This dashboard shows the results from macroinvertebrate sampling at this site. It displays three ecological indicators: macroinvertebrate community index, taxonomic richness and percent EPT.
For sites where State is 'N/A' or Trend is 'Not Assessed', there are not enough data to calculate a State and/or Trend result. Click on an indicator to see the available historical data.
Select trend period for MCI
- 10 years
- 15 years
MCI sample history at this siteShowing:MCI for Wekatahi CreekMCI score
What do the NOF icons mean?
Taxa richness history at this siteShowing:Taxa richness for Wekatahi CreekNumber of taxa
EPT history at this siteShowing:Percent EPT richness for Wekatahi CreekEPT %
The Cawthron Institute has worked alongside regional councils to verify the processes and methods used for macroinvertebrate data collection, processing of the data in the laboratory, quality control in the field and laboratory and the statistical analysis and interpretation of the results presented.
For more details on each tick, see our 'Can I Trust this Data?' Factsheet.
Macroinvertebrates are sampled at this site as part of council's stream health monitoring programme.
Macroinvertebrate sampling is done annually or more frequently at this site. Annual sampling provides enough data points for state and trend analyses to be calculated with sufficient statistical power for trend detection.
This site is a hard-bottomed site and appropriate sampling protocols have been applied. Data shown here have been collected using current best-practice based on Stark et al. (2001).
Macroinvertebrate sampling is done in riffle habitat at this site. Data shown here are therefore following best practice as described in Stark et al. (2001).
Macroinvertebrate samples are collected within the first two weeks after a flood greater than three times the median flow at this site. Stark et al. (2001) suggest a minimum of two weeks 'stand-down' period after a flood greater than three times the median flow. Therefore, data shown here is not following best practice and conclusions based on this data need to be treated with caution.
Samples at this site have been processed following sampling protocol P1 (semi-quantitative - coded abundance). Data shown here is not following best practice as described by Stark et al. (2001), but are still considered robust.
Field data collected at this site had no quality control applied to it.
Data processed at this site has had one of the three Laboratory Quality Control Protocols (i.e., QC1, QC2,Q C3) applied. Data shown here is more robust than data with no laboratory QC applied.