Ngā Māramatanga-ā-Papa (Iwi Ecosystem Services) Research Monograph Series No. 8 Nancy Golubiewski 2012

DEFINING A FUNCTIONAL

LANDSCAPE FOR THE

GEOSPATIAL IDENTIFICATION

OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Defining a Functional Landscape for the

Geospatial Identification of Ecosystem Services

Ngā Māramatanga-ā-Papa (Iwi Ecosystem Services)

Research Monograph Series No. 8

(FRST MAUX 0502)

2012

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

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 978-1-877504-07-5

ISSN 1170-8794-

i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. iii 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 2. Methods.............................................................................................................................. 4

2.1. Study area definition .................................................................................................. 4 2.2. Data acquisition ......................................................................................................... 7 2.3. Refining ecosystem information .............................................................................. 10

3. Results .......................................................................................................................... 12 3.1. Classifications of current landscape ..................................................................... 12

3.1.1. Land cover and land use .................................................................................. 12 3.1.2. Wetlands .......................................................................................................... 19 3.1.3. Indigenous forests ............................................................................................ 21

3.2. Refined classification of the landscape .................................................................... 26 4. Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 33 5. Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... 36 6. References ........................................................................................................................ 37

ii

List of Tables Table 1 Water catchments in study area ............................................................................... 6 Table 2 Representation of LCDB2 classification in study area .......................................... 13 Table 3 Wetland types and areas within project boundary ................................................. 21 Table 4 Occurrence of indigenous forest types in study area ............................................. 22 Table 5 Presence (ha) of indigenous forests types within each catchment ......................... 25 Table 6 Composition of indigenous forest .......................................................................... 27 Table 7 WONI wetlands occurring in LCDB2 classification ............................................. 29 Table 8 Wetland context ..................................................................................................... 30 Table 9 Ecosat indigenous forest classification categories coinciding with WONI wetland

classification .......................................................................................................... 31 Table 10 Newly defined present land-cover categories and their areas within the project

boundary ................................................................................................................ 31 List of Figures Figure 1 General location of study area- including current study area based on catchments

as well as proposed boundaries to approximate rohe. .............................................. 5 Figure 2 Territorial authorities located within the study area. ............................................... 8 Figure 3 Catchments that comprise the study area. ................................................................ 9 Figure 4 Land Cover Database 2 (LCDB2) classification of the study area. ....................... 15 Figure 5 Riverine network and riparian buffers throughout study area. .............................. 17 Figure 6 Distribution of wetlands within the study area, as defined by the Wetlands of

National Importance project. ................................................................................. 20 Figure 7 Frequency size distribution of wetlands. ............................................................... 21 Figure 8 Wetland composition. ............................................................................................ 23 Figure 9 Indigenous forest composition. .............................................................................. 24 Figure 10 Present land cover, composite of different data sources. ....................................... 28 Figure 11 DOC conservation units present in the study area. ................................................ 35

iii

Executive Summary

The New Zealand Centre for Ecological Economics (NZCEE), in partnership with Ngāti

Raukawa, has undertaken a FRST project entitled “Ecosystem Services Benefits in Terrestrial

Ecosystems for Iwi”, which seeks to understand ecosystem services in terms of biophysical,

socioeconomic, and cultural values as a basis for illuminating ecological restoration,

protection and enhancement initiatives. The research programme consists of two objectives:

(1) assessing natural resources by quantifying and valuing the ecosystem services found in

natural and managed landscapes; and (2) working in conjunction with iwi so that both

western ecological and traditional Maori knowledge can be used to inform natural resource

management and to identify ecological restoration options.

Researchers at NZCEE, Manaaki Whenua/Landcare Research, Massey University, and Te

Wānanga-O-Raukawa are working together to quantify ecosystem services and economic

values in natural ecosystems. This multi-phase project seeks to quantify ecosystem services at

three time points: pre-settlement, present day, and possible futures. Research efforts are

focusing on ascertaining the ecological aspects of the current land uses and land covers,

which comprise ecosystem services. By creating a current portfolio of ecosystem services and

reconstructing historical landscapes, it will be possible to understand how the area has altered

with changing settlement patterns and land-use activities. Future phases of the project will

use these results, in part, to explore the opportunities for ecological restoration projects

within the rohe.

The first phase of the project, described in this report, has focused on defining and

understanding the appropriate physical template to serve as the foundation for identifying and

valuing ecosystem services. As noted by Troy and Wilson (2006), the proper definition of

study area, and identifying its composition, is essential to a successful spatial analysis of

ecosystem services. That is, in order to study ecosystem services in a biophysically based,

spatially explicit manner, the landscape must be defined in terms of its structure and

composition. Therefore, the objectives for this phase of the project entailed:

1) defining the study area appropriately for both the ecological and socio-cultural context;

2) identifying present land covers, including land uses, in the study area;

iv

3) creating the best possible land-cover classification for identifying ecosystem services with

available data;

4) determining the structural landscape pattern of the study area, with particular emphasis on

remnant wetlands and indigenous forest; and

5) assessing the composition and structure of landscape elements for catchments throughout

the study area.

The results of this phase will be used in follow-on reports, including a change detection of the

historical landscape, a biophysical accounting of ecosystem services, and a valuation of these

services.

1

1. Introduction

Natural and managed landscapes provide ecosystem services that support both human society

and ecological integrity (Brosi and others 2006; Daily 1997). Land-use intensification and

the ensuing land-cover changes have been recognized as major agents of global

environmental change for their influence on biota, net primary productivity, biogeochemical

cycles, and climate (Dale 1997; Vitousek 1994; Vitousek and others 1997). Across land-use

and land-cover types, ecosystem goods and services comprise the aggregate functional nature

of natural and human-dominated landscapes (Brosi and others 2006; Daily 1997; Millennium

Ecosystem Assessment 2003).

New Zealand offers a compelling example of the effects of land-use/land-cover change.

Although among the last major land masses to be settled by people (about 800 years ago),

New Zealand has been altered radically by anthropogenic activities, both past and present

(Ministry for the Environment 1997). The most dramatic changes to land cover and

vegetation have occurred during the last century. Indigenous forests have been reduced by

about 75%; much of what remains occurs in alpine environments or remote low-lying areas.

Only fragments remain of lowland forests. Grassland has expanded from 5% to 50% of the

land area due to early deforestation and modern agricultural and timber production;

introduced pasture grasses are overtaking the remaining native grasslands. Dunelands and

wetlands have been destroyed and fragmented due to a variety of development concerns. The

main land issues in New Zealand include the decline in ecological processes and biodiversity

caused by habitat fragmentation in agricultural and urban areas; degradation of the most

fertile soils by farming and their loss to urbanization; degradation of waterways by run off

from farms and urban areas; and drainage of wetlands for development (Millennium

Ecosystem Assessment 2003).

The extent of human domination of New Zealand’s landscapes requires that efforts to

conserve indigenous vegetation incorporate rural and urban areas (Meurk and Hall 2006;

Meurk and Swaffield 2000). Doing so leads to the recognition that natural and managed

landscapes provide ecosystem services that support both human society and ecological

integrity itself (Brosi and others 2006; Daily 1997). Ecosystem services offer a powerful

framework for defining the goals, objectives, and justification for conservation and

2

restoration endeavors (Daily 1997). Yet, ecosystem services research often focuses on the

value of services, frequently using proxies from the marketplace, rather than studying the

ecological nature of the ecosystem service itself. Ecosystem service valuation can fail to

capture the persuasive conservation potential realized by quantifying and synthesizing

ecosystem services in biophysical terms.

The need to assess ecosystem services in an ecological and spatial context has been

recognized (Troy and Wilson 2006). The variety and amounts of ecosystem services

provided by a particular location are affected not only by the types of ecosystems present, but

also by their condition and spatial arrangement. Thus, both the composition and structure of

the landscape are important in determining ecosystem services, just as they are important for

identifying conservation and restoration potential.

This project proposes to explore this potential by focusing on the biophysical measurements

of ecosystem services in order to assess the opportunities for, and obstacles to, ecological

restoration for hapū and iwi. The New Zealand Centre for Ecological Economics (NZCEE),

in partnership with Ngāti Raukawa, has undertaken a FRST project entitled, “Ecosystem

Services Benefits in Terrestrial Ecosystems for Iwi”, which seeks to understand ecosystem

services in biophysical, socioeconomic, and cultural contexts. The research programme

consists of two objectives: (1) assessing natural resources by quantifying and valuing the

ecosystem services found in natural and managed landscapes; and (2) working in conjunction

with the iwi so that both western ecological and traditional Maori knowledge can be used to

improve natural resource management and to identify ecological restoration options.

Researchers at NZCEE, Landcare Research, Massey University, and Te Wānanga-O-

Raukawa are working together to explore ecological processes and economic values in

natural and managed ecosystems. The multi-phase project seeks to understand the nature of

present-day ecosystem services and their change through time. Research efforts are focusing

on ascertaining the biophysical aspects of the current land-use and land-cover types that

comprise ecosystem services (Golubiewski 2012) as well as reconstructing historical

vegetation (Cole 2012). By creating a current portfolio of ecosystem services and

reconstructing historical landscapes it will be possible to understand how the area has altered

with changing settlement patterns and land-use activities. Future phases of the project will

3

use these results, in part, to explore the opportunities for ecological restoration projects

within the rohe.

The first phase of the project, described here, focused on defining and understanding the

appropriate physical template to serve as the foundation for identifying and valuing

ecosystem services. As noted by Troy and Wilson (2006), the proper definition of study area,

and the identification of its composition are essential to a successful spatial analysis of

ecosystem services (comprising three of their seven steps: study area definition, typology

development, and mapping). That is, in order to study ecosystem services in a biophysically

based, spatially explicit manner, the landscape must be defined in terms of its structure and

composition. Therefore, the objectives for this phase of the project entailed:

1) define the study area appropriately for both the ecological and socio-cultural context

2) identify present land covers, including land uses, in the study area

3) create the best possible land-cover classification for identifying ecosystem services

with available data

4) determine the structural landscape pattern of the study area, with particular emphasis

on remnant wetlands and indigenous forest

5) assess the composition and structure of landscape elements for catchments throughout

the study area.

The results of this phase will be used in follow-on reports, including a change detection of the

historical landscape, a biophysical accounting of ecosystem services, and a valuation of these

services.

4

2. Methods

2.1. Study area definition

The study area was defined by the water catchments that encompass a general approximation

of the rohe (tribal boundary) of Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga (often referred to as ‘the rohe’,

‘the project/study boundary’ throughout this report). The rohe approximation was delineated

by a group of team members, including iwi researchers. This effort resulted in a composite

boundary that mirrors a large proportion of tribal boundary the rohe of Ngāti Raukawa ki te

Tonga and was derived from several sources of information, including the: Ngāti Raukawa

Treaty claims maps, historic and modern cadastral property boundaries, locations on the

1:50,000 topographical maps, the location of Raukawa marae, land features significant to

Ngāti Raukawa, significant streams and rivers, significant wetlands, the

Manawatu/Horowhenua/Kapiti coastline, and the Tararua and Ruahine ranges (A Cole and P

Moore, pers. comm.).

The project boundary defines an area that includes over 90% of all freshwater, terrestrial and

forest ecosystems of significant cultural value to the Ngāti Raukawa iwi and ngā hapū o

Raukawa (G Harmsworth, pers. comm.) (Figure 1). The rohe area estimated for the purposes

of this project includes Kapiti Island in the far south, runs north to include Waikanae, Te

Horo, and Otaki, and follows the summit of the Tararua ranges north to the eastern edge of

the Ruahine ranges north of Wharite peak, including the Ruahine state forest park. It then

heads west to Umutoi north of Pohangina. A northern boundary then runs west to include the

Oroua river and runs east to west across a line north of Apiti and Rangiwahia, including the

Mangamako stream, to continue to the Rangitikei river. It crosses over to meet the north-

western side of the Rangitikei river near Ohingaiti (south of Mangaweka), then southwest on

the western side of the Rangitikei, to include Orangipongo, Rewa, Waituna west, Tokorangi,

Kakariki, Halcombe, and including the modern township of Bulls, before joining back to the

western coastline adjacent to the Tasman sea. The project boundary then runs south along the

coastline from Tangimoana and Himatangi in the north, back to Ōtaki beach and Waikanae in

the south (G Harmsworth, pers. comm.).

5

Figure 1 General location of study area - including current study area based on catchments as well as proposed boundaries to approximate rohe.

6

As described, the rohe of Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga is situated on the west coast of the

lower central North Island, just north of the Kapiti Coast (midpoint approximately

175°19'57.289"E 40°28'42.183"S) (Figure 1) in the Manawatu-Wanganui and Wellington

regions and falls across eight territorial authorities: Tararua District, Manawatu District,

Rangitikei District, Horowhenua District, Kapiti Coast District, Palmerston North City,

Upper Hutt City, and Carterton District (in decreasing order of area) (Figure 2). In addition,

a small part of the Central Hawke’s Bay District (in the Hawke’s Bay region) and South

Wairarapa District are located along the eastern border of the study area (Figure 2).

Palmerston North is the main town located within the study area; the next largest town is

Levin (Figure 1).

Table 1 Water catchments in study area

Catchment Number River Area (ha)

Number of Wetlands

Wetland area (ha)

Proportion of catchment in wetland (%)

Indigenous Forest area (ha)

Proportion of catchment in forest (%)

515 Rangitikei 54418 12 36 0.1 1135 2.1

520 Rangitikei 8243 2 2 0.0 171 2.1

523 Porewa 11042 1 2 0.0 312 2.8

528 Kiwitea 24340 2 6 0.0 180 0.7

531 Oroua 33142 3 5 0.0 6328 19.1

536 Maungaraupi 2430 1 7 0.3 76 3.1

538 Pohangina 48841 4 31 0.1 8832 18.1

539 Rangitikei R 41231 16 96 0.2 190 0.5

544 Manawatu R 125545 76 456 0.4 4489 3.6

545 Rangitawa 6157 21 0.3

549 Mangaone 15852 18 0.1

552 Manawatu 19764 4 25 0.1 612 3.1

553 Forest Rd Drain 154

554 Pukepuke 8058 7 89 1.1 0 0.0

555 Puke Puke 3891 4 55 1.4

562 Waiwiri Stm 4808 13 86 1.8 42 0.9

563 Hokio 6984 24 148 2.1 27 0.4

565 Koputaroa 2035 16 0.8

566 Ohau 10110 1 3 0.0 6900 68.2

568 Ohau R 8101 7 40 0.5 767 9.5

569 Ohau 121 63 52.4

571 Waikawa Stm 5956 12 67 1.1 1995 33.5

572 Waitohu Stm 5091 14 79 1.5 1314 25.8

576 Manakau 1689 155 9.2

578 Otaki 30536 1 1 0.0 26416 86.5

581 Otaki R 5895 2 6 0.1 714 12.1

585 Mangaone Stm 4313 3 63 1.5 230 5.3

587 Kapiti I 1948 1218 62.5

588 Otaki 238 3 1.4

589 Waikanae Beach 3553 14 138 3.9 371 10.4

590 Otaki 19 2 9.4 * Blank cells indicate no wetland or forest present. Cells with “0.0” indicates less than 0.1%.

7

Since the project seeks to define ecosystem services on a biophysical basis, the study area

needed to align with ecosystem definitions. Accordingly, the actual study area was defined

as the catchments that form the tightest envelope around the estimated iwi boundary (Figure

3). The area comprises 31 catchments along 21 rivers, ranging in area from 19 ha to 125,570

ha (Table 1). The total study area is ~494,339 ha.

2.2. Data acquisition

Several sources of spatial data were collected. The Land Cover Database 2 (LCDB2)

provides a classification of land use and land cover across 42 categories for 2001/2002

(Ministry for the Environment 2004). LCDB2 is intended to be used in areas such as state of

environmental monitoring, forest and shrubland inventory, biodiversity assessment, trend

analysis and infrastructure planning (Terralink International Limited 2004). The Ecosat

indigenous forest layer provided information about the composition of the indigenous forest

based on satellite imagery from 1999 and 2000 (Dymond and Shepherd 2004).

Detailed information about wetland presence, extent, and type were acquired from the

database created for the Wetlands of National Importance (WONI) research programme

(Ausseil and others 2008). In the Manawatu region, an accuracy assessment of wetland

identification found user’s accuracy of 76% and producer’s accuracy of 65%; and a site-by-

site comparison resulted in a 0.96 correlation coefficient between ground truth and mapped

wetlands (Ausseil and others 2007).

8

Figure 2 Territorial authorities located within the study area.

9

Figure 3 Catchments that comprise the study area.

10

2.3. Refining ecosystem information

The natural and managed ecosystems were defined primarily by the LCDB2 classification

(Ministry for the Environment 2004). In an effort to further refine this information, more

detailed data from the Ecosat and WONI programmes (Ausseil and others 2008; Dymond and

Shepherd 2004) were merged with the LCDB2 layer. The LCDB2 vector coverage was

converted into a raster data set (co-registered to the Ecosat layers with a 15-m cell size) with

the polygrid function in ArcGIS (J Shepherd, per. comm.). The raster data sets were merged

so that incidences of Ecosat indigenous forest replaced LCDB2 indigenous forest, and WONI

wetland occurrences replaced either LCDB2 categories or Ecosat indigenous forest classes.

Overall, then, the LCDB2 provided the base classification onto which the Ecosat indigenous

forests and wetlands were superimposed, with the Ecosat forest taking precedence over

LCDB2 and wetlands superseding both LCDB2 and Ecosat indigenous forests.

The wetland coverage was compared to the LCDB2 coverage in terms of classification

congruence and wetland context. First, the occurrences of WONI wetlands were assessed in

terms of the LCDB2 category with which they were co-located. Several LCDB2 classes can

be considered to represent wetlands: Herbacous Freshwater Vegetation, Herbaceous Saline

Vegetation, and Flaxland (Thompson and others 2003). In addition, the Deciduous

Hardwoods and Tall Tussock Grassland area can capture wetland vegetation (Thompson and

others 2003). Four water classes (Lake/Pond, River, River/Lakeshore Gravel & Rock, and

Estuarine Open Water) may be associated with wetland areas (or at least indicate the proper

vicinity). Second, LCDB2 indicates whether polygons assigned to other categories may fall

into a “wetland context” (Thompson and others 2003). So, the degree to which WONI

wetlands were located in areas characterised by a wetland context, according to LCDB2, was

also examined.

In order to create a classification that provides a functional landscape for the purposes of

ecosystem services, with a focus on natural landscapes, a new hierarchical classification was

constructed from the detailed composite classification. Although classification hierarchies

already exist (LCDB2 metadata 2004; e.g. Thompson and others 2003), the established

categories do not meet the purposes of this project; they were, however, consulted in the

process of defining new hierarchies. A summary field (along the lines of a “first order

class”) was created to group individually defined classes appropriately for the purposes of

11

analyzing ecosystem services, i.e. functional groups of the land cover class that serve the

purpose of ecosystem service analyses. If the detailed category was deemed necessary for the

ecosystem services identification or valuation, then the first order class was the same as the

“Land cover (LC)” class. The identification of these functional groups will also be subject to

an iterative process of redefinition, as the needs of the ecosystem service identification and

valuation unfold (as noted by Troy and Wilson 2006) and with feedback from the end-user

community.

12

3. Results

3.1. Classifications of current landscape

The present day landscape is highly modified and does not reflect much of what potentially

existed before human settlement (Cole 2012). This section reviews the types of land cover

and land use identified by various data sets. The first provides comprehensive coverage of

the study area; the second and third provide detailed information about wetlands and

indigenous forests.

3.1.1. Land cover and land use

In the LCDB2 classification, 38 (of a possible 42) land-use/land-cover categories fall within

the project boundary; 18 are indigenous ecosystem types (including three that denote water

bodies); and the remaining 20 are managed (Figure 4, Table 2). The study area is

predominantly developed: natural ecosystem types occupy approximately 22% of the area,

whereas managed land comprises 78%.

Natural ecosystems

The representation of natural ecosystems is highly skewed (Table 2). Indigenous forest and

broadleaved indigenous hardwoods cover 11% and 5% of the area, respectively. The

remaining 16 categories of indigenous ecosystems each cover approximately 1% or less of

the study area.

The indigenous forests are located primarily in the hill country along the eastern edge of the

study area, especially in the southeastern corner (Figure 4). Other patches of indigenous

forest sit at the northern end, and a few small patches are sprinkled throughout the central

lowlands. Kapiti Island is also covered in indigenous forest. Broadleaved indigenous

hardwoods occupy similar areas to the indigenous forests.

13

Table 2 Representation of LCDB2 classification in study area

LCDB2 category Area (ha)

Proportion of study area (%)

Natural or managed

Indigenous Forest 58419 11.8 indigenous Broadleaved Indigenous Hardwoods 27175 5.5 indigenous Sub Alpine Shrubland 6544 1.3 indigenous Manuka and or Kanuka 5538 1.1 indigenous River 2491 0.5 indigenous Tall Tussock Grassland 2281 0.5 indigenous River and Lakeshore Gravel and Rock 1458 0.3 indigenous Coastal Sand and Gravel 1110 0.2 indigenous Lake and Pond 960 0.2 indigenous Herbaceous Freshwater Vegetation 759 0.2 indigenous Landslide 151 0.0 indigenous Flaxland 82 0.0* indigenous Fernland 50 0.0 indigenous Grey Scrub 49 0.0 indigenous Estuarine Open Water 48 0.0 indigenous Alpine Gravel and Rock 33 0.0 indigenous Herbaceous Saline Vegetation 22 0.0 indigenous Matagouri 1 0.0 indigenous High Producing Exotic Grassland 324813 65.7 culturally derived Pine Forest – Closed Canopy 12257 2.5 culturally derived Short-rotation Cropland 10337 2.1 culturally derived Low Producing Grassland 9836 2.0 culturally derived Built-up Area 7480 1.5 culturally derived Pine Forest – Open Canopy 7476 1.5 culturally derived Deciduous Hardwoods 3291 0.7 culturally derived Gorse and Broom 2088 0.4 culturally derived Urban Parkland/Open Space 2077 0.4 culturally derived Other Exotic Forest 1926 0.4 culturally derived Afforestation (imaged, post LCDB 1) 1351 0.3 culturally derived Afforestation (not imaged) 1165 0.2 culturally derived Forest Harvested 1065 0.2 culturally derived Major Shelterbelts 725 0.1 culturally derived Orchard and Other Perennial Crops 573 0.1 culturally derived Mixed Exotic Shrubland 389 0.1 culturally derived Surface Mine 182 0.0 culturally derived Vineyard 75 0.0 culturally derived Transport Infrastructure 68 0.0 culturally derived Dump 13 0.0 culturally derived *Proportions of “0.0” indicate less than 0.1%. Other indigenous land-cover categories are also found in the hill country. By definition,

subalpine shrubland is located near the summit of the ranges and so is located along the

eastern border of the study area. Also known as the leatherwood belt, this is a distinctive

feature of the central and northern Tararua Ranges (Department of Conservation 2007). Tall

Tussock Grassland is found along the eastern border of the project area in the hill country.

14

According to DOC, two tall tussocks are the Chionochloa flavescends (broad-leaved snow

tussock), occupying damper and more sheltered sites, and C. pallens (mid-ribbed snow

tussock), found on more exposed sites (Department of Conservation 2007).

Several scrub/shrubland or transitional land covers also occur in the study area. Manuka

and/or Kanuka are more scattered throughout the region, in contrast to other cover types:

some occur along the western, coastal area, others are located in the northwestern corner and

northern border as well as in some of the westernmost hill country. Grey Scrub is minimally

represented at 10 sites along the coast and in the northern part of the study area. Fernland is

found at seven sites, both near the coast and in the hill country. Matagouri occurs at one site

at the northern central end of the study area.

Wetlands also occur in the study area (Figure 4); two land cover categories specifically

identify them, while two other categories are typically found as wetland environments

(Thompson and others 2003). The Herbaceous Freshwater Vegetation category, denoting

wetlands, is found mostly in central lowlands with most instances situated on the coastal

plain. The other wetland category, Herbaceous Saline Vegetation, occurs at one site near the

Rangitikei River on the northwestern border of the study area (a probable misclassification).

Flaxland occurs at 17 sites in the western and central lowlands. Together, these categories

comprise less than 0.2% of the landscape. Tall tussock grassland can also be associated with

wetlands.

Several categories of bare surfaces are located within the study area (Figure 4). Coastal Sand

and Gravel, by definition, is located along the coastal margin at the western edge of the study

area. River and lakeshore gravel/rock has been identified along major rivers throughout the

study area. Alpine Gravel and Rock is found in the north-eastern hill country as well as in a

few isolated spots in the north-western portion (possible misclassifications) and one isolated

spot in the south-eastern corner of the study area. Landslides, which may be “indigenous” or

anthropogenically induced, were identified at 72 sites in the ranges and hill country.

15

Figure 4 Land Cover Database 2 (LCDB2) classification of the study area.

16

Three types of water bodies occur within the study area boundary: rivers; lakes and ponds;

and estuarine open water (Figure 4). Together, these cover a total of 0.7% of the study area

(Table 2). As expected, occurrences of estuarine open water are confined to a narrow strip

along the coast. Rivers are located throughout the study area. Lakes and ponds are also

scattered throughout the study area, with a higher density on the coast and a notable absence

in the north-eastern and south-eastern ranges. The LCDB2 classification, however, identifies

only portions of major rivers, not the entire riverine network. Viewed in combination with

NZMS260 data, a comprehensive picture of the riverine network can be established (Figure

5). Riparian buffers were estimated as 75 m either side of the river centre line (J Shepherd

pers. comm.), totalling an area of 172,185 ha, which comprises approximately one-third of

the study area (Figure 5).

17

Figure 5 Riverine network and riparian buffers throughout study area.

18

Managed ecosystems

The area encompassed by the project boundary comprises a primarily pastoral landscape

(Figure 4, Table 2). Although 20 different culturally derived categories are represented, high

producing exotic grassland covers 66% of the study area. Five other categories each

comprise 1.5–2.5% of the landscape. Each of the remaining categories covers less than 1%

of the study area.

High producing exotic grassland blankets much of the low lying area (apart from the coastal

strip) and is absent from the high hill country in the south-eastern and north-eastern parts of

the study area (Figure 4). Low producing grassland is located along the perimeter of high

producing grassland – mostly along the coast and at the base of the ranges.

Pine plantations have the second largest presence in the study area (Figure 4). They are

captured at five stages of their rotation cycle: Afforestation (imaged and not-imaged),

identifying areas 4–5 years old; Pine forest-open canopy, denoting crops 6–15 years old; Pine

forest-closed canopy, identifying stands older than 15 years that likely would be harvested

within 10–15 years of the image date from which the data were derived; and Forest

Harvested, which can also identify harvesting of other types of forest (Thompson and others

2003). Together, these forestry production activities comprise 4.7% of the landscape. Except

for the southeastern and northeastern ranges, this land use occurs throughout the study area,

with a particular density in the central western lowlands.

Other types of exotic woody vegetation are present as well. Deciduous hardwoods, typically

designating willows and poplars growing adjacent to inland water and rivers, can also include

stands of planted exotic hardwoods such as oak, ash, and elm (Thompson and others 2003).

Within the study area, they are scattered throughout the southern half and form dense linear

corridors (most likely riparian) in the northern half (Figure 4). Gorse and broom are scattered

throughout the area – especially in the northwest, central lowlands, and lower reaches of the

western hill country. Other exotic forest is scattered throughout the lowlands. Similarly,

major shelterbelts are located throughout the territory in the lowlands, mostly in the southern

two-thirds of the study area. Mixed exotic shrubland occurs in the western lowlands with a

few additional occurrences in the northern hill country.

19

A number of other agricultural activities take place within the study area. The occurrence of

short rotation cropland generally follows the southwest-northeast axis in the eastern lowlands,

away from the coast (Figure 4). It does not take place in the northern or eastern hill country.

Orchard and other perennial crops are located in eastern lowlands in the southern half of the

rohe and along a west-east axis in the centre of the study area, which includes the outskirts of

Palmerston North. Vineyards exist at nine inland locations in the southern end of the territory

and at one site south of Palmerston North.

One city, Palmerston North, and several towns, Levin, Foxton, Feilding, and Otaki, sit within

the study area (Figure 1). All the major population centres exist in lowlands located in the

southern two-thirds of study area, and a few small villages are sprinkled throughout the

northern hill country. Urban parkland/open space is associated with built-up areas

(Thompson and others 2003). In addition, four dumps and transport infrastructure occur near

these areas. Together, these land uses associated with urbanization comprise almost 2% of

the study area (Table 2). Surface mine locations are in the northwest and south central

lowlands of the study area (Figure 4).

3.1.2. Wetlands

As defined by the WONI project (Ausseil and others 2008), 757 wetland occurrences,

aggregated into 223 unique wetlands based on proximity, fall within the study area (Figure 6)

and cover a total of 1,473.6 ha or 0.3% of the landscape. They range in size from 0.135 ha to

59.633 ha; most wetlands are small (Figure 7). Wetlands are located throughout the study

area: 22 of the 31 catchments contain wetlands (Table 1). Wetland occurrence ranges from

one, in four catchments, to 76 in the Manawatu River catchment. In addition to Kapiti Island,

those catchments without recorded wetlands are situated in the interior of the study area along

the southwest/northeast axis.

Within the study area, wetlands fall into five main categories – bog, swamp, marsh, fen, and

seepage; swamps are the dominant type of wetland in the study area (Ausseil and others

2008) (Table 3). Nineteen of the catchments contain wetlands with swamp characteristics,

and 15 catchments contain those with marsh (Figure 8). The wetlands located within nine

catchments are of a single type: swamp (6 catchments), marsh (1), and seepage (2). The

Manawatu River catchment is the only one to contain all five types of wetland.

20

Figure 6 Distribution of wetlands within the study area, as defined by the Wetlands of National Importance project.

21

Figure 7 Frequency size distribution of wetlands. Table 3 Wetland types and areas within project boundary Wetland type Number of wetlands Area (ha) Bog 4 3 Swamp 500 1052 Marsh 231 331 Fen 4 14 Seepage 18 10

3.1.3. Indigenous forests

Eight of 11 possible indigenous forest types have been identified in the study area (Figure 9).

The forest types form three groups: those comprising more than 10,000 ha, those covering

about 5,000 ha, and those less than 500 ha (Table 4). In all, indigenous forest occupies

12.6% of the study area. Indigenous forests consist mostly of podocarp-broadleaved and

beech forest compositions (Figure 9, Table 4). Small areas of coastal forest also exist within

the study area. The composition of more than 5,000 ha of indigenous forest could not be

further detailed and so remains unspecified (Table 4).

22

Table 4 Occurrence of indigenous forest types in study area

Indigenous Forest type Area (ha) Proportion of study area (%) Beech/Broadleaved forest 381 0.1 Beech/Podocarp-broadleaved forest 15,734 3.2 Beech forest 11,729 2.4 Broadleaved forest 5,062 1.0 Coastal forest 293 0.1 Podocarp-broadleaved/Beech forest 5,389 1.1 Podocarp-broadleaved forest 13,027 2.6 Subalpine scrub 5,234 1.1 Unspecified Indigenous forest 5,758 1.2

All but two of the catchments contain indigenous forest, ranging in total area from 0.2-

26,416 ha (Figure 9). In four catchments – Kapiti Island and the three south-eastern ones,

indigenous forests cover more than 50% of the area. In half of the catchments – all those that

cover the upper 2/3 of the study area (except for the two in the north-eastern corner) and a

coastal one in the south, indigenous forests make up 5% or less of the catchment area (Figure

9). The two that do not contain forest are on the coastal plain, one of which is the notably

small “Forest Hill Drain” catchment.

The composition of indigenous forests vary spatially, according to physiographic/ community

relationships. Coastal forest and beech-broadleaved forest are each found in two catchments

(Table 5). Beech forest and subalpine scrub are each found in five catchments in the ranges,

co-occurring in four of them. Podocarp-broadleaved/beech forest is found in the same

catchments as beech forest, as well as in one other. Unspecified indigenous forest is found in

all but one of the catchments that contain any kind of indigenous forest; it is the only forest

category for 11 of the catchments.

23

Figure 8 Wetland composition.

24

Figure 9 Indigenous forest composition.

25

Table 5 Presence (ha) of indigenous forests types within each catchment

Catchment ID

Subalpine Scrub

Coastal Forest

Podocarp-broadleaved forest

Beech Forest

Broadleaved forest

Podocarp-broadleaved/ Beech forest

Beech-broadleaved forest

Beech/ Podocarp-broadleaved forest

Unspecified indigenous forest

Total forest (ha)

% of catch-ment

515 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 1103 1135 2.1

520 0 0 69 0 0 0 0 0 102 171 2.1

523 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 312 312 2.8

528 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 180 180 0.7

531 1306 0 0 4094 0 111 0 474 341 6328 19.1

536 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 76 3.1

538 3074 0 1687 894 17 267 372 1046 1475 8832 18.1

539 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 190 190 0.5

544 335 0 2415 0 956 0 0 0 783 4489 3.6

545 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 21 0.3

549 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 18 0.1

552 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 584 612 3.1

553

554 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

555

562 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 2 42 0.9

563 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 27 0.4

565 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 16 0.8

566 18 0 4726 345 418 409 0 955 29 6900 68.2

568 0 0 484 0 213 16 0 0 54 767 9.5

569 0 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 52.4

571 0 0 269 56 802 154 0 694 21 1995 33.5

572 0 0 660 0 143 286 0 189 36 1314 25.8

576 0 0 91 0 0 0 0 25 40 155 9.2

578 500 0 2095 6338 989 4144 9 12329 13 26416 86.5

581 0 0 419 0 195 0 0 0 99 714 12.1

585 0 0 29 0 121 0 0 19 61 230 5.3

587 0 35 0 0 1108 0 0 0 75 1218 62.5

588 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 1.4

589 0 258 20 0 0 0 0 0 93 371 10.4

590 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 9.4

26

3.2. Refined classification of the landscape

The merging of data sets results in a more detailed and accurate land-use/land-cover

classification (Figure 10). The indigenous forest composition information contained in the

Ecosat forest classification was used to replace the general LCDB2 indigenous forest class.

Most of the indigenous forest was evenly distributed among Podocarp-broadleaved, Beech,

and Beech/Podocarp-broadleaved forest types (Table 6). The composition of 10% of the

indigenous forest could not be further identified, and 2% of the LCDB2 indigenous forest

class were not identified as forest in the Ecosat indigenous forest classification (Table 6). For

the latter, the LCDB2 indigenous forest classification was retained.

27

Table 6 Composition of indigenous forest Each row shows the area (ha) distribution of LCDB2 categories among the ecosat indigenous forest classification. The percentage of the total LCDB2 category area falling into each community type is shown under each area. Ecosat Indigenous Forest Classification:

Subalpine scrub

Coastal forest

Podocarp-broadleaved forest

Beech forest

Broadleaved forest

Podocarp-broadleaved / Beech forest

Beech / Broadleaved forest

Beech / Podocarp-broadleaved forest

Unspecified Indigenous forest Other Total

LCDB Indigenous Forest 985 293 12716 11287 5061 5286 376 15297 5728 1379 58408 2% 1% 22% 19% 9% 9% 1% 26% 10% 2% 100% LCDB Sub Alpine Shrub 4249 0 311 443 0 103 5 437 30 970 6548 65% 0% 5% 7% 0% 2% 0% 7% 0% 15% 100%

28

Figure 10 Present land cover, composite of different data sources.

29

The WONI wetlands were examined in the context of the forest-enhanced classification. The

wetlands were located in 27 of the 38 LCDB2 categories. Approximately one-third of the

area designated as herbaceous freshwater vegetation, meant to indicate inland wetlands in the

LCDB2 classification, coincided with 23% of the wetland area identified in the WONI

project. Other land-cover categories associated with wetlands were also identified as WONI

wetlands, including 44% of the flaxland area and less than 1% of the tall tussock grassland

(Table 7). About 5% of the area classified as water (lake/pond, river, and estuarine open

water) was identified as wetland in the WONI classification, comprising 15% of the total

wetland area.

Table 7 WONI wetlands occurring in LCDB2 classification

LCDB category

WONI wetland area (ha)

Proportion of total WONI wetland area (%)

Proportion of total LCDB2 category classified as WONI wetland (%)

High Producing Exotic Grassland 288.0 24.0 0.1 Herbaceous Freshwater Vegetation 274.9 22.9 36.2 Lake and Pond 177.7 14.8 18.5 Indigenous Forest 129.6 10.8 0.2 Low Producing Grassland 73.9 6.2 0.8 Pine Forest – Open Canopy 54.6 4.6 0.7 Broadleaved Indigenous Forest 43.9 3.7 0.2 Flaxland 36.2 3.0 44.3 Deciduous Hardwoods 34.9 2.9 1.1 Short-rotation Cropland 25.0 2.1 0.2 Gorse and Broom 17.0 1.4 0.8 Manuka and or Kanuka 12.9 1.1 0.2 Other Exotic Forest 5.8 0.5 0.3 Pine Forest – Closed Canopy 5.5 0.5 0.0 Urban Parkland/Open Space 3.8 0.3 0.2 Coastal Sand and Gravel 3.8 0.3 0.3 Forest Harvested 2.8 0.2 0.3 Afforestation (not imaged) 1.9 0.2 0.2 River 1.8 0.1 0.1 Estuarine Open Water 1.7 0.1 3.5 Mixed Exotic Shrubland 1.5 0.1 0.4 Built-up Area 1.0 0.1 0.0 Afforestation (imaged) 1.0 0.1 0.1 Major Shelterbelt 0.5 0.0 0.1 Orchard and Other Perennial Crops 0.3 0.0 0.1 Tall Tussock Grassland 0.2 0.0 0.0 Grey Scrub 0.2 0.0 0.4

30

The LCDB2 wetland context designates possible wetland areas for other classification

categories not normally associated with wetlands (Thompson and others 2003). In this study

area, this designation was applied to some areas of broadleaved indigenous hardwoods

(0.01% of category area), deciduous hardwoods (0.26%), and manuka and/or kanuka

(0.07%). Of the total area considered as “wetland context” in the LCDB2, area, 37% of it

corresponded to wetlands in the WONI classification, which comprised 1% of the WONI

wetland area. This varied by land-cover type, with majority agreement for wetland context in

the manuka and/or kanuka category and almost 50% agreement for broadleaved indigenous

hardwoods (Table 8).

Table 8 Wetland context Area (ha) and proportion (%) of LCDB2 categories identified as having a wetland context that coincide with WONI wetland classification.

LCDB2 category WONI wetland area (ha)

Proportion of category area identified as wetland context found in WONI wetland (%)

Broadleaved Indigenous Hardwoods 1.8 49 Deciduous Hardwoods 8.4 29 Manuka and/or Kanuka 3.7 88 Another 24% of total WONI wetland area was identified in what the LCDB2 designated as

high producing exotic grassland (0.1% of category area) (Table 7). Further, 11% of wetland

area was located in areas designated as indigenous forest in the LCDB2 classification.

Regarding the latter, less than 3% of total wetland area overlapped the forest compositions

identified in the Ecosat indigenous forest classification; the remaining 8% of wetland area

coincided with unspecified indigenous forest (i.e., the LCDB2 classification) (Table 9).

Given the field-based method used to designate the WONI wetlands, they were given

precedence over the enhanced forest classification created in the previous step.

31

Table 9 Ecosat indigenous forest classification categories coinciding with WONI wetland classification

Ecosat forest Classification

WONI wetland area (ha)

Proportion of total WONI wetland area (%)

Area (ha) in each WONI Wetland Type Marsh Swamp Seepage Bog

Podocarp-broadleaf forest 25 2.1 23 2 0 0 Beech forest 1 0.1 0 0 1 0 Broadleaved forest 4 0.3 0 4 <1 0 Unspecified Indigenous forest 95 7.9 34 60 0 <2

The redefined composite classification contains a total of 45 detailed land-use/land-cover

categories. These were combined into 22 functional groups (Table 10). Fourteen of the

functional groups match the LULC category (a 1:1 correspondence) since it is projected that

the category offers unique ecosystem goods and services.

Table 10 Newly defined present land-cover categories and their areas within the project boundary

Functional groups (combining detailed categories) are also defined.

Land-Use Land-Cover category Functional_Group Area (ha) Alpine Gravel and Rock Alpine Gravel and Rock 33 Built-up Area Built/Impervious 7479 Transport Infrastructure Built/Impervious 68 Coastal Sand and Gravel Coastal Sand and Gravel 1081 Deciduous Hardwoods Deciduous Hardwoods 3252 Dump Dump 13 Estuarine Open Water Estuarine Open Water 46 Beech/Broadleaved Forest Indigenous Forest 381 Beech/Podocarp-Broadleaved Forest Indigenous Forest 15734 Beech Forest Indigenous Forest 11728 Broadleaved Forest Indigenous Forest 5058 Coastal Forest Indigenous Forest 293 Indigenous Forest Indigenous Forest 7038 Podocarp-broadleaved/Beech Forest Indigenous Forest 5389 Podocarp-broadleaved Forest Indigenous Forest 13001 Lake and Pond Lake and Pond 781 Landslide Landslide 151 Major Shelterbelts Major Shelterbelts 719 Other Exotic Forest Other Exotic Forest 1910 Afforestation Pinus radiata plantation 2508 Forest Harvested Pinus radiata plantation 1061 Pine Forest – Closed Canopy Pinus radiata plantation 12248 Pine Forest – Open Canopy Pinus radiata plantation 7413 Orchard and Other Perennial Crops Primarily Horticulture 572 Short-rotation Cropland Primarily Horticulture 10311

32

Land-Use Land-Cover category Functional_Group Area (ha) Vineyard Primarily Horticulture 75 High-producing Exotic Grassland Primarily Pastoral 324577 Low Producing Grassland Primarily Pastoral 9764 River River 2493 River and Lakeshore Gravel and Rock River and Lakeshore Gravel and Rock 1457 Gorse and Broom Scrub and Shrubland-exotic 2071 Mixed Exotic Shrubland Scrub and Shrubland-exotic 386 Broadleaved Indigenous Hardwoods Scrub and Shrubland-indigenous 27129 Fernland Scrub and Shrubland-indigenous 50 Grey Scrub Scrub and Shrubland-indigenous 49 Manuka and or Kanuka Scrub and Shrubland-indigenous 5520 Matagouri Scrub and Shrubland-indigenous 1 Subalpine Scrub Scrub and Shrubland-indigenous 6204 Surface Mine Surface Mine 182 Tall Tussock Grassland Tall Tussock Grassland 2285 Urban Parkland/ Open Space Urban Parkland/ Open Space 2074 Flaxland Wetland 46 Herbaceous Freshwater Vegetation Wetland 485 Herbaceous Saline Vegetation Wetland 22 WONI wetland Wetland 1200

33

4. Discussion

The effort required to delineate the study area appropriately revealed the complexity of

approaching this research project from two distinct world views. The indigenous definition

of place on the landscape is rooted in oral history and cultural practice rather than

cartographic markers – yet the landscape is still important. Implementing a watershed

approach was an important step for the research team as a means to tie the research findings

to the landscape and to incorporate an appropriate foundation from a scientific point of view.

The study area’s main physiographic characteristics are its broad, low coastal plain in the

west and steep ranges in the east, all of which are densely populated by an extensive riparian

network (Figure 5). The study area sits on the alluvial plains and sediment-filled depressions

of the Manawatu (Leathwick and others 2007). As noted by Leathwick et al. (2007), the

region is dominated by large river systems, which have at least some tributaries in the steep

upper catchments of the ranges and many across extensive lowland alluvial plains; some of

these river systems are among the largest catchments in the southern North Island province,

e.g., the Manawatu, Ohua, Otaki, and Waikane Rivers, all draining in to the Tasman Sea

(Figure 3). The dominant alluvial character of the study area is further revealed by the fact

that approximately one-third of it is comprised of riparian buffers. Additionally, the

Manawatu coastline is made up of unstable dune country, where small dune lakes are

common (Leathwick and others 2007).

Overall, the present land uses and land covers reveal this to be a human-dominated landscape.

There are a number of land-use/land-cover categories (LULCC) present, but most are present

only at a few sites and as small areas. Although the landscape is highly modified, it is not

highly urbanized; rather, the majority of LULCC pertain to the primary production sectors

supporting livestock. The matrix, as identified by Forman and Godron (1986), is the most

extensive and most connected landscape element type, and therefore plays the dominant role

in the functioning of the landscape. In this study area, all landscape dynamics play out on a

matrix of highly producing exotic grassland.

34

Still, forest patches and remnant wetlands remain in a matrix of anthropogenic land uses.

Approximately 96% of the North Island was covered by indigenous forest before human

settlement; see details of local study area in Cole (2012). The current forest coverage of less

than 13% reinforces the assessment of a heavily modified landscape. Indeed, Ewers et al.

(2006) identified the conservation status within the Manawatu–Wanganui region, in which

this study area falls, to be Critical, given that less than 30% of indigenous forest falls within

conservation units (Figure 11).

The importance of wetlands within the study area is highlighted by the fact that eight of the

ten top wetland sites in the wider Manawatu–Wanganui district were identified within the

bounds of the study area, most of which are on the plains of the Horowhenua district (Ausseil

and others 2007). Four of these eight are located in Department of Conservation protected

areas. In all, twenty-seven of the 209 conservation units contain wetlands; 29 of the 233

uniquely identified wetlands sit within DOC conservation units (Figure 11). The study area

consists of a varied and fragmented landscape. The remnant indigenous cover types – both

wetlands and forests – are small, fragmented, and dispersed across the landscape.

The ecosystem services in the study area will vary according to landscape composition – the

LULCC present, their condition, the extent of their transformation by human activities – as

well as landscape structure – the fragmentation, network connectivity, and adjacency of

various LULCC. With the landscape template defined, ecosystem services can be further

investigated through the wider research programme.

35

Figure 11 DOC conservation units present in the study area.

36

5. Acknowledgements

This research project benefited from the assistance of several people and institutions. In

particular, I thank Garth Harmsworth and Janice Willoughby for compiling data and

providing sound research advice. Landcare Research and the Department of Conservation

contributed data. Production assistance was received from Jemma Callaghan and Derrylea

Hardy. This research is part of the Iwi Ecoservices project, funded by Foundation for

Research, Science and Technology contract number EOI-10106-ECOS-MAU.

37

6. References

Ausseil A-G, Dymond JR, Shepherd JD. 2007. Rapid mapping and prioritisation of wetland

sites in the Manawatu-Wanganui region, New Zealand. Environmental Management 39:316-325.

Ausseil A-G, Gerbeaux P, Chadderton WL, Stephens T, Brown DJ, Leathwick J. 2008. Wetland ecosystems of national importance for biodiversity: Criteria, methods and candidate list of nationally important inland wetlands. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Landcare Research Contract Report for the Department of Conservation. Report nr LC0708/158. 162 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 256-274.

Cole AO. 2012. The vegetation cover of the Horowhenua and Manawatū regions ca. 1800-1840: 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.

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

Department of Conservation. Dymond JR, Shepherd JD. 2004. The spatial distribution of indigenous forest and its

composition in the Wellington region, New Zealand, from ETM+ satellite imagery. Remote Sensing of Environment 90(1):116-125.

Ewers RM, Kliskey AD, Walker S, Rutledge D, Harding JS, Didham RK. 2006. Past and future trajectories of forest loss in New Zealand. Biological Conservation 133(3):312-325.

Golubiewski NE. 2012. Ecosystem service inventory of the natural and managed landscapes within the greater Ngāti Raukawa area. Ngā Māramatanga-ā-Papa (Iwi Ecosystem Services) Research Monograph Series No. 7. Palmerston North, Iwi Ecosystem Services Research Team, Massey University & Landcare Research/Manaaki Whenua.

LCDB2 metadata. 2004. New Zealand LCDB 2 and the Land Cover Classification System (LCCS). Wellington: Ministry for the Environment. 4 p.

Leathwick JR, Collier K, Chadderton L. 2007. Identifying freshwater ecosystems with nationally important natural heritage values: development of a biogeographic framework. Wellington: Department of Conservation. 30 p.

Meurk CD, Hall GMJ. 2006. Options for enhancing forest biodiversity across New Zealand's managed landscapes based on ecosystem modelling and spatial design. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 30(1):131-146.

Meurk CD, Swaffield SR. 2000. A landscape ecological framework for indigenous regeneration in rural New Zealand-Aotearoa. Landscape and Urban Planning 50:129-144.

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

38

Ministry for the Environment. 1997. The State of New Zealand's Environment 1997. 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 Environmnet. 24 p.

Terralink International Limited. 2004. ANZLIC Metadata New Zealand Land Cover Database (LCDB2). Wellington: Terralink International Limited. 4 p.

Thompson S, Gruner I, Gapare N. 2003. New Zealand Land Cover Database Version 2 Illustrated Guide to Target Classes. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment. 126 p.

Troy A, Wilson MA. 2006. Mapping ecosystem services: Practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecological Economics 60:435-449.

Vitousek PM. 1994. Beyond global warming: Ecology and global change. Ecology 75(7):1861-1876.

Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM. 1997. Human domination of Earth's ecosystems. Science 277:494-499.