A Snapshot of Seedling Growth Dynamics on Stanley Island

A SNAP SHO T OF SE EDL ING G RO WT H DYNA MICS O N STANL EY I SLAND

JO SHU A COLE

DI PLO MA I N ENVI RONMENTAL MANA GEMENT 2 01 1

BAY O F P LEN TY PO LYTECHNI C

(Cabbage Tree Creative Ltd, 2011)

A SNAPSHOT OF SEEDLING GROWTH DYNAMICS ON STANLEY ISLAND 2Joshua Cole

ABSTRACT

Stanley Island is an important threatened and endangered species sanctuary that is maintained by the Department of Conservation’s Waikato Conservancy which has a lack of seedlings. The aim of the study is to assess the successional regeneration of Stanley Island by monitoring seedling heights, density and abundance after the removal of rabbits and kiore and the burning of land by Maori settlers or lightening strikes in drought times. These results will be compared to past papers about native forest succession. Nineteen plots divided into four seedling subplots were laid across the tracks of Stanley Island. Seedlings were then measured, counted and identified. The data was then collated and the location of the plots were clumped into four location groups, which were labeled as north, northwest, south west and south to provide meaningful differences between the sites.

It was found that Coprosma spp. (C. lucida and C. robusta) was by far the most abundant seedling on Stanley Island yet this is the first study to find this. C. grandifolia was also quite abundant and not included in any other vegetation lists in past papers. The overrepresentation of Coprosma spp. confirms the fact that Stanley Island vegetation is still recovering from past fires and browsing mammals. Another thing confirming this is that there were only two climax species seedlings counted out of a total of ten species (Planchonella costata (11) and Dysoxylum spectibile(38)).

The biggest factor in determining seedling density, numbers and height was direct interspecific and intraspecific competition between each other for resources such as space, moisture and light. Canopy cover and litter depth are only slight factors in determining seedling height in that less canopy cover and more litter depth mean taller seedlings.

Another finding from this study is that the further south areas are more species diverse, more abundant and more densely populated. This would suggest that Maori occupied the warmer areas of the north where there is also better access to the coastline. Indeed there is evidence of Maori occupation in the north evidenced by stone walls, shallow pits and stone chips.

It was concluded that more research needs to be performed on Stanley Island and more plots need to be laid in order to clarify seedling abundance and seedling density. It is assumed that if more plots were laid, more seedlings species would be found. This study did not delve into sea bird burrows because of the restraint of time yet it may have shown some interesting results.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to acknowledge Rob Chappell of the Department of Conservation for funding much of the excursion and for taking us out on their boat. Also, Esta Chappell and Debashis Dutta of Bay of Plenty Polytechnic for guiding me through the gathering and interpretation of data and Jordan Sandford and Logan Vickers, fellow students who conducted studies on different aspects of the Stanley Island ecosystem and helped with the gathering of data.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT..............................................................................................................................................2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..........................................................................................................................2

INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................5

METHODS..............................................................................................................................................6

RESULTS.................................................................................................................................................8

Seedling Abundance..........................................................................................................................9

Seedling Density..............................................................................................................................11

Seedling Heights..............................................................................................................................14

DISCUSSION.........................................................................................................................................15

CONCLUSIONS.....................................................................................................................................18

REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................19

APPENDICIES........................................................................................................................................20

Appendix One - Seedling Data Sheet...............................................................................................20

Appendix Two – General Site Data Sheet........................................................................................21

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Plot Layout explain all aspects, e.g. circular subplots, X, etc...................................................6

Figure 2: Aerial photo of Stanley Island and the grouping of plots into geographical areas

(Google.com, 2011)...............................................................................................................................8

Figure 3: Seedling counts (±SE)..............................................................................................................9

Figure 4: Seedling species abundance in plot locations (±Se)................................................................9

Figure 5: Seedling size abundance in different locations (±SE)............................................................10

Figure 6: Number of seedling versus seedling height..........................................................................10

Figure 7: Comparison between seedling height and seedling density.................................................11

Figure 8: Location seedling density (±SE).............................................................................................12

Figure 9: Degree of insignificant difference (T Test probability values) between the seedling densities

of each location (±SE)..........................................................................................................................12

Figure 10: Seedling density (per m2) under different light conditions.................................................13

Figure 11: The effect of litter depth on seedling density.....................................................................14

Figure 12: The impact of litter depth on seedling height.....................................................................14

Figure 13: The effect of canopy cover on seedling height...................................................................15



INTRODUCTION

Stanley Island (Kawhitu or Atiu) is one of the islands that make up the Mercury Group of islands off the north western coast of the Coromandel Peninsula. It is an important threatened and endangered species sanctuary that is maintained by the Department of Conservation’s Waikato Conservancy Ref. It began life as part of the greater Coromandel volcanic area that formed in the Pliocene to lower Pleistocene Epoch (5.3 million to 120,000 years ago) (Towns and Stephens, 1997). These volcanoes then underwent massive erosion periods and sea level rises over the millions of years since to leave us with the present day Mercury Island group. The principally basalt base of Stanley Island has resulted in an island that looks fairly tabular from the sea (Towns & Stephens, 1997). It has a rolling surface landscape and rises to 137 metres. It has sharp cliffs and coastal caves and rocky slopes with no permanent streams. The island has a rich wildlife community with sea birds, lizards, invertebrates and the release of 24 saddlebacks in 1977 led to a population of ca. 250 birds in 1997 (Towns & Stephens, 1997). Recent fires lit by settling Maori and the impact of rabbits and kiore have led to a greatly modified flora dominated by pohutukawa (Metrosideros excelsa) and a subcanopy of mahoe (Melicytus ramiflorus) with very little ground vegetation (Towns & Stephens, 1997).

The lack of ground vegetation is where this report comes in. In late June, 2011, the island was visited after gaining permission from DoC and local iwi to perform detailed analysis on seedling success. The methods as detailed in the respective section were carried out and it is hoped that this will be the first report of an annual series of analysis of seedlings on Stanley Island. In the past, there have been vegetation surveys on Stanley Island, which will be summarised and drawn upon. The aim of the study is to assess the successional regeneration of Stanley Island by monitoring seedling heights, density and abundance after the removal of rabbits and kiore and the burning of land by Maori settlers. These results will be compared to past papers about native forest succession.


METHODS

Nineteen plots were marked out on Stanley Island - fourteen on the Ampitheatre Track and five on the East Track. They are one hundred metres apart (as illustrated by the map Figure 2) and consisted of a main five metre square quadrat (25 m2) comprising four subplots (A-D). The plots were laid straight along the compass points north to south and east to west and no part of it was laid on the main track. A florescent yellow triangle (as marked by the X in Figure 1) was nailed to a tree and was used as the corner of subplot A. As in Figure 1, in the middle of the boundary between subplots, a 0.49 m radius (0.75 m2) circle seedling subplot was measured using a string pulled tight and attached to a peg inserted into the ground. Seedlings were then counted and the species identified in a range of size classes within the circular plot. The size classes in centimeters are 0 – 15, 16 – 45, 46 – 75, 76 – 105 and 106 – 135. The data sheet used for this is in Appendix One.

The litter depth was also measured and the canopy cover percentage was estimated and recorded on the sheets in Appendix Two. This data sheet was also used by other field workers studying different aspects of the Stanley Island ecosystem.

Excel 2007 was used to analyse the data that is published below in the results section. T-tests were used to compare significant differences in seedling densities in different locations and regressions and scatter graphs were used to test the strength of the relationships between seedling height and density with canopy cover percentages and litter depths.

FIGURE 1: PLOT LAYOUT

5

0.49 m

0.49 m

0.49 m

C

0.49 m

D

D

BA


SITE DESCRIPTION

The vegetation of Stanley Island has gone through a stage of destruction from fires and the introduction of kiore and rabbits. This is resulted in a sparseness of seedlings despite its volcanic origins providing for fertile soils. The forests comprises mostly of coastal forest with a Metrosiderous excelsum and Melicytus ramiflorus canopy with patches of Beilschmeidia tarairi and Dysoxylum spectibile and the undergrowth is mainly Coprosma lucida and C. robusta. There is a hut provided by DoC that has a bunk bed, chilly bin, rainwater tank and a gas stove.


RESULTS

The plot locations and the grouping of the plots into larger areas are shown in Figure 2. These locations were simply grouped into evenly sized groups and loosely named North, North West, South West and South. Coprosma robusta and Coprosma lucida are grouped together under Coprosma spp. because it was difficult to distinguish between them at seedling stage. It was later learned by reading Poole and Adams (1994) that the difference between the two being the raised midrib in C. lucida, which was sometimes referred to, in the raw data, as C. robusta, hence the move to group them all under C. spp. It is important to note that all the standard error bars on the bar graphs in this section were generated by using Excel 2007 and not manually derived.

The total area surveyed was 57 square metres, which represents 0.006% of the total area of land on Stanley Island. There were a total of 76 seedling subplots laid and a total of 176 seedlings counted. There were 10 different species of seedling counted and the mean number of seedlings in each seedling plot is just under 2. The mean seedling density across all plots is 28.3 seedlings per square metre with a standard deviation of 34.4, indicating that there are numerous outliers on the upper end of that scale.

FIGURE 2: AERIAL PHOTO OF STANLEY ISLAND AND THE GROUPING OF PLOTS INTO GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS (GOOGLE.COM, 2011)

North

North West

South West

South


SEEDLING ABUNDANCE

Coprosm

a spp.

Dysoxy

lum specti

bile

Coprosm

a gran

difolia

Planchonella

costa

ta

Macropier

excel

sum

Hedyca

rya ar

boreaOthers

0102030405060708090

Seedling species

Num

ber o

f see

dlin

gs

FIGURE 3: SEEDLING COUNTS (±SE)

Figure 3 above shows that the most abundant species of seedling was Coprosma spp., distantly followed by Dysoxylum spectibile, although the standard error bars do overlap, as do the rest of the seedling species.

Coprosm

a spp.

Dysoxy

lum specti

bile

Coprosm

a gran

difolia

Macropier

excel

sum

Planchonella

costa

ta

Hedyca

rya ar

borea

Myrsine a

ustralis

Melicyt

us ram

iflorus

Beilsch

miedia t

arairi

Streb

lus ban

ksii

05

10152025303540

NNWSWS

Seedling species

Num

ber o

f see

dlin

gs

FIGURE 4: SEEDLING SPECIES ABUNDANCE IN PLOT LOCATIONS (±SE)

Figure 4 shows how abundant each species is in each location. Coprosma spp. is the only species that is abundant in every location while the south location shows up in seven out of the ten species. In the south location, it is clear that C. spp., D. spectibile and C. grandifolia are the most dominant species although the order of dominance is not clear considering that one of the sub south plots had 20 seedlings of D. spectibile in it. It is also clear that considerably more data is needed to determine the abundance of these species. The only climax tree species are Planchonella costata (11 seedlings)


and Beischmiedia tarairi (1 seedling). There were no Metrosidersous excelsa seedlings found despite it dominating the canopy. Dysoxylum spectibile was the only sub canopy tree with a decent amount of seedlings (38) mainly due to one subplot containing 20 seedlings.

15 45 75 105 1350

20

40

60

80

100

120

S

SW

NW

N

Size Classes (cm)

Num

ber o

f see

dlin

gs

FIGURE 5: SEEDLING SIZE ABUNDANCE IN DIFFERENT LOCATIONS (±SE)

Figure 6 shows that seedling abundance in the different locations is proportionately different at each height class and that the south location is again a lot more abundant than any other location.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 1600

20

40

60

80

100

120

Seedling height (cm)

Num

ber o

f see

dlin

gs

FIGURE 6: NUMBER OF SEEDLING VERSUS SEEDLING HEIGHT


Figure 6 produces a regression p value of 0.7798, which shows that the variation in seedling height explains 77.98% of the variation in the number of seedlings, which means that when a seedling dies, 77.98% of the time it is because of the increase of seedling numbers. The ‘y’ intercept is 88.6, which represents the maximum capacity number of seedlings in a plot (0.49m2). An exponential curve would show that there is not zero seedling density at just over 120 cm seedling heights.

SEEDLING DENSITY

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 1600

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

f(x) = − 0.575779582452057 x + 71.0924353442441R² = 0.748515558093064


Seed

ling

Dens

ity (s

eedl

ings

per

m2)

FIGURE 7: COMPARISON BETWEEN SEEDLING HEIGHT AND SEEDLING DENSITY

Figure 7 is very similar to Figure 6 in producing a regression p value of 0.7485, which indicates that seedling density is controlled by the height of surrounding seedlings 74.85% of the time. That is that when a seedling dies, it is because of seedling density 74.85% of the time. On average, there would be around 1 seedling every 71 centimeters when they germinate as suggested by the ‘y’ intercept of 71.092. The addition of an exponential curve would again show that there is not zero seedling density at just over 120 cm height.


N NW SW S0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Locations

Seed

ling

Dens

ity (p

er m

2)

FIGURE 8: LOCATION SEEDLING DENSITY (±SE)

Figure 8 shows that seedling density is highest in the southern plots and lowest in the northern plots. See Figure 2 for a map of locations.

NW/SW N/NW N/SW SW/S NW/S N/S

-0.15-0.1

-0.052.77555756156289E-17

0.050.1

0.150.2

0.250.3

0.350.4

0.450.5

0.550.6

0.650.7

0.750.8

0.850.9

0.951

1.05

Comparitive locations

Degr

ee o

f ins

igni

fican

t diff

eren

ce (T

Tes

t Pro

b.)

FIGURE 9: DEGREE OF INSIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE (T TEST PROBABILITY VALUES) BETWEEN THE SEEDLING DENSITIES OF EACH LOCATION (±SE)

Figure 9 shows the T Test results when each location is compared to each other. The most significant difference in seedling density is between the north and south locations and the most insignificant difference is between the north west and south west locations. Any comparison that


includes the south location bears the most significant difference results. The grey line indicates a 95% significance, which should be taken as a real significant difference. No bars go below this line but a number of standard error bars do.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 14045

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Seedling Density (per m2)

Cano

py C

over

(%)

FIGURE 10: SEEDLING DENSITY (PER M2) UNDER DIFFERENT LIGHT CONDITIONS

Figure 10 shows that the thickness of the canopy does not effect seedling density. The linear trendline accentuates this further as does the regression p value of 0.0148

0 1 2 3 4 5 60

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

f(x) = − 20.9688916326384 ln(x) + 47.1128402939267R² = 0.106606805649592

f(x) = − 6.18283601795617 x + 45.270768418273R² = 0.0566165714835821

Litter Depth (cm)

Seed

ling

Dens

ity (p

er m

2)

FIGURE 11: THE EFFECT OF LITTER DEPTH ON SEEDLING DENSITY

Figure 11 and the regression p value of 0.0566 shows that litter depth has a very minor bearing on seedling density.


SEEDLING HEIGHTS

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 1600

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5


Litter

Dep

th (c

m)

FIGURE 12: THE IMPACT OF LITTER DEPTH ON SEEDLING HEIGHT

Figure 12 shows that taller seedling grow in thicker litter. The regression p value of 0.5581 means that this occurs 55.81% percent of the time.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 16061

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71


Cano

py C

over

(%)

FIGURE 13: THE EFFECT OF CANOPY COVER ON SEEDLING HEIGHT

Figure 13 shows that seedlings grow taller in higher canopy cover levels. The regression p value of 0.2981 means that this occurs 29.81% of the time.

DISCUSSION


The only real factor affecting seedling density, size and abundance is increasing competition from each other as they grow taller and take up more space and resources. As illustrated by Figure 6, 77.98% of the height in seedlings is because of a smaller number of seedlings in a plot. Similarly in Figure 7, where around 75% of the cases seedling density decreases with increase in height of seedlings – that is, self thinning occurs where, due to competition, weaker seedlings die and extant seedlings as a consequence gain from reduced competition and increase in space and nutrients to grow. Figures 6 and 7 show that linear curves can be innaccurate and they need to have a curved trendline to illustrate the obvious fact that there will not be zero seedling density or zero seedlings in a plot over 120 cm in height. Indeed there were seedlings measured in this study that were over 120 cm. It is assumed that a curved line would flatten out and run nearly parallel with the ‘x’ axis as the seedlings get taller.

Surprisingly, canopy cover and litter depth have only minor influences on seedling density. Litter depth is more influential than canopy cover because moisture is more important than light for germinating seedlings (Baines, 2010). It was assumed that litter depth would inhibit the germination rate of seedlings and that canopy cover would block light, making it harder for seedlings to produce its own food, but it has been found that this is not really the case. It is assumed that different species with their different environmental condition preferences would show better results for canopy cover percentage and litter depth in the same way as the study by Hoffman (1996). Seedling density and height are influenced in different ways by litter depth and canopy cover. Litter depth slightly influences seedling height as illustrated by Figure 12. This is by a factor of 55.8% whereas canopy cover influences height by only 29.81% as illustrated by Figure 13. Litter depth and canopy cover does not influence seedling density at all as illustrated by Figures 10 and 11. Therefore litter depth is more influential than canopy cover. The small regression values produced by the litter depth and canopy cover data is the reason why seedling abundance was not compared with canopy cover and litter depth. It might have been interesting to see what effect aspect had on seedling height, abundance and density, but it was difficult to quantify this.

By far the most abundant species of seedling on Stanley Island as illustrated by Figures 3 and 4 is Coprosma spp. According to the data collected, Dysoxylum spectibile looks as though it is very abundant, as the raw data shows, it can be seen that there is an anomaly where 20 seedlings were counted in just one of the subplots, which happened to be under a parent tree. Not enough data was collected due to time restraints that would have ironed out and diluted this anomaly along with many more anomalies that would likely to surface. The lack of data also prevents the ability to determine the next most abundant species of seedling after Coprosma spp.

The southern areas of Stanley Island highlighted in Figure 2 are more densely populated, abundant and species rich than northern areas as shown by Figures 4, 5 and 8. This is possibly due to more favourable living conditions in the north where there the landforms allow access to the sea for Maori. If Maori settled in the north, they would have burned some of the bush to allow them space and to encourage bracken to spread (Atkinson, 2004). Bracken was not seen while conducting this study but there are records of it existing in 1997 by Taylor and Lovegrove (1997). Lightening in drought periods is another possible cause of fires (Atkinson, 2004). There is evidence of Maori presence provided by stone walls, shallow pits and stone chips on the northern slopes where kumara would have been cultivated on these sunnier slopes of the island (Taylor & Lovegrove, 1997). As illustrated by Figure 6, seedling abundance in different locations is largely in proportion with each other with the south plots having the most seedlings and the north plots having the least. The difference in seedling densities is best illustrated by Figure 9 with the most significant difference being between the north and south plots. Comparisons in Figure 9 that include the south plots are the comparisons that have the most significant differences. Although none of these comparisons fall


below 0.05, which is seen as a real significant difference (95%), and more data is therefore needed to make these comparisons clearer.

If more time was allowed for more data collection, certain species may have shown up more in different locations. This is not the case in this study with the amount of data that was collected this time round, although Figure 4 does have the south plots showing up with the most Coprosma spp., Dysoxylum spectibile (even when subtracting 20 from the one subplot anomaly) and C. grandifolia. Hedycarya arborea and Planchonella costata are also most abundant in the south plots and are the only other species to have its standard error bars not overlap with the other south plot species. There are no species that are more abundant than others in any other location – that is there are no other species that have overlapping standard error bars – except Coprosma spp. in every location.

The overrepresentation of Coprosma spp. and the large presence of other pioneer species (Coprosma grandifolia, Melicytus ramiflorus and Myrsine australis) indicate that the island is very much still undergoing secondary succession in an attempt to recover from the fires and browsing mammals that have recently been removed. It is interesting to note that in a report by Taylor and Lovegrove (1997), which has an expansive list of vegetation that was present on Stanley Island in 1997 that there were no C. lucida or C. robusta. This would suggest that seeds have since arrived by birds from neighbouring islands and there has been a subsequent population boom. Atkinson (2004) confirms this in saying that wind and bird dispersed species typically migrate from island to island.

Another indication of the degree of regeneration of the island is the abundance of abnormally large specimens of Melicytus ramiflorus forming much of the sub canopy compared to onshore forests (personal ovbservation). There were not many climax species seedlings found except 11 Planchonella costata and one Beilschmiedia tarairi. Despite the major canopy of Metrosiderous excelsa, there were no seedlings found and the sub canopy of Melicytus ramiflorus, (one seedling found). Dysoxylum spectibile was the only sub canopy tree with a decent amount of seedlings (38) mainly due to one subplot containing 20 seedlings. A factor contributing to this would be that the plots are next to walking tracks that are easier to traverse, which is only one type of ecosystem whereas there is likely to be more species found that were not in this study on the inaccessible parts of the island where the environmental conditions are different. The 1997 vegetation list provided by Taylor and Lovegrove (1997) includes climax species of which no seedlings were found in this study. They include Myoporum laetum, Melicope ternata and Vitex lucens. Taylor and Lovegrove (1997) also identified eight forest types on the island of which the plots in this study were in only three of them, namely the pohutukawa/mahoe forest, the pohutukawa/mapou forest and one of the two of the taraire forests.

The lack of available seed is thought to be the main cause for the extended amount of time for Stanley Island to be regenerating. Bird and wind dispersed seed from nearby islands are the only seed sources and therefore it is unlikely that there will be much more species diversity in the future. It is more likely that the present species will become more numerous and fill in their niches on the island and in the future, there will be a higher density of trees. Seedling density is likely to remain the same if not less. Atkinson (2004) outlines how successional processes develop on fire induced islands. Typically, Metrosiderous excelsa usually with Pteridium esculentum, Leptospermum scoparium and Phormium tenax are the first species to establish with M. excelsa eventually forming the canopy. If the seed is available, D. spectibile usually comes next with it eventually sharing the canopy with M. excelsa. B. tarairi and B. tawa come next to share the canopy, but on Stanley Island, only B. tarairi has found its way there. After that comes something that has only happened in parts on Stanley Island, that B. tarairi (and B. tawa on islands with available seed) dominates the canopy as all the other species get dwarfed, shaded out and die. Near the coast of these islands, Corynocarpus laevigatus usually arrives and shares the canopy with M. excelsa. There were some C.


laevigatus saplings that were noticed on the flat, easy to traverse areas of the island (personal observation), so it is assumed that this is happening on Stanley Island. It is interesting to note that in the report by Taylor and Lovegrove (1997) that there were only ten individuals found on the island, yet on personal observation of the flat, easy to traverse areas of the island; there is a lot more than ten there now and it is assumed that the density of this species is a lot higher on the coastal areas of the island since it is a coastal species.

The study did not collate sea bird burrow data even though the data was available because of time restraints. More time was needed to derive data from sea bird burrows and compare it with the seedling data and see what influences they had on each other. It is assumed that it would not have effected seedling growth since moisture and competition seem to be the only factors in seedling density and numbers. It is also assumed that soil fertility is influenced by sea bird burrows with the deposition of feathers, dead birds, un hatched eggs and faeces in the burrows.


CONCLUSIONS

The seedlings of Stanley Island are not very abundant, diverse or densely populated. There were only 10 different species counted in a total of 57 square metres. The more southern areas of the island are more diverse, abundant and more densely populated by seedlings. Coprosma spp. is by far the most abundant and densely populated species of seedling on Stanley Island indicating that the island is still very much regenerating after the removal of browsing mammals and fires lit by Maori and possible lightening strikes in times of drought. This is especially due to the lack of climax species seedlings in the study with the notable exception of Planchonella costata.

It was a surprise to find that the only major factor in determining seedling density and numbers is direct competition with each other. As seedlings get bigger, around three quarters of them get out competed and die though a lack of access to resources such as space, moisture and light. Litter depth and canopy cover were found to be only very minor, if at all, factors contributing to seedling density and numbers. The biggest factor that canopy cover has on seedlings is their heights. The less canopy cover, the higher seedlings grew.

Those are the only conclusions that are able to be drawn on because of the lack of data. In future studies, more data needs to be collected and therefore more time spent on the island. It was not possible to determine the next most abundant species of seedling after Coprosma spp.


REFERENCES

Atkinson, I.A.E. (2004). Successional processes induced by fires on the northern offshore islands of New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 28(2), 181 – 193.

Baines, A.E. (2010). Germination in its Electical Aspect. London, United Kingdom: BiblioBazaar.

Cabbage Tree Creative Ltd. (2011). Hedgehog House New Zealand, 166796 Pacific gecko, Mercury Islands, Coromandel. Retrieved from: http://www.hedgehoghouse.com/hedgehog/photo-galleries/?hhhGalleryID=181.

Google.com. (2011). Google Maps. Retrieved from http://maps.google.co.nz/.

Hoffman, W. A. (1997). The effects of fire and cover on seedling establishment in a neotropical savanna. Journal of Ecology, 84, 383 – 393.

Poole, A. L & Adams, N. M. (1994). Trees and Shrubs of New Zealand. Auckland, New Zealand: Manaaki Whenua Press

Taylor, G. A. & Lovegrove, T.G. (1997). Flora and Vegetation of Stanley (Atiu) Island, Mercury Islands. Tane, 36, 85 – 111.

Towns, D. & Stephens, T. (1997). Island Management and commercial sponsorship: the Mercury Island Experience. Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Conservation.


APPENDICIES

APPENDIX ONE - SEEDLING DATA SHEET

STANLEY ISLAND VEGETATION MONITORING

BOP POLYTECHNIC – ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Plot Code: Measured by:Track: Recorded by:Date:

Seedling plot No.

Species <15 () 16 – 45 46 – 75 76 – 105 106 – 135


APPENDIX TWO – GENERAL SITE DATA SHEET

STANLEY ISLAND VEGETATION MONITORING

BOP POLYTECHNIC – ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Plot Code: Measured by:Track: Recorded by:GPS Reference: Easting: (NZTM) Northing: Date:

Site Description

Altitude: Rock on surface: Yes / NoPhysiography: Ridge Face Gully Terrace

Bedrock on surface: Yes / No

Aspect (5 - 360°): Bedrock %:Slope (°): Broken rock %:Drainage: Good Moderate Poor Soil %:Mean top height (m): Size of loose rock: <30cm >30cmCanopy %

Ground Cover % Veg: Moss: Litter: Bare ground: Rock:

Plot Layout

A – B B – C C – D D - ABearing (°)Tape Distance (m)Slope (°)

Notes

Documents

A Snapshot of Seedling Growth Dynamics on Stanley Island