Vegetation, animal pests and the condition of the duneland were examined at each site. Vegetation monitoring provided measures of the indigenous dominance of the species richness and aerial cover, the proportion of bare ground and the canopy height of the vegetation. Animal pest monitoring was limited to chew track cards which detect the presence of hedgehogs, possums and rodent pests, but not lagomorphs or mustelids (the other main animal pests in dunelands). Duneland condition was scored for each site based on a method developed by a collection of regional councils. The monitoring methodology is outlined below and provided in more detail in the Duneland health monitoring protocol (contact GW for more information).
Natural duneland vegetation was surveyed using 1m2 quadrats spaced 4m apart along transects established at right angles to the prevailing coastline. Transects were randomly selected from a master set of transects mapped across the length of the duneland at 10m, 50m or 100m apart depending on the length of the duneland along the coast (<0.5km, 0.5 to 3km or > 3km long respectively, see the monitoring network map for details on each duneland). At least 10 transects were surveyed at each site, but the number of quadrats on each transect varied according to the width (from inland to the beach) of the duneland being sampled. Surveys started from the inland end of transects where the landcover type changed from natural duneland to another landcover type, typically to exotic grassland. Surveys were conducted seawards, along the transects, up to the start of the beach. All of the vascular plant species were recorded in each 1m2 quadrat. The aerial cover was estimated in 5 percent increments for bare ground and all plant species recorded. Cover scores were allocated to a total cover score of 100 percent. This included provision for plant species that individually represented less than 5 percent of the aerial cover. The average canopy height of the vegetation was also measured to provide a physiognomic description of the vegetation communities across each transect.
At least one line of 10 corflute plastic chew cards (loaded with peanut butter) was sampled at each site over three fine nights. Chew cards were spaced at 50m intervals with lines located at least 200m apart along the coast.
The pressures and state of dunelands were scored for the whole duneland at each site based on the criteria outlined below. Sites with little pressures and good state received high scores.
‘Buffering’ refers to the state of surrounding land cover.
| Score | Indigenous cover dominance (%) | Indigenous animal dominance (%) | Unnatural vegetation disturbance (% bare sand) | Buffering (% of indigenous land cover) | Buffering (% of indigenous cover dominance) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | ≤5 | ≤5 | >20 | <50 | NA |
| 1 | >6 – ≤25 | >6 – ≤25 | >16 – ≤20 | ≥50 | ≤25 |
| 2 | >26 – ≤50 | >26 – ≤50 | >11 – ≤15 | ≥50 | >25 |
| 3 | >51 – ≤75 | >51 – ≤75 | >6 – ≤10 | ≥75 | >50 |
| 4 | >75 – ≤95 | >75 – ≤95 | >1 – ≤5 | ≥90 | >75 |
| 5 | >95 | >95 | ≤1 | ≥100 | >95 |
| Score | Ungulates | Lagomorphs & possums | Predators | Dogs | Problem plants (% aerial cover) | Uncontrolled pedestrians (% area accessed) | Vehicles (% area accessed) | Mining (% area disturbed) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Animals or sign regularly seen | Animals or sign regularly seen | >10% tracking Index | No control of dog access | >30 | >30 | >30 | >30 |
| 1 | – | – | – | – | >20 – ≤30 | >20 – ≤30 | >20 – ≤30 | >20 – ≤30 |
| 2 | Animals or sign occasionally seen | Animals or sign occasionally seen | <10% tracking Index | Mostly under control | >10 – ≤20 | >10 – ≤20 | >10 – ≤20 | >10 – ≤20 |
| 3 | – | – | – | – | >5 – ≤10 | >5 – ≤10 | >5 – ≤10 | >5 – ≤10 |
| 4 | Rare incursion | Rare incursion | <5% tracking index | Rare incursion | >1 – ≤5 | >1 – ≤5 | >1 – ≤5 | >1 – ≤5 |
| 5 | None | None | None | None | ≤1 | ≤1 | ≤1 | ≤1 |