Register      Login
Wildlife Research Wildlife Research Society
Ecology, management and conservation in natural and modified habitats
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > WR > WR09072
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 37(5)

Management of animal and plant pests in New Zealand – patterns of control and monitoring by regional agencies

Richard Clayton A and Phil Cowan A B
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Landcare Research, PO Box 40, Lincoln 7640, New Zealand.

B Corresponding author. Email: cowanp@landcareresearch.co.nz

Wildlife Research 37(5) 360-371 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR09072
Submitted: 10 June 2009  Accepted: 8 April 2010   Published: 11 August 2010

Abstract

Context. Significant resources are spent annually in New Zealand controlling pests to mitigate impacts on native biodiversity and agricultural production, but there are few reliable estimates of the benefits. Concerns have been expressed about inconsistent monitoring methodologies, differing frequencies and intensities of control across organisations, and poor definition of desired outcomes.

Aims. To conduct and report on a survey of animal and plant pest control and monitoring by regional agencies, to identify issues with current practice and to provide advice on improvements.

Methods. We surveyed 15 regional agencies in New Zealand about the pest control and associated monitoring undertaken during 2005–08. We recorded the pests targeted, the control work done and its operational details, any result and/or outcome monitoring conducted, and estimated costs.

Key results. About 21% of the NZ$20 million expenditure on pest control was for monitoring. Excluding compliance (62%), monitoring changes in pest populations accounted for 31% of the total monitoring expenditure, whereas only 7% was spent measuring response in the resource that was supposedly being protected. The most common monitoring design (71%) comprised a single treatment area with no non-treatment area, in which only results were monitored. Only three programs (4%) had both treatment and non-treatment areas and both results and outcome monitoring.

Conclusions. Such limited outcome monitoring constrains severely the ability of regional and local authorities to provide robust justification for their pest management activities and expenditures.

Implications. Improved outcome monitoring requires better design of and additional resources for monitoring programs, improved institutional/political support for long-term programs, and better definition of long-term outcomes and objectives for pest management.

Additional keywords: benefits, costs, experimental design, pest management, survey.


Acknowledgements

This project would not have been achievable without the help and patience of many staff in the regional and district councils, particularly Bill Martyn, James Lambie and Campbell Leckie, and the support of all the biosecurity managers. Ben Reddiex and Mike Harre (MAFBNZ) provided much helpful advice and guidance. Mark Fuglestad helped create the database. Guy Forrester and the late Greg Arnold provided statistical advice. Bruce Warburton, Chris Jones, Campbell Leckie and Henrik Moller commented on the manuscript, which was edited by Anne Austin. The project was funded jointly by the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology Envirolink program, a consortium of 15 regional and unitary authorities, and MAFBNZ.


References

Allen R. B. , and Lee E. G. (Eds) (2006). ‘Biological Invasions in New Zealand.’ (Springer-Verlag: Berlin.)

Caughley G. (1998). Control of wild animals. In ‘The Future of New Zealand’s Wild Animals. Seminar 2000 Proceedings, New Zealand Deerstalker’s Association’. pp. 101–103. (New Zealand Deerstalker’s Association: Christchurch.)

Choquenot D. , and Warburton B. (1998). How much pest monitoring is enough? Allocation of monitoring resources in pest management programmes. Landcare Research Contract Report LC9899/05 for Department of Conservation, Wellington.

Clayton R. I. , and Cowan P. E. (2009). Best practice operational and outcome monitoring for pest management – a review of existing council approaches and activity. Landcare Research Contract Report LC0809/085 for Horizons Regional Council, Palmerston North.

Dawson, D. G. , and Bull, P. C. (1975). Counting birds in New Zealand forests. Notornis 22, 101–109.
Department of Conservation (2008). Statement of Intent 2008–2011. Department of Conservation, Wellington.

Funk, J. , and Kerr, S. (2007). Restoring forests through carbon farming on Maori land in New Zealand/Aotearoa. Mountain Research and Development 27, 202–205.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Gear I. (2010). Physical control and monitoring tools. Future of pest management working paper 3. Available at http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/pests/surv-mgmt/pmp-working-paper-3.pdf [Verified 25 March 2010].

Hackwell K. , and Bertram G. (1999). ‘Pest and Weeds. The Cost of Restoring an Indigenous Dawn Chorus.’ (New Zealand Conservation Authority: Wellington.)

Hanford P. (2000). ‘Native Forest Monitoring. A Guide for Forest Owners and Managers.’ (Forme Consulting Group: Wellington.)

Harris S. (1999). Regional implementation of the Biosecurity Act 1993. MAF Policy Technical Paper 99/4, Wellington.

Hone J. (2007). ‘Wildlife Damage Control: Principles for Managing Vertebrate Pests.’ (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne.)

Hurst J. M. , and Allen R. B. (2007 a). ‘A Permanent Plot Method for Monitoring Indigenous Forests – Field Protocols.’ (Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research: Lincoln, New Zealand.)

Hurst J. M. , and Allen R. B. (2007 b). ‘The Recce Method for Describing New Zealand Vegetation – Field Protocols.’ (Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research: Lincoln, New Zealand.)

Jones C. (2008 a). Performance Measurement in New Zealand Pest Management. A review of national and international processes and requirements for a national performance measurement framework. Landcare Research Contract Report LC0809/015 for MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, Wellington.

Jones C. (2008 b). Demonstrating the Value of Performance Measurement: a Series of Case Studies. Landcare Research Contract Report LC0809/060 for MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, Wellington.

Jones C. (2009). Alignment of council pest management programmes with intervention logic models for performance measurement. Landcare Research Contract Report LC0910/016 for MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, Wellington.

King C. M. (2005). ‘Handbook of New Zealand Mammals.’ (Oxford University Press: Auckland.)

Lawless P. , Harre M. , Matthews F. , Petersen L.-K. , and Jones C. (2010). Future of pest management working paper 1. Available at http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/pests/surv-mgmt/pmp-working-paper-1.pdf [Verified 25 March 2010].

Lee W. G. , McGlone M. , and Wright E. (2005). Biodiversity Inventory and Monitoring: a review of national and international systems and a proposed framework for future biodiversity monitoring by the Department of Conservation. Landcare Research Contract Report LC0405/122.

McArdle, B. H. (1996). Levels of evidence in studies of competition, predation and disease. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 20, 7–15.
McNutt K. , Wright E. , Greene T. , and O’Donnell C. (2007). ‘DOC’s Inventory and Monitoring Toolbox – Why are We Standardising Monitoring Methods?’ DOC Science Poster 96. (DOC Science and Technical Publishing, Department of Conservation: Wellington.)

Nimmo Bell (2009). Economic costs of pests to New Zealand. MAF Biosecurity New Zealand Technical Paper No: 2009/31.

Norbury D. , Warburton B. , and Webster R. (2001). Long-term monitoring of mammalian pest abundance in Canterbury. Landcare Research Contract Report LC0001/144 for Department of Conservation, Wellington.

NPCA (2008). ‘Possum Population Monitoring Using the Trap Catch Method.’ (National Possum Control Agencies: Wellington.)

Parkes, J. , and Murphy, E. (2003). Management of introduced mammals in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 30, 335–359.
Partridge T. R. , Whaley K. J. , and Hunter G. G. (2002). Pest plant control monitoring techniques for regional and district councils. Part 1 Monitoring Framework. Landcare Research Contract Report LC0001/076 for Regional Council Biosecurity Managers Group, Christchurch.

Payton I. J. , Pekelharing C. J. , and Frampton C. M. (1999). ‘Foliar Browse Index: A Method for Monitoring Possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) Damage to Plant Species and Forest Communities.’ (Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research: Lincoln, New Zealand.)

Raffaelli, D. , and Moller, H. (1999). Manipulative field experiments in animal ecology: do they promise more than they can deliver? Advances in Ecological Research 30, 299–338.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Reddiex B. , and Parkes J. (2003). ‘Conservation benefits of Animal Health Board possum control on public conservation lands. I. Experimental design.’ Landcare Research Contract Report LC0203/062 for Department of Conservation, Wellington.

Reddiex, B. , Forsyth, D. M. , McDonald-Madden, E. , Einoder, L. D. , Griffioen, P. A. , Chick, R. R. , and Robley, A. J. (2006). Control of pest mammals for biodiversity protection in Australia. I. Patterns of control and monitoring. Wildlife Research 33, 691–709.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Roy B. , Popay I. , Champion P. , James T. , and Rahman A. (2004). ‘An Illustrated Guide to Common Weeds of New Zealand.’ (New Zealand Plant Protection Society: Canterbury, New Zealand.)

Sinclair, A. R. E. , and Krebs, C. J. (2002). Complex numerical responses to top-down and bottom-up processes in vertebrate populations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 357, 1221–1231.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | PubMed |

Sweetapple, P. J. , and Nugent, G. (2007). Ship rat demography and diet following possum control in a mixed podocarp-hardwood forest. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 31, 186–201.


Walker, P. T. (1983). Crop losses: the need to quantify the effects of pests, diseases and weeds on agricultural production. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 9, 119–158.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Zavaleta, E. S. , Hobbs, R. J. , and Mooney, H. A. (2001). Viewing invasive species removal in a whole-ecosystem context. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16, 454–459.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |





Appendix 1.  Pest animals under management by RUAs, with the number of operations in which they were specifically targeted
Click to zoom



Appendix 2.  Pest plants under management by RUAs, with the number of operations in which they were specifically targeted
Click to zoom