Operation Rainbow Roost: Rainbow Lorikeet, An Urban Pest BirdLife Western Australia August 2018

A report of BirdLife Western Australia.

Prepared by Robyn Pickering of Perth Birds and Bush.

Acknowledgements BirdLife Western Australia thanks our funding partner, the State Natural Resource Management Office, who without their generous funding we would not have been able to undertake this project.

BirdLife Western Australia thanks the generous support of our wonderful volunteers. Hundreds of volunteers have downloaded and entered data into the Birdata portal. This project has also had over 370 volunteers who have completed roost counts, reported roost sites or provided valuable information about Rainbow Lorikeets. In particular, we would like to thank Susan Abbotts, William Betts, Xenia Dennett, Ken Glasson, Neil Hamilton, Stella Stewart-Wynne and Ted Stewart-Wynne who have put in additional effort locating or counting at multiple roost sites or coordinating large sites.

The City of Cockburn and Beaver Tree Services partnered with us to reduce Rainbow Lorikeet nesting habitat. The City of Cockburn provided funding, management, time and media coverage for palm tree maintenance. Beaver Tree Services provided a much-reduced work pay rate for the palm tree maintenance work.

BirdLife Western Australia thanks our project partner the Department of Primary Resources and Regional Development (DPIRD) who have provided great support. Particularly we would like to thank Andrew Reeves and Lindsay Strange who have provided letters of support, information from past DPIRD work and assistance throughout the project timeframe.

BirdLife Western Australia thanks our supporters for this project: • The Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA), • Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA), • Perth Natural Resource Management (PNRM), • The Western Australian Museum (WAM), and • The Western Australian Naturalists Club

All of which have provided letters of support and advice to the project. Particularly we would like to thank Manda Page and Mark Blythman from the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA), who have provided substantial advice.

Contents Project Summary ...... 1 Introduction ...... 4 Project Aims ...... 4 Results ...... 5 Distribution ...... 5 Counts ...... 7 Aussie Backyard Bird Count ...... 10 Breeding records ...... 10 Nectar Feeder Trial ...... 13 Palm Tree Study ...... 16 Aboriginal Consultation ...... 20 Perth Rainbow Lorikeet Knowledge Survey ...... 21 Increasing Awareness of the pest status of Rainbow Lorikeet ...... 28 Volunteer effort ...... 29 Discussion ...... 31 Distribution ...... 31 Counts ...... 33 Breeding Records ...... 35 Impacts of Rainbow Lorikeets ...... 35 Rainbow Lorikeet Management ...... 39 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 43 References ...... 45 Appendix 1: February 2017 and 2018 Roost counts ...... 46 Appendix 2: 2017 Aussie Backyard Bird Count Infographic ...... 48 Appendix 3: Nectar Feeder Camera Images ...... 50 Appendix 4: Palm Tree Maps ...... 57 Appendix 5: Media Release ...... 59 Appendix 6: A Nyoongar view of Rainbow Lorikeets in the Perth region ...... 62 Appendix 7: Perth Residents Knowledge of Rainbow Lorikeets ...... 63 Appendix 8: Some of the comments from the Rainbow Lorikeet Knowledge Survey...... 65 Appendix 9: Awareness Raising/Media reports ...... 67 Appendix 10: Rainbow Lorikeet: A pretty powerful pest brochure ...... 69 Appendix 11: Comparison of species abundance in the Perth Metropolitan Area...... 70

Project Summary Rainbow Lorikeets were introduced to Perth in the 1960’s (Chapman 2005, Chapman and Massam 2006). Their population has increased rapidly since then and this has been detrimental to locally native fauna. An estimated 40,000+ Rainbow Lorikeets (RL) are now believed to be living in the greater Perth Metropolitan Area (Reeves and Scourse 2015, citing Ron Johnstone). These birds pose a major risk to Western Australian community values such as damage to infrastructure, displacement of native species, fouling and damage to private and public amenities and the potential to spread bird diseases. The Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD) declared the Rainbow Lorikeet a pest species in the southern parts of the state in 2001 (Edwards 2002, Massam, Sinclair and Mawson 2006, Chapman and Massam 2006 and Massam and Wright 2008).

With funding from the State Natural Resource Management (NRM) office, Operation Rainbow Roost was commenced in March 2016 to address the management of Rainbow Lorikeets in the greater Perth Metropolitan Area. In September 2016 BirdLife Australia released the phone app “Birdata” for both Apple and Android phones. It was also released as a computer web-based system, allowing users to use their phones, tablets or computers to report bird data. This app includes several project specific sections, including those for Operation Rainbow Roost. The Birdata portal is set-up so that any records of Rainbow Lorikeet occurring outside the containment line around the greater Perth metropolitan area is immediately reported to DPIRD.

BirdLife’s volunteer network was asked to seek out and map Rainbow Lorikeet Roost sites in southwest Western Australia. The mapping and counting of lorikeet roosts provide the best way to estimate the population of this highly invasive species. In 2016/17 a total of 31 roost sites were found and confirmed and during February 2017 volunteers counted a total of 13,047 lorikeets at 27 of these roost sites and a minimum total of 480 lorikeets were estimated to be present at the remaining four sites (BirdLife Western Australia 2017).

In early 2017, the State NRM office agreed to fund the project again until July 2018 under the title Rainbow Lorikeet: An Urban Pest. This report documents the progress made in this second part of the project. This second round of funding aimed to: • Find further roost sites and conduct another roost count in February 2018. • Develop and distribute a brochure to educate people on the pest status of the Rainbow Lorikeet in Perth. • Determine the indigenous perspective on this pest species and learn about indigenous significance of the birds possibly being impacted by it. • Conduct a nectar feeder trial to see if these could be used as a future species-specific control/sterility delivery system. • Collate information about Palm Trees that provide nesting opportunities for lorikeets and the potential costs to reduce this nesting resource.

In February and early March 2018, volunteers counted a total of 16,523 lorikeets at 48 roost sites and a minimum total of 450 lorikeets were estimated to be present at another seven sites.

The nectar feeder trial was conducted over two separate four-week periods. These were done in January and from mid-February 2018 to mid-March 2018. Nectar feeders were set up in five zones radiating out from major roost sites in Cannington, Cottesloe and Joondalup. Each nectar feeder had a camera trap installed to photograph all the birds that visited the nectar feeder. Unfortunately, during the trial no lorikeets were photographed drinking from the nectar feeder, even though some of these sites had Rainbow Lorikeets using nearby bird baths.

Nyoongar elder Dr Noel Nannup provided an indigenous perspective on this pest species and the indigenous significance of the birds possibly being impacted by it. Nyoongar culture is very welcoming of newcomers to their country and this includes the Rainbow Lorikeet, however, he and elders he has spoken too feel the Rainbow Lorikeet population ought to be kept down to reduce the disturbance to local species. All local native species are important to Nyoongar people, as they belong to a Totemic system that has been fastidiously maintained over many thousands of years.

The “Rainbow Lorikeet: A pretty powerful pest” brochure was designed, and 5000 copies printed. The brochures are available at the BirdLife Western Australia Office, the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA) office in Kensington, and many council community brochure racks. Staff at DPIRD also distributed copies to outer metropolitan areas.

BirdLife Western Australia sent out letters to all councils within the range of the Rainbow Lorikeet in southwest Australia requesting that any Date Palms or Cotton Palms on council property be properly maintained to reduce lorikeet nesting opportunity. These letters included copies of the “Rainbow Lorikeet: A pretty powerful pest” brochure and a fact sheet about Palm tree maintenance to reduce Rainbow Lorikeet breeding opportunity produced by DBCA.

Working with the City of Cockburn, Beaver Tree Services and residents of the City of Cockburn, BirdLife Western Australia reduced Rainbow Lorikeet nesting habitat by conducting palm tree maintenance on verges in front of residential gardens. This trial reduced 138 m2 of potential nesting habitat at a cost of $9240. This provides a cost per area of nesting habitat removed of $67 per m2.

To assess the number of palms in Perth that are available for nesting, a palm tree database was established. Data was entered using a Google Docs form opportunistically or systematically and by systematic mapping using Google Maps imagery. A total of 1311 hectares were systematically mapped in 10 suburbs in five council areas.

BirdLife also asked their members and the general public to fill out a short survey to provide their observations about the population and distribution of Rainbow Lorikeets in southwest Australia, observed reductions of other birds and any interactions of lorikeets with other bird species. A total of 374 people completed the surveys providing their information. Many other people saw the publicity for the survey which raised awareness of Rainbow Lorikeets and the possible impacts to locally native species.

In both funding rounds, data from a number of BirdLife databases were used to map the current distribution of the Rainbow Lorikeet. Rainbow Lorikeet breeding data was also extracted from the Birdata database. The database does not have many breeding records, however with further community engagement it is expected that breeding records entered into the database will increase.

A comparison of the abundance of selected local native birds (that may be affected by growing numbers of Rainbow Lorikeet) in the Perth Metropolitan Area was conducted comparing data in the Birdata database from 1998 to 2004 with data from 2010 to 2016. The Birdata database shows that the numbers of Rainbow Lorikeets are rapidly increasing across most of the Perth Metropolitan area. In comparison, the numbers of Red-capped Parrots, Australian Ringnecks and Sacred Kingfishers are decreasing in most of the urban parts of the metropolitan area. These birds all nest in tree hollows of a similar size to those used by Rainbow Lorikeets and competition for nests with the more aggressive Rainbow Lorikeet may be contributing to their declines. Honeyeaters and wattlebirds compete with Rainbow Lorikeets for food resources and some of these species (Singing Honeyeater, Brown Honeyeater, and White-cheeked Honeyeater) are showing declining abundance in the urban parts of the metropolitan area.

Volunteers contributed to the project by: • Conducting bird surveys and entering the data into Birdata, • Reporting information to the Operation Rainbow Roost email and website form, • Conducting Rainbow Lorikeet roost counts, • Providing a site for the nectar feeder trial and assisting with maintaining feeders and analysing photos • Filling out a survey about their knowledge of Rainbow Lorikeets

In total the volunteer effort for the project is estimated to be 3039 hours. At a cost rate of $33 per hour this is estimated to represent $100,287.

The City of Cockburn also provided $4840 funding to the Palm Tree Maintenance trial. Beaver tree services also provided in kind funding of $4400.

Figure 1: Rainbow Lorikeets usually feed on nectar and pollen which is a food used by many other native species (Photograph by Bill Betts)

Introduction An estimated 40,000+ Rainbow Lorikeets are now believed to be living in the greater Perth Metropolitan Area (Reeves and Scourse 2015 citing Ron Johnstone). These birds pose a risk to Western Australian community values such as damage to infrastructure, displacement of native species, fouling and damage to private and public amenities, and the potential to spread bird diseases.

To manage the problems caused by pest birds we need to know the locations where the birds can be found and then determine the number of pest birds in the area. With commencement of Operation Rainbow Roost in 2016, coordinated counts of Rainbow Lorikeet at roosts across Perth metropolitan areas in late summer have been conducted.

This project is Stage 1b of a series of projects designed to manage Rainbow Lorikeets working with multiple stakeholders. • Stage 1: Working with Community and BirdLife Western Australia to report Roosting Sites utilising phone app and collate information about Rainbow Lorikeets in Perth. • Stage 2: Test the concept of Rainbow Lorikeet sterilisation with input from Universities and Stakeholders. • Stage 3: Field trials and evaluation of sterilisation with stakeholder support (WALGA, etc.) based on the outcomes from Stage 1 and 2.

The app (completed in Stage 1a) can also be used by DPIRD to review data on other pest birds in Western Australia.

The State Government, State NRM Office funded both Stage 1a and 1b of this project. Funding was received for Stage 1b in mid-March 2017.

Project Aims This Stage 1b project aims to: • Seek out, map and count Rainbow Lorikeet Roost sites in the Greater Perth metropolitan area. • Determine the current distribution of Rainbow Lorikeet. • Increase awareness of this introduced pest species using our already established website and to design and distribute a brochure to educate people on the pest status of the Rainbow Lorikeet in Perth. • Determine the indigenous perspective on this pest species and significance of the birds possibly being impacted by it to the Nyoongar people. • Conduct a nectar feeder trial to see if these could be used as a species- specific control/sterility delivery system. • Collate information about Palm Trees that provide nesting opportunities for lorikeets and the potential costs to reduce this nesting resource.

Results

Distribution

Rainbow Lorikeets are largely confined to urban areas in the Perth Metropolitan Area and its surrounds (Figure 2). They are found from Yanchep to Mandurah but are more densely populated in the inner metropolitan areas.

Figure 2: Locations of Birdata Rainbow Lorikeet records 1 Jan 2010 to 26 April 2018 and Aussie Backyard Bird Count data from 2016 and 2017. Roost Sites

To date a total of 50 roost sites have been confirmed and another three have been categorized as irregular roost sites. These are mapped in Figure 3 and listed in Appendix 1. Table 1 provides a guide to the number of roosts sites found in each local government area. The number of roosts per council area is largely related to the size of the council area and where active volunteers are located.

Figure 3: Rainbow Lorikeet Roost Sites active in 2018 (blue dots) and lorikeet records (black dots)

Table 1: Number of Roost sites confirmed active in February 2018 in each Local Government Area.

Local Government Number of Local Government Number of Area Roosts Area Roosts Confirmed Confirmed Armadale 4 Mandurah 1 Belmont 1 Melville 6* Cambridge 1 Mundaring 1 Cannington 2 Nedlands 3 Cockburn 4 Perth 1 Cottesloe 1 South Perth 1 East Fremantle 1 Stirling 3 Fremantle 2 Subiaco 1 Gosnells 1 Victoria Park 1 Joondalup 6* Vincent 1 Kalamunda 3 Wanneroo 2 Kwinana 3 *Some data skew due to where active volunteers were located

Counts

In 2016/17 a total of 31 roost sites were found and confirmed (BirdLife Western Australia 2017). From March 2017 an additional 24 roost sites were either reported to BirdLife Western Australia by community members or were found by the project contractor. During a 5-week period from 1 February 2018 until 7 March 2018, 65 volunteers counted lorikeets flying into roost trees before sunset at most known roost sites to assess the population of Rainbow Lorikeets in the Perth region. Volunteers counted a total of 16,523 lorikeets at 48 roost sites and a minimum total of 450 lorikeets were estimated to be present at another seven sites. Appendix 1 shows the counts at each roost site. This data accounts for approximately 17,000 lorikeets or about 40 percent of the current estimated population.

Further roost sites will be found and confirmed before the 2019 February roost count. It is expected to take several years until the counts start to reflect the actual population of lorikeets in the Perth area.

Table 2 and Figure 4 shows the roost size categories used and the number of roosts in each category for roost sites that were counted (i.e. not estimated) in the past two years. Figure 5 is a map of the roost sites and their categories.

The roosts with the highest counts were at Cottesloe, Cannington, Perth Airport and Canning Vale with counts of 5192, 3421, 1869, and 1742 lorikeets respectively.

Table 2: Roost size categories based on numbers of birds at roosts

Number of roosts in each category Number of lorikeets Category 2017 2018 1-50 1 7 17 51-150 2 9 10 151-500 3 6 13 501-1500 4 3 0 1501-5000 5 2 3 5001-15,000 6 0 1 Number of Roosts in Each Size Category 20

15

10

5 Number Roosts of 0 1-50 51-150 151-500 501-1500 1501-5000 5001-10000 Number of Lorikeet in Roost

2017 2018

Figure 4: Number of roosts of the different roost size categories for both 2017 and 2018.

Figure 5: Rainbow Lorikeet Roost Size Categories. Red=Category 6, Orange=Category 5, Yellow=Category 3, Green=Category 2 and Blue=Category 1.

Note: there was no Category 4 Roosts in 2018. Sound Meter Readings

During the roost counts the City of Armadale took a sound meter to the Seville Grove roost site to assess the noise caused by the Rainbow Lorikeets. This roost had 119 lorikeets roosting at the site. The noise meter used was a Bruel & Kjaer Type 2250.

The peak noise level was 100.7 dB. This is as loud as “Jet take-off (at 305 meters); use of outboard motor, power lawn mower, motorcycle, farm tractor, jackhammer, garbage truck; Boeing 707 or DC-8 aircraft at one nautical mile (6080 ft) before landing (106 dB); jet flyover at 1000 feet (103 dB); Bell J-2A helicopter at 100 ft (100 dB)”. (http://www.industrialnoisecontrol.com/comparative-noise-examples.htm)

At some of the larger roost sites the sound leaves ears ringing and it would be worth assessing the noise levels at these sites as they may pose a public health risk.

Aussie Backyard Bird Count

The BirdLife Australia Aussie Backyard Bird Count (https://aussiebirdcount.org.au/) was conducted across Australia in October 2017. This is an ongoing BirdLife project that was first conducted in October 2015. While not a part of the Operation Rainbow Roost project, it provides some information to the project.

A total of 2948 people participated in the 2017 count in Western Australia. The bird species with the highest number of counts nationally and within Western Australia was the Rainbow Lorikeet (see Appendix 2). While Rainbow Lorikeets are native species in other Australian states, only the related Red-collared Lorikeet is present naturally in Western Australia in the far north of the state. In total 13,023 Rainbow Lorikeets were counted during the Aussie Backyard Bird Count in Western Australia. The next most commonly counted species in Western Australia was the New Holland Honeyeater with 9,860 counted. Rainbow Lorikeets outnumbered New Holland Honeyeaters which are a very common and abundant locally native species with a much larger distribution in Western Australia.

Rainbow Lorikeets have had the highest number of counts in Western Australia in all the three years that the Aussie Backyard Bird Count has been conducted.

Breeding records

The Birdata database has few records of Rainbow Lorikeet breeding. However, many Birdata survey volunteers do not note breeding records. A total of 65 breeding records have been recorded between October 1998 and 26 April 2018. Figure 6 shows a histogram of these breeding records across each month of the year. This indicates that Rainbow Lorikeets have an extended breeding season which peaks in spring.

Rainbow Lorikeet Atlas Breeding Data 16 14 12 10 8 6

Numberofrecords 4 2 0

Figure 6: Number of Birdata Rainbow Lorikeet breeding records per month for October 1998 to 26 April 2018 Lorikeets roost at their nesting site during the breeding season and roost sites have fewer Rainbow Lorikeets present. In 2016/17 several roost sites were counted at different times of the year. The reduction of lorikeets roosting during the breeding period was noticeable at sites where counts were repeated at different times of the year. Figure 7 shows the results of repeated roost counts at a roost site in Canning Vale and Figure 8 shows the results of repeated roost counts at a roost site in Cottesloe.

Roost Counts at RRGOSCNV001 1600 1429 1400

1200

1000

800 575 557 600

400

NumberofLorikeets Counted 200 11 0

Figure 7: Roost counts from Canning Vale between March 2016 and March 2017.

Roost Counts at RRCOTCOT001 4000 3567 3500

3000 2755

2500

2000

1500

1000 777

NumberofLorikeets Counted 500

0

Figure 8: Roost counts from Cottesloe between March 2016 and March 2017

Figure 9: This Rainbow Lorikeet took over a Striated Pardalote nesting hollow (Photograph by Bill Betts)

Figure 10: Rainbow Lorikeet emerging from a nest hollow (photograph by Ken Glasson)

Nectar Feeder Trial

In 2017/18 a trial was conducted within 10 kilometers of 3 major roost sites to see what birds would visit Nectar Feeders. BirdLife asked for volunteers to host and maintain a nectar feeder for a four-week period during January to March 2018. This request specifically asked for people who had fenced properties that were within 10 kilometers of the Cottesloe, Carousel and Edgewater roosts. The initial call for volunteers indicated that there were more interested volunteers at the Edgewater and Carousel sites and so these were the focus of the trial. However, some sites at the Cottesloe site were also included.

Host sites were chosen within each of five zones surrounding the roost site (Table 3). Sites were also selected that had a better spread from the roost, although many volunteers were in a similar direction from the roost at some sites or zones. The sites hosted the feeders either for a four-week period in January or a four-week period in mid-February to mid-March. This timing was chosen as it is when Rainbow Lorikeets are attending roost sites.

While most sites were urban backyards, there were also three within bushland settings and one was at a primary school situated next to bush.

Table 3: Number of sites used in each nectar feeder trial zone

Zone Carousel Joondalup Cottesloe

0 to 2 km zone 2 1 2

2 to 4 km zone 2 2 1

4 to 6 km zone 2 2 1

6 to 8 km zone 2 2 0

8 to 10 km zone 2 2 0

Each feeder was filled with a standard sugar and water mixture comprising half a cup of sugar which was made up to one liter with water. The feeders were placed on a stand on a star picket with a camera trap also on the stand to photograph all birds visiting the feeders. Figure 11 and 12 shows the basic set up of the feeders. This design was used to reduce false triggers from the cameras due to the feeders swinging in a breeze etc. Most of the cameras were also placed facing a fence, wall or shed to also minimize false triggers. At one site the feeder was placed on a wooden rail that abutted a fruiting Lilli Pilli tree to see if the close proximity to these abundant fruits would assist in attracting birds.

The cameras used were all Little Acorn 5610 units which were set to camera mode with a 5-megapixel format selected. The cameras were set up using 35- degree shoot angle and a normal sensor trigger level. A 10 second delay was used between photographs.

Volunteers changed the sugar water mixture every week to minimize bacterial buildup. If the mixture had evaporated prior to this, it was also topped up. However, with the mild conditions during summer 2018 most sites only required weekly servicing. Each volunteer also reviewed the photographs and filled out a site details form which collated information about the site such as presence of fruiting trees, cats, dogs, birdbaths, etc.

As the early information from the trial participants indicated little use of the feeders, the participants were asked to add soft fruits such as grapes or plums to the feeder stand to attempt to attract Rainbow Lorikeets.

Figure 11: Nectar feeder and camera trap arrangement for the first four weeks of the trial (January 2018)

Figure 12: Nectar feeders in the second four weeks of the trial (mid-February to Mid- March) had larger drinking bowls

Results of Nectar Feeder Trial

Unfortunately, no lorikeets were photographed using the nectar feeders. Only one camera photographed a lorikeet on the stand and it appeared to be eating the fruit on the feeder stand rather than drinking from the feeder. However, several other birds were recorded perching on the feeder or drinking from the feeder.

Only five sites, or 22 percent of the sites, had birds photographed drinking from the feeder. Birds were photographed drinking at Carousel Zone 1 and 5, Edgewater Zone 2 and 5, and Cottesloe Zone 3. Only one of these was in the second trial period of mid-February to mid-March. Birds recorded drinking from the feeder included Singing Honeyeaters (5 sites), New Holland Honeyeaters (2 sites), and Red Wattlebirds (1 site). In all instances these nectivores returned regularly once they had first drunk from the feeder. Singing Honeyeaters were always the first to commence drinking from the feeder. Appendix 3 shows images of these birds drinking from the feeders.

Sixteen (75%) of the sites recorded birds perched on the feeder stand. Birds recorded perched included: Laughing Dove, Rainbow Lorikeet, Sacred Kingfisher, Laughing Kookaburra, Yellow-rumped Thornbill, Singing Honeyeater, New Holland Honeyeater, White-cheeked Honeyeater, Red Wattlebird, Australian Magpie, Magpie Lark, Grey Fantail, Grey Butcherbird, Willie Wagtail, and Silvereye. Appendix 3 shows images from each of the feeders.

Palm Tree Study and Maintenance Trial

The dead leaves of Cotton Palms and the stem bases of Date Palms provide nesting habitat for Rainbow Lorikeets. To date the only information we have about other species utilising this habitat for nesting is possibly Corella’s and Galahs. Corella’s have been introduced to Perth and Galah’s are an abundant species that introduced themselves to Perth after extensive clearing for agriculture improved food resources for them.

The DBCA has a fact sheet available (https://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/images/documents/plants- animals/animals/living-with-wildlife/introduced_rainbow_lorikeet_control.pdf) which asks residents to maintain palm tree in order to reduce potential nesting habitat.

BirdLife Western Australia were keen to pursue this non-lethal control measure further. A study of Palm Trees in Perth was conducted and a trial to estimate the cost per area of nesting habitat removed was completed.

BirdLife Western Australia sent letters to all councils within the range of the Rainbow Lorikeet in southwest Australia requesting that any Date Palms or Cotton Palms on council property be properly maintained to reduce lorikeet nesting opportunity. These letters included copies of the “Rainbow Lorikeet: A pretty powerful pest” brochure and the DBCA fact sheet about palm tree maintenance to reduce Rainbow Lorikeet breeding opportunity.

Palm Tree Study

The study of palm trees involved setting up a palm tree database of suburban Cotton Palms and Date Palms. This study involved a small sample within the metropolitan area. Palm tree data was collected from several widely spread suburbs. Initially this was done in situ, but it was soon realised that it was quicker to do this using google maps imagery.

Data collected for each palm included: • Date assessed • Type (e.g. Cotton Palm or Date Palm) • Number of palms • Was the palm leaves/stem bases maintained? • Land type (public or private) • Any lorikeet activity noted • Address of the palm tree/s • Location of palm (e.g. front yard or backyard) • Latitude and Longitude for mapping

Data were collected from 418 locations and totaled 861 palms in 28 suburbs. Date Palms are more likely to have a maintenance state that provided nesting habitat for Rainbow Lorikeets than Cotton Palms (Table 4).

Table 4: Summary of palm maintenance proportions from study

Number of palm Not maintained Maintained Total trees Number (%) Number (%) Date Palm 426 (89%) 51 (11%) 477 (55%) Cotton Palm 181 (47%) 203 (53%) 384 (45%) Total 607 (70%) 254 (30%) 861

The palms in the database were mapped (see Appendix 4). A major difficulty in the process was determining whether a date palm was maintained or not. In this study any date palm that had at least 60 cm of trimmed but unremoved stem bases were classed as unmaintained. However, even 60 cm of stem bases provides habitat for nesting lorikeets. In the entire study only a few date palms were found to have less than 30 cm of stem bases.

Palms were systematically mapped in 10 suburbs over a total of 1311 hectares. The systematically mapped areas were mostly near the large roost sites at Cottesloe, Carousel or Joondalup. However large areas were mapped in the City of Cockburn as they were interested in hosting and arranging the palm maintenance trial.

Over this entire systematically mapped area there were 508 cotton or date palms or 0.39 palms per hectare with 0.29 palms per hectare providing nesting habitat (unmaintained). Table 5 shows the breakdown of the number of maintained and unmaintained palms in each suburb. Table 6 shows a breakdown of the number of unmaintained and maintained palms per hectare. Overall there were 268 Date Palms with only 7% of these maintained and 240 Cotton Palms with 43% of these maintained.

The number of palms per hectare was highly variable (0.15 to 1.1 palms per hectare) across suburbs and factors such as block size, age of the suburb and council garden plant preferences all would have contributed to this.

Table 5: Systematically mapped palm tree data

Maintained Maintained Number Palms Suburb Unmaintained Unmaintained Hectares Date Cotton of per Mapped Date Palms Cotton Palms Palms Palms Palms Hectare

Bullcreek 87 0 10 15 13 38 0.44

Cannington 136 2 6 4 8 20 0.15

Cottesloe 208 4 45 22 4 75 0.36 Edgewater 57 0 6 4 12 22 0.39 Ferndale 234 2 30 20 40 92 0.39 Hamilton 303 3 39 13 22 77 0.25 Hill Lynwood 35 0 3 2 5 10 0.29 Munster 100 4 41 11 9 65 0.65 Spearwood 91 5 63 12 20 100 1.10 Wilson 60 0 5 0 4 9 0.15 Total areas 1311 20 248 103 137 508 0.39 fully mapped

Table 6: Systematically Mapped Palms per Area Mapped (Hectares)

Palms Palms per Palms per Areas Percent Percent Hectares per Hectare Hectare Mapped Maintained Unmaintained Hectare Maintained Unmaintained

Bullcreek 87 0.44 0.17 0.26 39% 61% Cannington 136 0.15 0.04 0.10 30% 70% Cottesloe 208 0.36 0.13 0.24 35% 65% Edgewater 57 0.39 0.07 0.32 18% 82% Ferndale 234 0.39 0.09 0.30 24% 76% Hamilton Hill 303 0.25 0.05 0.20 21% 79% Lynwood 35 0.29 0.06 0.23 20% 80% Munster 100 0.65 0.15 0.50 23% 77% Spearwood 91 1.10 0.19 0.91 17% 83% Wilson 60 0.15 0.00 0.15 0% 100% Total areas fully 1311 0.39 0.09 0.29 24% 76% mapped

Palm Tree Maintenance Trial

BirdLife Western Australia worked with the City of Cockburn and their tree maintenance contractor Beaver Tree Services to conduct a palm tree maintenance trial throughout the City of Cockburn on roadside verges. Initially the City of Cockburn and BirdLife put together a Media Release that was posted in the Cockburn Gazette (Appendix 5).

The aim was for 22 palm trees to be maintained at a cost of $600 per palm, each being met by $200 from the BirdLife WA/SNRM grant, $200 from Beaver Tree Services and $200 from the resident. However only one resident contacted the City of Cockburn. If this methodology was used in future it would be better to directly contact residents with suitable palms for maintenance or do more extensive publicity about the offer.

The City of Cockburn and Beaver Tree Services maintained a total of 22 palms for the trial. These were palms which were all on resident verges. These were identified by City of Cockburn environmental and parks staff and BirdLife. As these were on council verges the City of Cockburn wrote to residents informing them that the maintenance would occur at no cost to the residents within a week of receiving the letter. The palms were then pruned by Beaver Tree Services at a cost of $200 per palm from the BirdLife WA/SNRM grant, at $200 per palm by Beaver Tree services and the remaining $4840 was funded by the City of Cockburn.

This trial reduced approximately 138 m2 of potential nesting habitat at a cost of $9240. This provides a cost per area of nesting habitat removed of $67 per m2.

Aboriginal Consultation

Nyoongar elder Dr Noel Nannup provided an indigenous perspective on this pest species and the indigenous significance of the birds possibly being impacted by it. Dr Nannup’s advice is provided in Appendix 6 and a summary is provided below.

Nyoongar culture is very welcoming of newcomers to their country and this includes the Rainbow Lorikeet, however, he and elders he has spoken to feel the Rainbow Lorikeet population ought to be kept down to reduce the disturbance to local species. All local native species are important to Nyoongar people, as they belong to a Totemic system that has been fastidiously maintained over many thousands of years.

Perth Rainbow Lorikeet Knowledge Survey

In April 2018 BirdLife Western Australia set up a voluntary survey for residents of Perth and members of BirdLife to share their knowledge of the Rainbow Lorikeets present in Perth.

The survey was conducted as many people over the past two years had related their knowledge of the lorikeets arrival and spread in Perth and interactions involving lorikeets and other birds. It was impossible to document these pieces of information in an informal manner; however, a survey would allow that knowledge to be compiled more easily.

A google docs form was set up and the link was distributed by the BirdLife Western Australia e-news, emails to the Rainbow Lorikeet project volunteer group and 25-year members of Birdlife, and by Facebook. A total of 374 people filled out the survey form. A copy of the form is in Appendix 7.

The survey results showed that 76% of submitters had lived in the Perth area for 20 or more years (Figure 13) and 83% took a keen interest in birds (Figure 14). Just over half of the survey participants noted that Rainbow Lorikeets were one of the most common species in their local area (Figure 15).

How many years have you lived in Perth?

40+ years 20-40 years 10-20 years 5-10 years 0-5 years

5% 7%

12% 41%

35%

Figure 13: Number of Years survey submitters had lived in Perth

How much notice of the birds in your area do you take?

A keen interest A passing interest other

2% 15%

83%

Figure 14: Survey submitters level of interest in birds.

Are Rainbow Lorikeets one of the most common birds in your neighbourhood?

Yes No Other

11%

52% 37%

Figure 15: Rainbow Lorikeet Observed Abundance

Have you noticed Rainbow Lorikeets interacting with native birds?

Yes No Maybe

8%

40%

52%

Figure 16: Observed interactions with other birds

Interactions between Rainbow Lorikeets and native bird species had been noticed by 40% of participants (Figure 16). Interactions were varied but included: • Fighting over nesting hollows and nest boxes with Galahs, parrots, and other birds; • Lorikeets taking over trees or roost sites; • Lorikeets driving off other birds (particularly cockatoos, corellas, Galahs, honeyeaters and wattlebirds) from flowering plants and vice versa; • Groups of lorikeets chasing other species including Galahs, corellas, and even a Brown Goshawk; • Australian Ravens and Laughing Kookaburra’s raiding Rainbow Lorikeet nests; • And interacting with other species in a friendly way.

Overall comments about interactions were about Rainbow Lorikeets being aggressive or detrimental to other species. Some comments have been quoted in Appendix 8.

One third of survey participants had observed local native species had disappeared since Rainbow Lorikeets had arrived in their local area (Figure 17). Species noted as disappearing included: Australian Ringneck (60 people), Red- capped Parrots (14 people), Honeyeaters (8 people) and Western Rosella’s (8 people). Another 17 species or bird types were reported as disappearing since the arrival of the Rainbow Lorikeet by 5 or less people (Figure 18).

Have you noticed that some birds have disappeared since lorikeets arrived in your area?

Yes No

31%

69%

Figure 17:Observed loss of species in surveyor’s local area

Which birds have you noticed disappear?

Cuckoos Robins Whistlers Yellow-throated Miner Doves Kingfishers Wrens Magpie Cuckoo-Shrikes Elegant Parrot Western Spinebill Wattlebirds small birds Galah Silvereye Purple-crowned Lorikeets Black Cockatoo's Western Rosella Honeyeaters Red-capped Parrot Australian Ringneck 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Number of people reporting species disappeared from local area

Figure 18: Species observed to have disappeared from surveyor’s local area

A larger number of people (43%) noticed that some species had declined in abundance since the Rainbow Lorikeet arrived in their local area (Figure 19). Species noted as declining included: Australian Ringneck (86 people), honeyeaters (52 people), Red-capped Parrot (35 people), Galah (31 people), black-cockatoos (21 people), small birds (19 people) and wattlebirds (12 people) Another 16 species or bird types were reported as declining since the arrival of the Rainbow Lorikeet (Figure 20). Are some birds less common since lorikeets arrived in your area?

Yes No Maybe

30% 43%

27%

Figure 19:Observed reduction in native species

Which birds have you noticed are less common?

Purple-crowned Lorikeets Elegant Parrot Yellow-throated Miner Robins Rainbow Bee-eaters Western Spinebill Whistlers Regent Parrots Pigeons Pardalotes Ravens Doves Wrens Silvereye Western Rosella Magpie Larks Cuckoo-Shrikes Kingfishers or Kookaburras Magpie Owls Wattlebirds small birds Black Cockatoo's Galah Red-capped Parrot Honeyeaters Australian Ringneck

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of people who observed a species abundance had reduced

Figure 20: Species of birds which surveyors had noticed declining in abundance The participants had often lived in more than one council area during their time in Perth (Figure 21).

Have you always lived in the same council area?

Yes No Other

15%

33%

52%

Figure 21: Surveyors Fidelity of Council Area

Most people found out about the survey from Facebook posts or from an email from Birdlife Western Australia (Figure 22).

How did you find out about this survey?

Email from BirdLife Facebook BirdLife WA Newsletter From a friend Other

5%1% 9% 34%

51%

Figure 22: Method people were informed of survey availability

Figure 23 shows the numbers of survey participants for each council area. This shows a wide number of localities where represented. Number of Survey Submitters per Council 0 10 20 30 40 50

Armadale Bassendean Bayswater Belmont Busselton Cambridge Canning Claremont Cockburn Cottesloe East Fremantle Fremantle Gosnells Joondalup Kalamunda Kwinana Mandurah Melville Mosman Park Mundaring Murray Nedlands Perth Rockingham Serpentine-Jarrahdale South Perth Stirling Subiaco Swan Toodyay Victoria Park Vincent Wanneroo

Figure 23: Distribution of people submitting surveys

Increasing Awareness of the pest status of Rainbow Lorikeet

A number of different media were used to increase awareness of this introduced pest species to members of BirdLife and the general public (Appendix 9). The media used were: • BirdLife Operation Rainbow Roost Website (http://www.birdlife.org.au/projects/operation-rainbow-roost) which included a Google docs form to report Rainbow Lorikeets. • Facebook posts by BirdLife Western Australia. • Articles in BirdLife Western Australia’s e-news. • A media release with the City of Cockburn (Appendix 5) • A Rainbow Lorikeet Knowledge survey was widely circulated and shared among BirdLife members and the general population from original emails, a BirdLife WA facebook post and from the BirdLife WA e-news.

In late 2018 a brochure “Rainbow Lorikeet: A pretty powerful pest” was designed and 5000 copies were printed. This brochure was aimed at raising awareness among the general population of Perth that Rainbow Lorikeets are a pest species. The brochures are available at the BirdLife Western Australia Office, DBCA (Kensington), and many council community brochure racks. Staff at DPIRD also distributed copies to outer metropolitan areas. A copy of the brochure is shown in Appendix 9 and is also available on our website at: http://www.birdlife.org.au/projects/operation-rainbow-roost/forms-downloads.

Volunteer effort

Volunteers contributed to the project in several different ways. These were: • Conducting bird surveys and entering the data into Birdata, • Reporting information to the Operation Rainbow Roost email and website form, • Conducting Rainbow Lorikeet roost counts, • Providing a site for the nectar feeder trial, • Filling out a survey about their knowledge of Rainbow Lorikeets

Operation Rainbow Roost was conducted from 1 April 2017 until end April 2018. During this time 672 Birdata surveys were entered with records of Rainbow Lorikeets within south Western Australia. Ninety-one of these surveys were over one day in duration and were not used in the survey statistics. The remaining surveys were: • on average 61 minutes long, • had a maximum survey time of 23 hours, • had a minimum survey time of 1 minute, • and a combined total survey time of 24 days (588 hours)

For the 91 longer surveys an estimate of 24 hours effort per survey was used as many of these surveys were weeklong surveys at the volunteer homes or workplaces and the survey time didn’t actually reflect the volunteer hours. Therefore, an additional 2184 hours of volunteer time was estimated as a total from these 91 longer surveys. In total the estimated volunteer time for Birdata surveys was calculated as 2772 hours.

A total of 83 people contacted Birdlife to provide information about lorikeets in southwestern Australia during Stage 1b of the project. It is estimated that each person provided 15 minutes of their time to email or telephone BirdLife. This equates to 21 hours.

A total of 2948 people also provided survey data to the Aussie Backyard Bird Count for BirdLife Australia. No estimate of time was included for the volunteer effort.

During the project, 69 roost counts were conducted by an average of 1.6 people per site with an average survey time of 39 minutes. It is estimated the average time the survey volunteers would have taken travelling to conduct the count was 40 minutes for a return journey. This brings the total estimated volunteer effort per survey to approximately 79 minutes. Therefore, the total volunteer effort for roost counts was estimated as 145 hours.

A total of 23 volunteers also hosted and maintained nectar feeders. Between them these 23 volunteers processed over 45,000 photographs. The total volunteer effort estimated for hosting the nectar feeders was 70 hours.

The Rainbow Lorikeet Knowledge survey was completed by 374 people. It is estimated that on average the surveys took five minutes to complete, representing a total of 31 hours of volunteer work.

In total the volunteer effort for the project is estimated to be 3039 hours. At a cost rate of $33 per hour this is estimated to represent $100,287.

The City of Cockburn also provided $4840 funding to the Palm Tree Maintenance trial. Beaver tree services also provided in kind funding of $4400.

Discussion

Distribution Since Rainbow Lorikeets were first released in Western Australia in the 1960’s the population and distribution of the species has increased rapidly (Chapman 2005). Figure 24 shows the historic distribution of the Rainbow Lorikeet increased from a small area west of the City of Perth in 1968 to the present distribution covering the area from Yanchep to Mandurah and East to Northam.

Figure 24: Historic Rainbow Lorikeet Distribution (Department of Agriculture and Food, WA)

In 2005, Chapman estimated that the population of Rainbow Lorikeet was 8,400, covered an area of 174 km2 and was expanding its range at 0.7 km per year. In April 2017 the Rainbow Lorikeet was estimated to cover an area of 2950 km2 (BirdLife Western Australia 2017). The distribution has changed little in the past year.

Figure 25 compares the map of Birdata and Aussie Backyard Bird Count records between those reported in the last years report and this current report. The main differences in the two sets of data are an increase in the number of records over the whole distribution and a noticeable increase in records in the southern Darling Scarp foothills near Jarrahdale where a sub population is increasing. This Jarrahdale subpopulation is being actively controlled by DPIRD.

Figure 25: Comparison of Rainbow Lorikeet Distribution between March 2017 to April 2018

In 2013 the population was estimated at 20,000 (DEC and DAFWA 2013) and this estimate was increased to 40,000 (Reeves and Scourse 2015 citing Ron Johnstone).

During this time control activities have been conducted by fruit growers, DBCA and DPIRD. Between 2007 and 2013 a total of 35,424 lorikeets were culled (DEC and DAFWA 2013). Further culling has occurred since 2013 by fruit growers and government agencies.

BirdLife databases and local birdwatchers have documented the spread of the Rainbow Lorikeet across the suburbs of Perth. The BirdLife WA database shows Rainbow Lorikeets were first recorded at Lake Joondalup in 1991 and personal survey data shows they reached Edgewater in 1992 (Neil Hamilton pers. comm.). During the February 2016 roost counts a single roost in Edgewater had at least 1005 Rainbow Lorikeets present. Other roosts nearby also hosted Rainbow Lorikeets.

Other first records for various suburbs are shown in Table 7.

Table 7: First records of Rainbow Lorikeet at locations across Perth Northern First Record Southern First Record Suburbs Suburbs Herdsman Lake Prior to 1989* Alfred Cove 1990* Lake Joondalup 1991* Blue Gum Lake 1994* Eastern Suburbs First Record Bibra Lake 1995* Ray Marshall Park Prior to 1999* Yangebup Lake 2000* Bickley Brook 2002* Kogolup Lake 2002* Ellis Brook 2002* Thomson’s Lake 2007* Bungendore 2012* Wellard Wetlands 2008* Gooseberry Hill 1995# Lake McLarty 2014* *=BirdLife WA database # = records of Michael Brooker Figure 26 shows the increasing presence of Rainbow Lorikeets in Gooseberry Hill as recorded during weekly surveys by Michael Brooker. The slight reduction of presence between 2009 and 2014 corresponds with the period that DBCA and DPIRD controlled over 35,000 lorikeets in Perth. However, the culling may not be the only contribution to this reduction.

Rainbow Lorikeet Presence in Weekly Surveys at a house in Goosberry Hill 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20

Percent Percent weekly of surveys 10 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Year

Figure 26: Increase in Rainbow Lorikeet presence in Gooseberry Hill (M. Brooker pers. comm.)

BirdLife Western Australia volunteers are currently inputting many other weekly home surveys into Birdata so that data from other locations can similarly be reviewed for changes in lorikeet presence.

Counts

The February 2017 and February 2018 roost counts provide baseline data for future assessment of the Rainbow Lorikeet population. In February 2017 a total of 13,500 lorikeets were counted at 31 roost sites and in February 2018 a total of 16,523 lorikeets at 48 roost sites and a minimum total of 450 lorikeets were estimated to be present at another seven sites. However, many more roost sites need to be found and counted.

Previous data on counts of Rainbow Lorikeets include: • February 2008 count at Perth Airport by DPIRD of 4154 and in February 2009 of 3984 lorikeets (DPIRD pers. comm.) • BirdLife counted 1969 to 2019 Rainbow Lorikeets across Perth in October 2002 during a Rainbow Lorikeet Census (Edwards 2002)

With many roosts to be found in the northern suburbs, eastern suburbs and areas south of the City of Cockburn it is likely the next roost count will be closer to the population estimate of 40,000+ lorikeets (Reeves and Scourse 2015 quoting Ron Johnstone). Further publicity and work finding roost sites will enable a better understanding of the population and areas of larger density of the species.

There appears to be a geometric pattern in the locations of roost sites with sites approximately 5 kilometers apart. While this pattern is not consistent across the Perth region it may be useful in identifying other roost sites. Figure 27 shows all the confirmed roost sites and their categories with 5-kilometer buffers around roost sites from Category 2 to 6 (i.e. sites containing 51 to greater than 5000 Rainbow Lorikeets – see Table 2 for the size categories). Often roost sites are located on the buffer line of the adjacent roost site. This somewhat orderly nature of larger roost site locations may be related to geographical features, food resources and feeding distances.

Figure 27: Roost Sites with 5 km buffers around category 2 to 5 roosts. Rainbow Lorikeet Roost Categories: Red=Category 6, Orange=Category 5, Yellow=Category 3, Green=Category 2 and Blue=Category 1. No roosts in category 4 in 2018.

Breeding Records

Relatively few breeding records have been recorded in the Birdata database since 1998. It appears that few users of the database report breeding records. Further publicity to encourage users to record breeding events should enable a better picture of breeding timing and locations.

In Perth, Rainbow Lorikeets are known to nest in eucalypt hollows and in the dead leaves and frond bases of Cotton Palm and Date Palm according to Chapman and Massam (2006) and Higgins (1999) (citing Lamont 1996). In other parts of Australia, they are known to nest in Eucalyptus, Angophora or Melaleuca trees and artificial sites (Higgins 1999). During this project several Rainbow Lorikeets were seen nesting in artificial nest boxes.

It is believed that the species is monogamous and probably pair for life and that the pairs remain close to each other at all times (Higgins 1999). This is noticeable at roost sites where most birds arrive in pairs. Captive birds are sexually mature at 18 to 24 months old (Higgins 1999 quoting Sindel). Clutch sizes ranch from 2 to 4 but usually 2 (Higgins 1999).

Impacts of Rainbow Lorikeets

The introduction of Rainbow Lorikeets to Perth has resulted in many impacts. These include: • A threat to the locally declining Red-capped Parrot, Western Rosella and Australian Ringneck from nesting hollows competition. They are known to kill the nestlings of other species (Chapman 2005). • Threats to the endangered Carnaby’s Black-Cockatoo, Forest Red-tailed Black-Cockatoo and Baudin’s Black-Cockatoo (http://birdlife.org.au/projects/southwest-black-cockatoo-recovery) due to flow on nest hollow displacement by the other parrot or cockatoo species (Ron Johnstone per. comm.) and food competition, as Rainbow Lorikeets eat seeds, including those from pine trees. • Threats to nectar feeding birds and other animals due to food competition. • Potential to spread bird diseases including psittacine beak and feather disease to native bird species (Chapman and Massam 2006, DEC and DAFWA 2013). • Damage to private and commercial fruit crops (Chapman 2005, Chapman and Massam 2006). DPIRD estimate Rainbow Lorikeets damage approximately $3 million worth of commercial fruit crops each year in south west Australia (Cook 2014). • Damage to infrastructure, fouling and damage to private and public amenities (Chapman 2005, Chapman and Massam 2006). • The large roost of over 1000 birds at Perth airport may also pose a risk of bird-strike to aircraft (Chapman 2005, Chapman and Massam 2006).

The impact of the Rainbow Lorikeet on locally native species is difficult to quantify. A major difficulty is that differences in species presence over time may be due to multiple factors including the degree of urbanisation, Rainbow Lorikeet presence and other factors.

Data from the Birdata database indicates that the Red-capped Parrot has declined while the Rainbow Lorikeet continues to increase in number and range. Figure 28 shows that in the historic distribution area of the Rainbow Lorikeet from the late 1960’s there are currently very few records of Red-capped Parrot presence. It is likely that a combination of urbanisation and the long-term presence of Rainbow Lorikeet in this area west of the City of Perth have impacted the Red-capped Parrot population. Both species nest in tree hollows. Davis et al (2013) completed a study of the impact of urbanization on the avifauna of Perth and reported that the Red-capped Parrot is sensitive to urbanization as it was moderately common in vegetated landscapes but uncommon in suburban areas. This study found that Red-capped Parrots required a minimum of 23% native vegetation and 34% total vegetation within a 2 km radius of a survey site (Davis et al 2013).

Long term residents in this area have reported that Red-capped Parrot was previously present in areas such as Nedlands but have not been seen in recent years. People who have reported the loss of this species feel that the Rainbow Lorikeet has driven the local parrot species out of this area (S. Mather pers. comm.). Many people made comments in the Rainbow Lorikeet Knowledge survey that Rainbow Lorikeets chase off and take over nest hollows used by local native parrots. It appears that the Red-capped Parrots sensitivity to urbanization together with the aggression of Rainbow Lorikeets at nest hollows has impacted this species presence in inner urban areas.

Figure 28: Birdata Rainbow Lorikeet (left) and Red-capped Parrot (right) records 1998- 2016 (Note there are fewer records in regional areas due to fewer volunteers doing surveys)

A comparison of the abundance of selected birds in the Perth Metropolitan Area was conducted comparing data in the Birdata database from 1998 to 2004 with data from 2010 to 2016 (Appendix 11). The Birdata database shows that across Perth the numbers of Rainbow Lorikeets are rapidly increasing across most of the Perth Metropolitan area. In comparison, the numbers of Red-capped Parrots, Australian Ringnecks and Sacred Kingfishers are decreasing in most of the urban parts of the metropolitan area. These birds all nest in tree hollows with a similar size to those used by Rainbow Lorikeets. Striated Pardalotes are increasing across most of the metropolitan area. This species nest in smaller hollows than Rainbow Lorikeets and is an insectivorous bird. This increase in Striated Pardalotes indicates that urbanisation is not the only impact to urban birds. Comparatively the declines of the direct nest hollow competitors to Rainbow Lorikeets, such as Red-capped Parrots, is suggestive that these are being impacted by the presence of Rainbow Lorikeets.

Honeyeaters and wattlebirds compete with Rainbow Lorikeets for food resources. Some of these species (Singing Honeyeater, Brown Honeyeater, and White- cheeked Honeyeater) are showing declining abundance in the urban parts of the metropolitan area, while the New Holland Honeyeater is increasing in abundance. The change in abundance of Red Wattlebird and Western Wattlebird appears much more complex with mixed areas of decline and areas of increase (Appendix 11).

The data suggests that the Rainbow Lorikeet has reached close to peak densities in the inner Perth and northwestern inner suburbs, while they continue to rapidly increase in density in the outer urban areas. It seems likely that in the near future the local parrots will become locally extinct in the inner metropolitan areas, as they have rapidly declined in the past decade, and will possibly start to rapidly decline in the outer metropolitan areas as lorikeets increase to peak densities in those outer areas.

It is interesting that several species that Davis et al (2013) classified as being very common in urban and vegetated environments (classification 5) and as an urban specialist (classification 6) have decreased in the metropolitan area (Table 8). These include the Singing Honeyeater (classification 6), Australian Ringneck (classification 5), and Brown Honeyeater (classification 5). While this is suggestive that these species are being affected by factors other than urbanisation it is difficult to determine what these factors are without conducting a research project aimed at determining the impact of other factors, such as the impact of Rainbow Lorikeet. Long term monitoring data such as the BirdLife Birdata database are extremely important tools for establishing patterns and identifying possible impacts.

Table 6: Changes in selected nectivore and hollow nesting bird species across the metropolitan areas of the Swan Coastal Plain.

Species Inner Metropolitan Areas Outer Metropolitan Areas Increasing Hollow nesting birds Hollow nesting birds Rainbow Lorikeet Rainbow Lorikeet New Holland Honeyeater (1) Striated Pardalote (2) Striated Pardalote (2) Spotted Pardalote (4)

Nectivores Nectivores Red Wattlebird (5)

No or little Hollow nesting birds change Red-capped Parrot (1)

Nectivores Red Wattlebird (5)

Decreasing Hollow nesting birds Hollow nesting birds Australian Ringneck (5) Australian Ringneck (5) Red-capped Parrot (1) Sacred Kingfisher (4)

Nectivores Nectivores Brown Honeyeater (5) Brown Honeyeater (5) Singing Honeyeater (6) New Holland Honeyeater (1) White-cheeked Honeyeater (3) White-cheeked Honeyeater (3) Singing Honeyeater (6) Western Spinebill (1) Western Wattlebird (1) Insufficient Hollow nesting birds Hollow nesting birds Data Elegant Parrot (4) Elegant Parrot (4) Western Rosella (4) Western Rosella (4) Sacred Kingfisher (4) Spotted Pardalote (4) Nectivores

Nectivores Western Spinebill (1) Western Wattlebird (1) Note: the number in brackets is the classification attributed by Davis et al 2013 where: 1= moderately common on sites in vegetated landscapes but uncommon on suburban sites (species sensitive to urbanisation), 2 = common in vegetated landscapes and moderately common on suburban sites, 3 = common species that frequent open spaces and eco-tones, including parks and gardens but were slightly less common in vegetated landscapes, 4 = rarely recorded species, 5 = very common in both urban and vegetated landscapes and 6 = urban specialist more common in urbanised environment than vegetated environments.

DPIRD estimate that Rainbow Lorikeet damage approximately $3 million worth of commercial fruit crops each year in south west Australia (Cook 2014). DPIRD are controlling lorikeets to a containment line (Figure 1) to ensure that the species does not establish within the major fruit production areas of the south west such as Margaret River.

Rainbow Lorikeet Management

In 2005 Chapman recommended a Rainbow Lorikeet management program should include the following objectives:

1. Investigate sources and obtain the funding to manage the population.

2. Estimate the number of birds in the Perth population, establish its distribution and locate major roost sites.

3. Alter the status of the Rainbow Lorikeet in south-west Western Australia so that it is a declared pest in the metropolitan area (alter to A2; ‘subject to eradication in the wild’ south of the 20th parallel of latitude, and A5; ‘numbers to be reduced/controlled’ in the Perth metropolitan area).

4. Investigate methods of population reduction in the metropolitan area and document their effectiveness.

5. Educate the public on the impacts of Rainbow Lorikeets and the need for control.

6. Eradicate Rainbow Lorikeets that are sighted outside the metropolitan area.

7. Investigate and document the effectiveness of methods for the mitigation of agricultural damage.

8. Conduct a cost/benefit analysis of the damage caused by Rainbow Lorikeets and lorikeet control.

9. Develop a molecular approach to population control and management.

10. Review standards for the import and keeping of Rainbow Lorikeets to reduce the risk of aviary escapes.

(extract from Chapman 2005)

Many of these actions have been addressed or have commenced. The present work undertaken in this report addressed recommendations 2, 4 and 5.

BirdLife conducted research into the potential use of nectar feeders near to roost sites during this current project. The aim was to test the efficacy of the method in the potential delivery of a control or sterility agent. Unfortunately, no lorikeets visited the nectar feeders and several feeders were regularly visited by native honeyeaters and other nectivores (non-target species). It is possible that a different nectar feeder set up may result in lorikeets using the feeders. Placing the feeders up in the tops of roost trees or pre-roost trees may result in Rainbow Lorikeets using the feeders and dominating them at sunset and sunrise. However, it seems unlikely that restricting use of feeders by other local native species could be achieved without considerable effort to monitor and install then remove feeders at different times of day.

In 2006 DPIRD altered the declared status of the Rainbow Lorikeet as recommended by (Chapman 2005), to also include the Perth metropolitan area Massam & Wright 2008). The current status of the Rainbow Lorikeet can be found in the Western Australian Organism List at https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/bam/western-australian-organism-list-waol.

Figure 29 Rainbow Lorikeet Pest Status on 27/4/17 (https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/organisms/118586?search_string=Rainbow%20lorikeet &per-page=20&sort-by=taxon&order-by=asc) NOTES: C1 - Exclusion / Exempt: Organisms which should be excluded from part or all of Western Australia. C3 - Management / Exempt: Organisms that should have some form of management applied that will alleviate the harmful impact of the organism, reduce the numbers or distribution of the organism or prevent or contain the spread of the organism.

Anyone who owns a Rainbow Lorikeet is required to have a DBCA Avicultural License.

BirdLife Australia has two policies relevant to pest species management. These are the Invasive Species Policy and the Pest Bird Management Policy (http://birdlife.org.au/conservation/advocacy/policies). The Invasive Species Policy states that “BirdLife Australia supports control of invasive fauna by lethal means (e.g. culling) where proven necessary to protect biodiversity or native ecosystems provided that controls are undertaken within the appropriate legal frameworks, are humane, and designed to be effective and lasting.”. The Pest Bird Management Policy states that “BirdLife Australia supports efforts to limit the negative impacts on native biodiversity of pest species, including birds, whether introduced or native.”.

However, these statements are qualified with: • Using an “evidence-based approach to defining and controlling the social, economic and environmental impacts of pest species and supports research aimed at providing that evidence.” • Using a “planning approach within existing regulatory frameworks. This should be based on science and community participation to manage wildlife populations in the context of their environment – both natural and anthropogenic.” • And “Pest bird management should focus on identifying and managing impacts to acceptable levels and involve ethical considerations.”

As such BirdLife Western Australia recommends further research into assessing the impacts of the Rainbow Lorikeet on native bird species and non-lethal management options. But it is also supportive of control measures being undertaken by government organisations and fruit growers if these control measures are within appropriate legal frameworks, are humane and designed to be effective and lasting.

One method of potentially reducing the increase in the Rainbow Lorikeet population is to reduce breeding sites, such as palm frond bases that are believed to not be used by local native species. DBCA has a factsheet on proper maintenance of palm fronds to reduce lorikeet nesting opportunities (www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/plants-and-animals/animals/living-with-wildlife). Rainbow Lorikeets nest in the bases of fronds of some species of palm as well as tree hollows (Chapman and Massam 2006). Management actions such as palm maintenance will aid in reducing breeding opportunity and help limit population increases.

Birdlife Western Australia posted letters to Environmental Managers at each council within the current distribution of the Rainbow Lorikeet in Southwest Australia informing them of this non-lethal control option. Birdlife have advocated that any palm trees on council land ought to be properly maintained to reduce lorikeet nesting habitat or ideally the palm removed all together (to reduce the need for long-term and costly maintenance). BirdLife Western Australia have also discussed this control option with the Management of Kings Park and Bold Park.

This project conducted a study of palm trees in the Perth Metropolitan area. This study included systematically mapping palms in 10 suburbs over a total of 1311 hectares. Over this entire systematically mapped area there were 508 cotton or date palms or 0.39 palms per hectare with 0.29 palms per hectare providing nesting habitat (unmaintained). Overall there were 268 date palms with only 7% of these maintained and 240 cotton palms with 43% of these maintained. This result suggests that Date Palms are more difficult to maintain by gardeners.

In April 2017 Rainbow Lorikeet was estimated to cover an area of 2950 km2 or 295, 000 hectares (BirdLife Western Australia 2017). If the palm study of 1311 hectares is representative of the area Rainbow Lorikeets inhabit then there are an estimated 85, 550 unmaintained palm trees that provide nesting habitat to Rainbow Lorikeets across their range. In August 2018 a pair of Long-billed Corellas were seen at Lake Monger excavating a nest in unmaintained date frond stems. Thus, more than one introduced species is using unmaintained Date Palms for nesting habitat. The Long-billed Corella is a direct nesting competitor to the endangered Carnaby’s Black Cockatoo in tree hollows.

This aspect of control has been further investigated in this project with a residential palm tree maintenance trial conducted in the City of Cockburn. This trial reduced 138 m2 of potential nesting habitat at a cost of $9240. This provides a cost per area of nesting habitat removed of $67 per m2. The aim of the trail was to determine costs per area of nesting habitat removed. It is worth noting that this was quite a small trial but provides an estimate of cost efficiency.

Figure 30: Rainbow Lorikeets excavating nest hollow in partly maintained Date Palm stem bases

Conclusions and Recommendations Operation Rainbow Roost has successfully met the aims of the project. In this current project: • an additional 17 roost sites were found and counted, and an additional 7 sites were found and estimated. Since February 2018 further roost sites have been added to the roost database for the next roost count in February 2019. • The brochure Rainbow Lorikeet: A Pretty Powerful Pest has been distributed across Perth to increase knowledge of the pest status of the species and it’s impacts. • Indigenous advice was received about the indigenous viewpoint of this invasive species and the significance of local species that it is likely to be impacting. • A trial using nectar feeders was conducted to see what birds would feed at these feeders in areas near major Rainbow Lorikeet roosts. • The importance of Cotton and Date Palm tree maintenance was advocated to all councils within the Perth area and a palm tree maintenance trial was conducted in the City of Cockburn.

Since Rainbow Lorikeets were first released in Western Australia in the 1960’s the population and distribution of the species has increased rapidly (Chapman 2005, DEC and DAFWA 2013). This change in distribution has been documented in the Birdata database and BirdLife Western Australia bird database.

The sheer abundance of the species is evident during the annual BirdLife Aussie Backyard Bird Count. In total 11,897 Rainbow Lorikeets were counted during the Aussie Backyard Bird Count in Western Australia in 2016 and 13,023 were counted in 2017. The next most commonly counted species in Western Australia was the New Holland Honeyeater with 8,643 counted in 2016 and 9,860 counted in 2017. It is alarming that Rainbow Lorikeet outnumber the New Holland Honeyeater which is a very common and abundant locally native species with a much larger distribution in Western Australia than the lorikeets.

The following are recommendations arising from this report: i) Continued publicity and work to locate unknown lorikeet roost sites, preferably prior to the February 2019 roost count. ii) The roost count to occur again in February 2019 and to be trialed on one date (e.g. 15 February 2019) to provide more robust estimates of true lorikeet numbers. This may make it easier for volunteers to make a commitment to do a count, however if there are not enough volunteers available to do the counts, then uncounted sites can be counted in the weeks after the set count date. iii) BirdLife WA encourage Birdata users to report breeding records of Rainbow Lorikeet, because few breeding records have been recorded to date. iv) Further research to assess the impacts of Rainbow Lorikeet abundance on native species abundance. As it is difficult to determine the relative influence of land use change and lorikeet activity on declines of native bird species across Perth, it would be useful to also understand the impacts of urbanisation on birds by measuring and comparing changes in land use and urban density as Perth expands over time to changes in bird communities. v) Continued consideration, review and trial of control and non-lethal management options. BirdLife Western Australia recommend researching lorikeet use of artificial nest boxes and tree nesting hollows in the Perth Metropolitan Area. It is possible that the numerous nest boxes across Perth could be used to reduce Rainbow Lorikeet breeding success by the removal of eggs and chicks. BirdLife has recently put together a project proposal for funding to pursue this work in 2019. vi) Removal of Date Palms and Cotton Palms or proper maintenance be continued to be promoted to council, government and private land owners. The result of the palm maintenance trial with the City of Cockburn should be publicised to other councils as a potential system of reducing Rainbow Lorikeet nesting habitat. vii) BirdLife review Rainbow Lorikeet presence across Perth metropolitan areas once all the historical weekly surveys from a past project called the ‘Suburban Bird Survey’ have been inputted into Birdata. This may provide more information about increasing abundance and perhaps show if the culls completed 5 to 10 years ago did impact lorikeet presence in various sites across Perth. viii) Sound measurements be taken at large roost sites in conjunction with counts because it is likely that at some of the larger sites that the noise will be above recommended levels. If enough noise measurements are taken with associated counts at a number of roost sites it may be possible to use noise measurements to estimate roost numbers. If this can be done it would provide a better estimation method for sites where visually counting birds is difficult. ix) Rainbow Lorikeet Working group continues to meet to ensure options for future management and control of the species by DPIRD and DBCA occurs sooner rather than later. The working group was re-established in 2017 (BirdLife Western Australia 2017) to provide input to the project and ensure various agencies are up to date with research and management progress.

References BirdLife Western Australia (2017). Operation Rainbow Roost. May 2017. http://www.birdlife.org.au/projects/operation-rainbow-roost/forms-downloads

Chapman, Tamra (2005). The Status and Impact of the Rainbow Lorikeet (Trichoglossus Haematodus Moluccanus) in South-West Western Australia.

Chapman, Tamra and Massam, Marion (2006). Pest Notice: Rainbow Lorikeet.

Cook, David (2014). Agricultural Resource Risk Management: Strategic Report: Impact Assessments for Vertebrate Pests in Western Australia. Department of Agriculture and Food WA, Bunbury, 12 November 2014.

Davis, R.A., Gole, C. & Roberts, J.D. (2013). Impacts of urbanisation on the native avifauna of Perth, Western Australia. Urban Ecosyst (2013) 16: 427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-012-0275-y

Department of Environment and Conservation and Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia (2013). Introduced Corella and Rainbow Lorikeet Response Strategy 2013. Developed by the Department of Environment and Conservation and the Department of Agriculture and Food, WA.

Edwards, Karl (2002). Rainbow Lorikeet Census Results. Western Australian Bird Notes, 104, pp11-12.

Higgins, P.J. (Ed.) (1999). Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Volume 4. Parrots to Dollarbird. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Lamont, D.A. (1996). The changing status of the Rainbow Lorikeet, Trichoglossus haematodus (Linnaeus 1771), in southwestern Australia: its potential for range extension. Master of Science thesis, University of New England, Armidale. Unpublished thesis.

Massam, Marion, Sinclair, Ron and Mawson, Peter (2006). Pest Notice: Rainbow Lorikeet Control Options. December 2006.

Massam, Marion and Wright, Lisa (2008). On the lookout for lorikeets. Western Wildlife, 12, 2, p8.

Reeves, Andrew and Scourse, Brett (2015). Situation Statement: Rainbow Lorikeet. The Department of Agriculture and Food, WA. Appendix 1: February 2017 and 2018 Roost counts

Site code 2017 2018 RRARMARM001 150 71 RRARMKEL001 100 *100+ RRARMROL001 19 RRARMSEV001 *100+ 119 RRBELMOR001 39 RRBELASC001 0 RRBELPAI001 1072 1868 RRBELPAI00 0 RRCAMCIT001 13 10 RRCANCAN001 3093 3421 RRCANWIL001 256 75 RRCOCATW001 159 RRCOCCOO001 30 RRCOCJAN001 Not counted RRCOCJAN002 31 RRCOCSUC001 75 RRCOTCOT001 3567 5192 RREFREFR001 *30+ 200 RRFRESAM002 8 RRFRESFR001 15 RRGOSCNV001 1429 1742 RRGOSGOS001 100 0 RRJOOCON001 170 RRJOOCRA001 70 161 RRJOODUN001 238 210 RRJOOEDG001 1005 441 RRJOOHEA001 32 RRJOOKIN001 170 RRKALGOO001 9 RRKALKAL001 227 RRKALPIC001 25 RRKWIMED001 *50+ RRKWIMED002 *30+ RRKWINAV001 *100+ RRMANCOO001 20 RRMELARD001 354 402 RRMELLEE001 40 16 RRMELLEE002 *50+ RRMELATT001 *300 24 RRMELMEL001 94 80 RRMELWIL001 466 0 RRMELWIN001 9 40 RRMUNDAR001 41 57 RRNEDNED001 104 110 RRSOUSOU001 0 Not counted Site code 2017 2018 RRSOUSOU002 Not counted RRSOUSOU003 37 RRSTIBCT001 41 47 RRSTIKAR001 193 393 RRSTIKAR002 7 Not counted RRSTIINN001 53 41 RRSUBSUB001 214 RRVICBEN001 407 136 RRVICLAT001 10 Not counted RRVINLEE001 105 248 RRWANTAP001 *50+ 68 RRWANWAN001 450 Total Lorikeets counted 13,527+ 16973+ *=minimum estimate only Note roost sites names are derived from RR = Rainbow Roost, XXX = first three letters are a council abbreviation, YYY = second three letters are a suburb abbreviation and 00? = number for different roosts within the same suburb. For example, RRVICBEN001 is the first recorded roost site in Bentley suburb which is in Victoria Park council area.

Appendix 2: 2017 Aussie Backyard Bird Count Infographic

Appendix 3: Nectar Feeder Camera Images Birds Drinking from the Feeders

Above: New Holland Honeyeater (left) and Red Wattlebirds (right) at Zone 1 Carousel feeder Singing Honeyeaters were also photographed drinking nectar from this feeder

Left: Singing Honeyeater at Zone 5 Carousel feeder. This is the only feeder not set up on the standard star picket stage.

Left: Singing Honeyeaters at Zone 2 Edgewater feeder

Left: Singing Honeyeaters at Zone 5 Edgewater feeder

Above: New Holland Honeyeater (left) and Singing Honeyeaters (right) at Zone 3 Cottesloe feeder

Appendix 3: Nectar Feeder Camera Images

Birds Perched at Feeders or general image if no birds visited the feeder.

Carousel Zone 1 Jan 2018 Carousel Zone 1 Feb-Mar 2018

Carousel Zone 2 Jan 2018 Carousel Zone 2 Feb-Mar 2018

Carousel Zone 3 Jan 2018 Carousel Zone 3 Feb-Mar 2018

Carousel Zone 4 Jan 2018 Carousel Zone 4 Feb-Mar 2018

Carousel Zone 5 Jan 2018 Carousel Zone 5 Feb-Mar 2018

Edgewater Zone 1 Jan 2018 Edgewater Zone 1 Feb-Mar 2018

No site available

Edgewater Zone 2 Jan 2018 Edgewater Zone 2 Feb-Mar 2018

Edgewater Zone 3 Jan 2018 Edgewater Zone 3 Feb-Mar 2018

Edgewater Zone 4 Jan 2018 Edgewater Zone 4 Feb-Mar 2018

Edgewater Zone 5 Jan 2018 Edgewater Zone 5 Feb-Mar 2018

Cottesloe Zone 1 Jan 2018 Cottesloe Zone 1 Feb-Mar 2018

Cottesloe Zone 2 Jan 2018 Cottesloe Zone 2 Feb-Mar 2018

No site set up

Cottesloe Zone 3 Jan 2018 Cottesloe Zone 3 Feb-Mar 2018

No site set up

Appendix 4: Palm Tree Maps

Date palms Black = maintained Red=unmaintained (one point = 1-3 palms)

Cotton Palms Blue = maintained Orange=unmaintained (one point = 1-3 palms)

Systematically Mapped Areas

A dark grey polygon appears over each systematically mapped area. Colours fringing outside the polygons are nearly all from palms within the polygon. The systematically mapped areas were mostly near the large roost sites at Cottesloe, Carousel or Joondalup. However large areas were mapped in the City Of Cockburn as they were interested in hosting and arranging the palm maintenance trial.

Appendix 5: Media Release City of Cockburn to remove rainbow lorikeet nests

June 21st, 2018, 02:00PMWritten by Belinda Cipriano Cockburn Gazette NEWS

The rainbow lorikeet. Photo: BirdLife WA/Frank O’Connor

THE City of Cockburn will look to introduce a unique trial to reduce the nesting habits of the rainbow lorikeet.

Declared a pest in the metropolitan area, BirdLife WA surveys between 1998 and 2017 have revealed an increase in lorikeet populations at Bibra Lake and Yangebup Lake, with a simultaneous marked decline in local native parrot species such as the Australian ringneck (twenty eight), western rosella and red-capped parrot (king parrot).

The red-capped parrot. Photo: Birdlife WA/Ken Glasson

With BirdLife WA and Beaver Tree Services – the City’s contracted tree maintenance supplier – the program will offer a limited subsidised pruning service for selected date and cotton palms in the front yards of Spearwood and Hamilton Hill properties.

The trial to test the non-lethal control measure has been made possible with a State Natural Resource Management Program (SNRMP) grant to BirdLife WA.\

The Australian Ringneck. Photo: Birdlife WA/Maris Lauva

BirdLife WA Project Officer Robyn Pickering said the program involved trimming the dead leaf bases of selected date palms and the dead leaves of cotton palms on residents’ properties, which were a favourite nest site for rainbow lorikeets.

“The introduced lorikeets compete with native parrots for nesting hollows and food, and are known to kill the nestlings of other species,” she said.

“The birds were introduced to Perth in the 1960s and an estimated 40,000 now compete with local native parrot species which are on the decline.”

The Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development estimates rainbow lorikeets cause $3m damage to commercial fruit crops annually in the south west of Australia.

City of Cockburn Environment Manager Chris Beaton said the average cost to prune an easily accessible date or cotton palm was $600, but under the trial the cost per tree on residents’ properties would be only around $200 after the SNRMP grant and subsidy is provided by Beaver Tree Services. “This unique partnership between the community, the City, BirdLife WA and Beaver Tree Services will mean we can prune up to 22 palms in Spearwood and Hamilton Hill,” he said.

“If it’s successful, we hope to make the program available elsewhere in Cockburn, and perhaps eventually it can be adopted by other Perth councils.”

Interested Spearwood and Hamilton Hill residents with date and cotton palms in front yards with easy access for large trucks and mulching equipment, can email [email protected].

KNOW YOUR PARROT

Rainbow Lorikeet: Bright red beak, mauve head and belly, green wings, tail and back and an orange/yellow breast.

Australian Ringneck: Known as the Twenty Eight Parrot, it is mostly green, with a red frontal band.

Red-capped Parrot: Known as a King Parrot or Hookbill, these bright medium-sized birds have a distinctive long pale bill.

Western Rosella: Has a red or mottled red head, neck and underbody with a red and black or green and black back.

Appendix 6: A Nyoongar view of Rainbow Lorikeets in the Perth region

By Dr Noel Nannup December 2017

BirdLife WA’s current project consists of publicising the impact Rainbow Lorikeets have on native species. This includes assessing what species of native birds Lorikeets will compete with for food and nest sites, in residential areas such as those surrounding Edith Cowan University and Carousel Shopping Centre, promoting palm tree maintenance and conducting roost counts.

As part of this cultural advice to BirdLife Western Australia: I have drawn upon my own knowledge and experience and consulted with a number of other Nyoongar Elders, to seek their opinions on the introduced Rainbow Lorikeet and the cultural aspects of the local native species that are being displaced by this bird.

In general terms the Nyoongar culture is very accommodating to all newcomers to our country. So we are welcoming to Rainbow Lorikeets introduced to Perth in the 1960s just as we have also welcomed the arrival of Kookaburras in the late 1890s.

BirdLife Western Australia have asked if any bird species that are likely to be impacted by the Rainbow Lorikeet are of special cultural value.

All local native species are important to Nyoongar people, as they belong to a Totemic system that has been fastidiously maintained over many thousands of years.

The list of species potentially impacted includes: • other hollow nesters like: Australian Ringneck Parrot, Red-capped Parrot, Western Rosella, Carnaby’s Black Cockatoo, Baudin’s Black Cockatoo, Red-tailed Black-Cockatoo, Striated Pardalote, Spotted Pardalote, Nankeen Kestrel, Southern Boobook, Pacific Barn Owl and Sacred Kingfisher, Australian Wood Duck; • and birds that eat similar foods to lorikeets like: Red Wattlebird, Western Wattlebird, New Holland Honeyeater, White-Cheeked Honeyeater, Western Spinebill, Singing Honeyeater, Brown Honeyeater,

We the current day Custodians of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in the Southwest of Australia, are in a constant battle against laws, and policies that result in ground or vegetation disturbance.

The Elders that I have spoken with believe the only responsible outcome in this instance is a need to keep the numbers of Rainbow Lorikeets down.

We would like to thank Birdlife Western Australia for conducting the Operation Rainbow Roost Project, and to conclude it is unlikely that this project will have any adverse impact on sites of significance to Nyoongar culture. Appendix 7: Perth Residents Knowledge of Rainbow Lorikeets

BirdLife Western Australia is working with State Natural Resource Management, the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, and the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions to find out more about the Rainbow Lorikeets that have been introduced into the Perth area in the late 1960's. This survey aims to collate the combined knowledge of long term residents of Perth to learn more about the effects of the introduction and interactions between Rainbow Lorikeets and native birds.

How many years have you lived in Perth? * o ( ) 0-5 years o ( ) 5-10 years o ( ) 10-20 years o ( ) 20-40 years o ( ) 40+ years How much notice of the birds in your area do you take? * o ( ) A keen interest o ( ) A passing interest o ( ) Other: What council area or suburb do you live in? *

Have you always lived in the same council area? * o ( ) Yes o ( ) No o ( ) Other: What year did you first notice Rainbow Lorikeets in Perth?

Are Rainbow Lorikeets one of the most common birds in your neighbourhood? o ( ) Yes o ( ) No o ( ) Maybe If they are one of the most common birds in your neighbourhood, when did they start to become common there?

Have you noticed that some birds have disappeared since lorikeets arrived in your area? o ( ) Yes o ( ) No Which birds have you noticed disappear?

Are some birds less common since lorikeets arrived in your area? o ( ) Yes o ( ) No o ( ) Maybe Which birds have you noticed are less common?

Please write any comments you want to make about Rainbow Lorikeet presence in your area or Perth in general.

Have you noticed Rainbow Lorikeets interacting with native birds? o ( ) Yes o ( ) No o ( ) Maybe Please describe any interactions you have seen

Any other comments?

How did you find out about this survey? o ( ) Email from BirdLife o ( ) BirdLife WA Newsletter o ( ) Facebook o ( ) From a friend o ( ) Other:

We would like to quote some of the comments in our report. How would you want your name to appear with any of your comments? (e.g. Alyson Bird, Fremantle; A. Byrd, Fremantle, Alyson, Fremantle or Anonymous, Fremantle). The report will be available on our website when completed and able to be viewed by anyone. .

*answer required

Appendix 8: Some of the comments from the Rainbow Lorikeet Knowledge Survey.

“A few years ago, a pair of Red-capped Parrots nested in a hollow in an old tree on the border of Blue Gum Lake, Mt Pleasant. After a week, Rainbow Lorikeets had ousted the parrots and taken over the hollow. The Red-caps tried again the next year and the same thing happened, so they never tried again.” Valerie Hemsley, Booragoon

“Aggressively ganging up against native birds and driving them out of their nest sites” Nicky Collinson, Wembley

“A lorikeet harassing two newly fledged White-faced herons who were perched near their stick nest. The lorikeets had a hollow nearby. They flew at the young herons five or six times and they were dodging about trying to avoid them. I did not see them fly off.” Pam, Viveash.

“They are bossy at the bird bath and scare away any other birds. Also noticed them take over the nesting hollow of a pair of 28 parrots.” Lisa, Wanneroo “Rainbow Lorikeets have aggressively driven out all remaining Ringneck Parrots in the area.” Howard, Shenton Park

“Recently saw a RL (Rainbow Lorikeet) attack a raven.” Vanessa, Mt Lawley

“Territorial and aggressive around the seed we leave out on our bird tables. This behaviour is particularly problematic with galahs and ring-necks and the lorikeets will often chase the other birds away completely. Our magpies stand up to them!” M. Sinclair-Heddle, Boya.

“Currawongs killing one. Also crows killing one” Anonymous, Claremont

“I saw them competing with galahs and ringnecks for a nest hollow & won out. They won by numbers. One pair of ringnecks & one pair of galahs were beaten by 6 lorikeets. A friend in Queensland was feeding birds and the lorikeets would drive out all the other birds.” Wendy, Yangebup

“Chasing crows and magpies” Anonymous, North Beach

“They try roosting in the same trees as red cap parrots, were moved on by red caps as there were more red caps but lorikeets were much more aggressive” Anonymous, Mundaring

“The local raptors seem to like them...when they can catch them!” Anonymous, Applecross

“A pair of resident Red-Capped Parrots that nested at Booragoon Lake every year (for at least 5 years that I know of) were so badly harassed by Rainbow Lorikeets back in Autumn/Spring 2017 (while they were scoping out possible nesting hollows) that they eventually gave up and left, for good. One afternoon I witnessed a large group of Rainbow Lorikeets tackle the pair of Red-capped Parrots to the ground...sadly, that was the last time I saw them (back in 2017)” Thea, Melville

“Rainbow Lorikeets come to drink from my birdbaths daily. At times there are other species also at the baths. A single Rainbow Lorikeet won't confront other species at the bath but groups of 3 or 4 will. A group of Rainbow Lorikeets will keep species like Red Wattlebird and smaller honeyeaters away but will yield to Australian Magpie.” Anonymous, East Cannington

“I have observed Rainbow Lorikeets deterring other nectar-feeding birds, such as Wattlebirds and New Holland Honeyeaters, from nectar sources, and I have observed them driving native parrots and other birds from both artificial nest- boxes and from natural tree hollows. Interestingly, I did observe a small number of Purple-crowned Lorikeets, a species which I would assume to be out- competed by its feral counterpart, traveling and feeding with a flock of Rainbow Lorikeets, in Parkerville in 2012.” Simon Cherriman, Parkerville

“Kicked Galahs out of a tree hollow in Koondoola reserve” Anonymous, Wanneroo

“In our fig tree (when fruiting) they scare other smaller native birds.” Anonymous, Wembley

“Harassing black cockatoos” S. Monaco, Melville

Appendix 9: Awareness Raising/Media reports There were posts to BirdLife Western Australia Facebook page on 29/5/2017 (2 shares), 31/1/2018, (12 shares), 18/4/18 (31 shares).

Appendix 9 Awareness Raising/Media reports

BirdLife WA E-news BirdLife WA E-news

10/1/2018 & 24/1/2018 28/9/2017

Appendix 10: Rainbow Lorikeet: A pretty powerful pest brochure

Appendix 11: Comparison of species abundance in the Perth Metropolitan Area.

Below are maps showing a comparison of Birdata records from 2010-2016 to 1998-2004 including both 500m and 2 hectare survey types. Each dot represents a 5 minute square. Squares with less than 20 surveys in either of the time periods are not mapped. Western Spinebill, Elegant Parrot and Western Rosella were not mapped as they were recorded in less than 5% of all surveys.