Regime 2 Mainland island
ship rats
stoat
possum
ferret
kokako Nga
Ma
nu
Im
ag
es
robin tree weta
S. W
ills
NI brown kiwi whio kaka
M.
Roth
we
ll
Ka
ka
riki G
am
es
Ark in the Park, Waitakeres, 2002-17*
*Gillian Wadams, Forest and Bird
Rat
trackin
g r
ate
R
at
trackin
g r
ate
Ship rat
Norway rat
Mean ship rat tracking %,Oct.-Feb.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
% n
esti
ng
att
emp
ts f
led
gin
g y
ou
ng
0
20
40
60
80
100
Possum trap-catch at 1 Nov.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
% n
esti
ng
att
emp
ts f
led
gin
g y
ou
ng
0
20
40
60
80
100
Kokako nesting success* vs
a) Possum trap-catch b) Ship rat tracking rate
* Innes et al. 1999. Biol Cons 87:201-214
CR
Ve
itch
Norbury et al. 2015. Biol. Cons. 191 409-420. Density-impact functions for terrestrial vertebrate pests and
indigenous biota: Guidelines for conservation managers.
Rat tracking rate
0 10 20 30 40
MG
W t
rackin
g r
ate
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
Mahoenui giant weta
Thornburrow
North Island robin
Corinne Watts et al. 2017.
Weta as bioindicators.
Jnl Insect Conservation
Mahoenui
Mangaokewa
Mahurangi Is.
Warrenheip
M. Rothwell
Kakariki Games
Doug Armstrong et al. 2006.
Robin viability vs predators.
Jnl Wildlife Management
Regime 3 Fenced sanctuary/island
Takahe
Tuatara
Hihi
Tieke
Little spotted kiwi
Giant
weta
Kakapo
Duvaucel’s
gecko
YearJan-2011
Jul-2011 Jan-2012
Jul-2012 Jan-2013
Jul-2013 Jan-2014
Jul-2014 Jan-2015
Jul-2015 Jan-2016
Jul-2016
Ave
rage
nu
mb
er
of
inve
rte
bra
tes
cau
ght
pe
r tr
ap n
igh
t
0
1
2
3
4 M blockQ block
Similar patterns for:
• Beetles, spiders, weta, caterpillars
• Leaf litter samples
Invertebrate abundance Treatment
switch
Corinne Watts, Danny Thornburrow
= Mammal
eradication
Maungatautari 5mbc, 2002-14:
insectivores
Neil Fitzgerald, Scott Bartlam
= Translocation
Conclusions
Pest levels (eg zero) known for some birds, lizards, inverts
Few density-impact functions known
Pest eradication impossible without fences
Competition and habitat also matter
There are winners and losers
PLEASE MONITOR:
- Residual pest abundance with SOP indices
- Diverse biodiversity outcomes
- For 10 + years……. Rachelle
Outline
• What and where are NZ’s sanctuaries?
• Major pest management regimes
• Importance of monitoring with standard methods
• Some Maungatautari results
• What can we learn from monitoring in fenced sanctuaries and mainland islands?
• Biodiversity monitoring database
• A meta-analysis of outcomes for sanctuaries
John
Innes
Rachelle
Binny
What can sanctuaries teach us?
How do NZ’s flora and fauna respond to pest control?
• Compare different control regimes; initially fenced sanctuaries and mainland islands
• Understanding biodiversity benefits is a crucial step towards achieving goals of PF2050
Biodiversity monitoring database
• Database of biodiversity monitoring data from managed sites
• 782,322 records
• 21 sites (3 DOC Mainland Islands, 18 other sanctuaries)
• 17 unfenced, 4 fenced
• 1995-2016
• 438 species (birds, invertebrates, lizards, vegetation and pests)
Biodiversity monitoring database
Habitat
Beech
Podocarp-broadleaved
Site Type
Fenced
MainlandIslandUnfenced
Treatment type
Treatment
Non-treatment
34%
66% 83%
11% 6%
61% 39%
Taxa
Birds
Invertebrates
Lizards
Vegetation
65% 33%
< 1%
Combining biodiversity data: meta-analysis
“Effect size”: outcome with pest control, c.f. without
0 > 0 < 0
E.g. ↑ abundance,
↑ nesting success,
↑ counts per unit search effort,
↓ foliar browse damage, etc.
Positive response
to control
Negative response
to control No
response
Fenced vs. mainland islands
fenced
sanctuaries
all sanctuaries
mainland islands (MI)
Taxonomic groups Fenced & MIs
combined
Fenced
MIs
Taxonomic groups by regime
Native vs. introduced birds Fenced & MIs
combined
native
introduced
all birds
native
introduced
all birds
Native vs. introduced birds by regime
Fenced
MIs
Bird endemicity Fenced & MIs
combined
all native
all introduced
order (e.g. kiwi)
family (e.g. kōkako, hīhī)
genus (e.g. bellbird, tūi)
species (e.g. kākāriki, NI robin)
Bird endemicity by regime
order (e.g. kiwi)
family (e.g. kōkako, hīhī)
genus (e.g. bellbird, tūi)
species (e.g. kākāriki, NI robin)
all native
Fenced
MIs
all introduced
Primary guild for native birds
frugivore (e.g. bellbird, kererū)
insectivore (e.g. rifleman, tomtit)
omnivore (e.g. hīhī, silvereye)
carnivore
(top predators: kāhu, NZ falcon)
all native
Fenced & MIs
combined
Primary guild for native birds
frugivore (e.g. bellbird, kererū)
insectivore (e.g. rifleman, tomtit)
omnivore (e.g. hīhī, silvereye)
carnivore (top predators: kāhu, NZ falcon)
Fenced
MIs
all native
Habitat for native birds
podocarp-broadleaved
beech
mixed
all native
Fenced & MIs
combined
Habitat for native birds by regime
Fenced
MIs
podocarp-broadleaved
beech
mixed
all native
Rat Tracking Index (%) Rat Tracking Index (%)
Density-impact functions (Rotoiti)
Room for improvement?
Need consistent and long-term monitoring of biodiversity outcomes and residual pest abundance
• Standardised monitoring methods and measures
• Data sharing & reuse
• Data management
Conclusions
• Both increases and declines for species in sanctuaries
• How to measure success?
• Knowledge gaps: outcomes for communities and ecosystems
• Need consistent and long-term monitoring: diverse biodiversity measures and residual pest abundance using SOP indices
What next?
• Offshore, pest-free islands
Bellingham et al 2010
Acknowledgements
• DOC MI data access: Craig Gillies and Oliver Gansell (Department of Conservation, Hamilton)
• DOC MI staff for field data collection and reporting
• Sanctuaries data: Ark in the Park, Bluff Hill/Environment Southland,
Bream Head Scenic Reserve, Bushy Point, Corinne Watts (Landcare Research), East Taranaki Environment Trust, Forest Lifeforce Environment Trust, Glenfern Sanctuary, Halfmoon Bay Habitat Restoration Project, Kaipupu Point Wildlife Sanctuary, Mainland Island Restoration Operation, Maungatautari, Orokonui, Pirongia, Pomona and Rona Islands, Puketi, Totara Reserve/Horizons Regional Council, Wainuiomata Mainland Island, Windy Hill, Zealandia
• Robbie Price (Landcare Research)
top related