25.03.2013 Views

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 ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!