Comparing traditional and modern methods of kākahi translocation: implications for ecological restoration

Figures & data

Figure 1. Definitions of terms used to describe burying behaviour used in the experiment.

Table 1. descriptions and photos of transport vessels used in the experiment.

Method	Description	Photos
‘Modern’	A 20 L, lidded plastic bucket, filled with 15 L of water and with a coarse-bubble aerator attached. Kākahi are submerged in water but are crowded together at the bottom of the bucket, knocking together during transport-induced turbulence.
‘Traditional’	A kete stuffed with wet sphagnum moss. Kākahi are not submerged in water but are kept moist and cool with wet moss. Kākahi are packed tightly so don’t knock together with turbulence.
Hybrid	Two stacked kete suspended inside a lidded bucket filled with 15 L of water and with a coarse-bubble aeratorattached. Kākahi are nestled in the kete so are submerged in water and kept separate from each other on the tiers to reduce jostling and crushing risk. Water can circulate through the tiers^a.

^aModelled after the ‘stacking’ described in Patterson et al. (2018).

Figure 2. Scatterplots showing correlations between (top) time at being buried and time at first probing and (bottom) total burying duration and time at first probing.

Figure 3. Behaviour curves generated from survival analysis performed on kākahi that probed during the first two hours of observation. Each curve represents one of the transport treatments (bucket, kete, hybrid) and shows the times at which probing occurred in each group.

Figure 4. Behaviour curves generated from survival analysis performed on kākahi that completed (clockwise from top left) probing, righting, and burying. Each curve represents one of the transport treatments (bucket, kete, hybrid) and shows the times at which burrowing behaviour occurred in each group.

Figure 5. Behaviour curves generated from survival analysis performed on kakahi that completed burying during the observation period. Each curve represents one of the release treatments (planted and side-lying) and shows the times at which burying occurred in each group.

Patterson AM, Mair RA, Eckert NL, Gatenby CM, Brady T, Jones JW, Simmons BR, Devers JL. 2018. Freshwater mussel propagation for restoration. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.

 Google Scholar