repeat kiwi distribution survey, thames coast kiwi care...

Repeat Kiwi Distribution Survey,

Thames Coast Kiwi Care 2006 to 2016.

CONTRACT REPORT 2016/1

Note that estimated kiwi locations are presented to show change in distribution over the period and should not be interpreted as exact locations due to the home ranges of kiwi which could be > 50ha and also the inherent inaccuracies of plotting specific locations based on night time auditory observations.

Disclaimer:

While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information in this report, no liability is accepted for errors of fact or opinion, or for any loss or damage resulting from reliance on, or the use of, the information it contains. This report has been prepared for Thames Coast Kiwi Care Group and may only be disclosed to third parties with the prior consent of that organization.

Survey planned and supervised by Patrick (Paddy) Stewart for the Thames Coast Kiwi

Care. Field work competed by Inge Bolt, Nathan McCauley, Neil John, Sally Armstrong

and Paddy Stewart.

The survey was funded by Thames Coast Kiwi Care and Pub Charities.

May 2016

Red Admiral Ecology 450 Kapanga Road Coromandel 3506 www.redadmiral.co.nz

Thames Coast Kiwi Care Repeat Distribution Survey, Winter 2016

Red Admiral Ecology ii

Executive summary

An intensive listening distribution survey for Coromandel brown kiwi (Apteryx mantelli)

was completed on lands about the Tapu/Te Mata settlements on the west coast of the

Coromandel Peninsula between 1 and 9 May 2016. The survey detected at least 37 kiwi

from 18 listening stations. Of these, 23 birds were male (including one sub adult) and 14

female.

This report presents a direct comparison of kiwi survivorship between 2006 and 2016 (10

listening stations) and an estimate of the adult kiwi population within the greater Thames

Coast Kiwi Care project area (18 auditory stations). During the 2006 baseline survey 19 kiwi (8 male and 11 female) were detected from 10

listening stations. A follow up survey in 2011 detected 7 males and 4 females. In 2016

23 (16 male and 7 female) we heard from the same 10 stations. The addition of eight

supplementary listening stations in 2011 increased the overall sampling area to

approximately 2,257 ha and also intensified the sampling effort in line with best practice.

Kiwi have not been detected from the 5 listening stations in the Tapu Valley since the

baseline survey.

Since the 2011 survey the kiwi population appears to have been distributed in the Te

Mata and Waikawau Catchments (approximately 1,830 ha of the survey area). This

indicates that the distribution of this remnant population reduced over the initial five year

sampling period and that continues to be the case in 2016.

It is estimated that there are at least 24 pair of kiwi were present in 2016, equating to a

density of one pair/94 ha in the overall treatment area, which is considerably lower than

other projects on the Coromandel. The data also indicates that densities have increased

by 10 % per annum over the seven year period 2006 – 20141.

An index of kiwi calls, which can be used to infer the relative population density was

calculated from kiwi call count rates. In 2006 this was calculated to be 0.73, 0.55 in 2011

and 1.32 calls/hr in 2016.

1 The actual period is 10 years but birds would not have been detected for at least the first two years of their life and so the 2016 figures only represent productivity until 2014.

Contents

Introduction 1

1.1 Objectives 1 1.2 Background 1

2. Field method 3

3. Results 4

3.1 Change in numbers of kiwi – the comparison count 4 3.2 Population distribution and relative density 6 3.3 Call count data 8

4. Discussion 8

5. Recommendations 12

Acknowledgements 13

Appendix 1 15

Pattern of ferret detections across Northern Coromandel localities, 1995 to 2015. 15


Red Admiral Ecology 1

Introduction

1.1 Objectives

The objectives of this report are to assess changes at the Tapu/Te Mata area of the Thames Coast between 2006 and 2016 in:

the number of kiwi the distribution of those kiwi detected the relative population density of kiwi the call count rate of kiwi

1.2 Background

Kiwi are a recognised national symbol in contemporary New Zealand society and also as

a taonga (treasure) to Maori, who have strong cultural, spiritual and historic associations

with the bird. Brown kiwi (Apteryx mantelli) are an endemic long-lived nationally

threatened species considered to be in serious decline without management (Miskelly et

al. 2008). Kiwi on the Coromandel Peninsula are considered to be a genetically distinct

form of brown kiwi endemic to the Coromandel Ecological Region (Burbidge et al.

2003).

In 2008 the population was estimated to be 1,000 individuals and projected to increase to

about 2,000 by 2018 (Holzapfel et al. 2008). Several actively managed populations in the

north are flourishing. South of a line between Tapu and Tairua on the East Coast these

birds have disappeared from at least 40% of their known range in the last 20 years

(Stewart, 2013). Unmanaged mainland brown kiwi populations are presently declining at

an annual rate of 3%, primarily due to the predation of young kiwi by stoats (Toriura)

(Mustela erminea).

Thames Coast Kiwi Care (TCKC) was formed by Thames Coast Protection Society after

strong support for kiwi protection was indicated at a public meeting at Tapu on 26 May

2006 (Nanning, 2006). With the view of establishing a landscape scale kiwi protection

area, an assessment of the kiwi population on public and private lands was completed by

volunteers in May/June 2006 prior to landscape scale stoat control being initiated later

that year (ibid). Two sub-adult kiwi from Mt Moehau were also released in 2007 and



2008, one having since been killed by a dog and the other taken residence in the northern

catchment. TCKC’s goal is to:

‘enhance the conditions for kiwi already living there to the point where they represent a

viable, self-sustaining population’.

The Thames Coast protection area lies within the Thames Ecological District between

Thames and Coromandel townships, on the west coast of the Coromandel Peninsula

(36°96’ S, 175°34’ E). The survey area is bounded by a semi-developed coastline to the

west and the Coromandel Ranges to the east. Coastal margins and valleys were initially

developed for farming but most have more recently been converted to productive forestry

or subdivided into lifestyle blocks.

The area covers three bio climatic zones. In general terms, common vegetation

associations grade from coastal pohutukawa cliffland and induced scrubland; through to

secondary forest and finally, logged podocarp/broadleaf forest on the flanks of the

Papakai Ecological Area.

Statutory agencies have controlled animal pests on public land known as Papakai

Ecological Area, and areas of private land around Te Mata; possums since 1995 and goats

since 1993 (Nanning, 2006). Possum control operations conducted in 1998/99 and

2002/03 were successful in meeting their Residual Trap Catch (RTC) target of < 5%

(cited in McLean, 2004). Some private landowners also have their own independent

animal pest management regimes. Possums were again targeted throughout much of the

area in 2009 with the application of 1080 by aerial and ground based operations.

Subsequent possum control about the Central Coromandel has not treated the stoat

control area.

Targeted landscape stoat control commenced in 2006 and the treatment area has since

been increased to about 2,500ha, utilising approximately 350 trap sets (one trap per

7.1ha) as prescribed by current best practice (D. Peters, pers. comm.). Some landowners

also independently trap stoats on their own properties at densities higher than prescribed

for landscape trapping. Several ferrets (Torihura) (Mustela putorius furo) have been

captured within the trapped area over the last five years.



2. Field method

In 2006 10 listening stations (A – J) were selected within the survey area to provide

representative coverage of the kiwi habitat available (native forest, pine forest, scrub and

shrub-land). More resources were made available in 2011 and so a further eight

supplementary stations (1 – 8)2 were established to increase sampling density and also the

overall sampling area increased to approximately 2,257 ha. Automated recorders were

deployed at Stations 7 and 8 in 2016 and these resources used to sample Stations 9 and

10. This intensified sampling effort is in accordance with best practice (Robertson et al,

2003). One point of difference is that the manual specifies that male and female calls are

broadcast alternately every 15 minutes rather than in tandem (male and female together

every 15 minutes).

Another variation from best practice is that some listening stations were closer to each

other than the recommended one kilometre distance. The Thames Coast has a fragmented

coastal topography, therefore placing the listening stations on broad hilltops was deemed

impractical in 2006 and the paired stations (A and B, G and J in 2011, E and F in 2016)

were established either side of high points on spurs with optimal listening coverage into

separate catchments. Typically about 90% of resident males are detected after three

nights of solicited surveying at each site with the best practice survey method (Robertson

et al, 2003).

Observers completed three x 2 hour survey listening sessions at each station between

May 5 and 31, 2016. Surveys were not undertaken in strong winds or within five days of

a full moon. Each survey began at least 45 minutes after sunset and all were completed

prior to midnight. Time was synchronised to mobile phones.

Observers listened in silence for the first hour. For the second hour they broadcast a

recorded kiwi call (male then female) for approximately 20 seconds/gender every 15

minutes, to solicit calls from kiwi in the area. An estimate of the number of kiwi of each

sex heard was recorded on the Call Scheme Card). A procedure was used to verify all

kiwi calls recorded. This involved checking that kiwi heard were not other surveyors

2 7 and 8 converted to automated recording stations and effort transferred to 9 and 10 in 2016



playing taped kiwi calls, and that each call heard was counted at only one listening station

if recorded from two or more. Several hours of daytime follow-up was required to tease

out each night’s fieldwork.

3. Results

3.1 Change in numbers of kiwi – the comparison count

The number of kiwi detected from the original 10 listening stations has fluctuated over

the ten year period. A very low ratio of males to females were detected in 2006 (TABLE

1).

TABLE 1: CHANGE IN NUMBERS OF KIWI DETECTED, THAMES COAST KIWI CARE 2006 to 2016 FROM THE ORIGINAL 10 STATIONS (A – J).

YEAR

TOTAL

NUMBER OF

KIWI

MALE

FEMALE

PROPORTION

OF MALES

TO FEMALES

2006 19 8 11 0.7 : 1

2011 11 7 4 1.8 : 1 2016 22 16 7 2.3 : 1

The change in numbers of kiwi detected from the original 10 listening stations over the

10 year period is shown below in FIGURE 1.



FIGURE 1: CHANGE IN NUMBERS OF MALE AND FEMALE KIWI DETECTED, THAMES COAST KIWI CARE 2006, 2011AND 2016 FROM THE ORIGINAL 10 STATIONS

The number of males detected from Stations A – J increased substantially over the 2011 – 2016

period (FIGURE 2). The data indicates that densities have increased by 10 % per annum

over the seven year period 2006 – 20143.

FIGURE 2: CHANGE IN NUMBERS OF MALE KIWI DETECTED, THAMES COAST KIWI CARE 2006, 2011 AND 2016 FROM THE ORIGINAL 10 STATIONS

3 The actual period is 10 years but birds would not have been detected for at least the first two years of their life and so the 2016 figures only represent productivity until 2014.

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

A B C D E F G H I J

Nu

mb

er o

f ki

wi

Listening stations

2011 versus 2006 2016 versus 2006

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

2006 2011 2016

Nu

mb

er o

f m

ale

kiw

i



3.2 Population distribution and relative density

In 2016 kiwi were detected from 70% of the original 10 listening stations compared with

70% in 2006. FIGURE 3 shows distribution constricted and density increased over the

2006 – 2016 period.

FIGURE 3: CHANGE IN KIWI DISTRIBUTION, THAMES COAST KIWI CARE 2006 TO

2016 (FROM THE ORIGINAL 10 LISTENING STATIONS)

In 2011 eight supplementary stations were added to improve sampling coverage. It can

be seen in FIGURE 4 that the population distribution is concentrated from the Te Mata



River northwards. A total of 37 kiwi (22 adult male and 14 female)4 were detected and

this total is called the ‘distribution result’. A ‘population estimate’ in 2016 of 24 pairs

was also calculated (22 males x 1.1) by using the ‘distribution result’ (22 males) plus a

factor of 10% which represents the likely proportion of the male calling population not

detected by this methodology This equates to a theoretical density of one pair/94 ha.

FIGURE 4: KIWI DISTRIBUTION, THAMES COAST KIWI CARE 2006 & 2016 (ORIGINAL 10 LISTENING STATIONS IN 2006 (LETTERS) & 18 STATIONS IN 2016 (LETTERS + NUMBERS)). 4 Calculations do not include the sub adult male detected from station H.



3.3 Call count data

Call count data collected at the original 10 listening stations during the first and second

hours (unsolicited and solicited) was combined (total of 60 hrs/year) to calculate call

count rates for each survey. Mean call count rates recorded during the 2006 survey were

0.73 calls per hour (SE ± 0.26), 0.55 calls per hour (SE ± 0.23) in 2011 and 1.32 calls per

hour (SE ± 0.54) during the 2016 survey (see FIGURE 5).

FIGURE 5: MEAN KIWI CALL RATES RECORDED IN 2006, 2011 AND 2016 AT THE ORIGINAL 10 LISTENING STATIONS, BARS SHOW STANDARD ERROR).

4. Discussion

Population distribution and relative density

The good news is that kiwi numbers have increased since the last survey in 2011.

Densities remain much lower than other kiwi protection areas and so there is still some

way for the TCKC to go before it attains the goal of a self-sustaining population.

Fragmented clusters of birds appear to me more evenly distributed throughout the Te

Mata Catchment, stable in Waikawau, but they continue to be absent from the Tapu

Valley.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2006 2011 2016

Mean

call r

ate

per

ho

ur

± S

td.

Err

or



Relative to the 2006 baseline survey there was a marked divergence in the number of

birds detected in the 2011 and 2016 surveys (TABLE 1 and FIGURES 1 and 2). The

overall low number of birds detected in 2011 contrasts with a higher number of

detections in 2006 and 2015. One possibility is that the 2011 survey simply did not

detect some of the birds heard in 2006. This is always possible with auditory surveys, but

there is a clear pattern of non-detection across the landscape in the 2011 survey and so

missing a few individuals should not have skewed the 2011 result so severely.

Another possibility is that the fragmented population was in advanced stages of collapse.

The detected number of females relative to males in 2006 was three times higher

(TABLE 1) than would be expected (Robertson, 2004) and this points to an adult male

survivorship issue. It is possible that ferrets have targeted males on nests. Even if this is

not the case, ferret control should be re-evaluated due to the risk they pose.

The population was observed to contract from the south of the trapping area post 2006

(FIGURE 1). This decline was confirmed by the non detection of kiwi from the three

new supplementary stations that were established in the Tapu Valley (stations 5, 7 and 8

in FIGURE 4). Kiwi were not detected across the landscape in 2011 and 2016 from all

five stations5 to the south and so it would appear that the Tapu catchment is currently the

southern distribution limit of resident kiwi in the TCKC trapping area.

TCKC kiwi protection efforts in the Tapu catchment also presently represent the southern

limit of formal kiwi protection inputs for the Coromandel taxon on the west coast of the

Coromandel Peninsula. If the project is not successful then the birds range on the

peninsula will continue to contract northwards. This would continue the pattern of

decline which has resulted in the extirpation of the bird from 85, 000 ha of habitat in the

southern Coromandel6 over 20 years (Stewart, 2013).

The number of calling male kiwi in the TCKC northern treatment area has doubled over

the sampling period. The 10% p.a. estimated increase of calling males is similar to other

5 Includes automated recorders deployed at 7 and 8 in 2016. 6 This area accounts for approximately half of the Coromandel Peninsula ER north of the Karangahake Gorge



recovering fragment populations on the Coromandel that have benefited from best

practice predator control networks (E.g. Moehau and Whenuakite).

The 2011 report recommended a target of 30 pair to produce a genetically viable founder

population by 2015. Our estimate of 24 pair may slightly under represent the actual

numbers, as there are reports of some other birds to the east of the treatment area (N. John

pers comm). Irrespective of the actual numbers the result shows a good platform for

further recover has been established.

The theoretical density figure of one pair/96 ha is lower than other projects on the

Coromandel Peninsula (Moehau 46 ha in 2009 and Whenuakite 24 ha in 2015) (Stewart

et al. 2010 and 2015), but similar to those projects at their inception. There should be

carrying capacity for densities to increase at least threefold on the Thames Coast and so it

seems reasonable to aim for at least 50 pair within the next 10 years. Presently we

estimate there are at least 24 pair and on present growth rates this should be attainable in

seven years.

In summary our best interpretation of the results is that the baseline survey captured the

population on the brink of extirpation and that subsequently that densities have increased

about local fragments in the Te Mata and Waikawau catchments

Call count rate

Statistical analysis on this not yet completed. While academic this could be useful in the

future if densities recover to levels too high for effective distribution surveys.

Threats

Dogs and stoats

The threat posed by these predators to kiwi is well documented are not addressed here.

Sub adult dispersal

Kiwi have been shown to prosper in large (>10,000 ha) protection areas such as at

Moehau, but what does the future hold for smaller areas such as Thames Coast. Sub

adult dispersal out of managed areas where the probability of predation is higher (Forbes,



2009 & Hunt, 2009) has been found to contribute to serious population bottlenecks (E.g.

Central North Island) and needs to be considered.

This survey has detected an increase in kiwi numbers and we assume this is due to

recruitment from within the local population. The proportion of young birds that leave

the area is not able to be determined from auditory surveys, but the upcoming release of

young birds from Rotoroa Island back to the mainland is a very valuable opportunity to

find out if funding can be obtained to complete a limited transmitter study of dispersal

patterns.

Rates of sub adult dispersal for North Island brown kiwi have been estimated to vary

between 7% (Moehau - de Monchy unpubl. data) and 10% (Tongariro – Hunt, 2009).

They are likely to be higher in the smaller TCKC area where they cannot be assessed as

there is no dispersal data. Modelling completed in 2003 by Basse & McLennan (cited in

Forbes, 2009) indicated that for small projects of around 2000ha at least 50% of sub-

adults would need to remain in the ‘source’ area to increase recruitment).

Mean dispersal distances from the Moehau project where a distribution survey estimated

densities were lower (46 ha/pair in 2009 c.f. 24 ha/pair at Whenuakite in 2015) indicate

that most sub adults would only disperse to nearby areas (Forbes, 2009). Where practical

it would make sense to increase the network area some further buffering to help prevent

young kiwi encountering stoats in neighbouring areas, as stoats have been shown to have

large home ranges (Gillies et al, 2007).

Ferrets

These predators are a serious issue for kiwi restoration projects. At the 20, 000 ha

Tongariro Forest Kiwi Sanctuary (TFKS) the population target of 200 pair of kiwi has

recently been reduced to 100. Established in 2000 the research project utilizes BNZ

Operation Nest EggTM (O.N.E) and aerial 1080. The population has increased at only

0.6% p.a. over the 2000 – 2014 period. The primary issue is that ferrets reintroduce into

the treatment area and eat the birds in years outside of aerial 1080 treatment. There is no

trapping network to protect the kiwi at this project (Guillotel et al, 2014).



Ferrets appear to be distributed at low densities across the northern Coromandel

Peninsula (Appendix 1) and individual projects employ their own site specific protection

measures. Most of the detections have been in the southern Coromandel, and historically

there were Fitch farms near Waihi, Hikuai and Mill Creek south of Whitianga (T.

Harrison, pers comm).

Previous records of ferrets in forested habitat include a personal observation on the main

range at 600 m elevation and capture in a possum trap near Kakatarahae several

kilometres to the north of the treatment area (E. Murphey, pers comm). Importantly three

of the five ferrets caught to date at Thames Coast have been in forested habitat.

In light of the threat posed, it would make sense to evaluate ferret control policy and

options about farm forest margins over the entire northern Coromandel7, especially the

remaining 27% of the peninsula containing managed kiwi populations. This is an

important ‘sleeper’ issue for all Coromandel Projects.

Recommendations

1. Ensure best practice stoat trapping continues.

2. Increase the number of pairs in the project area to 50 by 2021.

3. Repeat this distribution survey in 2021 and if the 50 pair target has not been met then look to further replenish the local population with excess birds from other sites.

4. Monitor selected hot spots annually to detect any wholesale declines due to localized issues such as dog or ferret predation.

5. Establish ‘lead in lines’ to the north and northeast to further enhance chick protection. Advocate for the establishment of predator control networks to the north and south of the treatment area to minimize reinvasion.

6. Re-assess the projects ferret trapping capacity.

7 North of the nominal line between Tairua and Tapu.



Acknowledgements

The survey was funded by Pub Charities and Environment Waikato. Survey teams were:

2006: Carol Nanning, Paul White, Shelley Carr, Louise Deane, Fin Buchanan, Robert Efford, Wayne Lincoln, Bill and Catherine Bedford, Anne Boyle, Warwick Reed, Joanne Richards, Lisa Ballantyne, Ian Stewart and Bob Carr.

2011: Carol Nanning, Hamish Kendal, Wendy Hare, Tony Harrison, Peter Novis, Bob Carr and Patrick Stewart.

Landowners who helped make the survey a success were John and Rosemary Roper, Des and Tiny Veal, Paul and Missy Veal, Bill and Marie Bedford, Paul White, Ian Stewart and Louise Dean, Fin Buchannan and Carol Nanning, David and Tania Lyons, Grant Tollison, Mathew Gillard and Leanne Brown, Berry Zondag and Jim Glenn of Te Mata Forestry.

References

Burbidge, M.L.; Colbourne, R.M.; Robertson, H.A.; Baker, A.J. 2003. Molecular and other biological evidence supports recognition of at least three species of brown kiwi. Conservation Genetics 4: 167–177.

Forbes, Y. 2009. Natal Dispersal, Habitat Selection and Mortality of North Island Brown Kiwi (Apteryx mantelli) at the Thames Coast Kiwi Sanctuary, Coromandel. A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for a Master of Applied Science Environmental Studies, Auckland University of Technology.

Gillies, C.A.; Graham, P.J.; Clout, M.N. 2007. Home ranges of introduced mammalian carnivores at Trounson Kauri Park, Northland, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal

of Zoology, 2007, Vol. 34: 317–333. 0301–4223/07/3404–317.

Holzapfel, A.; Robertson, H.A.; McLennan J.A.; Sporle, W.; Kevin Hackwell, K.; Impey, M. 2008. Kiwi (Apteryx spp) recovery plan 2008 - 2018. Threatened species recovery plan 60, Department of Conservation, Wellington. ISBN 978–0–478–14523–6.

Hood, R; Sutton, N; Guillotel, J; Dix, A; Beath, A; Raemaekers, T; Lawson, T. 2009. Tongariro Forest Kiwi Sanctuary Annual Report (June 2008 – July 2009). Unpublished report for the Department of Conservation, Turangi.

McLean, S. 2004. Central Coromandel Forest Condition Report: Assessment of Possum and Goat Impacts in the Central Coromandel Management Unit. Unpublished report prepared for the Department of Conservation, Waikato Conservancy, Hamilton, New Zealand.



Marsh, S. 1993. North Island Brown Kiwi Survey, Coromandel Peninsula 1992-1993. Unpublished report for the Department of Conservation, Hamilton.

Miskelly, C.M.; Dowding, J.E.; Elliott, G.P.; Hitchmough, R.A.; Powlesland, R.G.; Robertson, H.A.; Sagar, P.M.; Scofield, R.P.; Taylor, G.A. 2008. Conservation status of New Zealand birds. Notornis 55(3): 117-135.

Nanning, C. 2006. Te Mata/Tapu Volunteer Baseline Kiwi Survey: May and June 2006. Unpublished Report for Thames Coast Kiwi Care. R. D 5, Thames

Guillotel, J.; Potae, R.; Hayward, J. 2014. Tongariro forest kiwi sanctuary annual report. Tongariro district office, Central North Island Region.

Renwick, N.; Craig, E.; Sporle, W. 2010. Draft Taxon Plan for Northland brown kiwi (Apteryx mantelli) Strategic Plan for the recovery of Northland North Island Brown kiwi for the (ten year) period 2010 – 2019 and beyond, including key actions required for their recovery. Department of Conservation Northland Conservancy, Whangarei.

Robertson, H.; Colbourne, R.; Castro, I.; Miller, C.; Cresswell, M.; McClennan J.; Dew L.; Pierce R.; Olsen, D.; Flux, I.; Potter, M.A. 2003. Kiwi (Apteryx spp.) Best

Practice Manual. Department of Conservation, Wellington.

Robertson, H. 2004: Research and monitoring plan for the kiwi sanctuaries. Science for

Conservation 241. 24 p.

Stewart, P.; Kendal, H.; Hare, W.; Nanning, C.; Millus, N.; Harrison, T.; Novis, P. 2015. The response of kiwi to predator control and advocacy, Whenuakite 2001 - 2015. Unpublished report for Whenuakite Kiwi Care Group, Whitianga.

Stewart, P. 2010. The response of kiwi of kiwi to predator control and advocacy, Moehau 2000 – 2009. Unpublished report for the Department of Conservation, Thames.

Stewart, P. 2013. Southern Coromandel Kiwi Survey, 2012/13. Unpublished Report for the Department of Conservation, Thames.



Appendix 1

Pattern of ferret detections across Northern Coromandel localities, 1995 to 2015.

repeat kiwi distribution survey, thames coast kiwi care...

Documents