Kōkako Survey Report
Hunua 2018
Summary Report Prepared For the Department of Conservation
s 9(2)(a), 9(2)(g)
1
1. SUMMARY
North Island kōkako belong to the endemic New Zealand wattlebird family (
Cal aeidae), an ancient
family of birds which includes the North and South Island tīeke (saddleback) and the extinct Huia.
Prior to human habitation, kōkako were common in forests throughout the North Island. As a
consequence of historical forest clearance and depredation by introduced mammalian predators,
the population and range of the kōkako was reduced dramatical y to around 330 pairs by 1999. Al
current populations must be continual y managed against introduced mammalian predators by
sustained pest control (Flux and Innes, 2001). This control has led to a marked recovery of the
species national y, al owing for kōkako translocations to be carried out to re-establish new
populations across their former range. The North Island kōkako is classified as ‘at risk - recovering’
and the population now exceeds 1,600 pairs (Robertson
et al., 2017).
This report summarises the results of a North Island kōkako (
Cal aeas wilsoni) survey conducted in
the Hunua Ranges in September and October, 2018. The Hunua kōkako population is one of 11
remnant populations, and is situated in the Hunua Ranges Regional Park, approximately 40 km
southeast of Auckland City.
The survey was coordinated by the Department of Conservation, with contractor and logistical
support provided by Auckland Council, and fol owed best practice methodology (Flux and Innes,
2001). 106 kōkako pairs and 16 territorial singles were recorded in the 2018 survey. Results are
compared to previous surveys and recommendations for future management are made. The key
recommendation of this report is that the annual control of mammalian predators, using either
ground-based or aerial y applied toxin targeting ship rats and possums, is continued, with the target
of recovering the Hunua population to 250 pairs by 2025.
To promote rapid population growth, the recommended targets for pest control operations are to
reduce ship rat and possum abundances to a residual trap catch (RTC) of one possum per 100
trap-nights and a 1% ship rat tracking index (RTI) at 1 November each year (Flux and Innes, 2001).
2
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1. Study Site
The Hunua Ranges Regional Park is situated approximately 40 km southeast of Auckland city and
encompasses over 16,000 hectares of native forest ranging in elevation from sea level to 688
metres above sea level. Approximately 2,000 hectares of the Hunua Ranges Regional Park
annual y receives intensive mammalian pest control, coordinated by Auckland Council, for kōkako
recovery. Vegetation within these areas is a mix of logged and unlogged podocarp-hardwood forest
dominated by tawa (
Beilschmiedia
tawa) and rewarewa (Knightia excelsa), with emergent rimu
(
Dacrydium cupressinum) and northern rata (
Metrosideros robusta). Sub-montane communities
dominated by tawheowheo (
Quintinia serrata) occupy the higher ridges. The study area
encompasses the upper catchments of the Orere, Mangatawhiri, Konini and Lilburne streams.
Studying the Hunua population, St. Paul and McKenzie (1974) were the first to attribute declines in
kōkako almost entirely to the effects of introduced predators, in particular nest predation by ship
rats (Rattus rattus). St Paul and McKenzie (1974) e
stimated that approximately 500 kōkako inhabited
the Hunua in 1957, but their population estimate fel to 50 by 1967. A total of 60-70 kōkako were
located in surveys between 1971-72, but this increase is attributed to more intensive search
methodologies, rather than any population recovery (St Paul and McKenzie, 1974). Four surveys
between 1986 and 1988, conducted by the Auckland Regional Authority (ARA) and the Ecology
Division of DSIR, assisted by members of the Ornithological Society, recorded 40 individuals,
including six pairs (MacMil an and McClure, 1990).
Between 1950 and 1990, there were very few reports of kōkako breeding in the Hunua. Two
juveniles seen a
djacent to the K
ohukohunui track i n 1986 indicated that some birds were stil nesting
successful y in the area at that stage (MacMil an and McClure, 1990). In 1994, a Department of
Conservation (DOC) survey located 25 kōkako, including four pairs. However, it was later
determined that four of these five pairs were male-male pairings. Male-male pairings between
kōkako have been reported from other declining kōkako populations, a result of male bias within
3
populations, as females are more vulnerable to depredation during incubation and brooding (Flux
and Innes, 2001).
As the Hunua kōkako population stemmed from just one female, and there was an evident male
bias, four female kōkako were translocated from Mapara Wildlife Reserve in 1998 to increase
genetic diversity. One female paired with a Hunua male, but was preyed upon by a stoat before
breeding. The other three females al spent several months within the KMA, but subsequential y
dispersed beyond the KMA and were not re-sighted (Overdyck, 1999). In subsequent translocations,
both males and females were translocated. 14 further kōkako were translocated from Mapara in
2006, and 4 from Waipapa Ecological Area (Pureora Forest Park) in 2007. 12 further kōkako were
translocated from Tiritiri Matangi Island between 2007 and 2012 (including via egg-swaps).
Figure One: Map of the ground control network for kōkako recovery in Hunua Ranges (in green)
4
The preceding (2014) kōkako survey, undertaken by Department of Conservation (DOC) staff and
contractors, recorded 118 territorial adults comprising 55 pairs and 8 singles within the KMA and
adjacent Piggott’s Management Area. Of the territorial adults observed, 14 individuals (13%) were
translocated birds, and the remainder (87%) were Hunua born. In a further walk-through survey of
adjacent forest outside the management areas in 2014, coordinated by Auckland Council, 5 pairs
and one territorial single were found.
Table 1: Summary of Kōkako Translocations to the Hunua, 1998-2016.
Source
Date
Number of Birds
Mapara
1998
4 (4 Females)
Mapara
2006
14 (8 Males, 6 Females)
Tiritiri Matangi Island
2007
4 (4 Females)
Waipapa
2007
4 (1 Male, 3 Females)
Tiritiri Matangi Island
2008
4 (3 Males, 1 Female)
Tiritiri Matangi Island
2010
3 (1 Male, 2 Females)
Tiritiri Matangi (egg swap)
2012
2 fledged (one banded, gender unknown)
Mapara
2015
6 (3 Males, 3 Females)
Mangatutu
2015
6 (3 Males, 3 Females)
Mangatutu
2016
7 (4 Males, 3 Females)
TOTAL
53 (23 Males, 29 Females, 1 Banded Bird-Sex Unknown)
Genetic analyses of kōkako indicate low genetic variability within extant populations, and the smal
population sizes and the absence of natural dispersal and immigration between populations means
that populations with few founders are expected to lose diversity over time. Consequential y, a
target of 40 unrelated kōkako recruiting into the Hunua population was set (fol owing Weiser, 2015).
To this end, a further 6 kōkako from Mapara and 13 from Mangatutu Ecological Area (Pureora) were
translocated in 2015 and 2016 (Authority 45499-FAU), coordinated by Auckland Council (Table 1).
5
2.2. Survey Technique
The 2018 kōkako survey at Hunua was conducted between September 4 and October 5. This work
was primarily undertaken by five Department of Conservation temporary staff and one Auckland
Council contractor. They were assisted by six other DOC and Auckland Council staff and volunteers.
Fol owing the standard adult census methodology detailed by Flux and Innes (2001), the 2,000
hectares currently receiving annual pest control for kōkako were surveyed using transects 100-150
meters apart. Transects were walked slowly whilst listening for kōkako. W
hilst surveys at other s
ites
cover transects up to 200 meters apart, the topography of the Hunua necessitates more thorough
coverage. If kōkako were not immediately detected, pre-recorded local d
ialect was broadcast using
Foxpro NX4Ⓡ playback units at approximately 200 meter intervals along each transect to elicit a
response from any territorial kōkako. The recordings used for playback were freshly r ecorded prior
to the survey and included local dialect as wel as those from al translocation source sites.
Playback at each survey point consisted of:
1) 3 ‘mew’ cal s, fol owed by a 5 minute listening period
2) 3 ‘mew’ cal s, fol owed by a 5 minute listening period
3) 30 seconds of recently recorded song, fol owed by a 5 minute listening period
Al birds seen or heard were fol owed to determine whether they were territorial, and whether they
were single or paired. Fol ows were recorded using Garmin GPS units to determine territory
boundaries. Fol owing Flux and Innes (2001), birds were determined to be territorial if the fol owing
was achieved:
a) One fol ow of at least 30 minutes, during which a bird (single
or at least one of a pair) sung
ful song, or;
b) Two fol ows of at least 10 minutes each on two different days in the same location, during
which a bird (single
or at least one of a pair) sung ful song.
Where one or both kōkako of the pair was banded, they could readily be distinguished from
adjacent pairs, thereby avoiding possible inaccuracies from double counting or clumping of
6
sightings. First, surveyors worked in paral el to one another along transects, and were in radio
communication. Where adjacent unbanded pairs were fol owed simultaneously they could
consequently be determined as separate. Second, al fol ows were saved on GPS units. Where
surveyors could not determine whether the unbanded pair being fol owed was different to a
previously located unbanded pair, the birds were ‘dragged’ using playback across the previous
fol ow. If the pair being fol owed sung ful song in an area where a previous unbanded pair had
previously been observed, and no other pairs were heard or seen in the vicinity, the two fol ows
were assumed to be the same pair.
As the breeding season commenced earlier than it has previously, and one pair was observed
incubating three eggs as early as October 3
, the birds determined to be territorial singles during the
final week of the survey were al re-fol owed on October 4-5 for up t o one hour, to confirm that they
were indeed single, and not males with females incubating eggs.
7
3. RESULTS
The 2018 Hunua survey was completed in 687 person-hours over 26 survey days between
September 4 and October 5. Weather conditions were mostly favourable during the survey period,
and scheduled survey days that were windy and rainy were rescheduled to deliver an accurate
survey result. Surveying continued from dawn until approximately noon each day.
A total of 228 territorial adults were located, of which 22 (10%) were individuals that have been
translocated to Hunua, and the remainder (n=206, 90%) were Hunua-bred. The 228 territorial a
dult
kōkako comprised 106 pairs and 16 territorial singles (see Figure 2). T
his is an increase from 55 pairs
and 8 singles observed in the 2014 kōkako survey (Figure 3). 101 pairs were recorded in the KMA
and 5 pairs were recorded in Piggott’s ( Table 1). Six p
airs (Including 2 translocated individuals paired
to unbanded mates) and five singles were located in newly added management blocks not included
in the 2014 survey result.
Table 2: Hunua survey results by management area
KMA (1500 ha)
Piggott’s (500 ha)
TOTAL (2000 ha)
Pairs
101
5
106
Territorial Singles
14
2
16
Total No. Individuals
216
12
228
Of the 106 total pairs located, with 42 comprising at least one banded kōkako, 10 had both kōkako
banded and thus the l ineage of each known. T
wo pairs were each of relict Hunua lineage. Two pairs
consisted of translocated Mapara birds paired to birds of relict Hunua lineage. A further Mapara
female was paired to a Hunua-born bird of mixed lineage. A
Tiritiri male was paired to a Hunua-born
banded female of unknown lineage, and a Tiritiri female was observed paired to a Mapara male. The
remaining pairs where both birds were banded were pairings of Hunua-born birds with mixed or
unknown lineage.
8
Figure 2: Map of territorial kōkako pairs (red) and singles (blue) within the areas managed for
kōkako recovery in the Hunua Ranges (green shading).
9
Figure 3: Growth in kōkako pairs within ground control areas, 1994-2018.
Two of the kōkako located in the final week of the survey were counted as territorial singles, after
being observed for over one hour each with no indication of a mate. However, both these
individuals were in territories occupied b
y p
airs in the 2014 survey, and may have b
een males paired
to incubating mates. As such, the total pair count is likely conservative.
2.1 COLOUR BAND RESIGHTING
52 banded territorial kōkako were located in the 2018 survey, an increase from 31 banded territorial
individuals in the 2014 survey. Of the 31 banded territorial kōkako observed in 2014, 27 (87%) were
re-sighted in this survey. One kōkako seen in the 2
010 survey, but not in 2014, w
as a
gain r e-sighted
this survey. One kōkako only had a metal band on the left leg, so c
ould be one o
f s
everal individuals
having lost colour band(s), but could be differentiated from other kōkako observed in this survey.
10
Of 4 territorial birds observed in the 2014 survey but not in this survey, two were kōkako
translocated from Mapara in 2006 as adults, one was an adult female translocated from Tiritiri
Matangi in 2008, and one was banded as a nestling in Hunua in 2010.
2.2 RECRUITMENT OF HUNUA BRED KŌKAKO
13 of 23 kōkako (57%) banded as nestlings and known to have fledged fol owing the 2014 survey
were observed, of which 12 were territorial. Juvenile kōkako can take two years or more to recruit
into the population (Basse et al., 2003), so fledglings from later breeding seasons may be present
but not yet territorial. Younger birds not yet holding territories do not sing ful adult song.
Consequently, they are less likely to be detected using the adult census methodology and are more
likely to be observed in multiple locations.
Seven of nine (78%) banded kōkako known to have fledged in the 2015-16 season were observed,
and al were holding territories with partners. Three of nine (33%) banded kōkako known to have
fledged in the 2016-17 season were observed, including one territorial single and one non-territorial
individual. Three of six (50%) banded kōkako known to have fledged in the 2017-18 season were
observed, one of which was a territorial single.
2.3 RECRUITMENT OF TRANSLOCATED KŌKAKO
Historical y, 3 kōkako with relict Hunua lineage contributed to the current kōkako population. This
population has been supplemented by translocation to increase genetic diversity, with a target of
the successful recruitment of 37 unrelated translocated individuals into the population (to sum 40
unrelated founders), coupled with rapid population growth to maintain the retention of rare al eles.
In total, 11 of the 19 kōkako translocated to Hunua in 2015-16 were observed in this survey, o
f w
hich
10 were paired and territorial. An additional 22 kōkako translocated between 2006 and 2012 were
re-sighted as paired territorial adults birds between 2008 and 2018. The breakdown of recruitment
is detailed below:
11
Mapara Wildlife Reserve
5 of the 6 kōkako translocated from Mapara in 2015 were observed in territorial pairings during this
survey. Although each was translocated with a mate, al observed birds were paired to unbanded
Hunua-born birds. The sixth kōkako (a male) was observed six months fol owing release but was not
detected this survey. This fol ows the successful recruitment of al 14 kōkako translocated from
Mapara in 2006 as observed in the 2008-2014 surveys.
Mangatutu Ecological Area, Pureora Forest Park
6 of the 13 kōkako translocated from Mangatutu (3 of 7 males, 3 of 6 females) in 2015-16 were
observed in this survey. 5 (3 females, 2 male) of these individuals were each paired to an unbanded
Hunua born mate, and the sixth (a male) was non-territorial. A further non-territorial kōkako with
Mangatutu dialect was observed in Piggott’s Management Area but was not identified. Only one of
six kōkako translocated from Mangatutu in 2015 was re-sighted, while five of seven translocated in
2016 were located.
Waipapa Ecological Area, Pureora Forest Park
Four kōkako (3 females, 1 male) were translocated to Hunua from Waipapa in 2007. One female was
located this survey, paired to an unbanded bird. Two others were observed in the 2008 a
nd/or 2010
surveys as paired and territorial adults.
Tiritiri Matangi Island
3 of the 12 kōkako translocated from Tiritiri Matangi Island between 2007 and 2012 were located
this survey, including one banded individual from a successful egg-swap in 2012. Four other Tiritiri
Matangi kōkako were seen as paired individuals within the management areas in the 2010 and/or
2014 surveys. However, as the Tiritiri Matangi population is itself established by translocation, al
recruited Tiritiri Matangi individuals col ectively represent the genetic lineage of 4 founders.
12
Table 3: Summary of outcomes of translocations to Hunua Ranges
Source
Birds
Birds Resighted
Effective Founders
Hunua
-
-
3
Mapara (2006-15)
20
20
19
Mangatutu (2016-17)
13
6
5
Waipapa (2007)
4
3
3
Tiritiri Matangi (2007-12)
12 (incl. egg swap)
7
4
TOTAL
49
36
34
13
4. DISCUSSION
The results of population monitoring are important for ecological managers. Understanding the rate
of population growth and the distribution of kōkako can al ow managers to adapt their decision
making processes to promote the species’ recovery (Parker
et al., 2013).
4.1 Recruitment and Population Growth
The Hunua population increased from 55 pairs to 106 pairs between the 2014 and 2018 survey, an
average growth of 18% per annum. However, at least 11 translocated kōkako recruited into the
population between 2014 and 2018. If it is assumed that these kōkako recruited in the year they
were translocated, the average growth is reduced to 16% per a
nnum. This growth is slower than the
average annual growth between the 2010 and 2014 surveys. This reduction in growth rate may be
because an increasing proportion of kōkako are dispersing beyond the existing managed areas as
the population within these areas tends towards carrying capacity. Alternatively, the reduction may
be due to a poor breeding season in 2014-2015, when no monitored kōkako pairs successful y
fledged chicks as a result of high rat abundances. However, even if the population growth is
maintained at 16% per annum, the target of 250 pairs within the predator control ed areas is
expected to be reached by 2024.
4.2 Further Translocations
As a result of translocations, 34 ‘effective founders’ have now recruited into the population. It is
recommended that additional kōkako are translocated as rapidly as possible to achieve the aim of
40 unrelated kōkako recruiting into the population. As we may expect greatest recruitment from
kōkako translocated from Mapara, t his is the preferred source site for a
dditional top-ups. However, if
Mapara is not available due to harvest restrictions, the next preferred option should be Waipapa, a
s
this is the least genetical y represented source site on the existing translocation permit.
14
4.3 Management Recommendations
Where populations grow rapidly from a bottleneck, loss of genetic diversity through drift is
minimised (Jamieson
et al., 2008). As such, it is recommended that predator control continues t o be
conducted annual y with a target of reducing ship rat and possum indices to 1% RTI and RTC
respectively to maximise kōkako productivity.
Fol owing the Kokako Recovery Plan, the next kōkako survey should be conducted in 2
022, and a
t 4
yearly intervals thereafter. If additional kōkako are translocated, the 2022 survey should fol ow the
adult census methodology to determine recruitment of these individuals. However, subsequent
surveys may fol ow a sub-sampling methodology, in consultation with the Kōkako Specialist Group,
to reduce labour costs.
5. Key Recommendations
● Annual predator control to be continued with a target of reducing ship rat and possum
indices to 1% RTI and RTC respectively
● Auckland Council to conduct a wider-area survey fol owing the breeding season in April
2019 to detect the extent of spil over beyond the existing managed areas
● Conduct the next kōkako survey in 2022 and subsequently at four yearly intervals
● Future surveys to fol ow the methodology outlined in this report if additional kōkako are
translocated to Hunua, with subsequent surveys to fol ow a sub-sampling methodology
15
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Firstly, thanks to s 9(2)(a), 9(2)(g) for facilitating this work. Thanks also to s 9(2)(a), 9(2) (Auckland Council)
(g)
for coordinating park logistics. I am very grateful for the superb work done by the survey team of
s 9(2)(a), 9(2)(g)
and s 9(2)(a), 9(2)(g)
. Thanks
also to s 9(2)(a), 9(2)(g)
and
s 9(2)(a), 9(2)(g)
for assisting in this work.
Thanks to all the work put in over the years by Auckland Council staff, contractors and volunteers
who have been involved in the project over the years, without whom this population wouldn’t have
been able to flourish in such a grand way. Thanks also to the DOC staff who have paved the way
with the earlier Hunua surveys, in particular s 9(2)(a), 9(2)(g) , who has been instrumental in the recovery
of the kōkako in the ranges.
16
REFERENCES
Basse, B.; Flux, I. and Innes, J. 2003. Recovery and maintenance of North Island kōkako (Cal aeas
cinerea wilsoni) populations through pulsed pest control.
Biological Conservation, 109: 259–270.
MacMil an, B.W.H.; McClure, B.R. 1990. Distribution of the kokako (Cal aeas cinerea wilsoni) in the
Hunua Range.
Notornis, 37: 107-119.
Flux, I. and Innes, J. 2001.
Kōkako Management Folder. Threatened Species Occasional
Publication- 19. Department of Conservation, Wel ington.
Jamieson, I.G.; Grueber, C.E.; Waters, J.M.; Gleeson, D.M. 2008. Managing genetic diversity in
threatened populations: a New Zealand perspective.
New Zealand Journal of Ecology 32: 130–137.
Overdyck, O., 1999.
The breeding success of kokako (Cal aeas cinerea wilsoni) in the Hunua
Ranges. Department of Conservation, Auckland Conservency Technical Report Series No. 20.
Parker, K.A.; Ewen, J.G.; Seddon, P.J.; Armstrong, D.P. 2013. Post-release monitoring of bird
translocations: why is it important and how do we do it?
Notornis 60(1):
85-92.
Robertson, H.A.; Baird, K.; Dowding, J.E.; El iott, G.P.; Hitchmough, R.A.; Miskel y, C.M.; McArthur, N.;
O’Donnel , C.F.J.; Sagar, P.M.; Scofield, R.P.; Taylor, G.A. 2017.
Conservation status of New Zealand
birds, 2016. New Zealand Threat Classification Series 19. Department of Conservation, Wel ington.
23 p.
St Paul, J.W.; McKenzie, H.R. 1974. The kokako in the Hunua Range.
Notornis 21: 205-218
Weiser, E. 2015.
Management strategies for establishing and maintaining genetical y robust
populations of kōkako. Unpublished report for Kōkako Recovery Group, Department of
Conservation.
17
APPENDIX 1: Kōkako Specialist Group Reporting
2018
2014
2010
1994*
Date of Survey Period
Sept-Oct
Aug-Oct
Aug-Oct
-
Area Surveyed (ha)
Ca. 2000
Ca. 1500
Ca. 1450
?
Number of person hours used to survey 687
?
?
?
Number of surveyors
6
4.5
4.5
?
Total Pairs
106
55
25
1
Total Singles
16
8
9
23 (incl
male-male pairs)
Total Juveniles
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Did you follow Standard methods*?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Survey type used*
TA Census
TA Census
TA Census TA Census
Did you record and use new/this years Yes
Yes
Yes
?
song/calls?
Other
Comments:
Survey Teams: s 9(2)(a), 9(2)(g)
18
APPENDIX 2: Summary of translocated kōkako resighting, 2008-2018
Name
Origin
Sex
Release 2008 survey 2010 survey 2014 survey 2018 survey
Ben
Mangatutu
Female
2015
no
Earlybird
Mangatutu
Male
2016
yes
Gatland
Mangatutu
Female
2016
yes
Grayling
Mangatutu
Female
2016
yes
Howick
Mangatutu
Male
2016
no
Mahaki
Mangatutu
Male
2015
no
Matariki
Mangatutu
Female
2016
no
Nene
Mangatutu
Female
2015
no
Nui
Mangatutu
Male
2016
yes (Non-territorial)
Porutu
Mangatutu
Male
2015
no
Richie
Mangatutu
Male
2015
no
Su
Mangatutu
Female
2016
yes
Tim
Mangatutu
Male
2016
yes
Amunsden
Mapara
Male
2006 yes
yes
yes
yes
Arab
Mapara
Female
2015
yes
Babboonito
Mapara
Male
2006 yes
yes
?
yes
Bananarama
Mapara
Male
2006 yes
yes
yes
no
Beaglehole
Mapara
Male
2006 yes
yes
yes
yes
Bombadiera
Mapara
Female
2006 yes
yes
yes
yes
Hani
Mapara
Male
2006 yes
yes
yes
no
Hinemairangi
Mapara
Female
2006 yes
yes
yes
no
Kikorangi
Mapara
Female
2015
yes
Mahuki
Mapara
Male
2015
yes
Merty
Mapara
Male
2015
no
Nancen
Mapara
Female
2006 yes
yes
?
no
Parahuia
Mapara
Female
2006 yes
yes
yes
yes
Puna
Mapara
Female
2006 yes
?
yes
yes
Ruahine
Mapara
Female
2006 yes
yes
yes
yes
Shankley
Mapara
Male
2006 yes
no
no
no
Speedbird
Mapara
Female
2015
yes
Taranga
Mapara
Male
2006 yes
yes
no
no
ToBe
Mapara
Male
2006 yes
yes
yes
yes
Werewere
Mapara
Male
2015
yes
19
Chinook
Tiritiri
Male
2008 no
no
no
no
Eunice
Tiritiri
Female
2007 yes
no
no
no
Kahurangi
Tiritiri
Female
2007 no
no
no
no
Keisha
Tiritiri
Female
2010 -
yes
no
no
Matangi
Tiritiri(Egg swap) ?
2012
yes
yes
Ruby
Tiritiri
Female
2007 yes
yes
yes
yes
Shazbot
Tiritiri
Female
2008 no
no
yes
yes
Skippy
Tiritiri
Female
2010 -
no
no
no
Sweetie
Tiritiri
Male
2008 yes
yes
no
no
Te Karanga
Tiritiri
Male
2010 -
yes
yes
yes
Tsindi
Tiritiri
Male
2008 no
no
no
no
Wairoa
Tiritiri
Female
2007 no
no
no
no
Acapel a
Waipapa
Male
2007 yes
yes
no
no
Al egro
Waipapa
Female
2007 no
no
no
no
Loki
Waipapa
Female
2007 no
yes
no
no
Stressor
Waipapa
Female
2007 yes
yes
yes
yes
