ZIP Annual Report 2016-17

Annual Report 2016-17

Designed by Rory Harnden (Ink Digital) Photos by Briar Cook, Ripley Dean, James Russell, Tim Sjoberg, Pete Morresey, Michael Tunnicliff, Maggie Nichols, Phil Bell, Rory Harnden (Ink Digital), D Garrick (DOC)

Contents Forewords ������������������������������������������� 2 ZIP Board ��������������������������������������������� 5 The Challenge ������������������������������������� 6 ZIP Team ��������������������������������������������� 8 Our Approach ������������������������������������10 The 2016-17 Work Programme ����������13

Barrier Projects ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������13 Initial Removal Project ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������15 Highlight One: 1080 to Zero ���������������������������������������������������������������������������16 Detect and Respond Projects ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 22 Highlight Two: A highly effective virtual barrier and lean detection system for possums �������������������������������������������� 23 Highlight Three: Developing an automated detection system for rats ������ 28 Lure Projects ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 32

Future Directions ����������������������������� 34 Financial Summary ��������������������������� 36 Founding partners • Investors • Financial summary and Auditors’ report

Predator Key Facts ��������������������������� 38 Glossary ������������������������������������������� 40

1

Forewords Devon McLean, Board Chair Over the past year, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment released a sobering report about the state of New Zealand’s native birds. And the Department of Conservation (DOC) released an equally sobering report which identified that more than 3,000 of our native species are classified as ‘threatened’ or ‘at risk’. Each report was a clarion call for action to address the threat posed by possums, rats and stoats to our native flora and fauna – reinforcing the Government target, announced in July 2016, for New Zealand to be Predator Free by 2050.

Fortunately, New Zealand is increasingly well-placed to take on the predator-free challenge, through the collective action of national and local Government, the commercial and philanthropic sectors, and the community. One of these initiatives is Zero Invasive Predators Ltd (ZIP), which was founded by the NEXT Foundation and DOC in February 2015.

I am pleased to present this, the third ZIP annual report, which shows how ZIP’s focused vision of removing rats, possums and stoats from mainland sites and protecting these sites from reinvasion is developing methods that will contribute to the achievement of Predator Free New Zealand. The results to date give me confidence that large parts of mainland New Zealand will indeed become predator free environments in which our native biodiversity can thrive – a transformational change for our land and for all New Zealanders. This report also gives an insight into the multidisciplinary, rapid test and prototyping approach employed by ZIP.

2

I would like to thank our partners Department of Conservation, NEXT Foundation, Morgan Foundation, Jasmine Social Investments and the dairy industry consortium of Fonterra, Tatua, Synlait, Westland Milk Products, Open Country and Miraka, for backing ZIP. I’d also like to thank our directors for their time and guidance of ZIP. Finally, my thanks and congratulations to all of the ZIP team for their efforts over the past year. And, in particular, to Al Bramley who continues to provide exemplary leadership of the ZIP team, both technically and through developing a culture that allows the innovative approach to flourish.

Al Bramley, Chief Executive In my foreword to last year’s annual report I wrote that “The team at ZIP believe that you haven’t innovated anything until you have enabled a change in practice.” During 2016-17, we almost finalised a process to manufacture our possum leg-hold trap platform. These glass fibre-reinforced plastic platforms will be a durable, easy to install and inexpensive (approximately $15 each) item for anyone who needs to trap possums. Once the manufacturing process is finalised, we will make these available for purchase – keep an eye on our website for details about this.

More significantly, the platforms are designed to be used in conjunction with transmitters as part of an automated reporting trap system.

We worked with DOC, regional councils and the Ministry for Primary Industries to develop a set of good practice guidelines for the use of this type of technology in line with the Animal Welfare Act (refer Highlight 1 in this report).

We also made very good progress towards enabling a number of other changes in practice. For example, the prescription we developed for the aerial use of 1080 appears to completely remove possums (and a very high proportion of rats) from native forest (refer Highlight 2). We are still refining this prescription. If it works, then this would be a significant achievement, and a major contribution to one of the Government’s four interim 2025 goals for the Predator Free 2050 programme, that is to “achieve a breakthrough science solution capable of eradicating at least one small mammal predator”.

Over the past year we have continued to develop methods to enable the timely detection of a rat incursion, including the ongoing development of an automated reporting detection device that is both efficient and reliable when used across large landscapes (refer Highlight 3).

These are just three of the highlights of our research and development work in 2016-17.

This report also summarises the results of our other 2016-17 projects, and briefly outlines our work programme for 2017-18.

3

Our work programme would not be possible without the financial support of our investor partners. The Department of Conservation (DOC), with the NEXT Foundation, initially co-funded ZIP’s establishment in early 2015.

I’d like to also acknowledge the tremendous non-financial support we’ve received from DOC, which has enabled us to establish our long-term field development site at Bottle Rock, as well as temporary sites at Mount Taranaki, the Orongorongo River catchment in Rimutaka Forest Park, and at the confluence of the Jackson and Arawhata rivers in South Westland, on public conservation land.

The work programme at each site is developed, to varying degrees, by the knowledge and experience of DOC Technical Advisors and Rangers, and approved by Operations Managers and Directors. I’m particularly grateful for the support of our DOC colleagues, who work hard to provide their best possible advice about ZIP proposals that sometimes have tight deadlines for decisions (for example, when we identify an unforeseen research opportunity or the work is season dependent), or are novel, or have a degree of uncertainty or risk.

4

The NEXT Foundation continue to provide tremendous support to ZIP, well beyond their strategic philanthropy. They ensure we maintain our tight focus on the ‘big three’ predators, while encouraging us to be agile and responsive to opportunities.

The leadership of NEXT has been a crucial sounding board this year as we have matured and evolved our story. Their confidence in us has in turn opened doors for us to forge new relationships and build further momentum for the predator free vision we share.

As an organisation grows, its culture often changes. Despite continuing to grow over the past year, I’m delighted to report that we are striving to maintain the ZIP culture of being caring, connected, empowered and innovative.

Thank you to all of the ZIP team for your efforts during 2016-17 – we’ve achieved a lot, and it has continued to be fun as well.

Thank you also to our partners, the ZIP Board, and in particular, to the Board Chair Devon McLean, for his ongoing wise counsel and support.

I am very pleased to present the 2016-17 ZIP Annual Report.

ZIP Board The ZIP Board met four times during 2016-17, including one site visit to ZIP’s predator research facility in Lincoln.

The ZIP Board is chaired by Devon McLean, and includes Charles Daugherty and David Flacks as Directors.

LEFT-RIGHT:

Mike Slater, Devon McLean, Charles Daugherty and David Flacks

Senior liaison with DOC is through Mike Slater (Deputy Director-General – Operations). Mike is not a Board Director, but represents the Department as a partner at Board meetings.

5

The Challenge The three mammalian predator species that cause the majority of ecological damage to New Zealand’s flora and fauna are possums, rats and stoats. They eat eggs, chicks and older birds, reptiles and invertebrates (such as wÄ“tÄ ), flowers, fruit and other vegetation.

They are also agricultural, industrial and domestic pests, which cause significant economic costs (e.g. to our dairy, horticulture and tourism sectors), and pose a risk to human health.

Possums, rats and stoats have been completely removed from many offshore islands. On the mainland, they have been completely removed from within fenced sanctuaries, and are suppressed to low levels across other larger areas.

Possums have also been completely removed locally in some parts of New Zealand (e.g.

Miramar Peninsula in Wellington).

6

With increasing awareness of the need to reduce the impact of predators and the benefits of doing so, many local communities throughout urban and rural New Zealand have initiated projects to control possums, rats and stoats.

Furthermore, in July 2016, the Government announced that it was adopting the goal of a Predator Free New Zealand by 2050.

A number of communities have also proposed the establishment of predator-free areas of tens and hundreds of thousands of hectares on the mainland.

There are three significant limitations of the current methods used to control possums, rats and stoats on the mainland: 1. In areas outside of fenced sanctuaries, the ongoing presence of these predators constrains the ability of the native biodiversity to achieve a high level of indigenous naturalness (or ‘ecological integrity’).

2. The ongoing cost of current methods restricts the scale at which they are able to be deployed.

3. Finally, target predators have the potential to become resistant to toxins through their repeated and ongoing use.

In 2013-14 the Department of Conservation (DOC) carried out a trial at a 40 hectare site, Putanui Point in Pelorus Sound, to test whether a model of predator control involving a combination of toxin, trap, lure and detection methods could remove possums and rats from a relatively large unfenced site and prevent their re-establishment.

The results of this trial were not yet sufficiently robust or affordable to be operationalised, but they were promising enough for DOC and the NEXT Foundation to establish Zero Invasive Predators Ltd (ZIP) in February 2015, in order to test and develop this approach at a larger scale.

ZIP’s mission is to rapidly develop the new knowledge and operationally-ready, socially acceptable methods required to implement what we now refer to as the ‘Remove and Protect’ model of predator control.

Achieving this will enable communities and authorities to restore native biodiversity to a level that could (in time) rival that of predator-free off-shore islands, and eliminate the economic impacts of these predators.

It may also reduce New Zealand’s dependence on the repeated large-scale application of toxins. And it will bring New Zealand closer to achieving predator-free status.

ZIP was not established to develop new biological or genetic methods such as spreading infertility, using a virus, gene drive technology, or otherwise manipulating genes to cause possums, rats or stoats to decline to extinction. These techniques appear to offer significant potential for predator control in New Zealand, but are unlikely to be available for wide-scale deployment for many years.

In contrast, the methods used under the Remove and Protect Model are largely incremental advances on what is already available and generally considered to be socially acceptable. That said, some of the methods ZIP is developing to lure and detect predators would almost certainly be useful under a biological or genetic model of predator control.

7

CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Al Bramley

EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT

Kristin Kennedy

ENGINEERING DIRECTOR

John Wilks

STRATEGY AND SYSTEMS DIRECTOR

PREDATOR SYSTEMS MODELLER

Joseph Arand

Nick Mulgan

Phil Bell

SCIENCE ADVISOR (0.1 FTE)

SCIENCE ADVISOR (0.2 FTE)

PREDATOR ECOLOGIST

James Russell

Elaine Murphy

Helen Nathan

COMMUNICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT LEAD

Susannah Aitken

INNOVATION DIRECTOR

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATOR (0.3 FTE)

SCIENCE AND TECHNICAL RANGER

Caroline Wallace

Briar Cook

CASUAL RANGER

Nic Gorman

FIELD RANGER (FIXED-TERM)

Hamish Howard

ZIP Team

CASUAL RANGER

Lyndsay Murray

Since our last annual report, the ZIP team has grown from 14 to 19 permanent full-time staff. At any one time, several casual and fixed term staff and contractors are also part of the ZIP team.

The increase in the size of our team reflects the expansion and pace of our work programme and the need to ensure that we have the right systems in place to support our team.

Towards the end of 2016-17 we reorganised our team structure to enable each of us to work more effectively. Despite our growth, we will continue to ensure that we sustain and

8

develop personal connections across the ZIP team, because doing so is an essential part of our success. One of the ways that we connect is by enabling all staff to join the work at our field sites, the predator behaviour facility (at Lincoln) and the ZIP office (in Wellington, adjacent to Zealandia Sanctuary).

OPERATIONS DIRECTOR

Duncan Kay

FIELD TEAM SITE LEAD (BOTTLE ROCK)

PREDATOR BEHAVIOUR TEAM LEAD

FIELD TEAM SITE LEAD (TARANAKI)

FIELD TEAM SITE LEAD (HAAST)

Pete Morresey

Tom Agnew

Ripley Dean

Tim Sjoberg

FIELD RANGER

Michael Tunnicliff

FIELD RANGER

Rae Lerew

JUNIOR PREDATOR ECOLOGIST

FIELD RANGER (FIXED-TERM)

FIELD RANGER (FIXED-TERM)

Maggie Nichols

Kat Reynolds

Chelsea Price

PREDATOR TECHNICIAN (0.25 FTE)

FIELD RANGER (FIXED-TERM)

FIELD RANGER (FIXED-TERM)

Jono Dobbs

Nate St Hill

Becky Clements

FIELD RANGER (0.75 + 0.25 FTE)

FIELD RANGER (FIXED-TERM)

FIELD RANGER (FIXED-TERM)

Oscar Pollard

Cody Luckin

Matt Chisnall

FIELD RANGER

FIELD RANGER (FIXED-TERM)

Courtney Hamblin

Tom Kay

CASUAL FIELD RANGER

FIELD RANGER (DOC CONTRACTOR)

Ruby Collier

CASUAL FIELD RANGER

Craig Nicholas

Much of our work involves long distance travel to remote field sites, which often comprise steep hill and mountain slopes, which are often slippery underfoot, and sometimes require river crossings. During 2016-17, our staff worked for approximately 3,200 days in the field.

Brandon Kingi

FIELD RANGER (DOC CONTRACTOR)

Joe Clarke

Unfortunately, we recorded three work-place incidents, comprising a wrist strain, a back strain, and one concussion – none of which resulted in permanent injury. We investigated each incident, and shared the learnings across the whole ZIP team.

9

Our Approach The Remove and Protect Model comprises four categories of work: Category of Work Develop a barrier to prevent the reinvasion of possums, rats and stoats Initially remove possums, rats and/or stoats from an area protected by the barrier Detect and respond to any predators that survive the initial removal or pass through the barrier 10

Lure possums, rats and stoats to eat baits and interact with detection devices

Our broad approach is to develop and deploy the model over increasingly larger field sites, as we learn what works and what doesn’t.

OPPOSITE:

Bottle Rock Peninsula field development site

One of our first actions in 2015 was to establish a 440 hectare field development site at Bottle Rock Peninsula, which we still operate. Our focus at Bottle Rock has largely been on the development of methods to prevent the reinvasion of possums and rats, and to detect and remove any individuals that pass through the barrier.

To date, we have largely focused on possums and ship rats at Bottle Rock, because their home ranges and dispersive abilities are more suitable for research at a site of this size.

Stoats, in comparison, are much more mobile (with home ranges of 30–300 hectares, and an ability to disperse many kilometres in a couple of days), and therefore require very large field sites to develop control methods. That said, with an eye to the future, we have begun to investigate methods to lure and detect stoats.

In 2016-17 we established two new temporary field development sites to test our ability to remove possums and rats from large areas, one on Mount Taranaki (a monitored core of 400ha within a wider 1,600 hectare treatment zone) and one at the confluence of the Jackson and Arawhata Rivers, South Westland (another core of 400ha, this time within a 2,500 hectare treatment zone).

We also established a temporary site in the Orongorongo River catchment (Rimutaka Forest Park), to test the effectiveness of rivers as natural barriers.

Predator research facility, Lincoln

In addition to the work carried out at our field development sites, we are researching lures, tools and techniques at our predator behaviour research facility in Lincoln, which we opened in June 2016. This facility enables us to rapidly test potential ideas, and refine them, before trialling developments that show promise at field development sites. It also enables us to quickly terminate ideas that fail to perform as anticipated.

Taranaki Mounga, Egmont National Park

11

We work closely with engineering contractors such as Motovated Design and Analysis, Talbot Technologies (glass fibre-reinforced plastic leg-hold trap platform), inFact (automated food lure dispenser), and Brush Technology (electronic detection) to test the feasibility of manufacturing new devices and, once the development phase is completed, to actually manufacture them.

Part of our process to develop new methods involves anticipating whether the method could have potential adverse impacts on native biodiversity, and addressing any concerns.

12

We do not, however, measure the benefits to native biodiversity of any new predator control methods. That’s because it’s widely known that, in general, removing possums, rats and stoats from natural ecosystems will result in significant beneficial conservation outcomes.

Our research timeframes are invariably shorter than ecological studies of New Zealand’s indigenous biodiversity. That’s largely because our focus is on whether or not a control method either killed or detected possums, rats or stoats, which are results that can be quickly determined.

The 2016-17 Work Programme The main knowledge/tool gaps that we planned to address in 2016-17, and the results of the work, are outlined in the following tables.

Three of these projects are highlighted in this report, and some of the projects are described in more detail on our website (zip.org.nz).

Barrier Projects Knowledge/Tool Gap

Project

Results

The virtual barrier we have developed does not yet intercept 95% of possums and 99% of rats.

1. Investigate whether adding ramps to leg-hold traps improves possum trap capture rates

Adding ramps to the leg-hold trap platforms increased the effectiveness of those traps by 20%, relative to traps without ramps (p-value 0.01). This may be due to increased visual prominence of the ramp, or because the ramp makes it easier for possums to access the trap (when investigating the lure). Various trappers also confirm that ramps help increase trap rates.

2. Change the barrier at Bottle Rock to improve its effectiveness

We have evidence that the changes we have tested in version 3 should reduce possum invasion to the required rate. We are continuing to evaluate this.

This is the target that we think is needed for the Remove and Protect model to be cost-efficient.

Development of the virtual barrier is an ongoing challenge, and we learn by trying a version and then measuring the results.

Rat performance has been difficult to measure, due to the continued presence of a small population of rats beyond the barrier.

3. Investigate the effectiveness of a 5 metre spacing of TUN200 rat traps

TUN200s at 5 metre spacing did increase the performance of the barrier. However, the improvement was marginal (p-value 0.45) and showed that at 5 metres we were getting diminishing returns from increasing the trap density. Two 10-metre-spaced lines is a better use of the same number of traps than one 5-metre-spaced line.

Additionally, an increased number of lines is a more resilient system.

13

Knowledge/Tool Gap

Project

Results

Can we develop deterrents that prevent rats from even attempting to cross the virtual barrier?

4. Investigate the use of light as a deterrent to rats

We conducted a trial with 20 rats and a ‘wall’ of light. The results clearly indicated that light on its own seems to be a poor deterrent. That said, some rats showed obvious hesitation behaviour when approaching the wall of light.

We do not have to kill all invaders, so long as those invaders do not breach the barrier. This may be especially valuable if some rats are naturally wary (and therefore difficult to trap).

The effectiveness of rivers as natural barriers to the movement of possums and rats is uncertain.

If rivers are a good barrier, then this may influence the boundaries of large mainland areas targeted for possum and rat Remove and Protect implementation.

How well does our ‘virtual barrier’ work to intercept stoats that attempt to cross it?

While our current focus is to develop the Remove and Protect model for possums and rats, we also need to test (and develop) it against stoats.

Can we improve the effectiveness and safety of the standard DOC200 kill trap?

The Poutiri Ao ō Tāne Project in Hawkes Bay discovered that a run through trap containing a single DOC trap was 1.5 times (95% confidence interval, 1.2 to 1.8) more effective at trapping ship rats than a standard DOC box containing a single DOC trap (p value for equality of <0.001).

Although the number of times that a ranger is accidentally struck by the kill bar while servicing our TUN200 traps is very low (once every 5,000 traps serviced), we want to reduce this rate.

14

However, when we placed trap boxes within the lit zone, 10 out of 10 rats ran into those trap boxes rather than cross the wall of light. The results indicate that light may be effective at channelling rats into trap boxes, and that light may be an effective component of a deterrent system, especially within an urban context.

5. Initiate an investigation in the Orongorongo River catchment of the effectiveness of rivers as a natural barrier to possums and rats

This project was started at the end of June, so it is too early to report any results yet. Keep an eye out for a progress report on our website or in the next Annual Report!

6. Investigate the effectiveness of the second version of the stoat virtual barrier

The stoat virtual barrier intercepted (i.e. killed) only 60% of the stoats that attempted to cross it.

Lots of room for improvement here!

7. Develop the ZIP200, i.e. a more effective, easier to clean and safer version of the DOC200 trap box

The first prototype has been produced and is currently undergoing a number of improvements.

A field trial of final pre-production model is proposed for 2017-18, subject to meeting cost targets.

Knowledge/Tool Gap

Project

Results

There are no tools to prevent possums, rats and stoats from passing through openings in fence barriers.

8. Investigate the ability of an electric grid to deter possums, rats and stoats

Deferred until 2017-18, due to higher priority work at the Lincoln facility

9. Investigate how high fences need to be to prevent possums, rats and stoats from crossing

Initial results suggest that a 900mm high fence (with hood) can contain rats and stoats; while a 1.1 metre- high fence (with hood) can contain possums. Further testing will continue during 2017-18.

In agricultural or urban environments, predator exclusion fences are likely to have gaps (e.g. to enable vehicles to pass through).

Does a predator exclusion fence need to be the standard 1.8 metre height, if feral cats are not part of the target predator suite?

A low height predator fence could make this tool more socially acceptable, affordable and able to be used in more places.

Initial Removal Project Knowledge/Tool Gap

Project

Results

The current aerial 1080 prescription to control possums and rats over large areas does not completely remove them.

1. Develop and test a new prescription to completely remove possums and rats through the aerial application of 1080 at test sites at Mount Taranaki and, if promising, later at South Westland

Refer Highlight 1 (p. 16)

This outcome compromises the ecological outcomes of the operation and generates significant ongoing control costs.

15

Highlight 1 1080 to Zero Knowledge/Method Gap Standard prescriptions for the aerial use of 1080 to control possums and rats suppress the populations to low levels. The ecological benefits and long-term cost-effectiveness of a predator-free programme at large sites on the mainland will be considerably enhanced by the efficient initial complete removal of predators.

16

Over the past year ZIP has been investigating a modified prescription for the aerial application of 1080, to completely remove possums and rats from large mainland areas of New Zealand.

If successful, this new technique could reduce, and ultimately do away with, the need for repeated large-scale aerial application of 1080 (provided that population re-establishment is prevented).

The Trial A Modified Prescription We developed the modified prescription in consultation with experts from DOC, OSPRI and Landcare Research.

In summary, the prescription comprised prefeeding the area twice (prefeed is a non-toxic bait which makes toxic baits more attractive to possums and rats), overlapping the sowing of prefeed and the toxic baits to eliminate the likelihood of gaps, and using twice the amount of toxin compared to a standard 1080 operation (ideally through one application of the toxin, but two if required).

Trial Site We then evaluated potential blocks where a standard 1080 operation was planned, to use as a baseline to measure the effectiveness of the modified prescription.

After consulting with DOC and local iwi, we selected a 1,600ha trial site of primarily podocarp forest within the much larger area where a standard 1080 operation was planned as part of the 35,000ha Taranaki Mounga project (taranakimounga.nz).

The objective of the trial was to determine whether a modified prescription of aerial 1080 could result in the ‘complete removal’ of possums and rats over a 400ha core block within the trial site. ‘Complete removal’ comprises either the removal from an area of all individuals in a species, or of enough individuals that the remaining population is no longer viable (providing there is no re-invasion).

The remaining 1,200ha of the trial site provided a 1km-wide ‘buffer’, to enable us to determine how effectively the modified prescription removed possums and rats within the core.

In order to detect the presence of any survivors within the core block we deployed 835 chew cards on an intensive 50m x 100m grid, 421 tracking tunnels on a 100m x 100m grid, and 80 cameras. Pre-trial monitoring using multiple-night chew cards indicated that possums and rats had a relative index of 6% and 98% respectively.

Method and Results Owing to significant weather delays the modified prescription we applied during this trial was a little different to the one we originally intended to use. It comprised:

Prefeed 1

(10th August 2016):

4 kg/ha into trial block only

Prefeed 2

(31st August 2016)

2 kg/ha into trial block only

Prefeed 3

(22nd September 2016)

Prefeed 4

(9th November 2016):

Toxin

(1st December 2016)

1 kg/ha over the entire Mounga (including trial block)

1 kg/ha into trial block only

2 kg/ha over the entire Mounga; but 4 kg/ha into trial block

17

All bait sown in this phase of the trial was RS5 6 gram cereal pellets with cinnamon lure (Orillion).

The survivor detection monitoring results were:

Days since toxin

Possum chew

Possum chew %

Rat chew

Rat chew %

Rat tracking

Rat tracking %

Round One

12-13

0

0

0

0

-

-

Round Two

20-22

1

0.1%

0

0

-

-

Round Three

32-35

0

0

1

0.1%

8

1.9%

Round Four

40-42

0

0

1

0.1%

21

5.0%

Over the four rounds of detection (and a total of 36,430 opportunities to detect any surviving rats or possums), we detected 1 possum.

At the end of the fourth round of detection (totalling 46,755 opportunities to detect), we estimated approximately 15-20 rats remained from a starting population of 2,000.

Prefeed 1

(28th January 2017)

4 kg/ha into trial block only

Prefeed 2

(4th February 2017)

2 kg/ha into trial block only

The live trapping operation initially targeted areas where rats had been detected, with traps moved to new detections if needed.

Each trap was lured with a single Wanganui #7 double orange-lured 1080 pellet bait and had two cameras, to gain an understanding of whether toxin aversion existed in the survivors. That is, if a rat was found dead in a

18

This number of rat survivors was sufficient to trigger a second phase of prefeeding (in this case, using Wanganui #7 double orange-lured 6g pellets), followed by a live-trapping operation to remove as many surviving rats from within the core block as possible. The prefeed comprised:

trap, no aversion was apparent; if found alive, then some aversion may exist. Trapping these animals also helped to define the spatial range of the survivors (as their detection â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;footprintâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; reduced or disappeared), and enabled us to gather demographic information (e.g. age, sexual maturity, whether the individual had recently reproduced).

N

500m

Rat chew and tunnel (1)

Rat on camera (11)

Rat tunnel (24)

No detection (798 detection devices)

Rat chew (1)

ZIP 400 ha core block

19

During the live capture phase, we caught: • 13 adult rats, which we assumed survived the initial removal phase: 6 were found dead in the trap, 2 showed clear signs of toxic poisoning (but were euthanised before the dose proved lethal), and 5 were found alive (and subsequently euthanised).

• 5 juveniles (due to their weight): all dead in the trap.

Over the course of this trial we found two dead birds in the core of the trial site – 1 blackbird and 1 chaffinch. It is possible that the cause of death was 1080 poisoning, but no testing was undertaken to confirm this.

Conclusion and Next Steps The modified prescription applied during the initial phase of this trial achieved the complete removal of possums. As far as we know, this is the first time this result has been confirmed through intensive monitoring following an aerial 1080 operation. This

20

suggests that a modified prescription for the aerial application of 1080 can completely remove possums from a treatment area. If confirmed, this development would be a useful contribution to achieving the Government’s 2025 target of “a break-through science solution that would be capable of eradicating at least one small mammal predator from the New Zealand mainland”.

As for rats, while the results were less conclusive, there are encouraging signs that the modified prescription may be capable of completely removing rats.

In order to confirm the reliability of the 1080 to Zero prescription, we initiated another trial in June 2017, at a site at the confluence of the Jackson and Arawhata Rivers (South Westland). Updates about this trial are available on our website.

ZIP would like to acknowledge the support and operational assistance provide by the DOC team in Taranaki, and thank the Taranaki Mounga Board and local iwi for their endorsement of the work proposed and carried out on the Mounga.

N

500m

Thought to have survived the 1080 operation

No detection (798 detection devices)

Thought to be the offspring of surviving rat(s) following the operation

ZIP 400 ha core block

Dead in trap, female (ingested a lethal dose of 1080)

Dead in trap, male (ingested a lethal dose of 1080)

Alive in trap, female (didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t ingest enough 1080 for a lethal dose)

Alive in trap, male (didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t ingest enough 1080 for a lethal dose) 21

Detect and Respond Projects Knowledge/Tool Gap

Project

Results

How to reduce the costs of meeting the Animal Welfare Act 1999 requirements to check live capture traps each day?

1. Finalise and publish guidelines for the use of our automated system for reporting live capture of possums in leg-hold traps

Refer to Highlight 2 (p. 23)

2. Investigate a lean system to detect re-invasion of possums

Refer to Highlight 2 (p. 23)

In 2015-16 we developed an automated system for reporting live capture of possums in leg-hold traps. The Ministry for Primary Industries approved the technique as being compliant with animal welfare legislation.

What is the minimum system that will detect reinvasion of possums (to enable timely response to remove them)?

Detection networks based on current best practice will be too intensive to be cost-effective when used at scale.

22

Highlight 2 A highly effective and efficient virtual barrier and lean detection/ response system for possums Knowledge/Method Gap Leg-hold trapping is widely considered to be the most effective form of trapping for possums, and has proven to be the key to a highly effective possum ‘virtual barrier’ at our Bottle Rock field site. The Animal Welfare Act requires all live capture traps to be inspected ‘within 12 hours after sunrise on each day the trap remains set, beginning on the day immediately after the day on which the trap is set’ (s36(1)). Meeting this requirement is important and expensive, and has therefore restricted the scale at which leg-hold traps have traditionally been used.

In 2016-17, we calculated the labour costs of our automated system compared to the costs associated with the way that leg-hold traps are traditionally inspected.

During 2015-16 the Ministry for Primary Industries confirmed that ZIP’s automated reporting system was compliant with animal welfare legislation.

If we are to be able to up-scale the protection of possum-free landscapes, then a more efficient system is required for using possum leg-hold traps as a component of virtual barrier and detection/response systems.

Method In order to reduce the labour costs associated with live capture trapping, without compromising animal welfare outcomes, ZIP developed an automated reporting leg-hold trapping system for possums.

Under this system, the traps are inspected remotely by satellite, and any traps that are reported to have been sprung (i.e. caught a possum or perhaps triggered by a falling stick) are manually checked by a ranger.

23

In 2016-17, ZIP, DOC, Regional Councils and MPI worked together to develop a set of good practice guidelines for the use of this technology in line with the Animal Welfare Act. These guidelines (available online) provide the industry with a clear blueprint for the humane and responsible use of remote reporting for live capture traps.

To test the ability of a ‘lean detection’ system to intercept any invader possums before a population re-established, 8 automated reporting leg-hold traps were also deployed at Bottle Rock within the ‘protected’ area (e.g. behind the barrier) at a density of 1 trap per 50ha.

In addition to automated reporting, a number of refinements were made to the prototype leg-hold system at our Bottle Rock field site during 2016-17, which have further increased its effectiveness. The refinements included: improvements to visual lures, the inclusion of ramps (which we now understand to increase catch rates by as much as 20%), development of a chain ‘bucket’ (to minimise the chance of the possum disturbing the trap) and the addition of shock absorbers to chains, to reduce the likelihood of trapped possums escaping.

Results The labour costs (excluding the cost of initial setup) of our automated system compared to the costs associated with the way that leg-hold traps are traditionally inspected are shown on the following table. The calculations are based on the following criteria: • a network of 540 traps, that is maintained for one year • that one person can inspect 250 traps over an 8-hour work day • a labour cost of $350/8-hour work day • a total of 118 possums being trapped by the network over one year1.

Possums are known to roam large distances when at very low numbers, such as would be experienced by a possum that breaches the barrier.

Labour cost comparison between traditional leg-hold trapping and ZIP’s automated reporting-assisted leg-hold trap system per check and per annum

Traps

FTEs required per day

Cost per FTE per day

Annual Cost

Traditional trapping

540

2.16

$756

$275,940

ZIP automated system

540

0.08

$28

$10,220

2.08

$726

$265,720

Difference (+ve is a saving)

1. Our staff actually cleared 220 possums from 1,000 traps over 365 days, with each inspection taking approximately 2 hours (which is equivalent to 238 hours from 540 traps).

24

In the seven months between October 2016 and June 2017, the refined virtual barrier system used at Bottle Rock peninsula successfully screened approximately 92% of possums that attempted to cross into the protected area (166 caught out of 180 that attempted to pass through the barrier).

Conclusion

The 14 possums that breached the virtual barrier were all caught within a few months by the lean detection system (1 leg-hold trap per 50ha). The map below shows capture locations of these possums.

We now have a reliable, economically viable, ‘barrier’ and lean detection/response network for possums – based on a leg-hold trap system that we have now tested for over 600,000 trap nights!2

The automatic reporting system is very cost effective to run, because it opens the way for a huge (c.95%) reduction in the labour required to service these traps.

Our intensive detection network of chew cards confirmed there is not a breeding possum population on Bottle Rock.

2. ‘Trap nights’ refers to the number of traps multiplied by the number of nights these are in use.

3

1

10

lean detection leg-hold location #

catches on individual leg-hold

25

Detect and Respond Projects continued Knowledge/Tool Gap

Project

Results

Can we efficiently detect a rat incursion at landscape scale?

3. Investigate the dispersal footprint of rats in an area where they have previously been completely removed (the ‘Gen One’ trial)

Trial carried out on Taranaki Mounga following completion of 1080 to Zero trial.

The range of an individual invading rat can be small (<1ha) and would require a very dense network of devices to reliably detect an incursion. However, the footprint of the first generation of offspring is expected to be much larger and provided they can be removed quickly, could require fewer detection devices.

Results were complicated by invasion of rats from outside the trial site, and a clear dispersal footprint was unable to be determined; however an indicative dispersal footprint of the order of 40 ha was determined, consistent with a footprint of 70 ha seen in early work at Bottle Rock.

The Gen One trial will be repeated in a rat-free area in South Westland during 2017-18.

An automated system for reporting the detection of rats.

Rats are highly reproductive and can quickly establish a population. It’s critical to know as soon as possible when a rat is present in an otherwise ‘rat free’ area, so that a prompt response can be initiated.

It is unknown whether ship rats also need to be trapped in trees.

Ship rats spend significant time in the canopy of trees.

This could potentially have implications for the design of detection and removal systems.

We need a remote system that can transmit the presence of predators over long distances (to enable timely response to incursions).

Our ultra-high frequency (UHF) ‘daisy chain’ automated reporting system works well within our barrier lines, where devices are typically spaced less than 20m apart. However, we also need a system that can transmit results where the network of detection or response devices is separated by long distances.

26

4. Investigate the use of arboreal and ground-based electronic devices (ZIPtip and ZIPtee respectively) to detect rats

Refer to Highlight 3 (p. 28)

5. Investigate whether we need detection and trapping tools up in trees, as well as low on the ground (using chew cards as the proxy)

The results of a small-scale trial indicated that cards placed 1.5m (‘high’) above the ground were rarely chewed earlier than ones placed on the ground, and that overall detection rates were not increased by inclusion of a ‘high’ card.

6. Investigate the potential of low powered radio (LoRa) remote data transmission

With the assistance of Spark Ventures, we have concluded that while LoRa is still largely a ‘line of sight’ system, the technology is capable of long-range (up to 30km) transmission. We propose to develop a hybrid system with a LoRa backbone to complement our ‘daisy chain’ system to get into difficult to reach terrain.

While there may be some advantage of tools placed >1.5m above the ground, we concluded that there is no need for tools located 1.5m above the ground for ship rats.

Knowledge/Tool Gap

Project

Results

Could we develop a trap that the stoat does not realise is a trap?

7. Investigate a stoat pitfall trap

First prototype testing identified potential design flaws. The project was put on-hold due to higher priority work.

8. Investigate the potential of applying artificial intelligence to camera images and improve the sensitivity of cameras to detect stoats

Working with Prof Donald Bailey (Massey University) we proved the ability of artificial intelligence using polygon algorithms to detect stoats.

Observations at our Lincoln enclosure suggested that stoats will – perhaps out of curiosity – jump into a predator fenced cell, making it a ‘pitfall’ trap.

If so, that could be a new more sensitive tool for trapping stoats.

Can we use wildlife cameras coupled with artificial intelligence software to provide timely detection of stoats?

The best practice deployment of tracking tunnels is not sensitive enough to detect the presence of all stoats. In addition, stoats are so mobile that timely information is needed to initiate a targeted response.

With Don Peat (Kinopta) we also tested some improvements to camera sensitivity.

In addition, a project partnership was initiated between ZIP, NEXT and Grant Ryan (Cacophony Project) to develop artificial intelligence for image recognition of stoats (and other predators).

27

Highlight 3 Developing an automated detection system for rats Detection and measurement is one of the biggest challenges in conservation, and developing effective and efficient methods of detecting invasive predators is a significant focus of ZIP’s research and development programme.

For a detection system to be economically deployed at large scale, detection devices must:

Because rats are highly reproductive and can quickly establish a population, it’s critical to know as soon as possible when a rat (or emerging population of rats) is present in an otherwise ‘rat free’ area, so that a prompt response can be initiated.

• be sparsely placed in the landscape (avoiding high capital cost); • transfer data in a timely manner (to get early warning of an incursion to trigger a response); and • have a very low false reporting threshold (we set our threshold at 1 false report every 20,000 detection nights).

It has become obvious during this work that, for a rat detection tool to be as sensitive as possible, it must require the minimum of interaction to cause a detection.

During 2016-17, ZIP continued to develop an automated detection system. Early prototypes attempted to detect both rats and possums. Latterly the focus has moved to rats only, given the success of the possum ‘lean detection’ network.

ZIP’s approach to Research and Development: ‘Prototype, Evaluate, Improve’ Idea

28

Prototype

Small field test

New idea

Flaw

Success

Scale up field test

New flaw

Success

Large scale experiment as final proof

First ‘chew’ prototype: Arboreal automated chew card-based detection for rats and possums TRIALLED DURING JUNE 2015 Specs:

Automated reporting via a satellite node containing a motion sensor, triggered when a ‘chew card’ baited with a food-based lure is chewed or otherwise moved.

Early designs were ground based but it was hard to provide easy access for rats while at the same time exclude mice and other non-targets such as weka. Consequently the design was moved to a tree mount to circumvent that issue.

Mice were prevented from accessing the chew card by a 60 mm wide metal dome (with a vertical outer wall) that they could not climb past, and the device was mounted on a platform screwed to a tree to prevent mice from jumping on to it.

Analytics in the data server would screen out interference (trigger events) by daytime birds such as tauhou (silvereyes).

Flaw:

False reports caused by wind and rain – did not achieve the false reporting threshold.

Second ‘chew’ prototype: ‘Collapsible/chewable’ link based detection for rats and possums TRIALED DURING DECEMBER 2015 Specs:

The chew card based detection system was then redesigned to include a ‘chewable’ support, which was expected to provide increased sensitivity and reduce interference by weather.

Flaw:

Wind could still cause some false triggering, but more importantly not all rats chewed and broke the link despite the link being filled with Nutella or Pic’s peanut butter (known favoured food lures) – so the sensitivity requirement was not achieved.

29

Third ‘chew’ prototype: ZIPtip TRIALLED DURING MAY – SEPTEMBER 2016 Specs:

The chew card-based detection system was then redesigned with a mechanical ‘tipping’ trigger mechanism, rather than a movement sensor, to determine rat or possum interaction.

Flaw:

Still prone to false reporting, mainly from wind. More importantly, some rats were able to climb (an acrobatically circuitous route) to the chew card and feast on it without tripping the mechanism.

Some rats climbed and tripped the system but didn’t chew, leaving potential ambiguity (given the possibility of wind disturbance) as to whether the interaction was a rat or not.

Did not achieve the false reporting threshold, nor the sensitivity!

Fourth ‘chew’ prototype: ZIPtee TRIALLED DURING JUNE – SEPTEMBER 2016 Specs:

The same ‘tipping’ mechanism as the arboreal ZIPtip was utilised, but this time it was placed inside a ground-based tunnel architecture (an upside-down T, to accommodate the automated reporting node) to render it inaccessible to weka, mice, and other non-target species like possums.

Flaw:

Still prone to false reporting, caused by storms, especially in exposed locations and interference from other large animals. Some footage of very curious possums was also gathered and it became clear that they were capable of creating enough disturbance to trip the system through the shielding. So, it did not achieve the false reporting threshold but it was another bit of learning chalked up!

First ‘tunnel’ prototype: Tunnel-based light-signalled automated detection for rats only PRELIMINARY TRIAL CARRIED OUT DURING NOVEMBER 2016 Context:

There is increasing evidence that tracking tunnels are as sensitive as chew cards, if not even more sensitive, for detecting ship rats.

A proof-of-concept trial run by ZIP and SCION indicated that LED lights were visible through forest canopy, using a UAV (drone) equipped with a camera. It was thought that this could be a cost effective way of reporting the status of tunnels.

Specs:

30

100 x 50 mm tunnel equipped with low-res thermal imager, paired with capacitive sensors on the side walls and artificial intelligence (A.I.) analytics to determine whether an animal that has entered the tunnel is a rat or a mouse

An LED light is triggered (for the drone to spot) when a rat is detected. As an invasion ‘footprint’ emerges, the size and extent could be viewed from the air by a drone or light aircraft.

Flaw:

There is little difference in size between a small/juvenile (40 g) rat and a large (30 g) mouse, making it very difficult for sensing technology (including capacitance and low resolution thermal) to differentiate between the two. We achieved no better than 85% success comparing 30 g mice to 50 g rats; thus it did not achieve the sensitivity requirement.

The LED light approach showed promise, but was superceded by the introduction of LoRa (low powered radio) technology to enable automated reporting of a lean network of devices (i.e. the transmission of data) over large, remote areas. LoRa has the advantage of not requiring drone or light aircraft operations to determine the status of the system.

Flying drones out of line of sight and at night is also heavily regulated and thus a challenge to implementation at present.

Second ‘tunnel’ prototype: LoRa-enabled TED (Tunnel Electronic Detection) TO UNDERGO FIELD TESTING DURING 2017-18 Context:

During 2016-17 ZIP worked alongside Spark Ventures on the Proof of Concept for the use of LoRaWAN transmission for detection and reporting.

These initial tests showed data transmission distances of over 30km in good terrain; and 99% coverage in remote terrain on Bottle Rock Peninsula.

In June 2017, a trial in Rimutaka Forest Park found no difference between the effectiveness of 100 mm high x 50 mm wide tunnel compared with the industry standard 100 x 100 mm tunnels for detecting ship rats.

Such is the promise of LoRa, we are upgrading our existing UHF automated reporting system to work with LoRa.

Specs:

100 mm high × 50 mm wide rectangular tunnel, containing a weight sensor (rather than low resolution imaging and capacitance sensors), coupled with A.I. analytics to identify when an animal within a rat weight range (40–180 g) has entered the tunnel. Whilst the tunnel will be lured it doesn’t require any interaction from the animal other than to walk or run through.

Early testing at Lincoln indicates that it is relatively easy to accurately and reliably differentiate large (30 g) mice from small (40 g) rats.

Potential flaws?

There is a small risk that the weigh system could jam. False reports are possible, if light stoats or multiple small animals (e.g. mice) enter the tunnel simultaneously. However, we consider such events to be infrequent compared with rat incursions and are working to minimise the potential for jams.

Watch this space...

31

Lure Projects Knowledge/Tool Gap

Project

Results

Can we reduce the requirement to frequently change food lures, which is expensive?

1. Continue to develop an automatic food lure dispenser for possums and rats

A prototype automated food lure dispenser was developed and tested. A field trial of final pre-production model to be undertaken in 2017-18.

2. Investigate other visual lures to attract possums

A field trial using dull, flashing LED light as a lure was unsuccessful – and the light actually appeared to have acted as a deterrent!

Reducing the cost of changing food lures would significantly improve the cost-effectiveness of the Remove and Protect Model (and predator control generally).

Can we improve visual lures to increase the effectiveness of leg-hold traps?

Previous research has shown that white chew cards are a visual lure for possums (when the cards are associated with leg-hold traps).

Another trial using a fluorescent 3D ‘pyramid’ as a visual lure showed an improved capture rate compared to standard white chew card lures. 16 possums were caught on the pyramids compared to 4 on the alternating standard cards. The p-value for equality is 0.012.

A larger scale trial will be conducted in 2017-18.

Can a new possum lure improve the effectiveness of the virtual barrier?

3. Investigate the effectiveness of synthetic possum pheromone

Field trial at Bottle Rock showed no significant difference in capture rate between synthetic possum lure and ‘standard’ chew card visual lure.

Landcare Research will produce a journal article detailing this trial and the result.

4. Investigate the effectiveness of alternative rat food lures

Building on a small-scale field trial, we tested four food lures for rats in the ‘virtual barrier’, i.e. Pic’s peanut butter, Nutella, cheese, and milk chocolate. None of the lures performed significantly better than Pic’s peanut butter.

Landcare Research, Plant and Food Research, and TB Free developed a synthetic possum lure based on urine scent. With their agreement, we sought to understand its effectiveness in our virtual barrier.

Are there better food lures available for rats?

It is inefficient to use anything but the most effective lures.

A combination of lures may be required to intercept as many as possible.

32

Knowledge/Tool Gap

Project

Results

We do not have a proven â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;socialâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; lure for rats.

5. Investigate the effectiveness of rat bedding material scents

Initial pen trials showed that rat bedding material appears attractive.

This may be important in rat-free areas where there is abundant food but rats are lonely.

To date, scaled-up field trials at Bottle Rock of the effectiveness of rat bedding material scents have been inconclusive or contradictory.

6. Investigate the effectiveness of rat pup noises

Initial pen testing shows an apparent attractiveness of (ultrasonic and audible) juvenile pup sounds. We are now working with Callaghan Innovation to develop a production-ready, ultrasonic electronic speaker for use in a field trial at Bottle Rock to evaluate its effectiveness at improving our trap capture rates.

33

Future Directions Over the next 12-18 months our strategy is to continue to develop the Remove and Protect model for possums and ship rats.

In particular, we aim to reduce possum leakage through the virtual barrier to less than 3% and rat leakage to less than 1%.

In addition, we propose to begin to turn our attention to Norway rats. Although to date these have been largely absent from our field development sites, we are conscious that they are often among the first invaders on predator-free islands.

34

We also propose for the first time to attempt complete possum removal and protection of a large mainland site in perpetuity!

Initial feedback from DOC and iwi suggests that this is likely to be a 20,000 ha site in South Westland.

Whether or not it is possible to proceed with this project will depend on the results of the 1080 to Zero trial at the Arawhata/Jackson site, the success of the Orongorongo rivers as natural barriers trial (which we expect to know by late-October 2017), as well as the continued support of DOC, iwi and the local community.

We may also attempt rat removal and defence at this site, but there is still much to learn about rats and we acknowledge that this has a lower chance of succeeding.

We have also committed to supporting Grant Ryanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Cacophony Project to develop artificial intelligence software for camera footage to identify predators.

As in previous years, we will continue with a relatively small portfolio of research and development methods that apply to stoats.

In 2017-18, we anticipate being asked by a community to assist them to develop a proposal to restore a 5,000 ha, predominantly native forested peninsula. DOC has already indicated support for the proposal. If the proposal is widely endorsed by the local community, then we have tentatively scheduled to implement the Remove and Protect model for possums and rats, and continue to develop the model for stoats, at this peninsula in early 2019.

In addition, we expect to continue to be asked to provide technical advice to support initiatives led by NEXT Foundation and Regional Councils to remove possums from farming landscapes, and a proposal from Predator Free Wellington to attempt to remove rats and stoats from the peninsula suburb of Miramar.

BELOW:

ZIP Operations Director Duncan Kay (third from right) with Site Leads Tim Sjoberg, Pete Morresey, Tom Agnew, Ripley Dean and Briar Cook

35

Financial Summary Founding partners

Investors

36

Financial summary and Auditorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; report ZIPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 2016-17 financial statements were prepared by The Business Advisory Group (TBAG) and audited by PWC. We are pleased that a favourable audit was received. If you

Initial removal $934,959

wish to view these financial statements please visit charities.govt.nz for a full set of statements. The chart below provides a summary of the expenditure in 2016-17.

Detection and removal $840,594

Lures $292,668

Barriers $1,151,580

Administration/Management $719,298

Total $3,939,098

Once again, we would like to take this opportunity to thank Caroline Wallace for her efficient book keeping and diligent management of ZIPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s accounts during the year.

37

Predator Key Facts Adult Weight

Home range size

Breeding season

Oestrous cycle

Possums

1.4–6.4kg

0.7–3.4ha – male 0.6–2.7ha – female

March – June, occasional Spring breeding

26 days

Ship rats

50–295g

0.3–11.4ha

All year, reduced in winter

4–6 days

Norway rats

103–550g

0.8–21ha

All year, reduced in winter

7–14 days

Stoats

170–450g

80–810ha – male 20–186ha – female

August – December

N/A – 1 per annum

Ref: CM King (2006) The Handbook of New Zealand Mammals, Oxford University Press

38

Gestation

Weaning

Litter size

Time between litters

Age of sexual maturity

17–18 days

170 days

1, rarely 2

1 year, unless rare double breeding

1–2 years

20–22 days

21–28 days

3–10, average 5–8

27–38 days, average 32 days

3–4 months

21–24 days

21–28 days

6–12, average 7

35–49 days, can breed immediately if conditions suit

2–3 months

21-28 days, after a delayed implantation period of c. 280 days

49–84 days

8–10

1 year

3–5 weeks – female 10 months – male

39

Glossary A24

self-resetting multi-species kill trap targeting rats and stoats, developed A

by Goodnature.

Complete removal

he removal from an area of all individuals in a species, or enough individuals T that the remaining population is no longer viable (i.e. functionally extinct).

Detection nights

he number of nights a set of detection devices are deployed, multiplied T by the number of devices (e.g. 1,446 detection devices x 55 nights = 79,530 detection nights)

Lean detection

sparse network of devices to detect invading possums, rats or stoats in a A protected area and enable a rapid response before a population can establish.

Protected area

n area under protection, which has been cleared of rats, possums A and stoats. The protected area is behind a barrier – either physical or virtual – and contains a ‘lean’ detection network to identify and respond to the presence of invaders.

Remove and Protect

The ZIP operating model whereby invasive predators are removed from an area, which is then protected against reinvasion.

Snap trap

wooden, metal, or plastic trap with a powerful snap hinge intended to kill A rodents instantly on contact. Snap traps are typically used with some form of bait to lure the rodent to the trap.

TED

Z IP’s prototype tunnel-architecture electronic detection device for rats, which will be field tested at Bottle Rock Peninsula during 2017-18.

Tracking tunnel

‘run-through’ tunnel that contains a strip of paper and a tracking medium A (e.g. ink). As the animal passes through the tunnel, it picks up the tracking medium on its feet, then as it leaves the tunnel, it leaves a set of footprints on the paper, enabling identification of the animal.

Trap nights

he number of nights a set of traps are deployed, multiplied by the number of T traps (e.g. 500 traps x 365 nights = 182,500 trap nights)

TUN200

Z IP’s prototype rat and stoat trap box, which contains two DOC200 kill traps in a ‘run-through tunnel’ architecture.

Virtual barrier

n intensive network of devices (e.g. traps and bait stations) installed to A prevent invasion by possums, rats and stoats into an area under protection.

ZIP200

Z IP’s run-through tunnel/box, which contains a single DOC200 kill trap (to be productionised).

ZIPtip

ZIP’s prototype tree-mounted automated reporting detection device for rats.

ZIPtee

Z IP’s first prototype ground-based automated reporting detection device for rats.

40

44