New Zealand Geographer (2008) 64, 181193

doi: 10.1111/j.1745-7939.2008.00144.x

Blackwell Publishing Asia

Research Article

Effectiveness of the river environment classication in the Auckland Region

Liza Inglis,1,2 Ian K. G. Boothroyd1,3 and Gary Brierley1 1 School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand, 2Tonkin and Taylor Ltd, PO Box 5271, Wellesley St, Auckland, New Zealand, 3Golder Associates (New Zealand) Ltd, PO Box 33849, Takapuna, Auckland, New Zealand

Abstract: The River Environment Classication (REC) provides a GIS-based tool to differentiate between biophysical attributes of river systems. This study tests the effectiveness of the REC as a tool to differentiate physical habitat and macroinvertebrate assemblages between four classes of stream in the Auckland region. Results indicate signicant within-class variability in physical habitat and macroinvertebrate assemblages, with considerable overlap among the four classes. Biophysically meaningful stream classes cannot be identied from GIS-derived data applied in this research. Field analyses of physical habitat (i.e. geomorphic river condition) are required as a supplementary tool to interpret ecological relationships for differing stream types. Key words: classication, geomorphology, habitat, macroinvertebrates, rivers.

The inherent diversity and variability of the natural world present many challenges to environmental management. The practicalities of policy, planning and on-the-ground actions require that boundaries are placed upon environmental gradients in the application of management programmes. The process of drawing lines upon maps is essentially a task in classication, for which a myriad of procedures can be applied. This issue has been particularly fractious in river science and management (e.g. Goodwin 1999; Simon et al. 2007). Rivers operate as highly connected systems, with a continuum of forms and processes that adjust over a range of timescales (Cullum et al. 2008). However, local-scale interactions may fashion distinctive physical and biotic responses at any given site, inducing discontinuities along river courses (e.g. Poole 2002). As a consequence of these considerations,

river scientists promote the use of catchmentspecic understanding as the most appropriate basis for river management strategies and actions (e.g. Hynes 1975; Brierley & Fryirs 2005; Wohl et al. 2005). As each catchment has its own set of attributes and behavioural traits, with its own history, many dangers are faced in managing for general relationships relative to distinctive or unique features that fashion the biodiversity and/or geodiversity of any given system. Despite the difculties and limitations indicated above, there is increasing agreement among researchers and managers in differing parts of the world on the most appropriate approach with which to frame the classication of river systems. As noted by Poff (1997), controls upon river character and behaviour can be conceptualized as a series of environmental lters that operate at differing scales. This understanding

Note about the authors: This research was completed by Liza Inglis as part of her MSc thesis in Environmental Science at The University of Auckland, under the supervision of Ian Boothroyd (freshwater ecologist) and Gary Brierley (uvial geomorphologist). Liza now works for Tonkin and Taylor in Auckland.
E-mail: g.brierley@auckland.ac.nz

2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 The New Zealand Geographical Society Inc. Published by Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

182

L. Inglis et al.

has prompted the emergence and uptake of nested hierarchical approaches to the classication of river systems. Examples include North America (Frissell et al. 1986; Naiman et al. 1992; Bohn & Kershner 2002); Europe (Petts & Amoros 1996); South Africa (Rogers & OKeefe 2003); Australia (Brierley & Fryirs 2005). An equivalent set of procedures has been developed in New Zealand, termed the River Environment Classication (Snelder et al. 2004a,b). In general terms, these various frameworks promote the use of ecoregion-scale thinking to address issues such as biodiversity management at national and/or state levels. Planning of environmental strategies and prioritization of actions is typically applied at the catchment scale. However, the implementation of on-theground actions is largely undertaken at the reach scale, incorporating concerns for landform and hydraulic unit scale interactions that fashion the availability and viability of habitat (and associated ecosystem values). Determination of reference reaches is a particularly important aspect of classication procedures, as these decisions inuence what we seek to achieve in management applications, especially relating to rehabilitation initiatives. For example, assessment of river condition (or health) is typically framed relative to a reference condition or guiding image (leitbild), providing a template against which rehabilitation goals and applications can be measured (Kern 1992; Jansson et al. 2005; Palmer et al. 2005). Ideally, guiding images are derived for differing river types, reecting variability in topography, climate, vegetation, land use and species distribution at various spatial scales (Maddock 1999; Fryirs 2003; Palmer et al. 2005). Also, classication procedures guide the development of representative monitoring programmes, an integral component of adaptive management practices. The New Zealand River Environment Classication (REC) aims to identify rivers with similar physical and biological attributes (Snelder et al. 2004a). This scheme was developed as a tool to assist planning decisions and the development of environmental policy. River classes or management units provide river managers with a tool to place resource issues into an environmental context, as outlined in the Resource Management Act (1991). The application and effectiveness of the REC to stream management
2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 The New Zealand Geographical Society

relies on the ability of the methodology to correctly classify different biological communities using a hierarchical physical template. To date, limited research has been undertaken to test the ability of the REC to classify streams at the regional scale. Snelder et al. (2004b) examined the ability of the REC to explain variation in macroinvertebrate assemblages between the Waikato and Canterbury Regions. Their work considered the differences between the rst four classication levels produced by the REC (climate, topography, geology and land cover) but did not include the ne scale factor of valley landform. Findings indicated that the REC has a higher classication strength than the ecoregion approach which is based on labelling and mapping geographical regions with homogenous and distinctive landscape scale attributes such as climate and topography compared to other regions (Snelder et al. 2004b). However, it was also found that the overall classication strength of the REC, a measure how well a classication explains variation in the objects being classied, was low. In this study, the effectiveness of the REC as a tool to classify physical and biological attributes of rivers is appraised for four classes of stream in the Auckland region. The validity of the REC was tested with the hypothesis that habitat and macroinvertebrate communities within the same REC class were more similar relative to habitat and communities in other REC classes. Physical (habitat assessment) and biological (macroinvertebrate assessment) attributes were sampled at 10 sites for each of the four REC classes identied in Fig. 1.

Methods
Site selection Study sites were selected from four REC classes that are representative of the predominant characteristics in the Auckland region, where low order streams ow atop soft sediments with pastoral land cover. The four REC classes chosen were determined based on all six physical levels of the classication (Fig. 1). Four physical factors remained constant at each site: climate (warm wet), topography (low elevation), land cover (pastoral) and network position (low order). The characteristics used to dene each physical factor are presented in Table 1. Two

Effectiveness of REC in Auckland

183

Figure 1

Sampling design used to differentiate among four REC classes of stream in the Auckland region.

physical factors varied: geology (hard sedimentary and soft sedimentary) and valley landform (low gradient and high gradient). In summary terms, the four classes studied were HSLG Warm-climate, Low elevation, Hard sedimentary, pasture, Low order, Low gradient HSHG Warm-climate, Low elevation, Hard sedimentary, pasture, Low order, High gradient SSLG Warm-climate, Low elevation, Soft sedimentary, pasture, Low order, Low gradient SSHG Warm-climate, Low elevation, Soft sedimentary, pasture, Low order, High gradient Ten sample sites were randomly selected around the Auckland region from each REC class (Fig. 2). Sites were then assessed based on accessibility and the presence of water. Sites that were not accessible and/or had limited water were excluded due to difculties in sampling for macroinvertebrates. For consistency, sampling was completed at the lower portion of each reach. Habitat assessment Habitat quality at each sample site was measured using procedures developed by the Auckland

Regional Council (unpublished). The habitat assessment method includes factors which directly inuence biotic communities such as riparian vegetation and aquatic substrate. The qualitative habitat assessment method uses a ranking system to assess overall river condition producing a Habitat Quality Index (HQI) score. Seven habitat parameters (aquatic habitat abundance, aquatic habitat diversity, hydrologic heterogeneity, channel alteration, bank stability, channel shading and riparian vegetation) were visually assessed over a 100-m reach at each site. These are given a rating on the basis of comparison with a reference state which is dened by the ARC method as a stream with minimal human disturbance. The quantitative habitat assessment consisted of 11 stream proles along a 100-m reach where three components were assessed at each; the riparian zone, the stream bank and instream factors such as aquatic substrate, wetted width and ow type (run, rife or pool). Macroinvertebrate survey The aim of the macroinvertebrate survey was to observe variability in the macroinvertebrate
2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 The New Zealand Geographical Society

184

L. Inglis et al.

Table 1 Denitions of each characteristics that make up each REC factor (Snelder et al. 2004a)
REC factor Climate: Warm-Wet (WW) Source of Flow: Low-elevation (L) Geology: Soft sedimentary (SS) and Hard sedimentary (HS) Denitions Annual temperature of equal to or greater than 12 C and effective rainfall of 500 to 1500 mm per year Locations where 50% of cumulative rainfall fell at 400 m or lower Soft Sedimentary (SS) Soft sediment rock type in the North Island is made up of siltstone, mudstone and limestone. If 25% or more of the river section is made up of soft sedimentary rock types then the section is classied as soft sedimentary Hard Sedimentary (HS) Hard sedimentary rock type is made up of greywacke and schist. If hard sedimentary rock types makeup the greatest proportion of a river section, that section is classied as hard sedimentary Environments where at least 25% of land cover as primarily pastoral or primarily horticulture Streams were all either rst or second order Low Gradient (LG) determined as having a valley slope less than 0.02 High Gradient (HG) by having a valley slope greater than 0.04

Land Cover: Pastoral (P) Network-Position: Low-order (LO) Valley Landform: Low Gradient (LG) and High Gradient (HG)

community structure between the sample sites and determine whether samples taken from sites within the same REC class were more similar relative to assemblages determined at sites from other REC classes. All macroinvertebrate sampling was undertaken during March 2005 when streams were under baseow conditions, keeping the sampling consistent between the sites. Macroinvertebrate sampling was performed by applying protocols for sampling macroinvertebrates in wadeable streams (Stark et al. 2001). As any given sample reach may comprise both hard bottomed and soft bottomed sections, a semi-quantitative sample was taken in accordance with the soft bottomed protocol (C2) developed by Stark et al. (2001), with the addition that if rife habitat was found within a site, it was also sampled. Four habitats were sampled (wood, bank margins, macrophyte beds and rifes). The habitats were selected in proportion to their prevalence along a 100-m reach of the stream with a total of 10 sampling units (0.3 m2) being sampled over that reach. Sampling was undertaken using a triangle framed net with a 0.5-mm mesh size. A 0.5-mm sieve was used to transfer samples to a plastic sample container (usually 500 ml in volume).
2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 The New Zealand Geographical Society

Procedures for subsampling entailed both a xed count (Protocol C2200(+)) and scan for rare taxa (Stark et al. 2001), as recommended by Duggan et al. (2002). Samples were placed in a tray divided into 6 cm 6 cm squares. Squares were chosen at random using a random numbers table and all individuals within each square were removed until 200 individuals were removed. Individuals were then identied to genus level with the following exceptions: Platyhelminthes to phylum, Oligochaeta to order, Mucidae, Empididae, Elmidae, Ostracoda to family and Orthocladiinae and Tanypodinae to subfamily. In order to use the data collected from the 200(+) xed count method, the area abundance was determined for each site by dividing the number of individuals by the number of squares counted and then multiplying that by the total number of squares on the sample tray. Data analysis Non-parametric tests. The Kruskal-Wallis test (nonparametric equivalent of a one-way analysis of variance) was applied to the habitat data to determine whether there was a statistically signicant difference between any two of the

Effectiveness of REC in Auckland

185

Figure 2

Location of 10 sample sites for each REC class in the Auckland region.

four REC classes. When a signicant difference occurred, a Mann-Whitney U-test was applied to determine which REC classes contributed to the difference. All nonparametric tests were undertaken using SPSS software (SPSS 2002).

Analysis of similarity. Two-way nested analysis of similarity (ANOSIM) was used to determine whether signicant differences existed between macroinvertebrate assemblages from the four REC classes. ANOSIM is a nonparametric
2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 The New Zealand Geographical Society

186

L. Inglis et al.

permutation method similar to the parametric equivalent Analysis of Variance ( ANOVA ). ANOSIM is based on a similarity/dissimilarity matrix (Bray-Curtis similarity matrix) produced from the original data set on macroinvertebrate abundance data. The nested factors in this case were the samples from various rivers, which were then compared with the main treatment groups (REC classes). ANOSIM was run using 999 random permutations. The test produces a sample statistic (global R) and a signicance level for the sample statistic. If there is a signicant difference, a pairwise test is produced showing the possible groups and which groupings show signicant differences with an R statistic. Multivariate analysis. Non-metric multidimensional scaling (MDS) was undertaken on the macroinvertebrate abundance data with the removal of species found in less than ve percent of the sites and the rare taxa counts which might have skewed the results. The MDS was constructed from a Bray-Curtis similarity matrix, fourth root data transformation and run at 30 restarts. Hierarchical cluster analysis was used on the macroinvertebrate data to check the conclusions drawn from the MDS analysis. Multivariate analyses were undertaken using the statistical computer software PRIMER (Plymouth Routines In Multivariate Ecological Research) (PRIMER-E Ltd 2001). Finally, the Spearman Rank Correlation coefcient was used to identify which environmental variables and macroinvertebrate indices correlated with the axes produced from the multivariate analyses.

Results
Habitat assessment Thirty physical parameters were measured as part of the quantitative habitat assessment (see Table 2; Inglis 2005). Of the thirty physical parameters measured, only twelve showed signicant differences between at least two of the four REC classes. As expected, the factors that did show differences tended to be factors related to catchment area and functions of gradient. The lower gradient sites tended to be wider and deeper, having more soft sediment, higher erosion and more algae present when compared with the high gradient sites. Large
2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 The New Zealand Geographical Society

variations within each REC class reduced the possibility of determining differences between REC classes (Table 2). The SSLG and HSHG classes showed the greatest differences in the catchment and habitat data, with a greater within-class similarity than between classes (Table 2). For example, pastoral land use, and the presence of soft sediment and pools is greatest in the SSLG sites and lowest in the HSHG sites. Indigenous forest cover was greatest within HSHG (mean = 43%) and the SSLG class was dominated by pastoral land use (mean = 78%). The HSHG sites had narrower stream channels (mean = 1.59 m), with a high presence of cobbles, boulders and low algae and macrophyte cover. In contrast, channels at the SSLG sites were wider (mean = 2.39 m) and were dominated by soft sediment and macrophyte cover. As a result of the large variation within classes, 18 of the 30 parameters assessed showed no signicant differences between any of the four REC classes. The presence of boulders differed between the four REC classes (P < 0.05, Table 3). The Mann-Whitney U-test showed that the presence of boulders exhibited a signicant difference between the low gradient HSLG and SSLG classes and the high gradient HSHG and SSHG classes. The HSHG class had a mean coverage of 16.4% of boulders and 37.9% cobbles compared to the SSLG class which had a mean of 1.6% boulders and 20.4% cobbles. The HSHG class also had the least amount of soft sediment (21.3%) compared to the SSLG class (60%) (Table 2). There was no statistically signicant difference (P > 0.05) in the presence of soft sediment between REC classes because of the high variation in results found within each class. The results of the HQI qualitative habitat assessment did not provide any conclusive differences between the four REC classes, with the exception of the bank stability parameter (Table 4). The two hard sedimentary classes (HSLG and HSHG) had signicantly more stable banks than the SSLG class. The rest of the physical parameters showed high overlap based on the HQIs physical criteria. The total HQI scores also showed large variation within classes with some sites having high HQI scores compared with other sites which had very low HQI scores within the same class (Table 5).

Effectiveness of REC in Auckland

187

Table 2 Kruskal-Wallis test of habitat and water quality data amongst four REC classes in the Auckland region
REC Class HSLG Parameter Catchment area (km ) % of Pastoral land use % of Indigenous forest % of Scrub % of Wetlands % of Exotic forest % of Urban land use Stream width (m) Gradient () % Unstable bank DO concentrations (%) pH Temperature (C) % of Bedrock substrate % of Boulder substrate % of Cobble substrate % of Gravel substrate % of Soft sediment substrate % of Hard clay substrate % of Man made substrate % of Detritus substrate % of Bryophytes substrate % of Macrophyte cover % of Algae cover % Woody debris present % of Roots present % No organic substrate % of Pools % of Rifes % of Runs
2

HSHG SE 0.69 6.99 6.06 1.46 0.00 4.92 0.00 0.18 0.17 7.40 6.87 0.06 0.44 0.91 1.78 7.13 10.84 12.88 1.10 0.00 2.97 0.56 6.61 4.10 2.15 1.57 5.41 9.79 5.29 10.45 Mean 1.61 37.85 42.84 4.18 0.00 15.14 0.06 1.59 1.64 21.92 97.55 7.15 15.89 3.78 16.48 37.91 17.75 21.31 2.56 0.20 15.81 1.78 26.73 14.44 3.33 6.34 31.56 14.33 34.65 47.38 SE 0.26 5.50 8.88 1.70 0.00 10.01 0.06 0.19 0.27 5.42 4.22 0.07 0.37 3.78 4.89 6.78 4.79 5.15 1.39 0.20 4.82 1.78 7.12 3.78 1.40 0.89 2.96 3.43 7.05 7.72

SSLG Mean 3.49 78.29 8.60 11.23 0.05 0.16 1.68 2.39 0.49 5.91 61.07 7.26 17.55 5.64 1.64 20.36 9.27 60.00 2.18 0.91 17.89 0.00 38.93 12.91 4.05 7.12 19.09 42.73 8.18 49.09 SE 0.86 5.66 3.09 4.78 0.03 0.16 1.27 0.27 0.08 1.92 11.31 0.17 0.68 3.95 0.99 8.18 2.77 12.71 0.97 0.91 5.95 0.00 11.41 3.05 1.89 2.66 5.07 9.10 3.70 10.34

SSHG Mean 1.18 73.32 11.42 3.62 0.00 11.65 0.00 1.39 1.26 17.27 89.96 7.26 17.19 11.82 7.27 19.96 19.16 38.91 2.66 0.20 19.29 0.91 22.65 7.54 2.73 10.06 36.83 30.00 10.00 59.09 SE 0.37 8.22 4.99 2.17 0.00 8.05 0.00 0.14 0.22 5.15 7.70 0.09 0.49 7.30 3.30 7.79 5.08 9.58 1.23 0.20 4.60 0.49 9.13 2.04 0.73 2.84 5.28 8.25 4.17 7.81 P-value 0.000** 0.003* 0.031* 0.168 0.104 0.622 0.261 0.002** 0.001** 0.026* 0.009** 0.019* 0.093 0.307 0.015* 0.154 0.261 0.250 0.895 0.787 0.650 0.324 0.451 0.034* 0.941 0.621 0.039* 0.057 0.019* 0.418

Mean 4.05 69.26 21.82 3.96 0.00 4.97 0.00 2.31 0.77 34.09 77.17 6.84 17.24 0.91 3.09 16.00 37.45 40.55 2.00 0.00 11.45 0.73 30.91 23.82 5.45 7.09 20.55 21.82 13.64 64.55

*Difference is signicant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **Difference is signicant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The Kruskal-Wallis test conrmed that there was no signicant difference in HQI scores between the four REC classes (P > 0.05) (Table 4). Considerable overlap is evident between physical factors for all REC classes. In several instances, sites within a given class were more similar to other classes, relative to other sites within their own class. For example, within the HSHG class, site P3 had no riparian vegetation, high amounts of soft sediment and a low HQI score. As a result, this site was more similar to the SSHG and HSLG classes. Similarly, site

Table 3 Mann-Whitney U-test for percent of boulders present

Pairwise comparisons HSLG HSHG HSLG SSLG HSLG SSHG HSHG SSHG HSHG SSLG SSLG SSHG U 17 41 41.5 29.5 13.5 34.5 Z 2.533 0.77 0.687 1.573 2.853 1.323 P 0.011* 0.441 0.492 0.116 0.004** 0.186

*Correlation is signicant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **Correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 The New Zealand Geographical Society

188

L. Inglis et al.

Figure 3 Percent abundance of seven major macroinvertebrate groups from four REC classes. Note the similarity in abundance for each group.

Table 4 Kruskal-Wallis test for all HQI parameters between all four REC classications
Aquatic habitat abundance 0.058 Aquatic habitat diversity 0.956 Hydrological Channel Bank Channel heterogeneity alteration stability shade 0.868 0.298 0.002 0.882 Riparian vegetation integrity 0.711 HQI score 0.563

Difference is signicant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

SSLG B6, which had good native vegetation, (elongate) pools and rifes and a high HQI score, was more similar to the SSHG and HSHG classes than the sites within its own REC class. Macroinvertebrate data Ninety macroinvertebrate taxa were recorded from the forty streams studied. The dominant taxa found were the pond snail Potamopyrgus antipodum, Diptera Austrosimulium tillyardium, Trichoptera Oxyethira albiceps and Amphipoda Paracalliope. Rare taxa included Ephemeroptera Ichthybotus hudsoni and Austroclima sepia, and Trichoptera Costachorema spand. Macroinvertebrate communities were similar for all REC classes (Fig. 3). A Kruskal-Wallis Test undertaken on the proportional data for the seven major macroinvertebrate groups revealed that only Crustacea exhibited a signicant difference in abundance between the four REC classes (P < 0.5, Table 6). Macroinvertebrate communities differed between at least
2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 The New Zealand Geographical Society

Table 5 Total HQI score

REC class HSLG HSHG SSLG SSHG All sites Mean 73.50 83.00 82.90 83.40 80.54 St error 5.86 6.13 7.82 5.69 6.22 Min 44.00 43.00 55.00 58.00 43.00 Max 99.00 105.00 118.00 122.00 122.00 Range 55.00 62.00 63.00 64.00 79.00

two of the four REC classes (ANOSIM R = 0.084, P < 0.05). Pairwise comparisons showed that the macroinvertebrate communities in the HSHG class were signicantly different to the HSLG (P < 0.05) and the SSLG class (P < 0.01) (Table 7). There was no signicant difference between the remaining REC classes. The MDS plot produced for the macroinvertebrate data, and associated clusters, is shown in Fig. 4. The stress value for the MDS is 0.19. According to Clarke and Warwick (2001) if the stress value is above 0.2 then the points are close to being arbitrarily placed and

Effectiveness of REC in Auckland

189

Figure 4 Macroinvertebrate community two-dimensional MDS plot, with superimposed clusters at similarity levels of 37% (dashed lines) and 45% (dotted lines). Negative and positive gradients with physical parameters are identied based on Spearman rank correlations along the axes.

Table 6 Mann-Whitney U-test for the percentage abundance of Crustacea

Pairwise comparisons HSLG HSHG HSLG SSLG HSLG SSHG HSHG SSHG HSHG SSLG SSLG SSHG U 24 48 41 13 27 36 Z 2.008 0.151 0.681 2.818 1.752 1.058 P 0.045* 0.88 0.496 0.005** 0.08 0.29

Table 7 ANOSIM Test Pairwise comparisons for the REC classes

Pairwise comparisons HSLG HSHG HSLG SSLG HSLG SSHG HSHG SSLG HSHG SSHG SSLG SSHG R statistic 0.182 0.017 0.025 0.286 0.091 0.074 Signicance level % 1.2 35.5 59.5 0.2 9.3 88.3 P 0.012* 0.355 0.595 0.002** 0.093 0.883

*Difference is signicant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **Difference is signicant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*Difference is signicant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **Difference is signicant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

the results should be treated with scepticism. If the stress value is below 0.2, the plot gives a reasonably useful representation of the data. Two main groups are identied, with one outlier (B3). The only REC class which appears to group out in ordination space is the HSHG class, which is found within the cluster on the right of the ordination plot. However, when the cluster analysis is examined at the 45%

Bray-Curtis similarity level, the HSHG sites can be divided into two clusters, one of which has higher EPT counts and higher MCI scores than the other (Fig. 4). Other than the HSHG class, the remaining REC classes are spread across all clusters in the MDS plot. The Spearman Rank correlations between the habitat data and the two MDS axes are used to dene the axes for the MDS plot. Axis one
2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 The New Zealand Geographical Society

190

L. Inglis et al.

Table 8 Physical and biological characteristics of sites from the four REC classes which showed good biological and habitat condition as dened by the HQI and MCI. Sites within the SSHG and HSHG class which had less pasture land cover within the catchment than specied by the REC have been excluded from this synthesis
HSLG class Physical characteristics Runs Gravel and soft sediment Good riparian vegetation exceeding 50% shade HSHG class Physical characteristics: Runs/rifes/shallow pools Boulders, cobbles and gravel substrate Good riparian vegetation exceeding 65% shade SSLG class Physical characteristics: Runs/rifes/elongate pools Cobbles substrate Good riparian vegetation exceeding 65% shade SSHG class Physical characteristics: Runs/rifes/elongate pools Bedrock, boulders and soft sediment Good riparian vegetation exceeding 65% shade Biological characteristics: Potamopyrgus Coloburiscus humeralis Zephlebia Aoteapsyche colonica Hydrobiosidae Chironominae Tanytarsini Example: R3

Biological characteristics Potamopyrgus Paracalliope sp Neozephlebia scita

Example: G4

Biological characteristics: Potamopyrgus Coloburiscus humeralis Neozephlebia scita Aoteapsyche colonica Chironominae Tanytarsini Example: P7

Biological characteristics: Potamopyrgus Neozephlebia scita Aoteapsyche colonica Elmidae sp

Example: B6

has a gradient of soft sediment, macrophytes, lamentous algae, and a lack of canopy cover towards the left of the plot. High amounts of shade, good canopy cover, hard bottomed habitat, high HQI scores and also higher DO and pH concentrations occur towards the right. Axis two has a lack of canopy and high coverage of algae at the top of the plot compared with high shade, detritus and native understorey towards the bottom of the plot. The distribution of the sample sites based on macroinvertebrate communities in ordination space can be related to the physical habitat gradients that have been identied. The HSHG sites, for example, are found towards the lower right hand side of the plot. However, because the remaining classes showed such large variation in their inorganic substrates, they are distributed within the ordination plot based on inorganic substrate, rather than REC classes. Thus, the sites to the left of the plot were generally soft bottomed and those to the right were generally hard bottomed.
2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 The New Zealand Geographical Society

Discussion and conclusions

Results from this study indicate that biological attributes between sample sites within the same class varied considerably in response to variations in the physical conditions of the sample sites. The major ndings were the correlations between the soft bottomed habitat and reduced riparian vegetation cover, reduced DO concentrations, increased macrophyte and algae growth and the presence of Mollusca and Crustacea. In contrast, the hard bottomed sites had increased riparian vegetation, increased DO concentrations, increased wood and detritus and the presence of EPT taxa. Only the HSHG class, which was predominantly hard bottomed, showed more similar characteristics to sites within the same REC class than to sites from other REC classes (Fig. 4). The HSLG, SSLG and SSHG classes had a larger variation of substrate types. For example, some sites in the SSHG class were dominated by hard bottomed substrates including rife habitat, whereas other

Effectiveness of REC in Auckland

191

sites were dominated by soft bottomed substrates and macrophytes. As a result, the biotic communities found at these sites were different from each other, leading to large variability within the REC classes (Fig. 4). Physical and biological differences between the HSHG class and other classes reect differences in physical habitat, as HSHG sites have greater abundance of rife habitat and white water these attributes were seldom seen in the other classes. Physical habitat has a strong inuence on the type of species that can survive at any given locality. Coarser substrates are generally more stable and are able to accumulate more periphyton and coarse organic matter than ner-grained bed materials attributes for which particularly species of mayies, stoneies, cased caddisies and diptera have a preference (Quinn & Hickey 1990; Death 2000). Although the HSHG class had a greater overall presence of rife habitat, some sites from the other classes also showed similar physical habitat. Macroinvertebrate communities at these sites were similar to those recorded at the majority of the HSHG sites, indicating the primacy of physical habitat as an inuence on community structure in instances where marked differences in geomorphic river structure can be identied. Although clear distinctions among physical and biological attributes could not be identied for REC classes in this study, ndings indicate that the underlying ecological basis upon which REC have been framed are correct in their own right. Unfortunately, however, clear differentiation of physical habitat among the four classes of rivers has not been achieved using the GIS-derived data applied in this research. Hence, caution is urged in the use of these overly generalized data, as signicant variability may be evident at ner scales. Prospectively, increased availability of ne scale remote sensing data will improve the efcacy of GIS-based mapping applications. The key constraint in the application of river classication is not the tools themselves, but the way in which they are used. Differing tools must be applied for the purposes for which they were developed. This often proves to be difcult, as many regions lack information on the physical and ecological status of rivers, and managers have to resort to use of available information.

Results generated using poor quality information should be treated with caution or as general guidance only. For example, signicant caution must be applied in framing monitoring programmes or designing rehabilitation initiatives in relation to reference conditions based upon the use of GIS-based analyses of 25 m digital elevation model data. Potential renement using ner resolution LiDAR data and other tools may provide clearer insights into the physical structure of rivers, and associated hydraulic diversity and habitat relationships. Findings from this study attest to the critical importance of eld-based investigations in the determination and application of monitoring and rehabilitation programmes. Of particular importance with this regard is meaningful differentiation not only of river types, but also of differing condition variants of any given river type (e.g. Fryirs 2003). Analyses of geomorphic river type and condition must be combined to provide a meaningful physical platform with which to appraise ecological relationships along river courses (e.g. Chessman et al. 2006). Such investigations must also incorporate water quality attributes to provide a coherent biophysical overview of a given site. In this study, it is likely that differences in the geomorphic condition and water quality at selected sample sites exerted a signicant inuence upon ecological relationships, further complicating this simple test of the efcacy of the REC. Ideally, such a test would compare good condition variants of each river type, as this presents the most appropriate basis to characterize reference conditions or guiding images for rehabilitation efforts. An indicative guide to the distinguishing factors that represent good ecological condition for each REC class, as synthesized from the bestcondition variant of the 10 samples sites in this study, is presented in Table 8. In summary, ecologically meaningful differentiation of river types has not been achieved in this test of the REC. In large part, this is considered to reect the scale/resolution of data used to classify streams in desk-top exercises. Hence, there are signicant limitations in the use of this classication scheme in the design of representative sampling or monitoring programmes, or determination of guiding images for rehabilitation efforts. Field analyses are required to conrm the physical basis of river
2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 The New Zealand Geographical Society

192

L. Inglis et al. A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classication Viewing streams in a watershed context. Environmental Management 10, 199 214. Fryirs K (2003). Guiding principles for assessing geomorphic river condition: application of a framework in the Bega catchment, South Coast, New South Wales, Australia. Catena 53, 1752. Goodwin CN (1999). Fluvial classication: Neanderthal necessity or needless normalcy. In: Olson DS, Potyondy JP, eds. Wildland Hydrology. American Water Resources Association, TPS99-3, Herndon, Virginia, pp. 22936. Hynes H (1975). The stream and its valley. Verhandlungen der Internationalen Vereinigung Fuer Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie 19, 115. Inglis L (2005). A test of the application of the river environment classication in the Auckland region (Master of Science Thesis). University of Auckland. Jansson R, Backx H, Boulton AJ, Dixon M, Dudgeon D, Hughes FMR, Nakamura K, Stanley EH, Tockner K (2005). Stating mechanisms and rening criteria for ecologically successful river restoration: A comment on Palmer et al. (2005). Journal of Applied Ecology 42, 218 22. Kern K (1992). Restoration of lowland rivers: The German experience. In: Carling PA, Petts GE, eds. Lowland Floodplain Rivers: Geomorphological Perspectives. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, pp. 27997. Maddock I (1999). The importance of physical habitat assessment for evaluating river health. Freshwater Biology 41, 373 91. Naiman RJ, Lonzarich DG, Beechie TJ, Ralph SC (1992). General principles of classication and assessment of conservation potential in rivers. In: Boon PJ, Calow P, Petts GE, eds. River Conservation and Management. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, England, pp. 93123. Palmer MA, Bernhardt ES, Allan JD, Lake PS, Alexander G, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton S, Dahm CN, Shah JF, Galat DL, Loss SG, Goodwin P, Hart DD, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Kondolf GM, Lave R, Meyer JL, ODonnell TK, Pagano L, Sudduth E (2005). Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42, 208 17. Petts GE, Amoros C (eds) (1996). Fluvial Hydrosystems. Chapman & Hall, London. Poole GC. 2002. Fluvial landscape ecology: Addressing uniqueness within the river discontinuum. Freshwater Biology 47, 641 60. Poff NL 1997. Landscape lters and species traits: Towards mechanistic understanding and prediction in stream ecology. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16, 391 409. PRIMER-E Ltd (2001). PRIMER V5.2.9. PRIMERE Ltd, Plymouth, UK.

assessment procedures on the one hand, and to perform analyses of geomorphic river condition on the other (Fryirs 2003). These insights underpin management applications that strive to work with nature, enhancing prospects to reinstigate the inherent diversity and variability of river systems (Brierley & Fryirs 2008).

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Auckland Regional Council who supported this project, Damien Inglis and various colleagues for eld support and Susan Owen, Nadine Trahan and the two anonymous journal reviewers for their helpful comments on this manuscript.

References
Bohn BA, Kershner JL (2002). Establishing aquatic restoration priorities using a watershed approach. Journal of Environmental Management 64, 355 63. Brierley GJ, Fryirs KA (2005). Geomorphology and River Management: Applications of the River Styles Framework. Blackwell Publications, Malden, MA. Brierley GJ, Fryirs KA (eds) (2008). River Futures: An Integrative Scientic Approach to River Repair. Island Press, Washington DC. Chessman BC, Fryirs KA, Brierley GJ (2006). Linking geomorphic character, behaviour and condition to uvial biodiversity: Implications for river management. Aquatic Conservation-Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 16, 267 88. Clarke KR, Warwick RM (2001). Change in Marine Communities: An Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation, 2nd edn, PRIMERE Ltd, Plymouth, UK. Cullum C, Brierley GJ, Thoms M (2008). The spatial organization of river systems. In: Brierley GJ, Fryirs KA, eds. River Futures. An Integrative Scientic Approach to River Repair. Island Press, Washington, DC, Chapter 4. Death R (2000). Invertebrate-substratum relationships. New Zealand stream invertebrates: Ecology and implications for management. In: Collier K, Winterbourn MJ, eds. Freshwaters of New Zealand. Christchurch, New Zealand Limnological Society, pp. 15778. Duggan IC, Collier KJ, Lambert PW (2002). Evaluation of invertebrates biometrics and the inuence of subsample size using data from some Westland, New Zealand, lowland streams. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 36, 11728. Frissell CA, Liss WJ, Warren CE, Hurley MD (1986).
2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 The New Zealand Geographical Society

Effectiveness of REC in Auckland Quinne JM, Hickey CW (1990). Characterization and classication of benthic invertebrate communities in 88 New-Zealand rivers in relation to environmental factors. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 24, 387 409. Rogers KH, OKeefe J (2003). River heterogeneity: Ecosystem structure, function and management. In: Du Toit JT, Rogers K, Biggs HC, eds. The Kruger Experience. Ecology and Management of Savanna Heterogeneity. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 189218. Simon A, Doyle M, Kondolf GM, Shields Jr FD, Rhoads B, Grant G, Fitzpatrick F, Juracek K, McPhillips M, MacBroom J (2007). Critical evaluation of how the Rosgen Classication and associated Natural Channel Design methods fail to integrate and quantify uvial processes and channel response. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43, 115.

193

Snelder T, Biggs B, Weatherhead M (2004a). New Zealand River Environment Classication User Guide. Ministry for the Environment, Auckland. Snelder TH, Cattaneo F, Suren AM, Biggs BJE (2004b). Is the River Environment Classication an improved landscape-scale classication of rivers? Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23, 580 98. SPSS. 2002. SPSS for Windows (Version 11.5.0), SPSS Inc. Stark JD, Boothroyd IKG, Harding JS, Maxted JR, Scarsbrook MR (2001). Protocols for sampling macroinvertebrates in wadeable streams. Ministry for the Environment, Sustainable Management Fund Project no. 5103. Wohl E, Angermeier PL, Bledsoe B, Kondolf GM, MacDonnell L, Merritt DM, Palmer MA, Poff NL, Tarboton D (2005). River restoration. Water Resources Research 41, 1 12.

2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 The New Zealand Geographical Society