A meta-analysis released this month states that almost twenty-five percent of birds on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species are being affected by climate change. In addition, with last years' announcement to make New Zealand predator-free by 2050, such surveys might be useful for locating concentrations of introduced pest species. In a way, I'm providing a guide that anyone can follow with the minimum of effort (hint, hint). So here are my results, followed by some more information:
| Class/species | Native/self-introduced | Number seen |
|---|---|---|
| Insecta | ||
| Ant (unknown species) | Yes | Numerous |
| Asian paper wasp | No | 3 |
| Black field cricket | Yes | 4 |
| Bumble bee | No | 1 |
| Bush cockroach | Yes | 14 |
| Cabbage tree moth | Yes | 7 |
| Cabbage white butterfly | No | 2 |
| Cicada | Yes | 2 |
| Click beetle | Yes | 2 |
| Common bag moth | Yes | 1 |
| Crane fly | Yes | 1 |
| European earwig | No | 1 |
| Ground beetle | Yes | 2 |
| Honey bee | No | 1 |
| Housefly | No | 7 |
| Ladybird | Yes | 2 |
| Monarch butterfly | Yes | 17 |
| Shield bug | Yes | 3 |
| South African praying mantis | No | 22 |
| Tree weta | Yes | 18 |
| Arachnida | ||
| Bird dropping spider | Yes | 1 |
| Black cobweb spider | Yes | 1 |
| Black house spider | Yes | 1 |
| Daddy long-legs | Yes | 3 |
| Jumping spider | Yes | 1 |
| Nurseryweb spider | Yes | 1 |
| Slater spider | Yes | 1 |
| White tail spider | No | 1 |
| Annelida | ||
| Earthworm | No | 5 |
| Tiger worm | No | Numerous |
| Hexapoda | ||
| Springtail | No | Numerous |
| Chilopoda | ||
| Centipede | Yes | 3 |
| Mollusca | ||
| Common garden snail | No | 9 |
| Reptilia | ||
| Rainbow skink | No | 2 |
| Aves | ||
| Australasian hawk | Yes | 1 |
| Blackbird | No | 2 |
| Black headed gull | Yes | 3 |
| Eastern rosella | No | 4 |
| Fantail | Yes | 2 |
| Goldfinch | No | 3 |
| Greenfinch | No | 2 |
| House sparrow | No | 14 |
| Myna bird | No | 4 |
| Rock pigeon | No | 5 |
| Silvereye | Yes | 7 |
| Song thrush | No | 1 |
| Spotted dove | No | 1 |
| Starling | No | 4 |
| Tui | Yes | 1 |
| Mammalia | ||
| Cat | No | 2 |
| Chicken | No | 1 |
| Dog | No | 1 |
| Hedgehog | No | 1 |
| Mouse | No | 1 |
| Rabbit | No | 1 |
The first thing that seems obvious is just how many non-native species I observed, some deliberate introductions whilst others accidentally brought to New Zealand, but all within the past two centuries.
Now for some interesting comments about how statistics can be (mis)interpreted:
1) The method I chose to order the table by could affect how easy it is to find key points of interest. Alphabetical order is familiar but is simply a well-known form of cataloging. Therefore it can be seen as a neutral form of presentation, not emphasising any particular pattern of the results. Had I ordered by native/non-native, it might have become more apparent how many of the latter bird species there are. If I had ordered all species in one list by this method, rather than in separate classes, the pattern would have been obscured again. So simply by selecting a certain order, results can appear to support a certain notion.
2) How useful is this data if it lacks supporting information? By this, I mean factors that might affect the count: Is it a common or garden (yes, that's a pun) location or an highly unusual one? Is the locale urban or rural? What are the surroundings? How big is the garden and how much vegetation is there? Is the vegetation primarily native or non-native? I could go on like for this ages, but clearly to get a more sophisticated understanding of the causes behind the figures, this information is necessary. Even then, two locations that are almost identical to a casual observer might appear profoundly different from the vantage point of say, earthworms. I will admit to (a) having built 2 weta motels and a bug motel; and (b) feeding silvereyes in winter; and (c) having made a tui sugar water feeder that has been totally ignored. Go figure!
3) Are there any other obvious factors that could affect wildlife? How managed is the location? Are chemicals such as weedkiller used or is the garden solely organic? Again, this can have a massive effect on wildlife, such as pesticides that remove insects at the base of food webs. On the one hand, if mine is an organic garden surrounding by neighbours who spray their foliage, then it could be an island of suitability in a comparatively barren terrain. But alternatively, if most of the neighbourhood isn't fauna-friendly, how likely would my garden get visited even on the off-chance by animals that can't live in the wider area?
4) Of course there's also contingency within natural selection. For example, quite by chance some species can survive on foods not native to their ecosystem. Although stick insect numbers in New Zealand were drastically reduced thanks to DDT, gardens don't need to contain their native food plants in order to support them. In the south-west of England, three species of accidentally-introduced New Zealand stick insect have flourished for decades on the likes of roses! Also, unusual events can affect populations: in this case, the two rainbow skinks appeared several months' after laying some ready lawn so I can only assume their eggs arrived with the turf, the previous five years having seen no skinks whatsoever.
5) When it comes to surveys, timing is also important. As you might expect, most of my observations took place during the day, with the only nocturnal ventures being on clear nights when using my telescope. The moths and hedgehogs were mostly seen at night, whilst had I included birds I could hear as well as see, then a morepork would have been added to the list. Again a simple prejudice, in this case sight over sound, has skewed the statistics. The large number of mantises were not adults but nymphs all hatching from a single ootheca. As for the monarch butterflies, they were a combination of caterpillars, chrysalis and adults, having appeared in much greater numbers this year than previous, despite no additional swan plants (their only food). Interesting, a clump of twenty or so mature swan plants a few streets away hasn't yielded any monarchs in any of the three stages. Presumably, predators such as wasps are responsible.
The sheer randomness of nature is exciting, but doesn't exactly help to uncover why populations are such as they are found via small-scale studies. Oh, and further to the damage invasive species have wrought on native wildlife, you may be interested to learn that none of the mammals belonged to me, the cats and dog being owned by friends and neighbours whilst the rabbit was an escapee from a dozen houses away!
6) Finally, there's the scale prejudice. Although I have a basic microscope, I didn't include such tiny wonders as tardigrades and bdelloid rotifers, even though garden moss and leaf litter respectively has revealed these wee critters. My page of nature photographs shows this prejudice, with microscopic fauna getting their own page.
So, what can we learn from this, apart from the large number of non-native species commonly found in Auckland? Perhaps that raw data can be presented in ways to obscure patterns or suggest others, should the publisher have an agenda. Furthermore, without access to highly detailed meta data, the statistics by themselves tell only a small part of the story and as such are open to wide-ranging interpretation by the reader. Therefore the next time you read about some percentage or other, remember that even without manipulation or omission, survey data is not necessarily pure, unsullied and free of bias.
