Technical ReportPDF Available

Land-Use Trends in Marlborough District: Consequences for Soil Resources

Abstract and Figures

PROJECT AND CLIENT Marlborough District Council contracted Landcare Research via an Enivirolink Small Advice Grant to undertake an analysis of land-use change trends and their impact on soil resources within the district. The council is particularly interested in understanding the extent and pattern of change to versatile soils resulting from urbanisation within the district. OBJECTIVES Identify, map and describe soil resources across the Marlborough District Analyse land use-trends and evaluate their effects on soil resources, paying particular attention to urbanisation trends. Methods Overlay the following input spatial data layers: Land Resource Inventory (mid-1970s, portions updated 1985 including Marlborough lowlands – 1985 hereafter for simplicity) Land Cover Database Version 1c (1996/97) Land Cover Database Version 2 (2001/02) Agribase (2008) Protected Areas Network-New Zealand Database (2008) Marlborough District 2006 Census boundaries Undertake a combinatorial analysis that determines all unique combinations of the input data layers and produces a corresponding spatial grid layer and relational database Analyse the results of the combinatorial analysis to determine land-use change trends within the district and their consequences for soil resources. RESULTS 6.0% (62 261 ha) of soils in Marlborough District are LUC Classes 1–3, highly versatile soils suitable for arable agricultural production From 1985 (LRI) to 2001/02 (LCBD2) a total of 2055 ha of land was converted to urban uses, defined as Built-up Area, Surface Mine, Transport Infrastructure, Urban or Lifestyle Blocks. Distribution of conversion by LUC Classes was as follows: LUC 1 57 LUC 2 203 LUC 3 736 LUC 4 190 LUC 5 7 LUC 6 395 LUC 7 398 LUC 8 69 Distribution of conversion of land to urban uses was as follows: Built-up Area 540 Surface Mine 78 Transport Infrastructure 118 Urban Parkland/Open Space 167 Lifestyle Block 1154 Some transport infrastructure included facilities related to forestry operations and therefore may only be temporary or periodic in nature, as opposed to conversions to permanent uses such as Built-up Areas, Urban Parks, or Lifestyle BlockS Most increases in Built-up Areas occurred adjacent or near to existing urban Centres such as Blenheim, Hastings, Picton, and Seddon although some small areas occurred along the coast of the Marlborough Sounds such as Anikiwa Lifestyle Blocks were distributed widely throughout the region with concentrations within the Wairau, Omaka, and Flaxbourne river valleys. Scattered Lifestyle Blocks occurred throughout the Marlborough Sounds 321 ha were reported as converting from Town (LRI) to other non-urban land cover (LCDB1/LCDB2). This resulted from differences in delineation of boundaries around key urban centres, especially Blenheim, Picton, and Hastings SUMMARY Reported conversion rates (% of original extent) for soils by LUC Class were as follows: LUC 1 2.32 LUC 2 1.78 LUC 3 1.52 LUC 4 0.64 LUC 5 1.16 LUC 6 0.14 LUC 7 0.12 LUC 8 0.02 Versatile soils (LUC Classes 1–3) experienced the largest conversion Reported land use trends with higher levels of uncertainty, such as the issue of urban boundary delineation around Blenheim, would benefit from a review of independent data sources such as aerial photos from similar time periods Given their proximity to existing urban areas and past land-use change trends, versatile soils remain vulnerable to further urbanisation.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Land-Use Trends in Marlborough District:
Consequences for Soil Resources
Daniel Rutledge, Craig Briggs, Ian Lynn and Robbie Price
Land-Use Trends in Marlborough District:
Consequences for Soil Resources
Daniel Rutledge1
Craig Briggs1
Ian Lynn2
Robbie Price1
1Landcare Research
Private Bag 3127
Hamilton 3240
2Landcare Research
PO Box 40
Lincoln 7640
Landcare Research Contract Report: LC0910/101
PREPARED FOR:
Colin Gray
Marlborough District Council
PO Box 443
Blenheim
DATE: April 2010
Reviewed by:
Trevor Webb
Senior Soil Scientist
Landcare Research
Approved for release by:
Suzie Greenhalgh
Research Leader
Sustainability & Society
© Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd 2010
No part of this work covered by copyright may be reproduced or copied in any form or by
any means (graphic, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping,
information retrieval systems, or otherwise) without the written permission of the publisher.
Contents
Summary................................................................................................................................. i
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
2 Background ................................................................................................................... 1
2.1 Soil resources of Marlborough District ................................................................. 1
2.2 Land Use Capability classification system ............................................................ 2
3 Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 4
4 Methods ........................................................................................................................ 4
5 Results .......................................................................................................................... 5
5.1 Soil resources ....................................................................................................... 5
5.2 Land-cover/land-use trends .................................................................................. 8
5.3 Urbanisation trends ............................................................................................ 12
6 Summary .................................................................................................................... 40
7 Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................... 41
8 References .................................................................................................................. 41
Appendix 1 Detailed description of soils in Marlborough District ............................... 43
Appendix 2 Land Cover Database reduced classification ............................................. 49
i
Landcare Research
Summary
Project and Client
Marlborough District Council contracted Landcare Research via an Enivirolink Small Advice
Grant to undertake an analysis of land-use change trends and their impact on soil resources
within the district. The council is particularly interested in understanding the extent and
pattern of change to versatile soils resulting from urbanisation within the district.
Objectives
Identify, map and describe soil resources across the Marlborough District
Analyse land use-trends and evaluate their effects on soil resources, paying particular
attention to urbanisation trends.
Methods
Overlay the following input spatial data layers:
Land Resource Inventory (mid-1970s, portions updated 1985 including
Marlborough lowlands 1985 hereafter for simplicity)
Land Cover Database Version 1c (1996/97)
Land Cover Database Version 2 (2001/02)
Agribase (2008)
Protected Areas Network-New Zealand Database (2008)
Marlborough District 2006 Census boundaries
Undertake a combinatorial analysis that determines all unique combinations of the input
data layers and produces a corresponding spatial grid layer and relational database
Analyse the results of the combinatorial analysis to determine land-use change trends
within the district and their consequences for soil resources.
Results
6.0% (62 261 ha) of soils in Marlborough District are LUC Classes 13, highly versatile
soils suitable for arable agricultural production
From 1985 (LRI) to 2001/02 (LCBD2) a total of 2055 ha of land was converted to urban
uses, defined as Built-up Area, Surface Mine, Transport Infrastructure, Urban or
Lifestyle Blocks. Distribution of conversion by LUC Classes was as follows:
LUC 1 57
LUC 2 203
LUC 3 736
LUC 4 190
LUC 5 7
LUC 6 395
LUC 7 398
LUC 8 69
Distribution of conversion of land to urban uses was as follows:
Built-up Area 540
Surface Mine 78
ii
Landcare Research
Transport Infrastructure 118
Urban Parkland/Open Space 167
Lifestyle Block 1154
Some transport infrastructure included facilities related to forestry operations and
therefore may only be temporary or periodic in nature, as opposed to conversions to
permanent uses such as Built-up Areas, Urban Parks, or Lifestyle Blocks
Most increases in Built-up Areas occurred adjacent or near to existing urban Centres such
as Blenheim, Hastings, Picton, and Seddon although some small areas occurred along the
coast of the Marlborough Sounds such as Anikiwa
Lifestyle Blocks were distributed widely throughout the region with concentrations
within the Wairau, Omaka, and Flaxbourne river valleys. Scattered Lifestyle Blocks
occurred throughout the Marlborough Sounds
321 ha were reported as converting from Town (LRI) to other non-urban land cover
(LCDB1/LCDB2). This resulted from differences in delineation of boundaries around
key urban centres, especially Blenheim, Picton, and Hastings.
Summary
Reported conversion rates (% of original extent) for soils by LUC Class were as follows:
LUC 1 2.32
LUC 2 1.78
LUC 3 1.52
LUC 4 0.64
LUC 5 1.16
LUC 6 0.14
LUC 7 0.12
LUC 8 0.02
Versatile soils (LUC Classes 13) experienced the largest conversion
Reported land use trends with higher levels of uncertainty, such as the issue of urban
boundary delineation around Blenheim, would benefit from a review of independent data
sources such as aerial photos from similar time periods
Given their proximity to existing urban areas and past land-use change trends, versatile
soils remain vulnerable to further urbanisation.
1
Landcare Research
1 Introduction
Marlborough District Council engaged the services of Landcare Research via an Envirolink
Small Advice Grant to provide information on the status and trends of soil resources in the
district to support preparation of their second-generation regional policy statement. The
Council wishes to know how land use, particularly the conversion of soils to urban uses, has
impacted highly versatile soils over time. Versatile soils are defined as Class 1, 2, or 3 soils
as delineated by the New Zealand Land Resource Inventory (New Zealand Soil Bureau
1968). Versatile soils offer the most options for land use, while requiring the least
management and highest reliability. Long-term conservation of versatile soils maintains
choice going forward. The on-going reduction or loss of versatile soils could limit future
production options and/or require additional inputs or management to maintain a given level
of output if attempted on soils with less versatility.
2 Background
2.1 Soil resources of Marlborough District
The Marlborough District covers some 10 321 square kilometres and is located at the top of
the South Island. It encompasses a varied landscape dominated by mountain ranges, steep and
moderately steep hill country, with narrow valley floors, extensive coastal margins and
includes the Marlborough Sounds. The region is predominantly underlain by well-indurated,
quartzo-feldspathic greywacke and schist. A narrow belt of softer younger rocks, including
limestone, occupies the eastern coastal margin. Much of this strongly rolling to moderately
steep hill country is overlain by a mantle of loess of varying thickness. Flat to undulating
terraces, associated fans and floodplains occupy the narrow fault-controlled valley floors of
the Wairau and Awatere Rivers.
The district contains a diverse range of soils reflecting variations in parent material
composition and texture, age of soil development, climate, the impact of organisms, relief
and landscape position and drainage. These soils exhibit a range of different properties and
characteristics and present different opportunities and constraints to land use. The New
Zealand Land Resource Inventory (NZLRI) (National Water and Soil Conservation
Organisation 197579, Lynn 1996) and its derived assessments identified the capacity of land
for sustained agronomic production (land use capability or LUC). The NZLRI has been
widely applied in New Zealand to identify opportunities and constraints to land use. The land
use capability (LUC) classification is an assessment of land’s capacity for sustained
productive use taking into account physical limitations, including climate, soil conservation
needs and management requirements.
The NZLRI has a strong landform and slope bias. On flat to strongly rolling land, a heavy
emphasis is given to soil parent material, soil depth, stoniness, and soil drainage, reflecting
the agricultural heritage of the system. On moderately steep-to-steep terrain the emphasis is
on erosion susceptibility and temperature-related climate constraint to production.
2
Landcare Research
2.2 Land Use Capability classification system
The LUC classification system has recently been reviewed and up graded by Lynn et al.
(2009). There are eight LUC classes (Fig. 1). Classes 14 are classified as arable land, while
LUC Classes 58 are non-arable. The limitations or hazards to use increase and the versatility
of use decreases, from LUC Class 1 to LUC Class 8.
LUC
class
Pastoral
Suitability
Production Forestry
Suitability *
General Suitability
1
High
High
Multiple Use Land
2
3
4
5
Pastoral or Forestry
Land
6
7
Low
Low
8
Unsuitable
Unsuitable
Catchment Protection
† Includes vegetable cropping.
* LUC Classes with a major wetness limitation, and those units in low rainfall areas (<500 mm/yr), or those
occurring on shallow soils (<45 cm) are normally not suited to production forestry.
Fig. 1 Increasing limitations to use and decreasing versatility of use from LUC Class 1 to
LUC class 8.
Table 1 provides a general description and suitable land uses for each LUC class. Detailed
descriptions, physical limitations, land use suitability, slope limitations, characteristic soil
stoniness, depth and workability, texture and drainage, characteristic erosion severity and
erosion types, salinity, elevation and annual rainfall ranges are detailed in Lynn et al. (2009).
Increasing Limitations to Use
Decreasing Versatility of Use
3
Landcare Research
Table 1 General descriptions and suitable land uses by Land Use Capability Class
LUC
class
General description
Suitable land uses
1
Versatile multiple-use land with minimal physical
limitations for arable use. Flat to undulating land with
deep resilient and easily worked soils and a minimal
erosion risk under cultivation.
Highly suitable for cultivated cropping
(many different crop types), viticulture,
berry production, pastoralism, tree
crops, and production forestry.
2
Very good land with slight physical limitations to arable
use readily controlled by management and soil
conservation practices. Flat to undulating land with
moderately deep soils, slightly difficult to work with a
slight erosion risk under cultivation.
Suitable for many cultivated crops
vineyards and berry fields, pasture, tree
crops, and production forestry
3
Land with moderate physical limitations to arable use.
These limitations restrict the choice of crops and
intensity of cultivation, and /or make special soil
conservation practice necessary. Undulating to rolling
land with shallow &/or stony soils, often difficult to
work with a slight to moderate erosion risk under
cultivation.
Suitable for cultivated crops, vineyards
and berry fields, pasture, tree crops,
and production forestry
4
Land with severe physical limitations to arable use.
These limitations substantially reduce the range of crops
which can be grown, and/or make intensive soil
conservation and management necessary. Ranges from
flat to strongly rolling land with very shallow &/or stony
soils, often difficult to work with a severe erosion risk
under cultivation.
Suitable for some cultivated crops,
vineyards and berry fields, pasture, tree
crops, and production forestry
5
High-producing land with physical limitations that make
it unsuitable for arable cropping, but only negligible to
slight limitations or hazards to pastoral, vineyard, tree
crop or production forestry use. Includes non-arable land
with a slight erosion limitation or hazard under
permanent vegetation cover.
Negligible to slight limitations or
hazards to pastoral, vineyard, tree crop
or production forestry use.
6
Non-arable land that has slight to moderate physical
limitations and hazards to use under a perennial
vegetative cover. The majority is stable productive hill
country but also included are flat to gently undulating
stony and shallow terraces and fans, rolling land with a
significant erosion risk too great to allow sustainable
cropping.
Suitable uses include grazed pasture,
tree crops and/or forestry, and in some
cases vineyards. Erosion is commonly
the dominant limitation, but it is readily
controlled by appropriate soil
conservation and pasture management.
7
Non-arable land that has severe physical limitations or
hazards under perennial vegetation. Consequently, it is
high-risk land requiring active management to achieve
sustainable production.
Suitable uses include grazing provided
intensive soil conservation measures
and practices are in place, and in many
cases it is more suitable for forestry.
8
Non-arable land with very severe to extreme physical
limitations or hazards that make it unsuitable for arable,
pastoral or commercial forestry use.
Erosion control, water management
and conservation of flora and fauna are
the main uses of this land
4
Landcare Research
3 Objectives
Identify and map soil resources across the Marlborough District.
Analyse land use-trends and evaluate their effects on soil resources, paying particular
attention to urbanisation trends.
4 Methods
Land use trends were analysed by comparing information on land use from spatial data layers
from four time periods:
1970s 1985 Land Resource Inventory Version 2 (1985 hereafter for
simplicity)
1996/97 Land Cover Database Version 1c
2001/02 Land Cover Database Version 2
2008 Agribase (AssureQuality 2008).
The 2006 Marlborough District Census boundary defined the spatial extent of the analysis.
Legally protected areas (Rutledge et al. 2008) were also included.
All input spatial data layers were used as is’. No attempt was made to correct errors related
to spatial inaccuracy or classification accuracy of the input data layers before processing.
A combinatorial analysis method used in several previous studies (Rutledge et al. 2004;
Walker et al. 2005, 2009; Rutledge et al. 2007) was used to combine the input spatial data
layers for trend analysis. The method involved the following steps:
Convert any vector (polygon) spatial data layers to raster (grid spatial data
layers) with a 25-m grid cell size (0.0625 ha)
Overlay and intersect the input spatial data layers
Generate a look-up table that includes row entries for each combination of input
data layer attributes
Generate a new raster data layer whose cell values correspond to the unique
combinations of the input data layers
Import the resulting look-up table into a relational database (MS Access) for
further querying and processing.
5
Landcare Research
5 Results
5.1 Soil resources
The total area reported for the LRI for Marlborough District following the combinatorial
analysis was 1 051 689 ha. A total of 8.9% of soils occur in LUC Classes 1 to 4 (Table 2).
Over 91% of soils were classed as LUC Classes 67, with only a very small area in LUC
Class 5 (Fig. 2). A total of 487 403 ha or 46.3% of the district is legally protected, most of
which includes LUC Classes 68 soils found in the mountainous western portions of the
district (Fig. 3).
Table 2 Area of soils by LUC class in Marlborough District
LUC class
Total area
(ha)
Area
(% of district)
Protected
(ha)
Protected
(% district)
1
1
0.24
2
0.00
2
11402
1.10
71
0.01
3
48 406
4.68
1220
0.12
4
29 861
2.89
1508
0.15
5
605
0.06
46
<0.01
6
292 362
28.26
54 064
5.14
7
365 692
35.35
197 509
18.78
8
283 668
27.42
230 476
21.91
Estuary
50
<0.01
39
<0.01
Lake
1767
0.17
195
0.02
Quarry
16
<0.01
4
<0.00
River
13 427
1.28
2114
0.20
Town
1982
0.19
154
0.01
Appendix 1 contains a more detailed description of the soils found in the district.
6
Landcare Research
Fig. 2 Distribution of soils by LUC class in Marlborough District.
7
Landcare Research
Fig. 3 Distribution of protected areas in Marlborough District.
8
Landcare Research
5.2 Land-cover/land-use trends
Between 1996/97 (LCDB1) and 2001/02 (LCDB2), the combinatorial analysis reported a
total of 18 775 ha of land-cover change. Around 3000 ha changed among natural, forestry,
and exotic land cover
1
(Table 3).
Among production land uses, pastoral land cover decreased by ~11 400 acres between
1996/97 and 2001/02 with the majority of the transfer being to forestry (7273 ha). Viticulture
increased by a total of 5339 ha from decreases in arable, forestry, natural, and pastoral land
covers (Table 3).
Table 3 Land-cover change between LCDB1 and LCBD2 for a reduced 8 category land-
cover classification. Grey cells indicate no change. All values in hectares
To LCDB2
FROM
LCBD1
Arable
Exotic
Forestry
Horticulture
Natural
Pastoral
Urban
Viticulture
Arable
2751
31
1332
Exotic
7008
872
1845
Forestry
63 127
165
Horticulture
538
Natural
3053
625 818
37
Pastoral
52
7273
212
9
324 718
89
3807
Urban
3952
Viticulture
4337
Inspection of the full land-cover classification showed that indigenous forest, high producing
exotic grassland, low producing exotic grassland, tall tussock grassland, manuka and kanuka,
and alpine gravel and rock were the dominant land cover types. Together they accounted for
82% of land within the district (Table 4).
1
Appendix 2 contains a table showing the relationship between the full LCDB classification and the reduced 8
category classification discussed here and shown in Table 3.
9
Landcare Research
Table 4 Land cover and land-cover change in the Marlborough District as of 1996/97
(LCDB1) and 2001/02 (LCDB2). All values in hectares
Land Cover Class
LCDB1
LCDB2
Change
Afforestation (imaged, post LCDB 1)
6013
6013
Afforestation (not imaged)
5153
5153
Alpine Grass/Herbfield
27 424
27 424
-
Alpine Gravel and Rock
62 229
62 229
-
Broadleaved Indigenous Hardwoods
46 321
44 223
-2098
Built-up Area
1887
1951
64
Coastal Sand and Gravel
1029
1029
-
Deciduous Hardwoods
2617
2580
-37
Depleted Tussock Grassland
12 166
12 166
-
Estuarine Open Water
1491
1491
-
Fernland
431
431
-
Flaxland
71
71
-
Forest Harvested
4633
4633
Gorse and Broom
7768
6948
-820
Grey Scrub
998
998
-
Herbaceous Freshwater Vegetation
641
641
-
Herbaceous Saline Vegetation
1140
1140
-
High Producing Exotic Grassland
215 770
205 715
-10 055
Indigenous Forest
215 015
215 015
-
Lake and Pond
570
570
-
Landslide
1440
1440
-
Low Producing Grassland
120 389
119 003
-1387
Major Shelterbelts
112
112
-
Manuka and or Kanuka
106 168
105 222
-946
Matagouri
1160
1160
-
Mixed Exotic Shrubland
1845
1845
-
Orchard and Other Perennial Crops
538
781
243
Other Exotic Forest
3188
3219
31
Pine Forest Closed Canopy
46 158
41 401
-4757
Pine Forest Open Canopy
13 945
13 906
-40
River
2333
2333
-
River and Lakeshore Gravel and Rock
11 349
11 349
-
Short-rotation Cropland
4114
2751
-1363
Sub Alpine Shrubland
23 171
23 171
-
Surface Mine
1434
1434
-
Tall Tussock Grassland
111 145
111 145
-
Transport Infrastructure
215
215
-
10
Landcare Research
Urban Parkland/ Open Space
416
442
26
Vineyard
4337
9677
5339
Fig. 4 Distribution of land cover (8 classes) in Marlborough District as of 2001/02 (LCDB2).
11
Landcare Research
Fig. 5 Distribution of land cover types (full classification) in Marlborough District as of
2001/02 (LCDB2).
12
Landcare Research
5.3 Urbanisation trends
5.3.1 1985 (LRI) to 1996/97 (LCDB1)
The LRI recorded a total of 1982 ha as Town at the time of the re-survey of Marlborough in
1985. By 1996/97 (LCDB1), 874 ha of land with an LUC rating had been converted to Built-
up Area, Surface Mine, Transport Infrastructure, or Urban Parkland/Open Space (Table 5).
The trend also reported that 381 ha of land designated as Town in the LRI had been classified
as another land cover (e.g. high producing grassland, broadleaved indigenous forest) as of
1996/97 (LCB2). Also the total of the four urban classes and the Other Land Cover category
totalled less than the 1985 (LRI) land area due to differences in the coastline, i.e. the LCDB2
had overall less area.
Table 5 Urbanisation trends from the 1985 (LRI) to 1996/97 (LCDB1)
From
1985
(LRI)
To 1996/97 (LCDB1)
LRI
Total Area
Built-up
Area
Surface
Mine
Transport
Infrastructure
Urban
Parkland/
Open Space
Other Land
Cover
LUC 1
2453
6
3
1
2443
LUC 2
11 402
48
5
3
11 343
LUC 3
48 406
185
3
4
66
48 097
LUC 4
29 861
12
6
29
29 813
LUC 5
605
7
598
LUC 6
292 362
44
40
32
54
290 919
LUC 7
365 692
190
21
75
11
364 005
LUC 8
283 668
18
< 1
6
4
282 935
Total
510
78
118
167
Estuary
50
Lake
1767
1 351
90
326
Quarry
16
1
6
9
River
13 427
2
< 1
< 1
13 421
Town
1982
1344
249
381
Increases in Built-up Areas occurred around Blenheim (Figs 610), Havelock, Seddon and
Picton and in smaller communities such Anikiwa along the coastline between Picton and
Havelock (Figs 1114). Surface Mines occurred west of Bleheim (Fig. 15). The 1351 ha of
land indicated as changing from Lake (1985, LRI) to Surface Mine (1996/97, LCDB 2)
(Table 5) resulted from the classification of Lake Grassmere as a Surface Mine in LCDB2.
Transport Infrastructure occurred west of Blenheim (Fig. 16), near Lake Grassmere (Fig. 17),
and in the mountains north of Blenheim (Fig. 18). The last represented infrastructure
associated with logging operations.
13
Landcare Research
Urban Parkland/Open Space occurred primarily in and around Blenheim, with smaller areas
in/near Picton, Havelock, and Seddon (Figs 1921). In addition there was a large area
identified near Rarangi along the coast. Areas within the boundaries of Blenheim, Picton, and
Havelock formerly classified as Town in the 1985 (LRI) were classified as parks and open
space as of 1996/97 (LCDB2) (Figs 1920).
The reclassification of 381 ha of land from Town (LRI) to another (non-urban) land-cover
category (LCDB1) resulted from differences in classification detail between the LRI and
LCBD and the delineation of town boundaries. The LCDB has a 1 ha minimum mapping unit
(Thompson et al. 2003). Areas such as indigenous forest or other natural areas within towns
that met that size requirement were therefore (re)classified as such, whereas in the LRI they
were included as part of the overall town class (Figs 2123). LCDB1 also tended to delineate
slightly smaller urban areas, which resulted in the reclassification of many strips along town
boundaries into other land cover classes (Figs 2123).
14
Landcare Research
Fig. 6 Increases in Built-up Area (red areas) from 1985 (LRI) to 1996/97 (LCDB1) on LUC Class 1 soils around Blenheim.
BLENHEIM
Woodbourne
Renwick
Grovetown
LUC Class 4
LUC Class 5
LUC Class 6
LUC Class 7
LUC Class 8
Town
LUC Class 1
LUC Class 2
LUC Class 3
SOIL LEGEND
15
Landcare Research
Fig. 7 Increases in Built-up Area (red areas) from 1985 (LRI) to 1996/97 (LCDB1) on LUC Class 2 soils around Blenheim.
BLENHEIM
Woodbourne
Renwick
Grovetown
Spring Creek
LUC Class 4
LUC Class 5
LUC Class 6
LUC Class 7
LUC Class 8
Town
LUC Class 1
LUC Class 2
LUC Class 3
SOIL LEGEND
16
Landcare Research
Fig. 8 Increases in Built-up Area (red areas) from 1985 (LRI) to 1996/97 (LCDB1) on LUC Class 3 soils around Blenheim.
BLENHEIM
Woodbourne
Renwick
Grovetown
Spring Creek
LUC Class 4
LUC Class 5
LUC Class 6
LUC Class 7
LUC Class 8
Town
LUC Class 1
LUC Class 2
LUC Class 3
SOIL LEGEND
17
Landcare Research
Fig. 9 Increases in Built-up Area (red areas) from 1985 (LRI) to 1996/97 (LCDB1) on LUC Class 4 soils around Blenheim.
BLENHEIM
Woodbourne
Renwick
Grovetown
Spring Creek
LUC Class 4
LUC Class 5
LUC Class 6
LUC Class 7
LUC Class 8
Town
LUC Class 1
LUC Class 2
LUC Class 3
SOIL LEGEND
18
Landcare Research
Fig. 10 Increases in Built-up Area (red areas) from 1985 (LRI) to 1996/97 (LCDB1) on LUC Class 6 Soils around Blenheim.
BLENHEIM
Woodbourne
Renwick
Grovetown
Spring Creek
LUC Class 4
LUC Class 5
LUC Class 6
LUC Class 7
LUC Class 8
Town
LUC Class 1
LUC Class 2
LUC Class 3
SOIL LEGEND
19
Landcare Research
Fig. 11 Increases in Built-up Area (red areas) from 1985 (LRI) to 1996/97 (LCDB1) on LUC Class 3 soils around Anakiwa and Picton.
PICTON
Anakiwa
LUC Class 4
LUC Class 5
LUC Class 6
LUC Class 7
LUC Class 8
Town
LUC Class 1
LUC Class 2
LUC Class 3
SOIL LEGEND
20
Landcare Research
Fig. 12 Increases in Built-Up Area (red areas) from 1985 (LRI) to 1996/97 (LCDB1) on LUC Class 6 soils near Moenui, Momorangi Bay, and
Mahau Sound.
PICTON
HAVELOCK
Mahau
Sound
Moenui
Momrangi
Bay
LUC Class 4
LUC Class 5
LUC Class 6
LUC Class 7
LUC Class 8
Town
LUC Class 1
LUC Class 2
LUC Class 3
SOIL LEGEND
21
Landcare Research
Fig. 13 Increases in Built-Up Area (yellow areas) from 1985 (LRI) to 1996/97 (LCDB1) around Havelock, Picton and environs on LUC Class 7
soils.
PICTON
HAVELOCK
Mahau
Sound
Ngakuta
Bay
Lochmara
Bay
LUC Class 4
LUC Class 5
LUC Class 6
LUC Class 7
LUC Class 8
Town
LUC Class 1
LUC Class 2
LUC Class 3
SOIL LEGEND
22
Landcare Research
Fig. 14 Increases in Built-Up Area (yellow areas) from 1985 (LRI) to 1996/97 (LCDB1) near Havelock and Picton on LUC Class 8 soils.
PICTON
HAVELOCK
LUC Class 4
LUC Class 5
LUC Class 6
LUC Class 7
LUC Class 8
Town
LUC Class 1
LUC Class 2
LUC Class 3
SOIL LEGEND
23
Landcare Research
Fig. 15 Location of surface mines as of 1996/97 (LCDB1). Note that Lake Grassmere was classified as a surface mine.
BLENHEIM
Woodbourne
Renwick
Spring Creek
Seddon
Lake
Grassmere
LUC Class 4
LUC Class 5
LUC Class 6
LUC Class 7
LUC Class 8
Town
LUC Class 1
LUC Class 2
LUC Class 3
SOIL LEGEND
24
Landcare Research
Fig. 16 Location of transport infrastructure (red areas) as of 1996/97 (LCDB1) west of Blenheim.
BLENHEIM
Woodbourne
Renwick
Grovetown
Spring Creek
LUC Class 4
LUC Class 5
LUC Class 6
LUC Class 7
LUC Class 8
Town
LUC Class 1
LUC Class 2
LUC Class 3
SOIL LEGEND
25
Landcare Research
Fig. 17 Location of transport infrastructure (red areas) as of 1996/97 (LCDB1) near Lake Grassmere.
Seddon
Lake
Grassmere
LUC Class 4
LUC Class 5
LUC Class 6
LUC Class 7
LUC Class 8
Town
LUC Class 1
LUC Class 2
LUC Class 3
SOIL LEGEND
26
Landcare Research
Fig. 18 Location of transport infrastructure (red areas) as of 1996/97 (LCDB1) north of Blenheim. These were most likely associated with
logging operations, i.e. logging skids (see Thompson et al. 2003).
PICTON
HAVELOCK
LUC Class 4
LUC Class 5
LUC Class 6
LUC Class 7
LUC Class 8
Town
LUC Class 1
LUC Class 2
LUC Class 3
SOIL LEGEND
27
Landcare Research
Fig. 19 Location of Urban Parkland/Open Space (red areas) as of 1996/97 (LCDB1) in and around Blenheim. Some areas were new as of
1996/97 and others resulted from a reclassification of Town from 1985 (LRI).
BLENHEIM
Woodbourne
Renwick
Grovetown
LUC Class 4
LUC Class 5
LUC Class 6
LUC Class 7
LUC Class 8
Town
LUC Class 1
LUC Class 2
LUC Class 3
SOIL LEGEND
28
Landcare Research
Fig. 20 Location of Urban Parkland/Open Space (red areas) as of 1996/97 (LCDB1) in and around Havelock, Picton, and Rarangi.
PICTON
HAVELOCK
Rarangi
LUC Class 4
LUC Class 5
LUC Class 6
LUC Class 7
LUC Class 8
Town
LUC Class 1
LUC Class 2
LUC Class 3
SOIL LEGEND
29
Landcare Research
Fig. 21 Figure showing location of Urban Parkland/Open Space (red areas) as of 1996/97 (LCDB1) near Seddon.
SEDDON
LUC Class 4
LUC Class 5
LUC Class 6
LUC Class 7
LUC Class 8
Town
LUC Class 1
LUC Class 2
LUC Class 3
SOIL LEGEND
30
Landcare Research
Fig. 22 Location of areas (in red) classified as Town in 1985 (LRI) but as another land cover as of 1996/97 (LCDB1) around Blenheim.
BLENHEIM
Woodbourne
Renwick
Grovetown
Spring Creek
LUC Class 4
LUC Class 5
LUC Class 6
LUC Class 7
LUC Class 8
Town
LUC Class 1
LUC Class 2
LUC Class 3
SOIL LEGEND
31
Landcare Research
Fig. 23 Location of areas (in red) classified as Town in 1985 (LRI) but as another land cover as of 1996/97 (LCDB1) around Havelock and
Picton.
PICTON
HAVELOCK
LUC Class 4
LUC Class 5
LUC Class 6
LUC Class 7
LUC Class 8
Town
LUC Class 1
LUC Class 2
LUC Class 3
SOIL LEGEND
32
Landcare Research
Fig. 24 Figure showing areas (in red) classified as Town in 1985 (LRI) but as another land cover as of 1996/97 (LCDB1) around Seddon.
SEDDON
LUC Class 4
LUC Class 5
LUC Class 6
LUC Class 7
LUC Class 8
Town
LUC Class 1
LUC Class 2
LUC Class 3
SOIL LEGEND
33
Landcare Research
5.3.2 1996/97 (LCDB1) to 2001/02 (LCDB2)
From 1996/97 (LCDB1) to 2001/02 (LCDB2) an additional 90 ha of land was classified as
Built-up Area (64 ha) or Urban Parkland/Open Space (26 ha) (Table 4). Thirty hectares
occurred on land not previously classified as Town in the LRI. Of that 10 ha, 1 ha occurred
on LUC 1 (Fig. 25), 11 ha on LUC 2 (Fig. 26), and 18 ha on LUC class 3 soils (Fig. 27).
Sixty hectares around Blenheim were previously classified as Town in 1985 (LRI),
reclassified as another land cover type (High Producing Exotic Grassland) as of 1996/97
(LCDB1), and then reclassified as Built-up Area as of 2001/02 (LCDB2) (Fig. 28).
34
Landcare Research
Fig. 25 Location of additional Built-up Area (shown in red) as of 2001/02 (LCDB2) on LUC Class 1 soils near Blenheim.
BLENHEIM
Grovetown
LUC Class 4
LUC Class 5
LUC Class 6
LUC Class 7
LUC Class 8
Town
LUC Class 1
LUC Class 2
LUC Class 3
SOIL LEGEND
35
Landcare Research
Fig. 26 Location of additional Built-up Area (shown in red) as of 2001/02 (LCDB2) on LUC Class 2 soils near Blenheim.
BLENHEIM
Grovetown
Woodbourne
LUC Class 4
LUC Class 5
LUC Class 6
LUC Class 7
LUC Class 8
Town
LUC Class 1
LUC Class 2
LUC Class 3
SOIL LEGEND
36
Landcare Research
Fig. 27 Location of additional Built-up Area (shown in red) as of 2001/02 (LCDB2) on LUC Class 2 soils near Blenheim.
BLENHEIM
Grovetown
LUC Class 4
LUC Class 5
LUC Class 6
LUC Class 7
LUC Class 8
Town
LUC Class 1
LUC Class 2
LUC Class 3
SOIL LEGEND
Woodbourne
37
Landcare Research
Fig. 28 Location of areas classified as Town in 1985 (LRI), as non-urban (High Producing Exotic Grassland) in 1996/97 (LCDB1) and as Built-
Up Area as of 2001/02 (LCDB2).
BLENHEIM
Grovetown
Woodbourne
LUC Class 4
LUC Class 5
LUC Class 6
LUC Class 7
LUC Class 8
Town
LUC Class 1
LUC Class 2
LUC Class 3
SOIL LEGEND
38
Landcare Research
5.3.3 Rural residential (lifestyle block) trends
Agribase (Assure Quality 2008) classified a total of 3079 ha of land as Lifestyle Blocks as of
2008. Of that amount, a total of 2968 ha occurred on land not already classified as Built-Up
Area, Surface Mines, Transport Infrastructure or Urban Parkland/Open Space by 2001/02
(LCBD2), i.e. these lifestyle blocks were in addition to already classified urban areas.
Lifestyle blocks occur throughout the Marlborough Sounds, along the main river valleys
(Wairau, Awatere, Opawa) in central Marlborough, and along the south-eastern coast in the
Flaxmere River valley (Fig. 29). A large polygon near Avondale in central Marlborough was
classified as Lifestyle but upon closer inspection of its attributes was more likely in pastoral
production. Removing that block reduced the total hectares classified as Lifestyle Blocks
from 2968 to 1154.
Table 6 Area of land by LUC class identified as lifestyle blocks by Agribase (2008)
Lifestyle blocks (ha)
LUC Class
With all blocks
Without Avondale Block
LUC 1
46
46
LUC 2
135
135
LUC 3
484
460
LUC 4
198
143
LUC 5
LUC 6
1473
225
LUC 7
588
102
LUC 8
40
Estuary
-
Lake
-
Quarry
-
Town
<1
39
Landcare Research
Fig. 29 Location of lifestyle blocks (red areas) as of 2008 (Agribase). The arrow shows the location of the lifestyle block that has most likely
been misclassified.
BLENHEIM
Picton
Havelock
LUC Class 4
LUC Class 5
LUC Class 6
LUC Class 7
LUC Class 8
Town
LUC Class 1
LUC Class 2
LUC Class 3
SOIL LEGEND
40
Landcare Research
6 Summary
Based on the results of the land-use/cover trend analysis, the most versatile soils (LUC
Classes 13) experienced the highest rates of urbanisation (Table 7). Although affecting a
relatively small area, LUC Class 1 soils experienced the highest level of conversion 2.3%
during the period analysed.
Table 7 Urbanisation trends by LUC class in Marlborough District. Urban land uses included
Built-up Areas, Surface Mines, Transport Infrastructure, and Urban Parks/Open Space
(LCBD) and Lifestyle Blocks (Agribase). Agribase values exclude the area of the suspected
misclassified lifestyle block.
Additional area converted to urban uses
LUC
class
1985
(LRI)
(ha)
1996/97
(LCDB1)
(ha)
2001/02
(LCDB2)
(ha)
2008
Agribase
(ha)
Total
converted
(ha)
Total
converted
(%)
1
2453
10
1
46
57
2.32
2
11 402
57
11
135
203
1.78
3
48 406
258
18
460
736
1.52
4
29 861
47
-
143
190
0.64
5
605
7
-
-
7
1.16
6
292 362
170
-
225
395
0.14
7
365 692
296
-
102
398
0.12
8
283 668
29
-
40
69
0.02
With any land-use/cover change analysis, care must be taken in interpretation, as errors can
result from several sources. Two typical sources of error result from differences in spatial
accuracy or misclassification. Regarding spatial accuracy, the LCDB showed slightly smaller
urban areas (e.g. around Blenheim) than the LRI. Mapping of urban areas can vary depending
on the criteria for delineating boundaries such as how much of the surrounding area to
include in addition to buildings, etc. The results suggested that the LCDB mapping used more
conservative criteria than the LRI mapping. The analysis would benefit by further verification
of reported trends via inspection of independent data sources such as aerial photographs from
both time periods.
Regarding classification errors, the LCDB appeared reliable given the extent and location of
the reported changes. Expansion of Built-up Areas occurred adjacent to or near existing urban
centres or along the coast. Although widely dispersed, Transport Infrastructure made sense
compared with the surrounding context, e.g. linear features along ridges suggesting logging
operations or the rail operations near Lake Grassmere. Surface Mines were few, although it
was interesting to note that Lake Grassmere qualified as a mine. Most uncertainties of
classification stemmed from the urban boundaries for similar reasons as discussed above,
which again would require recourse to other data sources to verify. Finally, Agribase
41
Landcare Research
appeared to have one large polygon incorrectly classified as a Lifestyle Block, which resulted
in a significant overestimate of the total areas converted.
Given their proximity to existing urban areas and past land-use change trends, versatile soils
remain vulnerable to further urbanisation.
7 Acknowledgements
Envirolink funded the project through a Small Advice Grant to Landcare Research on behalf
of the Marlborough District Council. The authors thank Colin Gray at Marlborough District
Council for initiating the project, Trevor Webb for his thoughtful review, Anne Austin for
editorial assistance, and Brenda Hall for quality control and word processing support.
8 References
Campbell IB 1986. Soils of the Awatere Valley. DSIR Soil Bureau Unpublished soil map at
scale of 1:15 000.
Campbell IB, Lynn IH, Barringer JR (compilers) 2007. Soils of the lower Awatere Valley
1:25 000. Lincoln, Landcare Research.
Hewitt AE 1998. New Zealand soil classification. Landcare Research Science Series 1.
Laffan MD, Vincent KW. 1990. Soils of the Blenheim Renwick District. In: Rae SN, Tozer
CG eds Water and soil resources of the Wairau. Vol. 3, Land and soil resources.
Blenheim, Nelson-Marlborough Regional Council. Pp. 7793.
Lynn IH 1996. Land use capability classification of the Marlborough Region: a report to
accompany the second edition New Zealand land resource inventory. Landcare Research
Science Series 12.
National Water and Soil Conservation Organisation 197579. New Zealand Land Resource
Inventory Worksheets 1:36 630. Wellington, National Water and Soil Conservation
Organisation.
Lynn IH, Manderson AK, Page MJ, Harmsworth GR, Eyles GO, Douglas GB, Mackay AD,
Newsome PJF 2009. Land Use Capability survey handbook: a New Zealand handbook
for the classification of land, 3rd ed. Hamilton, AgResearch; Lincoln, Landcare Research;
Lower Hutt, GNS Science. 163 p.
New Zealand Soil Bureau 1968. General survey of soils of the South Island, New Zealand.
New Zealand Soil Bureau Bulletin 27.
Rutledge D, Briggs C, Price R 2007. Condition and trends of terrestrial coastal environments.
Landcare Research Report 0506/148 prepared for the Department of Conservation. 67 p.
Rutledge D, Hoffmann N, Briggs C, Price R 2008. Protected Areas Network New Zealand
(PAN-NZ): metadata database survey and needs assessment. New Zealand Terrestrial
and Freshwater Biodiversity Information System Programme Research Investigation
218. 32 p.
Rutledge D, Price R, Ausseil AG, Heke H 2004. National analysis of biodiversity protection
and status: methods and summary results. Landcare Research Report 0405/042 prepared
for the Ministry for the Environment. 30 p.
42
Landcare Research
Thompson S, Grüner I, Gapare N 2003. New Zealand Land Cover Database, Version 2:
illustrated guide to target classes. Wellington, Ministry for the Environment.
Walker S, Price R, Rutledge D 2005. New Zealand’s remaining indigenous cover: recent
changes and biodiversity protection needs. Landcare Research Contract Report
LC0405/038 prepared for the Department of Conservation. 77 p.
Walker S, Price R, Rutledge D 2008. New Zealand’s remaining indigenous cover: recent
changes and biodiversity protection needs. Science for Conservation 284. Wellington,
Department of Conservation. 82 p.
43
Landcare Research
Appendix 1 Detailed description of soils in Marlborough District
A Arable Land
Arable land is capable of being cultivated (ploughed) for cropping regularly at a frequency
greater than that which would be required for pasture renewal. The main limiting factors to
cultivation for cropping are slope (<20°), soil depth, topsoil texture and stoniness, and
elevation (a surrogate of growing season length).
Approximately 9% of the Marlborough District is classified as arable (LUC Classes 14).
This land is largely concentrated along the Wairau and Awatere valley floors. Significant
areas of arable land are also present in the Waima Valley, the Pelorus and Kaituna valleys
and in the Linkwater area. Small areas are also present in the heads of bays and in the small
valleys of the Sounds. Along the margin of the hills, the rolling slopes of the loess-mantled
downlands are also arable (Fig. 2).
LUC Class 1
Class 1 land is versatile multiple-use land with virtually no limitations to arable use. There
are two subclasses in the District. Class 1c land comprises flat to undulating low terraces and
floodplains with well-drained deep (>90 cm) silt loam or sandy loam textured, Recent
1
soils
of the Wairau
2
soil series (1867 ha) in the lower Wairau valley. Class 1w land consists of
imperfectly drained deep silt loam textured Mottled Fluvial Recent soils of the Kaiapoi and
Grovetown soil series on the Wairau floodplain.
LUC Class 2
Class 2 land is very good land with slight limitations to arable use, which can be readily
overcome by management and conservation practices. Most class 2 lands are flat or
undulating. The most common limitations are wetness, coarse topsoil textures or shallowness.
There are 4 subclasses.
LUC class 2w land includes imperfectly to poorly drained silt loam or sandy loam textured, Gley soils
of the Taitapu, Paynter, Temuka, Grovetown and Spring Creek series, where the depth to low chroma
colours, gleying or mottling is greater than 45 cm. This land is predominantly flat to undulating
floodplains and low terraces.
LUC class 2s land comprises well-drained moderately deep (4590 cm) silt loam textured Recent
soils of the Wairau mottled, Woodbourne, Gibsons and Waimakariri series on flat to undulating low
terraces and; moderately deep silt loam textured Pallic soils with slowly permeable subsoils of the
Ugbrooke series on flat to undulating terraces.
LUC class 2e land comprises predominately well-drained moderately deep silt loam textured Pallic
soils, e.g. Seddon series, on flat to undulating terraces developed in loess susceptible to wind erosion
and weakly structured moderately deep fine sandy loam textured Recent floodplain soils of the
Gibsons soil series.
1
New Zealand Soil Classification (Hewitt 1998)
2
Soil series are from New Zealand Soil Bureau (1968), Campbell (1986), Laffan & Vincent (1990), or
Campbell et al. (2007)
44
Landcare Research
LUC class 2c land comprises well-drained moderately deep silt loam textured Pallic soils, of the
Templeton and Woodbourne series, on flat to undulating low terraces and floodplains, where a
marked summer moisture deficit and high wind run limits crop choice.
LUC Class 3
LUC Class 3 lands are arable land with moderate limitations to arable use, which restrict the choice of
crops able to be grown and/or make special conservation practices necessary. In Marlborough it
commonly occurs on shallow and stony alluvial soils, on undulating to rolling land that has a
moderate erosion risk when cultivated, and along the margins of slopes where runoff from adjacent
hills gives rise to wetness limitations.
LUC class 3s covers a range of soil conditions and geographic locations. It includes:
well-drained moderately shallow (3045 cm) and/or stony silt loam textured Brown and Pallic
soils, e.g. Renwick and Dashwood series on flat to undulating terraces
well-drained moderately shallow and/or stony silt loam to sandy loam textured Recent
floodplain soils, e.g. Waimakariri, Waimakariri shallow, Awatere and Rapaura series
moderately well to imperfectly drained, moderately shallow and/or stony silt loam textured
Brown and Pallic soils, e.g. Hororata, Kaituna, and Jordon series on flat to undulating terraces
well-drained moderately shallow and/or stony silt loam to sandy loam textured Recent soils
with limited water storage capacity, e.g. Eyre-Paparua series on flat to undulating low terraces
undulating to rolling loess mantled terraces and downlands with silt loam textured Pallic soils
with impeded subsoil drainage, e.g. Sedgemere and Jordon series
gently sloping coastal lagoon margins with weak to moderately saline sandy loam to clay
loam textured saline gley Recent soils, e.g. Motukarara series.
LUC Class 3c land is located in the Marlborough Sounds. It includes moderately well to imperfectly
drained, moderately shallow to moderately deep (3090 cm) silt loam textured Brown soils, e.g.
Kaituna and Rai series, on undulating terraces and downs. In these locations the high summer rainfall
limits the types of crops that can be grown without artificial drying.
LUC Class 3e land occurs predominately on:
undulating to rolling loess mantled terraces and downlands with moderately well to
imperfectly drained silt loam textured Pallic soils susceptible to sheet and rill erosion when
cultivated, e.g. Seaview, Sedgemere and Wither series, and
moderately well drained, moderately shallow and/or stony silt loam textured Brown soils
susceptible to wind erosion, e.g. Hororata series on flat to undulating terraces.
LUC class 3w land occupies flat to undulating floodplains and low terraces with imperfectly
to poorly drained moderately deep silt loam to clay loam textured soils where the depth to
low chroma colours, gleying or mottling is greater than 45 cm and/or a moderately high water
table at or within 45 cm of the surface for up to half the year in both low and moderate
rainfall areas. Pallic and Gley soils include the Broadbridge and Temuka soil series.
LUC Class 4
LUC Class 4 lands have severe limitations to arable use. These limitations substantially
reduce the range of crops, which can be grown and/or make intensive conservation treatments
and careful management necessary. Class 4 land is suited only to occasional cropping but is
well suited to pastoral and forestry use. The most common limitations to use are erosion
hazard, shallow, stony and/or low fertility soils, excessive wetness and the effects of climate
such as those associated with altitude. Class 4 commonly occurs on undulating to strongly
rolling land.
45
Landcare Research
LUC Class 4s includes significant areas in the high country. It includes:
well-drained shallow (1530 cm) and stony silt loam to sandy loam-textured Recent soils on
lowland flat to undulating floodplains, fans, and low terraces, e.g. Waimakariri shallow and
Awatere series
well-drained shallow and stony silt loam textured Brown and Pallic soils, e.g. Renwick,
Hororata, Kaituna and Warwick series on lowland flat to undulating terraces
well-drained, shallow to moderately shallow (1545 cm) stony low fertility silt loam-textured
Brown soils, Katrine and Craigieburn series on flat to rolling terraces and moraine in high
country areas
well-drained, weakly structured soils with low water-holding capacities on flat to undulating
coastal sand flats and beach ridges, Tahunanui and Taumutu soils
well-drained, shallow to moderately shallow (1545 cm) and stony silt loam to sandy loam-
textured Recent soils on flat to undulating floodplains and fans, in the high country, e.g.
Tasman soils
gently sloping coastal lagoon margins with moderate to strongly saline sandy loam to clay
loam-textured soils saline gley recent soils, e.g. Motukarara series.
LUC Class 4e land predominately occupies
rolling to strongly rolling loess mantled downlands with moderately well to imperfectly
drained silt loam textured Pallic soils susceptible to tunnel gully erosion and sheet and rill
erosion when cultivated, e.g. Wither, Wither hill and Jordon soils
rolling to strongly rolling downlands with moderately well to imperfectly drained silt loam
textured Brown and Pallic soils susceptible to sheet and rill erosion when cultivated, e.g.
Kahutara hill soils
gently undulating to rolling well-drained shallow to moderately deep (3090 cm) low fertility
stony silt loam textured Brown soils, e.g. Craigieburn and Acheron soils in high country areas
susceptible to frost lift initiated wind erosion.
LUC Class 4w land occupies
flat to undulating floodplains and low terraces with imperfectly to poorly drained moderately
deep silt loam to clay loam textured soils where the depth to low chroma colours, gleying or
mottling is less than 45 cm and/or a moderately high water table at or within less than 45 cm
of the surface for up to half the year in both low and moderate rainfall areas, with Gley
Temuka soils
montane valley floor wetlands with Recent Gley Dobson soils where the depth to low chroma
colours, gleying or mottling is less than 45 cm and a moderately high water table at or within
less than 45 cm of the surface.
B Non-Arable land
Non-arable land is not capable of being cultivated (ploughed) regularly for cropping but may be
cultivated infrequently for the renewal of pasture. The main limiting factors to productive use are
slope, erosion hazard, soil depth, topsoil texture and stoniness, and elevation as a reflection of
growing season length.
LUC Class 5
LUC Class 5 includes high producing land that has limitations that make it unsuitable for cropping but
which has only slight limitations to pastoral or general forestry use. The most common limitations that
preclude arable use are slope, the presence of boulders and rock outcrops, or excessive wetness.
Erosion is not a dominant limitation in this class as the land is relatively stable under a permanent
vegetative cover.
46
Landcare Research
In the Marlborough the majority of LUC Class 5 land is flat to gently sloping imperfectly to poorly
drained strongly saline sandy loam to clay loam textured soil, Motukarara soils, unsuitable for
cropping on prograding river delta/tidal flats or lagoon margins.
LUC Class 6
Class 6 is non-arable land that has moderate limitations and hazards to pastoral or forestry use
under a perennial vegetative cover. Erosion is commonly the dominant limitation, which can be
minimised by appropriate soil conservation measures. Soil limitations, depth, texture and stoniness
also commonly restrict use but wetness and climate factors are less dominant limiting factors. Class 6
encompasses the good relatively stable hill country but also includes stony and shallow soils on
terraces, floodplains and fans.
LUC Class 6e occupies includes significant areas of hill country in the lowland. It includes:
strongly rolling to steep hill country developed on hard rock with moderately well-
drained silt loam textured Brown soils in moderate rainfall areas, e.g. Hurunui soils
strongly rolling to steep hill country developed on hard rock with moderately well-
drained silt loam textured Pallic and Recent soils in low to moderate rainfall areas, e.g.
Haldon soils
moderately steep-to-steep hill country developed on hard sedimentary and schist rocks
with moderately well-drained silty clay loam textured Ultic soils in moderate rainfall
areas, e.g. Ketu soils
strongly rolling to steep hill country developed on hard sedimentary and schist rocks with
moderately well-drained silt loam textured Brown soils in moderate to high rainfall areas,
e.g. Kenepuru soils
strongly rolling to steep lower hill slopes developed on hard rock with low fertility
Brown soils in moderate rainfall inland areas, e.g. Tekoa soils
strongly rolling to steep loessial hill country developed on soft rocks with moderately
well-drained silt loam textured Pallic soils in low rainfall areas with a marked summer
moisture deficit, e.g. Flaxbourne soils
moderately steep-to-steep hill country developed on hard rock with moderately well-
drained silt loam textured Pallic soils in low rainfall areas, e.g. Muller soils.
LUC Class 6s includes significant areas in the high country environment. It includes:
well-drained, very shallow (<15 cm) and stony silt loam to sandy loam textured Recent
soils on lowland flat to undulating floodplains, fans, and low terraces, e.g. Waimakariri
shallow soils
well-drained, very shallow and stony silt loam to sandy loam textured Recent soils on flat
to undulating floodplains, fans, and low terraces in low to moderate rainfall areas of the
high country, e.g. Tasman soils
well-drained, shallow and stony silt loam textured Brown soils, e.g. Acheron and
Molesworth series on undulating to rolling terraces and fans in moderate rainfall inland
areas.
LUC Class 6c includes significant areas in the high country. It includes:
undulating to rolling stable terraces and fans below 1100 m a.s.l. in low rainfall montane
areas with a favourable sheltered aspect and silt loam to stony sandy loam-textured
medium fertility Brown soils, e.g. Molesworth soils
strongly rolling to moderately steep, stable hill country on hard rock with shallow,
medium to high natural fertility soils in low to medium rainfall lowland areas with a
marked summer moisture deficit, e.g. Haldon soils
47
Landcare Research
undulating to rolling stable terraces and fans below 1100 m a.s.l. in moderate rainfall
inland montane areas with silt loam-textured low-fertility Brown soils, e.g. Cass soils.
LUC Class 6w includes gently sloping coastal lagoon margins subject to high brackish or saline water
tables in low to moderate rainfall areas with sandy loam to clay loam textured saline recent Gley soils
e.g. Motukarara series.
LUC Class 7
Class 7 lands are unsuitable for arable use and have severe limitations or hazards under perennial
vegetation. It can only support extensive grazing or production forestry with a significant erosion
control element. The risk of erosion is frequently the dominant limitation making careful conservation
management for grazing necessary. LUC Class 7 lands can also have severe soil wetness or climatic
limitations. In Marlborough LUC Class 7 lands include much of the steep inland ‘high country’,
steepland terrain in the Marlborough Sounds, and shallow stony and/or low fertility soils on fans,
floodplains and terraces.
LUC Class 7e includes significant areas of steep hill country in the lowlands and steep lower
mountain slopes in the inland high country. The variety of class 7 land includes:
moderately steep to steep coastal hill country developed on hard schistose and
sedimentary rocks in moderate to high rainfall areas with low fertility silty clay loam
Ultic or Brown soils, e.g. Opouri and Kenepuru soils
steep mountain slopes developed on hard sedimentary rocks below the treeline in
moderate to high rainfall high country areas with Brown soils susceptible to erosion, e.g.
Tekoa soils
moderately steep-to-steep mountain slopes developed on hard sedimentary rocks below
1340 m in low rainfall areas with Pallic and Brown soils susceptible to erosion, e.g.
Muller soils
moderately steep to steep hill country developed on hard schistose and sedimentary rocks
in moderate to high rainfall areas with low fertility silt to clay loam Brown soils, e.g.
Omamalutu soils
moderately steep to steep hill country developed on hard schistose and sedimentary rocks
in high rainfall areas with low fertility Brown soils, e.g. Pelorus and Patriarch soils
steep to very steep hill country on hard schistose and sedimentary rocks in exposed
coastal areas with moderate rainfall and Brown soils, e.g. Arapawa soils
steep to very steep hill country on hard sedimentary rocks in moderate rainfall areas with
Brown soils with moderate surface erosion, e.g. Hurunui soils
moderately steep to steep mountain slopes developed on hard sedimentary rocks with
Brown soils susceptible to sheet, gully and or scree erosion above the timberline in
moderate to high rainfall areas, e.g. Kaikoura soils.
LUC Class 7s predominantly occurs in the high country. It includes:
well-drained very shallow (<15 cm) and stony silt loam to sandy loam textured Recent
soils on lowland flat to undulating floodplains, fans, and low terraces, e.g. Waimakariri
shallow soils
well-drained very shallow and stony silt loam to sandy loam textured Recent soils on flat
to undulating floodplains, fans, and low terraces in low to high rainfall areas of the high
country, e.g. Tasman soils
well-drained shallow and stony silt loam textured Brown soils, e.g. Acheron soils on
undulating to rolling terraces and fans in moderate rainfall inland areas
flat to undulating stony and bouldery former beach and storm ridges in low to moderate
rainfall coastal areas, e.g. Taumutu soils.
48
Landcare Research
LUC Class 7c also occurs in the high country and includes:
undulating to rolling stable terraces, fans and moraine above 1000 m a.s.l. in cool
moderate to high rainfall inland areas with silt loam textured low fertility Brown soils,
e.g. Cass soils
undulating to strongly rolling exposed broad upland spurs and shoulder slopes above 950
m a.s.l. in moderate rainfall inland areas with Brown soils, e.g. Benmore soils
undulating to rolling stable terraces, fans and moraine above 1000 m a.s.l. in cool low
rainfall inland areas with Brown soils, e.g. Molesworth soils.
LUC Class 7w includes:
tidal salt marsh in low to moderate rainfall areas with sandy loam to clay loam-textured
saline recent Gley soils, e.g. Motukarara soils
drainage impeded floodplains and wetlands with sandy loam to clay loam-textured soils
and significant standing water in moderate rainfall lowland areas with Waimari Organic
soils
montane valley floor wetlands with Recent Gley sandy loam-textured soils and
significant standing water in moderate to high rainfall inland areas, e,g. Dobson soils.
LUC Class 8 land
This land has very severe to extreme limitations or hazards, which make it unsuitable for arable,
pastoral, or production forestry use. Soil conservation and water management are the main on-site and
off-site concerns of this land. It is suitable for catchment protection purposes, which include water
management and recreational uses. The most common limitation to use is extreme actual or potential
erosion combined with severe climatic limitations. Class 8 land is often high mountainous country,
although it also includes very steep slopes and highly erodible areas at lower elevations such as fore
dunes.
LUC Class 8 land occupies steep to very steep high country mountain slopes and very steep hill
country in the Marlborough. The most extensive areas are developed on hard sedimentary and
schistose rocks in all rainfall zones with Brown, Podzol and Raw soils dominant.
Only minor amounts of land have been classified as LUC Class 8 with ‘c’, ‘w’ and ‘s’
subclasses.
49
Landcare Research
Appendix 2 Land Cover Database reduced classification
Original LCDB class
Reduce LCDB class
Afforestation (imaged, post LCDB 1)
Forestry
Afforestation (not imaged)
Forestry
Alpine Grass-/Herbfield
Natural
Alpine Gravel and Rock
Natural
Broadleaved Indigenous Hardwoods
Natural
Built-up Area
Urban
Coastal Sand and Gravel
Natural
Deciduous Hardwoods
Natural
Depleted Tussock Grassland
Natural
Dump
Urban
Estuarine Open Water
Natural
Fernland
Natural
Flaxland
Natural
Forest Harvested
Forestry
Gorse and Broom
Exotic
Grey Scrub
Natural
Herbaceous Freshwater Vegetation
Natural
Herbaceous Saline Vegetation
Natural
High Producing Exotic Grassland
Pastoral
Indigenous Forest
Natural
Lake and Pond
Natural
Landslide
Natural
Low Producing Grassland
Pastoral
Major Shelterbelts
Exotic
Mangrove
Natural
Manuka and or Kanuka
Natural
Matagouri
Natural
Mixed Exotic Shrubland
Natural
Orchard and Other Perennial Crops
Horticulture
Other Exotic Forest
Forestry
Permanent Snow and Ice
Natural
Pine Forest Closed Canopy
Forestry
Pine Forest Open Canopy
Forestry
50
Landcare Research
Original LCDB class
Reduce LCDB class
River
Natural
River and Lakeshore Gravel and Rock
Natural
Short-rotation Cropland
Arable
Sub Alpine Shrubland
Natural
Surface Mine
Urban
Tall Tussock Grassland
Natural
Transport Infrastructure
Urban
Urban Parkland/Open Space
Urban
Vineyard
Viticulture
... Comparison across datasets proved problematic given the differences in land classification and delineation. For example, a study in Marlborough (Rutledge et al. 2010) found inconsistencies in the delineation of LRI Town boundaries and LCDB Built-up areas. Other potential sources of land-use/land-cover information exist that were not used in the current analysis. ...
Article
Full-text available
Sustainable food production requires maintaining land of suitable quantity and quality to meet the needs of current and future generations. We analysed urbanisation trends and their impact on soil resource availability in New Zealand, with a particular focus on highly versatile soils defined as Land Use Capability Class (LUC) 1 or 2 soils. LUC Class 1 and 2 soils occur predominantly in four regions (Canterbury, Manawatu-Wanganui, Taranaki, and Waikato). Urbanisation rates (% converted of original extent measured by the Land Resource Inventory) were highest for LUC Class 1 (5.6%) and Class 2 (3.96%) compared with <0.01 to 2.0% for LUC Classes 3-8. Dwelling densities outside of urban areas as measured by census data also gradually increased, although the full implication for soil resources requires further research. Overall currently available data sources for analysing land-use/ land-cover change provide only broad assessments, are inconsistent, and have their own issues with data quality. Soils are non-replaceable national assets that require long-term protection. Appropriate policies and land-use management planning underpinned by robust land-use data and trend analyses are needed nationally, regionally, and locally to ensure future generations enjoy the same range of options for their food production as we do today.
... The current data sources by-and-large consist of the handful of data sources commonly employed to map land use for a range of purposes including those related to water resource modelling and management. Efforts at mapping land use typically rely on several nationallyconsistent, authoritative, and in most cases public, data sources: AgriBase, Land Cover Database, LINZ topographic data, and cadastral property data, also maintained by LINZ (Hill et al. 2012;Lilburne et al. 2012Lilburne et al. , 2013Morgan et al. 2010;Rutledge et al. 2009Rutledge et al. , 2010Rutledge et al. , 2012. In some cases, including for Environment Southland, third parties are contracted to augment property data for different purposes including resource management. ...
Soils of the Awatere Valley. DSIR Soil Bureau Unpublished soil map at scale of 1:15 000
  • I B Campbell
Campbell IB 1986. Soils of the Awatere Valley. DSIR Soil Bureau Unpublished soil map at scale of 1:15 000.
Soils of the Blenheim -Renwick District
  • M D Laffan
  • K W Vincent
Laffan MD, Vincent KW. 1990. Soils of the Blenheim -Renwick District. In: Rae SN, Tozer CG eds Water and soil resources of the Wairau. Vol. 3, Land and soil resources. Blenheim, Nelson-Marlborough Regional Council. Pp. 77-93.
Land use capability classification of the Marlborough Region: a report to accompany the second edition New Zealand land resource inventory
  • I H Lynn
Lynn IH 1996. Land use capability classification of the Marlborough Region: a report to accompany the second edition New Zealand land resource inventory. Landcare Research Science Series 12.
Land Use Capability survey handbook: a New Zealand handbook for the classification of land
  • I H Lynn
  • A K Manderson
  • M J Page
  • G R Harmsworth
  • G O Eyles
  • G B Douglas
  • A D Mackay
  • Pjf Newsome
Lynn IH, Manderson AK, Page MJ, Harmsworth GR, Eyles GO, Douglas GB, Mackay AD, Newsome PJF 2009. Land Use Capability survey handbook: a New Zealand handbook for the classification of land, 3 rd ed. Hamilton, AgResearch; Lincoln, Landcare Research;
General survey of soils of the South Island
New Zealand Soil Bureau 1968. General survey of soils of the South Island, New Zealand. New Zealand Soil Bureau Bulletin 27.
Condition and trends of terrestrial coastal environments. Landcare Research Report 0506/148 prepared for the Department of Conservation
  • D Rutledge
  • C Briggs
  • R Price
Rutledge D, Briggs C, Price R 2007. Condition and trends of terrestrial coastal environments. Landcare Research Report 0506/148 prepared for the Department of Conservation. 67 p.
Protected Areas Network New Zealand (PAN-NZ): metadata database survey and needs assessment. New Zealand Terrestrial and Freshwater Biodiversity Information System Programme Research Investigation 218
  • D Rutledge
  • N Hoffmann
  • C Briggs
  • R Price
Rutledge D, Hoffmann N, Briggs C, Price R 2008. Protected Areas Network New Zealand (PAN-NZ): metadata database survey and needs assessment. New Zealand Terrestrial and Freshwater Biodiversity Information System Programme Research Investigation 218. 32 p.
National analysis of biodiversity protection and status: methods and summary results
  • D Rutledge
  • R Price
  • A G Ausseil
  • H Heke
Rutledge D, Price R, Ausseil AG, Heke H 2004. National analysis of biodiversity protection and status: methods and summary results. Landcare Research Report 0405/042 prepared for the Ministry for the Environment. 30 p.