Instream intrinsic values of the Te Puna Creek catchment J. Benn Technical Support Department of Conservation Canterbury Conservancy Christchurch (25 October 2011) Draft/living document Disclaimer This report is a draft/living document and thus, it is subject to frequent changes as new information becomes available and editorial updates are made. The report is a summary of currently available literature but it is not a review of the accuracy or integrity of the original information. Therefore, the Department of Conservation takes no responsibility for the accuracy of this report or the findings and opinions expressed herein. Document1 1
Contents 1. Introduction...3 2. Methods...3 2.1 Species lists...3 3. Literature summary...3 3.1 Information gaps...3 3.2 Habitats...3 3.3 Biodiversity...4 3.3.1 Fish...4 4. Intrinsic value summary...5 5. References...5 6. Figures...6 7. Appendix...6 Document1 2
1. Introduction This report summarises current information on the instream intrinsic values of Te Puna Creek catchment, located in South Canterbury, between the Makikihi and Hook river catchments (Figure 1). This report is intended for internal use by Canterbury Conservancy and Area office staff of the Department of Conservation (DOC). Te Puna Creek catchment is made up of a series of small, un-named, spring-fed streams, covering an area of approximately 42.5 km 2. Te Puna Creek (local name), is the longest of these channels at around 15.5 km in length. Te Puna Creek originates near Hook Bush and meanders in an easterly direction across the coastal plain to its mouth, located approximately two kilometres south of the Makikihi River mouth. 2. Methods A full literature search for Te Puna Creek was carried out in DOC, Environment Canterbury (ECan) and university catalogues, scientific journals and on the internet. All relevant literature was annotated and summarised in reverse chronological order, from the most recent to the oldest. The literature annotation is intended for bibliographic purposes only it is not a literature review. Thus, the content of each article was summarised but not assessed for scientific or factual integrity. The literature search ended on the 15 September 2011 no literature was included after this date. 2.1 Species lists Lists of endemic, native and other significant species identified in Te Puna Creek catchment were compiled (Appendix 1). This information was collected using information from the literature search, surveys and field observations. Appendix 1 contains common, Māori and species names, threat status and references pertaining to each species. Species are listed alphabetically within each threat ranking, descending from nationally critical species to introduced and naturalised species. 3. Literature summary 3.1 Information gaps Apart from three references to Canterbury mudfish (Neochanna burrowsius), no other information in the fields investigated was found relating to Te Puna Creek catchment. Thus, there are significant information gaps in all areas. Baseline surveys need to be undertaken to help fill these gaps. 3.2 Habitats The Te Puna Creek catchment provides significant habitat for Canterbury mudfish. Taylor and Champion (1996) produced an inventory of aquatic habitats of value in Canterbury and noted the Te Puna ponds as an ecologically significant habitat for Canterbury mudfish. DOC (2003) prepared a recovery plan for various species of New Zealand mudfish. The Canterbury mudfish population at Te Puna ponds was considered by DOC to be a key site with the key value being that it was within an Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU). Document1 3
3.3 Biodiversity The only biodiversity information found for Te Puna Creek catchment related to fish, Canterbury mudfish in particular. Perch (Perca fluviatilis) have also been observed in the catchment (Eldon 1979) 3.3.1 Fish The New Zealand Freshwater Fish database (NZFFD), accessed on 9.9.2011, showed that two fish surveys had been undertaken in Te Puna Creek catchment in 2005 and 2008. Canterbury mudfish were found at three locations in the catchment two within an un-named pond and one in an un-named tributary channel of Te Puna Creek O Brien and Dunn (2007) assessed Canterbury mudfish sub-populations; they summarised work from previous researchers (see below), mapped historical locations of the species and provided new data on Canterbury mudfish abundance and length. Canterbury mudfish were caught in Te Puna ponds by Gee minnow trapping in 1995 and electric fishing in 2001. Daly (2004) reported on instream values of Canterbury s rivers and lakes and recorded Te Puna Creek as a key DOC site for Canterbury mudfish. This meant it was a key site for native fish monitoring undertaken by DOC (also see DOC 2003 below). No other details were given. Davey et al. (2003) studied the genetic diversity of Canterbury mudfish and used material collected from fish in Te Puna ponds. DOC (2003) prepared a recovery plan for various species of New Zealand mudfish. The Canterbury mudfish population in Te Puna Creek was considered by DOC to be a key site with the key value being that it was within an Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU). Harraway (2000) recorded Canterbury mudfish habitat in the Raukapuka Area and identified a site in the Te Puna Creek catchment which contained Canterbury mudfish. This habitat was described as a modified spring (NZMS J40 584153; Figure 1) set back from the main stream and was never known to dry up. Although some sheep grazed the stream margins and fertiliser/chemicals ran off into the stream, the habitat was not considered to be under serious threat from the present farm management. The stream supported a good population of Canterbury mudfish (>300 fish). Taylor and Champion (1996) produced an inventory of aquatic habitats of value in Canterbury and noted Te Puna ponds as an ecologically significant habitat for Canterbury mudfish. Eldon (1979) described the habitat and inter-specific relationships of the Canterbury mudfish. Te Puna stream was described as comprising deep pools separated by shallow, dry runs and was prone to flooding. Perch were also found in some of the pools. Document1 4
4. Intrinsic value summary The main values of the Te Puna Creek catchment are that it contains populations of Canterbury mudfish and that the catchment provides significant habitat for the species (e.g. Eldon 1979; Taylor & Champion 1996; DOC 2003; O Brien & Dunn 2007). 5. References Daly, A. 2004. Inventory of instream values for rivers and lakes of Canterbury, New Zealand. Environment Canterbury (ECan, Christchurch). 17 p. plus appendices. Davey, M.L; O Brien, L.K.; Ling, N.; Gleeson, D.M.; 2003. Population genetic structure of the Canterbury mudfish (Neochanna burrowsius): biogeography and conservation implications. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 37: 13 21. Department of Conservation. 2003. New Zealand mudfish (Neochanna spp.) recovery plan 2003 13. Department of Conservation, Wellington. Threatened Species Recovery Plan 51. 25 p. Eldon, G.A. 1979. Habitat and interspecific relationships of the Canterbury mudfish, Neochanna burrowsius (Salmoniformes: Galaxiidae). New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 13(1): 111 119. Harraway, S. 2000. Distribution and habitat in the Raukapuka Area of the Canterbury mudfish (Neochanna burrowsius). Department of Conservation, Raukapuka Area office, Geraldine. 22 p. New Zealand Freshwater Fish Database (NZFFD). Accessed 9.9.2011. Administered by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA). http://fwdb.niwa.cri.nz/ O Brien, L.K.; Dunn, N.R. 2007. Preliminary Canterbury mudfish (Neochanna burrowsius) sub-population assessment. Prepared for the Department of Conservation, Canterbury Conservancy by Ichthyo-niche, Dunedin. 143 p. Taylor, M.J.; Champion P. 1996. Aquatic habitats with indigenous floristic or faunistic value in the Canterbury Region. Updated by Main, M.C. (1998). Environment Canterbury, Christchurch. Report No. U98.63. 6 p. plus appendices. Document1 5
6. Figures Figure 1: Te Puna Creek catchment location. 7. Appendix Appendix 1. Fish species identified in the Te Puna Creek catchment. Species names and threat status from Allibone et al. (2010). Common name Species names Threat status References Canterbury mudfish Neochanna burrowsius Nationally critical Eldon 1979; Harraway 2000; Davey et al. 2003; DOC 2003; Daly 2004; O Brien & Dunn 2007; NZFFD 2011 perch Perca fluviatilis Introduced and naturalised Eldon 1979 Document1 6