Habitat characteristics of crayfish (Paranephrops planifrons) in New Zealand streams using generalised additive models (GAMs)

Abstract

Quantitative data on the habitat characteristics of stream crayfish have been generally lacking and competing demands on water resources has created a need to address this knowledge gap. We investigated day-time habitat relationships of stream crayfish (Paranephrops planifrons White) from 793 quadrats at 30 rivers and streams in the North Island, New Zealand to develop models of koura presence–absence and abundance. The model (stepwise GAM) included width, cover, median substrate size, edge location, velocity and depth, and correctly predicted presence–absence of crayfish (8–39 mm OCL) at 73.4% of quadrats and of young-of-the-year (YOY) ≤8 mm OCL at 83.4% of quadrats. Streams ranged from 1.6 to 11.5 m in width and the probability of finding both crayfish size classes reduced sharply as streams became wider than 6 m and as the substrate became large (i.e., boulder > 256 mm). Crayfish, particularly YOY, were most likely to be found in association with cover and at the stream edge. YOY were associated with shallow depths and fine substrates, whereas larger crayfish showed a preference for cobble substrate. Undercut banks, leaf litter, tree roots, and woody debris were strongly related to the presence–absence of crayfish. The model for crayfish abundance (log-linear Poisson GAM) explained 50% of the variation between quadrats with cover, velocity, edge location, depth, and the overall crayfish abundance at each particular stream being significant variables. Highest crayfish numbers were recorded in still or slow flowing water, with the majority occurring where velocities were below 0.4 m/s. Water depths up to 0.7 m were sampled, but highest numbers were found in depths of 0.2–0.3 m. Our presence–absence model determined variables that were significant over all streams, whereas our abundance model determined variables that were significant within streams. Use of the GAMs models enabled us to untangle the multiple factors contributing to habitat selection. Cover, velocity, and locations at the stream edge were important determinants of both presence–absence and abundance. Generally, substrate was important when comparing between streams, but not within streams, whereas depth was a significant determinant of abundance within streams, but not presence–absence between streams.