Guest post by Paul Cuming. Ōi, our burrowing seabird neighbours, the northern muttonbird.

Paul Cuming is a mild-mannered librarian by day, and a seabird defender by night. Based in Tauranga, he divides his spare time between running the local branch of BirdsNZ, occasionally training teens in the art of bird banding and mistnetting, and coaching visiting backpackers in the fine art of falling off a surfboard. He is also a founding member of the Western Bay Wildlife Trust, lectures on native bird calls and kills the odd varmint in the local park.

Paul Cuming and friend, grey faced petrel,
ōi, or kuia. Checking identification bands,
growth and weight during a night survey in
the Western Bay of Plenty. Source:
Paul Cuming (2018).

One of the most exciting projects Paul has been involved with is the groundbreaking successful transfer of seabird chicks from an offshore island to a mainland colony. Here in the Bay of Plenty  colonies of Pterodroma macroptera gouldi (ōi, kuia, or grey faced petrel) can be found on the Ruamaahua (Aldermen Islands) off the coast of east Coromandel, and on the Ōhiwa Headlands in our very own backyard. To find out more about this fascinating bird and the successful transfer project read on.......

There are several significant colonies of petrel on our mainland and offshore islands in Aotearoa. Most well known is the cousin to the petrel, Puffinus griseus (titī or sooty shearwater) found on the Rakiura Titī Islands (near Stewart Island), where the colony is managed and sustainably harvested for the birds most of us will be more familiar with as “muttonbird”. However, less well known is the ground-burrowing seabird called grey faced petrel, ōi or kuia,  Pterodroma macroptera gouldi. 

Here in the Bay of Plenty ōi can be found on the Ruamaahua (Aldermen Islands) off the coast of east Coromandel, and on the Ōhiwa Headlands in our very own backyard. Moutohorā (Whale Island) is home to one of the largest ōi populations, comprising approximately 50,000 breeding pairs. Historically this species has been harvested by tangata whenua, giving rise to it’s unofficial name the “North Island muttonbird”. In pre-European times the harvested birds were preserved in their own fat, and stored in kelp buckets. Ngati Awa, tangata whenua of Moutohorā (Whale Island) refer to this species as kuia, while more widely through the North Island it is known as ōi.

Harvesting of mainland ōi was prohibited by the Department of  Internal Affairs under the Grey Faced Petrel (Northern Muttonbird Notice (1958)) and the 1953 Wildlife Act. Mainland Harvesting is still prohibited, but the Petrel Project on Ruamaahu (Alderman) Islands includes monitoring and management of a sustainable harvest by local tangata whenua. 

The ōi is the most common species of petrel in the North Island, breeding on headlands and islands. The birds feed at sea during the day, and at sunset the birds return to their burrows, where they are nocturnally active. You are most likely to see these birds at sea in the air, or resting on the water. Feeding takes place in the open at distances over 100 kilometres from land where the continental shelf ends. Distance is no limit in the search for food, with some birds recorded flying almost as far as the east coast of Australia while the partner remains on the egg.

Ōi, or grey faced petrel as it flies above the ocean surface
seeking food off the coast of Victoria in Australia.
Source: Ed Dunens.

Satellite tagging from the Ruamaahua project shows birds frequently fly to Australia's East Coast, up past Norfolk Island to New Caledonian waters in the North, and over to the Southern Pacific Ocean around 800km South of Pitcairn Island, about 2500km East of New Zealand. Our studies have shown on Mauao (Mount Maunganui) that the same birds use the same burrows each year and 'extend' their burrows. The same groups of birds associate with one another from year to year as the metal band numbers from recaptures in the same areas each year often are only one or two digits different [banded at the same time, recaptured together]

Like all mainland nesting seabird sites, including Onekawa Te Mawhai Regional Park near Ōhiwa, ōi have had to put up with a lot of challenges to the very existence of the species. The current problem is well-established – pests introduced by humans. An additional challenge to the species, especially in the wider Bay of Plenty, is coastal erosion caused by large-scale events such as tropical cyclones. Between them, for example, Tropical Cyclones Cook and Debbie, only a month apart in 2017, carved off significant amounts of soil from our mainland study site Mauao (Mount Maunganui) which included dozens of ōi burrows. The same systems significantly damaged the canopy of the pest-free offshore island Motuotau (Rabbit Island), also home to the small cousin of the ōi, the Kuaka (Common Diving Petrel).

So, how do we know all this about ōi? In 1989, we were given the privilege of establishing the population dynamics of the ōi colony on Mauao in partnership with the Department of Conservation (DoC). Who were we? We were members of the Ornithological Society of New Zealand, an organisation which has specialised in the study of wild birds since 1939. Our control site, the pest free Motuotau, was used to compare the effects of pest control on the numbers of birds using the mainland Mauao site. Eleven years later, after the Mauao colony was shown to be viable - but with a proviso of continued pest control - Mauao was then selected by DoC to become the pioneering site for a landmark project – the successful transfer of seabirds from an existing colony to a new site. 

Marcus Richards returns a successfully fledged ōi to it's burrow 
after monitoring for growth, weight and condition. 
Source: Paul Cuming (2018).

Ōi chick nesting in an artificial burrow on Mount Maunganui. Artificial
burrows can provide a more stable habitat and
 also reduce competition for habitat. Source: Paul Cuming (2018).

Healthy ōi chick being returned to it's burrow after monitoring for
growth, weight and condition. Source: Paul Cuming (2018)

Thirty ōi chicks from Motuotau were moved to Mauao in the spring of 2000. Many ‘golden rules’ were learned, but the two I will explain are fascinating. Firstly, you must transfer chicks BEFORE they waddle out of the burrow and look at the sky. This allows a bird to return to the place they were born, in effect fixing their onboard GPS-style navigation from that point. So it is no use transferring any chicks which are older. The other is diet, what to feed the chicks after the transfer. Because you become their parents. Various tricks have been learnt since, and diet varies between types of seabirds (shearwaters and prions have subsequently been successfully transferred at other locations in the country)..  

The extra effort involved with transferring chicks to areas absent of acoustic noises of petrels was avoided by transferring chicks directly into an existing colony of adult birds making all sorts of colonial noises! So this resolved the issue of setting up acoustic anchoring sound systems, which are compulsory if transferring to starter colonies. Our project team spent time away from the site studying and helping with other species’ projects and gaining transfer knowledge; mainly on Red Mercury, Maud, Matiu, Mana and Cabbage Tree Island in New South Wales. Our project was successful and we still see some of those chicks today with bright red colour bands in addition to their metal bands. These techniques were initially developed in New Zealand for land bird species such as the Chatham Island Black Robin. So why transfer a relatively common species of bird?  

We need to go back to the Chatham Islands to find our answer - the closest species of birds to the ōi, the tāiko, or Magenta Petrel. The tāiko numbers less than 200 and the population is described as nationally critical. The tāiko needed to be transferred to a pest free area being established in the Chatham Islands, offshore of the main island where they were just hanging on. The tāiko were too precious to be experimented with, as any losses of the birds would be unacceptable on all levels, especially on a genetic level. So, in effect, we were using one species of bird to save another, by studying and learning through our mistakes - and what not to do - on a more common species.

It is important to note that this knowledge was gained  while operating in partnership with DoC, and we would not have been able to do this without their express permits or permissions. It is also of note to mention we were really only helping them carry out this pioneering work under their auspices. We were willing passengers on this journey and are still thankful this knowledge still exists under the umbrella of the Department of Conservation today - and within the leader of the transfer project, Graeme Taylor, current DoC Principal Science Advisor.

We would also like to acknowledge the work of the Ōhiwa Headlands Sanctuary Trust and the Department of Conservation in actively managing and monitoring the grey-faced petrel colony at Ōhiwa Headlands, and significant pest-control activities in the area.

Neo the Conservation Dog sniffing out a burrow during a 2014 survey
of grey-faced petrel at Ōhiwa Headlands. 
Source: Mithuna Sothieson/OHST.

If you would like to explore these fascinating birds and this project further, several articles have been published in Notornis, the magazine of the New Zealand Ornithilogical Society.


Clifford, H. J. (2001). Ten years studying grey-faced petrel  (Pterodroma macroptera gouldi) at Mauao/Motuotau. Notornis, 48(3), 183-183.

Greene, B. S., Taylor, G. A., & Earl, R.. (2015). Distribution, population status and trends of grey-faced petrel (Pterodroma macroptera gouldi) in the northern North Island, New Zealand. Notornis, 62(3), 143-161.

Jones, C. J., H.Clifford,, Fletcher, D., Cuming, P., & Lyver, P. O. 'B.. (2011). Survival and age-at-first-return estimates for grey-faced petrels (Pterodroma macroptera gouldi) breeding on Mauao and Motuotau Island in the Bay of Plenty, New Zealand. Notornis, 58(2), 71-80.

Taylor, G.A. 2013. Grey-faced petrel. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online. www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz
 

 

  

Stories written in the whenua beneath our feet. Geoheritage, geoconservation and geoeducation.

It's hard to believe it is March already, and we can hardly call it the beginning of the year anymore. Welcome to our first post for 2019, and I look forward to many more this year. A huge thank you to all my supporters, subscribers, followers, and guest writers who have inspired to keep this blog active. I look forward to bringing you many more posts along with some great new guest writers lined up for this year.

One of the things that kept me busy towards the end of last year was making a presentation on a subject that encompasses many of the fields that I am interested in, that can be broadly defined under the umbrella of "geoheritage". It is because of the disciplines related to this field such as  archaeology, history, Earth sciences, and ecology that I find myself increasingly referring to myself as a "cultural geologist". 

The author contemplates a 150,000 year story of erosion,
underwater landslides, shifting continents, and massive tectonic 
forces shaping this spectacular outcrop at Otarawairere, 
Eastern Bay of Plenty. Source: Phil Pollock (2018).

This post draws on many ideas made in a presentation to  the New Zealand Geosciences Society 2018 conference. I would like to acknowledge the efforts of Bruce Hayward in organising the geoheritage symposium, and extending the invitation to present. 

Financial support to attend the conference was provided by Te Papa National Services Te Paerangi, and ongoing support by the organisation for promoting this kaupapa is apprecaited. You can follow and support the organisation on their facebook page by following the link below

Finally, I would like to acknowledge my colleagues and co-authors, Chris Twemlow (Landmapping.nz), and Karoly Nemeth (Professor in Geology of Massey University).

Due to my background in Earth Sciences, I have largely been introduced to ideas related to geoheritage through the geological and Earth Sciences community. Often I am asked to explain geoheritage, and I stress the broad interpretation of the prefix "geo" as Earth, and in a more local sense the place where we stand. I am increasingly coming to see the importance of this kaupapa to the tourism, conservation, and education services. I also see an important role for the museum and heritage sector in promoting and facilitating geoheritage and geotourism ventures. While the traditional role for this sector may be viewed as collection and conservation of physical taonga, I suggest involvement by museums in collaboration with other community organisations such as libraries and local heritage societies, encourages a view of our cultural landscapes and associated geosites as a taonga in their own right.

One challenge for tourism today stems from the fact that most people’s knowledge of New Zealand prior to visiting may be limited to a series of well-publicised, extremely popular, and well utilised tourist hot-spots. We describe this as the must-see paradigm, where the tourist experience of New Zealand is limited to an itinerary based on a series of stand-alone experiences interspersed with periods of travel between destinations. This approach has seen increasing congestion at tourist hot-spots, increasing strain on infrastructure, and competing interests between local residents and visitors.  

Trampers await transport at the Katetahi Road end of the
Tongariro Crossing. This one-day walk is considered one of the 
countries top tourist destinations, seeing increasing congestion 
and strain on infrastructure in one of New Zealand's few
World Heritage Areas.
Source: Kathy Ombler (2017). Retrieved
from Wildernessmag.co.nz 

 

Beachgoers and hazard warning signs at Cathedral Cove,
Coromandel. Source: www.gns.cri.co.nz (2018).

Coromandel Peninsula is widely promoted for its white-sand
beaches, set against the backdrop of a relict volcanic 
landscape. However, little mainstream promotion seeks to educate or 
enlighten regarding the geological and cultural story of this landscape.
Source: http://www.coromandelfun.co.nz/ (2018).

The term geoheritage recognises the fact that a landscape and its people have a story to tell in the ongoing history of the community which can be told through sustainable tourism and education initiatives. Geological, cultural, and ecological features with effective interpretation can be used to provide an engaging and dynamic learning experience for visitors, educators and all community members. Providing a visitor experience that integrates the natural history of the land with the cultural and human history provides a highly valued visitor experience of local, regional, and international significance. A successful example of such a venture is the Māngere Mountain Education Centre, situated on the lower slopes of Te Pane o Mataoho - Māngere Mountain. Modeled on the concept of a living museum, here one can "walk the present, discover the past". 

Panel explaining the relationship between terraces
visible on the side of Māngere Mountain and pre-European'
Earthworks, indicating the importance of this site as a large 
pā situated on an extinct volcano at the centre of a network of
smaller villages and gardening complexes on the ring-plain formed 
by lava and ash deposits from the volcano. The carved figure 
acknowledges the importance of this area to tangata whenua, and
a landscape that physically connnects them to their ancestors.
Māngere Mountain Education Centre, South Auckland. 
Source: Ian Lawlor (2015).

Interpretation at Troopers Hill Local Nature Reserve, Bristol UK. Clear,
engaging, and well laid out information integrates information on geology
and environment. Source: http://www.troopers-hill.org.uk (2018).

Interpretation panel at Ihumātao fossil forest, Māngere, South Auckland.
Engaging visible material with an engaging scientifically accurate story
tells the story of landscape changes due to climate change, rising sea-levels
and catastrophic phreatomagamtic volcanism. Source: Author (2016).

Here in the Eastern Bay we are blessed with a rich cultural heritage and archaeological history. When we first think of our heritage, we more than likely think of buildings or structures that have an obvious and explicit connection to our past. However, human history in this country stretching back centuries has left a rich and dynamic story written in the landscape around us. 

Looking across a terraced ridge-line at Onekawa Te Mawhai Regional
Park towards Whakaari - White Island. Terraces are the imprint left
on our landscape by pre-European defensive earth-works. Source: Author (2018).

Cliff-top shell midden exposed by erosion of coastal cliff-top
at Waiotahe, Eastern bay of Plenty. The round group of stones
visible towards the top of the shells are hangi stones (a type of oven using 
heated and buried rocks). This demonstrates the desirability
of these locations due to the nearby marine resources, and the easily
defendable cliff-top terraces. Source: Author (2017).

Illustration showing Māori defensive earthworks and timber pallisades.
Interpretation panel at Tauwhare Pā Scenic Reserve, Ōhope, 
Eastern Bay of Plenty. Source: Author (2018).

The rolling hills, ridges, and natural terraces of the Eastern Bay made ideal pā sites, while valleys were home to extensive floodplains and wetlands. Rivers and smaller streams provided abundant resources as well as an extensive transport network.  This was especially the case in the lands surrounding Ōhiwa Harbour, one of the most densely populated areas of the country prior to European settlement.  The Eastern Bay was a highly desirable area to settle, no doubt for many of the same reasons people continue to be attracted to the area today. 

Distribution of pā sites in the Bay of Plenty. High density
of sites can be seen in the Tauranga region and between 
Whakatāne and Ōpōtiki. Source: Archaeology of the Bay of
Plenty, by Garry Law, Published by the Department of
Conservation (2008).

While this may be common knowledge amongst tangata whenua, it was not until the mid 20th century that the extent of pre-European population and settlement became apparent to archaeological researchers and historians. In an early site survey by local historian and farmer David White, 200 pā sites were estimated to be present in an area from approximately 12 miles east to 12 miles west of Ōpōtiki. Since then work has continued researching, mapping, and excavating archaeological sites, confirming the extensive and complex networks of whanau and hapu that resided in this area. As technology and methods for research and surveying continually improve, we find there is still a wealth of knowledge and history to be gained from exploration of our whenua.

Unfortunately, throughout New Zealand culturally significant sites have suffered many ravages, despite protection through legislation, and the Bay of Plenty is no different. Quarrying has destroyed maunga and pā sites, roads and tracks have beeen driven through and over the top of archaeological sites and urupa, and agricultural development has all but obscured the rich layers of history preserved within our whenua. In addition, our archaeological heritage, which to a large degree is represented by sites and landscapes of significance to tangata whenua, is poorly protected protected by legislation through the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act (HNZPT) 2014.  

Often the only Archaeological record we are left with of significant sites is through a process colloquially referred to as  "rescue archaeology". Due to requirements of the HNZPT and the Resource Management Act, permission to modify or destroy a site or feature may be granted if an archaeologist is present, and a record is kept of any findings. This process particularly favours private land-owners and developers, whose primary interest is the tangible returns form economic development, rather than the intangible gains of cultural preservation. This is reflected in comments below from the recently published article "The Mounting Crisis at Ihumaatao"

"Established in 2014, HNZPT is charged with ensuring the ‘identification, protection,  preservation,  and  conservation  of  .  .  .  historical  and  cultural  heritage’ However, up to March 2017, it granted almost 97 percent (877 of 907) of applications for developments affecting Māori archaeological sites.HNZPT claims pre-application discussions can result in protective measures, but the Ihumaatao decision suggests the HNZPT Act 2014 almost exclusively favours  private  property  rights  and  developer  interests  over  protecting  the  values and benefits of our oldest cultural heritage places."  Source: The Mounting Crisis at Ihumaatao: A High Cost Special housing Area or a Cultural Heritage Landscape for Future Generations? (2018). By Tim McCreanor, Fances Hancock, and Nicola Short. Published in Counterfutures No 6. Full article available here.


Despite the poor record of protection and preservation, when we look around us we can see the imprint on the land of a highly organised and culturally rich society taking advantage of topography and supported by rich resources of the land and estuaries. High points with extensive views over the Ōhiwa harbour and coastline were the sites of regionally important pā sites, where human made earthworks can still be recognised by the terraces we see left behind today. Onekawa Te Mawhai Regional Park is the site of five closely neighbouring pā sites, now thankfully preserved and protected from further damage within the park. A vigorous walk up the steeply sloping track from the entrance at Bryan's Beach takes one past several exposed shell middens and standing on the flattened top of the Onekawa pā site one gets a sense of how important this site would have been in observing movements in and out of the harbour, of both friendly and hostile visitors to the area. 

Above and Below: Onekawa Pā is situated at a high
point on the Ōhiwa Headland, providing extensive views
over the Ōhiwa Harbour entrance, and east towards
Cape Runaway. Source: Author (2018).

Beneath the vegetation one can get glimpses of the history
of this dynamic landscape, both  human and geological. Here
one can see layers of ash, pumice, and other sediments exposed
in an outcrop beneath exposed pōhutukawa roots. Onekawa
Te Mawhai  Regional Park. Source: Author (2018).

  

In time vegetation and soil will cover evidence of human
occupation, but erosion may also work to expose it.
Here a shell midden can be seen exposed by erosion on a 
steep bank at Onekawa Te Mawhai Regional Park. 
Source: Author (2018).

Archaeological excavations at sites elsewhere on the coastal margin of the Ōhiwa harbour have recovered material including obsidian scrapers from Great Barrier and Mayor Islands; greywacke from Motutapu (Auckland); basalt from the Tahunga quarry in Coromandel; and argillite from D’Urville Island. Evidence shows that the earliest settlers on the Ōhiwa Harbour arrived over 700 years ago, during the period described as the “archaic” or “moa-hunter” period. The archaic period pre-dates 1500AD, while the period post 1500AD saw the development of Māori society and culture as encountered by the first European explorers.

Abundant marine resources would have sustained both a local population, as well as providing a significant regional resource. The fertile ash and pumice cloaked hills and terraces with their fertile free-draining soils were ideal for cultivating crops. The harbour itself would have been an important shelter and waka landing place on an exposed coastline with few sheltered harbours in the immediate vicinity. The diversity of stone artefacts recovered from this area provide evidence of extensive, country-wide trading networks. 

In researching the history, geology, and cultural landscapes of the Eastern Bay of Plenty, I would like to acknowledge Whakatōhea Research and Archives Trust, Upokorehe kaumatua, Lynda Walter (archaeologist), and Tanja Rother (researcher and writer). 

The Ōhiwa Harbour Heritage trail provides a great opportunity to explore our environmental and cultural heritage. The first stage of the trail, featuring a number of sites focusing on the environment was implemented last year, with development of a further number of sites currently underway, bringing alive the cultural history of the area.

Interpretation panel exploring the bird-life one may see at points on the Ōhiwa Harbour Heritage Trail.
Source: Tanja Rother (2018).

 For a downloadable copy of the Ōhiwa Harbour Heritage Trail brochure follow this link

Coming up from 27th April until 5th May is the New Zealand Archaeological Association Archaeology Week 2019. This year Ōpōtiki Museum, will be hosting several events, while a guided walk on Sunday the 28th of April will take in Onekawa and Te Mawhai Regional Park, and several nearby sites on the harbour edge. For more information go to the Ōpōtiki Museum website or Friends of Ōpōtiki Museum facebook page. Also keep an eye on your local media for venues, times, and other updates.