| description:
|
<DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>Objective Reference - zA304706</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>Thirty-three permanent monitoring plots were established in Tauranga Harbour and </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>17 were established in Whakatāne Harbour at locations identified in Fitzgerald et al.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>(2019) based on vegetation and habitat mapping completed by Wildland Consultants </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>2013 and Beadel et al. 1992. Whakatāne Harbour plots were surveyed between 2 and </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>25 June 2020, Tauranga Harbour plots were surveyed between 8 and 29 June 2020 </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>with the exception of one plot (Plot TAU10) which was surveyed on 19 March 2020. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>The location of all plots monitored is provided in Table 1 and 2. Each plot was 5 </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>5 metres and marked with either metal poles (c.10 millimetres diameter, 2 metre</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>length - tops bent over) wooden posts (c.40 millimetres diameter, c.445 millimetres</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>length).</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Back-up plots were identified by Fitzgerald et al. (2019), these were utilised when the </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>original plot was either inaccessible, no permission was provided, or the plot was </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>dominated by exotic pest plant species (such as pampas (Cortaderia selloana) at plots </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>WHK 2 and 4). Replacement plots were chosen based on similar vegetation structure, </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>relative proximity to the original plot, and accessibility. There were relatively fewer </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>back-up plots for Tauranga Harbour, therefore the replacement plots used were not in </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>the same wetland as the original plots, and were chosen based on similar vegetation </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>structure and accessibility. As per the client’s request back-up plots were not </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>established for Te Hopai Island (Plots TAU2, 3, 4, and 6) and Opureora plots </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>(Plot TAU15) for which access was denied.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>Within each plot the following measurements were undertaken:</SPAN></P><P><SPAN> A five minute bird count as per Hartley (2012). Birds were recorded to a </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>maximum of 100 metres from the observer. In most instances, records were added </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>to ebird (www.ebird.org).</SPAN></P><P><SPAN> At least two photographs were taken as per Clarkson et al. (2004). An additional </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>two photographs were taken at the majority of plots to provide a better visual </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>representation of the plot. These were of the south west corner facing northeastern and of the northern edge of the plot. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN> Two soil samples were collected (using a 5 cm diameter and 7.5 cm deep corer) </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>from just outside the south-western corner (to reduce damage to the plot) </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>following the methods of Clarkson et al. (2004). These were analysed by Hill </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Laboratories for water content, bulk density, pH, conductivity, total carbon, total </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>nitrogen, and total phosphorus. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN> Foliage samples (five grams of foliage, from the tips of vegetation) were</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>collected for a common species in each plot. These were analysed by Hill </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Laboratories for total carbon, nitrogen and phosphorous content. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN> Vegetation monitoring followed the methods of Clarkson et al. (2004):</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>- All vascular plant species were identified and recorded. Usnea and other </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>lichens and epiphytes were recorded to the lowest possible taxonomic level.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>- The percentage cover for each canopy species within the plot regardless of </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>whether rooted in the plot or not was estimated.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>- The percentage cover of each species in the remaining vegetation layers was </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>estimated. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>- Any species in the vicinity that were growing in the same vegetation type and </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>were not encountered in the plot were listed. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>- The maximum and average height of each species in the plot was recorded. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN> Vegetation-based plot indicator scores and condition index as per Clarkson et al.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>(2004) were calculated. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN> The following physical parameters were measured in each plot from the southwestern (origin) corner:</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>- Redox (ORP) measurements, taken at 5 cm and 15 cm depths with a YSI </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>dissolved oxygen meter (in tidal environments the water table was often too </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>low to measure Redox). </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>- The water table depth was measured (if <30 cm). Note that in tidal </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>environments this only represented the lower tide conditions.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>- Water temperature, pH, and conductivity. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>- In 2020-21 a total of 57 additional permanent monitoring plots were established in the 2021 monitoring round, across the following locations: Maketū Estuary (6), Waihī Estuary (10), Ōhiwa Harbour (18), Waiōtahe Estuary (13), and Ōpōtiki Estuary (10).</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>- In 2021-22 a total of 31 additional permanent monitoring plots were established in the 2022 monitoring round across the following locations: Waihī Estuary (11 plots), Ōhiwa Estuary (14 plots), Waiōtahe Estuary (4 plots), and Tauranga Estuary (2 plots).</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>- 7 plots were established within the Waihi Estuary in February 2023 (A4354815).</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV> |