Parental Feeding Behaviour of the Noisy Friarbird Philemon Comiculatus
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
AUSTRALIAN 226 McCULLOCH BIRD WATCHER AUSTRALIAN BIRD WATCHER 1990. 13. 226-230 Parental Feeding Behaviour of the Noisy Friarbird Philemon comiculatus by ELLEN M. McCULLOCH (Mrs), 6 Bulleen Avenue, Mitcham, Victoria 3132 Summary A two-day watch was kept on 30 December 1987 and I January 1988 at a nest of the Noisy Friarbird Philemon cornicularus containing four large, well-feathered nestlings at Licola in eastern Victoria. Contrasting weather on the two days enabled comparisons to be made on the frequency of visits to the nest and other behaviour. The nest was left unattended for 739 minutes on the fine day. and 632 minutes on the wet day (88 % and 75 % of observation time respectively, total 14 hours per day). The number of visits to the nest by the two adults ranged from 7 to 23 per 2 hours, average 8 per hour. One. two or three nestlings were fed on the same visit. No evidence was found to indicate that more than two adults attended the nest. Introduction Details of parental behaviour and feeding of nestlings in most honeyeaters are not well documented. There are brief, fragmentary observations on nest-building, laying routine, incubation period, nestling diet, nestling period and breeding success of the Noisy Friarbird Philemon corniculatus (Chaffer 1933, Mayo 1938, Courtney & Marchant 1971, Marchant 1983). Sixteen members of the Bird Observers Club of Australia watched a nest of the Noisy Friarbird during two 14-hour watches to record the number of visits by adults, to identify food if possible and to note details of relevant behaviour. This paper reports on the results of those observations. Study area and methods Licola is in eastern Victoria, situated on the Macalister River, on the southern lower slopes of the Great Dividing Range. Along the river valley cleared pastoral land is interspersed with patches of closed and open forest, particularly dense along the river. During the Club's Christmas 1987-1988 camp it was decided to study behaviour of the Noisy Friarbird at one of several nests near the camp. The nest chosen was 6 metres above the ground by the roadside, in a dense clump of mistletoe Amyema sp. in a Red Box Eucalyptus polyanthemos. Observations were made on 30 December 1987 and l January 1988. Observers worked in two-hour shifts using telescopes and binoculars. Two telescopes were set up 23 metres from the nest, on the opposite side of the road on the hillside, approximately level with the nest. Magnification of scopes and binoculars varied with the observer teams; scope magnification was mainly 20x to 30x. The 16 observers worked in teams of two, for two-hour periods from 0600 to 2000 h, on two days (total 14 hours per day). One person observed while the other recorded. Simple record sheets contained four columns: time of session's start and finish, bird's arrival, bird's departure, and comments. The names ofthe two recorders for each session were also included. According to Schodde & Tidemann (1986) male Noisy Friarbirds are larger than females, but the observers could not visually separate the two adults even when they were at the nest together. The age of the nestlings was not known. A field note of 30 December 1987 states, 'Young slightly feathered on back, eyes open. Can see primary wing-feathers when wings are stretched or lifted, with "pin" at base sheath.' VOL. 13 (7) SEPTEMBER 1990 Noisy Friarbird: Parental Feeding 227 Results Feeding of young Both adults fed the young, and both removed faecal sacs or ate them. The birds were not banded but we saw nothing to indicate that there were more than two adult birds involved. Visits ranged from 7 to 23 per 2 hours (3.5-11.5 per hour), with an average of 8 per hour, 14-21 per 2 hours (average 7.7 per hour) on the fine day and 7-23 per 2 hours (average 8.2 per hour) on the wet day (Table 1). During a number of watches, field notes stated that three young were fed, or two, or one during a single visit. For example, on 1 January between 0600 h and 0800 h adults were recorded feeding three young birds nine times, two young four times and one young four times. Before feeding the nestlings, both adults often flew to a particular eucalypt near the nest with large food items, to kill and soften the insects by hitting them against a tree branch. Adults stimulated nestlings to produce faecal sacs by probing downwards into the nest, but details were seldom clearly visible. Faecal sacs were usually swallowed at the nest by the adults, sometimes three per visit; occasionally they were carried away. Apparently the adults did not travel far to collect food. On many occasions one or both birds were within sight in the trees or shrubs, on foliage or trunks, or catching insects in the air. Most food could not be identified; items included cicadas, dragonflies (including large sizes), large green grasshoppers and others, beetles, large insect larvae, moths, butterflies and what was identified as liquid 'which looked like saliva' but was probably nectar. There were very few plants in flower anywhere in the vicinity apart from a few individual bushes of Sweet Bursaria Bursaria spinosa, and some small plants in the herb layer. The various eucalypt species nearby, where much of the adults' foraging took place, were not in blossom except for occasional sparse blooms. Parental behaviour The nest was deep, and partly obscured by leaves from above. Often the adults' visits were brief, and it was not possible to see many details of behaviour. There were four large, well-feathered nestlings which were seldom visible simultaneously. Another friarbird nest nearby also had four large nestlings. The nest was unattended for 739 minutes (88% of observation time) on the fine day, and 632 minutes (75% of the time) on the wet day. Parental abs~nces ranged from 94 to 111 minutes per 2 hours (mean 52.8 per hour) on the fine day and 57 to 110.5 (mean 45.2 per hour) on the wet day (Table 1). At times there were long breaks between the adults' visits, e.g. 35 minutes and 45 minutes. The longest absence recorded was 45 minutes from 0945 h to 1030 h on the fine day. During heavy rain on 1 January one or other adult was frequently recorded standing on or above the nest, shielding the nestlings with its wings partly spread. Reactions by the adults to other bird species landing in the tree varied. Most were chased away from the tree, including Yellow-faced Honeyeater Lichenostomus chrysops (2), Satin Bowerbird Ptilonorhynchus violaceus, Blackbird Turdus merula (2), Grey Shrike-thrush Colluricincla harmonica (2) and Gang-Gang Cockatoo Callocephalon fimbriatum. During the adults' absence, a Grey Shrike-thrush landed on the nest, upon which the young birds opened their beaks. The Shrike-thrush departed without further action. One Gang-gang Cockatoo, several Crimson Rosellas Platycercus elegans and White-naped Honeyeaters Melithreptus lunatus were not chased from the tree. People walking along the road under the tree were dived at by the adults on at least three occasions. AUSTRALIAN 228 McCULLOCH BIRD WATCHER During the two ail-day watches the adults were recorded calling only six times, and only one of these was a long call. For a species usually described as very vocal, the adults were noticeably silent and there were no overt warning calls to elicit nestling response, even when an Australian Hobby Falco longipennis flew nearby. NesTling behaviour If there was any noise from the nestlings it was inaudible to the observers. When the parents were absent the nestlings appeared largely to ignore each other, although once they were recorded preening each other. They frequently ~lept , or were recorded 'watching, beaks closed'. On I and 2 January the nestlings were more active than on 30 December. Field notes for 2 January state: 'Two [young] birds spent some time on the outer rim of nest, flapping. Much preening between bouts of sleeping.' Several watchers commented on this increase in activity. Once as Crimson Rosellas flew overhead, calling, the nestlings subsided into the nest. There did not appear to be any peck-order; at times three young were recorded all with open beaks, heads raised. Once an adult fed one nestling then hopped across to the other side of the nest and fed a nestling there. Another time the adult fed two chicks (one several times) while another nestling preened and ignored the parent. Another time the adult fed three nestlings twice each, on the same visit. ResulT of nesting The nest was empty at 0700 h on 3 January, and feathers were found on the ground. Some were well-formed sheathed feathers. It seems probable that the nestlings were taken by predators, or left prematurely. On 1 and 2 January they were recorded standing, stretching their wings and preening actively, so it is likely that they were close to fl edging normally. Careful searching around the vicinity of the nest and nearby did not disclose adults or young birds. Table 1 Number of parental feeding visits and length of time nest was unattended during each two-hour period at Noisy Friarbird nest with four nestlings. Day 1 (30.12.87) was fine, day 2 (1.1.88) was wet with periods of heavy rain; total840 minutes of observation per day. Time (h) Number o[ visits No. o[ minutes nest unattended fine day wet day fine day wet day 0600-0800 2 1 22 94 100 0800-1000 14 17 107.5 57 1000-1200 12 14 109 65.5 1200-1400 12 23 104 94 1400-1600 14 16 106 107 1600-1800 14 7 Ill 110.5 1800-2000 2 1 16 107.5 98.5 Total 108 11 5 739 632.5 VOL.