Sinbad Sanctuary Annual Report 2010/2011 - Fiordland ...

The Sinbad Sanctuary 

Project 

Sinbad Gully, Milford Sound 

2010/11 Annual Report

DOCDM-854896 - Sinbad Sanctuary 2010-11 Annual Report 2

The Sinbad Sanctuary 

Project 

Sinbad Gully Milford Sound 

2010/11 Annual Report 

Megan L. Willans, James T. Reardon, Jo Whitehead, Eric Edwards and Hannah Edmond; Te 

Anau Area Office 

SEPTEMBER 2011 

Cover image credit (James T. Reardon) James Reardon and Adrian Braaksma scale rock face in 

alpine cirque whilst establishing monitoring sites for the Sinbad skink. 

© Copyright August 2011, New Zealand Department of Conservation 

Te Anau Area Office 

Southland Conservancy 

Department of Conservation 

In the interest of forest conservation, we support paperless electronic publishing. 



CONTENTS 

Executive Summary 7 

1.0 Introduction 8 

1.1 Flora 9 

1.2 Fauna 10 

1.3 Threat Status 12 

1.4 Sinbad Gully Classification 14 

1.5 Goals and Objectives 14 

2.0 Methods 17 

2.1 Predator control and monitoring 17 

2.1.1 Stoat control 17 

2.1.2 Possum monitoring 17 

2.1.3 Rat monitoring in the forest and interactions with beech seed-fall 18 

2.1.4 Mouse monitoring in the alpine cirque 19 

2.1.5 Deer impacts 22 

2.2 Outcome monitoring (monitoring 0f species native to the Sinbad Gully) 22 

2.2.1 Whio (Blue duck) monitoring 22 

2.2.2 Fiordland tokoeka (kiwi) survey and translocation 23 

2.2.3 A closer look at plant life in the Sinbad 23 

2.2.4 Bat survey at campsites 23 

2.2.5 Lizard monitoring in the alpine cirque 24 

2.2.6 Other wildlife sightings 25 

3.0 Results 26 

3.1 Predator control and monitoring 26 


3.1.2 Possum monitoring 27 

3.1.3 Rat monitoring in the forest and interactions with beech seedfall 28 


3.1.5 Deer impacts 31 

3.2. Outcome monitoring (monitoring of species native to the Sinbad Gully) 31 

3.2.1 Whio (Blue duck) monitoring 31 


3.2.2 Fiordland tokoeka (kiwi) survey and translocation 32 




3.2.6 Other wildlife sightings 35 

4.0 Discussion 37 

4.1. Predator control and monitoring 37 


4.1.2 Possum monitoring 

4.1.3 Rat monitoring in the forest and interactions with beech seedfall 38 


4.1.5 Deer impacts (see 4.2.3 for discussion) 41 

4.2 Outcome monitoring (monitoring of species native to the Sinbad Gully) 41 

4.2.1 Whio monitoring 41 

4.2.2 Fiordland tokoeka (kiwi) survey 41 




5.0 Planned and Actual Budget for 2010/11 45 

6.0 Operational Objectives for 2011/12 and recommendations into the future 46 

7.0 Planned Budget for 2011/12 47 

8.0 References 48 

9.0 Acknowledgements 50 

Appendix 1 51 

Insects of interest in the Sinbad Gully 

Appendix 2 52 

Sinbad Gully plant species list 


Executive Summary 

Through an ongoing partnership with Southern Discoveries and the Fiordland Conservation 

Trust, the Department of Conservation has undertaken the second year of restoration in the 

Sinbad Sanctuary Project (see Appendix 1 for location map). The 2010/11 year saw a 

continuation of the stoat trapping established in the initial year of the project and the 

establishment of further monitoring to understand ecosystem health and predator and rodent 

population dynamics and impacts on native species. Support from Southern Discoveries has 

continued providing the primary financial support and practical support, through on the 

ground work helping with monitoring rodents in the alpine cirque and trapping stoats in the 

main valley. 

During the 2010/11 year a total of eight stoat trap checks were carried out recovering a total of 

seven stoats Mustela erminea, one weasel Mustela nivalis, thirteen rats Rattus sp. and two mice 

Mus musculus. This summer the first confirmed whio, Blue duck Hymenolaimus 

malacorhynchos breeding was observed in the valley since monitoring began in 2005. 

Juveniles have been observed in the valley on three previous occasions and most likely 

originated in the valley however it cannot be confirmed as they could have flown in from other 

catchments. A one night, walk-through kiwi (Fiordland tokoeka, Apteryx australis) survey 

located 10 individuals throughout the valley. This year three kiwi were released in to the Sinbad 

Gully from the Cleddau because they were located within the Cleddau debris collection zone for 

the development of the Cleddau flood protection. Whilst justification for this translocation was 

largely levered off the advocacy opportunity it presented, it is suspected that the Sinbad Gully 

habitat would be below carrying capacity for kiwi, due to the history of predator pressure, yet the 

site is now being managed with rudimentary predator control. 

Monitoring for rat abundance using tracking tunnels was established this year in the main 

valley. Beech Northofagus seedfall monitoring was also established to help calculate beech 

mast events which directly influence rat numbers. No rats were tracked during the initial 

monitor in February 2010. Seedfall equated to 3446 seeds falling per square metre from initial 

seed-fall to the end of May. Based on these findings it was predicted that mouse and rat 

numbers would likely rise over the winter/ spring period, however not to ‘plague’ levels that 

would indicate that a control operation was necessary. Possums Trichosurus vulpecula were 

monitored using the raised set trap catch protocol and were recorded at a trap catch index (TCI) 

of 9.3%. This suggests that possum control would be beneficial to the ecosystem due to their 

apparent abundance on the valley floor. It is worth noting that the steep and inaccessible 

forested slopes of Sinbad Gully may well represent preferred habitat for possum and other pests 

in comparison to the valley floor due to sunlight hours and air temperature inversions. 

It has already been established that the endemic Sinbad skink Oligosoma pikitanga exists in the 

presence of mice, low abundances of rats and stoats. As preliminary monitoring suggested that 

mice were potentially abundant in this environment a study took place in the alpine cirque to 

determine fluctuations in apparent mouse abundance throughout the year and to estimate 

density. Mice are persistent in the Sinbad alpine cirque throughout the year up to altitudes of 

around 1200m. Information was collected on weta presence in relation to mice and the diets of 

mice during February and April this year in an effort to begin determining the impact of mice 

on native species in the alpine cirque such as weta, lizards and rock wren Xenicus gilviventris. 

These data were considered against local environmental data collected over an eight month 

period to enable an assessment of the likely role of climate versus pest dynamics in determining 

the range of the point endemic Sinbad skink. Teams continued to survey probable Sinbad 

skink sites in the vicinity of the Llawrenny Peaks but no new populations were detected. 

Recommendations for future pest management and monitoring of both pests and native 

species in the Sinbad Gully alpine cirque and main gully are detailed in this report. 


1.0 Introduction 

The Sinbad Gully, over seven kilometres long and reaching out to the west from the head of 

Milford Sound, has the potential to become one of the most well managed ecosystems and 

one of the most easily visited and appreciated in Fiordland (location map in appendix 1). 

Nestled behind the world famous Mitre Peak, the Sinbad Gully is characterised by 

extremely steep glacially carved side walls punctuated by near-vertical granite cliffs. This 

extreme topography is not only stunning but serves to imbue the Gully with a level of 

ecological isolation that may have contributed to it being one of the last places in Fiordland 

from where kakapo Strigops habroptila were recovered before their functional extinction in 

the 1970s. 

Today we recognise this Gully, carving deep into the Llawrenny Peaks as possessing some 

unique biological assets – an apparent naturally low abundance of rodents within the silver 

beech dominated forest, unique and endemic ground wëtä only known to the Llawrenny 

Range and the Sinbad skink, currently only known from one small area of rocky habitat in 

the alpine cirque at the head of the Sinbad Gully. 

This isolation has resulted in the Sinbad Gully having survived so far with only limited 

impacts from introduced browsers and with the extreme surrounding terrain, begs the 

question: are reinvasion rates of predators likely to be much lower than expected for a 

mainland site? It would seem that these factors lend a set of characteristics to the Sinbad 

Gully environment that makes it ideal as a site for ecosystem restoration that focuses on 

reducing predation of indigenous birds, reptiles and invertebrates by introduced 

mammalian predators and controlling browse pressure exerted by possum and deer. Given 

the proximity of the site to inhabited and disturbed areas it is recommended that a 

management programme consider the potential for incursions and colonisation from pest 

species still expanding in the greater Fiordland National Park such as cats Felis catus and 

to a lesser degree, hedgehogs Atelerix albiventris. 

The existing influence of deer, stoat, possum and ship rats Rattus rattus which are all 

present in the gully to varying abundances are currently unquantified on the gully’s 

biodiversity. The natural characteristics of the gully offer us a remarkable opportunity to 

attempt to address these impacts. However, the greatest attribute of Sinbad Gully is its 

proximity to the tourist hub of Milford Sound. This proximity provides an unrivalled 

opportunity for demonstrating both the pressures on the mainland forest ecosystem and 

also the tools and techniques now available to mitigate these pressures. 

The exciting Sinbad Sanctuary project was established in 2009, a partnership between 

Southern Discoveries a local tourism operator, Fiordland Conservation Trust and the 

Department of Conservation. The aim is to enhance the ecological values of the gully by 

reducing the invasive pests to protect the endangered species that still survive in the valley 

today and consider future reintroductions for species that no longer survive in the valley. 

The first year of the project saw the establishment of the a stoat trap line down the centre of 

the valley and surveying of the recently discovered and therefore data deficient Sinbad 

skink, only known to exist in the Sinbad alpine cirque. 


Figure 1. Location of the Sinbad Valley adjacent to Milford Sound/ Piopiotahi, Fiordland. 

1.1 Flora 

The predominant vegetation within the valley is silver beech-southern rata forest. Within 

the lower valley pure silver beech Nothofagus menziesii on the valley floor gives way to 

southern rata Metrosideros umellata on the steep side-walls and at higher elevation. Halls 

totara Podocarpus hallii is prevalent in these areas also. Further up the valley silver beech 

remains prevalent and mountain beech is encountered only on valley walls. Scattered rimu 

Dacrydium cupressinum occur as emergent trees on northern aspect slopes in the midvalley. 

Few miro Prumnopitys ferruginea are present in the valley. 

Sub-canopy trees include kamahi Weinmannia racemosa, lancewood Pseudopanex 

crassifolius, threefinger P. simplex, fivefinger P. arboreus and broadleaf Griselinia littoralis 

and mahoe Melicytus ramiflorus, which is seen only in the lower valley. The shrub layer 

features peppertree Pseudowintera colorata, tree fern Cyathea smithii, Neomyrtus 

pedunculatus and a number of coprosma species; Coprosma rhamnoides, C. foetidissima, C. 

parviflora and C. colensoi. Shield fern Polystichum vestitum, hen and chicken fern Astelia 

bulbiferum and crown fern Blechnum discolour frequently form a dense and sometimes 

very tall lower tier within the forest while the Prince of Wales Leptopteris superba is mainly 

found on shadier and damper slopes. 

In the upper valley, there are some large areas of shrubland. Seral species predominate 

especially fuchsia Fuchsia excorticate, wineberry Aristotelia serrata, and Mountain 

ribbonwood Hoheria glabrata and these form a low shrubby forest of about 4-6m in height. 

The alpine cirque is dominated by Chionocloa rigida with dispersed C. crussiascula and 

patches of shrubs and large lose rock jumbles. The alpine cirque has not yet been fully 

described, however some species were added to the plant list in Appendix 2. 


1.2 Fauna 

BIRDLIFE 

Threatened bird species known to occur in the Sinbad Gully include; Fiordland tokoeka, 

möhua Mohoua ochroacephala, whio, weka Gallirallus australis, kaka Nestor meridionalis 

meridionalis, kea Nestor notabilis and rock wren. Twice yearly whio surveys began in 2005 

(Whitehead et al 2006). Three pairs were located that year and fledglings were observed. 

Most recent results (2010) found three pairs, three single birds and 1 juvenile residing in the 

valley. In 2010 five pairs of rock wren were observed in the alpine cirque and numerous 

weka. Weka are regularly observed in the main valley. 

Möhua have been observed in very few locations in groups of one to three. The population 

appears to be on the brink of collapse. The restricted range and number within the valley is 

likely to have occurred as a result of stoat and rat predation. The South Island robin 

Petroica australis appears to be absent within the valley. This is also likely to be a result of 

stoat and rat predation. Both these species would be ideal candidates to reintroduce back 

to the Sinbad Gully once stoat, possum and rat numbers are reduced to very low numbers. 

The more common forest birds; brown creeper Certhia Americana, kereru Hemiphaga 

novaeseelandiae, bellbirds Anthornis melanura, tomtits Petroica macrocephala, falcon, 

Falco novaeseelandiae, käkäriki Cyanoramphus sp. and Grey warbler Gerygone igata, are 

seen throughout the valley. 

BATS 

New Zealand’s vertebrate fauna is dominated by reptiles and birds and our only native land 

mammals are our three native bat (pekapeka in Maori) species. Today it believed only two 

species survive – the long-tailed bat Chalinolobus tuberculata and the lesser short-tailed 

bat Mystacina tuberculata – as the third species (the greater short-tailed bat Mystacina 

robusta) has not been seen since 1967. There are populations of both short and long-tailed 

bats in Fiordland with the largest known colonies in the Eglinton Valley. Bats commonly 

roost in large colonies in cavities in beech trees and are susceptible to predation during rat 

plagues. Bats have not previously been recorded in the Sinbad Gully. 

SOME FEATURE INVERTEBRATES 

Two species of ground weta Hemiandrus were recently described from the alpine cirque in 

the Sinbad Gully. H. superba is the largest known member of the genus, and H. nitaweta is 

perhaps the most brilliantly coloured (Jewel, 2007) (photos in appendix 1). These two very 

distinct species are not known at lower altitudes and are currently only known in the 

Llawrenny Range. Being large bodied flightless and ground dwelling is likely to make 

them vulnerable to predators. 

Also conspicuous on mild days, an un-named species of cave weta (Raphidophoridae 

family) is common on the rock faces of the alpine cirque (photo in appendix 1). This is of 

ecological interest because firstly this insect family is characterised by night active species 

that are sensitive to low humidity and normally inhabit crevices and caves. This ‘cave’ weta 

in the Sinbad is clearly out feeding and basking during the day. Secondly, Fiordland 

almost entirely lacks grasshoppers and thus as the next nearest family of Orthoptera (to 

which grasshoppers belong) this weta appears to have replaced grasshoppers. 

Other large bodied invertebrates known from the Fiordland region and recorded here 

include flightless speargrass weevil Lyperobius sp. and large forest Porina (ground beetle) 


and Aoraia (moths) species with flightless females and males that have a 55 mm wingspan. 

Large leaf veined slugs Amphikonophora sp; are common in the Sinbad cirque basin and 

appear to be the same as those only known nearby in the Darran Mountains. 

LIZARDS 

The alpine cirque of the Sinbad Valley is a highly significant location regarding the reptile 

assemblage it contains. Three species: the Sinbad skink Oligosoma pikitanga, Cascade 

gecko Mokopirirakau aff. Granulatus ‘Cascades’ and cryptic skink Oligosoma inconspicuum 

inhabit the same steep rockface habitat in an extreme alpine environment. 

The Cascade gecko appears to be sparsely distributed through parts of northern Fiordland 

(Edmonds, 2009). It is currently listed as Nationally Vulnerable (Hitchmough et. al. 2010). 

The cryptic skink found in the Sinbad Valley falls within the species O. inconspicuum sensu 

stricto (Patterson, pers. comm. 2010). The Sinbad population is morphologically very 

distinctive, and is tag named the “Mahogany skink” due to its’ unique colouration, however 

it falls within the O. inconspicuum clade. This species is ranked as not threatened/ in partial 

decline. 

The Sinbad Skink is currently classified as data deficient. The NZ threat classification 

system prescribes there is insufficient data to allow accurate classification of conservation 

need. Regardless of its threat classification the Sinbad skink is a unique species known 

only from one small isolated population, which by definition makes it both vulnerable and 

of high conservation status. 

Data deficient: The data deficient classification of the Sinbad skink means that before any 

investment in intervention management is made that we have adequate data to describe 

the current population status of the species and an indicatory assessment of its population 

trend over time. To achieve this outcome a level of data, census and monitoring is required. 

Multiple lizard species: A key element of the value of the Sinbad Gully alpine cirque is 

that three reptile species exist in the same location in sympatry (occupying overlapping 

habitat and apparently occurring in the same spatial niche). This is the only reptile 

‘community’ of species known from Fiordland’s alpine ecosystem and indeed appears to be 

one of the most specious alpine lizard communities in the world (Edmonds et al 2010). 

Potential threats – predation/competition: Above the bush-line mice, rather than rats 

appear to dominate as the invasive rodent and evidence suggests that these populations 

cycle following tussock masting much as rat populations cycle following beech masting in 

forest systems and that stoat populations track these fluctuations in phase (Smith and 

Jamieson 2003). Without considering the role of browsers (deer, chamois) and possum, we 

are left with a rodent-stoat predator-prey relationship to engage with, strategically 

supported by the apparent barrier to immigration and dispersal posed by the surrounding 

terrain. 

Small Sinbad skink population: Our current understanding is that the Sinbad skink 

population is restricted to a very small (~200m2) section of lower rock wall at the head of 

the alpine cirque at the head of the Sinbad Gully (identified in figure 2 below). Their local 

distribution within the alpine cirque appears very restrictive with regard to available 

habitat which is why hypotheses were posed in the 2010 field season regarding the thermal 

ecology of the rock face and the distribution of mice within the alpine cirque. It seems that 

either local thermal/micro-climate may be one of the determining factors dictating their 

habitat occupancy. 


Figure 2. The current known extent of Sinbad skink habitat occupancy in red. James T. 

Reardon DOC. 

1.3 Threat status 

STOATS 

Stoats are the only pest species currently managed in the Sinbad Gully. Stoat control 

consists of a seven kilometre line of single set stoat traps at 100m intervals running the full 

length of the main valley. The traps in the Sinbad Gully were first baited and opened in 

January 2010. This regime of trapping is similar to stoat control occurring in other 

northern Fiordland valleys, including the Eglinton, Clinton, Arthur and Cleddau which 

have proven to protect whio in the Arthur, Cleddau and Clinton Valleys and kaka in the 

Eglinton Valley (Whitehead et al 2006 and Dilks et al 2003). Other large species still 

remaining in the gully that are likely to benefit from stoat control are Western weka, falcon 

and kea. Fiordland tokoeka (kiwi) may benefit but there is no convincing evidence to 

support this. It takes a number of years to gather this information as stoat density 

fluctuates between years and kiwi are a difficult and costly bird to monitor. In the 

Murchison Mountains a five year study suggested that landscape level stoat suppression 

resulted in kiwi population approaching stability but with no evidence of significant 

recruitment or recovery (Tansell 2009). 


POSSUMS 

Possums were liberated in the Sinbad by the Southland Acclimatisation Society in 1890. 

They are now present through the valley including the alpine cirque. A decade ago 

researchers confirmed that possums are significant predators of the eggs, nestlings, and 

even adults, of many native birds (Montague 2000). Their diet also includes a wide range 

of invertebrates. As a consequence, people have changed from thinking of the possum as 

primarily a folivore, to recognising that possums are generalist and opportunistic feeders of 

high energy foods, making them a significant predator for some smaller taxa. Footage of 

possums disturbing whio and kiwi nests in Fiordland indicates their potential impact on 

larger native birds and the success of nesting through nest abandonment. 

Possums cause damage to native forests from the ground level to the canopy where, by 

concentrating on preferred plants they can kill trees by defoliation over several years. 

Possums preferentially feed on some of the tall canopy species - such as, Southern rata, 

kamahi, and Hall's totara which are all common species in the Sinbad Gully. They also 

prefer some of the smaller trees, such as tree fuchsia and wineberry, along with mistletoe 

species, forest herbs, some ferns, and a number of endangered shrubs. 

RATS 

Rodents are both primary consumers of seeds, invertebrates and in the case of rats, known 

predators of eggs and chicks (Dilks et al 2003, White and King 2006). As such rodents 

constitute a direct impact on ecosystem function and biodiversity. In environments where 

fluctuating food abundance allow rodent population explosions they play an even more 

dynamic role as the primary prey of invasive predators such as stoats. The primary driver 

of rat fluctuations in the Sinbad Gully is expected to be the flowering events of Silver beech, 

the most common beech species in the gully. 

MICE 

The Fiordland alpine ecosystem possesses a suit of invasive species distinct in some 

aspects from lowland and forest pest assemblies. Above the bush-line mice, rather than 

rats appear to dominate as the invasive rodent and evidence suggests that these 

populations cycle following tussock masting much as rat populations cycle following beech 

masting in forest systems and that stoat populations track these fluctuations in phase 

(Smith and Jamieson 2003). Mice were encountered by climbers midway up the overhung 

200m high Shadowland climb and one dead mouse has been observed within the skink 

habitat on the lower section of rock wall, however tracking tunnels and chew sticks have 

not detected mice on the rock face indicating they are scarce in this habitat, unlike the 

tussock dominant slopes below. Without considering the role of browsers (deer, chamois) 

and possum, we can focus on the dynamics and impacts of a rodent-stoat predator-prey 

relationship in the alpine cirque environment of Sinbad Gully. As with the greater gully, 

the apparent barrier to immigration and dispersal posed by the surrounding terrain of the 

alpine cirque may improve efficacy of pest management in this habitat, should it be 

deemed necessary. The entire cirque is walled in by very high steep rock walls including a 

waterfall and bluff sequence at its exit (figure 7). This probable barrier to immigration and 

dispersal probably improves the effectiveness of broad scale pest management in the 

cirque. 


DEER AND CHAMOIS 

Red deer Cervus elaphus scoticus were thought to have arrived in the gully as recent as the 

1980s and chamois began spreading into Fiordland from the north in the 1970s and so it is 

expected they arrived in the Milford area close to this time (King 2005). Both species 

remain in low numbers in the Sinbad Gully today. Chamois have been observed in the 

alpine cirque on a number of occasions during field trips. Chamois control takes place 

across Fiordland National Park including the Milford area. No deer control currently takes 

place in the Sinbad Gully. Deer sign has been observed more commonly in the upper half 

of the lower valley system in the Sinbad amongst areas of fuschia and ribbonwood. 

PLANT PESTS 

Surveillance for exotic plant pest species takes place in the Milford area each year and 

where possible pest species found are exterminated. Reported sightings from the public 

are also followed up and addressed by the DOC pest plant officer. 

1.4 Sinbad Gully Classification 

Sinbad Gully is part of Fiordland National Park. In 1974 Sinbad Gully was set apart as a 

“Special Area” because of the presence of kakapo and the largely unmodified state of the 

vegetation. This status was lifted in 1992. At this stage deer had become established in 

Sinbad Gully and kakapo were thought to be no longer present, therefore it was considered 

no longer necessary to restrict public access under the special area status. Sinbad Gully is 

now classified as part of the “Eastern Remote Zone” under the Fiordland National Park 

Management Plan (2007). 

1.5 Goals and Objectives 

CONSERVATION GOALS 

• To enhance the ecological values of Sinbad Gully by reducing stoat and 

possum numbers to very low levels and maintaining aining densities at these 

levels. 

The control of stoats and possums to very low densities within the Sinbad Gully will give 

protection to a range of native species vulnerable to predation. Of particular importance 

are Fiordland tokoeka, whio and South Island kaka. In the absence of stoat control, these 

three species would certainly die out on the mainland (Tansell 2009, Whitehead et al 2006, 

Dilks et al 2003). 

Other bird species that will benefit from reducing stoat and possum numbers to minimum 

levels are käkäriki, kea, New Zealand falcon, möhua and Western weka, however rats are 

also a threat to möhua and käkäriki, in particular and may restrict recovery. Insects and 

lizards will also benefit from the pest control. A study of stoat ecology in the Murchison 

Mountain Special Area over two years showed that the diet of stoats consisted mostly of 


invertebrates, particularly weta Hemiandrus spp in the year that mice were less prevalent 

(Smith 2002). Palatable plant species such as Southern rata, kamahi, Hall's tötara, fuchsia 

and wineberry are expected to benefit from the reduction of possum numbers in the gully. 

• Improve our understanding of the abundance and distribution of Sinbad 

skinks to enable population trends to be monitored and managed to 

ensure e long term survival of the species. 

Determining the range extent of the Sinbad skink in the Sinbad catchment and wider 

Llawrenny Range will be an important step toward monitoring population trends and 

potential threats such as mice. The potentially high conservation status is not reflected in 

the data deficient classification currently assigned to the Sinbad skink. 

• Assess options to reduce numbers of rodents in the gully 

A great number of native species are vulnerable to rodents. Möhua populations are known 

to have been decimated by rats in plague years e.g. Eglinton Valley (Dilks et al 3002). Most 

small forest birds are known to be vulnerable to rats. Both rats and mice predate on lizards 

(Towns et al 2001) and in the alpine region mice are known to predate on rock wren 

(Michelsen-Heath 1989, Willans 2009). Today the two species of skinks known to the 

alpine cirque of the Sinbad Gully are only known to survive on the near vertical bluff 

systems. Further knowledge of the rat and mouse populations in the valley and an 

assessment of rodent control options are essential precursors to making informed 

decisions on rodent control in the Sinbad Gully and alpine cirque. 

• Assess options to reduce numbers of deer in the gully 

In 2001 an ecological study in the Sinbad Gully it was noted that palatable plants within 

the forest had been subject to light browsing pressure and that deer density remains low 

(Nichol 2001). Local helicopter hunters suggest that deer can only access the valley around 

the lower forested faces from the Arthur Valley (D. Deaker & K. Hollows pers. comm. 2009). 

Further knowledge of deer density and their access routes to the valley will help to make 

informed decisions about potential deer control in the valley. 

• To reintroduce threatened species to Sinbad Gully 

The control of stoat and possum numbers in the Sinbad Gully will not only be of benefit to 

native flora and fauna already present in the area but will allow for introducing a range of 

native species threatened on mainland New Zealand. There are no planned future 

introductions at this stage but initial possibilities are South Island robin and möhua, if they 

are no longer present in the Sinbad Gully or if their numbers are alarmingly low and in 

need of increased genetic diversity. This can only take place if rat numbers in the gully are 

not considered threatening to these species through ongoing rat monitoring or rats are 

controlled to a level that enables mohua and robins to establish and spread throughout the 

gully. 


OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES (for July 2010 – June 2011) 

• Reduce stoats to a very low density by way of a marked trap network 

using DOC 200 traps. 

• Carryout possum monitoring using trap catch index 

• Establish monitoring for rats and beech seedfall and carryout an initial 

monitor and investigate a suitable method of control. 

• Detect for mice in the alpine cirque throughout the year using tracking 

tunnel lines established in 2009/10 

• Carryout whio monitoring via two walkthrough surveys; one during 

nesting and one post nesting 

• Estimate abundance (n) of Sinbad skinks at the known site 

• Determine thermal characteristics of refugia for the Sinbad skink and with 

the slopes below the bluff system 

• Continue to investigate wider distribution of Sinbad skinks through 

methodological surveys of likely locations and following up apparent 

lizard sighting from climbers 

Additional objectives funded and undertaken by DOC 

• Describe apparent density and trap removal effect on the local mouse 

population using a replicated block design removal and monitoring grid. 

• Investigate the potential competition impact on lizards caused by rodents 

consumption of invertebrates 

• Monitor tussock seeding in the alpine cirque 

• Carryout a kiwi walkthrough survey in the valley along the trap line track. 


2.0 Methods 

2.1 Predator control and monitoring 

2.1.1 Stoat control 

During the 2010/11 year (June 2010 – June 2011) eight trap-check trips were made into the 

Sinbad Sanctuary to check and re-bait the 74 stoat traps in the valley (Table 1 below). 

Southern Discoveries staff assisted DOC staff on five of these eight trapping trips. Teams 

usually consisted of four people with one team of two completing the traps in the upper and 

other team in the lower half of the valley. Teams were flown in and picked up by helicopter 

at the start and end of the day. On each trip the traps were re-baited with a fresh egg and 

either fresh or salted rabbit meat. Trap catch was noted and recorded by DOC in an Excel 

spreadsheet (DOCDM-590734). 

Table 1: Information on trap-check trips into Sinbad Valley in 2010/11 

Date checked 

Bait replaced 

Staff involved 

Affiliation 

11-Aug-11 Egg and salted rabbit Sue Lake, John Carter, Marina Lawrance, Aishling Folley DOC and Southern Discoveries 

5-Oct-11 Egg and rabbit Shinji Kameyama, Adrian Braaksma, Sarah Walker DOC and Southern Discoveries 

22-Nov-11 Egg and rabbit Shinji Kameyama DOC 

16-Dec-11 Egg and rabbit Jo Whitehead, Megan Willans, Adrian Braaksma DOC 

4-Feb-11 Egg and rabbit Addy Dobell, Phil Collins, Shinji Kameyama, Chris Connor DOC and Southern Discoveries 

15-Mar-11 Egg and rabbit Michael Anderson, Annie Provo, Shingi Kameyama DOC and Southern Discoveries 

28-Mar-11 Egg and rabbit Amanda Cook, Asha Dowgray, Warren Simpson, Shinji Kameyama DOC and Southern Discoveries 

1-Jun-11 Egg and rabbit Gerard Hill, John Whitehead DOC 

WEKA TRAPPING INTERATIONS 

On the December trapping trip it was observed that the meat was missing from many of 

the stoat traps the day after fresh meat had been placed in the trap, and that the eggs were 

pushed off their base towards the trap. The cause was discovered to be the weka in the 

valley that had found a quick feed in pulling the meat through the wire mesh at the end of 

the trap. 

To ensure the trapping efficacy is not diminished by weka scavenging the traps were 

modified on the trap check in February 2011. New bait platforms were nailed inside each 

wooden trap box so that the meat and egg are positioned out of reach of weka. There have 

been no issues with trap disturbance since. 


In February 2011 a private contractor was employed to measure possum density in the 

Sinbad Gully using the raised set trap-catch index method. Ten lines of 10 traps were run 

in the valley for three nights, equating to 300 trap nights. The trap lines were spread 

throughout the length of the valley in similar locations as the rodent tracking tunnel lines 

(Figure 3). Traps were set on raised platforms 0.5-0.7 m above ground level to avoid 

catching ground birds such as kiwi and weka. 


2.1.3 Rat monitoring in the forest and interactions with beech 

seedfall 

To understand relative rodent abundance and fluctuations in the valley it is important to 

establish robust ongoing monitoring. In December 2010 ten tracking tunnel lines were 

established, each with ten tunnels at a range of elevations the length of the valley. A key 

element in the design of tracking tunnels is to disperse the rodent lines away from the 

central valley floor to attempt to detect spatial heterogeneity in rodent abundance patterns 

as well as to describe the overall fluctuations. This did however prove challenging in the 

Sinbad Gully as the near vertical valley walls virtually plunge to the valley floor leaving 

little country accessible by foot and outside high risk avalanche zones. The standard 

operating protocol to monitor rodents was used (Gillies et al 2003). The lines are marked 

with flagging tape and the tunnel locations with white triangles. The tunnels are named 

R001 – R100 and their locations are shown in Figure 3. Tracking tunnel results and grid 

references for individual tunnel locations are stored in DOCDM 643024. 

Figure 3: Location of the ten tracking tunnel lines in the Sinbad Gully. 

BEECH SEEDFALL MONITORING 

It is well documented that in New Zealand beech forests rodent population explosions are 

correlated with high rates of beech seedfall known as ‘masting’ (Studholme 2000). By 

collecting seeds in a “seedfall tray” and counting the 

number and species present it is possible to predict 

future rodent abundance trends. Eight seedfall trays 

were set up in the Sinbad Gully in December 2010. Each 

tray consisted of a plastic funnel suspended above the 

ground by 3 metal stakes. A stocking is attached to the 

bottom of the funnel to collect the seeds. Seedfall trays 

were established in pairs at least 50m apart and 50m 

from the nearest large forest clearing. The seedfall trays 

were located throughout the length of the valley as 

shown in the map in figure 4 below. 

Megan Willans standing beside a seedfall tray and a trap box (Jo Whitehead DOC). 


Figure 4. Location of the beech seed-fall trays in the Sinbad Gully. 

The stockings were set up on 16/12/10 and collected in on 1/6/11. The seeds were sent to 

Christchurch for analysis and the full results are stored in DOCDM-799482 which holds the 

Sinbad data only and DOCDM-45754 which holds all Te Anau Area seedfall data. 

2.1.4 Mouse monitoring in the alpine cirque 

PILOT SEASONAL MONITORING OF MICE 

In February 2010 four lines of 10 rodent tracking tunnels were deployed in the Sinbad 

alpine cirque to detect the presence of mice throughout the year. One line was established 

on the bluff in known skink habitat. Unfortunately the majority of tunnels on this line of 

tunnels were washed/pushed off the bluff by snow and water during the winter, hence only 

one overnight set of data was collected for this line prior to winter 29 th June 2010. The 

other three lines were spread down the slope running across the face (see location of 

tracking tunnel lines in figure 5). Tracking tunnels were run from June –November 2010, 

November 2010 –January 2011, January - February 2011 and February-April 2011. 

Grant Norbury (Landcare 

Research ecologist) checking 

tracking tunnels in the Sinbad 

alpine cirque with Eric 

Edwards (DOC biodiversity 

technical support manager, 

Southland) in background in 

June 2010 (James Reardon 

DOC) 


Figure 5. Location of the four rodent tracking lines in white and i-buttons (climatic 

recorders) both on the wall in orange and the slope below in green in the Sinbad alpine 

cirque (James Reardon DOC). 

MOUSE DYNAMICS IN THE ALPINE CIRQUE AD INTERACTIONS WITH 

WETA AND TUSSOCK SEEDING 

To describe rodent fluctuations and to also investigate consumption of invertebrates a 

replicated block design removal and monitoring grid was established in the Sinbad Gully 

alpine cirque (figure 6 and 7) alongside a tussock seeding survey. 


Whilst it is intended that in the medium term, this grid be used to monitor changes in 

rodent abundance and trapability (as a surrogate for control efficacy), its initial use was to 

describe apparent density and trap removal effect on the local mouse population. 

Figure 6. Rodent trapping and monitoring grids established to determine density, spatial 

dynamics and heterogeneity of rodents in alpine environment. C and A are monitoring 

grids only. D and B are monitoring and trapping grids. (James Reardon DOC). 

Figure 7. Illustrates the spatial lay-out of the rodent monitoring and trapping grids. To give 

some sense of scale the rock face above the grids is over 200m tall (James Reardon DOC). 


The intention was to conduct ink tunnel monitoring of rodents pre and post a trapping 

effort to determine trapping efficacy and residual rodent abundance after control. The diet 

of all mice caught was recorded from gut samples. 

During the February field trip a tussock seed survey was conducted. Seeding was observed 

along random transects laid out on either side of the stream. The number of seeding tillers 

were counted for each plant over 10cm in base diameter with canopies intersecting the 

transect line. A sample of 71 Chionochloa rigida and 47 C. crassiascula were collected. 

2.1.5 Deer impacts 

During the field trip in December where DOC staff undertook a vegetation survey and 

established rodent monitoring, observations of deer prints and pellets, browse on palatable 

plant species and the prevalence of these plant species was recorded in an effort to begin 

determining the level of deer impact in the Sinbad Gully. 

2.2 Outcome monitoring (monitoring of species 

native to the Sinbad Gully) 

2.2.1 Whio (Blue Duck) monitoring 

Andrew Smart (Max) and his species-trained dog carried out a one day whio survey on 16 th 

December 2010 walking the length of suitable whio habitat along the river. Usually two 

surveys are conducted each year in December and January/February; however the team 

were unable to carryout the second survey this year within the desirable timeframe to 

observe signs of breeding due to river flooding. 

Max and dog Tea surveying for whio in the Sinbad Gully (Caroline Carter DOC). 


2.2.2 Fiordland tokoeka (kiwi) survey and translocation 

KIWI SURVEY 

The opportunity was taken to survey for kiwi one evening during the December field trip. On 

the night of the 16 th December 2010 kiwi call counts were conducted along the length of the 

track from the head to the mouth of the valley. Both male and female kiwi calls were played 

at 200m intervals along the track, once when walking up the valley and again while 

returning back down the valley later in the evening. 

The first group played calls from the river mouth camp to Trap 47 and return. Group two 

surveyed from mid camp (Trap 30) to Trap 56 and return, and then from Trap 30 – Trap 23 

and return. Group three played calls from T20 to the head of the valley and back again. 

KIWI INTRODUCTIONS FROM THE CLEDDAU VALLEY 

Three kiwi were released into the valley in early 2011 due to the Cleddau Flood Protection 

scheme. The “borrow” site from which the fill for the flood protection wall was to be 

collected was deemed unsafe for kiwi inhabiting the area due to disturbance. The 

Department of Conservation conducted kiwi surveys within the area and found three kiwi 

would require removal from the area prior to excavation. 

The Sinbad Gully was identified as a suitable site to translocate the kiwi for two reasons: 

kiwi are present in the valley, indicating it is suitable habitat for these birds, and there is 

some protection offered to the population in the form of stoat control. However the 

primary reason for the translocation was to avoid adverse public response to the 

disturbance of those kiwi and as an advocacy opportunity for the conservation 

programmes and Sinbad Gully project. Whilst the stoat trapping in the Sinbad Gully may 

be argued as effective for whio conservation and for kaka fledging success in the vicinity of 

the trap lines, work in the Murchison Mountains (Tansell 2009) indicates that a single stoat 

line is likely to be ineffective in enabling a significant increase in recruitment to the kiwi 

population. 

2.2.3 A closer look at the plant life in the Sinbad 

Department of Conservation botanists Brian Rance and Sue Lake spent two days in the 

Sinbad Gully in December 2010 measuring and recording the vegetation in the valley. 

During their trip the botanists updated a plant list for the valley from 2001 (Nichol, 2001). 

They also established four long-term permanent plots (using the recce method) and wrote 

vegetation descriptions for the valley. The findings from their trip are written up as a 10 

page report (Rance 2011, Sinbad Valley Vegetation report, DM689733). 

2.2.4 Bat survey at campsites 

During the December 2010 field trip the two field parties surveyed for bats at each 

campsite. Over three nights of good weather conditions two recorders were placed by the 

mid-valley camp (T29) and one near the river mouth camp. The recorders collect echo 

location calls of bats as they fly nearby. Data is downloaded and analysed to hear if any 

echo location calls were recorded. 


2.2.5 Lizard monitoring in the alpine cirque 

Preliminary investigations suggest a set of priority areas to investigate which generated a 

programme of work for the 2010/11 field season. 

ESTIMATE ABUNDANCE OF SINBAD SKINK POPULATION 

A concerted effort was made to conduct a ‘capture-mark-recapture study of the Sinbad 

skink population in February 2011. A team of three spent a total of 11 days attempting to 

capture an adequate sample of the skinks within a period that would enable analysis of 

individual capture frequencies to generate 

an estimate of local abundance. Skinks were 

to be captured on consecutive days using the 

established methodology of the gee’s 

minnow trap baited with pear. It was 

expected that some trap-shyness effects 

would influence capture probabilities and 

this was expected to be managed by 

describing heterogeneity in capture 

probability within the analysis models. 

Sinbad Skink in the Sinbad Gully on the rock wall at the head of the alpine cirque (James 

Reardon DOC). 

THERMAL ECOLOGY 

This year the assumption that a determining component of skink occupancy is thermal 

and/or hydrological characteristics of refugia was tested. Sixteen i-button data loggers 

were dispatched on the rock in occupied skink sites and on the slope at the base of the bluff 

in unoccupied sites (location in Figure 5 on page 20). 

INVESTIGATIONS FOR WIDER DISTRIBUTION 

A brief lizard survey was conducted on the northern side of Terror Peak, Llawrenny Range, 

Fiordland, 8–9 March 2011 (DOCDM 715937). The aim of this survey was to follow up on a 

skink sighting made two years earlier by a climber. The skink was glimpsed briefly on scree 

habitat below the north-facing bluffs above the Terror Lake (Martin Wilson, Abseil Access 

Ltd., Wellington; personal communication to Hannah Edmonds, DOC Te Anau Area 

Office). No details are available regarding its size and colouration. The site where the skink 

was seen is approximately 2.5 km south of Sinbad Gully. The survey focused on northfacing 

scree and bluff habitat above Terror Lake (approximately 1400 m a.s.l). Methods 

used were visual searching using binoculars and/or the naked eye, hand searching of 

potential retreat sites (e.g. under rocks, in vegetation and crevices), and live trapping using 

funnel (gee-minnow) traps baited with canned pear. Twenty traps were set up on the 

morning of 8 March, checked and re-baited on the following morning, and removed on the 

afternoon of 9 March. 


2.2.6 Other wildlife sightings 

The Sinbad Gully is home to a range of wildlife, some of which is just holding its own and 

some species that are in good number. Over the last year people collected notes on a 

range of species not specifically being monitored or surveyed. 


3.0 Results 

3.1 Predator control and monitoring 


Seven stoats and one weasel were caught in the Sinbad Gully during the eight trapchecking 

trips in the 2010/11 year (results in table 2). In the previous six months of 2010 

(which was the first six months of trapping in the valley) there were 16 stoats trapped - 

more than twice the number of stoats caught in half the time. This suggests that the first six 

months of the trapping acted as a knock-down phase. This year trapping results show low 

catch rates spread throughout the valley for the past year as indicated in figure 8 below. 

Table 2: Results from trapping in Sinbad Gully since traps opened in January 2010 

Year Date Stoat Weasel Rat Mouse Bird Other Sprung Bait Gone 

2010 11-Feb 12 1 1 

2010 26-Feb 1 

2010 8-Apr 1 1 1 

2010 19-May 3 4 1 

2010 30-Jun 5 2 

2010 total 16 0 12 2 0 1 2 0 

2010 11-Aug 2 1 

2010 5-Oct 1 1 

2010 22-Nov 3 

2010 16-Dec 1 1 2 

2011 4-Feb 1 3 2 

2011 15-Mar 1 2 1 1 

2011 28-Apr 4 1 5 1 

2011 1-Jun 3 1 

2010/2011 total 7 1 13 5 2 0 7 3 

Overall total 23 1 25 7 2 1 9 3 

Rodents are also caught in the DOC-200 traps. In the 2010/11 year thirteen rats were 

trapped and five mice. In the previous six months the same number of rats (13) and two 

mice were trapped. 


Figure 8. Map showing the location of stoats caught along the valley in the traps between 

July 2010 and June 2011. 

Figure 9 shows the number of stoats and rats caught over the year since trapping began. 

Graphing this information along with beech seedfall results and the rodent tracking tunnel 

data in the future will help us to understand the pest dynamics in the forest system of the 

Sinbad Gully and in turn how best to mitigate their impact on the native fauna. 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

Stoats 

Rats 

4 

2 

0 

Summer 

Autumn 

Winter 

Spring 

Summer 

Autumn 

Winter 

Figure 9. Graph showing stoats and rats trapped in the Sinbad Gully Feb 2010 – June 2011. 


The geography of the valley has not restricted possums from entering the catchment. 

During the monitoring 16 possums were trapped and 12 were caught but escaped. These 

results equated to a trap catch rate (TCI) of 9.3% ± 2.8 possums. These results show that 

possum numbers in the Sinbad Gully are similar to what you would expect from beech 

forest elsewhere in Fiordland when using raised sets. The possum monitoring work was 

undertaken by private contractor Dean Hansen. The results are stored as DOCDM- 

803027. 



seedfall 

The first tracking tunnel lines were run for rodents on 10/11 th February. It rained steadily 

on the first morning that the papers were placed out but had cleared by the afternoon and 

evening. It is best to have a fine night so that results are unbiased. 

The tracking tunnel cards were put out in 97 of the 100 tunnels, as 3 tunnels had been 

washed away in floods. The ink cards were baited with peanut butter to attract rodents and 

were left out for one night. 

The following results were recorded: 

• No rodents (rats or mice) were tracked 

• Weta were tracked on 13% of tunnels 

• All results are recorded in DOCDM-643024 


The beech seeds counted were all silver beech and a summary of the results is shown in 

Table 3 below. 

Table 3: Results of silver beech seeds collected in seedfall trays. 

Tray ID Started Collected Count Viable Non-viable 

S 1 16.12.10 1.6.11 1013 16 34 

S 2 16.12.10 1.6.11 1997 24 26 

S 3 16.12.10 1.6.11 710 21 29 

S 4 16.12.10 1.6.11 1738 32 18 

S 5 16.12.10 1.6.11 573 22 28 

S 6 16.12.10 1.6.11 609 26 24 

S 7 16.12.10 1.6.11 907 18 32 

S 8 16.12.10 1.6.11 171 14 36 

Totals 7718 173 227 

The seedfall results show a reasonable level of seedfall to the end of May. Heavier seeding 

was recorded in the upper half of the valley. Seed tray eight recorded a lower seedfall than 

the other trays possibly because it is located in forest adjacent to the Fiord. A combined 

total of 7718 silver beech seeds were recorded in the eight seedfall trays. This equates to 

3446 seeds falling per square metre, and approximately 120kg of food falling per hectare 

over the five and half month period. Based on these findings it is predicted that mice 

numbers will rise over the winter/ spring period and that rat numbers may also rise during 

this period. 

3.1.4 Mouse monitoring in alpine cirque 


Tracking rates for mice in the alpine cirque from June 2010 to April 2011 are shown in 

Figure 11 below. The rock wall line left off the graph as only one set of data was collected. 


The one night monitor recorded no mice. The data suggests that mice numbers are less at 

the base of the bluff than lower altitudes down the slopes of the cirque. The lower line 

exhibited close to or at saturation tracking rate throughout most of the year (June - 

February), and then lowered from February to April to approximately 40% tracking. Mice 

tracked high in the mid slope line except in November to January. No rats were tracked 

during the survey. 

Mouse tracking 

1.2 

1 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

High 

Mid 

Low 

0.2 

0 

June -Nov Nov -Jan Jan -Feb Feb -April 

Figure 11. Graph showing mouse tracking results from three lines stacked up the slope in 

the Sinbad alpine cirque over 4 surveys between June 2010 and April 2011. Note that in 

Nov –Jan mid and high altitude tunnels were snowed in and no mouse activity is recorded. 

MOUSE DYNAMICS IN THE ALPINE CIRQUE AND INTERACTIONS WITH 

WETA AND TUSSOCK SEEDING 

The results of the trap-removal grids and tracking grids suggest that rodents are both 

dynamic and heterogeneous in their abundance and distribution in the alpine environment 

(Figure 12). Of the two removal grids established ~120 meters apart grid D exhibited a 

classic decline curve with consecutive nights of rodent trapping, whereas grid B showed a 

low and fluctuating trapping rate throughout the six day trapping period. 

Rodent trap removal 

mice removed (n) 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

days 

Grid B 

Grid D 

Figure12. Declining rodent catch over 6 days trapping over two grids. 


Rodent tracking rates 

rodent 

tracking (%) 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

trapping 

period 

Grid C 

Grid A 

Grid D 

before after 

Grid B 

Figure 13. Tracking rates of rodent pre and post the trapping period. Gird B and D were 

trapped and monitored. Grid A and C were monitored only. 

Again, weather challenged the collection of data and the experimental scale of such an 

operation means the size of the data set is limited and so results are indicatory only but do 

show that both a large reduction in residual detection following trapping removal in half of 

the trial. This suggests that the trapping density of 20m2 was adequate to achieve a 

trapping effect and sets a benchmark for further trailing of trapping density for rodents in 

the alpine ecosystem (Figure 13). 

During the monitoring of the rodent dynamics in the alpine ecosystem of the cirque we 

observed a weak negative relationship between wëtä and mouse detection rates. These data 

are merely correlative and so prove nothing directly but do suggest some displacement 

may be occurring. A diet study was conducted from the thirty four mice trapped during the 

trapping trial which suggest invertebrates make up a notable proportion of mouse diet in 

the alpine ecosystem even in the presence of a masting event where seeds are abundant 

(Figure 14). 

Frequency of occurrence of food items (total 34 mice) 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

tussock 

seed 

peanut 

butter 

arthropods 

(all) 

spiders moth larvae weta 

(orthoptera) 

snail 

Figure 14. Results from a diet study conducted from thirty four mice showing frequency of 

occurrence of tussock seeds, peanut butter, spiders, moth larvae, wëtä and snails and 

arthropods collectively. 

From the samples of 71 Chionochloa rigida and 47 C. crassiascula collected an average of 

2.5 seeding tillers per plant with 38% of plants seeding was observed for C. rigida and an 

average of 1.9 seeding tillers per plant with 26% of plants seeding was observed for C. 

crassiascula (Table 4). 


Table 4. Results from the tussock flowering survey in the Sinbad alpine cirque 

Tussock Species 

No. plants 

surveyed 

Plants seeding 

(%) 

Seeding 

tillers / plant 

Chionochloa rigida 71 38% 2.5 

Chionochloa crassiascula 47 26% 1.9 

3.1.5 Deer impacts 

The vegetation remains little impacted by introduced animals. In particular the abundance 

of hen & chicken fern, Prince of Wales (Leptopteris superba), miniature toetoe 

(Chionochloa conspicua), broadleaf and three finger is testament to low deer numbers. 

Moderately old deer sign was seen in fuchsia-ribbonwood (Hoheria glabrata) forest along 

tracking tunnel Line One (location in figure 3). Deer sign was also observed near Trap 22 

and below tracking tunnel line three. 

An example of the lush Prince of 

Wales fern prevalent in some 

parts of the valley indicating 

there has been little deer browse 

in the area. (Megan Willans 

DOC) 

3.2 Outcome monitoring (monitoring of species 

native to the Sinbad Gully) 

3.2.1 Whio (Blue Duck) monitoring 

A total of five adult whio and three ducklings were found along the length of the river 

(Table 5). These included: 

- an unbanded pair with no ducklings 

- an unbanded pair with three ducklings that were a few weeks old 

- a single banded bird - most likely Y/M named Sinbad that was seen as a lone male in a 

similar location last year 


Other whio sightings were made during a field trip in February where an unbanded male 

was seen near Trap 56 and a pair was seen on the river near the mid-camp (near Trap 30), 

which is where a pair have been seen in the past. Whio feathers were also observed at the 

camp site during the December survey (A. Smart pers. com.). These other sightings 

combined with the information recorded during the initial survey show that there were at 

least three pairs, one single male and three ducklings in the valley during the year. 

The sighting of three ducklings around three weeks old is the first confirmed sighting of 

whio breeding in the gully since surveying began in 2005. This is significant for the Sinbad 

Gully as it shows that in the past year at least one whio nest has been successful in 

hatching eggs and raising young. Five fledged juveniles have been seen in the valley since 

2005 (table 5). It is likely these juveniles hatched in the Sinbad, however we can’t be certain 

as juveniles are mobile and can fly in from neighbouring valleys such as the Arthur (A 

Smart pers. com.). 

Table 5: Summary of whio sightings from river surveys in the Sinbad Valley 2005 – 2011. 

Season 

Surveyed 

water (km) 

Pairs 

known 

Pairs / km 

Ducklings 

seen 

Fledged 

juveniles 

seen 

Fledged 

juveniles 

/ pair Singles 

2005/2006 4 3 0.75 0 3 1 0 

2006/2007 5 2 0.4 0 0 0 2 

2007/2008 7 2 0.29 0 1 0.5 2 

2008/2009 7 2 0.29 0 0 0 2 

2009/2010* 7 3 0.43 0 1 0.33 3 

2010/2011* 7 2 - 3 0.29 - 0.43 3 0 0 1 

* Trapping initiated in January 2010 and continued. 

3.2.2 Fiordland tokoeka (kiwi) survey and translocation 

KIWI SURVEY RESULTS 

A total of 10 kiwi were heard or seen during the evening survey (see map in Figure 15). We 

were able to identify from the differences in kiwi calls that five were male and five were 

female. An unconfirmed 11 th kiwi was thought to be a male (see below). 

Details of kiwi recorded on the evening of 16/12/10: 

• T(Trap) 9 – Male kiwi heard at 150 o magnetic north 

• T11 –Pair heard at 150 o magnetic north 

• T11 - Possibly a single male heard 140 o magnetic north but unconfirmed. 

• T23 – Pair heard at 01:35 about.50m on north side of river (20 o magnetic north) from 

T23 

• T43 – male heard at 23:35 close by @ T43 and came to visit. Heard again at 00:10 near 

T44 and T42. Very vocal. 

• T57 – Male within 5m of this location 

• T57 - Two females were also heard in the distance from this location: one in the NW 

and one in the SW 

• River mouth campsite – Female kiwi 


Kiwi recorded during December survey 

Release sight for Milford kiwi 

Figure 15. Map showing locations where kiwi were recorded during the December Survey 

and the release sight of the three birds from Milford. 

KIWI INTRODUCTIONS FROM THE CLEDDAU VALLEY 

Three kiwi were captured from the "borrow" site in Milford and released in the Sinbad 

Valley. The individual kiwi details are outlined in Table 6 below. The mid valley campsite 

(grid ref 917 436), was chosen for the release as it was identified as a possible gap in the 

existing kiwi population by staff conducting a valley wide kiwi survey in December 2010. 

Table 6. Specifics of kiwi caught and translocated from Milford to Sinbad Valley 2011. 

ID 

Sex 

Captured 

Weight 

Bill 

Released 

Comment 

R-63877 

Tx 35 

F 07/01/11 2650g 119.2 2/2/11 Scrawny bird, extreme 

feather loss. Brood patch. 

R-62742 M 08/01/11 2150g 91.6 2/2/11 Missing toe, left foot. 

Tx 77 

Tx21 F 24/02/11 2350g 128.0 25/02/11 Young female? 

The female Tx 35 was found dead 31 st of May. The team were aware that the transmitter 

was on mortality in April. The cause of death was unknown as the only skeletal remains 

found, however the bird was not in optimum condition when captured, therefore it is 

possible she was not able to survive the stress of translocation. The two remaining birds 

still survive and are in good condition. 

Stewart Bull from Kaitiaki/Orakarima Runaka conducting a karakia at the release 

accompanied by Southern Discoveries and Department of Conservation staff (left) and 

Japke Doodeman from Southern Discoveries releasing a kiwi in the Sinbad Gully (right) 

(Barry Harcourt). 


3.2.3 A closer look at plant life in the Sinbad 

This survey revealed a very rich flora of 209 native taxa, taking the recorded flora to 213 

taxa. This flora expanded the recorded flora from the 77 species listed by Richard Nichol in 

2001. The flora is considered particularly rich as this survey only included the valley floor 

including mainly forest, avalanche disturbed areas and riverbed and associated clearings. 

The full flora of the Sinbad Valley will be considerably richer as this survey did not include 

valley side walls, upper valley or alpine areas. A full list of recorded flora is in appendix 2 

and a summary is provided in table 7. 

Table 7. The flora of the Sinbad Valley by life form 

Life form 

Native taxa 

Exotic taxa 

Ferns 53 

Podocarps 4 

Trees & Shrubs 56 

Climbers & Vines 5 

Herbs 42 2 

Grasses 15 1 

Sedges 13 

Orchids 10 

Other Monocots 11 

Total 209 3 

Most of the flora consisted of forest species, however a number of species were restricted to 

either the coastal strip (e.g. mingimingi Coprosma propinqua, Carmichalia australis, 

Hymenophyllum dilatatum and H. minimum or the lower altitude (warmer) portion of the 

valley e.g. Raukaua edgerleyii, pigeonwood Hedycaria arborea and mahoe). The nonforested 

habitats (i.e. river bed, river flats and avalanche disturbed sites) make a significant 

contribution to the flora with 66 species restricted to these habitats, including 26 of the 42 

herbaceous species. After considerable searching we have not yet found mistletoe in the 

Sinbad Gully. 


No bats were detected during this survey, however the recorders were out for a very limited 

amount of time covering a small area of the valley. 



ESTIMATE ABUNDANCE OF SINBAD SKINK POPULATION 

Unfortunately weather conditions diminished capture probabilities to such an extent that 

an inadequate sample size was achieved. Considering the variability in weather and the 

labour costs associated with the method it is not deemed appropriate to pursue this goal 

until improved methods of monitoring with greater detection are developed. 

THERMAL ECOLOGY 

Five of the i-buttons were not functioning on retrieval, so we were only able to collect data 

from 7 rock wall locations and 4 base of wall locations. From the small sample size 

however, the data shows an apparent difference between rock wall and slope in both 

temperature and freezing frequency. Table 8 shows a much greater amount of hours below 

freezing on the slope at the base of the bluff than on the bluff. Likewise a significant 

difference in moisture was observed with the slope being wetter than the rock face (t test: t- 

stat -30, t-crit 1.6, P

especially up the top end of the valley. Kaka were observed in the valley on occasion, up to 

a flock of six on one occasion. A koaro (native fish) was seen in a side stream during the 

kiwi survey. Still no robins were seen in the valley. The following table lists the species 

seen/ heard in the valley this year. 

Table 9. Other wildlife that were observed in the valley during visits this year. 

Species 

Bellbird 

Greywarblers 

Koaro 

Kaka 

Kakariki 

(parakeet) 

Kea 

Kereru 

Morepork 

Riflemen 

Snail 

Tomtits 

Tui 

Weka 

Mohua 

Brown 

creeper 

Observations/ frequency 

Seen and heard frequently 

Common in the valley 

Galaxias brevipinnis – native fish seen in a stream on the track 

near T34. c.12cm long (see photo). 

Seen/ heard occasionally. At river mouth campsite; 6 seen flying 

overhead; heard at R13; heard on TTLine5; 6 flew over mid-camp 

Heard at R20 and several other times in valley 

Heard occasionally in the upper valley 

Seen occasionally in the forest. 

3 heard during kiwi call counts in lower valley; 1 heard at midcamp 

Seen and heard occasionally throughout the valley. Pair seen 

near Trap 18. 

Native snail seen in the lower valley 

Frequently heard on most tracking tunnel lines 

Heard occasionally on line 5 and elsewhere in valley. 

Frequently seen/ heard especially in upper valley 

Seen/ heard in three locations within the valley. Very few birds. 

Heard/seen throughout the valley, sometimes in flocks of 10 

birds 

Native koaro seen in small stream 

near trap 34 (Jo Whitehead DOC) 


4.0 Discussion 

4.1 Pest control and monitoring 


Trapping results show low catch rates for the past year spread the length of the valley. The 

forested sides of the Sinbad Gully stretch from 300 – 1000m from the trap line. 

Approximately half of the forested area within the Sinbad catchment is within 300m of the 

current trap line and so this is expected to be the level of stoat control required for 

protecting whio, kaka, mohua, (providing rat tracking rates remain low in the valley), weka 

and potentially kiwi, however this is still not entirely proven for kiwi. Monitoring kaka 

nesting in the Eglinton Valley showed that nests greater than 300m from a stoat trap were 

much more vulnerable to predation by stoats. It is therefore probable that like the Eglinton 

Valley a significant portion of stoats in the Sinbad Gully may not encounter the traps in the 

current regime. 

If we were to look to introduce species more susceptible to predation such as tieke and 

possibly in the long term, kakapo there will need to be further monitoring of stoats in the 

valley to assess abundance in areas greater than 300m from the trap line. An initial option 

would be to lay a series of stoat traps higher up the sides of the valley and compare catch 

rates with the traps in the base of the valley. 

One scenario that may give us reason to bolster the trapping regime is if initial catch rates 

on the valley sides indicate that stoat territories held in these areas are not being influenced 

by the valley floor trap line. This would discount the hypothesis; a single DOC200 trap line 

at 100m spacing down the centre of the Sinbad Gully will reduce the overall stoat 

population within the valley to very low numbers. 

Additional trapping in the valley would add time to the checking of traps, but would give us 

valuable information about stoat population dynamics within the valley. Currently with 

room for four people in the helicopter on stoat trapping trips there is more available time 

for further coverage on foot and so this could be incorporated potentially with only an 

initial extra establishment cost to the current trap servicing regime. 


Currently funding is being set aside each year to carryout possum control in the Sinbad 

Gully. See the planned budget for 2011/12 for details on page 47. 

COMPARISON BETWEEN RASIED AND GROUND SET TRAP CATCH 

INDEX MONITORING 

This TCI result 9% using raised-sets indicates a reasonable abundance of possums in the 

Sinbad Gully. Comparisons made between ground and raised set trap catch rates show 

that the two methods are not equal. Fewer possums are caught overall on raised sets than 

ground sets and the difference is quite striking. Raised-set TCI recorded 38% lower than 

ground-set TCI in a joint study between the Department of Conservation and Landcare 

Research carried out over an eight year period in the a range of sites (Nugent et al 2010). 


This indicates that in the Sinbad Gully possum TCI is likely to be much higher than 

indicated from the raised-set TCI. At this relative abundance it is considered necessary, for 

the recovery and prevention of further degradation of the forest ecosystem, that possum 

control take place in the Sinbad Gully. 

FUTURE RAT CONTROL IN CONJUNCTION WITH POSSUM CONTROL 

Unlike rats, possum numbers do not fluctuate wildly, reaching plague proportions some 

years and in turn resulting in catastrophic loss of some native species over a very short 

period. However an opportunity presents itself to control both rats and possums in one 

operation using aerial 1080 poison if rats do peak as a result of a beech mast in the valley. 

There may be a slight increase in cost because to control rats the operation requires a pre 

drop of non toxic bait in an effort to prefeed rats to entice them to eat the second drop of 

toxic bait. However, this poses an opportunity to control two pests with little additional 

cost. 

There is a chance that rats will peak more often than possum control is required in which 

case with the current predicted funding (5 yearly possum control) will not be sufficient to 

account for rat control costs. However in the Sinbad Gully, because the dominant canopy 

in the valley is Silver beech, it is expected that rats may not peak as frequently as in more 

productive forest systems. Rat monitoring in the Landsborough Valley north of the Haast 

Pass in similar Silver Beech dominant habitat for example has recorded very low numbers 

since the beginning of monitoring in 2006. A slightly higher detection rate (3% tracking) 

in October 2009 prompted a combined possum and rat 1080 poison operation which 

appeared effective for both pest targets. 


seedfall 

Rats are able to exist periodically in much higher abundances than native prey species due 

to fluctuations in beech tree seeding. Predator (stoat) numbers are able to increase 

primarily in response to rodent dynamics during these times. The serious element of this 

relationship is that as the rodent populations ebb away they leave behind an elevated 

predator population that then exerts greater predator pressure on native species and leads 

to the characteristic ‘stepwise’ decline towards extinction. Furthermore while rats are at 

their peak they too prey on native species capable of resulting in local extinctions as 

documented in the Eglinton Valley in 2002 when möhua became functionally extinct in the 

valley after two consecutive beech masts in 2000 and 2001 (Dilks et al 2003). To gain 

greatest benefit from a control operation in south island beech forest the optimal timing is 

the month of November when the rat explosion is beginning to plateau out as shown in 

figure 8 below. The reasons are that there is unlikely to be further breeding of rats after this 

time until the next beech mast event (Figure 18) and rat numbers knocked down early in 

the breeding season of native birds means at the very least they have time to renest if 

predation has already occurred. 


1 

0.9 

0.8 

unpoisoned 

poisoned 

Rat tracking rate 

0.7 

0.6 

0.5 

0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Oct Nov Dec 

Figure 16. Simplified model of rodent population dynamics in the presence of a masting 

event and the effects of a November control operation (Graeme Elliot DOC). 

To monitor rodent fluctuations in the Sinbad Gully effectively and at low cost up to four 

tracking tunnel surveys will be undertaken annually, one in May , one in August and 

October (in years when rat tracking and or beech seeding is close to thresholds requiring 

control, but may or may not cause a rat explosion) , and one in February. 

The reasons for choosing these periods: 

o 

o 

o 

May results will give some indication of initial increases in rat abundance and 

the collection of seedfall samples will allow a concurrent assessment of beech 

seeding results. 

August and October results will give certainty to the decision to control or not 

in years when May thresholds are not quite equivocal. 

February will give an indication of both a baseline abundance (just 

post flowering) and a measure of management efficacy in control years. 

THRESHOLDS FOR RAT CONTROL 

Rat control should take place when both rat tracking rates rise above 5% and beech seeding 

rates exceed 4000 seeds/ m 2 in May. 

In years when tracking rates rise to 5% in May, but seeding rates are between 2000 and 

4000/m 2 then rat numbers could still peak and planning for a control operation should 

begin. Monitoring in August and again in October will give the final indication to control 

or not. If rat tracking rises above 20% in these months then rat control should go ahead. 

It is important that rat monitoring takes place each year to help us understand relative 

abundance and fluctuation between years and within years. Providing rats don’t peak 

regularly in the Sinbad Gully pre-fed aerial 1080 poisoning could be a suitably efficient and 

cost effective method for controlling both possums and rats which in turn presents the 

opportunity to reintroduce native species such as möhua and robins. 


Beech seedfall monitoring will continue to take place annually in association with rodent 

monitoring in the valley. This is important to assist in determining potential peaks in rat 

numbers within the valley. The minimum requirement will be to monitor seedfall through 


from the beginning of January to the end of May each year. Stockings to catch the seed 

will be placed out in December each year, except in years when flowering is at very low 

abundance. 

4.1.4 Mouse monitoring in the alpine cirque 


Understanding the degree to which rodent abundance changes in the alpine environment 

of the Sinbad Gully is a first step to identifying the risk posed by rodent competition and 

predation to the Sinbad skink and other alpine biota. Preliminary ink tunnel monitoring 

suggests that mice are active in the alpine cirque of the Sinbad Gully throughout the year 

and that they are overwhelmingly dominant over rats in the alpine cirque. Their tracking 

rates also diminished with altitude (Figure 11) in some seasons within the ~900-1200m area 

examined. Snow cover precluded data collection from some tunnels in the high and mid 

slope in November and January. The snow cover higher up the slope may have influenced 

the lower proportional mouse tracking rates relative to the lower slope. 

The question that remains is to what extent do these populations fluctuate and what 

densities are they able to achieve in the alpine ecosystem? 

MOUSE MONITORING IN THE ALPINE CIRQUE AND INTERACTIONS 

WITH WETA AND TUSSOCK SEEDING 

The removal curves depicted in figure 12 illustrate that the trapping grid trial could have 

run for several more days to ensure that the decay curve in capture had been fully explored. 

The results also corroborate the kinds of rodent density estimated for other alpine and subalpine 

environments which lends support to the characteristic nature of the data (Wilson et 

al 2010). Most relevant however is the clear evidence that mouse populations fluctuate 

significantly and extend their range right up to the base of the rock face where the Sinbad 

skinks are located. 

A more subtle examination of the trapping and monitoring data suggests that the mouse 

population dynamics fluctuate spatially as well as temporally within small areas(>300m2), 

and the grid B tracked significantly higher than grid D during the set up and first trial run 

of the monitoring, yet less than 6 weeks later that trend had been reversed. 

This area of pest ecology is relatively un-invested in New Zealand. We need to develop a 

clear basic understanding of the density effect so that we can begin to comprehend the 

viability of control options (regarding the trapping effect as a direct measure of trapping 

efficacy but also as a conservative surrogate for bait station toxin effects). 

We may conclude that mice have the potential to be influencing skink habitat occupancy 

given their apparent range and the dynamics of their population fluctuations and the 

pattern of presence absence with regard to alpine cirque lizard values, which appear to be 

exclusive of each other. We have also identified a trapping density and approximate effort 

necessary to see an apparent decline in their numbers, but with no data to describe the 

temporal effect of this trapping or reinvasion rates. The trapping was conducted during a 

period of moderately elevated tussock mast however with one year of data we cannot say if 

this is a common or an exceptional mast type event. Tussock seeds made up the highest 

proportion of mouse diet during the study (30%), which suggests we observed and have 

described a moderate to high mouse dynamic for this ecosystem relating to the tussock 

seeding observed (results in table 4, page 31). In comparison a mast year at Borland the 

proportion of tussocks with flowering tillers peaked in 2005/06, when 71–96% of tussocks of 


every species had at least one flowering tiller (Wilson et al 2010). Relatively speaking this 

showed a much greater seeding than in the Sinbad this year. 

Presently there is not strong evidence of wëtä suppression by mice. However, the 

opportunity for predation and also competition for food are still significant questions to be 

explored. In diet analysis mice are shown to eat wëtä at sizes above 30 mm body length. 

The pattern of abundance shown through time on the tunnel lines shows a co relationship 

where mice and wëtä abundance increases together in the same locations. Mice were 

shown in diet analysis to eat a large volume of tussock seed supplemented by a few 

invertebrates (particularly spiders and moth larvae). Wëtä and mice may have both 

responded to seasonal increases in food availability and mouse predation of wëtä may not 

be trophically important at such times but this mechanistic possibility has not been 

investigated in our studies yet. 

4.2 Outcome monitoring (monitoring of 

species native to the Sinbad Gully) 

4.2.1 Whio monitoring 

Without banding the juveniles from this year we will be unable to ascertain if these 

ducklings remain in the valley, but continued twice yearly surveys will indicate if there is a 

trend towards increased occupancy. It has been estimated that given the length and 

suitability of the river there would be space for at least six or seven whio pairs in the Sinbad 

Gully. 

4.2.2 Fiordland tokoeka (kiwi) survey 

The survey conducted last year was a preliminary survey for kiwi in the valley. It is likely 

that there will be more kiwi in the valley than the ten recorded. We may not have heard all 

kiwi respond over the noise of the river and kiwi don’t always respond to taped calls. 

Recommendation: 

To conduct a further survey over two nights would help give us more confidence in the 

recorded number and location of kiwi in the valley. To undertake another survey sooner 

than later would be ideal so we have an indication of kiwi in the valley at the early stages of 

pest control. 

4.2.3 A closer look at plant life in the Sinbad 

The following paragraphs and recommendations were written by Brian Rance (Rance 2011). 

The flora of the Sinbad Valley has been documented revealing a very diverse flora. 

Although there are few rare or unusual plant records the intactness of the vegetation is 

notable. This relative paucity of exotic animals and current lack of modification is of special 


importance in a national context. If conservation management can control exotic animals 

at levels to maintain the existing vegetation condition, then the vegetation will become 

increasing important as other parts of Fiordland continue to be impacted by exotic animals. 

The establishment of four permanent recce plots in the valley floor creates a benchmark for 

future monitoring of the vegetation in the Sinbad Gully. Additional recommendations 

(Rance 2011) are listed below. 

Recommendations: 

o Undertake a vegetation survey of the head basin and ridge crests in order to 

complete the flora inventory. 

o 

o 

Establish Seedling Ratio Index monitoring lines (Knightbridge 2003, Sweetapple et 

al 2004) in order to assess any future vegetation change as a consequence of exotic 

animal browsing. 

Establish additional recce plots in additional forest types on the valley sides 

(particularly in the southern rata and mountain beech dominant forest types and 

areas where rimu occurs. 


If bats are to be detected in the valley further remote bat monitoring will be required. 

Recommendation: 

It would be beneficial to spread the remote recorders throughout the valley and leave out 

over a longer time period. Allocating resources for listening to the tape recordings will 

need to be considered if this does take place. Hand-held bat detectors could also be used 

for evening walks in future to try to detect bats if time allowed. It may be that no bats 

inhabit the valley as bats are known to prefer more fertile red beech forest over silver which 

is the dominant beech in the Sinbad Gully. 


As noted, the distribution of the skinks within the Sinbad Gully is highly restricted to a 

small patch of rock wall. Outside of the alpine cirque the Sinbad skink species has as yet 

never been recorded although it is closely related to the barrier skink Oligosoma judgeii 

which is known from habitat < 30kms away as well at the Teviot Faces in the Takitimu Mts. 

The data retrieved from the i-bottons supports the hypothesis that the reason why skinks 

are not found on the slopes immediately below the bluffs is likely to include the influence of 

climatic parameters rather than solely the impacts of predation/competition from mice and 

stoats. However, it must be understood that these two variables may well be interacting 

with the survivorship of the Sinbad skinks and so whilst management may have the 

potential to address the impact of pest species any potential ecological release may be 

limited by the influence of microclimate. 

If, as our preliminary data suggests, this species range and habitat occupancy is influenced 

by micro-climatic characteristics it should be expected that the natural pattern of 

occupancy will be discrete, patchy and localised. However, if the population is small (

population(s) to significantly elevated risks from pest impacts, as population robustness 

from dispersal between adjacent populations will likely be negligible in comparison to the 

frequency of potential pest impacts. It should be stressed that whilst this is the only known 

population of Sinbad skink it is probable that other populations do exist in similarly 

isolated and discrete patches of habitat. There is greater likelihood of these populations in 

the vicinity of known populations and so searching for further populations is best done 

concentrically from the known site. 

The past seasons of work in the Sinbad Gully alpine cirque lead us to recommend a clear 

set of priority actions for the 2011/12 field season with regard to creating better 

conservation measures for Sinbad skinks and their environment. 

Recommendations: 

Priority 1. Range extent of known Sinbad skink population 

Whilst we are now familiar with the accessible area of the rock face on which Sinbad skinks 

reside and we have assessed the adjacent rock face and concluded that it is unoccupied by 

the species, we have not examined the less accessible areas of habitat higher up on the rock 

face. Should the skinks extend to the full height of the rock wall where suitable habitat 

occurs then our naïve population guestimate (currently

Survey sessions: surveys are conducted 9.30-9.45, 10.00-10.15, 10.30-10.45, 11.00-11.15, 11.30- 

11.45, 14.30-14.45, 15.00-15.15, 15.30-15.45, 16.00-16.15 and 16.30-16.45. offering up to 20 sets of 

data per day covering both observation points. 

The aim should be to conduct these surveys for 4 good weather days (or portions thereof) 

within a predefined period (eg. February – to be determined dependent of staff calendar 

commitments) to establish a dataset to describe the relationship. 

Analysis of data: firstly we will evaluate the environmental variables for correlation to 

ensure that we are not building analysis models that include variables that describe the 

same environmental patterns (as this would reduce the degrees of freedom against which 

the fit of the model could be evaluated). We would then analyse the relationship and model 

fit using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) between detection probability determined 

by the number of skinks observed against the suite of environmental covariates. 

This would then allow us to repeat a more moderately intensive survey (potentially two 

days for example) in subsequent years and to compare both the slope and intercept which 

would serve as a moderately robust indication of a significant trend in abundance and 

therefore survival of the population. 

The compromise of this method is that it will require that we do not directly disturb the 

skinks in a way that may influence detection, as would be the case if we continued to trap 

them. This means we will be unable to continue to gather life history data such as apparent 

growth rates and reproductive sizes and frequencies. However I would recommend that it is 

a greater priority to determine trend in abundance than model population projections in 

the first instance. . 

What you’d do if a catastrophic change in abundance was indicated? This question must 

be asked if there is any interest in monitoring for a trend in abundance. It is recommended 

that such a finding be evaluated against winter weather conditions, recent tussock masting 

and rodent tracking rates in the alpine environment and that if no in situ management 

option is obviously apparent (were a mouse eruption implicated in the apparent decline 

then there may be grounds for establishing a monitoring programme to trigger a rodent 

control operation in the alpine cirque, an intriguing challenge as no such operation has 

ever taken place focusing on mice in the alpine environment) that developments are made 

to consider ex situ management. Given our understanding of large skink biology in the 

south Island it should be possible to develop a surrogate population model using Otago 

skink data. This will enable us to estimate the effects of a 25% and a 50% reduction in 

abundance on subsequent population recovery and to set a threshold at which we would 

enact the above management interventions. 

Priority 3. Survey new sites for Sinbad skinks 

Any outstanding or new sites reported with lizard sightings in alpine Fiordland should be 

thoroughly surveyed by competent field herpetologists for the presence of Sinbad skinks. 

Precedence should be given to those sites proximate to the current known location of 

Sinbad skinks such as the Mitre Peak sighting. Methods used should be both Gee minnow 

trapping as well as scanning with binoculars and active searching within optimal weather 

periods. 


5.0 Planned and Actual Budget for 2010/11 

Sinbad Gully Sanctuary Year Two 

Budget (2010/2011) 

Stoat Control 

Cost 

Planned Actuals 

Bait (egg and meat) 74 traps $0.54/trap $400.00 $400.00 $0.00 

Wages for 1 person (including HP + ACC) 80 hours $23.00/day $1,840.00 $1,840.00 $0.00 

Helicopter (16 flights) 3.33 hours $1425.00/hour $4,731.00 $4,731.00 $0.00 

Managing operations 80 hours $30.00/hour $2,400.00 $2,400.00 $0.00 

Possum Monitoring 

Remaining possum budget detailed 

Pre control monitoring 10 lines $400/line $4,000.00 $3,944.00 $56.00 

below 

Small Mammal and Beech Seedfall monitoring 

Wages establishing tracking tunnel lines 24 hours $23.00/day $552.00 $552.00 $0.00 

Running lines 40 hours $23.00/day $920.00 $920.00 $0.00 

Helicopter (2 flights) 0.5 hours $1425.00/hour $712.50 $712.50 $0.00 

Groceries for team of two 4 days $40.00/day $160.00 $160.00 $0.00 

Field equipment $600.00 $600.00 $0.00 

Project management 40 hours $25.00/day $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $0.00 

Reptile Monitoring and protection work 

Lizard contractor x 2 - field trip 20 days $200/day $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $0.00 

Flight (hughes) x four for two trips 1 hour $1425.00/hour $1,425.00 $1,425.00 $0.00 

Groceries for field team of 4 10 days $80/day $800.00 $800.00 

Field equipment $675.50 $675.50 $0.00 

EXTRA WORK COMPLETED 

Mouse monitoring in the alpine zone 

Establishment and monitoring of four mouse 

removal/monitoring grids 

Number $/unit 

$0.00 $0.00 

Variance 

Explaination for variance 

Cost covered by DOC 

variance remains within the future 

Sub Total $24,416.00 $24,360.00 $56.00 

possum control funding 

Total invoice to FCT July 2010 - June 2011 

Future possum control funding - carried forward with FCT 

Total donation from Southern Discoveries for 2010/2011 

$24,360.00 plus GST 

$8,190.00 plus GST 

$32,550.00 plus GST 


6.0 Operational Objectives for 2011/12 

Predator control and monitoring 

Stoat control 

• Carryout eight stoat trap checks throughout the year 

Possum control 

• Investigate best method for control in the Sinbad Gully in conjunction with rat control 

Rat monitoring in the forest and associated beech flowering monitoring 

• Carryout tracking tunnel monitoring twice yearly in May and February and on 

occasion in August and/or October in years of uncertainty around expected rat 

tracking. 

• Carryout beech seedfall monitoring placing stockings out in December and removing 

them at the end of May (analysis funded by DOC) 

Mouse monitoring in the alpine 

• Continue to measure single night indices of rodent tracking rates with at least two 

indices calculated in May and again in February utilising flights for lizard work in 

February and rat monitoring in valley in May. 

• Carryout associated tussock seeding in February utilising flights for lizard work 

(funded by DOC). 

Monitoring of Outcome Species 

Whio monitoring 

• Carryout two whio surveys; one in December and one in January/February (funded by 

DOC) 

Lizard monitoring 

• Examine the less accessible areas of habitat higher up on the rock face. 

• Establish monitoring for catastrophic change 

• Survey new sites for Sinbad skinks (funded by DOC) 

Alpine vegetation inventory 

• Conduct a vegetation inventory in the alpine cirque during the February field trip if 

time and a suitable alpine vegetation specialist are available (funded by DOC). 


7.0 Planned Budget for 2011/12 

Sinbad Sanctuary Year Three budget 

2011/2012 

Number 

$/unit 

Cost 

Stoat trap servicing - 8 trap checks per annum 

Bait (egg and meat) 74 traps 0.54/trap $320.00 

Wages for 1 person (including HP + ACC) 80 hours 23/hour $1,840.00 

Helicopter (16 flights) 3.33 hours $1425.00/hour $4,745.25 

Total $6,905.25 

Possum control 

Pre control monitoring 10 lines $400/line $4,000.00 

Flights for possum monitoring team x 2 (hughes) 0.5 minutes $1425.00/hour $712.50 

Possum control aerial 1500 hectares $32.00/ha $48,000.00 

Post control monitoring 10 lines $400/line $4,000.00 

Flights for possum monitoring team x 2 (hughes) 0.5 minutes $1425.00/hour $712.50 

Total $57,425.00 

Total averaged over 5 years $11,485.00 

Small Mammal (2 surveys per annum) and seedfall monitoring (1 survey per annum) 

Wages for team of two 64 hours $23.00/hour $1,472.00 

Helicopter (4 flights) 1 hour $1425.00/hour $1,425.00 

Groceries for team of two 4 days $44.00/day $176.00 

Field equipment $200.00 

Total $3,257.00 

Reptile monitoring and protection work 

Lizard climbing experts - field trip 8 days 

$500/day $4,160.00 

Return flight wgtn - qtown (1 climber) $700 retun $500.00 

Flight (hughes) x four for two trips 1 hour 

$1425.00/hour $1,425.00 

Groceries for field team of 4 4 days 

$88/day $352.00 

Field equipment $100.00 

Total $6,537.00 

Over all project management (five weeks) including planning for possum control 

Project management 200 hours $65.00/hour $13,000.00 

Contribution from DOC 200 hours -$35/hour -$7,000.00 

Total $6,000.00 

Total donation from Southern Discoveries for July 2011 - June 2012 

$32,525.00 plus GST 

Portion of SD donation held by Fiordland Conservation Trust for future possum control 

2010/2011 

2011/2012 

Total amount set aside for possum control as of June 2012 

$8,190.00 

$9,825.75 

$17,515.75 plus GST 


8.0 References 

Dilks, P; Willans, M; Pryde, P; Fraser, I. 2003. Large scale stoat control to protect mohua 

(Mohoua ochrocephala) and kaka (Nestor meridionalis) in the Eglinton Valley, Fiordland, 

NZ. New Zealand Journal of Ecology (2003) 27(1): 1-9. 

Edmonds, H. 2009. Data deficient Fund report 2009 – lizard species in Sinbad Gully, 

Fiordland National Park. Department of Conservation Internal Report. Te Anau Area 

Office, Te Anau (DOCMD 452901) 

Edmonds, H & Whitehead, J. 2010. Sinbad Skink Investigatory Study. Sinbad Gully, 

Fiordland. Unpublished internal document, Department of Conservation, Te Anau Area 

Office (DOCDM 715937). 

Gillies, C., Williams, D. 2005. Using tracking tunnels to monitor rodents and mustelids. 

Unpublished internal document, Department of Conservation (OLDDM 118330). 

Hitchmough, RA., Hoare, JM., Jamieson, H., Newman, D., Tocher, MD., Anderson, PJ., 

Lettink, M. and Whitaker, AH. 2010. Conservation status of New Zealand reptiles, 2009, 

New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 37: 3, 203 - 224 

Jewell, T. 2007. Two new species of Hemiandrus (Orthoptera: Anostostomatidae) from 

Fiordland National Park, New Zealand. Zootaxa 1542: 49 – 57, www.mapress.com/zootaxa/. 

Michelsen – Heath, S. 1989: The breeding biology of the rock wren, Xenicus gilviventris, in 

the Murchison Mountains, Fiordland National Park, South Island, New Zealand. Otago 

Museum Dunedin and Department of Conservation, Te Anau. 

King, Carolyn M. 2005. The handbook of New Zealand mammals. Second edition, Oxford 

University Press. 

Knightbridge, P. (2003). Best practise for using the Seedling Ratio Index (SRI) – A method 

for monitoring ungulate impacts in forests. Unpublished internal document, Department of 

Conservation West Coast Conservancy, Hokitika, New Zealand. 

Montague, T.L. 2000. The Brushtail Possum: Biology, impacts and management of an 

introduced marsupial. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, New Zealand. 

Nichol, R. 2001. Ecological Evaluation of the Sinbad Valley, Fiordland. Report following a 

field assessment, 7-9th April 2001. May 2001. Contract Report to the Department of 

Conservation. 

Nugent, G; Whiteford, J; Sweetapple, P; Duncan, R; & Holland, P. 2010. Effect of one-hit 

control on the density of possums (Trichosurus vulpecula) and their impacts on native 

forest. Science for Conservation 304. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 64 p. 

Rance, B. 2011: Sinbad Valley Vegetation Report 2011. Unpublished internal document, 

Department of Conservation, Southland Conservancy, Invercargill (DOCDM689733). 

Smith, Derek (Des); Jamieson, Ian G. 2003. Movement, diet, and relative abundance of 

stoats in an alpine habitat. DOC SCIENCE INTERNAL SERIES 107. 


Studholme, B. 2000. Ship rat (Rattus rattus) irruptions in South Island beech (Nothofagus) 

forest. ISSN 1171-9834 Department of Conservation Head Office, PO Box 10-420 

Wellington, New Zealand. 

Sweetapple, P. J., and Nugent, G. (2004). Seedling ratios: a simple method for assessing 

ungulate impacts on forest understories. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(1): 137-147. 

Tansell, Jane. 2009. Fiordland Tokoeka Chick Recruitment Study, Murchison Mountains 

2003 to 2009. Unpublished internal document, Department of Conservation, Te Anau Area 


Towns, D., Daugherty, C., Cree, A; 2001. Raising the prospects for a forgotten fauna: a 

review of 10 years of conservation effort for New Zealand reptiles. Biological Conservation 

Vol 99, Issue 1, Pg 3-16. 

White, Piran C. L. & King, Carolyn M. 2006. Predation on native birds in New Zealand 

beech forests: the role of functional relationships between Stoats (Mustela erminea) and 

rodents. The Authors Journal compilation © 2006 British Ornithologists’ Union Ibis (2006), 

148 765–771. 

Whitehead, Amy L; Edge, Kerri-Anne; Smart, Andrew F; Hill, Gerard S; Willans, Murray J. 

2006. Large scale predator control improves the productivity of a rare New Zealand riverine 

duck. Biological Conservation 1 4 1 ( 2008 ) 2 7 8 4 –2 7 9 4. 

Willans, Megan L. 2007. Rock wren abundance and predator impact study – McKenzie 

Burn, Murchison Mountains. Unpublished internal document, Department of 

Conservation, Te Anau Area Office. (DOCDM 156785). 

Willans, Megan L & Gutsell, M. 2009. Sinbad Sanctuary Operational Plan. Unpublished 

internal document, Department of Conservation, Te Anau Area Office (DOCDM 441498) 

Willans, Megan L & Wickes, C 2010. The Sinbad Sanctuary Project Annual Report 

2009/2010. Unpublished internal document, Department of Conservation, Te Anau Area 


Wilson, D; Lee, WG 2010. Primary and secondary resource pulses in an alpine ecosystem: 

snow tussock grass (Chionochloa spp.) flowering and house mouse (Mus musculus) 

populations in New Zealand. Wildlife Research Vol. 37 Number 2. 


9.0 Acknowledgements 

First we would like to acknowledge the substantial financial support provided by Southern 

Discoveries, without which the Sinbad Sanctuary project would not be in place today. This 

project is managed in partnership with the Fiordland Conservation Trust, who has 

provided significant support to the teams at the Department of Conservation and Southern 

Discoveries bringing all parties together to achieve the common goal of restoring the 

ecosystem in the Sinbad Gully. 

Many people have assisted with work on the ground in the Sinbad over the last year. 

Thank you to the team at Southern Discoveries for all their hard work assisting with stoat 

trapping in the valley and mouse monitoring in the alpine cirque. The team included 

Japke Doodeman, Asha Dowgray, Marina Lawrance, Aishling Folley, Sarah Walker, Chris 

Connor, Michael Anderson, Annie Provo and Amanda Cook. 

A large number of Department of Conservation staff also took part in the stoat trapping, 

and monitoring of pest and native species in the Sinbad Gully. These people include 

Warren Simpson, Adrian Braaksma, Sue Lake, Brian Rance, Abby Dobell, Gerard Hill, John 

Whitehead, Joanne Whitehead, Hannah Edmonds, Lindsay Wilson, Collin ODonnell, Jo 

Hoare, Eric Edwards, Mitchell Bartlett, Les Moran, Pete McMurtrie, Phil Marsh, Martin 

Genet and Phil Collins. Thank you also to John Carter who volunteered his time to assist 

with stoat trapping. 

Thank you to Shinji Kameyama for managing the stoat trapping to a high standard. Thank 

you also to the authors of this report and to the alpine team who began exploring the 

difficult questions surrounding monitoring and managing the impacts of introduced pests 

in the alpine ecosystem, namely the mouse. This team included Deb Wilson and Grant 

Norbury from Landcare Research and Graeme Elliot, Eric Edwards, James Reardon and 

Megan Willans from the Department of Conservation. Thank you also to the team of 

people who assisted with establishing the preliminary monitoring surrounding this work 

and in extremely adverse conditions at times. Also thank you to Brian Rance for producing 

the Sinbad Gully vegetation report. 

We would also like to acknowledge the group of people that first took the initiative to 

explore the ecological values in the Sinbad alpine cirque and to document their new 

discoveries. These people include Rod Morris, Tony Jewell, Trent Bell, Jinty McTavish 

and climbers Craig Jeffries and Paul Rogers. Their efforts to publicise the unique wealth of 

undescribed species in the Sinbad Gully launched the revival of today’s conservation 

efforts taking place in the Sinbad Gully. 


Appendix 1: Insects of interest in the Sinbad 

Gully 

Top left: Hemiandrus nitaweta (ground weta) first discovered in the Sinbad Gully alpine 

cirque in 2007 (Tony Jewel 2007). Tony Jewel, Herpetologist. 

Top right: Hemidandrus superba, the largest known ground weta first discovered in the 

Sinbad Gully alpine cirque in 2007 (Tony Jewel 2007). Tony Jewel, Herpetologist. 

Bottom left: Un-named species of cave weta (family Raphidophoridae). Tony Jewel, 

Herpetologist. 

Bottom right: Flightless speargrass weevil Lyperobius sp. Tony Jewel, Herpetologist. 


Appendix 2: Sinbad Valley – Plant Species list 

F Forest 

L Lower altitude forest (i.e. recorded below clearing/campsite) 

C Coastal (i.e. species recorded from on or near to the coast south of the mouth of the creek) 

A Avalanche disturbance sites at the head of the valley 

R River red and clearings along the river 

# Additional species recorded by Richard Nicol 

@ Additional species recorded by Eric Edwards 

$ Additional species recorded by Jo Whitehead 

Ferns 

Asplenium flaccidum hanging spleenwort F c (lf) 

Asplenium bulbiferum hen & chicken fern F c 

Asplenium obtusatum coastal spleenwort C lo 

Blechnum chambersii a fern F o 

Blechnum colensoi a fern F o (lf) 

Blechnum discolor crown fern F c 

Blechnum fluvatile a fern F o (lc) 

Blechnum membranaceum a fern L o 

Blechnum montanum? a fern A o 

Blechnum nigrum a fern F o 

Blechnum novae-zelandiae kiokio F,A o (lf) 

Blechnum penna-marina little hard fern F,A o 

Blechnum procerum hard fern F c (lf) 

Blechnum vulcanicum a fern F,A c (lf) 

Ctenopteris heterophylla a fern F o 

Cyathea colensoi a fern F o (lc) 

Cyathea smithii soft treefern F c 

Dicksonia squarrosa hard treefern F o 

Grammitis billardieri a strap fern F o 

Grammitis nothofageti a strap fern F o 

Histiopteris incisa water fern F o 

Hymenophyllum demissum a filmy fern F c 

Hymenophyllum dialatum a filmy fern C lc 

Hymenophyllum ferrugineum a filmy fern L o(lc) 

Hymenophyllum flabellifolium a filmy fern F o 

Hymenophyllum minimum a filmy fern C lc 

Hymenophyllum multifidum a filmy fern F,A c 

Hymenophyllum pulcherrimum a filmy fern L u 

Hymenophyllum rarum a filmy fern F o 

Hymenophyllum revolutum a filmy fern F c 

Hymenophyllum sanguinolentum a filmy fern F o (lc) 

Hymenophyllum scabrum a filmy fern F c 

Hypolepis millefolium thousand-leaved fern F,A o (lc) 

Hypolepis rufo-barbata a fern F o 

Lasteopsis hispida a fern L o (lc) 

Leptolepia novae-zelandiae a fern F o 

Leptopteris superba Prince of Wales fern F c (lf) 

Lycopodium fastigiatum a club moss R o 

Lycopodium scariosum a club moss R,A o 

Lycopodium varium a club moss F,A o 

Lycopodium volubile a club moss A o 

Microsorum pustulatum ssp. pustulatum hounds tongue fern F,A c 

Paesia scaberula pig fern A lc 

Polystichum cystosegia alpine shield fern A u 

Polystichum vestitum prickly shield fern F,A c (lf) 

Pyrrosia elaeganifolius leather leaved fern F,A o 

Rumohra adiantiformis plastic fern F o 

Tmesipteris elongata a chain fern L o 

Tmesipteris tannensis a chain fern F o 


Trichomanes colensoi a filmy fern L o 

Trichomanes reniforme kidney fern L o 

Trichomanes strictum a filmy fern L o 

Trichomanes venosum a filmy fern L o 

Podocarps 

Dacrydium cupressinum rimu F o 

Phyllocladus alpinus celery pine F o 

Podocarpus hallii hall’s totara F o 

Prumnopitys ferruginea miro F o 

Trees and shrubs 

Arisotelia fruticosa mountain wineberry F,R o 

Arisotelia serrata wineberry F,A o 

Arisotelia serrata x fruticosa hybrid wineberry R u 

Brachyglottis buchananii a tree daisy A,C u 

Carmichaelia arborea a native broom R,A a 

Carmichaela australis a native broom C o 

Carpodetus serratus marbleleaf F o 

Coprosma ciliata a coprosma F o 

Coprosma colensoi a coprosma F c 

Coprosma cuneata a coprosma F,A o 

Coprosma foetidissima stinkwood F,A c 

Coprosma lucida glossy karamu F,A o (lc) 

Coprosma parviflora var. dumosa a coprosma # 

Coprosma perpusilla a coprosma @ 

Coprosma propinqua mingimingi C u 

Coprosma rhamnoides a coprosma F c 

Coprosma rotundifolia a coprosma F o (lc) 

Coprosma rugosa a coprosma R,A a 

Coprosma serrulata a coprosma R u 

Coriaria arborea tree tutu # 

Coriaria plumosa a tutu R,A f 

Coriaria sarmentosa a tutu R,A c 

Dracophyllum fiordense Fiordland tree inaka $ 

Dracophyllum longifolium inaka A,C o 

Dracophyllum kirkii a shrub @ 

Dracophyllum menziesii pineapple shrub $ 

Dracophyllum muscoides/prostratum a shrub @ 

Dracophyllum rosmarinifolium a shrub @ 

Eleaocarpus hookerianus pokaka F o 

Fuchsia excorticata tree fuchsia F,A o (la) 

Gaultheria crassa a shrub @ 

Gaultheria depressa var. novae-zelandiae snow berry 

@ 

Gaultheria rupestris a shrub R,A,C o 

Griselinia littoralis broadleaf F,A f 

Hebe cockayniana? a hebe A u 

Hebe hectorii a whipcord hebe @ 

Hebe macrantha? a hebe # 

Hebe salicifolia koromiko R,F c 

Hebe subalpina coastal hebe A,R o 

Hedycarya arborea pigeonwood L o 

Hoheria glabrata mountain ribbonwood F,A,R c 

Melicytus ramiflorus mahoe L o 

Metrosideros umbellata southern rata F,A o (lc) 

Muehlenbeckia axillaris a prostrate shrub R.A c 

Myrsine australis red mapou L o 

Myrsine divaricata weeping mapou F,A c 

Neomyrtus pedunculata rohutu F f 


Nothofagus menziesii silver beech F,A a 

Nothofagus solandri var. cliffortioides mountain beech F,A o 

Olearia arborescens a shrub daisy R,A,C o 

Olearia colensoi leatherwood A u 

Olearia ilicifolia mountain holly A,R c (lf) 

Olearia ilicifolia x arborescens hybrid mountain holly A o 

Olearia moschata a shrub daisy A u 

Ozothamnus vauvilliersii cottonwood A o 

Parahebe cataractae a small shrub R,A f 

Parahebe lyallii a small shrub R o 

Parahebe lyallii x cataractae a small shrub R o 

Pittosporum colensoi kohuhu/black mapou F,R o 

Pseudopanax colensoi var. tarnatus three finger F,A o (lc) 

Pseudopanax crassifolius lancewood F,A c 

Psuedopanax lineare mountain lancewood F u 

Pseudowintera colorata pepper wood F c 

Raukaua edgerleyii raukaua L o 

Raukaua simplex haumakoroa F,A c 

Schefflera digitata pate/seven finger F o (lf) 

Weinmannia racemosa kamahi F,A c (lf) 

Climbers and vines 

Metrosideros colensoi? a climbing rata L o 

Metrosideros diffusa a climbing rata F o 

Muehlenbeckia australis pohuehue F o 

Parsonsia heterophylla native jasmine L o 

Rubus cissoides a lawyer vine F o 

Herbs 

Acaena anserinifolia a biddibid F,R,A o (lf) 

Aciphylla crenulata a speargrass @ 

Aciphylla multisecta a speargrass @ 

Anaphaloides bellidioides an ever-lasting daisy R,A o (lc) 

Anaphaloides hookeri an ever-lasting daisy A o 

Anisotome haastii a native carrot R u 

Cardamine debilis agg. a bittercress F,R o 

Celmisia du-reitzii an alpine daisy A u 

Celmisia holosericea an alpine daisy A u 

Celmisia verbacifolia an alpine daisy A u 

*Cerastium fontanum mouse-ear chickweed A,R u 

Colobanthus apetalus/affinus a herb A u 

Craspedia uniflora a wooly head A u 

Dolychoglottis lyallii yellow snow marguerite @ 

Epilobium atriplicifolium a willow herb A u 

Epilobium brunnescens a willow herb R,A f 

Epilobium glabellum a willow herb R,A o 

Epilobium pedunculare a willow herb F,R o 

Galium perpusillum a herb R,R o 

Gentiana montana a native gentian @ 

Geum cockaynei a native geum R o 

Gingidia montana a native aniseed R,A o 

Gunnera monoica a creeping herb R,A c 

Hydrocotyle novae-zelandiae var. Montana a creeping herb R o (lf) 

Hydrocotyle salcata a creeping herb R lc 

*Hypochaeris radicata catsear A u 

Lagenifera strangulata a daisy F o 

Leucogenes grandiceps edelweiss @ 

Leptinella squalida var. mediana a creeping daisy R,A o (lf) 

Lobelia angulata a creeping herb R,A,F c 


Mentha cunninghamii native mint R lc 

Montia fontana a herb R o 

Myosotis forsteri a forget-me-not F o 

Nertera ciliata a creeping herb R o 

Nertera depressa a creeping herb F,R,A o 

Nertera villosa a creeping herb F f 

Ourisia crosbyi a herb F u 

Ourisia caespitosa a herb R u 

Ourisia macrocarpa a herb R u 

Oxalis magellanica a native oxalis R,A o 

Ranunculus lyallii a native buttercup R u 

Ranunculus membranifolius a native buttercup F c 

Ranunculus sericophyllus a native buttercup @ 

Raoulia buchananii a mat daisy @ 

Raoulia glabra a mat daisy A o 

Raoulia grandiflora a mat daisy @ 

Raoulia subulata a mat daisy # 

Raoulia tenuicaulis a mat daisy R,A c (lf) 

Rumex flexuosus a native dock R u 

Senecio wairauensis a groundsel A,F o 

Stellaria parviflora a native chickweed F o 

Viola cunninghamii a native violet R,A c 

Viola filicaulis a native violet F c 

Monocots 

Grasses 

*Anthoxanthus odoratum sweet vernal R u 

Chionochloa ovata a small snow tussock A u 

Chionochloa conspicua miniature toetoe R,A a 

Chionochloa crassiuscula curled snow tussock A u 

Chionochloa pallens mid-ribbed snow tussock #,@ 

Deyeuxia avenoides a grass A o 

Festuca matthewsii alpine fescue tussock R o 

Hierochloe recurvata? a holy grass R u 

Lachnogrostis pilosa a grass R o 

Microlaena avenacea bush rice grass F o (lc) 

Poa breviglumis a grass A u 

Poa colensoi blue tussock R,A c 

Poa novae-zelandiae a grass R o 

Rytidosperma gracile a grass R c 

Rytidosperma setifolia bristle tussock R,A c 

Trisetum lepidum a grass R u 

Sedges 

Carex coriacea cutty grass R,F o 

Carex dissita a sedge L lo 

Carex forsteri a sedge F o 

Carex secta pedicelled sedge L o 

Isolepis habra a slender sedge F o 

Isolepis sp. a dwarf sedge R u 

Schoenus pauciflorus a sedge R o 

Uncinia filiformis a hook grass F o 

Uncinia divaricata a hook grass R o 

Uncinia drucei a hook grass @ 

Uncinia uncinata a hook grass F,R o 


Uncinia viridis a hook grass R u 

Uncinia sp. a hook grass F c 

Orchids 

Aporostylis bifolia? odd leaved orchid F u 

Earina autumnalis Easter orchid F c 

Earina mucronata bamboo orchid C o 

Nematoceras acuminatum a spider orchid F o 

Nematoceras orbiculatum a spider orchid F o 

Nematoceras trilobum a spider orchid F c 

Pterostylis australis? a green hooded orchid F o 

Pterostylis sp. a green hooded orchid F o 

Thelymitra longifolia a sun orchid R o 

Winika cunninghamii a perching orchid F,A o 

Other monocots 

Astelia fragrans bush lily F c 

Astelia nervosa a lily A u 

Astelia nivicola a lily @ 

Astelia petrieii a lily @ 

Bulbinella gibsii var. balanifera a Maori onion R u 

Cordyline indivisa mountain cabbage tree A u 

Dianella nigra a lily C u 

Juncus novae-zelandiae a native rush R lc 

Libertia micrantha a native iris F o 

Luzula sp. a woodrush R u 

Luzuriaga parviflora lantern berry F c 

Marsippospermum gracile a rush @ 

Phormium cookianum mountain flax R,A o (lc) 

Rhipogonum scandens supplejack L o 

Brian Rance 

14-15 December 2010

Sinbad Sanctuary Annual Report 2010/2011 - Fiordland ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?