Strategy – Year 3 Priority Species Scorecard (2018)

Helmeted Lichenostomus melanops cassidix

Key Findings

Following declines in distribution and numbers after historic land clearing and changed hydrological regimes, almost the entire remaining population of Helmeted is now in the Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve in central southern . Intensive and continuous recovery efforts at Yellingbo since the late 1980s have increased total numbers from 70 to around 200 and rising. Photo: Merryn Kelly

Significant trajectory change from 2005-15 to 2015-18? Yes, the rate of population increase has improved.

Priority future actions

• Continue in situ suppementary feeding and restore degraded habitat to support expansion • Establish additional populations – expand the wild population beyond Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve and apply genetic rescue strategies to augment genetic diversity • Provide suitable hydrological conditions to support high quality habitat • Continue captive breeding to bolster wild population Full assessment information Background information 2018 population trajectory assessment

1. and 8. Expert elicitation for population trends 2. Conservation history and prospects 9. Immediate priorities from 2019 3. Past and current trends 10. Contributors 4. Key threats 11. Legislative documents 5. Past and current management 12. References 6. Support from the Australian Government 13. Citation 7. Measuring progress towards conservation

The primary purpose of this scorecard is to assess progress against the year three targets outlined in the Australian Government’s Threatened Species Strategy, including estimating the change in population trajectory of 20 species. It has been prepared by experts from the National Environmental Science Program’s Threatened Species Recovery Hub, with input from a number of taxon experts, a range of stakeholders and staff from the Office of the Threatened Species Commissioner, for the information of the Australian Government and is non-statutory. It has been informed by statutory planning documents that guide recovery of the species, such as Recovery Plans and/or Conservation Advices (see Section 11). The descriptive information in this scorecard is drawn from Harley et al. (2018), unless otherwise noted by additional citations.

The background information aims to provide context for estimation of progress in research and management (Section 7) and estimation of population size and trajectories (Section 8).

1 Information current to December 2018 Threatened Species Strategy – Year 3 Priority Species Scorecard (2018)

1. Conservation status and taxonomy

Conservation status 2018 Taxonomy: Three other subspecies L. m. melanops (south- IUCN Critically Endangered eastern , New South Wales east of the Great Dividing Range, L. m. meltoni (south-eastern EPBC Critically Endangered Australia, inland slopes of the Great Dividing Range) and L. m. gippslandicus (eastern Victoria, south of VIC Threatened the Great Dividing Range) are Least Concern, as is the species.

2. Conservation history and prospects The Helmeted Honeyeater has always had a restricted distribution in central southern Victoria. Concerns were first raised about it in 1952 with Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve (Yellingbo) 50 km east of being declared in 1967. The 80 ha of riparian and floodplain forest occupied in Yellingbo became the last home of wild Helmeted Honeyeaters in 1983 after isolated populations at Upper Beaconsfield and Cockatoo were lost in the Ash Wednesday bushfires. In 1989, a coordinated recovery program began with formation of a Recovery Team, the extremely active Friends of the Helmeted Honeyeater, preparation of the first Recovery Plan and establishment of a captive-breeding program at Healesville Sanctuary. The primary reason for the honeyeater’s scarcity is the limited area of suitable habitat, with most remaining habitat being in poor condition due to altered hydrology and a lack of regeneration. The patches are also highly vulnerable to fire and invasion by Bell Miners that exclude Helmeted Honeyeaters. Nevertheless, while juvenile recruitment and rates of establishment for captive-bred released to the wild have historically been low, and genetic diversity has declined (Harrisson et al. 2016), a combination of more intensive management and the end of the ‘millennium ’ has led to a tripling of the population from fewer than 70 individuals to nearly 200. If this intensive management can be maintained, prospects for this subspecies are good, especially if populations can be established at other sites. Ultimately, however, it is restoration of high quality habitat that will secure the future of the subspecies (Harley et al. 2018).

3. Past and current trends In 1983 two of the three small populations were eliminated by fire. In 1989, the intensive Recovery Program began and monitoring since 2005 revealed a gradual decline to fewer than 70 birds until 2013, following which numbers have rapidly increased to nearly 200.

Monitoring (existing programs): All birds are individually marked and counted annually. Breeding success is also measured for all nests discovered. Friends of the Helmeted Honeyeater, other volunteers and DELWP are monitoring the success of supplementary feeding activities, as well as taking DNA samples to monitor inbreeding depression.

2 Information current to December 2018 Threatened Species Strategy – Year 3 Priority Species Scorecard (2018)

Population trends: Tables 1 and 2 summarise the overall trend and status of the Helmeted Honeyeater. The information provided in these tables is derived from Harley et al. (2018), with some amendments made by contributing experts based on new information. Table 1. Summary of the available information on Helmeted Honeyeater distribution and population size, and (where possible) trend estimates between 2015 and 2018 for each parameter. Published Population parameters 2015 Estimate 2018 Estimate Confidence in estimates baseline

WILD*

Extent of Occurrence 75 km2 75 km2 75 km2 High

Area of Occupancy 8 km2 8 km2 8 km2 High

Dates of records and As per Bird Action Plan methods used

No. mature individuals 42 120 160 High

0.58 chicks Any other measure of fledging per egg 0.18 fledglings relative abundance 0.62 fledglings laid per egg laid High (specify) per egg laid (Chambers et al. Nesting success 2008)

No. of subpopulations 2 1 1 High

No. of locations 4 1 1 High

High. Derived from latest Generation time 4.3 n/a n/a global analysis by BirdLife International CAPTIVE BREEDING

No. mature individuals 30 30 40 High

No. locations 1 1 1 High *Including translocations

3 Information current to December 2018 Threatened Species Strategy – Year 3 Priority Species Scorecard (2018)

Table 2. Estimated recent (2005-2015) and current (2015-2018) population trends for the Helmeted Honeyeater.

Estimated Confidence Confidence in 2005-2015 in 2015-2018 Sub-population % of 2015-2018 Details trend 2005-2015 trend population trend trend

Yellingbo Since 2013, the population Reserve has tripled following 100 High High (entire wild expansion of supplementary population) feeding of wild population.

KEY: Improving Stable Deteriorating Unknown Confidence Description High Trend documented Medium Trend considered likely based on documentation

? Low Trend suspected but evidence indirect or equivocal

4. Key threats The threats listed here are derived from Harley et al. (2018) with some amendments from contributing experts based on new information. Note that this is not a list of all plausible threats, but a subset of the threats that are likely to have the largest impact on populations. Agro-industry and livestock farming and ranching The extensive destruction of habitat for agriculture both reduced the honeyeater population to a fraction of its range and changed the water flow so that parts of the range receive too little water, other parts too much. This has an ongoing impact on the capacity of the habitat to support honeyeaters, making supplementary feeding essential to conservation until water flows are remedied. The dense vegetation structure that the honeyeaters require for nesting has been lost or is declining at most sites supporting potential habitat. The limited amount of natural habitat regeneration necessary to provide dense vegetation structure is a key management issue. Increase in fire frequency and/or intensity In 1983 fire destroyed two of the three remaining wild populations. Yellingbo has not been burnt for many decades. If, as anticipated, the region becomes drier and hotter, the probability of wildfire will increase. Perversely, control burns to rejuvenate the forest structure are also needed though difficult to arrange in a densely populated region. Native predators and competitors As each nest is precious, even natural losses to predators such as Tiger Snake Notechis scutatus and Laughing Kookaburra Dacelo novaeguineae can affect the population. While nest protection can be effective, it is expensive, therefore increasing the number of nesting attempts is likely to require a more effective means of dealing with this natural threat. Competition with another native species, the aggressive Manorina melanophrys, has been shown to reduce Helmeted Honeyeater breeding success, leading to removal of Bell Miner colonies (especially during the 1990’s). In 2015, yearly removal of Bell Miners from habitat either occupied by Helmeted Honeyeaters or that could be occupied by Helmeted Honeyeaters was re-initiated.

4 Information current to December 2018 Threatened Species Strategy – Year 3 Priority Species Scorecard (2018)

Browsing by wallabies and introduced deer A novel threat but one that might have long-lasting impacts is browsing on native vegetation by wallabies and introduced deer. The latter are increasing in numbers and impact. Browsing by these mammals reduces the effectiveness of restoration of dense vegetation structure, and in so doing, negatively affects Helmeted Honeyeaters. Lack of genetic variability The genetic variability of the tiny population of Helmeted Honeyeater has been declining, reducing fecundity and making it ever more difficult for inherent variability to enable adaptation to environmental change.

The impacts of the major threats are summarised in Table 3.

Table 3. The major threats facing the Helmeted Honeyeater and their associated impact scores.

CURRENT THREAT IMPACT (greatest threats)

Threat Timing Extent Severity

1. Agro-industry and Continuing/ongoing >90% of range 50-100% livestock farming 2. Increase in fire Continuing/ongoing >90% of range 50-100% frequency/intensity 3. Native predators and Continuing/ongoing >90% of range Not negligible but <20% competitors 4. Browsing by wallabies & Continuing/ongoing >90% of range 30-49% introduced deer

5. Lack of genetic variability Continuing/ongoing >90% of range 30-49%

Timing: continuing/ongoing; near future: any occurrence probable within one generation (includes former threat no longer causing impact but could readily recur); distant future: any occurrence likely to be further than one generation into the future (includes former threat no longer causing impact and unlikely to recur). Extent: <1% of range; 1-50%; 50-90%; >90%. Severity: (within three generations or 10 years, whichever is longer) Causing no decline; Negligible declines (<1%); Not negligible but <20%; 20-29%; 30-49%; 50-100%; Causing/could cause order of magnitude fluctuations.

5. Past and current management Recent and current management actions thought to be contributing to the conservation of the Helmeted Honeyeater are summarised in Table 4. This information is a collation of material provided by experts. A Recovery Plan (2008) and Conservation Advice (2014) are in place, guiding recovery action (see Section 11).

5 Information current to December 2018 Threatened Species Strategy – Year 3 Priority Species Scorecard (2018)

Table 4. Management actions thought to be contributing to the conservation of the Helmeted Honeyeater. Est. % Action Location Timing Contributors and partners pop’n

1967 Victorian Government, Friends of the Habitat protection and restoration Yellingbo 100 onwards Helmeted Honeyeater

Healesville 1989 Captive breeding 15 Zoos Victoria, DELWP Sanctuary onwards

Control of Bell Miners Yellingbo 1990s 10 DELWP, Parks Victoria

2013 Friends of the Helmeted Honeyeater, Supplementary feeding Yellingbo 85 onwards DELWP

DELWP, Friends of the Helmeted Nest protection Yellingbo 2000s 50 Honeyeater

Yellingbo and Un DELWP, Latrobe University, Monash Genetic management Healesville consider 100 University, Zoos Victoria Sanctuary ation

Yellingbo Cockatoo Swamp Hydrology Nature 2018 - Melbourne Water

Restoration (trial). Conservation 2022 (MW) Reserve

Yellingbo NCR and nearby private 2019/20 Habitat Restoration. Port Phillip and Westernport CMA property, 20 Coranderrk, Healesville

Genetic Rescue – four hybrids bred Healesville 2016- in captivity in 2017, now being back- Sanctuary & Monash University and Zoos Victoria 2020 crossed to Helmeted Honeyeaters Yellingbo NCR

Healesville Captive-breeding and release into 2017/20 Zoos Victoria, DELWP and Friends of the Sanctuary and the wild 18 - Helmeted Honeyeater Yellingbo NCR

Woori Yallock Habitat Restoration. 28 properties Creek – visited (most will be enlisted for neighbouring works) private 2017- Friends of the Helmeted Honeyeater properties and 2020

Natural Features Reserve

“Bilagal”: Land Purchase. Properties now part property of Yellingbo NCR and earmarked for 2018 Trust for Nature Maccles-field habitat restoration (20ha)

6 Information current to December 2018 Threatened Species Strategy – Year 3 Priority Species Scorecard (2018)

Supplementary Feeding (100 volunteers coordinated to do 2018- Friends of the Helmeted Honeyeater, Yellingbo NCR supplementary feeding and 2020 and other volunteers; DELWP monitoring)

Bell Miner control (141 Bell Miners removed between 2015 – 2018; at 2015 Yellingbo NCR Parks Victoria and DELWP least one colony to be removed in onwards autumn 2019).

Bunyip State DELWP, Parks Victoria, Zoos Victoria, Translocation to Bunyip State Park Park Friends of the Helmeted Honeyeater

Over-browsing Control (boost deer culling program which has seen 2018- Yellingbo NCR Parks Victoria approximately 130 deer removed 2020 from Yellingbo in 4 years).

Greening Australia, Victorian Increased habitat availability: habitat Yellingbo NCR Government, Australian Government 20 restoration Million Trees Program

Friends of the Helmeted Honeyeater, Increased habitat availability: habitat Yellingbo NCR 2014-15 Australian Government 20 Million Trees restoration Program

Increased habitat availability: habitat Friends of the Helmeted Honeyeater, Yellingbo NCR 2016-17 restoration Australian Government

Increased habitat availability: habitat Coranderrk Zoos Victoria, Australian Government 20 2016-17 restoration Bushland Million Trees Program

Increased habitat availability: habitat Greening Australia, Parks Victoria, Haining Farm restoration DELWP, Zoos Victoria

Increased habitat availability: habitat Yellingbo NCR University of Melbourne restoration

Increased habitat availability: Friends of the Helmeted Honeyeater, propagation and revegetation of Yellingbo NCR 2015 Australian Government Threatened food trees inside an area fenced to Species Recovery Fund exclude deer.

6. Actions undertaken or supported by the Australian Government resulting from inclusion in the Threatened Species Strategy The Australian Government has mobilised funding for a number of projects to improve habitat for the Helmeted Honeyeater at Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve, through the 20 Million Trees Program and the Threatened Species Recovery Fund. This includes projects to restore habitat by planting more than 700,000 trees and shrubs across more than 100 ha of land within the reserve. These projects included a focus to ensure plant species would maximise food availability and flowering duration for the Helmeted Honeyeater and Leadbeater’s Possum.

7 Information current to December 2018 Threatened Species Strategy – Year 3 Priority Species Scorecard (2018)

7. Measuring progress towards conservation Table 5. Progress towards management understanding and management implementation for each of the major threats affecting the Helmeted Honeyeater in 2015 (i.e. timing of TSS implementation) and 2018, using the progress framework developed by Garnett et al. 2018.

PROGRESS IN MANAGING THREATS

Threat Year Understanding of how to manage threat Extent to which threat being managed 1. Agro- 3. Solutions being trialled but work only 2. Work has been initiated to roll out solutions 2015 industry and initiated recently where threat applies across the taxon’s range livestock 5. Trial management is providing clear 4. Solutions are enabling achievement but 2018 farming evidence that it can deliver objectives only with continued conservation intervention 6. Research complete and being applied OR 4. Solutions are enabling achievement but 2. Increase in 2015 ongoing research associated with adaptive only with continued conservation intervention fire management of threat frequency/ 6. Research complete and being applied OR 4. Solutions are enabling achievement but intensity 2018 ongoing research associated with adaptive only with continued conservation intervention management of threat 6. Research complete and being applied OR 4. Solutions are enabling achievement but 2015 ongoing research associated with adaptive 3. Native only with continued conservation intervention management of threat predators and 6. Research complete and being applied OR competitors 4. Solutions are enabling achievement but 2018 ongoing research associated with adaptive only with continued conservation intervention management of threat 1. Research being undertaken or completed 4. Browsing by 2. Work has been initiated to roll out solutions 2015 but limited understanding on how to manage introduced where threat applies across the taxon’s range threat wallabies and 3. Solutions being trialled but work only 2. Work has been initiated to roll out solutions deer 2018 initiated recently where threat applies across the taxon’s range 1. Research being undertaken or completed 5. Lack of 2015 but limited understanding on how to manage 0. No management genetic threat variability 2. Research has provided strong direction on 2. Work has been initiated to roll out solutions 2018 how to manage threat where threat applies across the taxon’s range > Green shading indicates an improvement in our understanding or management of threats between years 2015 and 2018, while red shading indicates deterioration in our understanding or management of threats.

KEY: Score Understanding of how to manage threat Extent to which threat is being managed 0 No knowledge and no research No management Research being undertaken or completed but limited 1 Management limited to trials understanding on how to manage threat Research has provided strong direction on how to Work has been initiated to roll out solutions where threat 2 manage threat applies across the taxon’s range Solutions have been adopted but too early to 3 Solutions being trialled but work only initiated recently demonstrate success Trial management under way but not yet clear evidence Solutions are enabling achievement but only with 4 that it can deliver objectives continued conservation intervention Trial management is providing clear evidence that it can Good evidence available that solutions are enabling 5 deliver objectives achievement with little or no conservation intervention Research complete and being applied OR ongoing 6 The threat no longer needs management research associated with adaptive management of threat

8 Information current to December 2018 Threatened Species Strategy – Year 3 Priority Species Scorecard (2018)

8. Expert elicitation for population trends An expert elicitation process was undertaken to assess population trends for the period 2005-2015 and post-2015 under the following management scenarios. Please note that differences between Management Scenarios 2 and 3 (Fig. 1) are difficult to attribute, as it can be difficult to determine whether actions undertaken after 2015 were influenced by the Threatened Species Strategy or were independent of it (see Summary Report for details of methods). Management Scenario 1 (red line): no conservation management undertaken since 2015, and no new actions implemented.

• No more supplementary feeding • Captive breeding would cease • Attempts at genetic rescue would be abandoned • Bell Miners would be likely to reinvade • Habitat condition would decline as a result of altered hydrology • Deer and wallaby over-browsing would continue unchecked • Habitat restoration would cease • Bushfires would be likely to occur about every 30 years Under this scenario the captive birds would be released but Yellingbo would not be maintained for the honeyeaters or prioritised for protection from fire. Management Scenario 2 (blue line): continuation of existing conservation management (i.e. actions undertaken before implementation of the Threatened Species Strategy or independent of the Threatened Species Strategy).

• Supplementary feeding sustained • Population regularly supplemented by captive-bred birds • Habitat would continue to be restored • Bell Miner reinvasion would be prevented • The habitat would protected as much as possible from wildfire • Genetic rescue would be attempted • Habitat condition would decline as a result of altered hydrology • Browsing by deer and wallabies would continue unabated Under this scenario there would continue to be intensive management of the birds but habitat condition would gradually decline. Management Scenario 3 (green line): continuation of existing management, augmented by support mobilised by the Australian Government under the Threatened Species Strategy.

• As in Scenario 2 but with additional habitat restoration Under this scenario there would continue to be intensive management of the birds but habitat condition would gradually decline, though from a slightly higher baseline. Overall estimated population trajectories subject to management scenarios considered The Helmeted Honeyeater is currently being managed under Scenario 3 (green line).

9 Information current to December 2018 Threatened Species Strategy – Year 3 Priority Species Scorecard (2018)

Figure 1. Estimated relative percentage change in population under each of the management scenarios described above. Data derived from 8 expert assessments of Helmeted Honeyeater expected response to management, using four-step elicitation and the IDEA protocol (Hemming et al. 2017), where experts are asked to provide best estimates, lowest and highest plausible estimates, and an associated level of confidence. The dashed line represents the baseline value (i.e. as at 2015, standardised to 100). Values above this line indicate a relative increase in population size, while values below this line indicate a relative decrease in population size. Shading indicates confidence bounds (i.e. the lowest and highest plausible estimates).

Population size projections based on expert elicitation are extended here to 2025, 2035 and 2045 (i.e. 10, 20 and 30 years after the establishment of the Threatened Species Strategy) on the grounds that some priority conservation management actions may take many years to achieve substantial conservation outcomes. However, we note also that there will be greater uncertainty around estimates of population size into the more distant future because, for example, novel threats may affect the species, managers may develop new and more efficient conservation options, and the impacts of climate change may be challenging to predict.

10 Information current to December 2018 Threatened Species Strategy – Year 3 Priority Species Scorecard (2018)

Improved trajectory (Threatened Species Strategy Year 3 target): The primary purpose of this scorecard is to assess progress against achieving the year three targets outlined in the Australian Government’s Threatened Species Strategy, i.e. a demonstrated improved trajectory for at least half of the priority species (10 birds and 10 mammals). To assess this, we first use the expert-derived trend between 2005-15 (i.e. 10 years prior to implementation of the TSS) as a baseline for assessing whether there has been an improvement in trajectory in the time since implementation of the TSS (i.e. 2015-18). Table 6 below summarises this information, where negative values indicate a declining population, and positive values indicate an increasing population. We used Wilcoxon match-paired tests to compare trajectories for these two periods; a significant result (probability <0.05) indicates that there was a high concordance amongst experts that their trajectory estimates for 2005-15 were different to their estimates for 2015-18.

Table 6. A comparison of the relative annual percentage population change for the periods 2005-2015 and 2015-2018.

Post-TSS Year 3 Pre-TSS trend Significant concordance among trend target (2005-2015) elicitors? (2015-2018) met? Annual The trajectory, which was already positive percentage 2.84 12.6 before 2015, had increased strongly, with population  signficant concordance among elicitors. change

Additional actions that could improve trajectory The potential impact of carrying out specific additional conservation measures on the population trajectory of the Helmeted Honeyeater was also evaluated through expert elicitation. Current management includes sustained supplementation of feeding, sustained supplementation of the population by captive-bred birds, restoration of habitat, prevention of reinvasion by Bell Miners, intensive bushfire prevention (but ongoing loss of habitat condition from altered hyrology and browsing by deer as these are not currently the subject of action). Additional actions that could further improve the population trajectory include:

• Successful restoration of favourable hydrology • Effective control of browsing damage • At least one additional population established outside the current range • Selective genetic augmentation With these actions intensive management would extend from the birds to habitat with the object of reducing the need for the intensive management of the actual .

11 Information current to December 2018 Threatened Species Strategy – Year 3 Priority Species Scorecard (2018)

9. Immediate priorities from 2019 The priorities listed here are derived from Harley et al. (2018) with some amendments made by contributing experts based on new information. Identification of these priorities in this document is for information and is non-statutory. For statutory conservation planning documents, such as Recovery Plans or Conservation Advices, please see Section 11. Data collection: • Monitor population trends of Yellingbo population • Study post-re-establishment responses of translocated populations • Establish the conitions under which natural habitat recovers • Study responses of habitat to restoration work • Study responses of honeyeaters to revegetation • Develop measures to prevent detrimental deer and wallaby browsing • Determine trends in genetic variability • Study relationships between vegetation condition and hydrology Management actions: • Continue in situ suppementary feeding • Establish additional populations – expand the wild population beyond Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve • Provide suitable hydrological conditions to support the provision of high quality habitat (vegetation condition and structure) • Restore cleared and degraded habitat to support population expansion • Apply genetic rescue strategies to augment genetic diversity • Continue captive breeding to bolster wild population

10. Contributors Dan Harley, Bruce Quin, Peter Menkhorst, Stephen Garnett, John Woinarski, Sarah Legge, Hayley Geyle, DELWP, Zoos Victoria, Guy Dutson, Richard Loyn, Allan Burbidge, Nicholas MacGregor.

11. Legislative documents SPRAT profile: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi- bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=26011 Department of the Environment (2014). Conservation Advice Lichenostomus melanops cassidix Helmeted Honeyeater. Canberra: Department of the Environment. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/26011-conservation- advice.pdf. In effect under the EPBC Act from 06-Nov-2014. Menkorst, P. (2008). National Recovery Plan for the Helmeted Honeyeater Lichenostomus melanops cassidix. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/helmeted-honeyeater-lichenostomus-melanops-cassidix- national-recovery-plan. In effect under the EPBC Act from 23-Oct-2008.

12 Information current to December 2018 Threatened Species Strategy – Year 3 Priority Species Scorecard (2018)

12. References Garnett, S.T., Butchart, S.H.M., Baker, G.B., Bayraktarov, E., Buchanan, K.L., Burbidge, A.A., Chauvenet, A.L.M., Christidis, L., Ehmke, G., Grace, M., Hoccom, D.G., Legge, S.M., Leiper, I., Lindenmayer, D.B., Loyn, R.H., Maron, M., McDonald, P., Menkhorst, P., Possingham, H.P., Radford, J., Reside, A.E., Watson, D.M., Watson, J.E.M., Wintle, B., Woinarski, J.C.Z., and Geyle, H.M. (2018) Metrics of progress in the understanding and management of threats to Australian Birds. Conservation Biology https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13220. Harley, D., Menkhorst, P., Quin, B., Anderson, R. P., Tardif, S., Cartwright, K., Murray, N., and Kelly, M. (2018). Twenty-five years of Helmeted Honeyeater conservation: a government–community partnership poised for recovery success. In ‘Recovering Australian Threatened Species: a Book of Hope’. (Eds S. Garnett, P. Latch, D. Lindenmayer and J. Woinarski.) pp. 227–236. (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne.) Harrisson KA, Pavlova A, Gonçalves da Silva A, Rose B, Bull JK, Lancaster ML, Murray ND, Quin B, Menkhorst P, Magrath M, Sunnucks P (2016) Scope for genetic rescue of an endangered subspecies though re-establishing natural gene flow with another subspecies. Molecular Ecology. 25, 1242–1258. Hemming, V., Burgman, M.A., Hanea, A.M., McBride, M.F., and Wintle B.C. (2017) A practical guide to structured expert elicitation using the IDEA protocol. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 169-180. Pavlova A, Selwood P, Harrisson KA, et al. (2014) Integrating phylogeography and morphometrics to assess conservation merits and inform conservation strategies for an endangered subspecies of a common bird species. Biological Conservation 174, 136-146. Smales IJ, Quin B, Menkhorst PW, Franklin DC (2010) Demography of the Helmeted Honeyeater (Lichenostomus melanops cassidix). Emu 109, 352-359.

13. Citation Please cite this document as:

National Environmental Science Program Threatened Species Research Hub (2019) Threatened Species Strategy Year 3 Scorecard – Helmeted Honeyeater. Australian Government, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/20-birds-by- 2020/helmeted-honeyeater

13 Information current to December 2018