Ecological Monitoring - Predator Exclusion Study by Alex Hoxsie

ECOLOGICAL MONITORING The response of Hochstetterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s frogs (Leiopelma hochstetteri) to the eradication of introduced mammalian pests in the Maungatautari Ecological Island, Waikato region, New Zealand

Alex Hoxsie EcoQuest Education Foundation Directed Research Project 2009

EcoQuest Education Foundation Directed Research Project 2009

Frontispiece

Undergraduate report, (NR: 663, Directed Research Project) written in partial fulfillment of semester requirements at EcoQuest Education Foundation, New Zealand. This is a graded report and EcoQuest takes no responsibility for errors in sampling or analysis that it may contain. No part of this report may be reproduced, circulated or stored in any form without the prior written permission of EcoQuest Education Foundation, 1204 East Coast Road, R D 3, Pokeno, New Zealand.

Alex Hoxsie EcoQuest Education Foundation 1204 East Coast Rd R.D.3, Pokeno 2473 New Zealand December, 2009

Contents Frontispiece ...........................................................................................................................3 Abstract .................................................................................................................................8 1.

Introduction ...................................................................................................................9 1.1. Overview ....................................................................................................................9 1.2. Background .................................................................................................................9 1.3. Restoration ecology ................................................................................................... 10 1.4. Leiopelma hochstetteri .............................................................................................. 10 1.5. Ecological monitoring ............................................................................................... 11 1.6. Objectives and hypotheses ......................................................................................... 11

Methods ....................................................................................................................... 13 2.1. Overview .................................................................................................................. 13 2.2. Study site .................................................................................................................. 13 2.3. Field equipment ......................................................................................................... 16 2.4. Existing methods and expansion ................................................................................ 16 2.5. Sampling program ..................................................................................................... 16 2.6. Experience ................................................................................................................ 18 2.7. Biosecurity precautions ............................................................................................. 18 2.8. Statistical analysis ..................................................................................................... 18

Results ......................................................................................................................... 19

3.1. Frog abundance and class-size ................................................................................... 19 3.2. Cover objects and stream width ................................................................................. 21 3.3. Habitat suitability ...................................................................................................... 22 4.

Discussion.................................................................................................................... 25 4.1. Overview .................................................................................................................. 25 4.2. Abundance and search effort...................................................................................... 25 4.3. Population structure................................................................................................... 26 4.4. Habitat ...................................................................................................................... 27 4.5. Other implications ..................................................................................................... 28 4.6. Error ......................................................................................................................... 28

Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 29

Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. 30 References ........................................................................................................................... 31 Appendices: ......................................................................................................................... 34 Appendix A: Photographs of L. hochstetteri coloring. .......................................................... 34 Appendix B: Field equipment list ......................................................................................... 35 Appendix C: Map of L. hochstetteri found in April and November 2005 in Maungatautari Ecological Island. ................................................................................................................ 36 Appendix D: Map of transect locations, trail descriptions for transect access routes, and a map of the transect access routes. ................................................................................................ 37 Appendix E: Ranking of transects for suitable Hochstetterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s frog habitat .............................. 42 Appendix F: Example of the field data sheet used in this survey for L. hochstetter................ 43

Appendix G: Map of the monitoring trail system in the Maungatautari Ecological Island...... 44

Abstract Restoration ecology is a valuable tool in the restoration and protection of biodiversity. New Zealand has a long history of successfully restoring declining populations of its native wildlife on offshore ecological islands. With the development of mammalian pest-proof fencing, mainland ecological islands are now a reality as well. Maungatautari Ecological Island has been virtually free from mammalian pests since 2007 and is an ideal location to study ecosystem and species recoveries following the eradication of introduced mammals. We surveyed 23 transects in 6 streams and seepages for the presence of Hochstetterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s frogs (Leiopelma hochstetteri). In total, 26 L. hochstetteri individuals were found, ranging in size from 12-50mm, and occupying every size class (juvenile, sub-adult, adult, and large female). Sub-adults were used as indicators of recruitment into the population. They made up the largest size-class, indicating that recruitment is probably occurring. It is possible that changes in the population will not become apparent until a later time owing to the slow maturation of L. hochstetteri.

Although this study lacks definite conclusions about the effects on L.

hochstetteri of mammalian pest eradication in the Maungatautari Ecological Island, the data gathered is important as part of a long-term program monitoring populations of this species in the absence of introduced mammals.

1. Introduction 1.1. Overview Restoration ecology is an integral part of the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy (MfE, 2000). Although restoration ecology covers a range of principles, controlling introduced mammalian pests has become a major focus in restoration efforts. Introduced mammalian pests, such as possums (Trichosurus vulpecula), stoats (Mustela erminea), mice (Mus musculus), ship rats (Rattus rattus), and kiore (Rattus exulans), have caused population declines and extinctions of many endemic and native New Zealand species. Pest control, through extensive trapping and poisoning regimes, aims to keep pest populations low, allowing native species, particularly birds, to have an increased chance of successful breeding. However, since the mid-1990s predator-proof fencing has allowed native fauna in New Zealand to exist virtually predatorfree in mainland ecological islands (Saunders, 2001). These â&#x20AC;&#x153;islandsâ&#x20AC;? are valuable study sites as they show differences in population ecology as a result of predation and competition by introduced mammalian pests.

1.2. Background Due to its geographic isolation, New Zealand is home to a large number of endemic species. The New Zealand land mass separated from the supercontinent Gondwana approximately 80 million years ago, stranding on it a number of ancient species (Gibbs, 2006). The landscape became dominated by birds, many of which gave up flight in the absence of land predators. Apart from birds, there are also a number of primitive invertebrates, reptiles, and amphibians, including the tuatara (Sphenodon punctatus) and all the native frogs, that are reminiscent of their Gondwanan ancestors (Wilson, 2004).

Terrestrial mammalian predators (especially

humans and rats) did not arrive in New Zealand until Maori settlement approximately 1000 years ago (Gibbs, 2006). Having evolved in isolation, most New Zealand wildlife was not equipped to evade, fend off, or compete with these new predators. European settlement in the early 1800s exposed New Zealand to further habitat loss and fragmentation due to the clearing of forest for pastureland, but also to more introduced mammalian pests (such as stoats, possums, and pigs (Sus scrofa). This resulted in declining native species populations and many extinctions. Restoring New Zealandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s native populations to a sustainable level is a large and complex endeavor that combines many strategies and interest groups.

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie

1.3. Restoration ecology Restoration ecology is largely reactionary by definition, considering its primary goal is returning something to its original biological diversity (Atkinson, 2001). In New Zealand, restoration ecology can largely be seen as the ecologically conscious development of islands (Craig, 1990). To protect native species from the threats of introduced pests, New Zealand has relied heavily on marooning endangered species on predator-free offshore islands dating back to the 1890s (Saunders, 2001). This species-specific restoration has been extremely successful in ensuring the survival of species that are on the brink (such as the kakapo (Stringops habroptilus), tuatara, and Maud Island frog (Leiopelma pakeka) (Wilson, 2004) (Conservation Status, ?). In recent years, restoration ecology has become more ecosystembased because the protection of habitat encourages population growth for multiple species within it (Saunders, 2001).

Consistent with ecosystem-based restoration is the development of mainland ecological islands, dating back to 1995-1996 (Saunders, 2001). Mainland islands used to rely on constant pest control programs (trapping and poisoning), but with the development of predator-proof fencing, the effectiveness of mammalian predator eradication on ecological islands has improved (MEIT, 2007). In addition to being more effective in the eradication mammals, fencing has lower long-term costs (in terms of effort and capital) than constant trapping and poisoning programs. By removing mammalian predators from mainland ecological islands, conservationists can study repopulation and determine quantitatively how much impact these predators have on native species, such as the Hochstetterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s frog (Leiopelma hochstetteri) (Appendix A). 1.4. Leiopelma hochstetteri L. hochstetteri is endemic to New Zealand, as are the other three extant native frog species (3 native frog species have already become extinct). Like all native New Zealand frog species, L. hochstetteri is a primitive relic of the early Gondwanan species. They are different from other frogs around the world in that they go through the tadpole stage within the egg (emerging as a froglet), they lack eardrums, Eustachian tubes, and vocal sacs, and they are quite long-lived (Wilson, 2004). L. hochstetteri are semi-aquatic, living along the banks of shaded, rocky, forest streams in the northern half of the North Island (although they were once found commonly across both the North and South Islands). Their hind feet are partially

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie

webbed for locomotion through their habitat (unlike the other native species, which are completely terrestrial). L. hochstetteri are used as an indicator species because they are specially adapted for this microhabitat, and they are sensitive to any changes that affect their ability to shelter and forage (Najera-Hillman, 2009B).

L. hochstetteri is believed to fall prey to introduced mammalian pests, although there is little direct evidence (Najera-Hillman, 2009B). Past population crashes of this native frog species have coincided with the establishment of humans and ship rats. Studying L. hochstetteri populations over time, following the eradication of introduced mammalian pests from their habitat, may reveal the impacts of predation on the speciesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; survival. 1.5. Ecological monitoring Ecological monitoring is the practice of observing the variables related to specific ecological issues to see how they change over time (Spellerberg, 2005).

In the

Maungatautari Ecological Island, ecological monitoring is used to systematically measure the effects of eradication and exclusion of introduced mammals on native flora and fauna, including L. hochstetteri. With regular and consistent monitoring of L. hochstetteri populations inside the fenced-off area, inferences can be made about the impact of mammalian predators on these frogs. Pest-free ecological islands, whether on the mainland or offshore, provide valuable study and monitoring sites for the conservation problems associated with introduced mammals (as predators and/or competitors) in New Zealand. 1.6. Objectives and hypotheses This is a longitudinal study carried out by staff and university students at the EcoQuest Education Foundation Te Rarangahau Taiao as part of an ongoing L. hochstetteri monitoring program. The purpose of this study is to track and document changes in relative abundance and population structure of several L. hochstetteri populations over time in the

Maungatautari Ecological Island following the eradication of introduced mammalian pests. The data gathered in this study will hopefully contribute to existing knowledge about ideal L. hochstetteri habitat, size-class distribution, and recruitment in a predator-free environment. At the time of the baseline 2005 survey, which was initiated by the rediscovery of L. hochstetteri on Maungatautari in 2004, there were still introduced mammalian

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie

predators on the mountain. It is hoped that the influence of the pest species can be determined by comparing frog numbers, sizes, and distribution before and after eradication took place in 2006-2007. In this experiment, the controlled variable is the presence of pest species. To limit the introduction of further variables, searching must be done on relatively dry days in the summer so as to concentrate the frogs around stream edges (Bradfield, 2005).

Since there is some evidence of predation by mammalian pests (rats and possibly pigs) on L. hochstetteri, the expectation is that populations will recover in a predator-free area. Therefore, the working hypothesis for this project is: Frog numbers will have increased since 2005 following the completion of the pest-proof fence in 2006, and eradication of mammalian predators in the Maungatautari Ecological Island in 20062007. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in L. hochstetteri populations before and after the establishment of a predator-free ecological island.

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie

2. Methods 2.1. Overview This study of L. hochstetteri populations was completed over 7 days, from 15-17 and 19-22 November, 2009. Monitoring of L. hochstetteri was carried out in Maungatautari Ecological Island because in 2004, EcoQuest rediscovered L. hochstetteri there. Since the Ecological Island was rapidly becoming a reality, it was decided that a long-term L. hochstetteri monitoring program should be established there, on what will become the largest predator-free area on the New Zealand mainland.

2.2. Study site Maungatautari Ecological Island is a mainland ecological island established on the extinct Maungatautari volcano, in the Waikato region on New Zealandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s North Island (MEIT, 2008) (Figure 1). A 47km pest-proof Xcluder fence was completed in 2006 to protect the forestâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s native flora and fauna from the impacts of introduced mammalian pests (MEIT, 2008) (Figure 2). The presence of a predator-proof fence makes the Maungatautari Ecological Island an ideal place to study how native populations react to the removal of introduced mammalian pests.

Figure 1: Locality map- Maungatautari is located southeast of Hamilton in the Waikato region, New Zealand (Source unknown)

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie

Figure 2: Maungatautari Ecological Island outlined by the pest-proof Xcluder fence (Source: Sven Nielson, Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust).

Pest control started on Maungatautari in response to biodiversity losses caused by the local extinctions of indigenous species by introduced mammalian predation and competition (McQueen (comp), 2004). The pest proof fence was adopted because of its cost-effectiveness and long-term sustainability, but also because instead of controlling pests to low numbers, it allows for their total eradication (2004). Although it may be early to judge the progress of this long-term ecosystem-based restoration project, 15 species of mammalian pests have been eradicated from the Maungatautari Ecological Island with only remnant mouse, rabbit and hare populations persisting within the fenced-off area (MacGibbon (comp), 2001;McQueen (comp), 2004; MEIT, 2008; Pers. Comm. C. Smuts-Kennedy, Dec. 2009 ) (Figure 3).

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie

Figure 3: Locations of remnant mouse populations in the Maungatautari Ecological Island (MEIT, 2009)

The Waikato Basin, where the Maungatautari Ecological Island is located, receives approximately 2000 hours of sunshine per year. On the mountain, average rainfall is 140-160cm per year and there are 30-50 days of fog (McQueen (comp), 2004). The elevation at Maungatautari peak is 797m. The soil in this region is derived from the volcanic substrate, with a mixture of yellow and brown clay loam that is typically prone to mudslides on cleared or disturbed land (MacGibbon (comp), 2001). Maungatautari is forested with a classification of “occasional rimu (Dacrydium cupressinum) with abundant tawa (Beilschmiedia tawa)” in the upland (above 610m), and “rimu-rata (Metrosideros robusta)/tawa-rewarewa (Knightia excelsa)-mangeao (Litsea calicaris)-kamahi (Weinmannia racemosa)” in the lowland (below 610m) (McQueen (comp), 2004). In all, there are 249 indigenous vascular plant taxa on Maungatautari (2004). The forest canopy is largely intact because possums prefer to browse new growth (Smale, 1997).

Goats have largely browsed the understory

(Towns, 1997).

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie

2.3. Field equipment A list of equipment used is presented in Appendix B.

2.4. Existing methods and expansion The methods used in this study are based on monitoring surveys carried out in April, 2005 (Baber et al., 2006). There have been operational changes in the survey technique since its beginning in 2005, including eliminating â&#x20AC;&#x153;informal surveys.â&#x20AC;? The informal surveys were originally a tool for establishing where L. hochstetteri populations were. Now, research focuses on sites where L. hochstetteri have been found in the past and radiates outward from these sites.

2.5. Sampling program This survey began with the mapping of L. hochstetteri sightings from similar monitoring carried out in April and November, 2005. These sites where L. hochstetteri had been found in the past (Appendix C) were targeted first. More sites were chosen 200m up and down stream (where possible) to identify how far the L. hochstetteri population radiated outward. Transects were set up closer together where suitable habitat did not exist 200m from an existing one.

When establishing a site, GPS location was taken and permanent yellow

triangles were placed at its upstream and downstream reaches, labeling the transect and defining its boundaries. The site-naming strategy was to identify different streams and seepages with numbers and each transect with a letter. Streams in the same catchment were named with consecutive numbers. Some of the lettering of individual transects was based on the names of existing transects from studies carried out in 2005 (Baber et al., 2006). A comprehensive list of transect locations and access routes was compiled (Appendix D). All searching was done during daylight when the nocturnal L. hochstetteri are inactive. Their inactivity during the day made measuring individuals and replacing cover objects easier. After a site was chosen, the team of two researchers went through a suitability classification process. First, they would consider the 20m site in its entirety and give it an overall suitability label (optimal, suitable, marginal, or not suitable) (Appendix E). This is a subjective measure based largely on experience. Using the 30m tape measure, a 20m transect was laid out along the center of a stream or through a seepage. Then, the designated searcher for that transect put

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie

down a 1m pole perpendicular to the water’s edge on both sides of the stream (and the middle if exposed) at each 1m mark along the transect (including its origin at 0m). This was done to assess the habitat for suitable cover objects directly beneath the pole. Cover objects include leaf litter, woody debris, or rocks that L. hochstetteri might be concealed under. If there were any cover objects present that were roughly golf ball sized (but not much larger than a rugby ball), then the classification was “suitable.” If moving a cover object was impossible (because of weight or access) or might damage L. hochstetteri or their habitat, then the suitability at that point was considered “suitable but unsearchable.” If there were no cover objects, or there were only smaller ones, then the classification was “unsuitable.” Compiling data on how much of a transect is suitable or not may help researchers better pinpoint optimal habitat for L. hochstetteri in the future. The last step prior to surveying for L. hochstetteri individuals was to measure the stream width at 0m, 10m, and 20m in centimeters using a 5m tape. Where transects were established in seepages rather than streams, the stream width was not recorded. Once the suitability ranking was done, the survey for L. hochstetteri began. Starting at the downstream end of the transect, the searcher looked under all searchable cover objects within 1m of the water’s edge for the presence of L. hochstetteri.

Where steep banks were

encountered within 1m of the water’s edge, searching was conducted up to a height of 60cm. The recorder timed the search and counted the cover objects examined using the tally counter. It was important for the recorder to pause the search when a frog was found so that the search time recorded was strictly representative of the searching process. When L. hochstetteri were encountered, 3 measurements were recorded on standardized field data sheets (Appendix F): The distance the individual was encountered along the transect to the nearest 10cm, its distance from the water to the nearest centimeter, and the size of the frog measured as its snout to urostyle length (SUL) to the nearest millimeter. After taking these measurements, the cover object was placed back in exactly the same place. If upon discovery a frog jumped away, its SUL was estimated to the nearest 5 mm and it was noted that en estimate rather than a measurement was taken. L. hochstetteri individuals were not handled or touched during searching and measuring. The number of L. hochstetteri found by each searcher was recorded to possibly assess whether or not searcher bias existed, keeping in mind that habitat suitability and variations in the actual number of L. hochstetteri present greatly influence this variable.

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie

2.6. Experience Before beginning the survey for L. hochstetteri in Maungatautari Ecological Island, all 4 surveyors attended a training day in the Hunua ranges. Training was led by EcoQuest field leader John Longden. Independent L. hochstetteri researcher and field contributor Helen Nortier also attended to familiarize with the EcoQuest protocol.

2.7. Biosecurity precautions Prior to leaving EcoQuest, all boots were cleaned so as not to create a pathway for fungus between the Hunua ranges and Maungatautari. Boots were also cleaned before entering the Maungatautari Ecological Island each day using spray-on application of a Trigeneâ&#x201E;˘ solution. This precautionary measure was taken to prevent the possible introduction of chytrid fungus into the L. hochstetteri populations within the fence. Chytrid fungus is a lethal threat to amphibians worldwide because it affects their skin and thus their breathing (cutaneous breathing). Also, all packs were checked for mice every day before entering the Maungatautari Ecological Island to avoid accidently reintroducing mammalian pests via our gear.

2.8. Statistical analysis Due to the low number of L. hochstetteri found in this survey and the 2005 survey, as well as changes in the sampling method, statistical tests were not carried out on the data collected in this study.

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie

3. Results 3.1. Frog abundance and class-size Surveys for Hochstetter’s frogs were carried out by six researchers from 15-17 and 19-21 November 2009. Teams surveyed a total of 23 transects within six streams, each transect being 20m. A total of 26 frogs were found in nine transects, consisting of six stream transects and three seepage transects. Thirteen frogs were found in the transect 1/G (this is the initial discovery site from 2004) (Appendix D). This site yielded half of the 26 frogs found in this survey and incorporated every size class category (Table 1). Three frogs were found in stream 3, one at transect “CC” and two at transect “DD”. Frogs were found at these sites in the 2005 study also (two in “CC” and five in “DD”). One frog was found in stream 11, where site “I” was located in the 2005 survey (Appendix D). During an informal survey in the 2009 study, one frog was found in stream 1 and three were found in stream 3. Transect “A” was established in stream 3 following this informal discovery. Two frogs were found and recorded during a formal survey at this transect. No formal transect was established where the frog was informally located in stream 1. Table 1: Size class distribution of L. hochstetteri found in stream/seepage habitats surveyed in Maungatautari Ecological Island in November 2009.

Stream #

# transects

# frogs

# juveniles (<18mm)

# sub-adults (18-30mm)

# adults (31-39mm)

1 2 3 4 10 11

5 6 2 2 2 6

15* 5 2 3 0 1

1 1 0 0 0 0

6 2 2 0 0 0

4 1 0 3 0 1

# large females (>39mm) 4 1 0 0 0 0

*Thirteen of the 15 frogs found in stream 1 were found in transect “G” Most L. hochstetteri found were in the sub-adult and adult size classes, respectively. Average snout-urostyle length of all frogs found was 31mm and ranged from 12-50mm. The largest frog was 50mm (found in transect “F” of stream 2) (Table 2). Figure 4 shows the size class distribution of the 26 frogs found.

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie

Total Number of Frogs

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Juveniles (<18mm)

Subadults (18-30mm)

Adults (31-39mm)

Large females (>39mm)

Size Class Category

Figure 4: Frequency distribution of size classes of L. hochstetteri found in Maungatautari Ecological Island in November 2009.

The SUL of four out of 26 frogs was estimated to the nearest 5mm rather than measured because these individuals jumped away when discovered. Table 2 shows the SUL for both estimated and measured individuals. Table 2: Measured and estimated SUL of L. hochstetteri in the Maungatautari Ecological Island, November 2009. Measured SUL Stream # Frog SUL (mm) 1 22 1 25 1 42 1 40 1 36 1 33 1 35 1 22 1 45 1 44 1 12 1 25 1 30 2 50 2 24 2 32 2 21 3 28 3 20 4 32 4 35 11 39 Average: 31.5

Estimated SUL Stream # Frog SUL (mm) 2 25 1 35 4 35 2 15 Average: 27.5

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie

3.2. Cover objects and stream width For each search, the number of cover objects searched and stream width at 0, 10 and 20 meters was recorded in order to identify possible patterns between stream/habitat characteristics and frog abundance. The average stream width of transects where frogs were found was 143cm, with a range from 83cm-191cm. In streams where no frogs were located, the average stream width was 118 cm, ranging from 40cm to 173cm. Stream width averages and ranges were computed excluding seepages, where stream width was not recorded. In streams where frogs were found, the average number of cover objects searched was 152, and the average number of cover objects searched was 157 for transects where no frogs were found (Tables 3 & 4, respectively). Table 3: Number of cover objects searched and mean stream width (cm) for transects where L. hochstetteri were located in Maungatautari Ecological Island in November 2009 (â&#x20AC;&#x153;Sâ&#x20AC;? denotes seepage).

Transect 1/A 1/G 1/R 2/F 2/H 3/A 4/CC 4/DD 11/I

Cover Objects 109 118 181 197 164 76 148 228 150

EcoQuest Education Foundation

Mean stream width (cm) S S 180 130 140 S 133 83 191

EQDRP

Frog Abundance 1 13 1 2 3 2 1 2 1

12/09 AHoxsie

Table 4: Number of cover objects searched and mean stream width (cm) for transects where no L. hochstetteri were found in Maungatautari Ecological Island in November 2009 (“S” denotes seepage).

Transect 1/Q 1/S 2/D 2/E 2/G 2/I 3/B 10/B 10/A 11/E 11/D 11/C 11/B 11/A

Cover Objects 127 113 127 213 164 192 231 130 113 102 158 179 135 215

Mean stream width (cm) 173 137 123 67 177 163 S 130 113 40 70 101 80 159

3.3. Habitat suitability Suitability assessments were carried out at one meter intervals. For all streams, the majority of these assessments were in the “suitable” category. The percentage of suitable sample points ranged from 44% in stream 2 (where five frogs were found) to 64% in stream 10 (where no frogs were found). The lowest percentage of points ranked as unsearchable was 15% in stream 11 and the highest percentage was 34% in stream 4. For unsuitable points, the lowest percentage was 16% in stream 10 and the highest was 40% in stream 2 (Figure 5).

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie

Stream 2: Overall suitability of stream habitat out of six transects surveyed

Stream 1: Overall suitability of stream habitat out of five transects surveyed

20% 49%

% Suitable

40%

44%

% Unsearchable

% Unsearchable % Unsuitable

% Unsuitable

31%

% Suitable

16%

Stream 3: Overall suitability of stream habitat out of two transects surveyed

Stream 10: Overall suitability of stream habitat out of two transects surveyed

16%

22%

% Suitable

% Unsearchable

20% 64%

% Unsearchable

% Unsuitable

17%

61%

% Unsuitable

Stream 11: Overall suitability of stream habitat out of six transects surveyed

Stream 4: Overall suitability of stream habitat out of two transects surveyed

20% 46%

37%

% Suitable

48%

% Unsearchable

% Unsearchable % Unsuitable

% Unsuitable

34%

% Suitable

15%

Figure 5: Habitat suitability ranking for all streams surveyed - percent suitable, unsearchable and unsuitable in Maungatautari Ecological Island, November 2009.

In 2005, surveys for Hochstetterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s frog were conducted over seven days in April and five days in November on Maungatautari, in the southeast area of the mountain that is now included in Maungatautari Ecological Island. Figure 6 shows the distribution of size classes from the two 2005 surveys combined and the distribution of size classes from this survey (November 2009).

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie

In total, one juvenile, 13 sub-adults, eight adults and three large females were found in 2005. The November 2009 survey resulted in a greater number of each size class than the surveys in 2005 with the exception of sub-adults (13 found in 2005, 10 found in 2009). Results of both the combined 2005 surveys and the 2009 survey show the greatest number of sub-adults in relation to any of the other size class categories (Figure 6).

Total Number of Frogs

Apr & Nov-05

12 10

Nov-09

8 6 4 2 0 Juvenile <18mm

Subadult 18- Adult 3130mm 39mm Size Class Category

Large Female >39mm

Figure 6: Frequency distribution of size classes of L. hochstetteri, April and November 2005 surveys (conducted over 7 and 5 days, respectively) and November 2009 survey (conducted over 6 days). A total of 25 frogs was recorded in 2005 and a total of 26 frogs was recorded in November 2009 in Maungatautari Ecological Island.

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie

4. Discussion 4.1. Overview This survey, carried out in the Maungatautari Ecological Island, is the second survey of a long term L. hochstetteri monitoring program that aims to track changes in this species’ abundance and population structure over time in the absence of introduced mammalian pests. As more data is collected in the future, researchers will be able to make inferences about the effects of removing introduced mammalian pests on L. hochstetteri.

The conclusions from these

surveys can then in turn be used to determine the scope of mammalian pest problems in other areas of New Zealand.

These conclusions will likely focus on population density and

population structure, as well as suitable habitat and L. hochstetteri’s position in food webs in the absence of introduced mammalian pests (Najera-Hillman, 2009A). From this particular study, inferences can be made about population structure, bearing in mind that past data was collected using different techniques because the 2005 survey’s goal was to find any L. hochstetteri on Maungatautari. By standardizing the monitoring procedure, future studies will be able to carry out exact repeats along existing transects and compile comparable data. Long term data collection will allow researchers to track a number of changes in L. hochstetteri populations in the Maungatautari Ecological Island as they radiate outward from suspected population centers.

4.2. Abundance and search effort The 26 L. hochstetteri found in this survey (November 2009) compare well to the 25 L. hochstetteri found in 2005 (April and November). All of the locations where L. hochstetteri were found in 2005 were resurveyed, and more transects were set up radiating out from these sites. In 2005, the surveying was done in 2 different seasons over 12 days of searching. The 2005 survey also used “informal searches” to cover more ground when setting up the first transects. This survey lasted only 7 days, but relied on the knowledge gained in 2005 to locate the suspected centers of L. hochstetteri populations. Having previous data meant the elimination of “informal searches” and that more transects could be set up and searched in less time.

The differences in surveying methods make a direct comparison of abundance

impossible, but the numbers seems to broadly indicate that the L. hochstetteri populations in the area searched have not changed a lot since 2005. This is a clue that mammalian pests may not have a significant impact on L. hochstetteri populations.

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie

Isolating the data from November 2005 shows that only 6 L. hochstetteri were found, and they were all from a single stream, in which this yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s survey only found 3 L. hochstetteri (despite finding 26 individuals overall). Unless the team in 2005 was more effective at searching, this comparison shows that frog numbers likely vary from year to year. It may also demonstrate that individuals move between streams. However, every location where L. hochstetteri were found in 2005 also had frogs present in November 2009. This seems to indicate that frogs probably occupy these habitats continuously over all.

4.3. Population structure The results from this survey at first seem to suggest that there is little or no recruitment of new individuals into the L. hochstetteri population due to the low number of juveniles found. However, because of their smaller size, juveniles are more likely to be missed when searching. Also, the patchy distribution of breeding sites means that juveniles can occur in large numbers at certain locations before they begin to radiate outward (Najera-Hillman, 2009A). To account for this, studies have suggested that sub-adults are better indicators of recruitment into the population (Whittaker, 1999).

In this study, sub-adults made up the largest size-class category. This indicates that recruitment of new individuals has probably occurred over the last few years. When compared to data collected at the same monitored catchments in April and November of 2005, sub-adults were likewise the largest size-class, and in similar proportions. The recruitment of individuals, both prior to and following mammalian pest eradication, may indicate that predation and competition by these pests may not be the sole cause of relatively low L. hochstetteri numbers on Maungatautari. Even where introduced mammalian pests are controlled rather than eradicated, such as in the Waitakere Ranges and Tawharanui Regional Park, data indicates recruitment of new individuals is occurring in L. hochstetteri populations (Bradfield, 2005). The data set concerning population size-distribution from the Waitakere Ranges and Tawharanui Regional Park study is similar to that gathered in the Maungatautari Ecological Island except that there was an even lower juvenile percentage. It may be that changes in population structure do not appear to be evident because L. hochstetteri are long lived and are not sexually mature until about three years of age (Wilson, 2004). Since Maungatautari has only been virtually free of pests since 2007,

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie

and the likelihood of missing juveniles in surveys is relatively high, the effects of predator-removal on L. hochstetteri are quite possibly not apparent yet. This longterm monitoring program allows for researchers to determine how long it takes forest ecosystems and individual species to recover following the eradication of introduced mammals. 4.4. Habitat Determining suitable habitat for L. hochstetteri over the course of this monitoring project in the Maungatautari Ecological Island is important because relatively little is known about how and where this species lived prior to the introduction of terrestrial mammals in New Zealand. For instance, it is suggested that L. hochstetteri live primarily along flowing streams where they utilize the rocky substrate (McLennan, 1985; Wakelin, 2003).

However, the data

gathered in this survey, and the 2005 study, show that a major portion of the population is found in seepages away from swiftly flowing water (Baber et al., 2006; EcoQuest unpublished data). The habitat data collected at survey sites, including stream width, cover objects, and suitability rankings, will benefit future research by adding to what is already known about habitat use and characteristics for L. hochstetteri. Maungatautari Ecological Island will allow researchers to also examine the vulnerability of L. hochstetteri to habitat alteration due to traffic by terrestrial animals. Apart from possible predation, pigs are widely considered a threat to L. hochstetteri because of disturbance of stream banks and sedimentation associated with their movement in and along these waterways (Towns, 1994). Pigs have been successfully eradicated from Maungatautari; however, it is possible that human activity along streams is causing habitat alteration. Many of the bait station monitoring trails inside the fenced-off area follow the streams on Maungatautari (Appendix G) and are exposed to regular traffic associated with the monthly checking of stations (MEIT, 2008). Although current data is insufficient to justify such claims based on anecdotal evidence, this disturbance cannot be discounted altogether. Over time, we may be able draw conclusions about L. hochstetteriâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s susceptibility to habitat alteration caused by human foot traffic on Maungatautari. This could be done by comparing the percentage of suitable-habitat in transects that contain L. hochstetteri along tracks and in the bush. The lack of mammalian pests such as goats and possums on Maungatautari also provides an opportunity to study the impact of grazing herbivores on L. hochstetteri habitat. Goats are extremely destructive to forest undergrowth and possums feed largely on young plants (Towns, 1997; Smale, 1997). This lessens leaf litter on the forest floor, which sustains the

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie

terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates that are prey for L. hochstetteri (Najera-Hillman, 2009A). Without seed predation by rats, new undergrowth will become more extensive. This in turn will create shade, which is important in L. hochstetteri habitat (Wilson, 2004). There are likely several other interactions that we donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t yet know about. This monitoring program is not specifically designed to trace these, but decreased browsing may support growing populations of L. hochstetteri over time.

4.5. Other implications Ecological monitoring creates a baseline for future management actions. Monitoring tracks what may be happening to populations over time and space, as well as adding to existing knowledge. During the surveying for this project, L. hochstetteri were found in different habitat than expected based on past surveys and one individual found was larger than L. hochstetteri are reported to be in existing literature we reviewed (Zoological Society of London, 2007). This suggests that general information about L. hochstetteri habitat and size may change as more research is completed. Since Maungatautari has the only mainland L. hochstetteri populations not exposed to mammalian pests, new information about this species is expected to come to light. Increasing what is known about a species will likely increase the effectiveness of future management efforts.

4.6. Error This monitoring program for L. hochstetteri in Maungatautari Ecological Island to date has only surveyed populations in 2 catchments.

This may limit its robustness for drawing

conclusions about L. hochstetteri over large areas and different habitat. The habitat alteration associated with surveying for L. hochstetteri, foot traffic through streams, and the ongoing recovery of the native forest may mean that the data gathered does not actually represent populations in undisturbed habitat. Also, in 2005, surveys were carried out at different times of year (April and November). If seasonal variation is brought into the study as a variable (which is not an objective at this stage), it will need to be done consistently over time. Until more is known about L. hochstetteriâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s life history and movements, comparing data from different seasons could prove to be invalid.

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie

5. Recommendations In the future, it is important for research to continue surveying transects established in 2005 and 2009. These transects include all sites where L. hochstetteri have been found since 2004 and sites that may shed light on the distribution of L. hochstetteri. If transects are added, it is important to record their location for the next surveyors. Taking a GPS coordinate is useful, but also describing transect locations using walking tracks and monitoring trails is extremely beneficial.

Once transects are set up, clearly labeled yellow tags, highly visible tag

placements, and use of EcoQuest flagging will make locating transects easier for future researchers. Since only two catchments on the southeast side of Maungatautari have been surveyed thoroughly, it would be interesting to see how widespread L. hochstetteri are across the whole Maungatautari Ecological Island. When it comes to choosing suitable habitat for transects, it may be beneficial to make seepages one of the main focuses. Even though this survey looked mainly at flowing streams, more than half of the L. hochstetteri recorded were found in seepages.

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie

Acknowledgements Thank you to my supervisor Ria Brejaart for her leadership, insight, and feedback. To my team members, Brendan Brock, Emily Quinton, and Melanie Chalker for their assistance in the field and for their collaboration on the text. To our field leader John Longden for his wealth of knowledge and leadership.

To Helen Nortier for her help in the field and

experience. I would also like to thank Elwyn Andree-Wiltens for allowing our team to access the Maungatautari Ecological Island via her private land and kindly leading us through it. Thank you to Sven Nielson of the Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust for granting us access to various maps of the Island; these drastically reduced our travel time and were great visuals for this report. Lastly, thank you to the Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust for their support of this project.

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie

References Atkinson, I.A.E. 2001 Introduced mammals and models for restoration. Biological Conservation 99: 81-96 Baber, M, Moulton,H., Smuts-Kennedy,C., Gemmel, N. and Crossland, M. 2006. Discovery and spatial assessment of a Hochstetters’s frog (Leiopelma hochstetteri) population in Maungatautari Scenic Reserve, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 33, 110. Bradfield, Kay 2005. A Survey for Hochstetter’s frog (Leiopelma hochstetteri) in the Waitakere Ranges and Tawharanui Regional Parklands. Heritage Division, Auckland Regional Council. Conservation Status(?) NZ ‘s frogs. http://www.nzfrogs.org/NZ+frogs/conservation.html Craig, J. L. 1990. Potential for ecological restoration of islands for indigenous fauna and flora. In: Towns, D.R., Daugherty, C. H. and Atkinson, I.A.E. (eds) 1990. Ecological restoration of New Zealand islands. Conservation Sciences Publication No.2. Department of Conservation, Wellington. Gibbs, G. 2006 Ghosts of Gondwana – the history of life in New Zealand:6-10 MacGibbon, R. 2001 Maungatautari Ecological Restoration Plan. Natural Logic. Taupo Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust newsletter. Oct 07; Feb 08;; Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust. 2009. Pest eradication: Latest Pest News: Rodent Monitoring

Results

Maungatautari

Mice

June-July,

2009.

http://www.maungatrust.org/subpages/mountainrestoration/pesteradication. McLennan, J.A. 1985 Some observations on Hochstetter’s frog in the catchment of the Motu river, East Cape. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 8. McQueen, J. (2004). An Ecological Restoration Plan for Maungatautari (2003-2004), Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust. PDF MfE 2000. A strategy for New Zealand’s Biodiversity. Parts One and Two of the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie

Nájera-Hillman, E., Alfaro, A.C., Breen, B.B. and O’Shea, S. 2009A Characterisation (N Isotopes) of the foodwebs in a New Zealand sream in the Waitakere Ranges, with emphasis on the trophic level of the endemic frog Leiopelma hochstetteri. NZ Jl Zoology Vol 36: 165-176 Nájera-Hillman, E., Alfaro, A.C., King, P. and Breen, B.B. 2009B Effect of pest management operations on the abundance and size-frequency distribution of the New Zealand endemic frog Leiopelma hochstetteri. NZ Jl Zoology Vol 36: 389-400. Perfect, A. & Bell, B 2005. Assessment of the impact of 1080 on the native frogs Leiopelma archeyi and L. hochstetteri. DoC Research and Development Series 209, Department of Conservation, Wellington. Saunders, A. & Norton, D.A. 2001. Ecological Restoration at Mainland Islands in New Zealand. Biological Conservation 99: 109-119 Smale, M.C. (1997). Susceptibility of indigenous vegetation classes in the Waikato region to damage by brush-tailed possums. Landcare research contract report: LC9798/020. Towns, D. R, Simberloff, D. & Atkinson, I. A.E. (1997). Restoration of New Zealand islands: redressing the effects of introduced species. Pacific Conservation Biology Vol 3: 99124 Towns, D.R. &Daugherty, C.H. 1994. Patterns of range contractions and extinctions in the New Zealand herpetefauna following human colonization. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 21: 325-339 Wakelin, M., Smuts-Kennedy, C., Thurley, T. and Webster, N. 2003. Artificial cover objects for leiopelmatid frogs.

DoC Science Internal Series 120.

Department of

Conservation, Wellington. Whittaker, A.H. & Alspach, P.A. 1999.

Monitoring of Hochstetter’s frog (Leiopelma

hochstetteri) populations near Golden Cross Mine, Waitekauri Valley, Coromandel. Science for Conservation 130. Department of Conservation, Wellington. Wilson, K-J. (2004). Flight of the Huia. Canterbury University Press, Christchurch.

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie

Zoological Society of London. 2007. EDGE Amphibians: top 100: 38. Hochstetterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Frog (Leiopelma

hochstetteri).

http://www.edgeofexitence.org/amphibians/species_info

.php?id=583

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie

Appendices: Appendix A: Photographs of L. hochstetteri coloring.

Figure 7: L. hochstetteri with typical brown stripes and speckling (Source: Elizabeth Jones)

Figure 8: L. hochstetteri with green variation in color (Source: Elizabeth Jones)

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie

Appendix B: Field equipment list Per Frog Team: • Yellow triangles, nails, wire, tag-pen, and hammer for creating and maintaining transects • Roll of flagging tape (EcoQuest flagging is striped pink and black) • 30m tape measure • 5m tape measure • Tally counter for recording cover objects searched • Headlamp (2-watt Cateye halogen or equivalent) • Stopwatch • Clear plastic 50mm ruler (on supplied EcoQuest compass) • 1m pole • Aluminum clipboard • Pencil • Waterproof data sheets (at least 10) • Site maps o Monitoring trails map (black & white) o Maungatautari topographic map (color) • Copy of permits and protocols • RDS Cards- based on number of frogs previously found in the study area • EcoQuest radio Per frog project: • Spare tally counter • Spare 30m tape measure • Spare 2-watt Cateye halogen headlamp • Power board for recharging headlamp batteries(5 ports fit 3 chargers) • Timer for charging headlamp batteries • Trigene™ disinfectant in squirt bottles • EcoQuest cell phone x 2 • EPIRB x 1

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie

Appendix C: Map of L. hochstetteri found in April and November 2005 in Maungatautari Ecological Island.

Figure 9: Maungatautari Ecological Island (outlined in black) with the locations where L. hochstetteri were found in 2005 by EcoQuest surveying. Red and blue squares represent L. hochstetteri found in April and November, respectively. Black squares mark L. hochstetteri locations from an independent Department of Conservation survey in 2009 (Source: adapted from a map donated by Sven Nielson, Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust).

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie

Appendix D: Map of transect locations, trail descriptions for transect access routes, and a map of the transect access routes.

Figure 10: Maungatautari Ecological Island (outlined in black) with the locations of all the transects surveyed as a part of this study. Pink squares indicate transects where L. hochstetteri were found. Purple circles indicate transects where L. hochstetteri were not found. The labels follow the naming convention: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Stream number/Transect letterâ&#x20AC;? (Source: adapted from a map donated by Sven Nielson, Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust).

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie

Trail Descriptions: Stream 1 (transects A and G)- Follow the quad track until the second intersection with the older Over-The-Mountain track (OTM). Continue along OTM. Stop 50 meters uphill from OTM bait station/marker 41 at a yellow tag reading “EQ F G” (E35.6, N48.7). Follow EQ pink/black flagging on the right (on approximately a 50° bearing) downhill until meeting transect A (EQ F 1/A), which is marked with yellow tags. Transect G (EQ F 1/G) is approximately 10-15m downhill from transect A. Transect G has a slight turn in the middle, which is also marked. Sites A and G are part of a seepage that leads to the rest of stream 1. The transects are mostly rocky, moist ground. On transect access map, follow: Red to blue. Blue to gold. Stream 1 (transects S, R, and Q)- Follow OTM uphill beginning at its second intersection with the quad track. Turn off to the right at the Phil’s Cut bait trail. Follow Phil’s Cut downhill until it intersects with the WFH bait trail.

Continue along WFH and it will

eventually follow a stream uphill. This is Stream 1. Stay on this stream to find transects S and R (transect R is in the stream, but WFH follows parallel to it) marked with yellow tags (EQ F 1/S and EQ F 1/R, respectively). 200 meters upstream from transect 1/R are tags for site Q (EQ F 1-Q). On transect access map, follow: Red to Blue. Blue to Purple OR Follow quad track to the wooden benches past the Rocky Knob. Then get on OTM back towards the rocky knob. Immediately on the left will be a marker for bait trail WFH. Follow this trail down into the valley and it will begin to follow stream 1. From this direction, transect Q will appear first. Transect R will be 200 meters downstream from there, and transect S a further 100-150m. Grid Reference (taken from upstream marker at transect Q)- E35.8, N48.6 On transect access map, follow: Red to light green. Light green to purple. Stream 3 (transects A and B)- Follow the quad track to the wooden benches just past the Rocky Knob. Then follow OTM uphill towards the Pukeatua Summit. At the junction (sign

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie

post) where OTM breaks off towards the summit, look for a pink marker for bait trail WFL. Follow WFL downhill until it meets WFJ. Turn left onto WFJ and follow until it intersects WFN (at a large orange marker). Proceed on WFN until coming across a yellow marker for transect A (EQ F 3/A). Note: this stream is actually a seepage, not a flowing stream. If you reach a flowing stream, turn around. Transect B (EQ F 3/B) is uphill along the seepage from transect A, not on WFN. The downstream marker for transect B is just off of WFN. This transect may not be worth surveying again, as it wasn’t moist enough to make good frog habitat. On transect access map, follow: Red to light green. Light green to dark green.

Dark

green to yellow. Stream 2 (transects D, E, F, and G)- From transect 3/A, continue down WFN until intersecting a stream. This is stream 2. Transects D and E are upstream from here. Transect E will be encountered first, with a yellow marker about 100m upstream (EQ Frog 2/E). From here, follow the left fork upstream 200-300m until reaching another yellow marker for transect D (EG Frog 2/D). For transects F and G, follow Stream 2 downstream from its intersection with WFN. Transect F (EQ Frog 2/F) will be first, approximately 100m from the intersection with WFN. Continuing downstream, there is approximately 200m of extremely thick bush and fallen logs over the stream. Transect G (EQ Frog 2/G) may be difficult to locate due to the thickness of the bush. The transect has a small (approximately 1m) waterfall in it because there was not a continuous 20m stretch of clear and flat stream. On transect access map, follow: Red to light green. Light green to dark green. Stream 2 (transects H and I)- Stream 2 goes over a waterfall (approximately 25m drop) 100m downstream from transect 2/G. To access transect 2/H, take the “Phil’s Cut” bait trail off of OTM to the right between bait station markers 45 an 46. Turn left at a trail marked “waterfall” and continue on until it intersects with WFH. Stay right on “waterfall.” DO NOT take WFH to the left. “Waterfall” will then cross a stream. This is Stream 2. Continue up the stream to encounter marked transects 2/I (EQ Frog 2/I) and 2/H (EG Frog 2/H). The upstream endpoint of transect 2/H is at the base of the waterfall. On transect access map, follow: Red to blue. Blue to purple. Purple to pink.

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie

Stream 4 (transects CC and DD)- At the fork near transect 2/E, follow up the right hand stream approximately 200m.

Transect CC (EQ Frog 4/CC) will be encountered first.

Transect DD (EQ Frog 4/DD) will be approximately 200 meters upstream from transect CC. Note: both of these transects only have a yellow tag at their downstream endpoints. On transect access map, follow: Red to light green. Light green to dark green. Dark green to orange. Stream 10 (transects A and B)- follow the quad track past the wooden benches near the summit and continue on until the first wooden foot bridge. Transect A (EQ F 10/A) begins 1m downstream from the bridge and is visible from the bridge. Transect B (EQ F 10/B) is approximately 200m upstream from the bridge. Transect B is 25m downstream from the intersection of trails QDF and OTM. The seepage at this intersection was previously denoted survey site C (April, 2005). On transect access map, follow: Red to light green. Stream 11 (transects A, I, B, C, D, E)- To access Stream 11, enter Maungatautari Ecological Island through a gate on the eastern side of the Island near Mangakara Stream via Elwyn Andree-Wiltens’ farm. Travel along the fence (with the mountain on your left) about 100m until reaching the head of the Mangakara track. Be alert, the track head isn’t well marked. Follow this track until it intersects with the bait trail MKB. Turn right onto MKB and continue until you pass a yellow tag for the beginning of transect A (EQ Frog 11/A). This stream intersect is on the main MKB trail. Continue along MKB approximately 100-150m, looking out for EQ flagging. The first flagging marks where transect I (EQ Frog 11/I) is along the parallel stream. This transect was called “I” due to a previous naming scheme. More flagging on MKB about 100m further signals transect B (EQ Frog 11/B). Next, stay alert to see a yellow marker for transect C (EQ Frog 11/C) for close to 200m. Upstream from this transect (maybe 100-200m) is transect D (EQ Frog 11/D). To access transect E, stay on MKB until seeing a yellow marker (EQ Frog 11/E) and EQ flagging for approximately 300m (from transect D to E, the trail is slow and there is a rock face obstacle with a rope that needs to be climbed). On transect access map, follow: Black line from east entrance of Maungatautari Ecological Island.

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie

Figure 11: Transect Access Map- Maungatautari Ecological Island monitoring trails map with color-coded access routes. The colors denote separate trails that can be used to easily access the transects surveyed in this study. See the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Trail Descriptionsâ&#x20AC;? above for specific color-coded access routes (Source: adapted from a map donated by Sven Nielson, Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust).

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie

Appendix E: Ranking of transects for suitable L. hochstetteri habitat

Table 5: Guidelines for the suitability ranking of L. hochstetteri habitat along stream/seepage transects.

Ranking

Topography

Water Flow and Banks

Moisture Level

Optimal

Stream Seepage

Flowing and standing water with large banks

Damp and/or saturated

Stream Seepage

Flowing or standing water with some banks

Mostly damp/saturated, some areas too dry or submerged

None visible or fast-flowing, with no banks

Many areas too dry or submerged, patchy damp/saturated areas

Suitable

Marginal

Map habitat of stream or seepage

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

# Rocks

Size of Rocks

Cover Objects Many (crevices large enough for frogs, yet too small for predators) Wet Gravel

Many

Size of golf ball up to as large as one can lift

Some

Several smaller than golf ball or too large to lift

Some

Few

Majority smaller than golf ball or too large to lift

Few

12/09 AHoxsie

Appendix F: Example of the field data sheet used in this survey for L. hochstetteri Amphibian Monitoring Data Sheet Maungatautari 2009 (3) Before starting: Zero the tally counter and remember the timing of the search Transect Date:

Area:

Stream:

Whole Site Suitability ranking: Optimal

No:

Suitable

Searcher:

Marginal

Not suitable L=Left, R=Right, M=Middle

0m: L

1m: L

2m: L

Cover objects

3m: L

4m: L

5m: L

S = Suitable

6m: L

7m: L

8m: L

U = Unsearchable [but Suitable]

9m: L

10m: L

11m: L

X = NOT suitable

12m: L

13m: L

14m: L

e.g., LS / RU / MX

15m: L

16m: L

17m: L

18m: L

19m: L

20m: L

Total Cover Objects Stm Wdth (cm) 0=

10=

For each frog: Distance along

20=

Searched:

Time (min):

transect (m; to nearest 10cm); Distance from water (cm; to nearest cm); SUL (mm) M/E e.g.16.4m/50cm/22mm

Notes

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie

Appendix G: Map of the monitoring trail system in the Maungatautari Ecological Island

Figure 12:

The monitoring trail system on the Maungatautari Ecological Island.

The

Maungatautari Ecological Island is outlined in black. The monitoring trails are labeled red lines (Source: Sven Nielson, Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust).

EcoQuest Education Foundation

EQDRP

12/09 AHoxsie