title: Behavioural interactions between black mudfish (Neochanna diversus Stokell, 1949: Galaxiidae) and mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis Baird & Girard, 1854)

authors: Barrier, R.F.G.

subjects: mudfish

abstract: The behavior of black mudfish (Neochanna diversus Stokell, 1949: Galaxiidae) and mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis Baird & Girard, 1854: Poeciliidae) was investigated in laboratory tanks. Black mudfish are indigenous to northern New Zealand, and mosquitofish are introduced; both species are sympatric in wetlands in the Waikato region. By comparing position, feeding rates and aggressive behavior of both species, we found that black mudfish were increasingly able to compete with mosquitofish as they grew from fry to adults. Mosquitofish were more aggressive towards mudfish fry and juveniles than were these two life stages towards mosquitofish, but adult mudfish were aggressive towards mosquitofish. Both small (18–24 mm total length (TL)) and large mosquitofish (25–36 mm TL) showed high aggression towards mudfish fry (13–18 mm TL), and fry were eaten by large mosquitofish. However, 3 interspecific differences appear to allow coexistence of these two species. Firstly, mudfish reproduce in winter, whereas mosquitofish reproduce in summer, resulting in mudfish fry being present when mosquitofish are at their lowest abundance. Secondly, mudfish can survive in seasonally dry habitats by aestivation, while mosquitofish cannot. Thirdly, adult black mudfish are nocturnal, whereas mosquitofish are primarily diurnal.

text: Behavioural interactions between black mudfish (Neochanna diversus Stokell, 1949: Galaxiidae) and mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis Baird & Girard, 1854) The behavior of black mudfish (Neochanna diversus Stokell, 1949: Galaxiidae) and mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis Baird & Girard, 1854: Poeciliidae) was investigated in laboratory tanks. Black mudfish are indigenous to northern New Zealand, and mosquitofish are introduced; both species are sympatric in wetlands in the Waikato region. By comparing position, feeding rates and aggressive behavior of both species, we found that black mudfish were increasingly able to compete with mosquitofish as they grew from fry to adults. Mosquitofish were more aggressive towards mudfish fry and juveniles than were these two life stages towards mosquitofish, but adult mudfish were aggressive towards mosquitofish. Both small (18–24 mm total length (TL)) and large mosquitofish (25–36 mm TL) showed high aggression towards mudfish fry (13–18 mm TL), and fry were eaten by large mosquitofish. However, 3 interspecific differences appear to allow coexistence of these two species. Firstly, mudfish reproduce in winter, whereas mosquitofish reproduce in summer, resulting in mudfish fry being present when mosquitofish are at their lowest abundance. Secondly, mudfish can survive in seasonally dry habitats by aestivation, while mosquitofish cannot. Thirdly, adult black mudfish are nocturnal, whereas mosquitofish are primarily diurnal.

year: 1994

title: IP round-up: Recent decisions from the courts (September 2012)

authors: Kingsbury, Anna

subjects: court

abstract: This article discusses three trade mark cases: “Nutramarks, Inc v Nature’s Life NZ Ltd” [2012, NZHC 1134];  Le Cordon Bleu v Commissioner of Trade Marks” [2012, NZHC 724] and “Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v AFT Pharmaceuticals Ltd [2012, NZHC 1051].

text: IP round-up: Recent decisions from the courts (September 2012) This article discusses three trade mark cases: “Nutramarks, Inc v Nature’s Life NZ Ltd” [2012, NZHC 1134];  Le Cordon Bleu v Commissioner of Trade Marks” [2012, NZHC 724] and “Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v AFT Pharmaceuticals Ltd [2012, NZHC 1051].

year: 2012-09

title: The Aroha block from 1880 onwards

authors: Hart, Philip

abstract: With the discovery of gold in 1880 and the pressure to open the land for mining, there was a need to determine the boundaries of the Ngati Rahiri reserves and to subdivide these amongst the owners. As well, terms for paying goldfields revenue had to be negotiated before the goldfield could be opened, and after its opening the claims of Maori with little or no basis for their claims of ownership had to be investigated. Wairakau reserve, outside the goldfield, was not subdivided until mid-1882, and arguments over the ownership of Tui Pa continued well into the twentieth century. 
At first, sales of Crown land found few takers, especially because the farm sections required draining before they could be developed. Ngati Rahiri reserves were designated as being inalienable, but they could be leased for 21 years, as some portions were, at low rates. Very quickly, officials, who feared Maori would become landless, had to fend off requests to remove restrictions on sale made by owners who in some instances lived far from Te Aroha and who all wanted to obtain money from selling land of little use to them. The indebtedness of some owners led to continued pressure to sell, though often the money they received was wasted. With the fading of the goldfield, miners sought land for farms, and were frustrated at the Crown not purchasing the Ngati Rahiri reserves. 
Land was acquired by the Crown to extend the hot springs domain, and after negotiating improved leases in the Te Aroha township the freehold of this settlement was acquired. Some Maori retained their land, which Pakeha accused them of not improving; Maori requests that the government provide training in farming methods were ignored. By the twentieth century most Ngati Rahiri had become landless, but as many examples illustrate, this was commonly because cash-strapped owners insisted on selling their interests for an immediate financial return.

text: The Aroha block from 1880 onwards With the discovery of gold in 1880 and the pressure to open the land for mining, there was a need to determine the boundaries of the Ngati Rahiri reserves and to subdivide these amongst the owners. As well, terms for paying goldfields revenue had to be negotiated before the goldfield could be opened, and after its opening the claims of Maori with little or no basis for their claims of ownership had to be investigated. Wairakau reserve, outside the goldfield, was not subdivided until mid-1882, and arguments over the ownership of Tui Pa continued well into the twentieth century. 
At first, sales of Crown land found few takers, especially because the farm sections required draining before they could be developed. Ngati Rahiri reserves were designated as being inalienable, but they could be leased for 21 years, as some portions were, at low rates. Very quickly, officials, who feared Maori would become landless, had to fend off requests to remove restrictions on sale made by owners who in some instances lived far from Te Aroha and who all wanted to obtain money from selling land of little use to them. The indebtedness of some owners led to continued pressure to sell, though often the money they received was wasted. With the fading of the goldfield, miners sought land for farms, and were frustrated at the Crown not purchasing the Ngati Rahiri reserves. 
Land was acquired by the Crown to extend the hot springs domain, and after negotiating improved leases in the Te Aroha township the freehold of this settlement was acquired. Some Maori retained their land, which Pakeha accused them of not improving; Maori requests that the government provide training in farming methods were ignored. By the twentieth century most Ngati Rahiri had become landless, but as many examples illustrate, this was commonly because cash-strapped owners insisted on selling their interests for an immediate financial return.

year: 2016