660
Views
10
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research articles

Spatio-temporal variation in species composition of New Zealand's whitebait fishery

, ORCID Icon &
Pages 679-694 | Received 05 Sep 2019, Accepted 17 Mar 2020, Published online: 25 Mar 2020

Figures & data

Figure 1. The proportion of īnanga (Galaxias maculatus) in whitebait samples (n ≥ 100 fish) collected over four months from up to 87 rivers around New Zealand.

Figure 1. The proportion of īnanga (Galaxias maculatus) in whitebait samples (n ≥ 100 fish) collected over four months from up to 87 rivers around New Zealand.

Figure 2. The proportion of banded kōkopu (Galaxias fasciatus) in whitebait samples (n ≥ 100 fish) collected over four months from up to 87 rivers around New Zealand.

Figure 2. The proportion of banded kōkopu (Galaxias fasciatus) in whitebait samples (n ≥ 100 fish) collected over four months from up to 87 rivers around New Zealand.

Figure 3. The proportion of kōaro (Galaxias brevipinnis) in whitebait samples (n ≥ 100 fish) collected over four months from up to 87 rivers around New Zealand.

Figure 3. The proportion of kōaro (Galaxias brevipinnis) in whitebait samples (n ≥ 100 fish) collected over four months from up to 87 rivers around New Zealand.

Figure 4. The proportion of giant kōkopu (Galaxias argenteus) in whitebait samples (n ≥ 100 fish) collected over four months from up to 87 rivers around New Zealand.

Figure 4. The proportion of giant kōkopu (Galaxias argenteus) in whitebait samples (n ≥ 100 fish) collected over four months from up to 87 rivers around New Zealand.

Figure 5. The mean (+SE) proportion (%) of the six whitebait species in samples (n ≥ 100 fish) taken over three months (September–November 2015) from 15 regions of New Zealand. The number of samples is shown at the base of bars in the īnanga panels. ND = no data. Regions are: Auckland (AUK), Coromandel (COR), Waikato (WKO), Bay of Plenty (BOP), Taranaki (TKI), Manawatu-Wanganui (MWT), Hawke's Bay (HKB), Wellington (WTN), Tasman-Nelson (TAS), Marlborough (MBH), Buller (BUL), Canterbury (CAN), Westland (WTL), Otago (OTA), Southland (STL) and all of New Zealand (NZ). Grey bars are regions where enough samples were taken in each month to allow comparisons with ANOVA.

Figure 5. The mean (+SE) proportion (%) of the six whitebait species in samples (n ≥ 100 fish) taken over three months (September–November 2015) from 15 regions of New Zealand. The number of samples is shown at the base of bars in the īnanga panels. ND = no data. Regions are: Auckland (AUK), Coromandel (COR), Waikato (WKO), Bay of Plenty (BOP), Taranaki (TKI), Manawatu-Wanganui (MWT), Hawke's Bay (HKB), Wellington (WTN), Tasman-Nelson (TAS), Marlborough (MBH), Buller (BUL), Canterbury (CAN), Westland (WTL), Otago (OTA), Southland (STL) and all of New Zealand (NZ). Grey bars are regions where enough samples were taken in each month to allow comparisons with ANOVA.

Figure 6. The proportion (%) of five whitebait species in samples (n ≥ 100 fish) taken from eight rivers (plotted from north to south) over up to six months (July–December 2015).

Figure 6. The proportion (%) of five whitebait species in samples (n ≥ 100 fish) taken from eight rivers (plotted from north to south) over up to six months (July–December 2015).

Table 1. Summary of DISTLM models with indigenous forest cover (%) of a catchment as a predictor of the species composition of the whitebait catch. Also shown are Pearson's correlation coefficients between indigenous forest cover (%) and individual species within months.

Table 2. Mean (±SE) species composition (%) of whitebait samples from all rivers in New Zealand, North Island (both coasts), South Island (east coast) and South Island (west coast) in 1964 (adapted from McDowall Citation1965) and 2015. For 2015 the ‘kōkopu’ species have been separated into banded, giant and shortjaw kōkopu. The number of samples (n) from each area is shown.

Table 3. Mean (±SE) species composition (%) of whitebait samples from four Bay of Plenty rivers in 1983 (adapted from Rowe et al. Citation1992) and in 2015. The number of samples (n) from each river is shown.

Supplemental material

Supplementary Table 1

Download PDF (111.1 KB)

Supplementary material

Download PDF (140.7 KB)

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.