Rare parasitic plant rediscovered near Wellington
Te pua o te Rēinga clusters discovered by a Greater Wellington contractor in the Wainuiomata Water Collection Area.
Photo:
Greater Wellington
A parasitic plant endemic to Aotearoa has been rediscovered near Wainuiomata after wild populations of the species were thought to be extinct in the region.
In the Wellington region
Te pua o te Rēinga
, also known as wood rose or Dactylanthus taylorii, is listed as critical on the threatened list.
Greater Wellington regional council said the plant's
seeds were translocated
from the King Country to the Wellington region in 2020, but the last documented observation of a wild Te pua o te Rēinga population was in the Kaitoke area in 1914.
Greater Wellington ecosystems and community manager and Rōpū Tiaki co-chair David Boone said a bird specialist working on behalf of Greater Wellington was not looking for the plant, but stumbled across several clusters in an area closed off from the public.
The contractor in the Wainuiomata Water Collection Area was surveying a bird count station when they unexpectedly spotted the plants, he said.
"The plants were not found in a healthy condition - more like relics of a remnant population - further monitoring is needed to understand the size and health of the population, and what we can do to preserve it," he said in a statement.
"The forest in the Wainuiomata water collection area is largely unchanged since Europeans arrived in New Zealand and includes the largest and most pristine lowland forest in the lower North Island. It is a habitat for native bird species like tītipounamu (rifleman) and kiwi, and now one of New Zealand's rarest plants."
A Te pua o te Rēinga tuber.
Photo:
Greater Wellington
Department of Conservation operations manager and an expert on Te pua o te Rēinga, Avi Holzapfel, said this was the southernmost known population of the plant in New Zealand.
The plants can live for decades or even longer, she said.
"Initial indications are this is a remnant population of mature plants which may have been at the site for a long time - right under our noses," Holzapfel said in a statement.
"Protecting the plants from predators like possums and rats will hopefully allow the plants to seed, which may be replanted to rejuvenate the population."
The surrounding forest also needed to be protected given that the plant was fully dependent on host trees, she said.
Te pua o te Rēinga male and female flowers.
Photo:
Nga Manu Nature Reserve / David Mudge
Short-tailed bats, pekapeka, are a known pollinator of Te pua o te Rēinga.
In early 2024 Greater Wellington council detected a new population of lesser short-tailed bats along the nearby Pākuratahi River.
"As short-tailed bats can range over 40km during a single night's feeding, it is quite possible that bats have visited, fed on, and pollinated the newly discovered population in the past, and hopefully will do so again," Holzapfel said.
The working group responsible for translocating Te pua o te Rēinga seeds to Zealandia and Ōtari-Wilton's bush in 2020 has reconvened to work with councils and the Department of Conservation to develop a co-management plan for the re-discovered wild population.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter
curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
9 hours ago
- RNZ News
Unmanned military tech: Julia Macdonald
'The Hand Behind Unmanned' by Jacquelyn Schneider and Julia Macdonald. Photo: Supplied Mines, guided missiles, satellites and more recently drones, are just some of the military tech that have been developed over the last few hundred years. A new book 'The Hand Behind Unmanned' explores the factors and beliefs that led to the contemporary American arsenal and asks where it's headed in the future. Julia Macdonald is the co-author of the book, as well as the Director of Research and Engagement at the Asia New Zealand Foundation, and a Research Professor at the University of Denver. She's also held positions at the RAND Corporation, in Aotearoa at the Ministry of Defence, and Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet where she led development of New Zealand's first National Security Strategy. Julia speaks with Susie Ferguson.
RNZ News
2 days ago
- RNZ News
Science sector sounds alarm over funding shake-up
Photo: 123RF New Zealand's science sector, once hailed for its agility and ingenuity during the pandemic and natural disasters, is now grappling with what researchers say is a crisis of confidence, fuelled by shrinking budgets , unstable funding pathways and policy decisions that increasingly favour commercial returns over long-term public good. Last month, a total of $212 million was cut from the science sector in this Budget, which reprioritises existing research funding towards commercially focused science and innovation. A sizeable portion goes to Invest NZ and a new gene tech regulator. The government says it backs the sector and is prioritising industry partnerships, private-sector investment, and "innovation outcomes with measurable economic impact". While officials insist the move reflects "fiscal discipline and real-world alignment", many in the sector say it amounts to a dismantling of the research base. Newsroom political journalist Fox Meyer tells The Detail that "the scale of the cuts is not great for the sector, but it's also more about the lack of investment". "It's one thing to have cuts and reprioritisation, but people have been calling for more of just anything for some time now. Now, there is a lot of frustration. "Science funding has been stagnant or declining for years now, and a decision to reprioritise stuff is not necessarily going to put money in the government's pocket like they think." With a focus on the bottom line, is this the government pulling off a Sir John Key "show me the money" moment, with a scientific bent? "That actually goes both ways," says Meyer. "Scientists are looking at the government saying, 'show me the money if you want me to produce more money', and the government is looking back at the scientists and saying, 'well, you show me the money, what are you bringing in, how are you lifting your weight?'. "That is going to be a hard one to reconcile unless the government is willing to pony up and make the investment." He worries the fall-out will include a "brain drain" with our country's brightest and best scientists and researchers opting to take up positions overseas. "My connections in the science world - plenty of them - have moved. "The chief science advisor for the Department of Conservation has moved to Australia ... that's an expert in a cutting-edge field that we have lost to a company in Australia. "And it's not the only example of this sort of thing. We invest so much in training up these scientists, and they are very skilled scientists, and then to not give them what they are asking for and what they need, I feel it falls short of our own investment." In fairness, it is not all doom and gloom. "So, the positives, there is a new funding pool for Māori-related science, that's a good thing. There's the sector-wide report that has come out, which has given us a good look at the sector. We know more now, that's a good thing. And the chief science advisor has been appointed , and the panel around him has been appointed, that's a good thing there." Meyer says the sector is crucial to all parts of New Zealand. "The science sector is about answering questions. If you have questions, science is a method, and it is used to answer a lot of those questions ... the more money that we put into this sector, the more questions we can answer. And the more questions we can answer, the more answers we can sell. "If the government is worried about economic growth, and they want to champion this sector, then you've got to put your money where your mouth is. "I am going to be curious to see how they can steer the ship of science, when maybe what they are most suited for is selling the fruits of science." Check out how to listen to and fol low The Detail here . You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter .
RNZ News
4 days ago
- RNZ News
Climate change scientists accuse government of 'ignoring scientific evidence'
Climate change scientists have written an open letter to Christopher Luxon warning that New Zealand government plans to introduce new agriculture methane targets will jeopardise existing agreements. Photo: RNZ / Marika Khabazi More than 25 international climate change scientists have written an open letter to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, accusing the government of "ignoring scientific evidence" and urging it to "deliver methane reductions that contribute to the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees". The open letter warns the New Zealand government that plans to introduce new agriculture methane targets based on a goal of causing ''no additional warming" will jeopardise New Zealand's commitments under the Paris Agreement and the Global Methane Pledge. The 26 scientists from different countries say adopting targets consistent with no additional warming implies that current methane emissions levels are acceptable when they are not. "Setting a 'no additional warming' target is to say that the wildfires in America, drought in Africa, floods across Europe, bushfires in Australia, increasing food insecurity and disease, and much more to come are all fine and acceptable, signatory Paul Behrens, global professor of environmental change at Oxford University said in a statement sent to RNZ. "The irony is that agriculture, one of the sectors most vulnerable to climate impacts, has many large, vested interests that resist and lobby against the very changes and just transitions needed to avoid those impacts," he said. Another scientist behind the letter was quoted prominently in UK newspaper the Financial Times saying the New Zealand government's approach was an "accounting trick" designed to hide the impact of agriculture in rich countries with big farming sectors, namely Ireland and New Zealand. Luxon dismissed the letter, saying academics "should send their letters to other countries" and he was not going to penalise New Zealand farmers because they were already managing methane emissions better than "every other country on the planet". New Zealand has one of the highest per-capita methane rates in the world because of its farming exports, as well as high per capita carbon emissions. Agricultural lobby groups argue the government should lower its 2050 methane target so that, rather than aiming to reduce global heating from livestock, it would aim to keep them the same, a target known as "no additional warming". The current target of 24-47 percent by 2050 already reflects the fact that methane is shorter lived at heating the planet than carbon dioxide, but farming groups says it is too high - and the current government appears receptive. Federated Farmers says the current target is unscientific, and the government appointed a panel to conduct a "scientific review" to the side of its independent Climate Change Commission. Lowering the target would fly in the face of advice from the commission, which says reductions of 35-47 percent are needed for New Zealand to deliver on its commitments under the Paris Agreement. Signatory to the letter Professor Drew Schindel is a professor of climate science at Duke University in the US and chair of the 2021 UNEP Global Methane Assessment. "The New Zealand government is setting a dangerous precedent," he said. "Adopting a goal of no additional warming means New Zealand would allow agri-methane emissions to continue at current high levels instead of using the solutions we have available to cut them. "Agriculture is the biggest source of methane from human activity - we can't afford for New Zealand or any other government to exempt it from climate action," he said in a statement sent to RNZ. Shindell told the Financial Times that using the New Zealand government's approach: "If you're a rich farmer that happens to have a lot of cows, then you can keep those cows forever" which "penalises anybody who's not already a big player in agriculture", including "poor farmers in Africa that are trying to feed a growing population". Agricultural lobby groups argue the government should lower its 2050 methane target. Photo: Supplied The letter was prompted by a powerful push by agriculture lobby groups here and overseas for developed countries to base their climate targets on an alternative method for calculating methane's climate impact, which estimates its contribution to warming based on how emissions are changing relative to a baseline. Proponents argue the newer method, known as global warming potential star (GWP*), better reflects methane's short-lived nature in the atmosphere compared to the long-lasting effects of carbon dioxide and should replace the traditional method of averaging climate impacts over 100 years. Experts say both methods are scientifically valid and can be used to reveal different things. The controversy is over using GWP* to argue that farming sectors in wealthy countries do not have to reduce their climate impacts. The letter argues using GWP* to justify not reducing the impact of farming is incompatible with global efforts to limit heating to between 1.5 and 2C. "It's like saying 'I'm pouring 100 barrels of pollution into this river, and it's killing life. If I then go and pour just 90 barrels, then I should get credited for that'," Behrens told the Financial Times . The government's science review of New Zealand's methane target has been dismissed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment as a purely political exercise. Simon Upton has said there is no particular reason why farmers should get to 'keep' today's levels of heating, particularly given farming's climate impact is larger than it was in 1990. Methane has caused most of New Zealand's contribution to heating so far, partly because it acts more quickly than carbon dioxide, front-loading the impact before it tails off. Climate Change Minister Simon Watts said Cabinet was still carefully considering its decision on whether to lower the target and to what level. He said he did not take the commentary to heart and "it doesn't stop the direction of travel we are following in undertaking a scientific review". Simon Watts said he remained happy with how the government's review of New Zealand's methane target was progressing. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone He said he remained happy with the context of the review and the expertise of the scientists the government selected for it. The panel established by the government last year concluded a 14 - 24 percent reduction in methane emissions off 2017 levels by 2050 was sufficient to ensure no additional warming from the livestock industry. The review was led by former climate change commissioner and former Fonterra board member Nicola Shadbolt. However the panel was not allowed to comment on whether "no additional warming" was an appropriate target. That decision remains one for Cabinet to make. Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at Oxford University's physics department and one of the scientists behind GWP*, agreed it was a political call - telling the Financial Times that governments, not scientists, must decide whether farmers should undo past warming from herd growth. He said he supported separate targets for methane and carbon dioxide, and said traditional approaches to methane overstated the warming impact of keeping emissions the same, and were slow to reflect the impact of raising or lowering methane. Methane is more potent over short periods than carbon dioxide, so raising or lowering it has an immediate strong impact. New Zealand has separate targets for methane and carbon dioxide. The latter needs to fall to net zero by 2050. The open letter comes almost a year to the day after a top Australian climate scientist told RNZ the government's goal of 'no added heating' from farming's methane was problematic. Professor Mark Howden , Australasia's top representative on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said taking a "sensible" mid-point from various IPCC pathways, methane would need to fall by roughly 60 percent by 2050 to meet global climate goals, though not all of that reduction needed to come from agriculture. Oil and gas industry leaks are also major contributors to methane production, and are under pressure to fall more rapidly, because they do not contribute to food production. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
