River and stream water quality and ecology - Greater Wellington ...
River and stream water quality and ecology - Greater Wellington ...
River and stream water quality and ecology - Greater Wellington ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>River</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>stream</strong> <strong>water</strong> <strong>quality</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ecology</strong> in the <strong>Wellington</strong> region: State <strong>and</strong> trends<br />
(c) Cautionary notes<br />
Given that the state analysis period spans 20 years (1990 to 2010), it can be<br />
expected that in some cases the REC l<strong>and</strong>cover class may not accurately reflect<br />
the dominant l<strong>and</strong>cover at the time some of the earlier fish surveys were<br />
undertaken (the same is true for l<strong>and</strong>cover classes used in the trend analysis<br />
carried out in Section in 7.2). In addition, there are several potential limitations<br />
in using fish data from the NZFFD that should be borne in mind when<br />
interpreting the results of the analyses undertaken:<br />
7.1.2 Results<br />
Not all catchments in the <strong>Wellington</strong> region have been surveyed equally<br />
(in terms of the number of records <strong>and</strong> also the type, methodology <strong>and</strong><br />
effort of each individual survey).<br />
NZFFD data have been collected using a range of survey methods <strong>and</strong><br />
while backpack electric fishing has been used to undertake the majority of<br />
surveys in the <strong>Wellington</strong> region (>70% of all records), other methods<br />
have also been used (eg, spotlighting <strong>and</strong> netting/trapping). Different<br />
fishing methods have different biases in terms of both the habitat they can<br />
be used effectively in <strong>and</strong> the range of species they are likely to catch (Joy<br />
& David in prep) 27 . For example, the predominance of backpack electric<br />
fishing – which is only suitable for use in wadeable rivers <strong>and</strong> <strong>stream</strong>s –<br />
indicates that larger/deeper rivers are likely to be under-represented in<br />
NZFFD data. Furthermore, the ‘catchability’ of different species using this<br />
method is also widely variable, suggesting that the presence of some<br />
species (eg, large galaxiids <strong>and</strong> pelagic species) may be under-represented.<br />
Many surveys undertaken target specific species, such as those that are<br />
rare or considered threatened, <strong>and</strong> as such these species might be overrepresented<br />
in the NZFFD records.<br />
(a) RSoE data<br />
A summary of species caught, along with relevant site information, from the<br />
five RSoE sites fished between 2009 <strong>and</strong> 2011 is presented in Table 7.2. The<br />
five sites surveyed ranged from being located relatively close to the coast<br />
(Kaiwharawhara Stream at Ngaio Gorge <strong>and</strong> Whareroa Stream at Queen<br />
Elizabeth Park) to 90 km inl<strong>and</strong> (Beef Creek at Head<strong>water</strong>s) <strong>and</strong> are located<br />
across the four REC l<strong>and</strong>cover types represented in the RSoE network<br />
(indigenous forest, exotic forest, pasture <strong>and</strong> urban).<br />
Across these five sites, a total of 11 indigenous as well as one introduced<br />
(brown trout) species were caught. Indigenous species diversity at each site<br />
ranged from two (Tauanui <strong>River</strong> at Whakatomotomo Road <strong>and</strong> Beef Creek at<br />
Head<strong>water</strong>s) to eight (Whareroa Stream at Queen Elizabeth Park) species <strong>and</strong><br />
the total number of fish caught at each site ranged from 23 (Beef Creek at<br />
Head<strong>water</strong>s) to 318 (Totara Stream at Stronvar). Longfin eels were the only<br />
species caught at all five sites. IBI scores ranged from 28 (‘poor’, two sites) to<br />
48 (‘very good’) (Table 7.2).<br />
27 Different biases associated with different sampling methodologies should also be kept in mind when interpreting the RSoE site data<br />
presented in this section.<br />
WGN_DOCS-#1100598-V3 PAGE 91 OF 160