Report7_FinalWeb

ECOSYSTEM SERVICE INVENTORY OF THE NATURAL AND MANAGED LANDSCAPES WITHIN THE GREATER NGĀTI RAUKAWA KI TE TONGA

Ngā Māramatanga-ā-Papa (Iwi Ecosystem Services) Research Monograph Series No. 7

Nancy Golubiewski 2012

Ecosystem Service Inventory of the Natural and Managed Landscapes within the Greater Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga

Ngā Māramatanga-ā-Papa (Iwi Ecosystem Services) Research Monograph Series No. 7 (FRST MAUX 0502)

2012

Nancy Golubiewski At time of writing in 2008, New Zealand Centre for Ecological Economics

i

Published by Iwi Ecosystem Services Research Team Massey University and Landcare Research/Manaaki Whenua Private Bag 11052 Palmerston North New Zealand

Ngā Māramatanga-ā-Papa (Iwi Ecosystem Services) Research Monograph Series This monograph is part of the Ngā Māramatanga-ā-Papa (Iwi Ecosystem Services) Research Monograph Series. Various other reports, presentations, workshops and teaching materials have also been produced, or will be published in due course, that cover other aspects of the research programme. Collaborators in the research included Massey University, Landcare Research/Manaaki Whenua, Te Wānanga-o-Raukawa and Te Rūnanga-o-Raukawa.

This, and other published reports in the series, can be downloaded from: http://www.mtm.ac.nz/index.php/knowledge-centre/publications.

“Kei ngaro pērā i te moa ngā tini uri o te taiao” “Restoring cultural, linguistic and biological diversity” Whakatauki courtesy of Keri Opai, Taranaki

ISBN 978-1-877504-06-8 ISSN 1170-8794-

ii

Table of Contents Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... x 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1.

Research Objectives ................................................................................................... 2 2. Methods.............................................................................................................................. 3 2.1.

Study Area ................................................................................................................. 3 2.2.

Ecosystem services inventory .................................................................................... 4 2.2.

Biophysical ecosystem service portfolio analysis...................................................... 8 3. Biophysical attributes of ecosystem services ..................................................................... 9 3.1.

Supporting Services ................................................................................................... 9 3.1.1.

Soil formation .................................................................................................... 9 3.1.2.

Nutrient cycling ............................................................................................... 19 3.1.3.

Primary Production .......................................................................................... 24 3.1.4.

Water cycling ................................................................................................... 25 3.1.5.

Habitat provision and refugia........................................................................... 26 3.2.

Provisioning Services............................................................................................... 28 3.2.1.

Food ................................................................................................................. 28 3.2.2.

Fibre and Raw Materials .................................................................................. 31 3.2.3.

Energy sources ................................................................................................. 33 3.2.4.

Genetic Resources ............................................................................................ 34 3.2.5.

Biochemicals, medicines.................................................................................. 35 3.2.6.

Fresh water ....................................................................................................... 35 3.3.

Regulating Services ................................................................................................. 36 3.3.1.

Air quality ........................................................................................................ 37 3.3.2.

Climate regulation (global and local) .............................................................. 37 3.3.3.

Water regulation............................................................................................... 38 3.3.4.

Erosion regulation ............................................................................................ 38 3.3.5.

Water purification and waste treatment ........................................................... 39 3.3.6.

Disease regulation ............................................................................................ 41 3.3.7.

Pest regulation/biological control .................................................................... 41 3.3.8.

Pollination ........................................................................................................ 42 3.3.9.

Natural hazard/disturbance regulation ............................................................. 42 3.4.

Cultural Services ...................................................................................................... 43 3.4.1.

Recreation and ecotourism ............................................................................... 49 3.4.2.

Cultural values ................................................................................................. 52 4. Variability of ecosystem services among ecosystems ..................................................... 54 4.1. Services of ecosystems ................................................................................................ 54 4.2.

Ecosystem Service Variability ................................................................................. 55 4.2.1.

Supporting Services ......................................................................................... 55 4.2.2.

Provisioning Services....................................................................................... 56 4.2.3.

Regulating Services ......................................................................................... 59 4.2.4.

Cultural Services .............................................................................................. 60 5. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 72 6. Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... 73 7. References ........................................................................................................................ 75 8. Figures.............................................................................................................................. 81

iii

List of Tables Table 1 Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4 Table 5.

Table 6 Table 7

Biophysical parameters that comprise ecosystem services.. .................................5 Main rock types represented in the study area ....................................................12 The main soils mapped for the study area (from the NZLRI and other soil maps), identified under the old New Zealand Genetic Soil Classification and the recently developed New Zealand Soil Classification .........................................17 Culturally-identified ecosystem services for specific locales within the project boundary, indicating their traditional or modern relevance ................................43 Species names and characteristics of local fish reported caught in the New Zealand Freshwater Fish Database .....................................................................50 Cultural services found in various ecosystems and identified for their traditional and current importance .......................................................................................62 Cultural services provided by forest ecosystems, as derived from forest lore.....66

List of Graphs Graph 1 Graph 2 Graph 3 Graph 4 Graph 5

Graph 6 Graph 7 Graph 8

Graph 9 Graph 10

Supporting Service: Soil formation – area distribution of soil type. ...................16 Occurrence of total soil carbon classes in the study area.....................................20 Occurrence of CEC class in the study area. .........................................................22 Fresh water provisioning services: monthly flow in area rivers ..........................36 Water quality indicators at sites in Manawatu and Horowhenua: a) ammonium, b) nitrate; c) total phosphate; d) biological oxygen demand; e) E. coli; and f) pH .............................................................................................................................40 Distribution of carbon classes across land-cover types. ......................................55 Land use capability class of various ecosystems: a) LUC composition of landcover types, and b) the ecosystem composition of each LUC category. ............57 Environmental context of primary production activities: a) types of farm operations found across land-cover types, and b) farm type composition of each LUC class. ...........................................................................................................58 Environmental context of marae: present land cover near marae. .......................70 Environmental context of marae: past potential natural vegetation near marae. .71

iv

List of Figures Figure 1 Study area Figure 1a Study area location and boundary, based on catchments that enclose the approximate rohe boundary (Golubiewski 2012). .................................................81 Figure 1b Present land cover, indicating the ecosystems contained within the study area (Golubiewski 2012). ..............................................................................................82 Figure 2 Supporting Service: Soil formation – Parent material Figure 2a Supporting Service: Soil formation – Parent material, as indicated by surface lithology—the surface and/or dominant rock type (Data source: Newsome and others 2000, New Zealand Land Resource Inventory). .........................................83 Figure 2b Supporting Service: Soil formation – Parent material, as indicated by principal basement lithology (Data source: Newsome and others 2000, New Zealand Land Resource Inventory). ..............................................................................................84 Figure 3 Supporting Service: Soil formation Figure 3a Supporting Service: Soil formation – Soil age (Data source: Leathwick and others 2003). .....................................................................................................................85 Figure 3b Supporting Service: Soil formation – Rock hardness/induration (Data source: Leathwick and others 2003). ..................................................................................86 Figure 3c Supporting Service: Soil formation – Soil type (Data source: Newsome and others 2000, Fundamental Soils Layer). ...........................................................................87 Figure 4 Supporting Service: Nutrient cycling – Soil carbon Figure 4a Supporting Service: Nutrient cycling – Total soil carbon class (% at 0–0.2 m) (Data source: Newsome and others 2000, Fundamental Soils Layer). .................88 Figure 4b Supporting Service: Nutrient cycling – Soil carbon class (% at 0–0.1m) (Data source: Baisden and Andrew 2003). .....................................................................89 Figure 4c Supporting Service: Nutrient cycling – Soil carbon class (% at 0.1–0.3 m) (Data source: Baisden and Andrew 2003). .....................................................................90 Figure 4d Supporting Service: Nutrient cycling – Soil carbon class (% at 0.3–1.0 m) (Data source: Baisden and Andrew 2003). .....................................................................91 Figure 5 Supporting Service: Nutrient cycling – Soil nitrogen Figure 5a Supporting Service: Nutrient cycling – Soil nitrogen (% at 0–0.1 m) (Data source: Baisden and Andrew 2003). ...................................................................................92 Figure 5b Supporting Service: Nutrient cycling – Soil nitrogen (% at 0.1–0.3 m) (Data source: Baisden and Andrew 2003). .....................................................................93 Figure 5c Supporting Service: Nutrient cycling – Soil nitrogen (% at 0.3–1.0 m) (Data source: Baisden and Andrew 2003). .....................................................................94 Figure 6 Supporting Service: Nutrient cycling – Soil C:N Figure 6a Supporting Service: Nutrient cycling – Soil C:N (0–0.1 m) (Data source: Baisden and Andrew 2003)..................................................................................................95 Figure 6b Supporting Service: Nutrient cycling – Soil C:N (0.1–0.3 m) (Data source: Baisden and Andrew 2003). ...................................................................................96 Figure 6c Supporting Service: Nutrient cycling – Soil C:N (0.3–1.0 m) (Data source: Baisden and Andrew 2003). ...................................................................................97

v

Figure 7 Supporting Service: Nutrient cycling – Soil chemical properties contributing to soil fertility Figure 7a Supporting Service: Nutrient cycling – Soil phosphorus as phosphate retention class (% at 0–0.2 m) (Data source: Newsome and others 2000, Fundamental Soils Layer database). ............................................................................................98 Figure 7b Supporting Service: Nutrient cycling – Potential supply of phosphorus from parent material estimated as classes of acid soluble phosphorous in subsoil samples (Data source: Leathwick and others 2002; Leathwick and others 2003). .......................99 Figure 7c Supporting Service: Nutrient cycling – Exchangeable calcium class of subsoil (Data source: Leathwick and others 2003). ........................................................100 Figure 7d Supporting Service: Nutrient cycling – Soil cation exchange capacity class (centimoles of charge per kg (cmoles (+)/kg) at 0–0.6m) (Data source: Newsome and others 2000, Fundamental Soils Layer). .....................................................101 Figure 8 Supporting Service: Nutrient cycling – Soil nutrient environment for plants Figure 8a Supporting Service: Nutrient cycling – Soil nutrient environment for plants: Soil pH class based on minimum pH (0.2–0.6 m depth) (Data source: Newsome and others 2000, Fundamental Soils Layer). ..............................................................102 Figure 8b Supporting Service: Nutrient cycling – Soil nutrient environment for plants: Salinity class based on maximum salinity (percent soluble salts (g/100 g)) (0–0.6 m depth) (Data source: Newsome and others 2000, Fundamental Soils Layer). ..............................................................................................................................103 Figure 8c Supporting Service: Nutrient cycling – Soil nutrient environment for plants: Soil temperature regime class (0.3 m depth) (Data source: Newsome and others 2000, Fundamental Soils Layer). ...................................................................................104 Figure 9 Supporting Service: Nutrient cycling – Soil texture, represented by particle size class describing the proportions of sand, silt and clay in the fine earth fraction of soil, except the skeletal class (>35% coarse fraction), which applies to the whole soil (Data source: Newsome and others 2000, Fundamental Soils Layer). ........105 Figure 10 Supporting Service: Nutrient cycling – Soil drainage parameters Figure 10a Supporting Service: Nutrient cycling – Potential rooting depth category summarizing minimum and maximum depth to a layer that may impede root extension (Data source: Newsome and others 2000, Fundamental Soils Layer). ..............................................................................................................................106 Figure 10b Supporting Service: Nutrient cycling – Water infiltration as permeability class (Data source: Newsome and others 2000, Fundamental Soils Layer). Permeability class also affects water cycling (see Table 1). .....................................................107 Figure 10c Supporting Service: Nutrient cycling – Water infiltration as depth to a slowly permeable horizon (DSLO), describing the minimum and maximum depths (in metres) to a horizon in which the permeability is less than 4 mm/hr (Data source: Newsome and others 2000, Fundamental Soils Layer). ......................................108 Figure 10d Supporting Service: Nutrient cycling – Water infiltration as internal soil drainage class (Data source: Newsome and others 2000, Fundamental Soils Layer). ......109 Figure 11 Supporting Service: Nutrient cycling – Soil moisture properties Figure 11a Supporting Service: Nutrient cycling – Soil moisture properties: Profile total available water category for the soil profile to the lesser of the 0.9 m depth or the potential rooting depth. Category based on range of weighted averages over the

vi

profile, expressed as millimetres of water. (Data source: Newsome and others 2000, Fundamental Soils Layer). .........................................................................110 Figure 11b Supporting Service: Nutrient cycling – Soil moisture properties: Macroporosity class for the 0–0.6 m soil profile based on minimum values, expressed as percentage of soil volume (Data source: Newsome and others 2000, Fundamental Soils Layer). .........................................................................................................111 Figure 11c Supporting Service: Nutrient cycling – Soil moisture properties: Macroporosity class for the 0.6–0.9 m soil profile based on minimum values, expressed as percentage of soil volume (Data source: Newsome and others 2000, Fundamental Soils Layer). .........................................................................................................112 Figure 12 Supporting Service: Water cycling Figure 12a Supporting Service: Water cycling – Mean annual rainfall (mm) (Data source: Leathwick and Stephens 1998). ...........................................................................113 Figure 12b Supporting Service: Water cycling – FAO-Penman pasture potential evaporation (mm) (Data source: Leathwick and Stephens 1998). ..........................................114 Figure 12c Supporting Service: Water cycling – Average monthly water balance categories, a ratio of rainfall to potential evaporation (Data source: Leathwick and others 2002; Leathwick and others 2003). ................................................................................115 Figure 12d Supporting Service: Water cycling – Annual water deficit categories (Data source: Leathwick and others 2002; Leathwick and others 2003). ..................................116 Figure 12e Supporting Service: Water cycling – October vapour pressure deficit categories (Data source: Leathwick and others 2002; Leathwick and others 2003). ...........117 Figure 13 Supporting Service: Habitat provision and refugia Figure 13a Supporting Service: Habitat provision and refugia – Remaining wetland and indigenous forest land covers (Source: Golubiewski 2012). ..............................118 Figure 13b Supporting Service: Habitat provision and refugia – Potential riparian buffer, estimated as a standard 75 m buffer from all watercourses (Source: James Shepard, Landcare Research, personal communication). ....................................119 Figure 13c Supporting Service: Habitat provision and refugia – DOC Conservation units in the context of remaining wetlands and indigenous forest (Source: Golubiewski 2012). ...................................................................................................................120 Figure14 Provisioning Services: Food and Timber – Land Use Capability (LUC) class (Data source: Newsome and others 2000, New Zealand Land Resource Inventory). ..121 Figure 15 Provisioning Services: Food – Land dedicated to primary production, as indicated by agricultural land use activities (Data source: AsureQuality 2007). ...............122 Figure 16 Provisioning Services: Food – Livestock production Figure 16a Provisioning Services: Food – Livestock production as represented by Agribase livestock categories (Data source: AsureQuality 2007)......................................123 Figure 16b Provisioning Services: Food – Livestock production as represented by potential stock carrying capacity (ewes/ha) (Data source: Newsome and others 2000, New Zealand Land Resource Inventory). .....................................................................124 Figure 16c Provisioning Services: Food – Livestock production as represented by average stock carrying capacity (ewes/ha) (Data source: Newsome and others 2000, New Zealand Land Resource Inventory). .....................................................................125

vii

Figure 16d Provisioning Services: Food – Livestock production as represented by stocking rate of top farmers class (ewes/ha) (Data source: Newsome and others 2000, New Zealand Land Resource Inventory). .....................................................................126 Figure 17 Provisioning Services: Food – Crop production as represented by cropping, viticultural, and horticultural land uses (Data source: AsureQuality 2007). ......127 Figure 18 Provisioning Services: Fibre – Timber production Figure 18a Provisioning Services: Fibre – Timber production as represented by managed forest land use (Data source: AsureQuality 2007; Ministry for the Environment 2004). ...................................................................................................................128 Figure 18b Provisioning Services: Fibre – Site index class for Pinus radiata (Data source: Newsome and others 2000, New Zealand Land Resource Inventory).................129 Figure19 Provisioning Services: Raw materials Figure 19a Provisioning Services: Raw materials – Minerals and aggregate as represented by mining permits (Data source: Crown Minerals 2008). .......................................130 Figure 19b Provisioning Services: Raw materials – Nursery and flower production (Data source: AsureQuality 2007). ...............................................................................131 Figure 20 Provisioning Services: Genetic resources – Potential for cultivated and wild genetic resources as represented by horticultural activities, animal husbandry, and unmanaged ecosystems (Data source: AsureQuality 2007)................................132 Figure 21 Provisioning Service: Fresh water Figure 21a Provisioning Service: Fresh water – Incremental runoff in local catchments (cumecs) (Data source: National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) 2007). .....................................................................................................133 Figure 21b Provisioning Service: Fresh water – Cumulative upstream catchment runoff (cumecs) (Data source: National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) 2007). .....................................................................................................134 Figure 22 Regulating service: Erosion regulation Figure 22a Regulating service: Erosion regulation – Physiographic structure as represented by slope class (Data source: Newsome and others 2000, New Zealand Land Resource Inventory). ............................................................................................135 Figure 22b Regulating service: Erosion regulation – Erosion form and severity indicated by erosion class (Data source: Newsome and others 2000, New Zealand Land Resource Inventory). ...........................................................................................136 Figure 22c Regulating service: Erosion regulation – Erosion form and severity indicated by sediment yield (tonnes/km2/yr) (Data source: Hicks and Shankar 2003; Hicks and others 2003; National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) 2007). ...................................................................................................................137 Figure 23 Regulating service: Water quality – Instream nitrogen loading (tonnes/year) (Data source: National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) 2007). ..............................................................................................................................138 Figure 24 Regulating service: Natural hazard – Flood return interval class (Data source: Newsome and others 2000, Fundamental Soils Layer). ......................................139

viii

Figure 25 Cultural service: Recreation – Fish species* caught within the study area (Data source: National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) 2008). * See Table 5 for translation of species code to full scientific and common names.

To the extent that fish are consumed as food, this also represents the ecosystem service of wild food provision. ............................................................................140 Figure 26 Cultural service: Recreation – Land uses attributed to recreational activities (Data source: AsureQuality 2007; Department of Conservation 2007a). .....................141 Figure 27 Cultural service: Spiritual value, cultural heritage, and educational – Cultural landscape, including marae and archaeological sites (Willoughby and others 2007). ...................................................................................................................142 Figure 28 Location of forestry activities and the underlying land use capability (LUC) class. ..............................................................................................................................143 Figure 29 Fresh water is determined by a combination of climate—indicating hydrological flow—and topography—indicating source of flow (Data source: Snelder and others 2004). ........................................................................................................144 Figure 30 Land cover context of riparian areas (Data source: Snelder and others 2004). ..145 Figure 31 River Environments Figure 31a River environments contribution to flood and erosion regulation and sediment supply: through catchment geology of riparian areas (Data source: Snelder and others 2004). ........................................................................................................146 Figure 31b River environments contribution to flood and erosion regulation and sediment supply: through source of flow (Data source: Snelder and others 2004). ..........147 Figure 31c River environments contribution to flood and erosion regulation and sediment supply: through network position (Data source: Snelder and others 2004). ......148 Figure 32 Marae locations with buffers of 5 km and 10 km. .............................................149

ix

Abstract

Ecosystem services offer a powerful framework for defining the goals, objectives, and justification for ecosystem management and conservation endeavors.

A collaborative

research programme has been undertaken in partnership with Ngāti Raukawa in the lower North Island of New Zealand (the rohe of Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga) to understand ecosystem services in biophysical, socioeconomic, and cultural contexts.

The project

comprises two objectives: (1) assessing natural resources by quantifying and valuing the ecosystem services located within the iwi’s boundary; and (2) working in conjunction with the iwi so that both western ecological and traditional Māori knowledge can be used to improve natural resource management and to identify ecological restoration options.

This report shares the results of a biophysical accounting of the ecosystem services provided by the natural and managed landscapes within the iwi’s traditional boundary. The modern landscape has been assessed structurally and functionally, including the current mosaic of land uses and land covers as well as an ecosystem services inventory. The two data sets are analyzed together to present a biophysical ecosystem service "portfolio” to identify the services various land covers contribute.

Using the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

framework of supporting, provisioning, regulating, and cultural services, the suite of biophysical ecosystem services (e.g. carbon sequestration, filtration, flood protection, and food production) present in each ecosystem type were catalogued (in a GIS database) and analysed to provide information about services in the various land cover types. During the research programme, these results will be merged with the work of other researchers, who will identify economic and cultural values of the services. The novel aspects of this project, with its biophysical focus and use of spatial analyses, could lead to strengthening ecosystem services research and its implementation in natural resource management.

x

1.

Introduction

Humans rely on the natural resources provided by the environment for all their activities— from the air they breathe, the water they drink, and the food they eat to the raw materials they require for manufacturing goods, creating artistic works, and exploring the world. Recently, the term “ecosystem goods and services” has been developed to identify the natural resources upon which humans depend (e.g Daily 1997). Some ecosystem services are used directly; others indirectly.

Both natural and managed landscapes provide ecosystem services that support human society and ecological integrity (Brosi and others 2006; Daily 1997). A global assessment of the state of the world’s ecosystems developed a framework of ecosystem services as a way to evaluate the condition of the world’s environment (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003). This framework identifies four main categories of ecosystem services: Supporting Services, which underpin all ecosystem and thus support all other ecosystem services; Provisioning Services, which provide goods directly for human consumption; Regulating Services, which maintain ecological function by mitigating disturbance to systems; and Cultural Services, which contribute to non-material human pursuits such as religion, education, and aesthetics.

In natural and managed ecosystems, ecosystem goods and services comprise the aggregate functional nature of the landscape (Brosi and others 2006; Daily 1997; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003). Goods are often identified as tangible products, or stocks, whereas services often connote ecological processes, or flows. Services can operate on a variety of time scales.

For example, goods may be produced—and consumed—in the

present, but the longer-term processes (services) that underlie the ability to continue production may be deteriorating. The term “ecosystem services” identifies both goods and services, and will be used as such in this report.

In order to understand not just the quantity but the integrity and quality of ecosystem services, it is important to assess their biophysical foundations.

Past assessments of

ecosystem services (e.g. Costanza and others 1997) have relied on aggregate descriptions of

1

the function of different types of ecosystems in order to estimate ecosystem services and their total economic value. In New Zealand, assessment of total economic value of ecosystem scale biodiversity has been conducted using these same approaches (Cole and Patterson 1997).

Moreover, ecosystem services research often focuses on the value of services,

frequently using proxies from the marketplace, rather than studying the biophysical nature of the ecosystem service itself.

Detailed investigations of the biophysical parameters that

comprise ecosystem services still remain to be done.

1.1.

Research Objectives

The New Zealand Centre for Ecological Economics has undertaken a FRST project entitled, “Ecosystem Services Benefits in Terrestrial Ecosystems for Iwi” (Contract number EOI10106-ECOS-MAU), which seeks to understand ecosystem services in biophysical, socioeconomic, and cultural contexts in partnership with Ngāti Raukawa. The research programme comprises two objectives: (1) assessing natural resources by quantifying and valuing the ecosystem services located within the rohe of Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga; and (2) working in conjunction with the iwi so that both western ecological and traditional Māori knowledge can be used to improve natural resource management and to identify ecological restoration options.

This report is the second in a series on the Iwi Ecosystem Services project. The first examines the natural and managed landscapes comprising the present-day land cover (Golubiewski 2012), while this second report assesses the biophysical ecosystem services found within the rohe.

After outlining the methods used, each category of ecosystem

services—supporting, provisioning, regulating, and cultural—will be defined, and biophysical parameters representing each category will be examined for the study area. The variation in ecosystem services among different ecosystems will then be discussed.

2

2.

Methods

2.1. Study Area The study area comprises the 31 water catchments that coincide with the traditional boundary of the rohe of Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga (Figure 1a). The physiography and landforms of the study area have evolved over a long period (hundreds of thousands and millions of years).

The present day landscape—a complex variety of landforms and soil types—is attributed to a combination of key process and materials, essentially rock type, tectonics (deep, large scale earth and landscape movement; earthquakes), elevation or altitude, and climatic histories (e.g. glacial and inter-glacial periods, storms, and floods). The study area (Figure 1) is characterised by five distinct, contrasting physiographical zones (Fletcher 1987; Page 1995): 1. Mountain lands: This comprises the higher elevation Tararua and Ruahine ranges marking the eastern margin of the study area.

2. Hill country and foothills: This extensive physiographic unit covers about one fifth of the study area and forms a zone adjacent to and just inwards of the eastern and northeastern mountain lands. It is characterised by rolling to steep land adjacent to the mountain ranges in the east and north-east of the study area.

3. Highly dissected terrace land: This zone extends eastward of the alluvial plains and sand country to the flanks of the Tararua and Ruahine ranges, foothills and hill country. It consists of flat to undulating terrace surfaces 20–150 m above sea level (a.s.l.).

4. Alluvial plains and low terraces: Extensive flat to undulating alluvial plains (Manawatu, Horowhenua, Rangitikei districts) are confined to the west and northwest of the study area and interconnect with the sand country in the most western margins of the study area. They are generally low lying, <15 m a.s.l. Around Levin and Otaki, the low terraces (up to 80 m a.s.l.) are older and stonier. Several rivers and streams are dominant in the study area, including the Otaki in the south and the Manawatu, Pohangina, Oroua, and Rangitikei rivers in the north. Alluvial plains and narrow valleys extend into the higher terraces, hill country, and mountain ranges in the east and north-east of the study area.

3

5. Coastal sand country: Characterised by a complex of sand plains, sand dunes, interdune and extensive swamps, and drained wetlands, which extend from Rangitikeiâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Manawatu in the north to Otaki and Waikanae in the south. It forms a zone from the coast to inland areas adjacent to intermediate and high terraces and hill country to the east.

The physiography of the landscape influences the ecosystem types and the ecosystem services they provide. The study area consists of a diverse mix of land cover and land use: of 38 different land-cover/land-use categories within the study area, 18 are indigenous ecosystem types and 20 are managed (Golubiewski 2012).

Overall, the landscape is a

primarily developed one: natural ecosystem types occupy approximately 22% of the area, with the remainder under some type of management (Golubiewski 2012). More details can be found in this seriesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; first report on land cover (Golubiewski 2012).

2.2.

Ecosystem services inventory

Using the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) report as a foundation, a master framework was compiled from various sources to identify specific biophysical parameters representing ecosystem services in each of four broad categories: supporting, provisioning, regulating, and cultural (Table 1).

4

Table 1

Biophysical parameters that comprise ecosystem services (modification of Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003).

Figure column lists which map

represents the parameter (“n.a.” signifies biophysical parameter outside the purview of the current study).

Ecosystem Functional Service Group Service soil formation & retention

nutrient cycling

Supporting services

primary production

water cycling

habitat provision/refugia

Biophysical Parameters weathering of rock soil age rock hardness/induration soil type soil organic matter soil carbon carbon stored in vegetation carbon cycles soil nitrogen soil C:N nitrogen fixation other N cycles soil phosphorus methane cycle cation exchange capacity nutrient environment soil texture potential rooting depth water holding capacity water infiltration soil organisms primary production photosynthesis rainfall evapotranspiration soil permeability groundwater recharge water balance habitat existence riparian buffer nurseries habitat for migratory species habitat connectivity/fragmentation crop production livestock production

Provisioning services

food

forage land cover capture fisheries production aquaculture wild foods waterfowl habitat for food species

5

Figure 2 3a 3b 3c 4 4

5 6

7a,b 7d 7c, 8 9 10a 11 10b–d

12a 12b,c 10b 12d, e 13a 13b 13 13 13 14, 15, 17 14, 15, 16 1b, 14, 15 n.a. n.a.

25 1b

Ecosystem Functional Service Group Service

Biophysical Parameters

timber cotton silk flax wood fuel energy source other fuels hydroelectric power minerals raw materials for clay/aggregate industry other: seed abundance/dispersal genetic resources biodiversity particular populations identified: substance/source material (specify) biochemicals, vegetation cover of source materials medicines biodiversity of source material water volume: rivers, lakes fresh water drinking water supplies CO2/O2 balance air quality contribution to O3 for UV protection regulation contribution to O3 as smog contribution to SOx levels Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission GHG sequestration climate DMS production affecting cloud formation regulation: CO2, N, and S cycles (*distinct from GHG global above) biomass climate land cover: temperature effect regulation: local & regional land cover: precipitation effect water volume for agriculture, industry, transport irrigation water supply by watersheds, reservoirs, aquifers, rivers water regulation lake storage land cover (as affects water storage potential and/or timing of flows) land cover change (wetlands conversion or forest to crops) flood control physiographic structure for soil retention and preventing landslides erosion rooting/below-ground biomass regulation storage of silt in lakes & wetlands erosion form and severity water volume water filtering of pollutant (specify) purification and waste treatment decomposition of wastes fibre

Regulating services

6

Figure 14, 15, 18 n.a. n.a.

1b n.a.

1a 19a 19a 19b 20

1b 21

21

1b

22a

22b, c 21

Ecosystem Functional Service Group Service

disease regulation pest regulation/ biological control pollination

natural hazard/ disturbance regulation

spiritual & religious values

cultural heritage

sense of place educational Cultural services

recreation & ecotourism

inspirational

aesthetic values

Biophysical Parameters wastewater treatment other water quality indicator: N

Figure 23 1b

habitat of predators of vectors predator populations (of pest species) 1b habitat for keystone species pollinator populations: managed pollinator population: wild pollinator habitat vegetation structure (affecting protection and control of storms, floods, and droughts coastal ecosystem presence (esp. dunes) stream flow wetlands coverage shelterbelts other: sites of importance for spiritual practice ornamental resources: animal skins, shells, flowers as used in ritual historical/cultural landscapes significant species transport (i.e. rivers) ornamental resources: animal skins, shells, flowers (to be defined by end-user) (to be defined by end-user) usage statistics reserved land: parks, etc. water volume and flow (as basis of water sports) other: art national symbols architecture advertising folklore parks residential locations scenic drives

1b

1b 21 13a 1b 24 27

27

25 26

25

25

All ecosystem service data were compiled for the rohe, as defined by the study area.

Biophysical measurements of the ecosystem services were collated in a GIS database from a variety of spatial layers developed by several New Zealand research institutions and organizations, including Landcare Research, the National Institute of Air and Water (NIWA), the Department of Conservation (DOC), and Regional Councils. Data were collected from a

7

suite of national databases, including the New Zealand Land Resources Inventory (NZLRI), the New Zealand Fundamental Soils Layers (NZFSL), and the River Environment Classification (REC) (Newsome and others 2000; Snelder and others 2004). All data were clipped to the study area boundary (Figure 1a).

The established database houses a

biophysical accounting of ecosystem services (e.g. carbon sequestered or fibre produced per hectare).

2.2.

Biophysical ecosystem service portfolio analysis

The portfolios of ecosystem services derived from various land covers and land uses were examined.

Ecosystem services were summarized by ecosystem type, as defined in the

present land cover layer (Figure 1b) (see Golubiewski 2012 for explication of the present land cover). The services provided by natural and anthropogenic ecosystem types were analysed to provide information about services in the various land-cover types themselves. Temporal shifts in ecosystem services will be assessed in future research by comparing services found on the current landscape to those in the past, including those likely to have existed prior to human settlement.

8

3.

Biophysical attributes of ecosystem services

Each category of ecosystem services—supporting, provisioning, regulating, and cultural— can be described by specific stocks and flows found within the environment.

These

biophysical parameters give specific information about the type and location of ecosystem service availability as well as their interconnectedness.

The biophysical parameters

representing each of the four main ecosystem service categories (Table 1) will be discussed in turn.

3.1.

Supporting Services

Supporting services contribute to the basic functioning of ecosystems; thus, these services underlie—and make possible—all others by sustaining the conditions necessary for life on Earth. All organisms rely on the capture of energy to maintain metabolism (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003); animals do this by eating other organisms, and plants do so by capturing sunlight through photosynthesis, which is also known as primary production. Thus, primary production is itself a supporting ecosystem service, as are soil formation, soil fertility, and water cycling, which provide the necessary conditions for plant growth. Plant communities and the physical environment comprise ecosystems, which themselves are a service for the habitat they provide to all organisms. Therefore, supporting services are unique among the other types of ecosystem services because they affect humans indirectly and/or over very long periods of time (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003).

3.1.1. Soil formation Soil serves as the foundation for ecosystems, because it provides physical structure and supplies water and nutrients to support the growth and maintenance of healthy plant communities. Soil also contributes many other ecosystem services, such as water storage and filtering and waste assimilation. Therefore, soil formation and retention are arguably the foundational ecosystem services for terrestrial ecosystems, upon which all other ecosystem goods and services rely.

Five major factors control the formation of soils: parent materials, which are the geological or organic precursors of the soil; climate (primarily precipitation and temperature); biota, or living organisms such as native vegetation, microbes, soil animals, and even human beings;

9

topography; and the time during which parent materials have been formed (Brady and Weil 1996; Jenny 1980).

Over a long period, parent material undergoes both physical and

chemical weathering (disintegration and decomposition, respectively), facilitated by climate and the activities of biotic organisms, each of which is affected by topography.

Within the study area, the distinct nature of the topography in the eastern hills versus the flat western coastal plain (Figure 1) means different processes have acted upon soil formation.

Each of the physiographic zones in the study area has been formed from rock types and processes characteristic of that zone. Zones such as the greywacke Tararua and Ruahine ranges are very old (Triassic to Jurassic in age; 150–200 million years old); others, such as the sand country, are much younger (tens and hundreds of thousands of years; Pleistocene and Holocene age). Details for the study area zones (Section 2.1.) are: 1. Mountain lands are comprised of ‘basement’ greywacke and argillite rock, which are consolidated and hard grey sandstone, siltstone, and layers of mudstone from a very old, marine-undersea origin. They are often bedded and many people call them “papa” rock. They typically form axial ranges such as the Tararua and Ruahine ranges at the eastern margin of the study area.

2. Hill country and foothills are similarly comprised of greywacke and argillite rock but often are more highly weathered than in the mountains. Also, they are frequently covered in loess (windblown material that covers existing soils and parent materials) and remnants of volcanic ash on less steep slopes and ridges, especially in the north of the study area.

3. Highly dissected terrace land formed on sands and gravels. Parts of these areas may be covered in loess and volcanic ash. They lie between the finer sedimentary alluvial plains and sand country, and the flanks of the Tararua and Ruahine ranges, foothills, and hill country.

4. Alluvial plains and low terraces are formed mainly from sands, silts, and clays that are fluvial (from water and flooding processes) in origin. Older terraces may have layers of loess or volcanic ash. These young landforms are associated with rivers and streams such as the Otaki in the south, the Kuku stream, and the Manawatu, Pohangina, Oroua, and Rangitikei rivers in the north. The deeper sediments of the hills and ranges in the north and east are correspondingly older.

5. Coastal sand country formed mostly on windblown and alluvial sands and silts, with organic peats and clays in the interspersed and underlying swamp areas. Coastal sand 10

dunes are very young and unstable, while inland coastal sand plains and old dunes are much more stable and represent older landforms.

Thus, the diversity of rock types in the study area reflects its varied physiography. Loess or greywacke form the dominant parent material in the study area, but other significant parent materials include alluvium, gravel, and windblown sands as well as volcanic ash (igneous) in the northern parts of the study area (Table 2).

Of the rock types mapped in the study areaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s lithology, six are characterized by transport processes involving water (alluvium) and wind, four are sedimentary, one is igneous (volcanic), and one is organic (Figure 2). In many areas, the surface lithology is dominated by loess followed by alluvium and greywacke (Figure 2a).

In contrast, the basement

lithology reveals that sedimentary rocks (greywacke, argillite, and sandstone) underlie much of the surface material, especially loess (Figure 2b). Sedimentary rocks, such as mudstone, sandstone, greywacke, and limestone, comprise New Zealandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s most common soil parent material (Leathwick and others 2003); here, they cover most of the ranges and northern section of the study area. Erosion deposits occupy the coastal plain: sand dunes encroach from the west, loess (mostly silt with fine sand and clay) sits to the north-east of the coastal dunes, and alluvial deposits occur along the riverine network. The floodplain alluvium arises from the silt deposited when streams and rivers overflow their banks: coarser materials are deposited near the river channel, and finer materials farther away (Brady and Weil 1996).

11

12

Table 2.

Main rock types represented in the study area (Fletcher 1987; Page 1995, modified from G. Harmsworth personal communication)

Rock type Greywacke and argillite

Composition Dark grey consolidated hard to weak sandstones, argillites and mudstones often with quartz veins

Loess

Lower Pleistocene gravels

Generally silt size material from old windblown river and stream deposits from glacial periods when sea level in New Zealand dropped markedly Generally weakly consolidated sediment, in places cemented and hard

Peat

Organic deposits

Formation Folding and faulting (from tectonics) is common and has caused fracturing and shearing in places associated with fault zones (from tectonics and earthquakes) resulting in areas with reduced rock mass strength (e.g.

Manawatu Gorge) Deposits from glacial periods when sea level in New Zealand dropped markedly; deposited during the Pleistocene

Characteristics Many steep or fractured areas are prone severe erosion

The common soil forming Dominates surface material on these landforms materials on terraces and low hills in the landscape

Formed during glacial and interglacial periods when hills and ranges were eroded and gravels were deposited in valleys and rivers

Old vegetation areas that have decomposed and been buried

Study area presence The major underlying rock type in the study area and forms the ranges in the east and north

Generally poorly drained and form organic soils

Underlie the major basin and valley systems and many higher terraces in the study area; particularly noticeable from Otaki to Levin, and up to the Manawatuâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Pohangina areas in the north and east. Much terrace land is overlaid by loess Often found in interdune or backswampâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;dune areas; these areas are associated with alluvial and windblown deposits especially in the sand country

Rock type Quaternary silts and clays

Recent alluvial deposits

Composition Sediments consist of unconsolidated sands with conglomerate beds and minor silts and clays and include the Otaki sandstone Sand, silt, clay, and in places alluvial gravels (e.g. Otaki river).

Windblown sands

Mudstones and sandstones

Sedimentary deposits

Limestone

Very weak to strong lightyellow sedimentary rocks containing high levels of calcium carbonate and often cemented

Formation

Characteristics

Represent recent (<1000 yrs) flooding and deposition events

Commonly form floodplains and low terraces, and narrow valleys in the hills and ranges. These deposits are the underlying material for recent alluvial soils to develop

Four phases of dune building in the past 6000 yrs have been recognised in the study area. The oldest and furthest from the coast are old dunes (Koputaroa), followed by the Foxton and then younger Motuiti dune phases. The youngest, most unstable dune phase is called the Waitarere Much younger than the greywackes but much older than the gravels and alluvium Formed in the past in shallow waters and estuaries off the coast of NZ

Study area presence Found in highly dissected terraces, which extend from Waikanae to the Manawatu Gorge Recorded extensively in the study area

Deposits occur along the coastline and form the sand country. They extend from Waikanae to the Rangitikei river mouth

Generally soft to hard lithologies that can erode easily in major storm and flooding events Many rocks show shell and calcium carbonate organisms

North and north east of the study area

Limited in the study area to just a few places near the ranges

13

From these categorizations, age classes can be assigned. Like the country as a whole, most soils in the study area—those occurring in the eastern ranges, hill country, and terraces— are old, but those along water bodies, alluvial flood plains, the sand country, and the coast are younger, and are described as Recent or Raw soil orders (Hewitt 1998a; Leathwick and others 2002; Leathwick and others 2003) (Figure 3a, Table 3).

The hardness of the parent material influences how physical weathering will proceed and how nutrients are released (Leathwick and others 2003). The induration, or hardening, is affected by the physical processes of rock formation, including drying, pressure, or cementation. Igneous rocks (formed beneath the Earth’s surface) are strongly indurated, whereas soils that form close to the Earth’s surface, such as mudstone and sandstone, can be easily crushed (Leathwick and others 2003). Thus, the alluvial deposits throughout the centre of the study area are weakly indurated, whereas the harder rocks in the ranges are strongly indurated (Table 2, Figure 3b).

The windblown sands in the west are also strongly indurated (Figure 3b), due to the processes to which their source material were exposed (Leathwick and others 2003).

Soil type derives from the processes of soil formation, including those outlined above for the study region (e.g. parent materials (rock type), topography (physiographic zone), and time (age)) as well as biota (Figure 1b) and climate (see Sections 3.1.2. and 3.1.4). New Zealand soils have been studied extensively, including general surveys (New Zealand Soil Bureau 1954; Taylor and Pohlen 1962) and detailed maps (Campbell 1979; Cowie 1978; Cowie and others 1967; Gibbs 1957; Kear 1965; National Water and Soil Conservation Authority (NWASCA) 1986; National Water and Soil Conservation Organisation (NWASCO) 1975-79; Palmer and Wilde 1990; Rijkse 1977). Inventory map units in the national New Zealand Land Resource Inventory (NZLRI) Geographic Information System (GIS) database (NWASCO 1975–79, NWASCA 1986, Fletcher 1987, Page 1995) contain soil information as part of the main inventory code at a scale of 1:50,000. Within the study area, general information on soils has been collated (Fletcher 1987; Molloy 1998; Page 1995), and many soil types have been recognised (Fletcher 1987; Hewitt 1993; Hewitt 1998a; Hewitt 1998b; Page 1995) (Figure 3c,Table 3).

14

According to the New Zealand Soil Classification (Hewitt 1998a), many subgroups, belonging to nine groups, occur within the study area (Figure 3c). Most soils in the study area are Brown Soils (Graph 1), the most extensive soils in New Zealand (Hewitt 1998a). They occur where soils do not dry out in summer nor become waterlogged in winter; base saturation levels are moderate to very low; and they most commonly correlate to Dystrochrepts of Soil Taxonomy (Hewitt 1998a), which are Inceptisols with little profile development (Brady and Weil 1996).

The next most abundant soil group, Pallic Soils, can be either Inceptisols or Alfisols; the latter are more strongly weathered than Inceptisols and usually develop under native forest (Brady and Weil 1996). Pallic Soils have moderate to high base status, low contents of secondary iron oxides, water deficits in summer, and soil water surpluses in winter or spring (Hewitt 1998a).

Gley Soils are poorly drained and can be saturated for long periods with oxygen limitation; they occur throughout New Zealand where there are high water tables or seepages, and, notably, many have been artificially drained for agricultural activities (Hewitt 1998a). As their name indicates, Recent Soils represent Entisols, Inceptisols, and some Andisols (formed on volcanic ash) (Brady and Weil 1996; Hewitt 1998a). They are recorded throughout the study area on floodplains, sand country, and in steep hill country where soil is less well developed, has been redistributed, or has been reworked through erosion (Hewitt 1998a; Leathwick and others 2002; Leathwick and others 2003) (Figure 3c, Graph 1). These soils are only weakly developed, but topsoil is present, including in wetland soils where fluid layers are below the surface (Hewitt 1998a). Five other soil groups are represented only minimally: Allophonic, Melanic, Organic, Pumice, and Raw Soils (Graph 1).

15

New Zealand Soil Classification 240000 200000

Area (ha)

160000 120000 80000 40000

Soil Group

Graph 1

Supporting Service: Soil formation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; area distribution of soil type.

16

Recent Soils

Raw Soils

Pumice Soils

Pallic Soils

Organic Soils

Melanic Soils

Gley Soils

Brown Soils

Allophanic Soils

0

Table 3.

The main soils mapped for the study area (from the NZLRI and other soil maps), identified under the old New Zealand Genetic Soil Classification (e.g. Taylor 1948; Taylor and Cox 1956; Taylor and Pohlen 1962) and the recently developed New Zealand Soil Classification (Hewitt 1998a). (Modified from G. Harmsworth personal communication)

New Zealand Soil Classification Pallic–Brown–Recent

New Zealand Genetic Soil Classification Intergrades between yellowgrey earths and yellow-brown earths and related steepland soils

Brown–Allophanic

Allophanic–Brown

Intergrades between yellowbrown earths and yellowbrown loams Yellow-brown loams

Organic–Recent

Organic soils

Podzols–Brown– Recent–Raw

Podzolised yellow-brown earths and related steepland soils

Recent–Gley–Raw

Recent and gleyed recent soils from alluvium

Location in study area Hill country and higher terrace areas with slightly lower rainfalls than those forming yellow-brown earths High terraces and low hills in north of study area Northern parts

17

Limited extent; found in sand country interdune areas, backswamps, and floodplains; low-lying poorly drained sites from old decaying plant remains High elevation areas (c. >500 m a.s.l.), cooler temperatures, in the mountain ranges to the east and north-east Floodplains and along narrow valleys; soil profile dominated by repeated flooding and

Rainfall Typically 1020–1270 mm p.a.

Parent materials Loess and greywacke

Usually between 1000– 1200 mm p.a.

Loess with minor volcanic ash (igneous), which is from various central North Island sources Volcanic ash deposits usually covering terraces and hill country of greywacke, gravels, and/or loess Peat, or peat and alluvium

Under higher rainfall (>1780 mm p.a.)

On silty and sandy alluvium or gravel, derived principally from greywacke.

18

New Zealand Soil Classification

New Zealand Genetic Soil Classification

Brown–Recent–Raw

Yellow-brown earths and related steepland soils

Brown–Sandy brown soils–Recent–Raw

Yellow-brown sands

Pallic

Yellow-grey earths

Melanic

Typically called Rendzinas and intergrades with yellowbrown earths and yellow-grey earths in the older NZ Genetic soil classification (dark brown coloured)

Pumice

Anthropic

Location in study area deposition

Sand dunes and sandplains; sands of increasing volcanic origin are found in the north of the study area mainly on intermediate to high terraces

Rainfall

Parent materials

Under moderate rainfall (1140–1780 mm) and are weakly to strongly leached

Greywacke, loess, and gravels

Windblown sand; soils have weakly developed structure

Limited to low rainfall areas (1000–1140 mm p.a)

Loess

Limestones or rocks with high calcium (high base saturation)

Minimal areas in the northern parts of the study area

Volcanic ash dominated by pumiceous material Highly modified soils formed from anthropogenic influence and found in built-up areas in towns, residential development, roads, mines, cities; disturbed, truncated, highly modified soils

3.1.2. Nutrient cycling Soil formation and the parent material affect the availability of soil nutrients. The parent material provides the initial, site-based supply of nutrients, and its physical structure, in concert with soil forming processes, affects the release of various compounds. Nutrient availability is also determined by the cycling of compounds through the soil to plants and animals and back to the soil. Sometimes nutrients also are captured from other reservoirs, including the atmosphere and water bodies. Together, these reservoirs and cycles determine the availability of nutrients in any given location.

The fertility of soil comprises a critical supporting service because it influences vegetation growth and nutrient cycling through the ecosystem. Plants and animals all require macroand micro-nutrients, especially, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and sulphur. One major limiting nutrient, nitrogen, can be fixed directly from the atmosphere so that it is available for absorption by plant roots. When plants die or are consumed by animals, nitrogen and other nutrients are recycled into the atmosphere, soil, and water through a series of decomposition steps. Coupled with this are broader nutrient cycles, which involve the storage, flow-capture, and processing of various nutrients. Overall, biophysical parameters make up this supporting service category of soil fertility and nutrient cycling (Table 1).

Soil nutrients Soil organic matter sits at the soil surface and contains animal and plant components, such as leaves, at various stages of decomposition as well as cells and tissues of soil organisms and the substances they synthesize (Brady and Weil 1996). Organic matter is the pool through which nutrients are cycled back into the soil, and soil organic matter provides much of the surface soil’s ability to hold nutrients, store water, increase porosity and infiltration, stabilize soil, and provide energy to the soil microorganisms responsible for breaking down materials (Brady and Weil 1996; Webb and Wilson 1995). Therefore, soil organic matter is a primary indicator of soil fertility. Organic matter, by definition, is predominantly carbon (organic compounds are those that contain carbon), and so total carbon (C) is both a measure of organic matter content and a basic indicator of soil fertility.

Most of the soils in the rohe have medium (4–9.9%) or low (2–3.9%) C concentrations in the surface soil (0–20 cm) (Figure 4a, Graph 2). A few isolated areas have either very high (20–

19

60%) or very low (0–1.9%) C concentrations (Figure 4a, Graph 2). In a separate modelling project, soil C was estimated at three separate depths (Figure 4b–d) based on a variety of factors including soil order, land cover, location, and climate (Baisden and Andrew 2003).

This approach estimates that most surface soil (0–10 cm) falls into the medium soil carbon class (Figure 4b). The soil C modelled for the 10–30 cm depth (Figure 4c) is similar to the distribution in the NZFSL 0–20 cm profile (Figure 4a), suggesting that more of the low soil C concentrations are found in the lower part (>10 cm) of surface soil. Soil carbon in the subsurface soil (30–100 cm) is low (Figure 4d).

Occurrence of Soil Total Carbon classes 250,000

Area (ha)

200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 Very High Graph 2

High

Medium

Low

Very Low

Occurrence of total soil carbon classes in the study area.

Soil nitrogen (N), an essential plant nutrient, is another important measure of soil fertility; it is a major component of amino acids, the basic building blocks of protein and thus important for plant growth. The productivity of most ecosystems is limited by nitrogen availability, but excess nitrogen can be toxic, leading to declines in forests and fisheries and endangering human health. Typical values for soil N in surface soils range from 0.02 – 0.5% (Brady and Weil 1996). As with soil C, soil N decreases with depth. In the study area, soil N varies from 0 to 1.00% in surface soil (0–10 cm); from 0 to 0.66% in the mid-profile (10–30 cm), and from 0 to 0.24% at depth (30–100 cm) (Baisden and Andrew 2003) (Figure 5).

20

The carbon to nitrogen ratio (C:N) indicates how readily soil microbes can decompose organic matter. Soil microbes require both carbon and nitrogen to acquire energy and build essential compounds. At high C:N (25:1 and higher), microbes will scavenge most of the N (since there is little N available for each molecule of C), so depleting the soil N pool for access by higher plants and slowing decomposition because the microbes do not have enough N for growth to continue breaking down soil organic matter (Brady and Weil 1996). At low C:N, more than enough N is available for decomposers, so some N is released to the soil solution and becomes available for uptake by plants. Soils within the study area have both high and low C:N, ranging from c. 10–29 in surface soils; 10–24 at mid-depth (10–30 cm); and 9–19 in subsurface soils (30–100 cm) (Baisden and Andrew 2003) (Figure 6). In general, soils poor in nitrogen (high C:N) occur along the ranges and on Kapiti Island, whereas nutrient-rich soils (low C:N) occur in the lowlands, mostly along watercourses and in the Manawatu floodplain. Low C:N is more widespread in subsurface soils (Figure 6c) than surface soils (Figure 6a–b).

Phosphorus (P) is second only to nitrogen in importance as a macronutrient; it is essential for cellular compounds and is a key component of soil fertility. Phosphate retention refers to the ability of the mineral soil to fix dissolved phosphate ions in relatively insoluble forms; thus, high P retention indicates low P reserves (Brady and Weil 1996; Webb and Wilson 1995). In the study area, patterns of P retention resemble those of soil C, falling mostly in the medium (30–59%) and low (10–29%) classes (Figure 7a). Phosphate retention is high (85–100%) in the hill country in the south-eastern and north-eastern portions of the study area and very low (0–9%) along the coast (Figure 7a).

Unlike nitrogen, phosphorus cannot be fixed from the atmosphere; its main source is rock, and it is derived solely from parent material. Thus, the measurement of phosphorus extracted from subsoil samples provides a measure of the long-term supply of phosphorus to plants (Leathwick and others 2002; Leathwick and others 2003). Most of the study area has very low to low levels of available P (Figure 7b). In general, P levels are low in sedimentary rocks and variable in erosion deposits such as alluvium, till, loess, and dune sands like those in the study area, and they depend on the composition of the rocks from which they are derived (Leathwick and others 2003).

21

The amount of exchangeable calcium (Ca) is another indicator of soil fertility derived from parent material (Leathwick and others 2003).

Acidification, which reduces nutrient

availability, proceeds more slowly when calcium is abundant. Calcium accumulates in soils that were formed on the sea floor where the shells of marine animals decomposed.

Limestone and marble contain the highest levels of calcium. Virtually the entire study area is comprised of soils low and very low in calcium (Figure 7c).

Cation exchange capacity (CEC) estimates the ability of the soil to hold nutrients (the sum total of cations the soil can adsorb) using a measure of buffering capacity (Brady and Weil 1996). High buffering capacity indicates that nutrients and other cations are not readily leached from the soil and the soil resists rapid acidification (Webb and Wilson 1995). CEC is affected by organic matter content and clay minerals in the soil (Webb and Wilson 1995), both of which provide the structural substrate upon which nutrients are held. Soils with medium CEC (12â&#x20AC;&#x201C;24.9 cmoles (+)/kg) cover almost two-thirds of the study area, mostly in the northern and eastern portions (Figure 7d, Graph 3). Those with low CEC (6â&#x20AC;&#x201C;11.9 cmoles (+)/kg) make up about 25% of the study area, in the coastal plain to the west (Figure 7d, Graph 3).

Occurrence of CEC class 350000 300000 Area (ha)

250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 Very High Graph 3

High

Medium

Occurrence of CEC class in the study area.

22

Low

Very Low

The pH of the soil measures the soil’s alkalinity or acidity. To grow, most plants prefer environments with a pH near neutral. Throughout most of the northern half of the study area, much of the soil is at this near neutral (5.8–6.4) level. The remainder has a moderately low pH (5.5–5.7) (Figure 8a), which restricts earthworm numbers, microbial activity, and some nutrient cycling (Newsome and others 2000). The hilly eastern portion of the rohe also has moderately low pH. The central portion of the rohe consists of soils with low pH (4.9–5.4) levels, which can cause aluminium toxicity and limit plant growth (Newsome and others 2000).

Interestingly, only two salinity classes are present in the rohe: virtually the entire study area has very low salinity (g soluble salts/100 g soil), but a few discrete areas have high (0.3– 0.69%) salinity (Figure 8b).

Soil temperature regimes all fall within the moderate mesic zone (Figure 8c). The warm and mild mesic regimes, covering almost the entire rohe area, have the same mean annual temperature (11–150C ) and differ only in the number of days with extreme temperatures (Newsome and others 2000).

Some hill country sites are cool mesic (mean annual

temperature of 8–11 oC) (Figure 8c).

Soil physical environment contributing to soil fertility Soil texture provides information about the distribution of soil particle sizes, with their associated effects on water and nutrient retention.

By definition (with some variation

according to classification system), clay soils have particle diameters <0.002 mm; silt is 0.002–0.05 mm; fine sands 0.05–0.25 mm, medium to coarse sands 0.25–2.0 mm, and gravels are larger than 2.0 mm (Brady and Weil 1996). No predominantly clayey soils are found within the study area. Loamy soils dominate the western portion of the rohe, whereas silty soils predominate in the north and east (Figure 9).

Potential rooting depth indicates where plants can extend roots to access resources. The measurements indicate the minimum and maximum depths (in metres) to a layer that may impede root extension (Newsome and others 2000). Soils are rather shallow in the eastern hill country, but are potentially very deep in the western coastal plain and moderate between the east and west (Figure 10a).

23

Water infiltration and soil drainage can be closely correlated with soil organic matter and is important for soil water availability. As an indicator of water infiltration capacity, the permeability profile describes the rate at which water moves through saturated soil (Newsome and others 2000). Rapid infiltration occurs in the sandy coastal soils in the west, whereas mainly moderate over slow permeability takes place in the layered soils located in the north and east (Figure 10b). The depth to a slowly permeable horizon describes the minimum and maximum depths (in metres) to a horizon in which the permeability is less than 4 mm/hr (Newsome and others 2000). Notably, most of the soils in the study area have no observed slowly permeable horizon (Figure 10c). Internal soil drainage classes describe the soil depth and chroma of the soil, indicating how water moves through the soil. The central alluvial plains of the study area have mostly poorly drained soil (Figure 10d), indicating a gley profile form (Newsome and others 2000). Soils in the hill country and the ranges have moderately well-drained soils to well-drained soils (Figure 10d), meaning they drain well to 60 cm and 90 cm, respectively (Newsome and others 2000).

Likewise, soil moisture properties are key components of soil fertility. The profile total available water indicates water holding capacity.

Almost the entire rohe falls into the

moderately high class (90â&#x20AC;&#x201C;149 mm to a depth of 0.9 m) (Figure 11a). Interestingly, no soils in the rohe are classed into the very high or very low classes of profile total available water.

Macroporosity is an expression of the air-filled porosity of the soil at field capacity, which indicates how well gases can be exchanged between the soil and plant roots as well ease of drainage, degree of waterlogging, and nutrient leaching losses (Newsome and others 2000; Webb and Wilson 1995). Within the study area, macroporosity is generally very high in the south, moderate in the north, and low in riparian and wetland areas (Figure 11b). Notably, fewer soils fall into the high macroporosity classes at depth (Figure 11c).

3.1.3. Primary Production Primary production measures the amount of biomass produced annually in a given area.

Through photosynthesis, plants capture sunlight; this comprises the major input of carbon and energy into ecosystems (Sala and Austin 2000). This can be considered a supporting service of energy capture (and food provision) upon which most other organisms rely.

Vegetation indices offer quantitative information about vegetation productivity based on spectral information found in satellite imagery. Essentially, these indices serve as a surrogate

24

for vegetation. The most widely used vegetation index, the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), relates near infrared to visible red reflectances (NIR-VIS)/(NIR+VIS) in order to take advantage of the differential reflectance characteristics of vegetation in these two spectra. The biological controls on this measure are foliage density and leaf chlorophyll content. Like most vegetation indices, NDVI describes a measure of "greenness", which is empirically related to vegetation structure and function using variables such as LAI, vegetation cover, above-ground biomass, photosynthetic efficiency, fAPAR, and stomatal conductance. In turn, these variables can be linked to ecosystem net primary production. The canopy information contained in these measurements of leaf area index (LAI) and fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation (fAPAR) provides insight for understanding ecosystem processes, such as gas exchange and nutrient cycling; therefore, this measure can also be related to other ecosystem services.

3.1.4. Water cycling Water cycles constantly between the air, land, and water. It falls as rain and snow on land and water, where it moves by various processes including overland transport, subsurface flow, and along river channels. In soils, water is taken up by plants or moves down through the soil profile toward groundwater. Evaporation is the process of latent heat exchange from surfaces back to the air, and transpiration is the process of plants releasing water to the air from their cells. Thus, water cycling can be represented by several key processes.

In the study area, mean annual rainfall ranges from 837 to 3,470 mm along an increasing gradient from west to east (Figure 12a). Rainfall increases at the northern end of the study area as well. Potential evaporation, calculated from the monthly estimates of solar radiation and temperature (Leathwick and others 2002; Leathwick and others 2003)1, shows how water leaves the land surface, with high values in the western lowlands and low values in the hill country (Figure 12b). Accordingly, the average monthly ratio of rainfall to FAO-Penman pasture evaporation (the monthly water balance) shows low values in the western portion of the rohe with an increasing gradient eastward into the hill country (Figure 12c), indicating the drier conditions of the lowlands. As an indication of soil dryness, the sum of monthly deficits between FAO-Penman pasture evaporation and rainfall (the annual water deficit) show the highest deficits in the centre of the study region with decreasing gradients emanating 1

Note the FAO Penman Monteith model was used in this calculation; more sophisticated models would incorporate the effects of soil water storage and vegetation cover, thus giving more detailed information about transpiration and the ecosystem from which the evapotranspiration originates.

25

northward and south-eastward (Figure 12d). The lowest deficits are located in the northeastern and south-eastern hill country.

The October vapour pressure deficit estimates the effects of dryness in the air and indicates the absolute amount of additional water that can be taken up by the air as water vapour (Leathwick and others 2003). This can be a direct measure of stress experienced by plants (Leathwick and others 2003). Most of the study area exists within a zone of moderate vapour pressure deficit, with lower levels in the hill country (Figure 12e).

3.1.5. Habitat provision and refugia Natural land cover is itself an ecosystem service. Contiguous patches of natural landscape large enough to support functioning ecosystems that sustain a diversity of plant and animal life facilitate the reproduction and survival of these populations. Biogeochemical cycles also function within these ecosystems, thus contributing to regulating and other supporting services. The composition of the habitat, in particular the presence of native vegetation, is vital for species adapted to living in these environments. Not only is the particular type of habitat important, but so is the quality, shape, and extent: isolation and fragmentation have had negative effects on many plant and animal species (e.g. With and Crist 1995). In many cases, the shape and size of the habitat are vital because they affect population survival by keeping numbers above the threshold necessary to maintain genetic variation, withstand disturbance events and oscillations, and meet social requirements such as breeding and migrations.

Most of the study area comprises a highly modified landscape (Figure 1b), and native ecosystems exist mostly as small, isolated patches (with the exception of some larger forest areas in the eastern ranges) (Golubiewski 2012). Despite this fragmentation, the remnant indigenous land covers, especially indigenous forests and wetlands, provide habitat and refugia for various species (Figure 13a).

Riparian buffersâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the strips of vegetation

surrounding watercourses like rivers and streamsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;also serve as essential habitat for terrestrial species and they ameliorate the climate of the associated water body, so affecting some aquatic species as well. The high number of watercourses in the study area means the potential riparian buffer area is largeâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;up to one-third of the study area (Golubiewski 2012) (Figure 13b).

26

The Department of Conservation (DOC) manages important habitat areas within the Conservation Estate, some of which are situated within the study area (Figure 13c). The Tararua Forest Park (Figure 13c) is an important conservation area for lower North Island biodiversity. Forest below 350 m has been cleared for farming, so little remains. With increasing altitude, the forest changes from lowland podocarp–tawa or podocarp–kamahi forest through montane podocarp–beech, then subalpine beech (forming a treeline) to alpine tussock grasslands. The beech treeline is usually at 1000 m, but if beech is absent, the treeline is about 800–900 m, where montane podocarp–kamahi forest passes into leatherwood shrubland (Department of Conservation 2007b; Husheer 2005).

In particular, DOC has proposed creating a Biodiversity Zone in the Otaki catchment to protect native birds such as tomtits, whiteheads, kereru, and kaka. Possum control has been successful at higher altitudes, so the plan proposes to protect birds and other fauna in lowaltitude forest (helping northern rata trees and native mistletoe recover from possum browsing damage) by spraying with the pesticide 10802 (Department of Conservation 2005).

The location was specifically chosen given its high biodiversity values, ease of management, and public accessibility.

The Pukepuke Lagoon conservation area (Figure 13c) near Tangimoana is a dune lake and wetland considered to be one of the best remaining examples of coastal wetlands, despite its history of radical transformations (Ministry for the Environment 1997). It offers important habitat for native and introduced birds, freshwater fish, and native plants, some of which are threatened or rare. Over 60 species of wetland birds are found in the area, including the nationally threatened New Zealand Dabchick (Poliocephalus rufopectus) and Australasian Bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus).

The Manawatu Estuary (Figure 13c) has recently been named a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention, one of six such sites named in New Zealand. It is an important feeding ground for migratory birds such as wrybill, Caspian tern, banded dotterel, and shore plover. In conjunction with the Manawatu River mouth, it is considered a nationally significant wetland, as are Lakes Kaikokopu and Koputara between PukePuke Lagoon and the Manawatu river mouth (Ministry for the Environment 1997).

2

Sodium monofluoroacetate Eason CT. 2002. Technical review of sodium monofluoroacetate (1080) toxicology. Animal Health Board; Landcare Research New Zealand. 24 p..

27

3.2.

Provisioning Services

Provisioning ecosystem services are probably the best-known services, or most readily identified, by most people. In essence, they are the products obtained from ecosystems, including the goods that comprise the basic necessities for human life: food, water, clothing, and shelter.

3.2.1. Food Land environments within the study area are conducive to cultivation, as determined by an analysis of their soil, landform, and erosion potential.

The land-use capability (LUC)

classification connotes the landâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s capability to sustain continuous production (Newsome and others 2000). In the study area, most lowlands fall into LUC Classes 1, 2, and 3; all are suitable for cultivated crops, pasture, or forestry, with differing degrees of limitation on arable use (Figure 14).

Virtually the entire study area, with the exception of the eastern ranges and the urban centres, is dedicated to food production (Golubiewski 2012) (Figure 15). In 2007, more than 3,700 farm enterprise units involved in primary production in the study area reported to the AgriBase survey (AsureQuality 2007). Food production occurs mostly through in managed ecosystems: high producing exotic grassland and other land covers associated with agricultural activities host livestock, cropping, and horticultural activies (Figure 15).

Most of the land (c. 78%) in the study area is classified as high or low producing, grazed grassland (Golubiewski 2012) (Figure 1b). Accordingly, most agricultural activity comprises livestock production. Almost 3,200 farm enterprises identified themselves as livestock farm types in 2007 (AsureQuality 2007). The type of production separates geographically: the southern and central lowlands mostly support dairy farms (more than 500 throughout the study area), whereas the northern and eastern hill country supports beef and sheep enterprises (more than 2,000 throughout the study area) (Figure 16a). A few farms concentrate on other livestock, including pigs, poultry, deer, and alpacas (Figure 16a).

In addition to assessing reported land use, the potential for livestock production can be examined to indicate the food provisioning service of ecosystems. Potential stocking rate, assuming favourable socioeconomic conditions and management using all appropriate technologies and techniques, can be estimated at 0â&#x20AC;&#x201C;32 sheep per hectare (breeding ewe

28

equivalents) (Figure 16b). Most of the eastern ranges and parts of the coast (as well as water bodies) do not provide suitable resources for stocking. Otherwise, most of the area could carry at least four sheep/ha, with much of the area potentially supporting higher densities (Figure 16b). The estimated average for all farmers shows actual livestock production to be slightly lower, with a maximum of 20 sheep/ha (Figure 16c). Top farmers operate between the potential and average estimates, with the highest stocking rates reaching 27 sheep/ha (Figure 16d). Note that stock carrying capacity can be translated from sheep to other animals like dairy cows, goats, and deer using conversion factors available from farm advisory agencies (Newsome and others 2000).

In general, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) model of the typical lower North Island dairy farm (including not only the Manawatu and Horowhenua regions, but also Taranaki, Wairarapa, and southern Hawkes Bay) shows that farms are generally welldeveloped and have good soil fertility; they are c. 105 ha and milk 280 cows (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2006). Of those farm units reporting from within the study area, average size is 165 ha with a mean of 380 dairy cattle (AsureQuality 2007).3 For the whole region, stocking rate increased from 2.5 cows/ha in 2002/2003 to 2.7 in 2005/2006 (and was forecast to be the same in 2006/07) (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2006). For the 2006/2007 season, milk production was anticipated to be 905 kg milk solids/ha (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2006).

The Manawatuâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Rangitikei intensive sheep and beef farm model is situated on flat to easy rolling country in the Manawatu and Rangitikei districts (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2006); it indicates the average scenario for this farm type in the region. The typical farm is 393 effective hectares, with 318 ha owned and 75 ha leased. In comparison, farms within the study area report their average sizes as 44 ha for beef cattle farming, 120 ha for sheep farming, and 186 ha for mixed sheep and beef farming.4 The MAF (2006) typical (modelled) farm is mainly involved in lamb and cattle purchasing and finishing (grazing 2950 lambs for 16 weeks and 110 dairy heifers for 50 weeks), but the model also includes a 1500 ewe flock. In addition, some farmers contract-graze stock for other farmers and many also undertake a small amount of cropping, largely as part of re-grassing programmes (Ministry of 3

Note that some livestock numbers may be physically located outside of the study area, but the reporting farm enterprises are located partially or wholly within the study area.

4 These figures may be underestimates since some of the area of the reporting farm enterprise unit may fall outside the study area boundary.

29

Agriculture and Forestry 2006). The Rangitikei district also fits the model of hill country sheep and beef farm, which represents larger units running breeding ewes and cows.

Breeding performance is currently 105–140% lambing and 85–95% calving; prime lambs are sold at 15–16 kg carcass weight and prime steers are retained until they are 24–30 months old (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2006).

According to the Land Cover Database (LCDB2) classification, approximately 8,300 ha (c.

1.3%) of land is used for cropland, orchards, and vineyards (Golubiewski 2012) (Figure 1b).

The AgriBase database reports approximately 6,800 ha under these land uses, and enterprises are scattered across the study area (Figure 17) (AsureQuality 2007).

Wanganui region produces more vegetables than fruits.

The Manawatu–

Within the study area, farms

reporting as vegetable growing cover more than 1780 ha, whereas those described as fruit growing total more than 380 ha (Figure 17) (AsureQuality 2007). The main crops are asparagus, beans, broccoli, cabbage, carrots, cauliflower, parsnips, peas, potatoes, pumpkin, and squash. Approximately 1.25 ha of tomato crops were recorded in the Horowhenua district; figures for other vegetable crops in this district and for all in the Rangitikei and Manawatu Districts were not released for reasons of confidentiality (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2003). Fruit tree nursery crops were not recorded for the indoor crops harvested in the Manawatu, Rangitikei, and Horowhenua Districts (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2003). The area in fruit trees and vines was not reported for Rangitikei District (for confidentiality reasons); for those categories reported for the Manawatu district, 3 ha are planted in apples; 2 in pears; 2 in plums; 10 in kiwifruit; 4 in feijoas; and 5 in walnuts (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2003). In the Horowhenua district, 16 hectares are planted in apples; 18 in pears; 26 in kiwifruit; 3 in feijoas; 12 in tamarillos; 3 in persimmons; 5 in blueberries; 11 in olives; 13 in chestnuts; and 4 in other fruit; other categories were recorded as confidential (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2003). Categories of organic fruit were reported as nil or confidential for the Rangitikei and Manawatu Districts. In Horowhenua, the two categories reported were transitional horticulture at 12 hectares and fully organic at 42 hectares (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2003).

Honey powder is used in the manufacturing industry wherever a honey flavour or content is required. The honey powder market had been increasing, with exports averaging 20 tonnes per month to Asian countries, but sales decreased dramatically in 2005/06 due to low international honey prices and competition from other manufacturers overseas. While no 30

farm enterprises are specifically designated as apicultural within the study area (Figure 15), honey is produced from scattered beehives. The manuka/kanuka land cover (Figure 1b) can also be used as an indicator of honey production for the plants’ role in pollination.

Natural ecosystems also provide food, which is sometimes referred to as “wild food”; examples include mushrooms gathered from forests, waterfowl taken from wetlands, or eels and fish harvested from rivers. Information from the iwi about significant wild foods and the systems from which they are collected would be important for this project; some indications are provided in Tables 2–4. Certainly, wild food collection is an important part of the iwi’s history on the land (Smith 2012).

3.2.2. Fibre and Raw Materials While agricultural activities dominate in the study area, fibre production occurs on a more limited scale. This ecosystem service is a relatively broad category, encompassing products such as timber, wool, and fibre and textile products. Raw materials used for industry will be considered after fibre provision is discussed.

Timber production, mostly pine, comprises an actual and potential ecosystem service for the study area (Figure 18a). More than 20,000 ha (c. 4%) of the study area is classified as having a land cover of pine or harvested forest (Golubiewski 2012) (Figure 1b), with another 4,400 ha under other exotic forest and afforestation (Figure 18a). Reported forestry land use exceeds 11,100 ha (Figure 18a) (AsureQuality 2007). The potential (or suitability) for timber production can be extrapolated from the site index, which is an estimate of the mean height of the 100 tallest 20-year-old trees (Pinus radiata) in a sampled hectare. The site index for the northern half of the study area ranges from low-medium to high, allowing for a site index range of 20–35 m (Figure 18b). As assessed, the southern half of the study area is unsuitable for timber production.

The southern North Island, of which the rohe comprises a small part, supplies about 4.8% of New Zealand’s annual wood harvest (Lane and Cameron 2004). This region has 158,500 ha in trees, or 9% of New Zealand’s plantation area, making it the fifth largest of New Zealand’s 10 wood supply regions (Lane and Cameron 2004). Trees in the plantations are mostly young: 70% are under 15 years of age; they are managed in small parcels under diverse ownership (Lane and Cameron 2004). Products from Pinus radiata include pruned logs,

31

unpruned sawlogs, and chipwood. Also harvested are Douglas fir, other softwoods, and hardwoods (New Zealand Forest Owners Association Inc. 2005).

Livestock production (Figure 16) also potentially contributes to the ecosystem services of fibre provisioning through wool production. The total amount of wool produced in the Manawatu–Rangitikei intensive sheep and beef model was projected to be 14,500 kg in 2006/07, up slightly from 2005/06 (13,940) and on par with 2002/03 and 2003/04 production (c. 14,800 kg) (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2006). Wool production averaged about 4.5 kg per sheep stock unit. More than 755,000 sheep were reported held by mixed sheep and beef farms within the study area (AsureQuality 2007). Wool is also produced from hill country sheep farms in the Rangitikei district. Wool production averages 5 kg per sheep stock unit (down from 5.5 kg in 2002/03) (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2006).

Almost 600,000 sheep were reported held by sheep farms in the study area (AsureQuality 2007). Another source of wool is the alpaca and/or llama breeding operations in the study area (Figure 16a); farms of this type cover about 34 ha and keep about 350 camelids (AsureQuality 2007).

Flax is a biophysical parameter for the fibre provisioning service. The present coverage of flaxland is only 75 ha, on 14 sites (Figure 1b) (Golubiewski 2012), but it is an important resource with potential to be grown in other areas. It also has cultural significance to Māori, who know it as harakeke.

Manufacturing, and the production of raw materials to support it, occurs on a small scale in the study area. Three permits lodged with Crown Minerals show extraction interests in iron sands, limestone, and aggregate; all are located in the coastal area (Figure19a). The largest operation is the Waitotara prospecting permit for iron sand; almost 57,000 ha of the permit area falls within the study area boundary (the permit’s actual extent is much wider). Within the same area is a mining licence for Bulls Bridge—an area 2.2 ha in size—from which alluvial gravel from the Rangitikei River is mined for aggregate. Further south, on the coast along the Otaki River, is a mining permit for the Winstones-Otaki Ballast Quarry, covering more than 68 ha and extracting core products for drainage, concrete aggregate, sand, landscaping, and roading. Another site south of Sanson also produces aggregate, sand and materials for roading, drainage, and landscaping.

32

Beeswax is another raw material. Most of the wax produced in New Zealand is used to produce sheets of beeswax foundation, which goes into new frames or is used to coat plastic frames. Some beeswax is also made into candles and cosmetics. Prices paid to beekeepers for light cappings wax increased from $5.00 to $5.40 per kilogram (including freight) in 2005 to $6.00 to $6.60 per kilogram in 2006, with spot prices of $7.20 per kilogram. Prices for darker wax from old brood combs increased slightly to between $4.50 and $5.00 per kilogram. Demand for organic beeswax increased dramatically with prices of $8.50 to $11.50 per kilogram being offered (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2006).

Although

beekeeping activities do occur in the area, no farm types are specifically attributed as apiculture (AsureQuality 2007).

Nurseries and flower growing operations also provide raw materials for the gardening and landscaping industries. Scattered throughout the study area, small flower and plant nursery operations cover a total of more than 250 ha (Figure19b). Throughout the Horowhenua district, ornamental trees and shrubs were grown as indoor crops on approximately 0.3 ha in the year ending 30 June 2002; figures were not released for the Rangitikei and Manawatu Districts (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2003). Flower and nursery crops are grown in the region but little is reported. Nothing is reported in the Rangitikei District. Only 4 ha of ornamental trees and shrubs and 6 ha of “all other nursery crops” are reported for the Manawatu District; and in the Horowhenua, 19 ha of “all other flowers and foliage”; 16 ha of “flower bulb, corm, and tuber crops”; and 10 ha of ornamental trees and shrubs are reported (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2003).

3.2.3. Energy sources The study area generates little energy and produces little fuel. Wood is not grown for fuel to any significant degree in this region (Ralph Sims, Massey University, personal communication).

The Mangahao hydroelectric power station, outside Shannon (Figure 1a), produces 126 GWh/year plus 10 GWh/year from a new minihydro station installed in 2004 (Todd Energy 2008). It is run by Todd Energy and King Country Energy, who purchased the station from the Electricity Corporation of New Zealand (ECNZ) in 1997. Although it is now one of the country’s smallest power stations, it was New Zealand’s largest when it opened in 1924 and was the first hydro power station on the North Island (McKinnon 2007). It sits on the

33

Mangaore stream and is fed by three reservoirs in the Tararua Ranges: two on the Mangahao River (a major tributary of the Manawatu River) and one in the headwaters of the Tokomaru River.

The combination of the land form within the study area and prevailing winds has led to the development of a new renewable energy source: wind power. The environs surrounding the Manawatu Gorge hold high potential for wind farms (Ministry for the Environment 1997).

The first wind farm in the area, the Tararua Wind Farm, was developed on the Tararua Ranges by Tararua Wind Power Ltd in 1998; it was expanded in 2004 to 103 turbines with 67 MW total capacity by its new owner, Trust Power Ltd. During a third stage of development in 2007, 31 turbines, each producing 3 MW, were installed (TrustPower Limited 2003). On the west side of the Gorge, Meridian Energy developed the Te Apiti wind farm on Saddle Road outside Ashhurst, officially opening it in December 2004. The wind farm sits on 1,150 ha, and its 55 turbines each produce 1.65 MW of energy for a total capacity of 90 MW (Meridian Energy 2006).

3.2.4. Genetic Resources Genetic resources are the genes and genetic information used in biotechnology and plant or animal breeding (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003). They may be found in natural environments or cultivated in managed operations under a variety of land uses (Figure 20).

In natural systems particular species will be important storehouses of genetic resources, so native bush is an important location of genetic resources because of the plant species it contains and the animal populations supported by those plant communities (Figure 20). In general, these data are difficult to gather; indeed, the potential of genetic resources is often unknown, but is often cited as a reason for conservationâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;i.e., to protect the potential for future, as yet undiscovered, uses. Overall, genetic resources are maintained by supporting biodiversity: through diversity in the gene pool, populations maintain survivability (Bascompte and Rodriguez-Trelles 1998; Schlapfer and others 1999; Templeton 1994).

At the commercial level, plant nurseries that focus on seed production are tapping in to the provisioning of genetic resources in cultivated systems. Arable cropping or seed production has the strongest presence in the study area; others land uses falling into this category include horse farming/breeding and zoological gardens (which may or may not include conservation as part of their mission) (Figure 20).

34

3.2.5. Biochemicals, medicines As for genetic resources, potential uses for biochemicals and medicines extracted from natural resources have often been discovered unexpectedly, and scientists suspect that many more compounds await discovery.

Ecosystems house the raw materials used to derive

medicines, biocides, food additives, and biological materials (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003). While synthetic processes for production are often developed after the original compound has been discovered, the original naturally-derived products are often prized or preferred.

Medicines and biochemicals can also be cultivated from natural resources. Within the study area, about nine hectares of land are reported as planted in herbs and medicinal plants on a variety of land-use types including vegetable, fruit and sheep and beef farms, as well as on lifestyle blocks and in native bush (AsureQuality 2007).

One promising herbal/medicinal compound is propolis, which is a gum or resin exuded by trees and shrubs and collected by bees. It is antibiotic and, after extraction and refining, is made into many therapeutic products. The price paid for raw propolis remained static at $150 to $175 per kilogram for pure product, with little interest from buyers. Beekeepers received approximately $60â&#x20AC;&#x201C;$80 per kilogram of raw product collected from hives or scraped off bee frames and boxes. Propolis collected by the beekeeper is usually mixed with beeswax, which reduces its value. Buyers adopted a more stringent testing protocol in 2006, resulting in the reduction of average purity ratings (from 44â&#x20AC;&#x201C;57% to 40â&#x20AC;&#x201C;47%).

Large stocks on hand,

imports, and slow export markets reduced demand (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2006). The extent to which it is possible to manufacture this within the study area is unknown: as mentioned in Section 3.2.1., no apicultural enterprises report within the study area, but beehives are kept throughout the area.

3.2.6. Fresh water Fresh, clean water is important for all life. Rivers, lakes and ponds cover approximately 2500 ha throughout the study area and provide surface water (Figure 1a, 13b); other water is provided from bores (wells) (Golubiewski 2012). Incremental runoff follows the topography of the landscape, whereas catchment runoff is highest in the main river arteries (Figure 21) (Woods and others 2006). The average monthly flow of the Manawatu River catchment is

35

102 m3/s, with a low flow of 14.3 m3/s and flood flow of 1,450 m3/s (Ministry for the Environment 1997). River flows vary seasonally, with the highest flows in spring (Graph 4).

Flow in area rivers 1200

Flow (m3/s)

1000 800

WA5 WA6

600

WA7 WA8

400 200

25/01/2006

25/01/2005

25/01/2004

25/01/2003

25/01/2002

25/01/2001

25/01/2000

25/01/1999

25/01/1998

25/01/1997

25/01/1996

25/01/1995

25/01/1994

25/01/1993

25/01/1992

25/01/1991

25/01/1990

25/01/1989

0

Date

Graph 4

Fresh water provisioning services: monthly flow in area rivers (WA5= Rangitikei at Mangaweka; WA6= Rangitikei at Kakariki; WA8= Manawatu at Teachers College; WA9= Manawatu at Opiki Bridge) (Source: NIWA 2006).

The Turitea stream catchment supplies water to the city of Palmerston North; it covers about 2,400 ha and receives about 1,400 mm of rainfall per year. A reservoir at the lower end of the catchment holds 1.7 million cubic metres of water, which meets about 70 days of average daily use. Water for the Horowhenua urban population is supplied by the upper catchments of the Ohau and Waitohu Rivers in the Tararua Forest Park (DOC). At Otaki Forks, the Waiotauru River and Waitatapia Stream meet the Otaki river.

3.3.

Regulating Services

Regulating ecosystem services are those that moderate various ecosystem processes and biogeochemical cycles. These are the most challenging to capture in terms of specific data for a specific placeâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;a situation that has been noted by a number of ecosystem service

36

projects internationally (E Bennett, McGill University; L Linney, Arizona State University, personal communication). However, they are essential because they play important roles in the feedbacks among various cycles, ecosystems, and disturbance events, which can affect ecosystem health and function and, ultimately, the provision of other ecosystem goods and services.

3.3.1. Air quality Air quality is a well-known expression of the amount of air pollutants generated by anthropogenic activities, but air quality as an ecosystem service is concerned with how natural (and managed) ecosystems affect air quality, positively and negatively. For natural ecosystems, the type of vegetation can affect air quality by absorbing and emitting particular compounds. In particular, trees can filter particulates and toxic compounds from the air (e.g.

Matyssek and others 1995; Rowntree and Nowak 1991). They also emit their own biogenic compounds; for example, deciduous trees emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and can affect ground-level air quality in certain locations (Guenther 1997).

VOC emissions and other air quality parameters are usually modelled, using land cover and specific species information (Guenther 1997). Little research has been carried out in the study area to provide details, and there are no air quality monitoring stations within the study area. Likewise, the air filtering capacities of local ecosystems have been neither measured nor modelled, but this would be an interesting area of research. Data can be added to this report when they become available.

3.3.2. Climate regulation (global and local) Like air quality, land cover can regulate climate through effects on temperature and precipitation (local climatic effects) as well as gas regulation (global climatic effects). In terms of affecting temperature, vegetation and soils absorb and reflect heat. They also transpire water and play vital roles in water cycling (Figure 12), thus, physical evaporation and transpiration are incorporated in the water cycle as evapotranspiration.

Particular

ecosystems have different effects on these temperature and water balances, and changes in land cover can also cause changes in temperature and precipitation balances (e.g. Pielke and others 1998; Stohlgren and others 1998).

Likewise, changes in land use and land cover can be linked to climate change due to the influence that soils and vegetation have in regulating global climate (e.g. Buyanovsky and 37

Wagner 1998; Dale 1997). Biotic and abiotic processes and components of ecosystems influence atmospheric chemical balances, especially the carbon cycle (Houghton and others 1998; Schimel 1995). Specific ecosystem services occur in the form of greenhouse gas sequestration and emissions. Carbon sequestration rates vary by land cover type (e.g. Scott and others 1999; Scott and others 2000; Tate and Ross 1997; Tate and others 2000; Trotter and others 2001).

In agricultural landscapes, N2O emissions resulting from fertiliser

application and excretal N inputs demonstrate the effect of anthropogenic activities (an “inverse indicator” of an ecosystem service, or an “ecosystem disservice”, as it were). Other key chemical balances are the maintenance of the ozone (O3) layer and regulation of the levels of sulphur oxides (SOx). Since these values are usually studied by ecosystem type and modelled across landscapes, they will be further considered in Section 4.

3.3.3. Water regulation The ability of an ecosystem to store water provides a service for regulating the timing and magnitude of runoff, flooding, and aquifer recharge (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003). This service can be greatly affected by land-cover change such as wetland drainage or deforestation (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003).

Water storage potential is a

function of both above-ground vegetation and below-ground rooting and soil structure (see Sections 3.1.1., 3.1.2., and 3.3.4).

3.3.4. Erosion regulation Erosion regulation serves the dual purpose of retaining soil and preventing landslides. The vegetative cover and physical environment both contribute to the potential for erosion to occur or be regulated. Vegetation protects soil both above and below the ground. Aboveground biomass can ameliorate disturbances, such as large movements of water and strong wind, as well as hold soil in place at the surface. vegetative rooting systems, holds earth in place.

Below-ground biomass, especially

Consequently, potential rooting depth

(Figure 10a) offers an indicator of the potential to stabilize the land against erosion (the greater the rooting depth, the greater erosion regulation).

Slope class (Figure 22a) indicates the physiographic template for soil retention and the prevention of landslides. Most lowlands are flat to gently undulating, with a slope range of 0–3o. The northern part of the study area ranges from rolling to moderately steep, the coastal margin has rolling topography, and the south-eastern hill country is very steep (Figure 22a).

38

The degree of erosion varies across the landscape of the rohe, from negligible through extreme, with erosion occurring as debris avalanche, deposition, gully, streambank, scree, sheet, and wind (Newsome and others 2000). Much of the lowland area throughout the central axis of the study area is hardly or only slightly eroded (Figure 22b). The most severe erosion events occur along the coast and are caused by wind (Figure 22b). Much of the south-eastern hill country has undergone moderate and severe scree and debris avalanche events. Sediment yields also reveal the connection between physiography and degree of erosion insofar as the highest amounts of sediments are found in watercourses in the northern and south-eastern parts of the study area (Figure 22c).

3.3.5. Water purification and waste treatment The quality of water in lakes and streams depends upon the inputs they receive from surrounding air and land, the water flow and volume flushing the system, the vegetation both within the water body and surrounding it in the riparian buffer, and the filtering and decomposition processes taking place throughout the water/land interface (or ecosystem).

The ability of plants and soils to filter pathogens, chemical compounds, and metals delivers clean drinking water to humans and cleaner water for plants and animals (preventing algal blooms, excessive sediment, or reduced dissolved oxygen).

Within the study area are water bodies representing â&#x20AC;&#x153;baselineâ&#x20AC;? conditions as well as those that have been affected by land use and inputs. The highest concentrations of nitrogen, and thus the lowest water quality, are found in the major rivers: the Manawatu River has the highest levels of nitrogen, followed by the Rangitikei and Pohangina rivers (Figure 23) (Elliot and others 2005). Water quality varies considerably seasonally and spatially throughout the study area (Graph 5).

39

WA 5

WA 6

2007 WA 8

1507 WA 9

507

Date

(Data source: NIWA 2006).

40 25/01/2006

2507

25/01/2005

3007

e)

25/01/2004

E . C ol i

25/01/2003

WA9

25/01/2002

WA8

25/01/2001

3500

25/01/2000

Date

25/01/1999

4500

25/01/2006

25/01/2005

25/01/2004

25/01/2003

25/01/2002

25/01/2001

25/01/2000

25/01/1999

25/01/1998

25/01/1997

25/01/1996

25/01/1995

a)

25/01/1998

WA5

25/01/1997

c)

25/01/1996

Total Phosphate 25/01/1994

0

25/01/1995

200

0 25/01/1993

50

25/01/1994

100

25/01/1992

WA5

25/01/1993

WA9

25/01/1991

WA8

25/01/1992

300

25/01/1990

350

25/01/1991

150

25/01/1989

WA6 NO3-N (ppb-N)

400

25/01/1990

25/01/2006

25/01/2005

25/01/2004

25/01/2003

25/01/2002

25/01/2001

25/01/2000

25/01/1999

25/01/1998

25/01/1997

25/01/1996

25/01/1995

25/01/1994

25/01/1993

25/01/1992

25/01/1991

25/01/1990

NH4 (ppb-N) 200

25/01/1989

25/01/2006

25/01/2005

25/01/2004

25/01/2003

25/01/2002

25/01/2001

25/01/2000

25/01/1999

25/01/1998

25/01/1997

25/01/1996

25/01/1995

25/01/1994

25/01/1993

25/01/1992

25/01/1991

25/01/1990

25/01/1989

250

pH

-500 25/01/1989

Total phosphate (ppb-P)

NH4+ Nitrate

b)

2000

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

WA5

800

WA6

600

WA8

400

WA9

Date

8500

B i oc he mi c a l Ox y ge n D e ma nd - 5 da y i nc uba t i on

d)

7500 7

6500 6

5500 5

WA6 4 WA 5

WA 6

3

2

WA 8

2500 WA 9

1500 1

500 0

Date Date

9.5

pH

f)

4507

4007

3507

9

8.5 WA5

8 WA6

WA8

1007

WA9

7

7.5

7

Date

Graph 5 Water quality indicators at sites in Manawatu and Horowhenua: a) ammonium,

b) nitrate; c) total phosphate; d) biological oxygen demand; e) E. coli; and f) pH

In a study of 35 sites throughout the greater Manawatuâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Wanganui region, an assessment of water quality using biological indices of invertebrate and periphyton communities found 6 to have clean water, 6 to be possibly affected, 11 to be moderately affected, and 14 to be severely affected (Death and Death 2005). Of the clean water sites, only one falls within the study area. In the southern end of the study area, 75â&#x20AC;&#x201C;90% of samples taken at freshwater swimming spots complied with guidelines for bacterial water quality, whereas 95â&#x20AC;&#x201C;100% of samples did so in the northern part of the study area (Ministry for the Environment 2007).

Lake Horowhenua demonstrates the demands placed on water bodies to process nutrients in the ecosystem. It is often eutrophic (high N and P contents) and surges during storms. In fact, it is considered supertrophic, containing very high nutrient concentrations (Ministry for the Environment 2007). In addition to surface water, ground water can also be affected: for example, aquifers under pastures in the Manawatu (<30 m) have been found to exceed the maximum acceptable value for nitrate-nitrogen in the New Zealand Drinking Water Standards; deeper waters do not exceed this level (Ministry for the Environment 1997; Ministry for the Environment 2007). Water quality problems caused by the dairy industry and associated land uses have been noted for decades (Smith 2008a).

3.3.6. Disease regulation Human pathogens and their vectors (the mechanisms by which they move) exist within the environment. Ecosystems can provide the service of disease regulation by affecting the survivability of the disease itself or by discouraging the vectors that transmit the diseases to humans. Certain ecosystems will have negative feedbacks on diseases and vectors, whereas others will provide appropriate habitat for these to flourish. For example, some mosquitoes are disease vectors, so changes in land cover that encourage growth and spread of mosquito populations will result in a loss of the disease regulation service. For the study area, few data are available for diseases and their vectors, but studies on mosquitoes may soon be forthcoming.

3.3.7. Pest regulation/biological control Pests are naturally regulated in the environment through complex interactions within foodwebs, particularly predator/prey relationships. Thus, pest regulation services occur when predators and habitats that support those predators keep pests in check. This service can be challenged when pests are introduced to an area and/or land cover is changed so the predator population can no longer effectively maintain pest populations at certain sizes.

41

New Zealand’s island environments have few natural vertebrate predators, although there are predatory native birds (ruru, kahu, karearea, and many insectivorous birds) as well as many invertebrate predators (e.g. all spider species). For the most part, human management is required to decrease pest populations of introduced species, since they do not have native predators on the islands. For the study area, few data are available to describe regulation of pests.

3.3.8. Pollination Most of the world’s flowering plants (218,000 of 250,000) rely on pollinators for reproduction.

Pollinators include bees, moths, butterflies, beetles, and flies—100,000

invertebrate species in all—and over 1,000 vertebrate species, including birds, mammals, and reptiles.

Many pollinators are threatened or endangered, which then has negative

repercussions for dependent plant species. Land-use and land-cover change can affect the distribution, abundance, and effectiveness of pollinators (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003).

Ecosystems provide a pollination service by hosting pollinator species and making their survival possible. Pollinator habitat often includes nectar sources such as as rewarewa, manuka, pasture plants, and orchards (Figure 1b).

Thus, particular land covers and

ecosystems, such as manuka and kanuka stands, are important because they attract and support bees. Specific plants include thyme, blue borage, rata, honeydew, and kamahi.

Some beekeepers may change from honey production to pollination. In the Palmerston North area, the number of beekeepers decreased by 46% between 2000 and 2006, from 1,214 to 659, but the number of hives increased by 7%, from 43,534 to 46,581 (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2006).

3.3.9. Natural hazard/disturbance regulation Specific land cover types have physical and vegetative structures that help mitigate natural hazards and disturbance. For example, coastal ecosystems such as mangroves and coral reefs can dramatically reduce damage caused by hurricanes or large waves (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003). Wetlands and floodplains mitigate storms and floods by trapping and containing stormwater. Essentially, these ecosystems can buffer the effects of disturbances.

42

Within the rohe, ecosystems providing this service include: coastal dunes, wetlands, riparian areas, shelter belts, and forests (Figure 1b, 13).

Flood classes indicate the extent to which floods can be expected to return. Flood return intervals are only expected along the major riparian corridors within the rohe, where severe (1 in 5–10 year) or moderate (1 in 20 to 1 in 60 year) return intervals occur (Figure 24).

Notably, the Manawatu River has a substantial floodplain in the centre of the study area.

3.4.

Cultural Services

Cultural ecosystem services are intangible. They comprise concepts, ideas, and experiences that humans derive from the natural world for purposes such as education, spirituality, and recreation (Table 1).

Within the study area, several waterways in the area have been

characterized for a broad array of these services (Table 4). Other authors have described fully the particulars of these resources.

In addition, apart from the obvious cultural

significance the entire study area holds for the iwi, the area also encompasses places significant for conservation and recreational values.

Table 4

Culturally-identified ecosystem services for specific locales within the project boundary, indicating their traditional or modern relevance (Source: Smith 2008).

Value

Area

Traditional

Modern

River care groups

General

–

x

water quality

General

–

x

Flood protection

General

–

x

Impacts of flood protection

General

–

x

Management of roof water tanks

General

–

x

Riparian vegetation

General

–

x

General

–

x

General

–

x

pipeline)

General

–

x

Ōtaki River

Ōtaki river

x

x

Water quality

Ōtaki river

x

x

Actively improving & maintaining

Control of stock access to natural water ecosystems Farm and storm water runoff into waterways Maintenance of localised water (no

43

Value

Area

Traditional

Modern

Natural flood control

Ōtaki river

–

x

Poison free (no 1080 poison)

Ōtaki river

–

x

No water extraction

Ōtaki river

–

x

River flows (normalised)

Ōtaki river

–

x

Ōtaki lake development

Ōtaki river

–

x

Swimming and recreational access

Ōtaki river

–

x

Restoring riparian margins

Ōtaki river

–

x

Customary fisheries

Ōtaki river

x

x

levels

Ōtaki river

–

x

Waste free

Ōtaki river

x

x

schools

Ōtaki river

–

x

Community river ownership

Ōtaki river

–

x

Maintenance of native bird habitat

Ōtaki river

–

x

Otaki river

x

x

Ōtaki river

x

x

Ōtaki river

x

x

walkways, etc.)

Ōtaki river

–

x

Vegetation corridors maintained

Ōtaki river

x

x

Ōtaki river

–

x

Ōtaki river

–

x

vegetation

Ōtaki river

x

x

Source of hangi stones

Ōtaki river

x

x

access)

Waitohu stream

–

x

Habitat for native fish species

Waitohu stream

x

x

Sand dune integrity (erosion control)

Waitohu stream

–

x

Maintenance of natural groundwater

Nature education/experiences for

Indicator species (flounder - water clarity) Integrity of white bait populations maintained Customary foods only (not commercialised) Recreational access (parking,

Lower river vehicle access natural materials Estuary enhancement to support whitebait fisheries Recreational areas with native

Recreational vehicle free (coastal

44

Value

Area

Traditional

Modern

Integrity of sand stabilisation (native plant species)

Waitohu stream

–

x

Recreational water quality

Waitohu stream

–

x

Waitohu stream

–

x

kayaking)

Waitohu stream

–

x

Customary food sources

Waitohu stream

x

x

Bird habitat

Waitohu stream

x

x

Stock access free

Waitohu stream

–

x

Riparian vegetation

Waitohu stream

–

x

River mouth freedom to move

Waitohu stream

–

x

Estuarine habitat (bird species)

Waitohu stream

–

x

Water quality and clarity

Waitohu stream

x

x

(weirs)

Waitohu stream

–

x

A corridor of native plants

Waitohu stream

–

x

Marginal wetlands

Waitohu stream

x

x

Food source (Tuna)

Pāhiko stream

x

x

Stock access free

Pāhiko stream

–

x

The storage of food

Pāhiko stream

x

x

Water quality

Pāhiko stream

x

x

Important food species

Pāhiko stream

x

x

Native marginal vegetation (habitat)

Pāhiko stream

–

x

Native marginal bush

Mangaone stream

–

x

Domestic water supply

Mangaone stream

–

x

Riparian vegetation

Mangaone stream

–

x

Stock access free

Mangaone stream

–

x

Presence of instream kōkopu

Mangaone stream

x

x

Quality of short fin eels

Mangaone stream

x

x

Recreational value

Mangaone stream

–

x

Watercress

Mangaone stream

x

x

Native vegetation restoration value

Mangaone stream

–

x

Water quality

Mangaone stream

x

x

Channel migration integrity maintained Recreational activities (swimming,

Freedom from migrational barriers

45

Value

Area

Traditional

Modern

Instream plant habitat values

Mangaone stream

x

x

Ground water quality

Mangaone stream

–

x

High priority plant restoration area

Mangaone stream

–

x

Maintenance of ground water levels

Mangaone stream

–

x

A weed free river channel

Mangapouri stream

–

x

Toxin free water quality

Mangapouri stream

–

x

Water quality

Mangapouri stream

x

x

stream inflow

Mangapouri stream

–

x

Freshwater crayfish (koura)

Mangapouri stream

x

x

Aesthetic

Mangapouri stream

–

x

Mangapouri stream

–

x

Mangapouri stream

–

x

margins

Mangapouri stream

–

x

Stop bank free

Mangapouri stream

–

x

Eel storage

Mangapouri stream

x

x

Resource for community education

Mangapouri stream

–

x

Sediment flushing

Mangapouri stream

–

x

Instream river habitat (sediment free)

Mangapouri stream

–

x

River flow levels

Mangapouri stream

–

x

Free from stock access

Mangapouri stream

–

x

Healthy water cress

Mangapouri stream

x

x

Swimming/recreation

Mangapouri stream

–

x

Local birdlife

Lake Waiorongomai

x

x

Native fish breeding

Lake Waiorongomai

x

x

Historical significance

Lake Waiorongomai

x

x

Ecological significance

Lake Waiorongomai

x

x

Stock access free

Lake Waiorongomai

–

x

Integrity of the vegetation

Lake Waiorongomai

x

x

Integrity of the stream outflow

Lake Waiorongomai

–

x

Spiritual significance of the water

Lake Waiorongomai

–

x

Wetland buffering/purifying of

Potential for restoration of vegetation Potential for restoring instream values Maintenance of natural course &

46

Value

Area

Traditional

Modern

Local food source (esp. tuna)

Lake Waiorongomai

x

x

experiencing nature)

Lake Waiorongomai

–

x

Shortfin eel

Lake Waiorongomai

x

x

Eel storage

Lake Waiorongomai

x

x

Game shooting

Lake Waiorongomai

–

x

Healthy marginal vegetation

Lake Waiorongomai

–

x

Drain free

Lake Waiorongomai

–

x

Maintenance of ground water levels

Lake Waiorongomai

–

x

stream inflow

Lake Waiorongomai

–

x

Stream outflow to sea (integrity)

Lake Waiorongomai

–

x

eels)

Lake Waiorongomai

x

x

Ecosystem hydrology

Lake Waiorongomai

–

x

In stream flow water purity

Rangiuru stream

–

x

Riparian vegetation

Rangiuru stream

–

x

Aesthetic

Rangiuru stream

–

x

Clean spring water

Rangiuru stream

x

x

Abundance of bird species

Rangiuru stream

x

x

system

Rangiuru stream

–

x

Recreation

Rangiuru stream

–

x

Flood protection

Rangiuru stream

–

x

Food source (whitebait)

Rangiuru stream

x

x

Water quality

Rangiuru stream

x

x

Aquatic weed free

Rangiuru stream

–

x

restoration

Rangiuru stream

–

x

Fish migration pathways

Rangiuru stream

x

x

Contaminated dumpsite free

Rangiuru stream

–

x

Iconic fishery

Paru-ā-uku wetland

x

x

Native bird sanctuary

Paru-ā-uku wetland

x

x

Ecological significance

Paru-ā-uku wetland

x

x

Recreational (camping &

Wetland buffering/purifying of

Numerous tuna heke (migrational

Lower estuary as a key ecological

Potential for native vegetation

47

Value

Area

Traditional

Modern

Water quality

Paru-ā-uku wetland

x

x

Water level is maintained

Paru-ā-uku wetland

–

x

Lake weed free/minimised

Paru-ā-uku wetland

–

x

Bird species diversity

Paru-ā-uku wetland

x

x

Healthy eel population

Paru-ā-uku wetland

x

x

Water purification capacity

Paru-ā-uku wetland

–

x

Habitat

Paru-ā-uku wetland

–

x

potential

Paru-ā-uku wetland

–

x

Noxious weed free

Paru-ā-uku wetland

–

x

Migratory pathway

Paru-ā-uku wetland

–

x

Educational resource

Paru-ā-uku wetland

–

x

Recreational

Waitawa (Forest lakes)

–

x

Harakeke vegetation at lake margin

Waitawa (Forest lakes)

–

x

Exotic fish free

Waitawa (Forest lakes)

–

x

Recreational

Waitawa (Forest lakes)

–

x

Plant resources

Waitawa (Forest lakes)

–

x

Abundance of tuna

Nga Totara stream & lagoon

x

x

Abundance of harakeke

Nga Totara stream & lagoon

x

x

Migratory pathway

Nga Totara stream & lagoon

x

x

Food cultuivation and storage

Nga Totara stream & lagoon

x

x

Quality of healthy tuna

Nga Totara stream & lagoon

x

x

Weed free

Nga Totara stream & lagoon

–

x

Safe access

Nga Totara stream & lagoon

–

x

Native fish populations

Nga Totara stream & lagoon

x

x

Ecological significance

Nga Totara stream & lagoon

x

x

Habitat

Nga Totara stream & lagoon

–

x

Natural resources

Ngātoko stream (Wai-ariki Creek)

–

x

Recreational

Ngātoko stream (Wai-ariki Creek)

–

x

Fish abundance, health, and diversity

Ngātoko stream (Wai-ariki Creek)

–

x

Whitebait spawning ground

Ngātoko stream (Wai-ariki Creek)

x

x

Koura resource

Ngātoko stream (Wai-ariki Creek)

x

x

Healthy river flows

Ngātoko stream (Wai-ariki Creek)

–

x

Pollution free

Ngātoko stream (Wai-ariki Creek)

–

x

Marginal vegetation restoration

48

Value

Area

Traditional

Modern

Stock access free

Ngātoko stream (Wai-ariki Creek)

–

x

Educational resource/area

Ngātoko stream (Wai-ariki Creek)

–

x

Migratory pathway

Ngātoko stream (Wai-ariki Creek)

x

x

Riparian vegetation

Ngātoko stream (Wai-ariki Creek)

–

x

Water quality

Ngātoko stream (Wai-ariki Creek)

x

x

Ecological significance

Waimanu stream & lagoon

x

x

Riparian vegetation

Waimanu stream & lagoon

–

x

Fresh watercress

Waimanu stream & lagoon

x

x

Food source (eels)

Waimanu stream & lagoon

x

x

Recreation

Waimanu stream & lagoon

–

x

Game shooting

Waimanu stream & lagoon

–

x

Giant kōkopu

Waimanu stream & lagoon

x

x

Trout and eel populations

Waimanu stream & lagoon

x

x

3.4.1. Recreation and ecotourism Natural ecosystems obviously attract people for many recreational pursuits, including hiking, biking, canoeing or kayaking, fishing, and hunting.

Fishing provides one example of

recreational opportunities within the study area. The New Zealand Freshwater Fish Database (NZFFD) catalogues voluntary reporting of fish caught in specific localities. Within the study area, more than 13,000 catches have been reported across a range of 35 species (Table 5). Fish have been caught throughout the study area (Figure 25).

49

50

Table 5.

Species names and characteristics (Harmsworth 2007c; Richardson 2005, C. Royal personal communication) of local fish reported caught in the New Zealand Freshwater Fish Database (National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) 2008)

Species code

Number caught

Scientific name

Common name

angaus

1739 Anguilla australis

shortfin eel

angdie

2086 Anguilla dieffenbachii

longfin eel

endemic

x

native

Māori food

Māori culturally significant

yes

x

x

yes

x

x

anguil

259 Anguilla

eel (unidentified)

yes

caraur

359 Carassius auratus

goldfish

no

chefos

473 Cheimarrichthys fosteri

torrentfish

cypcar

14 Cyprinus carpio

koi carp

galarg

6 Galaxias argenteus

giant kokopu

galaxi

3 Galaxias

unidentified galaxiid

galbre

209 Galaxias brevipinnis

galdiv

13 Galaxias divergens

x

x x

yes

x

no x

yes

koaro

x

x

dwarf galaxias

galfas

139 Galaxias fasciatus

banded kōkopu

galmac

600 Galaxias maculatus

inanga

galpos

72 Galaxias postvectis

gamaff

3 Gambusia affinis

gambusia

geoaus

51 Geotria australis

lamprey

shortjaw kōkopu

x x

x

x

yes

yes

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

no

gobbas

574 Gobiomorphus basalis

Crans bully

x

yes

gobbre

1877 Gobiomorphus breviceps

upland bully

x

yes

x

common bully

x

yes

x

giant bully

x

yes

bluegill bully

x

yes

gobcot

552 Gobiomorphus cotidianus

gobgob

34 Gobiomorphus gobioides

gobhub

3 Gobiomorphus hubbsi

x x

gobhut

892 Gobiomorphus huttoni

redfin bully

x

yes

gobiom

177 Gobiomorphus

bully (unidentified)

x

yes

mugil neoapo

10 Mugil 107 Neochanna apoda

x

unidentified mullet brown mudfish

x

oncmyk

2 Oncorhynchus mykiss

rainbow trout

no

onctsh

1 Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

chinook salmon

no

parane

405 Paranephrops

koura

perflu

1083 Perca fluviatilis

perch

x

x

retret

378 Retropinna retropinna

common smelt

x

yes

x

rhoret

2 Rhombosolea retiaria

black flounder

x

yes

x

salmo

1 Salmo

unidentified salmonid brown trout

no

x

rudd

no

tench

no

saltru scaery tintin

1258 Salmo trutta 303 Scardinius erythrophthalmus 31 Tinca tinca

x

x

51

The Department of Conservation has responsibility for several conservation areas situated at least partially within the study area (Figure 13c). In addition to the habitat and other services they provide (mentioned previously), they and other entities within the study area provide recreational opportunities (Figure 26).

The Tararua Forest Park was the first forest park established, in 1954. It is the largest conservation park managed by DOC in the North Island (116,535 ha), covering much of the ranges that comprise the south-eastern section of the study area, but it extends beyond the study area. As noted above, the park plays a central role in providing habitat refugia for biodiversity, conserving water quality and supply, and minimising flood risk for surrounding lowlands (see Section 4.1. for the ecosystem services forests can provide). Recreational activities include tramping, hunting, walking, mountain biking, camping, picnicking, rafting, kayaking, and swimming. A number of DOC campsites and huts are located throughout the Park. Otaki Forks, located within the rohe, is the major western entrance to Tararua Forest Park, and has been developed for a wide range of activities, including picnicking, swimming, rafting and kayaking the Otaki River Gorge (a grade 2 river), fishing, and walks through Tararua Forest Park. Camping areas and huts are within a dayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s walk. DOC encourages hunting to help control populations of deer, goats, and pigs. Most rivers and streams in the park contain brown trout, which is a popular recreational fish species.

A relatively new recreational outlet in the area is the Mangahao White Water Park below the Mangahao Power Station. It has been transformed into a community based nature reserve and world class kayaking facility. The 300 metre section of river immediately below the power station has been modified so that water hydraulics form features for slalom and freestyle white water paddling. The riverbank has been developed into a small nature park, including plantings of native species and picnicking facilities.

The Pukepuke Lagoon Conservation area offers birdwatching and gamebird and sambar deer hunting to permitted visitors (Figure 13a, c). Recreational uses of the Manawatu Estuary include sailing, boating, fishing, seasonal duck shooting, and bird watching.

3.4.2. Cultural values Cultural values can also encompass a broad range of human experiences, including cultural heritage, sense of place, spiritual and religious values, inspiration, and education (Table 1).

52

Here they will be discussed only briefly. The intermingling of natural ecosystems and cultural landscapes has defined iwi culture (Smith 2008a). Twenty-four marae are located along the coastal plain, and hundreds of archaeological and cultural sites are recognised as historically significant (Figure 27). Culturally significant plants include harakeke, raupō, toetoe, and kuta (used in weaving), totara and kahikatea (used in carving), and manuka (used for implements) (Harmsworth 2002a; Harmsworth 2002b; Harmsworth 2007a; Harmsworth 2007b; Harmsworth 2007c).

Historical sites, in addition to those specifically associated with Ngāti Raukawa, are located throughout the study area. In particular, they exist at the DOC conservation areas, including former pa and other historical sites at the Pukepuke Lagoon Conservation area. Farming and sawmilling histories are evident in areas of open river terraces and regenerating bush surrounding Otaki Forks; for example, the old boiler from the Tararua Timber mill still exists.

The Arcus Loop short walk at Otaki Forks commemorates the Arcus family who farmed the area from the 1930s, and the Waiotauru walk passes the site and relics of the Seed and O’Birne’s sawmill.

Restoration work is underway at the steam powered sawmill that

operated from 1930–38 at Sheridan Creek. It is considered a relatively complete timber industry heritage site and is managed as a remote experience discovery site (DOC).

Sense of place has special standing within the Māori community.

Taunahanahatanga

describes the way of knowing place through personal encounters with land (Cole 2012; Smith 2012).

Spirituality and religious values also have significant roles within Māori culture. Spiritual practice has been closely tied to natural ecosystems (Smith 2012). Guardian spirits are tied to specific trees or spots (Smith 2012). In conjunction with spiritual values, people often draw inspiration from the cultural landscape as well.

Aesthetic values link to many other cultural values, but especially to the sensory experience people have in relation to their environment: enjoying the views, the feel of open space, the smell of forests or coast. These values are often measured by assessing people’s willingness to pay to protect these values of beauty or quality.

53

4.

Variability of ecosystem services among ecosystems

4.1. Services of ecosystems The services available in any given area are determined by the physical template of the land and by the ecosystems. Most ecosystem services can be found in most places, but their dominance and importance vary according to the environmental context of the locality, which contributes to the variation in ecosystem services outlined above. In particular, a few key indigenous ecosystems are especially important as repositories of ecosystem services. After reviewing this, the importance of ecosystem services in various ecosystems will be considered.

Forests and wetland provide key ecosystem services through their vegetative structure and ecological functioning. Tree coverage in forests contributes greatly to all ecosystem service categories. Supporting services are sustained through nutrient and water cycling, primary production, and remnant habitat for biodiversity.

Timber extracted from forests is an

ubiquitous provisioning service, and wild foods can be collected throughout forest ecosystems. Headwaters are often located in forests, contributing to freshwater provision.

Through the water and nutrient cycling as well as the process of heat absorption and release, forests also play a large role in air quality, climate regulation, and water regulation. The structural aspects of forests, especially root systems and vegetative cover, play key roles in the regulation of erosion and natural disturbances. Forests are also focal points for both traditional and modern cultural services in terms of history, aesthetics, connection to place, and recreational opportunities.

Wetlands are also vital ecosystems for all ecosystems categories. While long recognized, awareness of their fundamental contributions to regulating services has grown recently as a consequence of damage from major events like the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami and Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Wetlands decrease flood riskâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;or, more directly, are able to absorb a great amount of water, even during storms. They can also trap sediment and so mitigate erosion problems. They play vital roles in improving water quality through the nutrient cycling interactions between plants and water; in some locations wetlands are even constructed to address issues of water quality. They are biodiversity hotspots, providing key habitat for 54

freshwater fish as well as indigenous and migratory birds.

Consequently, they provide

significant habitat refugia as well as important places for wild food collection and cultural/recreational pursuits. Wetlands themselves are important to hap큰 and iwi and are regarded as taonga (Harmsworth 2002a; Harmsworth 2002b; Harmsworth 2007a; Harmsworth 2007b; Harmsworth 2007c).

4.2.

Ecosystem Service Variability

The existence and availability of ecosystem services will vary by land cover and land use.

This will be examined in the following section with examples from data collected for the study area.

4.2.1. Supporting Services Soil nutrients vary according to ecosystem type. Soil carbon is highest among indigenous vegetation covers, such as wetlands and forests; most of those areas are in the high and medium carbon classes. In contrast, agricultural cover types have more area in the low carbon class (Graph 6); however, horticultural and pastoral cover types have some land area in the very high carbon class, reflecting the effects of soil amendments applied as part of farm management practices. The same pattern follows for most soil characteristics.

Carbon class distribution

80% Very Low 60%

Low Medium

40%

High Very High

Land cover category

Graph 6

Distribution of carbon classes across land-cover types.

55

Indigenous Forest

Managed Trees/Forestry

Scrub and shrubland-exotic

Scrub and shrubland-

Wetland

Grasslandnatural

Pastoral

Horticultural

Water

Built environment

0%

Bare ground

20%

Parkland/amenity trees

Proportion of category

100%

Native land coverâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;indigenous forest and wetlandsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;provides habitat/refugia and is also an indicator of this service. Golubiewski (2012) discusses the present extent of these ecosystem types in detail.

4.2.2. Provisioning Services The land use capability class (Figure 14) explains much about current land cover in the study area (Figure 1b): most of the potentially productive land (as signified by low LUC class numbers) has been put into productive use (mostly pastoral), whereas land considered unsuitable for primary production has remained in natural cover types (Graph 7). Similarly, various farm types are located in each type of managed land cover, but little activity occurs in indigenous areas (with the exception of wetlands and indigenous scrub and shrubland) (Graph 8). Because most of the best land is used by livestock operations, other primary production activities occur on lower grade land-use capability classes (Figure 28).

56

LUC composition of Land Cover 100% 8

80%

7 6

60%

4 40%

3 2

20%

1

Indigenous Forest

Shrublandindigenous

Grassland

Wetland

Shrublandexotic

Managed Trees/Forestry

Pastoral

Horticultural

Water

Bare Ground

Parkland

Built Environment

0%

Present Land Cover Category

a

Land cover composition of LUC classes 100% Indigenous Forest Shrubland-indigenous 80%

Grassland Wetland Shrubland-exotic

60%

Managed Trees/Forestry Pastoral 40%

Horticultural Water Bare Ground

20%

Parkland Built Environment 0% 1 b

Graph 7

2

3

4

6

7

8

LUC class

Land use capability class of various ecosystems: a) LUC composition of landcover types, and b) the ecosystem composition of each LUC category.

57

LUC composition of Farm Type 100%

80% 8 7 60%

6 4 3

40%

2 1

0%

ALA ARA BEF DAI DEE DOG DRY FLO FOR_ FRU GOA GRA HOR LIF NAT NEW NOF NUR OPL OTH PIG POU SHP SNB TOU UNS VEG VIT ZOO

20%

Agribase Farm Type

Farm Type composition of LUC class ZOO

100%

VIT VEG

90%

UNS TOU SNB

80%

SHP POU

70%

PIG OTH OPL

60%

NUR NOF

50%

NEW NAT LIF

40%

HOR GRA

30%

GOA FRU FOR_

20%

FLO DRY

10%

DOG DEE

LUC class

Graph 8

8

7

6

4

3

2

DAI

1

0%

BEF ARA ALA

Environmental context of primary production activities: a) types of farm operations found across land-cover types, and b) farm type composition of each LUC class.

58

Forests and their soils as well as wetlands are important in capturing rainwater and releasing it gradually, thus reducing runoff. This is one of the essential aspects of fresh water supply.

Forested mountain systems that receive high annual precipitation will contain water sources, and water flow will vary considerably throughout the year (Snelder and others 2004). Within the study area, the eastern ranges have the climate and topography to serve as water sources, whereas the low elevation plains are relatively warm and dry (Figure 29). Large scale climatic patterns of annual precipitation, evaporation, and air temperature underly hydrological patterns and thermal regimes of rivers (as well as broad scale patterns in water quality) (Snelder and others 2004).

4.2.3. Regulating Services As noted in Section 3.3.1., natural ecosystems, especially forests, can affect air quality by absorbing pollutants and emitting biogenic compounds. This varies greatly according to the species composition of the particular plant community.

On the other hand, managed

ecosystems affect air quality through the activities that take place on them. For example, fertiliser application rates in the model of hill country sheep and beef farming are 29 kg P/ha and 27 kg S/ha (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2006). In response to rising costs, farmers are seeking to use fertiliser more efficiently, since it is one of their biggest expenditure items; as they decrease fertiliser use to maintenance levels (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2006), air pollution should also reduce.

Similarly, regulation of greenhouse gases can be affected by the emission and sequestration rates of various plant communities. Together, the species as well as the overall functioning of the community can affect the rates and storage of the system.

Water quality and regulation are greatly influenced by the biophysical characteristics of the landscape and by the land covers and land uses surrounding waterways. In particular, land use plays a major role in the water quality status of rivers: pastoral land uses contribute excess nutrients to riparian areas, which can lead to excessive levels and pollution problems (Larned and others 2004; Ministry for the Environment 2007; Snelder and others 2004). This may be especially important for the study area, where most rivers sit within an agricultural and pastoral context (Figure 30). Forests and wetlands provide natural buffers between pollutants and water supplies by filtering out pathogens such as Giardia or Escherichia coli,

59

nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, and metals and sediments. Tararua Forest Park itself plays a role in conserving water quality.

Land cover also affects erosion regulation; thus, vegetation helps to stabilize flow but bare ground does not (and impervious surfaces further contribute to augmented flow). Indeed, catchment land cover provides the dominant control of erosion and runoff processes (Snelder and others 2004). Forests in the Tararua Ranges, protected as the Tararua Forest Park (Figure 13c), are important for minimising flood risk to surrounding lowlands.

In addition,

catchment geology regulates erosion rate (and sediment supply) by controlling groundwater storage capacity and transmissivity as well as base flow (Snelder and others 2004) (Figure 31a). Sediment supply and flow (thus, flood regulation) is also affected by source of flow (Figure 31b) and network position (Snelder and others 2004). Within the study area, most streams are of low order; there are only four major watercourses: Rangitikei, Pohangina, Manawatu, and Otaki (Figure 31c).

4.2.4. Cultural Services Cultural services are most likely to be found in native ecosystems, especially given their historical, spiritual, and aesthetic significance.

One symbol of the cultural significance of landscapes is the environmental context in which marae are situated. The current and historical land covers within 5 km and 10 km of each marae have been summarized (Figure 32). Marae cluster into five groups within a 5 km buffer and two groups within a 10 km buffer, indicating they were clumped within the study area, possibly revealing a preference for locating marae in certain ecosystem types. The current land cover around marae is mostly highly managed (Graph 9). However, marae would have pre-dated much of the current land-cover conversion. The estimated composition of natural vegetation (pre-dating human settlement) indicates the environment into which marae may have been built. Since this is a modelled estimate of vegetative cover prior to human settlement, extensive modification may have occurred before marae were built, so this still requires more extensive historical analysis. Historical natural vegetation estimated to have occurred in close proximity to marae indicates that they were established in heavily forested areasâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;mostly kahikatea, with some proximity to dunelands and wetlands (Graph 10). From these ecosystems, a number of goods and services have become important in a

60

social and cultural context (Table 6, 7).

Many are obviously important for utilitarian

purposes such as food, but they also are important for knowledge and well being.

61

62

Table 6

Cultural services found in various ecosystems and identified for their traditional and current importance (Source: A. Cole, personal communication, compiled from Adkin 1948; Carkeek 1966; Hapai Whenua Consultants - Environmental Advocates Ltd 2006; McDonald and O'Donnell 1979; Smith 2008).

Ecosystems

Goods and services

Value

Traditional

Aquatic ecosystems

Subsistence plant species

Food source

Coastal foreshore

Seabed and foreshore Act (2004)

No value

Coastal foreshore

Coastline and fish species

Source of food

x

Coastal foreshore

Intertidal zone

Source of food, resources, intrinsic, walking trail

x

Coastal wetland

Coastal hydrology

Aquatic ecosystem wellbeing

x

Coastal wetland

Dune wetland and local area as wāhi tapu

Burial place for ancestors

x

Coastal wetland

Dune wetland system

x

Coastal wetland

Te Hakari wetland

Food, resources, intrinsic Identification with place, food production, resources, intrinsic, habitat

Coastal wetland, dunelands

Coastal bird species

Intrinsic

x

Cultural landscapes

Interconnectedness

Ecosystem wellbeing

x

Cultural landscapes

Ahi kā

Identification with place

x

Cultural landscapes

Cognitive maps of ecosystems

Identification with place

x

Cultural landscapes

Declining environmental quality

Identification with place

x

Cultural landscapes

Interwoven narratives

Identification with place

Cultural landscapes

Place name

Identification with place

x

Cultural landscapes

Tūrangawaewae

x

Cultural landscapes

Fragmented ecosystems

Identification with place Identification with place, food source, resources, intrinsic

Cultural landscapes

Kaitiaki transcends transfer of ownership

Identification with place, intrinsic

x

Cultural landscapes

Land parcels owned by whanau

Identification with place, intrinsic

Cultural landscapes

Guardianship

Identification with the natural world

x

Cultural landscapes

Energy or life force in everything

Intrinsic

x

Modern

x x

x

x x x

x x

Ecosystems

Goods and services

Value

Traditional

Modern

Cultural landscapes

Pollution

No value

Cultural landscapes

Ecological degradation

No value

x

x

Cultural landscapes

Unsuitable and non-compliant fishing areas

No value

x

x

Cultural landscapes

Customary mana whenua

Source of shelter

x

Cultural landscapes

Landforms

Space for habitat, whare, intrinsic

x

Cultural landscapes

Church buildings & properties

Space for habitation, whare, spiritual

Cultural landscapes

Personification of valued entities

Spiritual

x

Cultural landscapes

Sacred landscape (conquest)

Spiritual

x

Cultural landscapes

Taniwha, spiritual entities, or sacred places

Spiritual

x

Cultural landscapes

The transcendent

Spiritual, intrinsic

x

Cultural landscapes

WÄ hi tapu

Spiritual, intrinsic

x

Cultural landscapes

Wairua and Mana

Spiritual, quality of resource/food

x

Dunelands Dunelands, forest clearings, river channels Dunelands, forest clearings, river channels

Beech foreshore and dune system

Habitat for bird species, walking trails

x

Ancestral place Midden

Identification with place Identification with place, ancestors, spiritual, intrinsic

Estuaries

Estaurine fish species

Source of food, habitat

x

Forest clearings Forest clearings, horticultural and agricultural land Forest clearings, horticultural and agricultural land

Forest clearings

Space for habitation, food source

x

Mahinga kai

Food production

x

Pa site

x

Horticultural & agricultural land

Farmland

Space for habitat, whare, intrinsic Identification with place, food production, employment

Horticultural land

Orchards

Food production

Horticultural land

Horticultural gardens

Horticultural land

Papakainga

Food production, employment Identification with place, food production, resources, intrinsic

x

x

x connection

with x

x

x x x x

x

63

64

Ecosystems

Goods and services

Value

Traditional

Modern

Horticultural land

Crops of value

Source of food

x

x

Lakes, rivers, wetlands, lagoons

Customary fisheries

Source of food

x

Landscape

Spiritual

x

Landscape features

The domain of the Atua Cultural feature (within tribal land, sea, waterways)

Availability of land and landscape features

x

Landscape features

Cultural landscapes

Co-evolution with nature

x

Natural ecosystems

Indigeneity

Co-evolution with nature

x

Natural ecosystems

Symbiotic relationship

Co-evolution with nature

x

Natural ecosystems

Indigenous biodiversity

Food source, resources, genetic viability, intrinsic

Natural ecosystems

Endangered bird species

Food, resources, intrinsic

x

Natural ecosystems

Rahui

Maintain ecosystem health

x

Natural ecosystems

Restoration of ecological systems

Maintain ecosystem health

x

Natural ecosystems

Eco-sourcing

Natural genetic variability

x

Natural ecosystems

Cultural signifiers

Property rights

x

Natural ecosystems

Individual bird species

Source of food, resources, intrinsic

x

Natural ecosystems Natural ecosystems, coastal foreshore Natural ecosystems, cultural landscape Natural ecosystems, cultural landscape Natural ecosystems, cultural landscape Natural ecosystems, cultural landscape

Individual ecological entities Food gathering sites of high population density

Source of generosity, intrinsic, food, resources

x

Population viability, food source

x

Ecosystem complexity

Intrinsic

x

Mauri

Intrinsic

x

Whakapapa

Relationships

x

Flora, fauna (species)

Resources, intrinsic

Natural springs

Water quality

Pure water, food, resources

x

River channels

The stream confluence

Food source, resources, space for habitation

x

River channels

Fish pass or eel weir

Maintain ecosystem health

x

x x x

Ecosystems

Goods and services

Value

Traditional

River channels

Riparian vegetation

River channels

River channels

Stream health, habitat, ecosystem connectivity Walking trails, identification with place, resources, means of transport

x

Rivers

Natural springs

Pure water, food, resources

x

Rivers

Puna wai

Spiritual, pure water, food source

x

The heavens

The orientation of the constellations

Timing of events

x

Wetlands

Wetlands

Food source, habitat, resources

Wetlands

Harakeke

Resource, habitat, ecosystem wellbeing

Wetlands, rivers, lakes, lagoons

The watertable

Maintenance of aquatic ecosystem health

Modern x

x

x x x

65

66

Table 7

Cultural services provided by forest ecosystems, as derived from forest lore (Source: A. Cole, personal communication, compiled from Adkin 1948; Carkeek 1966; Hapai Whenua Consultants - Environmental Advocates Ltd 2006; McDonald and O'Donnell 1979; Smith 2008).

Ecosystem type Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems

Ecosystem good or service The mauri of the forest Ceremonial activities (trees) Pathways Forest clearings Seasonality (food/resource supply) Dwellings Timber for construction Tree dwellings Roots Leaves Trunks of trees, small trees and small plants Fungi Pollen of the raupo Hinau berries Tawa berries Aruhe Fern fronds Tawa berries Karaka Tutu Kahikatea Rimu Matai Totara Titoki Titoki Kohia

Value Life force Ceremony Transport Habitation Food variety Shelter Construction materials Habitation (tree dwellings) Food Medicinal, food preparation Construction materials Medicinal, food preparation Food Berry fruit Berry fruit Food staple Food preparation Timber (wet fuel) Berry fruit Berry fruit Berry fruit Berry fruit Berry fruit Berry fruit Berry fruit Vegetable oil Vegetable oil

Scientific name – – – – – – – – – – – – – Elaeocarpus dentatus Beilschmiedia tawa Pteridium aquilinum Beilschmiedia tawa Corynocarpus laevigata Coriaria ruscifolia Podocarpus dacrydioides Dacrydium cupressinum Podocarpus spicatus Podocarpus totara Alectryon excelsum Alectryon excelsum Passiflora tetrandra

67

Ecosystem type Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems

Ecosystem good or service Miro Tarata Rautawhiri Taramea Koheriki Rangiora Kohia Manuka Tarata Rautawhiri Manuka Ake-rautangi Heketara, Kotara Hioi, Whioi Karetu Kauere Konguru, Kopuru, Ponguru Mairehau, maireire Manuka Mokimoki Patotara Piripiri Puakaito Raukawa, syn. Koareare Raurenga Rautawhiri, Tawhiri Roniu Tanguru Taramea Papai root Pohue root

Value Vegetable oil Vegetable gum Vegetable gum Vegetable gum Vegetable gum Vegetable gum Vegetable gum Vegetable gum Vegetable gum Chewing gum Chewing gum Tea Fragrant scent Fragrant scent Fragrant scent Fragrant scent Fragrant scent Fragrant scent Fragrant scent Fragrant scent Fragrant scent Fragrant scent Fragrant scent Fragrant scent Fragrant scent Fragrant scent Fragrant scent Fragrant scent Fragrant scent Fragrant scent Food source Food source

Scientific name Podocarpus ferrugineus Pittosporum eugenioides Pittosporum tenuifolium Aciphylla colensoi Aciphylla squarrosa Melicope ternata Brachyglottis repanda Passiflora tetrandra Leptospermum Pittosporum eugenioides Pittosporum tenuifolium Leptospermum ericoides Dodonea viscosa Olearia Mentha cunninghamii Hierochloe redolens Heirochloe redolens Moss Phebalium nudum Leptospermum ericoides Polypodium pustulatum Cyathodes acerosa Hymenophyllum polyanthos Celmisia spectabilis Nothopanax edgerleyi Trichomanes reniforme Pittosporum tenuifolium Brachycome adorata Olearia Aciphylla Aciphylla squarrosa Calystegia sepium

68

Ecosystem type Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems

Ecosystem good or service Perei root Maikaika root Kukuraho root Rengarenga root Nikau palm (rito or under leaf) Mamaku, Korau Raumahora Raupara Takou Taranui Akaaka Harakeke Rata Pohutukawa Rewarewa Flax Totara Manuka Mako Houhou Weka Huia Moa Pukeko Kaka Koreke Kereru (wood pigeon) Tui Korimako Kokako (crow) Tieke (saddle back) Hihi (stitch bird)

Value Food source Food source (liked by children) Food source Food source Food source Food source Edible herbs Edible herbs Edible herbs Edible herbs Edible herbs Honey Honey Honey Honey Material resource Bark Bark Bark Bark Food source Food source, plumage Food source Food source, plumage Food source, plumage Food source Food source, plumage Food source, plumage Food source Food source (in times of hardship) Food source Food source

Scientific name Gastrodia cunninghamii Microtis maritimus Scirpus maritimus Arthropodium cirrhatum Rhopalostylis sapida Cyathea medullaris na na na na na Phormium sp.

Metrosideros robusta Metrosideros excelsa Knightia excelsa Phormium sp.

Podocarpus totara Leptospermum ericoides Aristotelia serrata Pseudopanax arboreum Gallirallus australis greyi Heteralocha acutirostris e.g. Dinornis spp.

Porphyrio porphyrio melanonotus Nestor meridionalis Coturnix novaezelandiae Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae Prosthemadera novaeseelandiae Anthornis melanura Callaeas cinerea Philesturnus carunculatus Notiomystis cincta

Ecosystem type Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems

Ecosystem good or service Piopio (native thrush) Karuwai (robin) Popokatea (whitehead) Pihipihi (silverye) Miromiro (North Island tomtit) Toetoe (fernbird) Riroriro (grey warbler) Ruru (morepork) Whekau KÄ hu (hawk) Koekoea (long-tailed cuckoo) Kotuku Titi (muttonbird) Kuaka (godwit) Kiore

Value Food source Food source Food source Food source Food source Food source Food source, ecological indicator Food source Food source Food source Food source Food source Food source Food source Food source

Scientific name Turnagra capensis tanagra Petroica australis longipes Mohoua albicilla Zosterops lateralis Petroica macrocephala toitoi Bowdleria punctata Gerygone igata Ninox novaeseelandiae Sceloglaux albifacies Circus approximans Eudynamys taitensis Egretta alba modesta Puffinus griseus Limosa lapponica baueri Rattus exulans

69

Land covers within 5 km buffer

Built Environment Parkland/amenity trees Bare Ground Water Horticultural Pastoral Wetland Scrub/shrubland-indigenous Scrub/shrubland-exotic Managed Trees/Forestry Indigenous Forest

Land cover within 10 km buffers

Built Environment Parkland/amenity trees Bare Ground Water Horticultural Pastoral Wetland Scrub/shrubland-indigenous Scrub/shrubland-exotic Managed Trees/Forestry Indigenous Forest

Graph 9

Environmental context of marae: present land cover near marae.

70

Proportion of PNV surrounding marae in a 5km buffer Rimu-matai-mirototara/kamahi forest Rimu/tawa-kamahi forest Kahikatea-matai/tawamahoe forest Kahikatea-pukatea-tawa forest Rimu-miro/kamahi-red beech-hard beech forest Duneland Wetland Red beech-silver beech forest unclassified

Proportion of PNV surrounding marae in 10km buffer Rimu-matai-mirototara/kamahi forest Rimu/taw a-kamahi forest Matai-kahikatea-totara forest Kahikatea-matai/taw amahoe forest Kahikatea-pukatea-taw a forest Rimu-miro/kamahi-red beech-hard beech forest Mountain beech-red beech forest Duneland Wetland Red beech-silver beech forest Silver beech forest unclassified

Graph 10 Environmental context of marae: past potential natural vegetation near marae.

71

5.

Conclusions

Essentially, all ecosystems in the study area provide ecosystem goods and services. In this heavily modified landscape, many of these services are provisioning services that are the direct result of human enterprise. Supporting and regulating services may be suffering more due to the fact that these goods and services are not actively or directly managed, and the ecosystems that provide many of these sustaining functions are depauperate. In particular, wetlands and forests survive within the study area only as remnants, and their overall functioning is restricted because they are small and fragmented. Connection to cultural services is strong within the study area, but again, the significant loss of native habitat means that the areas where these cultural goods and services can be found has been extensively reduced.

In one respect, this review of ecosystem services constitutes a “State of the

Environment” report for the local area, and can thus provide a local comparison of national and international efforts (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003; Ministry for the Environment 1997; Ministry for the Environment 2007).

The ability to acquire data for particular types of ecosystem services is limited. This is especially true of regulating services, which are mostly flows.

Systems for consistent

monitoring of various ecological and physical processes need to be implemented (and the data made available) to provide direct measures of the landscape. In general, information is more readily available for stocks (or goods) than for flows. Moreover, data for provisioning services, or those directly used and consumed by humans, is more available than data for intangible or underlying, supporting services.

However, the study area is intimately connected to the array of ecosystem services provided by natural resources for its economic health and socio-cultural vitality. It should also be remembered that the increasing— and increasingly urbanized—population relies not only on goods and services provided locally, but also from outside the study area. In other words, the population does not exist solely from resources in situ and is not self-reliant.

72

6.

Acknowledgements

This research project benefited from the assistance of several people and institutions. In particular, I thank Garth Harmsworth and Janice Willoughby for contribution of data, maps, and sound research advice. The contribution of data by several organisations, including Landcare Research, the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA), the Department of Conservation, and the Greater Wellington Regional Council, is much appreciated. Garth Harmsworth and Anthony Cole provided helpful reviews of earlier drafts.

Production assistance was received from Jemma Callaghan and Derrylea Hardy.

This

research is part of the Iwi Ecoservices project (MAUX 0502), funded by Foundation for Research, Science and Technology contract number EOI-10106-ECOS-MAU.

73

74

7.

References

Adkin L. 1948. Horowhenua: its Mâori place-names & their topographic & historic background. Wellington: Department of Internal Affairs.

AsureQuality. 2007. AgriBase™. Auckland: AsureQuality.

Baisden WT, Andrew R. 2003. Mapping soil organic carbon content. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd. 8 p.

Bascompte J, Rodriguez-Trelles F. 1998. Eradication thresholds in epidemiology, conservation biology and genetics. Journal of Theoretical Biology 192:415-418.

Brady NC, Weil RR. 1996. The nature and properties of soils. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 740 p.

Brosi BJ, Daily GC, Davis FW. 2006. Agricultural and urban landscapes. In: Scott JM, Goble DD, Davis FW, editors. The Endangered Species Act at thirty: Conserving biodiversity in human-dominated landscapes. Washington DC: Island Press. p 256274.

Buyanovsky GA, Wagner GH. 1998. Carbon cycling in cultivated land and its global significance. Global Change Biology 4:131-141.

Campbell IB. 1979. Soils of Rangitikei County, North Island, New Zealand. New Zealand Soil Bureau Bulletin 38.

Carkeek WC. 1966. The Kapiti coast, Māori history and place names. Wellington: A. H. & A. W. Reed.

Cole AO. 2012. The vegetation cover of the Horowhenua and Manawatū regions ca. 18001840: towards a spatial reconstruction. Ngā Māramatanga-ā-Papa (Iwi Ecosystem Services) Research Monograph Series No. 1. Palmerston North, Iwi Ecosystem Services Research Team, Massey University & Landcare Research/Manaaki Whenua.

Cole AO, Patterson MG. 1997. The economic value of New Zealand's biodiversity.

Palmerston North, New Zealand: School of Resource and Environmental Planning. 88 p.

Costanza R, d'Arge R, deGroot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O'Neill RV, Paruelo J and others. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387(6630):253–260.

Cowie JD. 1978. Soils and agriculture of Kairanga County, North Island, New Zealand. Soil Bureau Bulletin 33.

Cowie JD, Fitzgerald PD, Owers W. 1967. Soils of the Manawatu-Rangitikei sand country.

Soil Bureau Bulletin 29.

Crown Minerals. 2008. Crown Minearls Technical Data. Crown Minerals, Ministry of Economic Development.

Daily GC, editor. 1997. Nature's Services. Washington D.C.: Island Press. 392 p.

Dale VH. 1997. The relationship between land-use change and climate change. Ecological Applications 7(3):753-769.

Death F, Death R. 2005. River health of the Manawatu-Wanganui Region: Invertebrate and periphyton communities. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Institute of Natural Resources - Ecology, Massey University. 73 p.

Department of Conservation. 2005. Biodiversity zone in Tararua Forest Park. Wellington: Department of Conservation, Wellington Conservancy.

Department of Conservation. 2007a. Conservation Units geospatial layers. Wellington: Department of Conservation.

75

Department of Conservation. 2007b. Vegetation: Features of Tararua Forest Park.

Wellington: Department of Conservation.

Eason CT. 2002. Technical review of sodium monofluoroacetate (1080) toxicology. Animal Health Board; Landcare Research New Zealand. 24 p.

Elliot AH, Alexander RB, Schwarz GE, Shankar U, Sukias JPS, McBride GB. 2005.

Estimation of nutrient sources and transport for New Zealand using the hybrid mechanistic-statistical model SPARROW. Journal of Hydrology (NZ) 44(1):1-27.

Fletcher JR. 1987. Land use capability classification of the Taranaki-Manawatu Region: A bulletin to accompany the New Zealand Land Resource Inventory Worksheets.

Wellington: Ministry of Works and Development. 228 p.

Gibbs HS. 1957. Provisional soil map of Horowhenua County, North Island. unpublished soil map.

Golubiewski NE. 2012. Defining a functional landscape for the geospatial identification of ecosystem services. Ngā Māramatanga-ā-Papa (Iwi Ecosystem Services) Research Monograph Series No. 8. Palmerston North, Iwi Ecosystem Services Research Team, Massey University & Landcare Research/Manaaki Whenua.

Guenther A. 1997. Seasonal and spatial variations in natural volatile organic compound emissions. Ecological Applications 7(1):34-45.

Hapai Whenua Consultants - Environmental Advocates Ltd. 2006. Greater Ôtaki community freshwater vision Ôtaki, New Zealand: Hapai Whenua Consultants - Environmental Advocates Ltd. Harmsworth GR. Maori environmental performance indicators for wetland condition and trend. In: Clarkson BD, Ward J, editors; 2002a 2-3 May 2002; Brentwood Hotel, Kilbirnie, Wellington.

Harmsworth GR. 2002b. Māori environmental performance indicators for wetland condition and trend. Coordinated Monitoring of New Zealand Wetlands, Phase 2, Goal 2.: Landcare Research Contract Report for the Ministry for the Environment and Lincoln University. MfE SMF Project 5105. Report nr LC0102/099. 65 p.

Harmsworth GR. 2007a. Maori values and wetland enhancement. 1: Maori values - concepts and perspectives. Landcare Research poster series. FRST programme "Maintaining and restoring weltands" (C09X0508). Palmerston North, New Zealand: Landcare Research.

Harmsworth GR. 2007b. Maori values and wetland enhancement. 2: Maori environmental monitoring - process and indicators. Landcare Research poster series. FRST programme "Maintaining and restoring weltands" (C09X0508). Palmerston North, New Zealand: Landcare Research.

Harmsworth GR. 2007c. Maori values and wetland enhancement. 3: Taonga classifications and species. Assessing whether culturally significant taonga species are present or absent. Landcare Research poster series. FRST programme "Maintaining and restoring weltands" (C09X0508). Palmerston North, New Zealand: Landcare Research.

Hewitt AE. 1993. Methods and rationale of the New Zealand Soils Classification. Lincoln, New Zealand: Manaaki Whenua - Landcare Research. 71 p.

Hewitt AE. 1998a. New Zealand Soil Classification. Lincoln: Manaaki Whenua - Landcare Research New Zealand. Report nr 1. 133 p.

Hewitt AE. 1998b. The New Zealand Soils Classification. In: Molloy L, editor. Soils in the New Zealand landscape, the living mantle. 2nd ed. Wellington: Mallinson Rendel and New Zealand Society of Soil Science. p 229-243.

Hicks M, Shankar U. 2003. Sediment from New Zealand rivers. NIWA miscellaneous chart series. National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research. Report nr 79.

76

Hicks M, Shankar U, McKerchar A. 2003. Sediment yield estimates : a GIS tool. Water & Atmosphere 11(4):26-27.

Houghton RA, Davidson EA, Woodwell GM. 1998. Missing sinks, feedbacks, and understanding the role of terrestrial ecosystems in the global carbon balance. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 12(1):25-34.

Husheer SW. 2005. Vegetation monitoring, Tararua Forest Park, New Zealand, 1958-85.

Wellington: Department of Conservation. Report nr 212. 42 p.

Jenny H. 1980. The soil resources: Origin and behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag. p 232245.

Kear BS. 1965. Soils and land utilisation in the Kairanga County. New Zealand Geographer 21:38-52.

Lane P, Cameron G. 2004. Harvesting intentions study: Southern North Island 2004 - 2010.

Wellington: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 9 p.

Larned S, Scarsbrook M, Snelder T, Norton N, Biggs B. 2004. Water quality in low-elevation streams and rivers of New Zealand: recent state and trends in contrasting land-cover classes. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38:347â&#x20AC;&#x201C;366.

Leathwick JR, Morgan F, Wilson G, Rutledge D, McLeod M, Johnston K. 2002. Land environments of New Zealand: A technical guide. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment. 237 p.

Leathwick JR, Stephens RTT. 1998. Climate surfaces for New Zealand. Hamilton, New Zealand: Landcare Research. 19 p.

Leathwick JR, Wilson G, Rutledge D, Wardle P, Morgan F, Johnston K, McLeod M, Kirkpatrick R. 2003. Land environments of New Zealand. Auckland: David Bateman Ltd. 184 p.

Matyssek R, Reich P, Oren R, Winner WE. 1995. Response mechanisms of conifers to air pollutants. In: Hinckley TM, Smith W, editors. Ecophysiology of coniferous forests.

San Diego: Academic Press, Inc. p 255-308.

McDonald RA, O'Donnell E. 1979. Early days in Horowhenua. Auckland: Richards Publishing.

McKinnon M. 2007. Manawatu and Horowhenua places. In: Phillips J, editor. Te Ara- The encyclopedia of New Zealand. Wellington: Ministry for Culture and Heritage.

Meridian Energy. 2006. Te Apiti Wind Farm. Meridian Energy's Information Resources.

Christchurch: Meridian Energy. 2 p.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2003. Ecosystems and human well-being: A framework for assessment. Washington D.C.: Island Press. 245 p.

Ministry for the Environment. 1997. State of the Environment Report. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.

Ministry for the Environment. 2004. New Zealand Land Cover Database 2 User Guide.

Wellington: New Zealand Climate Change Office, Ministry for the Environment. 24 p.

Ministry for the Environment. 2007. Environment New Zealand 2007. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment. 456 p.

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 2003. Agricultural production survey. Wellington: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 2006. North central monitoring report. Wellington: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 177 p.

Molloy L. 1998. Soils in the New Zealand landscape, the living mantle. Wellington: Mallinson Rendel and New Zealand Society of Soil Science. 239 p.

77

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA). 2007. Water Resources Explorer NZ (WRENZ). National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA),.

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA). 2008. New Zealand Freshwater Fish Database. National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA).

National Water and Soil Conservation Authority (NWASCA). 1986. New Zealand Land Resource Inventory Worksheets. Wellington: NWASCA. National Water and Soil Conservation Organisation (NWASCO). 1975-79. New Zealand Land Resource Inventory Worksheets. Wellington: NWASCO. New Zealand Forest Owners Association Inc. 2005. New Zealand forest industry facts & figures 2005/2006. Wellington: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 28 p.

New Zealand Soil Bureau. 1954. General survey of soils in the North Island. New Zealand Soil Bureau.

Newsome PFJ, Wilde RH, Willoughby EJ. 2000. Land resource information system spatial data layers. Palmerston North: Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd. 75 p.

NIWA. 2006. National River Water Quality Network national monthly median data 1989– 2004. Hamilton: NIWA. Page MJ. 1995. Land use capability classification of the Wellington region: A report to accompany the second edition New Zealand Land Resource Inventory. Lincoln, New Zealand: Manaaki Whenua Press. 127 p.

Palmer AS, Wilde RH. 1990. Soil definitions and interpretations for Otaki District Soil Resources Study, North Island. Unpublished map.

Pielke RA, Sr., Avissar R, Raupach M, Dolman AJ, Zeng X, Denning AS. 1998. Interactions between the atmosphere and terrestrial ecosystems: Influence on weather and climate.

Global Change Biology 4:461-475.

Richardson J. 2005. NIWA Atlas of New Zealand Freshwater Fishes. Hamilton, New Zealand: National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA).

Rijkse WC. 1977. Soils of Pohangina county, North Island, New Zealand. New Zealand Soil Bureau Bulletin 42.

Rowntree RA, Nowak DJ. 1991. Quantifying the role of urban forests in removing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Journal of Arboriculture 17(10):269-275.

Sala OE, Austin AT. 2000. Methods of estimating aboveground net primary productivity. In: Sala OE, Jackson RB, Mooney HA, Howarth RW, editors. Methods in ecosystem science. New York: Springer. p 31-43.

Schimel DS. 1995. Terrestrial ecosystems and the carbon cycle. Global Change Biology 1:77-91.

Schlapfer F, Schmid B, Seidl I. 1999. Expert estimates about effects of biodiversity on ecosystem processes and services. Oikos 84(2):346-352.

Scott NA, Tate KR, Ford-Robertson J, Giltrap DJ, Smith CT. 1999. Soil carbon storage in plantation forests and pastures: land-use change implications. Tellus Series B Chemical and Physical Meteorology 51B(2):326-335.

Scott NA, White JD, Townsend JA, Whitehead D, Leathwick JR, Hall GMJ, Marden M, Rogers GND, Watson AJ, Whaley PT. 2000. Carbon and nitrogen distribution and accumulation in a New Zealand scrubland ecosystem. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30:1246-1255.

Smith H. 2012. Hei Whenua Ora ki Te Hākari. Reinstating the Mauri of valued ecosystems history, lessons and experiences from the Hei Whenua Ora ki Te Hākari/ Te Hākari Dune Wetland Restoration project. Ngā Māramatanga-ā-Papa (Iwi Ecosystem

78

Services) Research Monograph Series No. 9. Palmerston North, Iwi Ecosystem Services Research Team, Massey University & Landcare Research/Manaaki Whenua.

Smith SM. 2008. Hei Whenua Ora: Hapﾅｫ and iwi approaches for reinstating valued ecosystems within cultural landscape [PhD]. Palmerston North: Massey University.

328 p.

Snelder T, Biggs B, Weatherhead M. 2004. New Zealand River Environment Classification Guide. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment. 145 p.

Stohlgren TJ, Chase TN, Pielke RA, Sr., Kittel TGF, Baron JS. 1998. Evidence that local land use practices influence regional climate, vegetation, and stream flow patterns in adjacent natural areas. Global Change Biology 4(5):495-504.

Tate KR, Ross DJ. 1997. Elevated CO2 and moisture effects on soil carbon storage and cycling in temperate grasslands. Global Change Biology 3(3):225-235.

Tate KR, Scott NA, Parshotam A, Brown LJ, Wilde RH, Giltrap DJ, Trustrum NA, Gomez B, Ross DJ. 2000. A multi-scale analysis of a terrestrial carbon budget: Is New Zealand a source or sink of carbon? Agriculture, Eocsystems and Environment 82:229-246.

Taylor NH. 1948. Soil Map of New Zealand. Wellington: DSIR. Taylor NH, Cox JE. 1956. The soil pattern of New Zealand. New Zealand Institute of Agricultural Science Proceedings:17 p.

Taylor NH, Pohlen I. 1962. Classification of New Zealand soils. Soils of New Zealand Part I. Soil Bureau Bulletin 26(1):15-33.

Templeton AR. 1994. Biodiversity at the molecular genetic level: experience from disparate macroorganisms. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 345:59-64.

Todd Energy. 2008. Generation: Mangahao Hydro. Information Page. Wellington: Todd Energy.

Trotter CM, Marden M, Scott NA, Pinkney EJ, Rodda NJ, Rowan D, Townsend JA, Watson AJ. 2001. Carbon storage in manuka/kanuka: Sequestration rates in indigenous shrublands and reverting farmland. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Landcare Research. Report nr LC0102/008. 13 p.

TrustPower Limited. 2003. Tararua Wind Farm. Tauranga, New Zealand: TrustPower Limited.

Webb TH, Wilson AD. 1995. A manual of land characteristics for evaluation of rural land.

Lincoln, New Zealand: Manaaki Whenua Press. 32 p.

Willoughby EJ, Harmsworth GR, Golubiewski NE. 2007. Cultural sites within the Ngﾄ》i Raukawa-ecoservices project boundary. Map output for the FRST programme: Ecosystem services benefits in terrestrial ecosystems for iwi" (MAUX0502).

Palmerston North, New Zealand: Landcare Research.

With KA, Crist TO. 1995. Critical thresholds in species' responses to landscape structure.

Ecology 76(8):2446-2459.

Woods RA, Hendriks J, Henderson RD, Tait AB. 2006. Estimating mean flow of New Zealand rivers. . Journal of Hydrology (NZ) 45(2):95-110.

79

80

8.

Figures

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149