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 Waiiti at SH35MCI score
What do the NOF icons mean?
Taxa richness history at this siteShowing:Taxa richness for Waiiti at SH35Number of taxa
EPT history at this siteShowing:Percent EPT richness for Waiiti at SH35EPT %
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).
This council does not collect any macroinvertebrate samples for up to two weeks after a flood greater than three times the median flow as recommended by Stark et al. (2001). Therefore, data collected at this site is following best practice.
Samples at this site have been processed following sampling protocols P2 or P3 and data have been processed following best practice as described by Stark et al. (2001).
Field data collected at this site had no quality control applied to it.
Data processed at this site has had no laboratory quality control applied. Data shown here is less robust than data with no laboratory QC applied and conclusions based on this data need to be treated with caution.