Tasmanian Bird Report 38

July 2017

BirdLife Tasmania, a branch of BirdLife Australia Editor, Wynne Webber

TASMANIA The Tasmanian Bird Report is published by BirdLife Tasmania, a regional branch of BirdLife Australia

Number 38 © 2017

BirdLife Tasmania, GPO Box 68, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia 7001

ISSN 0156-4935

This publication is copyright. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may, except for the purposes of study or research, be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing of BirdLife Tasmania or the respective paper’s author(s).

Acknowledgments NRM South, through funding from the Australian Government’s National Landcare Programme, has provided financial assistance for the publication of this report. We thank them both for this contribution. Contents

Editorial iv Wynne Webber

State of Tasmania’s terrestrial birds 2014–15 1 Mike Newman, Nick Ramshaw, Sue Drake, Eric Woehler, Andrew Walter and Wynne Webber

Risk of anticoagulant rodenticides to Tasmanian raptors 17 Nick Mooney

Oddities of behaviour and occurrence 26 Compiler, Wynne Webber

When is the best time to survey shorebirds? 31 Stephen Walsh

A Eurasian Coot nests in Hobart 32 William E. Davis, Jr

Changes in bird populations on Mt Wellington over a 40-year period 34 Mike Newman

2016 Summer and winter wader counts 44 (incorporating corrected tables for 2015 summer counts) Eric Woehler and Sue Drake Editorial

In this Tasmanian Bird Report we institute what is hoped to be a useful and ongoing enterprise, which replaces the systematic lists of earlier years: a report on ‘The state of Tasmania’s birds’. In this edition, the report focuses on terrestrial birds, and it has been a time- consuming undertaking by Mike Newman and Nick Ramshaw in particular, although the final was put together by a subcommittee of BirdLife Tasmania. To make regular reports that track populations of the State’s birds, reliable population records are needed. Anyone who can begin surveys of their home area or of a favourite birdwatching haunt can participate through Birdata (http://birdata.birdlife.org.au/) where new data is entered and feedback is given. Nick Mooney has contributed an important paper on the dangers of anticoagulant rodenticides. It will, if advertised widely, help inform the community on the best methods for eliminating pests while helping to protect vulnerable raptors. Several useful and interesting notes have been contributed by Stephen Walsh and William (Ted) Davis and a short article on oddities of behaviour and occurrence has been compiled from members’ contributions. Such material is sought for future editions. Mike Newman rounds out the papers with a review of Mt Wellington’s bird populations at several survey sites over a forty-year span, and the tables of summer and winter wader counts complete the Tasmanian Bird Report 38. The Bird Report is a vehicle for publication of papers by researchers and amateur bird- watchers from around the State, as well as for releasing reports that have been completed for various interests: governmental, NGO and commercial. We strongly encourage members and researchers to submit papers. Wynne Webber Editor Tasmanian Bird Report State of Tasmania’s terrestrial birds 2014–15

Mike Newman, Nick Ramshaw, Sue Drake, Eric Woehler, Andrew Walter and Wynne Webber, a subcommittee of BirdLife Tasmania

Introducon July 2014 to June 2015. Financial year reporting has the The initial Tasmanian Bird Report (Newman 1971) gave an advantage of encompassing a single breeding season for annual review of birds based on the systematic species most species. The lag of at least a year between data list for the State. Subsequently, the report expanded its collection and publication of the annual review ensures role, publishing papers and summaries of the results of that the data set is comprehensive because there are ongoing scientific studies, including the shorebird and often delays in receiving observations. gull counts. Expansion of the size of the Tasmanian sys- This report uses the current BirdLife Australia list of tematic list and increased numbers of contributors and species: the Working List of Australian Birds v2 (2016). their observations greatly magnified the complexity of Survey methods maintaining a systematic list database and producing a Surveys are mostly undertaken by volunteers and so succinct, meaningful report. As a consequence, a sys- survey-site selection is based on personal preference. tematic list was last published in 2006 in Tasmanian Bird The distribution of survey sites for 2014–15 is shown in Report 32. figure 1 (page 8). While attempts are made to achieve In 1971 observations that were deemed important representative habitat and geographical coverage, this is (unusual) were recorded on a card index from which the not optimised. Most observations submitted to the systematic list was compiled. Over the subsequent 45 Birdata portal involve four types of surveys: years, continual advances in electronic data storage and processing have transformed our ability to evaluate and 2 ha/20 minute surveys: This is BLA’s preferred summarise increasingly large data sets. survey type because it involves standardised survey The recent launch of an enhanced BirdLife Australia effort, which is the most reliable information for trend portal, Birdata, has provided access to summary data for analysis (Ehmke et al. 2015). the Tasmanian region. This report is a first step in 500 m area surveys: These surveys involve a larger reinvigorating an annual review of Tasmania’s birds, area and variable duration. They generate longer with the focus being on terrestrial birds that regularly species lists and are used for trend analysis for scarce breed or visit Tasmania, and it thus builds on the com- species when 2 ha surveys contain insufficient records. prehensive overview first provided by Ridpath and 5 km area surveys: Observer effort in these surveys is Moreau (1965). extremely variable, which compromises their use for After the completion of the second national bird atlas trend analysis. (1998–2001, The New Atlas of Australian Birds, Barrett et Incidental records: These are used to record unusual al. 2003), ongoing collection of Atlas information placed observations where a complete survey is not conducted. increasing emphasis on monitoring changes in the status This type of information is not used in trend analysis. of bird populations as well as changes in distribution. Accordingly, this report places increased emphasis on Methods the statistics of common species. As well as summary Comparison of reporting rates (RRs) — the percentage data, the report includes three case studies that discuss frequency with which a species is recorded — provides a aspects of the status of several bird species in Tasmania. more reliable basis for annual comparisons than It is envisaged that future Bird Reports will discuss numbers of observations, particularly when the survey different aspects of Tasmania’s birds as identified in method is standardised. If a species has a RR of 50% reviews of Birdata or from conservation concerns. for 500 m area surveys, it indicates the species is It has been decided to report against financial year common and an observer has a good chance (1:2) of periods, with this initial report covering the year from seeing that species within about one hour in an area of 1 500 m radius. Correspondingly, if a species has RR of recorded species, which included two endemic and two 1% or less for 2 ha/20 minute surveys it is either rare or introduced species. The widely distributed and easily difficult to observe. The chances of detecting it are low detected Forest Raven, Corvus tasmanicus, was most (1 in 100 or less), unless its specific habitat is selected or recorded with 1685 records compared with an average there is prior knowledge of its occurrence at a location. of 802 in the previous ten years. The higher number of The background to the method used for trend analysis records in 2014–15 probably reflects an increase in the is provided in Cunningham and Olsen (2009). submission of records to Birdata (see table 1) rather than a change in the status of the species. For all Survey stascs frequently recorded species the number of records in The survey effort in 2014–15 involved 3017 surveys, 2014–15 was typically two times greater than the which was more than double the average number for previous ten-year average. The diminutive Superb the previous ten years (table 1). In all, 191 bird species Fairy-wren, Malurus cyaneus, was the second most were recorded. The reason for the increased survey frequently recorded — 1461 records compared with 721 effort was unclear, but it predominantly involved 500 m in the previous ten years. The third place ranking of the area and incidental surveys: the increase in 2 ha/20 min Grey Fantail, Rhipidura fuliginosa, 1387 records, might be surveys was more modest (see ratio in table 1). surprising because this species is often claimed to be The statistics in this report were extracted on 5 primarily a summer visitor. However, in case study 2 November 2016 from the General Birdata section of the (page 6) Birdata results will be presented that demon- database portal. strate that Grey Fantails occur regularly in winter. The Surveys were conducted in 182 cells (10′ latitude/ remainder of the ten most recorded species in 2014–15 longitude) during 2014–15, which was approximately were Masked Lapwing, Vanellus miles (1317); then two 50% of the coverage achieved in the previous decade. introduced species, Common Blackbird, Turdus merula Sites surveyed in 2014–15 (figure 1) were well distrib- (1213), and Common Starling, Sturnus vulgaris (1147); uted and included much of the Bass Strait islands. followed by Brown Thornbill, Acanthiza pusilla (1032); Table 1: Comparison of 2014–15 stascs with previous 10 two endemic species, Green Rosella, Platycercus caledonicus years. (1005), and Yellow-throated Honeyeater, Nesoptilotis flavi- collis (1001); and, in tenth rank, New Holland Honey- Rao 2004–14 2014–15 eater, Phylidonyris novaehollandiae (880). (2014–15/2004–14) The rankings of the top five species were similar in All surveys 1425¹ 3017 2.12 the previous ten years. However, in the ten-year period 2004–14, the Welcome Swallow, Hirundo neoxena (499), in 2 ha/20 min 323¹ 451 1.40 sixth place and the Grey Shrike-thrush, Colluricincla harmonica (458), in eighth position, displaced the New 500 m area 347¹ 796 2.19 Holland Honeyeater and Brown Thornbill from the Total contributors 281 74 top-ten list. Of these changes, the most interesting is that of the Welcome Swallow, for which the ratio of Total cells surveyed 371 182 2014–15 records to the previous 10 years was 1.66 ¹ Annual average compared with an average ratio of 2.15 for the ten most frequently recorded species in 2014–15. This much Climac condions lower ratio for a widely distributed species suggests that The temperatures in 2014–15 were above the long-term conditions in 2014–15, a year with above-average average in much of the State, while rainfall was below temperatures and below-average rainfall, may have been average. temporarily unfavourable for this insectivorous species, or that it may be experiencing a decline in status. This Terrestrial birds summary proposition is supported by the documented decline of a Birdata statistics for the period 2014–15 involved 109 guild of insectivorous species throughout Australia species of terrestrial birds that breed or regularly visit during the past decade (Ehmke et al. 2015). This is an Tasmania and are summarised in table 2 (pages 9–16 at example of how changes in the Birdata statistics can the end of this report). This has been split into two highlight species that warrant more detailed analysis, as sections: table 2A covers native species and table 2B discussed in the following sections. introduced species, including Australian species whose The unrecorded species were Stubble Quail, Coturnix presence in Tasmania is thought to involve human pectoralis, Barn Owl, Tyto alba, Sacred Kingfisher, intervention since European settlement. Five of these Todiram phu s san ctu s , Golden-headed Cisticola, Cisticola species were not recorded in 2014–15, although all exilis, and King Quail, the introduced species mentioned except the King Quail, Synoicus chinensis, had been previously. All these species have extremely limited reported during the previous ten years (2004–14). distributions or are intermittent visitors, and the absence There were no surprises in the ten most frequently of records from Atlas data is not surprising. 2 Endemic species during 2014–15. In the previous decade there were, on It is important to track the status of the 13 endemic average, six records annually from 19 locations. species that underwrite the nomination of a number of Ground Parrot, Pezoporus wallicus: 5 records compared Tasmanian Key Biodiversity Areas. These include the with an average of 6 for the previous ten years. Birdata Tasmanian Boobook, Ninox leucopsis (del Hoyo et al. restricts public domain information on the locations of 2016), formerly a subspecies of the Southern Boobook, sensitive species like the Ground Parrot. Ninox boobook, that has recently received full species Southern Emu-wren, Stipiturus malachurus: 7 records status (see Working List of Australian Birds v2: 2016). In from five locations in 2014–15 compared with an addition to two species that were among the ten most annual average of 12.1 in the previous decade from 40 recorded birds, another seven species were recorded on locations predominantly in the west of the State. between 297 and 733 occasions and their population Tawny-crowned Honeyeater, Glyciphila melanops: 7 status is considered of minimum concern. The four records from three locations in 2014–15 compared with remaining endemic species warrant further discussion. an average of 22.2 records annually from 35 locations The Strong-billed Honeyeater, Melithreptus validirostris, during the previous decade. The extent to which this was recorded on 154 occasions and the ratio of the species was under-recorded in 2014–15 may reflect 2014–15 records to the previous ten years was very low limited survey effort in coastal heathland habitat. (1.23). This will be discussed further. Spotted Quail-thrush, Cinclosoma punctatum: 19 There were 59 records of the Scrubtit, Acanthornis records from two locations in the north-east and east of magnus, reflecting its scarcity. Again the ratio (1.72) the State compared with an average of 10 records a compared with the previous 10 years was low. The year from 13 eastern locations in the previous decade. statistics for the Tasmanian Boobook were similar with 59 records and a ratio of 1.77. Introduced species The 28 records of sightings of the Forty-spotted The terrestrial birds list contains 20 introduced species, Pardalote, Pardalotus quadragintus, were consistent with its including two (starling and blackbird) that were among restricted distribution and highly endangered status. the ten most recorded species in 2014–15. Most are well Similarly, there were limited numbers of records of the distributed and regularly recorded; others, like the two highly endangered endemic breeding species: the Californian Quail, Callipepla californica, are restricted to Orange-bellied Parrot, Neophema chrysogaster (6), and the the Bass Strait islands. Swift Parrot, Lathamus discolor (56), both of which are the All six of the species of European origin — Common subject of recovery programs in their restricted breeding Blackbird (1213), Common Starling (1147), House ranges, which involve extensive monitoring by others. Sparrow, Passer domesticus (839), European Goldfinch, Carduelis carduelis (638), Common Greenfinch, Chloris Nocturnal birds chloris (230), and Eurasian Skylark, Alauda arvensis (197) Nocturnal birds tend to be under-represented because — were recorded regularly. Many of these species were most surveys are diurnal. Other than the Tasmanian recorded more frequently than native Australian species, Boobook (59 records) there were relatively few records: although this may reflect the bias of bird survey effort to Tawny Frogmouth, Podargus strigoides (19), Owlet- highly modified habitats where most observers live. An nightjar, Aegotheles cristatus (11), Masked Owl, Tyto novae- example is the Eurasian Skylark, which was recorded hollandiae (10), but, as mentioned, no records of the Barn 50% more frequently than the native Australasian Pipit Owl. This probably reflects lack of nocturnal fieldwork (123 records). rather than the absence of these species. Four species of Australian parrot have been intro- duced: as well as the well-established Galah, Eolophus Scarce species roseicapillus (235 records), there were records of Rainbow Lorikeet, Trichoglossus moluccanus (42), the Long-billed Painted Button-quail, Turnix varius: 8 records, spread Corella, Cacatua tenuirostris (28), and the Little Corella, across seven months, from only one location north-west Cacatua galerita (4). of Wynyard. In the previous decade there were sightings Two other introduced Australian species — Laughing from 11 different locations including King and Flinders Kookaburra, Dacelo novaeguineae (671 records), and Islands, across the north coast of Tasmania, and from Superb Lyrebird, Menura novaehollandiae (8) — are well the Hobart area. distributed based on records for the ten years 2004–14. Nankeen Kestrel, Falco cenchroides: 12 records, of these 11 were from ten locations on King Island and 1 was Reporng rates for species from Stanley. This was greater than the annual average Comparing the number of records of particular species of 4.7 records during the previous decade, when the between years is complicated by many factors including records were widely distributed across the state. the difference in the number of surveys conducted, the Azure Kingfisher, Ceyx azureus: 6 sightings from five type of survey and where the surveys were made. locations in the north-west, west and south of the State Although survey effort increased during 2014–15 3 compared with the previous ten years (table 1), it was Table 2 data can be used to identify a candidate for possible to see which species were recorded more or less SOAB trend analysis. For example, the 2014 RRs of the frequently than average, as discussed previously for the Strong-billed Honeyeater were lower than the average results for the Welcome Swallow (page 13, table 2A). for the previous 10 years: 53% lower in 2 ha/20 min Table 2 contains RR comparisons for 2 ha surveys surveys (1.77% and 3.75% ) and 28% lower for 500 m and 500 m surveys. Usually 2 ha survey RRs are surveys (8.92 and 12.45). Trend analysis using SOAB expected to provide the most reliable comparisons methods and the 2 ha survey data (figure 2), indicated a because the area surveyed and time taken is always the statistically significant linear decrease over a 15-year same. However, there may be advantages for some period. The SOAB Headline Report (Ehmke et al. 2015) species in comparing the RRs obtained from less provides a more detailed explanation of figure 2. constrained survey types (e.g. 500 m surveys) as is discussed below in relation to the results for the Welcome Swallow. In addition, as the two data sets are independent, similar indications from both data sets reinforce conclusions reached concerning possible changes in the status of a species. RRs consider only whether a species is present, not how many individuals are present. There is an implicit assumption underlying the use of Birdata RRs to determine changes in the status of a species; namely that changes in RR imply a change in abundance. However, the nature of the relationship will be very different for a species that is mainly found as territorial pairs (e.g. Bassian Thrush, Zoothera lunulata) compared with a species that forms flocks like the Welcome Swallow. The 2014–15 RR for Welcome Swallow 2 ha surveys (18.6%) was 27% lower than the average for the previous ten years (25.8%), suggesting that the status of the species had decreased. The 500 m survey data also indicated a decrease, but of lower magnitude, 13% Figure 2: Trend analysis for the Strong-billed Honeyeater in (from 40.2% to 34.9%). Thus both these independent Tasmania based on 2 ha/20 minute surveys indicates a measures suggest that the status of the Welcome stascally significant linear decline for the period from 1999 Swallow may have decreased. In BLA’s State of to 2014. The lower plot shows annual variaons in the Australia’s Birds (SOAB) project it was found that, for number of observaons. The dynamic trend (wavy line) the period 1999 to 2013, eight species of aerial reflects short-term fluctuaons in status overlying the long- insectivores collectively showed the largest decline of term decreasing trend (straight line). © Glen Ehmke any guild of species in the East Coast region of Case studies Australia (Ehmke et al. 2015). This supports the proposition that the Welcome Swallow, an aerial 1. Status of thornbills in Tasmania insectivore, may have declined in Tasmania, possibly Three sympatric species of thornbill occur in Tasmania. from the adverse impact of above-average temperatures They have overlapping ranges, but different habitat and below-average rainfall on insect populations. requirements. The 2014–15 Birdata statistics for these As expected, the RRs obtained from 500 m surveys three species are compared in table 3. were higher than those from 2 ha surveys (table 2) Table 3: 2014–15 survey stascs for three thornbill species. because of the combination of longer duration and Yellow- increase in the area surveyed, and because the habitat Brown Tasmanian was often more variable. For species that are scarce and rumped for others that have large territories, using 500 m survey Number of records 1032 364 170 data is an advantage because the RRs in 2 ha surveys are often too low for meaningful comparisons. 2 ha/20 min RR (%) 40.4 7.8 6.7 Where initial comparisons of RRs using table 2 data, 500 m RR (%) 46.7 17.0 7.5 which are not tested for their statistical reliability, suggest that the status of a species has changed, this can Grids* recorded 2014–15 49 53 24 be investigated more thoroughly using subsets of Grids recorded 2004–2014 87 99 55 Birdata involving repeat surveys at sites with methods developed for the SOAB project (Ehmke et al. 2015). * 10' scale cells 4 The Brown Thornbill was recorded approximately for the Brown Thornbill. Fluctuations of this type are three times more frequently than was the Tasmanian normal, involving short-term responses to natural Thornbill, and six times more frequently than was the environmental variations like rainfall. Yellow-rumped Thornbill. In contrast, for Yellow-rumped Thornbill (figure 4) the Separating Brown and Tasmanian Thornbills is one of dynamic trend indicated sustained long-term increase the most difficult challenges while surveying birds in that began in 2003–4. The linear trend line suggested Tasmania, and even experienced observers are unable that the reporting rate approximately tripled over the to identify every bird correctly. Inevitably mistakes occur 15-years 1999–2013. The increasingly wide confidence and, since the dry (Brown) and wet (Tasmanian) habitats limit associated with the dynamic trend after the end of favoured by these species often occur in fine-scale the active phase of the second Atlas in 2002 reflects the mosaics, it is difficult to moderate records. Fortunately, decreased number of surveys suitable for trend analysis. the data sets are relatively large, which helps mitigate The differences between the conclusions reached by this limitation. Both species were widely distributed, plotting the raw annual RR data (figure 3) and the with the Tasmanian Thornbill being recorded in slightly dynamic trend analysis (figure 4) demonstrates the need more (99) 10' latitude/longitude cells than the Brown for this type of statistically sophisticated evaluation on a Thornbill (87) during the 10 years before the 2014–15 continual basis, as well as for provision of increased season. During 2014–15, both species were reported numbers of regularly monitored survey sites, if the from approximately 50 of the 10' cells, about half the population status of Tasmania’s birds is to be monitored distribution range identified in the previous 10 years. effectively. The Yellow-rumped Thornbill, which favours open country, including highly modified habitat and the edges of woodland, had a more restricted range compared with the other two species. It was recorded from 24 of the 10' cells in 2014–15, which was again approximately 50% of the range identified in the previous 10 years. There were differences in the reporting rate trends for the three species (figure 3). Brown Thornbills (figure 3a) increased throughout the 18-year period, as indicated by the results for both types of survey. In contrast, after a period of relative stability between 1998–99 and 2005– 06, the Tasmanian Thornbill (figure 3b) reporting rates decreased rapidly to approximately 50% of their former level. Again the trends for both survey types were similar, although there was more annual variation in the 2 ha survey data. Variation in the occurrence of the Yellow-rumped Thornbill was more complex (figure 3c), with the 500 m survey data suggesting increase between 1998–99 and 2003–04, followed by a period of protracted decrease. The corresponding 2 ha trend is erratic, tentatively attributed to annual variations in survey site locations and, hence, variation in the extent to which habitats favoured by Yellow-rumped Thornbills are surveyed. The apparent trends for all three species are affected by annual variation in survey effort and the distribution of survey sites, although the effect is most apparent in less common species like the Yellow-rumped Thornbill. More sophisticated analytical methods were developed as part of BirdLife Australia’s State of Australia’s Birds (SOAB) project. These methods were used to test the statistical validity of apparent trends like the post-2005– 06 decrease in reporting rate for Tasmanian Thornbills (figure 3b) using 2 ha/20 min survey data. The results of this analysis suggested that the Tasmanian Thornbill population fluctuated over a 15-year period between 1999 and 2013 with a slight net decrease. Similar Figure 3: Temporal trends in reporng rates of the three fluctuations and a small long-term decrease were found thornbill species that occur in Tasmania. 5 Figure 4: Trend analysis for the Yellow-rumped Thornbill in Tasmania based on 2 ha/20 minute surveys indicates a stascally significant linear increase for the period from 1999 to 2014. The lower plot shows annual variaons in the number of observaons. The dynamic trend (wavy line) reflects short-term fluctuaons in status overlying the long-term increasing trend (straight line). The light grey lines indicate the stascal confidence bounds of the dynamic trend. © Glen Ehmke

2. Seasonal occurrence of Grey Fantails the 2014–15 breeding season. The results, at five-day The monthly variation in reporting rate for the Grey intervals beginning on 1 July, are shown in figure 6 (see Fantail, based on all Birdata records from 1998 to 2016, page 7). For the Fan-tailed Cuckoo, Cacomantis flabelli- is shown in figure 5 (page 7). Clearly, Grey Fantails are formis, the most numerous species, a few birds over- plentiful in Tasmania throughout the year, contrary to winter, as is indicated by a small number of records statements published previously such as ‘although a few throughout July and August. However, in September the may over-winter’. RRs were lower in the winter months, number of records increases, indicating the arrival of which is consistent with partial migration of the Grey migrants that have wintered outside Tasmania. During Fantail population to the Australian mainland in winter. September Fan-tailed Cuckoos were recorded 5.4 times The extent to which this occurs may vary from year to more frequently than were overwintering birds during year, providing an opportunity for future investigation July and August. This suggests that approximately 20% using Birdata. of the population overwinters, although this may be an underestimate because the cuckoos are less vocal and 3. Arrival dates of migratory cuckoos hence may be less easily detected during winter. There Cumulative numbers of cuckoo records in Tasmania, were no records of the other three cuckoo species in July which may include resighting the same bird if repeat and the occasional records of the Shining Bronze- surveys are conducted, were extracted from Birdata for Cuckoo, Chalcites lucidus, and Pallid Cuckoo, Heteroscenes 6 pallidus, in August may involve early arrivals. Extrapol- myths (e.g. the extent to which Grey Fantails presently ation of overall rates of observation in September when overwinter). Birdata also has the potential to provide migrants have arrived suggests that all four cuckoo early warning of future conservation issues. Fortunately, species arrive about the first of September. There were most of the Tasmanian endemic species remain abun- no winter records of the less numerous Horsfield’s dant, despite the presence of large and often equally Bronze-Cuckoo, Chalcites basalis. abundant populations of introduced species. The analysis of Birdata seeks to monitor changes in the status of common species and identify adverse trends at an early stage. The simple analysis conducted in this report screens the available data for anomalies without statistical verification, which would require more sophisticated trend analysis (see SOAB). The ability to draw statistically reliable conclusions depends on the quantity and quality of survey data provided by volunteer observers. Effective trend analysis requires standardised survey data (2 ha/20 min and 500 m area surveys), ideally repeated at the same sites over an extended time. One objective of this report is to encourage this type Figure 5: Monthly variaons in the reporng rates of Grey of dedicated data collection as part of the birdwatching Fantails in Tasmania. activities of BirdLife Tasmania members. The results reported here indicate that some parts of and habitats 140 in the State are under-surveyed. Dedicated surveying by 120 volunteers will require an ongoing education campaign

100 to increase Tasmania’s capacity to generate the data necessary to quantify the conservation status of our 80 native birds. The future goal of bird conservation must 60 be to move from a reactive to a proactive response in the 40 face of ever-increasing environmental complexity (i.e.

20 act early before species are endangered). There are many records of Tasmanian birds that are 0 04 09 14 19 24 29 05 10 15 20 25 30 04 09 15 05 10 15 20 25 30

------currently not in the Birdata database. Some historical ------Cumulative number of records ------Jul Jul Jul Jul Jul Jul Oct Oct Oct Sep Sep Sep Sep Sep Sep Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug reasons help to explain this, including the previous Fan-tailed Cuckoo Pallid Cuckoo complexity of submitting records to Birdata and the Shining Bronze-Cuckoo Horsfield's Bronze-Cuckoo limited access to results. These impediments no longer apply: the new Birdata portal is a game-changer and we Figure 6: Timing of arrival of Cuckoos for the 2014–15 urge everyone interested in conservation of Tasmanian breeding season. and Australian birds to contribute to Birdata so that all our records are in one database. Concluding remarks In this report we have provided a summary of Birdata Acknowledgments for Tasmania’s terrestrial birds and demonstrated how We wish to acknowledge the contributions of all the the purpose of collecting bird observations has moved people who submitted records to Birdata. We to monitoring the changes in species status as well as congratulate BLA and their sponsors on the successful their distributions. Some of the results in the tabulated development of the Birdata portal, which made the data may appear surprising, rousing curiosity as to the extraction of the information contained in this report possible explanations. Hopefully, the examples provided possible. We thank Andrew Silcocks for his custodian- here will inspire readers to seek answers by examining ship of Birdata and for his assistance to this study; the copious information now readily available from the similar thanks are extended to Glenn Ehmke for input Birdata portal. We have discussed the restricted into Birdata trend analysis. distributions of some uncommon species without The BirdLife Tasmania executive committee wishes to reproducing distribution maps: they can easily be seen continue to provide members with an annual systematic online via the portal. report on the state of Tasmanian birds, and the Examples provided in the case studies show how committee gratefully acknowledges the efforts of Mike Birdata can be used to expand our understanding of Newman in leading the production of the reactivated Tasmanian birds, producing both new insights (e.g. the systematic bird report. Anyone who wishes to consult or arrival dates of cuckoos) and confronting the historical contribute to BirdLife Australia’s Birdata should go to: 7 http://birdlife.org.au/projects/atlas-and-birdata. of the Birds of the World Alive. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. References (retrieved from http://www.hbw.com/node/467318 on 15 November 2016). Barrett, G., Silcocks, A., Barry, S., Cunningham, R. and Poulter, R. 2003. The New Atlas of Australian Birds (1998– Ehmke, G., Cunningham, R. O’Connor, J., Garnett, S., Lau, 2001). Birds Australia (Royal Australian Ornithologists J. and Herman, K. 2015. The State of Australia’s Birds 2015: Union): Melbourne. Headline Trends for Terrestrial Birds. BirdLife Australia: Cunningham, R. and Olsen, P. 2009. ‘A statistical Carlton, Vic. methodology for tracking long-term change in reporting Ridpath, M.G. and Moreau, R.E. 1965. ‘The birds of rates of birds from volunteer-collected presence–absence Tasmania: Ecology and Evolution’. Ibis, 108: 348–93. data’. Biodiversity Conservation. 18:1305–27. Watts, D. 1999. Field Guide to Tasmanian Birds. New Holland del Hoyo, J., Collar, N. and Marks, J.S. 2016. ‘Tasmanian Publishers (Australia) Pty. Ltd.: Sydney. Boobook (Ninox leucopsis)’. In: del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., Sargatal, J., Christie, D.A. and de Juana, E. (eds.). Handbook Working List of Australian Birds v2 accessed at birdlife.org.au/ conservation/science/taxonomy accessed November 2016.

Figure 1: Distribuon of surveys conducted in Tasmania during the fiscal year 2014–15. Largest circles represent >150 surveys in a 10‘ latude–longitude grid, compared to <5 surveys for the smallest circles. Table 2 (A and B, see pages 9–16): Terrestrial birds that breed in Tasmania. A, pages 9–14: Nave species. B, pages 15–16: Species that are assumed to have been introduced with human assistance since European selement. 8 A) Terrestrial birds known to breed 2014–15 records 2004–14 No. rao 1 yr/ 2014–15 RR 2004–14 RR 2014–15 RR (%) 2004–14 RR (%) Scienfic name in Tasmania and its islands (all survey types) average records 10 yr (n>50) (%) 2 ha/20’ (%) 2 ha/20’ 500 m area 500 m area

Phasianidae — pheasants, quails

Stubble Quail Coturnix pectoralis 0 0.6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Brown Quail(*) Synoicus ypsilophora 25 32.9 0.44 0.62 0.25 2.82

Columbidae — pigeons, doves

Common Bronzewing Phaps chalcoptera 147 75.3 2.0 4.21 2.01 7.04 5.30

Brush Bronzewing Phaps elegans 160 72.0 2.2 2.44 1.67 8.54 4.21

Cuculidae — cuckoos

Horsfield’s Bronze-Cuckoo Chalcites basalis 38 29.9 0.22 0.80 3.14 3.72

Shining Bronze-Cuckoo Chalcites lucidus 200 90.8 2.2 7.10 3.00 9.42 7.89

Fan-tailed Cuckoo Cacomans flabelliformis 341 169.1 2.0 7.54 4.98 20.23 16.39

Pallid Cuckoo Heteroscenes pallidus 250 125.6 2.0 7.32 4.74 13.44 11.12

Podargidae — frogmouths

Tawny Frogmouth Podargus strigoides 19 10.0 0.00 0.06 0.75 0.40

Aegothelidae — owlet-nightjars

Australian Owlet-nightjar(*) Aegotheles cristatus 11 2.1 0.00 0.06 0.25 0.09

Apodidae — swis, swilets

White-throated Needletail(^) Hirundapus caudacutus 27 8.4 0.22 0.15 0.63 0.58

Rallidae — crakes, rails, swamphens

Tasmanian Nave-hen (**) Tribonyx morerii 733 341.1 2.1 11.53 15.63 28.77 19.73

Charidriidae — plovers, lapwings

Banded Lapwing Vanellus tricolor 34 34.1 0.44 0.40 0.63 1.07

* = endemic subspecies; ** = endemic species; ^ = nonbreeding migrant A) Terrestrial birds known to breed 2014–15 records 2004–14 No. rao 1 yr/ 2014–15 RR 2004–14 RR 2014–15 RR (%) 2004–14 RR (%) Scienfic name in Tasmania and its islands (all survey types) average records 10 yr (n>50) (%) 2 ha/20’ (%) 2 ha/20’ 500 m area 500 m area

Masked Lapwing Vanellus miles 1317 606.4 2.2 26.61 28.54 48.62 43.19

Turnicidae — buon-quails

Painted Buon-quail Turnix varius 8 3.5 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.06

Accipitridae — eagles, goshawks

White-bellied Sea-Eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster 200 159.6 1.3 2.00 3.03 4.40 10.11

Brown Goshawk Accipiter fasciatus 64 38.0 0.89 0.93 1.76 2.85

Collared Sparrowhawk Accipiter cirrocephalus 30 18.5 0.00 0.40 0.63 1.15

Grey Goshawk Accipiter novaehollandiae 64 42.7 0.22 0.71 1.01 2.13

Swamp Harrier Circus approximans 278 175.4 1.6 5.10 5.14 9.92 10.75

Wedge-tailed Eagle(*) Aquila audax 132 108.9 1.2 0.67 3.68 2.39 6.51

Tytonidae — masked owls

Masked Owl(*) Tyto novaehollandiae 10 9.3 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.07

Barn Owl Tyto alba 0 0.2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Strigidae — hawk-owls

Tasmanian Boobook(**) Ninox leucopsis 59 33.3 0.00 0.25 1.38 2.10

Alcedinidae — kingfishers

Azure Kingfisher Ceyx azureus 6 6.0 0.22 0.15 0.13 0.00

Sacred Kingfisher Todiramphus sanctus 0 0.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03

Falconidae — falcons

Nankeen Kestrel Falco cenchroides 12 4.7 0.22 0.15 0.00 0.29

Brown Falcon Falco berigora 163 163.4 1.0 2.00 5.23 3.64 9.36

* = endemic subspecies; ** = endemic species; ^ = nonbreeding migrant A) Terrestrial birds known to breed 2014–15 records 2004–14 No. rao 1 yr/ 2014–15 RR 2004–14 RR 2014–15 RR (%) 2004–14 RR (%) Scienfic name in Tasmania and its islands (all survey types) average records 10 yr (n>50) (%) 2 ha/20’ (%) 2 ha/20’ 500 m area 500 m area

Australian Hobby Falco longipennis 18 21.2 0.22 0.50 0.38 1.53

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus 33 24.9 0.00 0.43 1.01 2.13

Cacatuidae — cockatoos, corellas

Yellow-tailed Black-Cockatoo Zanda funereus 376 264.3 1.4 4.66 6.59 14.70 21.23

Sulphur-crested Cockatoo Cacatua galerita 319 176.4 1.8 6.21 9.13 10.68 9.08

Psiaculidae — parrots, lorikeets, rosellas

Musk Lorikeet(*) Glossopsia concinna 237 80.8 2.9 6.87 1.30 8.54 5.99

Green Rosella(**) Platycercus caledonicus 1005 527.7 1.9 41.46 27.62 46.36 45.69

Eastern Rosella(*) Platycercus eximius 219 84.0 2.6 7.32 3.59 7.29 5.45

Swi Parrot Lathamus discolor 56 42.4 0.89 1.36 1.76 2.59

Blue-winged Parrot Neophema chrysostoma 38 33.5 0.22 1.49 2.01 1.18

Orange-bellied Parrot Neophema chrysogaster 6 4.4 0.00 0.09 0.50 0.32

Ground Parrot(*) Pezoporus wallicus 5 6.0 0.00 0.06 0.38 0.26

Maluridae — fairy-wrens, emu-wrens

Superb Fairy-wren(*) Malurus cyaneus 1461 721.3 2.0 52.33 40.71 62.44 65.57

Southern Emu-wren(*) Spiturus malachurus 7 12.1 0.00 0.22 0.50 0.63

Meliphagidae — honeyeaters, chats

Eastern Spinebill(*) Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris 499 262.8 1.9 10.64 10.19 26.01 25.18

Yellow-throated Honeyeater(**) Nesoplos flavicollis 1001 511.2 2.0 50.55 31.30 46.61 46.07

Noisy Miner(*) Manorina melanocephala 256 116.2 2.2 11.97 6.81 7.66 6.34

Lile Walebird(*) Anthochaera chrysoptera 845 346.9 2.4 23.28 11.89 27.01 26.36

* = endemic subspecies; ** = endemic species; ^ = nonbreeding migrant A) Terrestrial birds known to breed 2014–15 records 2004–14 No. rao 1 yr/ 2014–15 RR 2004–14 RR 2014–15 RR (%) 2004–14 RR (%) Scienfic name in Tasmania and its islands (all survey types) average records 10 yr (n>50) (%) 2 ha/20’ (%) 2 ha/20’ 500 m area 500 m area

Yellow Walebird(**) Anthochaera paradoxa 737 379.8 1.9 5.32 18.20 38.69 35.49

White-fronted Chat Epthianura albifrons 132 97.7 1.4 2.00 2.32 7.16 7.92

Tawny-crowned Honeyeater Glyciphila melanops 7 22.2 0.23 1.11 0.50 2.13

Crescent Honeyeater Phylidonyris pyrrhopterus 502 316.1 1.6 13.75 19.01 24.62 24.98

New Holland Honeyeater(*) Phylidonyris novaehollandiae 880 406.7 2.2 23.95 16.41 36.18 36.91

Strong-billed Honeyeater(**) Melithreptus validirostris 154 124.7 1.2 1.77 3.75 8.92 12.45

Black-headed Honeyeater(**) Melithreptus affinis 470 248.7 1.9 11.09 10.43 23.99 24.37

Pardalodae — pardalotes

Spoed Pardalote Pardalotus punctatus 667 265.3 2.5 30.60 14.43 30.53 20.94

Forty-Spoed Pardalote(**) Padalotus quadragintus 28 23.9 0.93 0.71 1.63 0.86

Striated Pardalote(*) Pardalotus striatus 615 279.0 2.2 27.49 19.29 30.03 22.21

Acanthizidae — thornbills, gerygones

Tasmanian Scrubwren(**) Sericornis humilis 412 239.4 1.7 6.21 8.64 25.50 26.07

Scrubt(**) Acanthornis magnus 59 34.3 1.33 2.04 2.64 1.99

Striated Fieldwren(*) Calamanthus fuliginosus 44 42.4 1.11 1.58 1.51 1.93

Yellow-rumped Thornbill(*) Acanthiza chrysorrhoa 170 116.5 1.5 6.65 6.32 7.54 7.29

Tasmanian Thornbill(**) Acanthiza ewingii 364 232.8 1.6 7.76 13.68 16.96 16.42

Brown Thornbill(*) Acanthiza pusilla 1032 455.4 2.3 40.35 25.33 46.73 37.83

Campephagidae — cuckoo-shrikes

Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike Coracina novaehollandiae 317 216.1 1.5 8.20 6.50 15.20 19.71

Cinclosomadae — whipbirds, wedgebills

* = endemic subspecies; ** = endemic species; ^ = nonbreeding migrant A) Terrestrial birds known to breed 2014–15 records 2004–14 No. rao 1 yr/ 2014–15 RR 2004–14 RR 2014–15 RR (%) 2004–14 RR (%) Scienfic name in Tasmania and its islands (all survey types) average records 10 yr (n>50) (%) 2 ha/20’ (%) 2 ha/20’ 500 m area 500 m area

Spoed Quail-thrush(*) Cinclosoma punctatum 19 10.0 0.22 0.19 2.26 2.07

Pachycephalidae — whistlers, shrike-thrushes

Olive Whistler(*) Pachycephala olivacea 111 74.4 1.5 0.89 2.60 8.79 8.50

Golden Whistler(*) Pachycephala pectoralis 581 273.3 2.1 21.73 11.33 31.03 26.02

Grey Shrike-thrush(*) Colluricincla harmonica 832 457.6 1.8 27.94 25.88 46.36 43.65

Artamidae — woodswallows, currawongs, magpies, butcherbirds

Dusky Woodswallow Artamus cyanopterus 268 156.0 1.7 8.20 4.77 13.32 13.60

Grey Butcherbird(*) Craccus torquatus 637 318.7 2.0 10.20 12.35 29.77 31.69

Australian Magpie(*) Gymnorhina bicen 540 277.6 1.9 12.42 12.79 20.35 14.98

Black Currawong(**) Strepera fuliginosa 314 194.4 1.6 5.32 9.20 16.46 17.86

Grey Currawong(*) Strepera versicolor 355 167.7 2.1 9.31 6.13 15.20 11.12

Rhipiduridae — fantails

Grey Fantail(*) Rhipidura fuliginosa 1387 635.8 2.2 51.22 35.29 66.08 57.36

Corvidae — crows, ravens

Forest Raven Corvus tasmanicus 1685 801.8 2.1 58.54 50.31 65.58 59.58

Monarchidae — monarchs, flycatchers

San Flycatcher Myiagra cyanoleuca 117 69.1 1.7 3.10 1.52 7.41 8.47

Petroicidae — Australian robins

Scarlet Robin(*) Petroica mulcolor 453 252.2 1.8 15.74 11.73 19.85 20.57

Flame Robin Petroica phoenicea 211 121.3 1.7 7.98 5.36 15.33 12.56

Pink Robin(*) Petroica rodinogaster 137 63.4 2.2 1.33 3.16 10.18 5.50

* = endemic subspecies; ** = endemic species; ^ = nonbreeding migrant A) Terrestrial birds known to breed 2014–15 records 2004–14 No. rao 1 yr/ 2014–15 RR 2004–14 RR 2014–15 RR (%) 2004–14 RR (%) Scienfic name in Tasmania and its islands (all survey types) average records 10 yr (n>50) (%) 2 ha/20’ (%) 2 ha/20’ 500 m area 500 m area

Dusky Robin(**) Melanodryas viata 297 177.7 1.7 12.86 6.69 12.69 15.47

Estrildidae — weaver finches

Beauful Firetail Stagonopleura bella 60 53.1 1.1 1.11 1.39 2.89 4.75

Motacillidae — pipits, wagtails

Australasian Pipit(*) Anthus novaeseelandiae 123 106.1 1.2 2.22 1.98 5.53 7.06

Ciscolidae — ciscolas

Golden-headed Ciscola Ciscola exilis 0 0.3 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00

Locustellidae — grassbirds

Lile Grassbird(*) Poodytes gramineus 69 48.2 2.44 1.61 2.14 2.51

Acrocephalidae — reed-warblers

Australian Reed-Warbler Acrocephalus australis 15 13.5 0.22 0.15 1.01 1.47

Hirundinidae — swallows, marns

Welcome Swallow Hirundo neoxena 829 498.9 1.7 18.63 25.67 34.92 40.02

Tree Marn Petrochelidon nigricans 196 115.1 1.7 3.99 4.74 7.91 7.55

Zosteropidae — true babblers

Silvereye Zosterops lateralis 874 429.5 2.0 16.41 17.06 38.32 38.20

Turdidae — thrushes

Bassian Thrush Zoothera lunulata 78 42.3 1.33 0.99 5.03 4.90

* = endemic subspecies; ** = endemic species; ^ = nonbreeding migrant B) Introduced terrestrial birds 2014–15 records 2004–14 No. rao 1 yr/ 2014–15 RR 2004–14 RR 2014–15 RR (%) 2004–14 RR (%) known to breed Tasmania and its Scienfic name (all survey types) average records 10 yr (n>50) (%) 2 ha/20’ (%) 2 ha/20’ 500 m area 500 m area islands

Odontophoridae — New World quail

Californian Quail Callipepla californica 1 0.2 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.03

Phasianidae — pheasants, quail

King Quail Synoicus chinensis 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Indian Peafowl Pavo cristatus 14 3.6 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.12

Common Pheasant Phasianus colchicus 13 2.5 0.00 0.06 0.88 0.09

Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo 11 1.0 0.22 0.06 0.50 0.03

Columbidae — pigeons, doves

Rock Dove Columba livia 51 22.0 0.22 0.40 0.75 1.07

Spoed Dove Streptopelia chinensis 238 70.6 3.4 6.43 0.62 8.67 6.14

Alcedinidae — kingfishers

Laughing Kookaburra Dacelo novaeguineae 671 390.8 1.7 15.74 15.79 31.66 36.16

Cacatuidae — cockatoos, corellas

Galah Eolophus roseicapillus 235 100.6 2.3 2.22 1.61 9.30 6.08

Long-billed Corella Cacatua tenuirostris 28 16.0 0.44 0.19 0.25 1.50

Lile Corella Cacatua sanguinea 4 4.5 0.00 0.09 0.50 0.35

Psiaculidae — parrots, lorikeets, rosellas

Rainbow Lorikeet Trichoglossus moluccanus 42 16.3 0.22 0.03 1.88 0.89

Menuridae — lyrebirds

Superb Lyrebird Menura novaehollandiae 8 4.6 0.00 0.31 0.38 0.26 B) Introduced terrestrial birds 2014–15 records 2004–14 No. rao 1 yr/ 2014–15 RR 2004–14 RR 2014–15 RR (%) 2004–14 RR (%) known to breed Tasmania and its Scienfic name (all survey types) average records 10 yr (n>50) (%) 2 ha/20’ (%) 2 ha/20’ 500 m area 500 m area islands

Passeridae — weaver finches

House Sparrow Passer domescus 839 386.1 2.2 16.19 16.10 23.12 27.86

Fringillidae — Old World finches

European Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis 628 361.3 1.7 9.76 17.31 21.23 23.91

Common Greenfinch Chloris chloris 230 109.3 2.1 3.55 4.40 6.28 6.05

Alaudidae — larks

Eurasian Skylark Alauda arvensis 197 143.7 1.4 6.87 5.60 6.03 7.75

Sturnidae — starlings

Common Starling Sturnus vulgaris 1147 523.9 2.2 23.95 28.64 39.70 36.36

Turdidae — thrushes

Common Blackbird Turdus merula 1213 498.5 2.4 25.28 22.94 45.60 37.34 Risks of anticoagulant rodenticides to Tasmanian raptors

Nick Mooney, PO Box 120, Richmond 7025, [email protected]

Background First generation anticoagulant rodenticides (FGARs) Wildlife is subject to all manner of anthropogenic with warfarin or coumatetralyl as the active ingredient hazards, even in wilderness areas where persistent (e.g. Ratsak Double Strength and Racumin respectively) chemicals and feral species can intrude, and where are pesticides with a short duration of action (and people visit, bringing, at the minimum, risks of disease, require ingestion over a long period of time (i.e. behavioural disruption, physical and chemical pollution, multiple doses) to be fatal. In comparison, second gener- and accidents such as collisions. In less remote places ation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs, developed such hazards seem greater and typically include because effectiveness of some FGARs was reducing) interactions with pets, more people, infrastructure and with active ingredient brodifacoum (e.g. Talon and chemicals, including pesticides. The latter is a reason- Ratsak Fast Action) usually only require single doses to ably well-recorded hazard to wildlife, but most concern kill and have a long duration of action, i.e. an animal usually relates to agricultural and forestry areas. that has had a lethal dose takes longer to die. Some However, use of chemicals in urban landscapes also has rodenticide brands (e.g. Ratsak) produce both FGAR great potential to affect wildlife. and SGAR products, the former advertised as present- One of the oldest settled human and animal inter- ing less of a secondary poisoning risk: actions is that with rodents, usually the Brown Rat, Rattus (www.ratsak.com.au/faqs). norvegicus, Black Rat, R. rattus, and House Mouse, Mus Usually targeting is by pre-baiting (sometimes very musculus. That interaction is invariably at the expense of sophisticated, e.g. Anon 2015), bait palatability, amount human populations, sometimes to a spectacular degree and (re)placement. The aim of rodenticides is primary via disease (e.g. Zinsser 1935), a lesser degree via food poisoning, but consequent secondary poisoning of competition and a minor, albeit very widespread, degree animals (those consuming primarily poisoned rodents) via nuisance. A result has been long-term (usually can also occur and even tertiary poisoning is possible. ineffectual) warfare with these rodents. Besides some Non-target impacts include non-target primary poison- pets and all manner of traps, the main human weapon ing (where an animal unintended as a victim takes bait, has become rodenticides, chemicals designed to kill e.g. Anon 2014) and secondary poisoning. Rodenticides rodents. A modern twist to the tale (no pun intended) is are also sometimes inappropriately or illegally used to the challenge these rodents make to conservation values, target various other nuisance animals and have even, an issue that has produced efforts to use rodenticides to famously, been used to poison people (e.g. Donnelley eradicate them from some islands with high nature 2011). Modern human health standards and people’s conservation values (e.g. Anon 2014). expectations of comfort and control over their Most rodenticides are colloquially known as ‘rat environment commonly result in less tolerance of poisons’. Typically they are non-species specific and rodents. These days, many people baulk at having to some are used on non-rodents, notably Pindone for deal with the gore of trapped rodents leading to more Rabbits, Oryctolagus cuniculus, in parts of Australia that use of poisons where the rodent ‘goes away to die’. include the ACT and Tasmania. The usual rodenticides Modern demand for convenience also results in used in Tasmania are anticoagulants, chemicals that increasing popularity of apparent ‘quick fixes’ such as interfere with the Vitamin K (re)cycle, essential for highly effective, easy-to-use rodenticide products. Our blood clotting. Most animals store a supply of Vitamin modern risk-aversion is probably best demonstrated by K, but, if exposed to enough anticoagulant, the supply the ubiquitous ‘black boxes’ of rodenticides distributed will run out and internal bleeding may begin (conse- around many public places (schools, supermarkets, quently Vitamin K can be used as an antidote). hardware stores etc., including cafés in wilderness areas, There are two major types of anticoagulants (table 1). pers. obs.). 17 Table 1: Some characteriscs of ancoagulant rodencides. (An LD50 for a species is the usual descripon of physiological suscepbility. It is the amount of poison per weight of an animal that would kill 50% of that species’ exposed populaon. An LD50 is established experimentally and is usually expressed as mg/kg. Note that because of individual differences an LD100 is not twice an LD 50 [it is much more], nor is an LD10 0.2 of an LD50 [it is much less].)

Typical dose required (the LD50) Type of ancoagulant Characteriscs as mg/kg of animal

First generaon Couramins Less potent than SGARs and Pindone Brown Rat 16.5 (Coumatetralyl) Warfarin (acve ingredient) Short half-life (e.g. Ratblitz, Ratsak Double Strength, Rat Generally requires mulple feeds over me Brown Rat >50 Kill, Raex Gel and Tracking Powder) (except in big doses).

Coumatetralyl (acve ingredient) Coumatetralyl is more toxic to rats than (e.g. Racumin and Racumin 8 Rat and Mouse mice. Blocks, Paste and Tracking Powder, Ratex Mouse and Rat Bait, Readi Rac Rat and Mouse Killer, Bayer Advanced Home Rat and Mouse Killer)

Indanediones In between the two coumarins Pindone or Diphacinone (acve ingredient) (e.g. Rabbait)

Second generaon More potent than FGARs Brown Rat 0.26 (Brodifacoum) Coumarins Longer half-life Brodifacoum (acve ingredient) Single feed (e.g. Talon, Mortein, Ratsak Fast Acon, Delay in onset of symptoms Pestoff Rodent Bait 20R, Klerat)

Bromadiolone or Difenacoum (acve ingredient; e.g. Bromakil)

Although some farms use FGARs, the vast majority of 75% of farms used SGARs (Hughes et al. 2013) and 17 use, especially in urban areas, seems now to be of of 20 Tasmanian farmers questioned for this study used SGARs; 9 of 10 products counted in supermarkets and SGARs. Pindone is widely if irregularly used for rabbit hardware stores around Hobart were SGARs and 4 of 5 control in rural areas close to urban areas where sodium pest control companies questioned for this study after monoflouroacetate (1080) is deemed too dangerous for reference to logos on bait stations at schools etc. secondary poisoning of domestic dogs, there being no reported using only SGARs, the fifth reported having treatment available for 1080 poisoning. The footprint of only one client that ever asks for an alternative. All 8 anticoagulant rodenticides in Tasmania could clearly be poultry farms questioned only use SGARs (and very widespread and touch a great number of species piggeries are recommended to use SGARs, Anon 2015). and individuals. Reasons given were invariably a mixture of habit, This paper explores possible risks to Tasmanian known effectiveness and convenience (of the single dose raptors from secondary poisoning from commonly used requirement) and a general lack of awareness of anticoagulant rodenticides, rodents and rabbits being alternatives to SGARs. The advice for piggeries is based common food (i.e. prey and/or scavenged food) of on a commercial pressure — fear of unacceptable many Tasmanian raptors (e.g. Hills 1955, Olsen et al. residues of FGARs for export. Poultry farms usually 1990, Marchant and Higgins 1993, Mooney 1993). have the (now) usual fixed bait stations and even open crops are sometimes so poisoned (e.g. Crawley 2011). In Impacts on wildlife rural Scotland in situations similar to those in Tasmania, Impacts of anticoagulant rodenticides depends on many 18 factors including species, type of pesticide, its regularity In Scotland it was found 10% of local Red Kites, of use and the temporal and spatial coincidence of it Milvus milvus, died as a result of rodenticide ingestion with wildlife (table 2). and that even Eurasian Sparrowhawks, Accipiter nisus, On Macquarie Island, broadscale use of Pestoff which prey almost exclusively on birds, had similar Rodent Bait 20R (an SGAR with brodifacoum as the exposure rates to species that habitually prey on rodents active ingredient, http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/file.aspx? (Hughes et al. 2013). id=31865) in 2010 and 2011 to kill rodents and rabbits Autopsies of Barn owls found dead by the British resulted in at least 1464 dead seabirds and waterfowl, public showed prevalence of 2nd generation pesticide both from primary and secondary poisoning (Anon residues grew from 5% in 1983–84 to 40% in 1997–98 2014). By far the most affected species (by secondary coincident with increased use. The chemicals killed at poisoning) was the Northern Giant Petrel, Macronectes least 7% of the owls autopsied (Newton and Whittle 2002). halli, with 693 being found dead. The number of In Queensland a coincidence of collapse of some breeding pairs dropped through the baiting from 1922 raptor populations (including Masked Owl, Tyto to 1392, a fall of about 27.6%, representing about 4% novaehollandiae) with the introduction of the now banned of the total species population (Anon 2010), a fall that is SGAR Klerat was noted although cause–effect was not reversing (Anon 2014). demonstrated (Young and De Lai 1997, James 1997). Pindone has been implicated in a decline of Little Table 2: Features that affect suscepbility to ancoagulant Eagles, Hieraaetus morphnoides, in the ACT (Olsen et al. rodencides. 2013) and in trials has showed potential to be especially Feature Effects harmful to Wedge-tailed Eagles, Aquila audax (Martin et al. 1994). Species Physiological resistance Deaths of the critically endangered Norfolk Island Health of the Ability to metabolise some toxins, toxicity Boobook, Ninox novaeseelandiae undulata, were associated individual thresholds or pping-points with a careless change from an FGAR (Racumin) to an The amount Toxic load SGAR (Pest-off) to control rodents (Olsen et al. 1987, ingested Debus 2012). The period of Ability to metabolise some toxins (that Poisoned raptors typically have partly closed eyes, ingeson can be metabolised) head drawn into shoulders, feathers partly ruffed, perch- ing using both legs, are lethargic, often can be closely The acve Toxicity and dose requirements approached and are often inappropriately perched (e.g. ingredient an owl in an exposed place in daytime, figure 1 (a)), Ambient Metabolism drool saliva and blood and/or have internal bleeding or condions contain a rodent itself containing anticoagulant rodenti- Behavioural Metabolism and behaviour cide (typically dyed green or blue). stress Figure 1: Apparently poisoned, disorientated Tasmanian Size Risks of predaon (smaller have higher) Masked Owl, Tyto novaehollandiae castanops, in Cambridge and heat conservaon (smaller have (a); detail of the laer’s drool (b); sick or poisoned owl in lower) Baery Point (c); in Howrah with trichomoniasis (d). Availability of Ancoagulant rodencides can be treated treatment with Vitamin K as an andote In a Canadian study, Brown Rats from both baited and non-baited farms had residues of brodifacoum or bromadiolone (active ingredients of SGARs) and residues were also found in 90% of owl pellets that contained rat fur, implicating rats as an important exposure pathway to wildlife (Elliot et al. 2013). Again in Canada, it was noted that a broad range of raptor species were exposed to SGARs, generalised terrestrial food chains could be contaminated in the vicinity of the sampled areas, significant species differences in sensitivity to SGARs existed and significant likelihood of toxicosis below previously suggested concentrations of concern was found. The study concluded that 11% of the sampled Great Horned Owl, Bubo virginianus, population was at risk of being directly killed by SGARs (Thomas et al. 2011). (a) © Peter McKay 19 (b) © Peter McKay rodenticide poisoning of raptors in Tasmania so this study uses characteristics of Tasmanian raptors to rate risks to them from anticoagulant rodenticides as used near human infrastructure such as buildings, which are the usual use sites in Tasmania (table 3, page 22). Some raptors, notably Tytos (e.g. Masked Owls), are well known for swallowing rodents whole (even quite large rats), but most raptors (e.g. Brown Goshawks, Accipiter fasciatus), when eating relatively large rodents, are likely to discard the gut (pers. obs., figure 2, page 21), which organ, coincidently, can contain much of the poison. There seems obvious risk variation among Tasmanian raptor species with the threatened Tasmanian Masked Owl being most at risk and the Tasmanian Boobook, Ninox leucopsis, and hawks, including the threatened Grey Goshawk, A. Novaehollandiae, close behind. Various wild raptors have been found, apparently poisoned, near Hobart in recent years (table 4). Cross-referencing these (c) © Diane Howard reports to calculated potentials for calculated risk ratings (table 3) we find that potential seems to be real in that birds modelled as at high risk indeed are. Captive raptors under rehabilitation have also been poisoned by rats entering the facilities — a Tasmanian Wedge-tailed Eagle, A. a. fleayi, in the Risdon Prison Raptor Rehabili- tation aviary (Pettard 1993, Robertson 1994, Wallis 1994), a Grey Goshawk in West Hobart, a Masked Owl at Margate and a Brown Goshawk at Richmond (pers. obs.).

Discussion Caution has to be applied to assigning causes of illness or death from superficial symptoms (e.g. where a sick bird cannot be very closely examined) because very different conditions can present similarly; two Masked (d) © Erika Trenham Owls found recently (in Howrah and Goodwood) were initially thought to be rodenticide victims, but proved, on veterinary examination, to have severe trichomo- niasis infection (James Harris pers. comm.), ‘bib’ staining being more about food stains from attempts to swallow than from exudate. This parasite is classically carried by columbiformes (pigeons and doves) and the burgeoning Spotted Turtle-dove, Streptopelia chinensis, population together with domestic and feral Rock Doves, Columba livia, in the Hobart urban area may be the origin of the disease. (Masked Owls certainly eat such birds caught at roost.) Nevertheless it appears Masked Owls are at particular risk from SGARs in Tasmania, a potential that has already been noted (Higgins 1999). They prey on widely various animals from insects through rodents to adult rabbits, and hunt in urban and rural environments (Hill 1955, Mooney Unfortunately there are no measures of toxicological 1993, Mooney 1997, Bell et al. 1997). Thus they may be sensitivity to anticoagulant rodenticides for Tasmanian exposed to both urban and rural rodenticides including raptors and pesticide manufacturers have not indulged Pindone. Sensitivity of Australian birds to Pindone this study by entering into correspondence on the varies widely with Wedge-tailed Eagles particularly at subject. Nor have there been systematic studies of risk (Martin et al. 1994). 20 Figure 2: A Masked Owl swallowing a mouse whole (a); a Brown Goshawk dismembering a large rat (b); a mouse eaten off by European Wasp, Vespula germanicas, showing poison (Talon — blue) in the gut (c).

(c) © Margaret Fitzgerald

Without systematic study (and even with it) there can be bias in how many poisoned or otherwise compro- mised birds are found. The Grey Goshawk (pure white in Tasmania) logically has increased detection prob- ability over the better camouflaged (to human eyes) Brown Goshawk. The former is also a threatened species in Tasmania, which makes it more likely that concerned citizens would report a dead or sick individual. Also, a medium-large raptor such as a (a) © Luke O'Brien Masked Owl would logically be more likely to be seen than a very small one such as a Southern Boobook: it is both larger and more likely to persist and be found (i.e. unlikely to be wholly eaten if predated or scavenged). Poisoned rodents typically go through a period of disorientation sometimes with inappropriate, lethargic or erratic behaviours — occasional jerky movements in exposed places during daytime (e.g. figure 3) — exactly the behaviour that attracts predators (Mooney 1976). So strong can be these triggers to predatory birds that a poisoned rodent might attract a bird that normally would not attack rodents. A Collared Sparrowhawk, for instance, might be at higher risk than its usual bird diet indicates since poisoned prey (especially if mice) would be very attractive to this small, aggressive predator with its high metabolism; despite its predilection for small birds, this species has indeed been recorded attacking an adult, non-poisoned rat (Bernie Mace pers. comm.). Thus, raptors that were assessed as being at low to moderate risk might in reality be at higher risk. Risk assessment could also be very different for mouse-sized rodents (which could be eaten in their entirety by all raptors) compared with large rats, the gut of which would usually be discarded by all but large (or desperately hungry) raptors. Of the 20 people living in towns questioned for this study, all but four use SGARs, and, of the 20 farmers questioned, all but three used SGARs, at least around (b) © Helen Cunningham their buildings. We might therefore consider typical 21 locations of poison stations in a local landscape applied at the usage rate of about 3 in 4 properties (figure 4).

Table 3: Proposed risk rangs for Tasmanian raptors to ancoagulant rodencides. WTE = Wedge-tailed Eagle; WBSE = White- bellied Sea-Eagle, Haliaeetus leucogaster; WK = Whistling Kite, Haliastur sphenurus; SH = Swamp Harrier, Circus approximans; GG = Grey Goshawk; BG = Brown Goshawk; CS = Collared Sparrowhawk, Accipiter cirrocephalus; PF = Peregrine Falcon, Falco peregrinus; AH = Australian Hobby, F. longipennis; AK = Nankeen Kestrel, F. cenchroides; BF = Brown Falcon, F. berigora; MO =Masked Owl; TB = Tasmanian Boobook. Metabolism is rated 1 for low to 3 for high (largely following size); eang is rated as 1 if prey gut is usually discarded to 3 if prey is oen swallowed whole; diet is rated as 1 for rodents being very rare food to 3 for it being usual; boldness is rated as 1 for reluctance to forage near people’s buildings to 3 for ‘recklessness’ in such.

Raptor Metabolism Eang Diet Boldness Risk rang WTE 1 1 2 1 5 WBSE 1 1 1 1 4 WK 1 2 2 1 6 SH 2 2 2 1 7 GG 2 2 3 3 10 BG 2 2 3 3 10 CS 3 2 2 3 10 PF 2 2 1 2 7 AH 3 2 1 2 8 AK 3 2 2 2 9 BF 2 2 3 2 9 MO 2 3 3 3 11 SB 3 2 2 3 10

Figure3 (below and right): Apparently poisoned mouse at potentially exposed to SGARs. Raptors typically have Burnie in full daylight (see dot in middle of the road, easily large home ranges that overlap within and between visible to a raptor). species, so poison stations scattered across the landscape at even a low density might expose a high proportion of raptors. This is especially so since poisons presumably target rodent concentrations at human assets, concentrations that raptors are well equipped to find.

From radio-tracking studies in Tasmania, Masked Owls have very large home ranges, usually of about 2000 ha with cross-sections of 4–5km (M. Todd pers. comm., M. Young pers. comm.), so in the typical rural landscape (represented by figure 4) many would be 22 Species Place Year poisoning. We can, therefore, postulate that nearly 100 Masked Owls might be killed by SGARs in Tasmania Grey Goshawk Taroona 2007 each year, possibly the highest anthropogenic mortality Mt Nelson 2009 factor for the species. The sub-lethal impacts are not South Hobart 2009 known, but could lead to starvation, or other incapaci- Kingston 2010 tation and/or predation, especially in raptors that were Sandy Bay 2008 originally in poor physical condition. In addition, it is Brown Goshawk Sandy Bay 2007 possible rodents are gaining resistance to rodenticides West Hobart 2009 (Newton and Whittle 2002), which means more and stronger pesticides are invariably used and rodents may Collared Sparrowhawk Newtown 2011 carry more toxin when eaten. This can only add to the Brown Falcon Margate 2016 danger to animals eating those rodents.

Masked Owl Salamanca Place, 2011 Hobart city 2010 Hobart city 2016 Hobart city 2008 South Hobart 2009 South Hobart 2008 Cambridge 2007 Sandy Bay 2004 Taroona 2009 Kingston 2012 Bagdad 2013 Sorrell TasmanianBoobook Kingston 2010 Sandy Bay 2009 4 km Baery Point 2016 South Hobart 2014

Margate 2014

Richmond 2009 Figure 4: A theorecal representaon of places (red) within a 60 km2 area of typical Tasmanian rural landscape where Table 4: Recent records of wild raptors around Hobart with poisoned rodents might be found, assuming poisoned classic symptoms of ancoagulant rodencide poisoning or rodents are within 100 m of bait staons. Bait staons are at with confirmed poisoning (by dissecon). the rate suggested by interviews and literature for comparable landscapes. The cluster represents a hamlet or For our key species at risk, the Masked Owl, we can poultry farm and the red rectangle an open crop where consider its range in Tasmania, its likely population rodencide has been widely applied. concentrations and the overlap with areas exposed to SGARs. The vast majority of Masked Owls occur in There are no measures of Masked Owl abundance rural landscapes inter-dispersed with patches of since 1996 (Bell et al. 1997), aside from numbers being woodlands, hamlets and towns, and areas of dry forest found as roadkill and for rehabilitation. The latter varies (Bell et al. 1997, Bell and Mooney 2002). The most between 5 and 10 each year since the late 1970s when recent estimate of the total population is 200–400 pairs records began, and there is no evidence of a decrease (Bell and Mooney 2002). A midpoint estimate of say (e.g. Mooney 1994 and unpublished data). However, 300 pairs roughly translates to a seasonal population numbers of Tasmanian Boobooks coming into varying from about 1000 to 1400 birds (from life table rehabilitation have decreased to about 40% of their predictions, Mooney unpub. data). If we exclude large pre-1990 levels of about 15 per year (Mooney unpub. areas of dry forest without human habitation (i.e. areas data). Aside from numbers coming into rehabilitation, where SGAR use would be negligible) probably about indices of abundance of diurnal raptors such as Grey two-thirds of the population, or 990 birds (assuming Goshawks can be gained from extensive, repeated road that population estimate still stands), are potentially counts (Bird et al. 1987, Sutherland et al. 2004, Malan exposed to SGARs. From the literature (e.g. Hughes et 2009). Statewide, there is little change in abundance for al. 2013, Newton and Whittle 2002) it seems that about most species except for the most commonly counted 10% of populations of species susceptible to SGARs species, Brown Falcon and Swamp Harrier. Brown (either through physiology or prey habits) under a Falcons have the largest decrease, down to about 20% of regime represented by table 4 might directly die of pre-1990 counts (NJM unpub. data) in rural areas. The 23 contribution of rodenticides to any such decrease abundance should be carried out. cannot be ruled out, especially since this species eats 4. Use of FGARs over SGARs should be actively many rodents and rabbits (Marchant and Higgins 1993). encouraged since their characteristic requirement of There are other pesticide alternatives to anticoagu- multiple doses to kill rodents (cf. single dose for lants. One style uses Vitamin D3 (Bromethalm) as its SGARs) and their shorter time of action (than for active ingredient. Excess Vitamin D3 mineralises soft SGARS) should expose raptors to lower risk. Key tissues by shifting calcium and phosphorus from bones, times for advocacy are mid to late autumn. death being caused by renal failure. Birds’ hollow bones 5. Use of rodenticides based on Vitaman D3 should be mean the mineralisation process is far less effective than actively encouraged over anticoagulants since they in mammals, giving the former a great degree of have relatively lower impact on birds. protection. Secondary poisoning risks are also much reduced (Eason et al. 2000) because repeated exposures Acknowledgments are required. Often applied where there is resistance to Thanks to James Harris, Barrie Wells and Melanie anticoagulants (something that sometimes happens with Colville (private veterinarians) and Bruce Jackson (Mt FGARs) these Vitamin D3 pesticides may have a wider, Pleasant Animal Health Labs, DPIPWE) for infor- first-off application; as with many things tradition has a mation on rodenticides and advice on the manuscript. great influence on choice of pesticides. Craig Webb of the Raptor and Wildlife Refuge Beyond poisoning per se, there is also the issue of provided records and Bonorong Wildlife Sanctuary and reduction of rodents and rabbits as a major source of its Wildlife Rescue Service were generous with records food for some raptors, something that can only impact and photos, as were various photographers (their photos their security. Rat control technologies focusing on are labelled). Thanks also to various (anonymous) contraception and induced menopause that are under landowners and pest controllers in the Hobart, development (e.g. Kisner 2016) may relieve secondary Richmond and Wynyard areas for answering questions poisoning risks but they may not be species-specific, and about their use of rodenticides. may also substantially impact food supplies of some raptors. References Indigenous predators other than raptors may also be Anon. 2010. ‘Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses affected by anticoagulant rodenticides. It is possible that and Petrels’. ACAP. these pesticides have contributed to local declines in Species assessments: ‘Northern Giant Petrel, Macronectes halli’. Eastern Quoll, Dasyurus viverrinus (Fancourt 2016), since (online publication) these marsupials will both predate and scavenge and Anon. 2014. Macquarie Island Pest Eradication Report. PWS Hobart. can be omnivorous, eating many types of soft bait. It Anon. 2015. Rodenticide Frequently Asked Questions. Producer appears SGARs are overwhelmingly the ‘weapon of Note; Australian Pork, 8/10/15. choice’ in urban areas of Tasmania (presumably where Bell, P., Mooney, N. and Wiersma, J. 1997. Predicting Essential people are more intolerant of rodents). The issue is Habitat for Forest Owls in Tasmania. Australasian Raptor more complex in arguably more important (for non- Association Report to the Tasmanian Environment and target impacts) rural areas. Farmers choose FGARs and Heritage Technical Committee, Hobart. Bell, P., J. and Mooney, N. 2002. ‘Distribution, habitat and SGARs mainly, it seems, based on traditional use on abundance of Masked Owls (Tyto novaeholandiae) in their properties, but there are other influences. For Tasmania’, Ecology and Conservation of Owls. (eds) Newton, I., example, owners of commercial piggeries in Tasmania Kavanagh, I., Olsen, J. and Taylor, I., pp.125–36. are advised not to use warfarin or coumatetralyl-based Bird D., Bildstein K., Barber D. and Zimmerman, A. (Eds) rodenticides (i.e. FGARs) because residues of such can 1987. Raptor Management Techniques Manual. Institute for Wildlife Research, National Wildlife Federation, compromise export of pork (e.g. to Singapore, the USA Washington DC. and some EU countries, Anon 2015), something not Crawley, J. 2011. ‘Rats, mice on the rise’. Tas Country; News. relevant to poultry farms. 1/7/11. Hobart. Debus, S.J.S. 2012. ‘Norfolk Island Boobook chick deaths’. Recommendaons BooBook 30 (1): 6. Birdlife Australia. 1. This paper is largely a theoretical treatment of Eason, C.T., Wickstrom M., Henderson R., Milne L. and D. Arthur (2000). Non Target and Secondary Poisoning Risks rodenticide poisoning and it would be very useful to Associated with Cholecalciferol. New Zealand Plant conduct field studies of the impacts, including Protection 53 pp 299-304, New Zealand Plant Protection investigating residues. Society www.nzpps.org. 2. Other birds (e.g. Tawny Frogmouth, Podargus strigoides, Elliott, J. E., Hindmarch, S., Courtney, A., Emery, A., Emery, which can swallow whole mice) and mammals such as J., Mineau, P., and Maisonneuve, F. 2013. ‘Exposure Eastern Quolls, Dasyurus viverrinus, are also at risk pathways of anticoagulant rodenticides to non-target wildlife’. Environmental Monitoring Assessment. (online (Fancourt 2016) and further, wider risk assessments publication) might usefully be carried out. Donnelley, M. 2011. ‘Post-war days of Thallium and old 3. Systematic, statewide reappraisal of Masked Owl lace’. Daily Telegraph. 23/5/11. Sydney. 24 Fancourt, B.A. 2016. ‘Diagnosing species decline: a Mooney, N. 1994. ‘Tasmanian Area Coordinators report contextual review of threats, causes and future directions 1992 and 1993’. Australian Raptor Association News 15: 1. for management and conservation of the eastern quoll’. Mooney, N. 1997. ‘Habitat and seasonality of nesting Masked Wildlife Research; Review A-O. Published online May 2016. Owls in Tasmania’. Australian Raptor Studies 2. RAOU. Higgins, P.J. (Ed.) 1999. Handbook of Australian, New Newton, I., and Whittle, I. 2002. ‘Rodenticides in British Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Volume 4: Parrots to Barn Owls (Tyto alba)’, Ecology and Conservation of Owls. (eds) Dollarbird. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Newton, I., Kavanagh, I., Olsen, J. and Taylor, I. pp. 286–95. Hill, L.H. 1955. ‘Notes on the habits and breeding of the Olsen, P., Mooney, N., and Olsen, J. 1987. ‘Status and Tasmanian Masked Owl’. Emu 55: 203–10. Conservation of the Norfolk Island Boobook’. Raptors in the Hughes, J., Sharp, E., Taylor, M.J., Melton, L., and Hartley, Modern World. (eds) Chancellor, R., and Meyburg, B. G. 2013.’ Monitoring agricultural rodenticide use and WWGBP. secondary exposure of raptors in Scotland’. Ecotoxicology. Olsen, P., Debus, S., Czechura, G., and Mooney, N. 1990. 22: 974–84. ‘Comparative Feeding ecology of the Grey Goshawk and James, D. 1997. ‘Rat-baiting in cane fields and poisoning of Brown goshawk’. Australian Bird Watcher. 13(6): 179–91. wildlife’. BooBook 18(1): 5, RAOU Melb. Olsen, J., Debus, S.J.S., and Judge, D. 2013. ‘Declining Little Kisner, J. 2016. ‘Man versus rat: could the long war soon be Eagles, Hieraaetus morphnoides, and increasing rabbit numbers over?’ The Guardian. Robertson, S. 1994. ‘Prisoners with a new lease on life’. Geo Malan, G. 2009. Raptor Survey and Monitoring – A Field 15(4). Guide for African Birds of Prey. Briza Publishing, Pretoria. Thomas, P.J., Mineau, P., Shore, R.F., Champoux, L., Martin, Marchant, S. and Higgins, P.J. (Eds) 1993. Handbook of P.A., Wilson, L.K., Fitzgerald, G., and Elliott, J.E 2011. Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Birds ‘Second generation anticoagulant rodenticides in predatory Australia. birds: probabilistic characterisation of toxic liver Martin, G. R., Kirkpatrick, W. E., Robertson, I. D., Hood, P., concentrations and implications for predatory bird and Sutherland, J.R. 1994. ‘Assessment of the potential populations in Canada’. Environment International 37: 914–20. toxicity of an anti-coagulant, Pindone (2-pivalyl-1, 3- Wallis, D. 1994. ‘Goal birds spread their wings’. Aust Geo 33. indandione), to some Australian birds’. Wildlife Research 21, Young, J., and De Lai, L. 1997. ‘Population declines of 85–93. predatory birds coincident with the introduction of Klerat Mooney N. 1976. Development of Some Predatory and rodenticide in north Queensland’. Australian Bird Watcher. Social Behaviours in the Brown Falcon, Falco berigora. 17: 160–67. Unpublished honours thesis, Zoology, UTAS. Zinsser, H. 1935. Rats, Lice and History. 2008 reprint, Mooney, N. 1993. ‘Diet of the Masked Owl in Tasmania’. Transactions Publishers, New Brunswick and London. Australian Raptor Studies 1. RAOU.

25 Oddities of behaviour and occurrence

Compiler, Wynne Webber, BirdLife Tasmania

Introducon birds. These birds had decided to try an alternative In this section reports of unusual, previously unreported breeding site to the most usual site above the high tide or rare behavioural characteristics will be discussed as line on the beach. The pair chose to nest in a field of well as unusual occurrences of species in Tasmania. mixed Asian vegetables. According to the farmers the The reasons for initiating this section in the Tasmanian birds had been hanging around for some time before Bird Report are multiple: gradually such a record of Doreen found the nest with two eggs amongst hard behavioural traits will increase our knowledge of species clumps of loamy soil and rocks. There was no sign of a found in Tasmania; unusual sightings may become more “comfortable” scrape, just a few pieces of straw close to regular, even developing into natural range extensions the eggs when found on 15 October. for some species. It will then be the job of researchers to ‘Doreen’s frequent observations showed that there was discover why these changes are occurring. Is it climate a bird incubating most of the time, often with both birds change? If not, what? In the case of behaviours, what is present and changeovers at least once in the morning their purpose? How will this help us to understand the and late afternoon. There was a little disturbance from ecological and habitat needs of species? children, relatives of the farmers, but the birds appeared This year, there happens to have been more obser- to tolerate the comings and goings of the farmers and to vations made about the Australian Pied Oystercatcher, remain incubating whilst they worked their fields. Haematopus longirostris, and the Sooty Oystercatcher, H. ‘The first chick hatched on the morning of 8 Novem- fuliginosis, than of other species or genera, and so these ber and was running after the parents in the evening. observations come first. The contributor of each record The chick was very lively the next day, and when the appears with the text. nest was checked the remaining egg was seen to have a chip. By late afternoon the first chick was feeding with Pied Oystercatchers parents and the second chick had hatched and was Many of the observations of Pied Oystercatchers con- about to get up. The next morning both adults and both cerned the birds being forced to find unaccustomed chicks were present with one adult seen brooding chicks. nesting sites because of beach erosion, tidal flooding The parents were seen gathering worms and fed the and habitat loss from human intrusions onto beaches chicks in response to their cheeps. and estuaries. Nesting, north-west Tasmania Hazel Britton These records were made as part of the Shorebird Monitoring Program, Stanley to Narawntapu NP, con- ducted under the auspices of Cradle Coast NRM. In the first record, Hazel informed Mike Newman (Birds on our Beaches Newsletter, North-West Tasmanian Shorebird Monitoring Programme, July 2016) of a pair nesting well away from the beach. ‘In October last year [2015] Doreen Smith, one of our group, contacted me about a pair of Pied Oyster- catchers that had taken up residence in vegetable Figure 1: Oystercatcher chick in field nest. © Doreen Smith gardens in East Devonport. Doreen was able to watch them from her lounge window and decided to keep ‘The Pied Oystercatcher family were last seen in the notes on their activities. Between the 15 October and 18 vegetable garden on 14 November when they moved off November Doreen made 127 entries in her notebook, towards the dam area about 200 m away, viewed which reflect her interest and concern for this pair of through binoculars at 7.30 p.m. 26 ‘This dam is in an area of paddocks, mostly used for These two pictures (figures 2 and 3) show a Pied Oyster- cattle, and it is possible that the Pied Oystercatchers catcher egg in a gravel scrape on the edge of a roadside could have found enough food to raise the chicks there on Flinders Island, indicating that this pair was forced although Doreen spent two days looking for the family away from more traditional nest sites on beaches. without success. Eastern and southern Tasmania ‘Unfortunately, we do not know if the chicks fledged Alan Fletcher and Mike Newman successfully, or if the parents tried to take them down to On 17 November 2016, Alan described a brief morning the beach, about 1.5 km north or west.’ visit to Mortimer Bay. He was on the track behind the Mike replied that he has heard of and seen several fenced southern area when up ahead a cyclist disturbed pairs being forced from traditional breeding sites by a Pied Oystercatcher, which Alan realised was sitting at tidal flooding and beach erosion. At this time (27 Nov- its nest site. Alan waited for the bird to return to take ember 2016) he had been watching a pair nesting about some photographs from some distance away. He wrote: 0.5 km from the coast on a lagoon, but they failed. Mike ‘I photographed [figures 4 and 5] what I initially noted that Hazel’s pair appeared to be too far from the assumed was the bird moving the eggs around, but it coast for the adults to fly in food or to walk the young to picked up an egg and walked off, then flew to the rocky the coast, consequently food supply could be an issue. spit to the south. There it dropped the egg and flew During 2016 a pair breeding in the Don Estuary back to the nest — all over in less than five minutes. already had a fledged young and another almost flying Closer inspection of the broken egg suggests that it may on 16 November (observers: Hazel Britton and Bobby have been “predated”. Are the eggs about to hatch?’ Watts). During the monitoring session of 22 October to 19 November, the following were also recorded: 6. Julie Serafin recorded a pair incubating on 22 October at Badger Beach. A bird walked 15 m into the dunes (through a grass area that was high and dry) and changed places with the incubating bird. 7. At Bakers Beach, two pairs with nests above the eroded beach were recorded on 9 November by Peter Atkinson and Peter French. 8. A pair in the Leven Estuary (opposite my house) nested on top of a hay bale that came down river with the June floods and lodged at the end of the saltmarsh island. Two eggs hatched, but only one young fledged (first seen flying on 7 December and not seen feeding with adults after that date). Flinders Island Glen Goessing (images © Glen Goessing)

Figures 4 and 5: Pied Oystercatcher removing a damaged egg from the nest’s vicinity. © Alan Fletcher Mike Newman said: ‘I agree with Alan’s conclusion that the bird removed a damaged egg towards the end of the incubation period as I made a subsequent visit and the adults were still incubating. ‘This feeds into comments made by Amanda Blakney Figures 2 and 3: Photographs showing the posion of the as to why this may have occurred; namely to avoid the egg on the side of the road (see centre of boom image). risk of predation associated with odours that emanate 27 from a damaged egg and attracting predators. Shell that looked something like flathead. The behaviour was removal is well known when the chicks hatch, but this is interesting and, to me, unprecedented.’ subtly different.’ Mike added that a pair of Pied Oystercatcher nesting Sooty Terns on Macquarie Island opposite the Lauderdale Tavern allowed their juvenile Marcus Salton, Wildlife Ranger, Macquarie Island to remain on their territory until the following August, At 6 p.m. on 7 June 2016 two terns were heard and seen which, in his experience, is very unusual. flying above the northern end of the station on Mac- quarie Island (54º29.904' S; 158º56.364' E). The birds Sooty Oystercatchers looked and sounded different from the resident Antarc- Alan Fletcher tic Tern, Sterna vittata — in particular, the long tail In an email to Priscilla Park in mid-June 2016, Alan feathers were quite notable. The observers were unable related: ‘I was in the reserve to the east of Goat Bluff to identify the species. The terns and some unidentified and, realising there was a huge sea running, I walked to petrels (most likely Grey Petrels, Procellaria cinerea) the top of the dunes to get a look. While there I scanned seemed to have been attracted to the station light that the beach for birds, and noted two SOOY, and that they was refracting off the low mist surrounding the station were the sole birds on the entire length of the beach. (winds were also low, <15 knots). They were feeding between waves about 150 m away. I noticed something odd about how they were feeding and climbed down to the beach to get a closer view.

Figure 8: Sooty Tern found on the road at the southern end of staon, Macquarie Island. © Marcus Salton, TasPAWS The two birds were heard and spotted again the following morning (8 June) before sunrise (approxi- mately 7 a.m.); weather conditions were similar to the previous night. Later that morning, at approximately 9 a.m., a Sooty Tern, Onychoprion fuscatus, was seen on a dirt road at the southern end of station, approximately 250 m from the two sightings of the unidentified terns that had been flying overhead (figure 8). The Sooty Tern was alive but appeared unwell (from approxi- mately 20 m distance); its wings were drooped and it was not very alert. I slowly approached the bird to assess its condition. The bird walked about 30 cm and then flew about 50 cm (getting no higher than 30 cm from the ground). The bird then stopped and did not move again when approached. There was no obvious sign of injury to the legs, wings, tail, head or body. I picked up Figures 6 and 7: Sooty Oystercatcher skimming in the sand as the bird to move it off the road, out of the wind and the wave recedes, and then holding its catch. © Alan Fletcher mist and into a more sheltered, quiet location in the lee ‘I could not get very close, but I could see that they of a building and among the protection of some were “skimming” the sand as the sea ran back. They tussock. With the bird in hand there was no other sign placed their lower bill in the water and walked briskly of injury. The bird was left in the sheltered location and forward until they found some prey, but I was unable to viewed from a distance twice during the day: the bird identify the prey beyond the fact that it was small fish did not move throughout the day. 28 The following day (9 June) a tern was heard and have been trying to join the flock as it ran when they ran spotted flying over the northern end of the station. At and walked when they walked, moving in the same the same time, the Sooty Tern that was moved off the direction as the flock was moving. It did not attempt to road the previous day was found dead where it had been enter the flock during the 10 minutes or so that we relocated. At approximately 9 a.m. that same morning observed it, always staying a few feet outside the rather (9 June) another Sooty Tern was found on the ground tight group of domestic geese. It is possible that it was among buildings at the northern end of station (figure rejected by the flock of substantially larger geese. 9). Photos were taken from >20 m away and, when the photographer moved away, the bird flew off. The photos revealed a wound on the tern’s left wing. This second tern was not re-sighted. The deceased tern was collected and stored in a freezer. Presumably the birds were blown south during the large storm systems that moved down the east coast of Australia — this storm caused extensive coastal damage in Sydney and along the coast of New South Wales, and flooding in Tasmania.

Figure 10: Cape Barren Goose staying with the flock as it moves. © Peter Brown Cape Barren Geese breed mostly on islands and are gregarious and form flocks when not nesting (Marchant and Higgins 1990). Chicks, as they mature, forms flocks and, when they can fly, in late spring, migrate to other islands to find foraging opportunities (Green 1995). Island populations are partial migrants, with adults moving to the mainland from islands that become dry in summer (Marchant and Higgins 1990). It seems possible that this individual was a bird, either adult or immature, Figure 9: The tern found on the ground at the northern end that wandered during migration, and, with its of staon, Macquarie Island. (Note blood on the le wing.) gregarious proclivities, was attempting to become part © Kimberley Kliska, Volunteer, Albatross and Petrel of the domestic goose flock it had encountered. We monitoring program, DPIPWE cannot, however, discount the possibility that this Cape Cape Barren Goose flocks with domesc geese Barren Goose was domestically raised or a zoo escapee, although we think this possibility remote. Successful William E. Davis, Jr., Professor Emeritus, Boston University, entrance to the flock raises the spectre of possible hyb- Boston, Massachusetts, USA, and Peter B. Brown, (ret.) ridisation. There is, however, no mention in Marchant Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and and Higgins of Cape Barren Geese joining interspecific Environment, Hobart flocks, or of hybridisation. On 6 December 2016, on a bird outing to the lake References region of the Midlands, Tasmania, we observed a single Green, R.H. 1995. The Fauna of Tasmania: Birds. Potoroo Cape Barren Goose, Cereopsis novaehollandiae, associating Publishing: Launceston. with a flock of more than 50 Greylag-type domestic Marchant, S., and Higgins, P.J. (eds.). 1990. Handbook of geese at a pond south of Hamilton (figure 10). It may Australian, New Zealand & Antarctic Birds. Volume 1: Ratites to Ducks. Oxford University Press: Melbourne.

29 Table 1: Some interesng sighngs from 2016. (This table was compiled by Andrew Walter, BirdLife Tasmania, and includes reference to the Birdata and Eremaea Birdlines databases. The observaons have not been authencated and any follow-up on a sighng should be made to the observer.)

Observaon Locaon Date Observer 1130 Australian Shelduck Farm dam, Staggs Creek, via Sassafras 20/01/16 Richard Ashby 500+ Chestnut Teal Tamar Island Wetlands 14/03/16 Alan Melville 75 Blue-billed Duck Rostrevor Lagoon 14/02/16 Nicole Somer, Darryl Eggins 1 Rose-crowned Fruit-Dove Devonport 06/05/16 John Tongue 7 Owlet Nightjar Waterworks Reserve, Hobart 18/01/16 Paul Brooks 100+ White-throated Needletail Moulng Lagoon 23/02/16 Els Wakefield 1 Kermadec Petrel Pelagic trip from Eaglehawk Neck 06/02/16 Els Wakefield 1 Cook’s Petrel Pelagic trip from Eaglehawk Neck 29/01/16 Rohan Clarke 1 Lesser Frigatebird Beerbarrel Beach, St Helens 06/06/16 Liz Znidersic 1 Lesser Frigatebird Burns Bay, St Helens 09/06/16 Liz Znidersic 1 Great Frigatebird Mays Point, Sandford 06/06/16 Mark Holdsworth 4 Great Frigatebird Burns Bay, St Helens 09/06/16 Liz Znidersic 100+ Great Cormorant Queechy Lake 05/02/16 Nina Wilson 30 Banded Slt Ansons Bay 23/01/16 Bob Wickham 102 Pacific Golden Plover Orielton Creek saltmarsh 06/01/16 NA 85 Pacific Golden Plover Shipwreck Point, Perkins Island 22/01/16 NW Tasmanian Wader Count 23 Hooded Plover Marion Bay 23/06/16 Heidi Krajewski 50 Banded Lapwing Perth 13/05/16 Paul Brooks 41 Latham’s Snipe Duck River, Smithton 21/01/16 NA 77 Bar-tailed Godwit Sorell Causeway 16/01/16 NA 23 Bar-tailed Godwit Barilla Bay 26/06/16 Mona Loofs-Samorzewski 413 Ruddy Turnstone Shipwreck Point, Perkins Island 22/01/16 NW Tasmanian Wader Count 240 Red Knot Kangaroo Island, NW Tasmania 10/03/16 Richard Ashby, Hazel Brion 2700 Red-necked Snt Shipwreck Point, Perkins Island 22/01/16 NW Tasmanian Wader Count 49 Curlew Sandpiper Shipwreck Point, Perkins Island 22/01/16 NW Tasmanian Wader Count 34 Fairy Tern Prosser River spit 23/01/16 Eric J. Woehler 1 Antarcc Tern Pelagic trip from Eaglehawk Neck 08/10/16 Paul Brooks 1 Franklin’s Gull Macquarie Harbour 04/07/16 Adam Harper 2 King Island Scrubt Nook Swamp 09/01/16 Dion Hobcro 2 King Island Scrubt Pegarah State Forest 19/10/16 Adrian Boyle 1 King Island Brown Thornbill Pegarah State Forest 06/01/16 Dion Hobcro 2 King Island Brown Thornbill Pegarah State Forest 19/10/16 Adrian Boyle 100–120 Yellow Walebird Blackman Bay, Dunalley 10/07/16 Ashwin Rudder

30 When is the best time to survey shorebirds?

Stephen Walsh

Is high de the most appropriate me? feeding areas for oystercatchers and other shorebirds, Traditionally, shorebird surveys take place at high tide making it easy to observe them, whereas at high tide when birds congregate in roost sites. If all counters these birds retreat to roost sites that may be subject to survey simultaneously, the chance of counting the same human disturbance, thus causing them to disperse, or birds twice at adjacent locations is low. birds may retreat to remote sites such as offshore islands This method is usually effective and convenient: there that cannot be surveyed without a boat. is no need to travel around an entire estuary or shore- Places where the low-tide survey approach gives better line to determine bird numbers. At other tides, sighting results are found at Southport and nearby Hastings some birds can be difficult because they are: (a) so Estuary (figure 1) in the far south. Rock platforms along spread out; (b) hidden by undulations on sandbars or by the Southport shoreline provide low-tide feeding areas vegetation; (c) so well camouflaged; or (d) in areas that for 10–15 Pied Oystercatchers and 6 Sooty Oyster- are inaccessible without causing disturbance. catchers, as do mudflats at the top of Hastings Estuary Problems and alternaves (up to 6 Pied Oystercatchers). At high tide these sites are There are, however, problems with this method at some inundated and birds retreat to several known roosts plus sites and an opposite approach can be more effective. other opportunistic sites. Resultantly, the oystercatchers At low- to mid-tide levels, shorebirds occupying rivers are often difficult to find at high-tide survey times, which and estuaries can be easily observed on mudflats and flat leads to variable data. exposed shorelines, whereas at high tide these areas are Furthermore, it has been suggested (Dr Eric Woehler inundated and many shorelines are narrow, steep or pers. comm.) that, due to predicted sea-level rise, many densely covered with sedges and reeds, and thus are traditional shorebird roost sites may become inundated unsuitable for shorebird roosting. Similarly, on coastal at high tide, and this calls for new survey strategies to be shorelines, exposed rock platforms at low tide provide developed in order to continue accurate monitoring.

Figure 1: Map of Southport shoreline and Hasngs Estuary. ‘x’ denotes low-de oystercatcher feeding areas; ‘o’ denotes known high-de roosts.

31 A Eurasian Coot nests in Hobart

William E. Davis, Jr, Professor Emeritus, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, and Peter B. Brown (ret.), Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and Environment, Hobart

On 25 November 2016, PBB discovered a nesting Cleveland, but were not reported breeding again until Eurasian Coot (Fulica atra) on the southern edge of the 1971, this time at Nile. upper lagoon at the Waterworks Reserve, South Hobart. Thereafter, reports of one or more breeding pairs The nest was a typical substantial structure built of were recorded nearly annually: for example in 1972, 75, reeds and other aquatic vegetation amongst sparse 78, 79, 80, 81, 84 and 91 (Paterson and Gore 1992), waterside aquatic vegetation less than one metre from with records from Lake Dulverton, Port Sorell, Ulver- shore. It was the first Eurasian Coot nest PBB had seen stone, Waterloo and Margate, among others. Records of in his many years of bird observation in Tasmania. On breeding, usually of a single pair, continued to be 28 November 2016, PBB showed the nest to WED, who reported nearly annually in the ‘Systematic list’ of the photographed the nest and sitting adult (figure 1). The Tasmanian Bird Report to 2006, after which the list was adult was incubating at least three freshly hatched discontinued. Presumably, scattered breeding has young. On 14 January 2017, PBB revisited the nest site continued regularly since then. and found no action there, but further out in the lagoon Sharland (1960) remarked on the absence of reports an adult coot was being closely attended by a brown of coot nesting in Tasmania, especially by the avid egg juvenile. When the adult dove and surfaced with aquatic collectors of the early 20th century, but suggested the vegetation the young bird rushed up to the adult for possibility that coots bred in remote areas of Tasmania. food. The single young bird suggests a high attrition He also commented on the migratory habits of the rate. coot, including instances when thousands apparently synchronously depart Tasmania, presumably at night, for the mainland, as observed in 1956. Eurasian Coots breed in ephemeral or permanent wetlands, in or close to dense emergent or floating vegetation, in lakes, ponds, sewage ponds — about anything with water and vegetation (Marchant and Higgins 1993). It thus appears probable that there is no dearth of nesting habitat for the Eurasian Coot in Tasmania. The movement of Eurasian Coots is described as dispersive and without regular seasonal patterns of migration, and, in a given area, the numbers may or may not fluctuate seasonally. Egg clutches have been reported in Tasmania from late September to Figure 1: Eurasian Coot sing on its nest at the Waterworks December and January. Thus the 2016 Hobart nesting in South Hobart. falls within this rather extensive nesting period. This Eurasian Coot nesting in Hobart is of interest in It appears that the thousands of Eurasian Coots that that coot nesting records are few in Tasmania given that visit Tasmania each year breed mainly on the mainland, high numbers are present on the island annually, although their stay in Tasmania often overlaps with the including in the Hobart area. For example, Paterson mainland breeding season. Certainly, a few pairs breed and Rounsevell reported 1500 coot on the River in Tasmania each year, perhaps more in remote areas as Derwent in 1984; higher numbers have been reported originally suggested by Sharland (1960). So the breeding since, including 2351 reported by Wakefield and of the Eurasian Coot in South Hobart appears to be yet Wakefield (1995). Reports on coots nesting in Tasmania another of the scattered and unusual Tasmanian date back to 1909, when five nests were reported at breeding records, and the lack of widespread and 32 consistent breeding in Tasmania by the Eurasian Coot Report. 21: 28–30. remains, as before, a mystery. Paterson, R.M. and Rounsevell, D.E. (Compilers). 1984. ‘Bird observations—Systematic list’. Tasmanian Bird Report. 13: 31– References 39. Marchant, S. and Higgins, P.J. 1993. Handbook of Australian, Sharland, M. 1960. ‘Tasmanian coot mystery’. Emu. 60: 95– New Zealand & Antarctic Birds. Volume 2: Raptors to 98. Lapwings. Oxford University Press: Melbourne. Wakefield, W.C. and Wakefield, M.J. (Compilers). 1995. ‘Bird Paterson, R.M. and Gore, J.E. 1992. ‘Recent breeding records observations—Systematic list’. Tasmanian Bird Report. 24: 57– for Eurasian Coots, Fulica atra, in Tasmania.’ Tasmanian Bird 72.

33 Changes in bird populations on Mt Wellington over a 40-year period

Mike Newman, 72 Axiom Way, Acton Park Tasmania, 7170, [email protected]

Summary The survey sites are located in wet forest on Mt Bird surveys conducted during 1976–78 on tracks at Wellington in an area that was devastated by bushfire in Ferntree Glade and Shoobridge Corner on Mt Welling- 1967. There have been changes in vegetation and hence ton near Hobart, Tasmania, were repeated in 2014–16. bird habitat as the forest recovered, as well as changes in This area was devastated by bushfires in 1967. In the climate conditions. 2014–16 surveys, the presence of many bird species Methods and analysis measured by reporting rates was lower than in 1976–78, The original surveys in 1976–78 involved walking and 13 species had decreased to a statistically significant transects and recording all birds seen and heard over a extent. Although a few species maintained their status, period of approximately 1.5 hours along each transect only one increased statistically significantly. The overall (Newman 2014). The recent surveys involved the same effect was a decrease in the number and diversity of transects, visited monthly between July 2014 and June species present. 2016, again recording the presence and numbers of all The observed changes in the composition of the bird birds seen and heard. The recent transect surveys were population were consistent with altered foraging oppor- submitted to BirdLife Australia’s Birdata archive as tunities, the result of vegetation changes during the time 500 m area surveys (i.e., they fit within an area of 500 m between the two survey campaigns. The dominant radius) for sites at Ferntree Glade (site ID 320678; change was formation of a dense subcanopy dominated 42°55'S 147°15'E; altitude 460 m) and Shoobridge by Bedfordia salicina that eliminated groundcover and Corner; site ID 320762 (42°54'S 147°15'E; altitude diverse understorey vegetation, which is typical of wet 630 m). The transect walked at Shoobridge Corner sclerophyll forests and their embedded wet gullies. included the Circle Track. As there had been changes in Changes in the floristic diversity and structure of the the bird populations and habitat at both sites an vegetation eliminated foraging and nesting opportunities additional site was added adjacent to the Shoobridge for species like Pink Robin, Petroica rodinogaster, and Olive Corner site. The vegetation at this new site (Shoobridge Whistler, Pachycephala olivacea, two of the species that 2 km; site ID 322501) was more open than the Shoo- decreased significantly. Ground foraging species bridge Corner site and some parts held a superficial benefited from increased foraging opportunities in the resemblance to the Shoobridge Corner site at the time absence of groundcover vegetation, with Brush Bronze- of the baseline surveys in 1976–78. wing, Phaps elegans, being the species that increased to a Surveys were conducted in the morning and began statistically significant extent. between 1 and 2 hours after sunrise. Ferntree Glade The overriding conclusion was that the present com- Track was usually surveyed first and Shoobridge 2 km position of the bird populations at the two survey sites is last. Total survey time was approximately 3 hours and a legacy of the bushfires that devastated the area in birds at these high altitude sites remained active 1967, and, furthermore, that changes in both vegetation throughout the surveys. The time spent surveying each and bird populations appear to be ongoing 50 years site was less than that spent during the 1970s surveys after the event. because there were fewer birds present and the number Introducon of each species was cumulatively logged rather than In a previous paper I presented the results of surveys on being mapped (i.e., the locations where each species was the Ferntree Glade and Shoobridge tracks during the seen were sketched on a map) as in the previous surveys. period 1976–78 (Newman 2014). Baseline data of this Reporting Rates (RRs), the percentage of surveys in type allow quantitative assessment of the changes in the which a species was present, were used to measure bird population compared with surveys that were con- differences between the occurrences of species at the ducted nearly 40 years ago. three survey sites in the 2014–16 campaign. In 34 comparing the RRs in the 1976–78 (159 surveys) with lowest at the Ferntree Glade, as indicated by number of the 2014–16 effort, results for the Ferntree Glade and species recorded and average number of species per Shoobridge Corner sites were pooled. A Chi square test survey (table 1). Birds were also more numerous at the with Yates’ correction for one degree of freedom was Shoobridge sites (birds/survey) in 2014–15 than at used to test the statistical significance of differences in Ferntree Glade (table 1). At all three sites, more species RR between the two periods. The lower number of were recorded per survey in 2014–15 than in 2015–16 surveys in 2014–16 (47 surveys) compared with 1976–78 (figure 1). However, while the number of birds recorded (159 surveys) adversely affected the ability to determine per survey fell at the Shoobridge sites, there was a whether species first recorded in 2014–16 had increased marginal increase at Ferntree Glade, but this increase to a statistically significant extent. No attempt was made predominantly involved Tasmanian Scrubwrens, to evaluate changes in the numbers of individual Sericornis humilis, which accounted for 39% of the birds species. recorded at Ferntree Glade in 2015–16. Survey effort At the start of the recent surveys it was obvious that was similar at all three sites. there had been changes in both the bird population and Annual RRs for individual species are shown in table the vegetation at both Ferntree Glade and Shoobridge 2 (page 37), where they are compared for the consecu- Corner compared with 1976–78. On the expectation tive financial year periods 2014–15 and 2015–16. For that the changes in the bird population would, at least in many species the RRs were lower in 2014–15 than in part, be linked to these differences in vegetation, the 2015–16. To investigate the differences between the vegetation, in both plant diversity and structure, was 1976–78 and 2014–16 periods, the pooled RRs for the qualitatively characterised with botanical assistance. Ferntree Glade and Shoobridge Corner sites were Changes in structure (described subsequently) limited compared (table 3, page 38). visual detection of birds, which increased the need to The results given in table 3 indicate that, indeed, rely on calls. The increased difficulty in viewing birds substantial changes in the bird populations at Ferntree exacerbated the difficulty in distinguishing between Tas- Glade and Shoobridge Corner had occurred over the manian Thornbill, Acanthiza ewingii, and Brown 38-year period between the survey campaigns. The Thornbill, A. pusilla: uncertain thornbill records number of species recorded had decreased from 39 to defaulted to the former species, which was dominant at 30, with 13 species not recorded in 2014–16. There all three survey sites. were only four new species recorded in 2014–16. Furthermore, the changes in ten species were highly Results significant statistically, of which nine decreased and only 2014–16 surveys one increased. A further four species experienced Species diversity was highest at Shoobridge 2 km and statistically significant declines.

Table 1: Stascs for monthly surveys at three sites on Mt Wellington from July 2014 to June 2016.

F’tree F’tree S’bridge S’bridge S’bridge S’bridge Survey site Glade Glade Corner Corner 2 km 2 km 2014/15 2015/16 2014/15 2015/16 2014/15 2015/16

Species recorded 27 (29)* 23 25 (29)* 28 30 (32)* 26

Average number of species per survey 9.8 8.0 11.5 9.7 13.2 10.4

Standard deviaon 2.5 2.9 2.7 2.4 3.4 3.1

Maximum 15 12 16 12 19 14

Minimum 7 4 5 5 9 4

Average number of birds per survey 20.5 20.9 27.4 21.1 30.9 22.1

Number of surveys 12 12 11 12 12 11

* Total number of species seen during the two-year period July 2014–June 2016.

35 which had fallen and contributed to a mass of decaying timber at ground level; this mass included many of the larger trunks of trees that were destroyed during the 1967 fires. Much of the habitat at Shoobridge Corner was similar to that described above for the Ferntree Glade gully and, particularly, extensive areas of the Circle Track that are well away from the creek gully that runs through that area. However, there was greater diversity in the sub-canopy vegetation even though Tasmanian Blanketleaf remained a dominant species. The canopy had opened in places where sub-canopy species had fallen, sometimes assisted by the demise of one of the Figure 1: Comparison of species diversity as indicated by the large Stringybarks, Eucalyptus obliqua, that protrude number of species per survey in monthly surveys at three through the sub-canopy. In these openings there was sites on Mt Wellington in 2014–15 and 2015–16. increased groundcover and shrub layer vegetation. Habitat Along the ridge beyond the junction with the Circle Track the survey route passed through patches of more Ridpath and Moreau (1965) used 14 broad habitat types typical wet sclerophyll vegetation. Here Gahnia grandis to describe the distribution of land birds breeding was a dominant component of the understorey, together regularly in Tasmania in the 1960s. Superficially the with Cutting Grass, Blechnum wattsii, Hard Waterfern, Ferntree Glade and Shoobridge Corner survey sites fit Microsorium pustulatum, Tree Fern, Mountain Correa, in the wet sclerophyll classification. This habitat type, Correa lawrenceana, Satinwood, Nematolepis squamea, and intermediate between dry sclerophyll woodland and Cherry Riceflower, Pimelea drupacea. However, the track temperate rainforest, is found in wetter areas between subsequently re-entered an area of dense sub-canopy 250 and 900 m altitude. It consists of well-spaced very with no underlying ground cover and here the track was big trees and a particularly well-developed shrub layer, well away from any creek gully. The amount of wet which is floristically diverse and may include an sclerophyll vegetation present at Shoobridge Corner as understorey of rainforest trees in wetter areas. Within defined by Ridpath and Moreau (1965) was estimated to wet sclerophyll forest there are often wet gullies where be less than 25%; the remainder, as described above, densely shaded streams flow through steep-sided gullies resembled the structure of rainforest at the understorey characterised by mosses and ferns, particularly Dicksonia level. antarctica. Such gullies are effectively a sub-habitat of wet In contrast, the habitat at the additional survey site, sclerophyll forest (Ridpath and Moreau 1965). Shoobridge 2 km, was more open than at the other two At the time of the 1976–1978 surveys, vegetation at sites. At the start the track passes through a small area of Shoobridge Corner fitted the above description of wet wet sclerophyll before crossing a boulder field sclerophyll forest well, although it was recovering from interspersed with shrubs and small isolated trees. At the the 1967 fires, which had devastated the area ten years far side of the boulder field the track crosses a creek that earlier. The Ferntree Glade site was predominantly an forms an interface between this open habitat and example of the gully sub-habitat in which the survey another belt of dense vegetation with a closed sub- transect followed a gully stream bed. At Shoobridge canopy that lacks ground cover and the open vegetation Corner the survey route mainly followed a ridge, but of the boulder field. The creek-side vegetation was more twice crossed gullies. At both sites the shrub layer luxuriant with abundant ferns, a consequence of its vegetation was dense and diverse, with an open shrub more open aspect. Beyond the belt of vegetation with canopy. dense sub-canopy there were further boulder fields that By 2014–16, changes in the vegetation structure and formed the boundary of this site. At the boundary there floristic diversity had dramatically modified the habitat were a number of large eucalypts such as are typical of at both survey sites. The most obvious change was in the wet sclerophyll forest, but the extent of this vegetation shrub layer vegetation, where a dense sub-canopy had type was not extensive. The transition from wet formed at about 5 m. This excluded all sunlight, sclerophyll to sub-alpine forest (Ridpath and Moreau resulting in the absence of both groundcover plants and 1965) occurs at Shoobridge 2 km. the floristically diverse shrub layer characteristic of wet sclerophyll forest. This effect was most pronounced at Rainfall patterns Ferntree Glade where, other than a few Tree Ferns, During the 2014–16 surveys the survey sites were much Dicksonia antarctica, there was an absence of ferns and drier than during those of 1977–78, and there were mosses. Here the dominant sub-canopy species was prolonged periods when the creeks running through the ageing Tasmanian Blanketleaf, Bedfordia salicina, some of gullies were dry, particularly in 2015–16.

36 Table 2: Annual reporng rates for surveys at three sites on Mt Wellington between July 2014 and June 2016.

Shoo- Shoo- Shoo- Shoo- Ferntree Ferntree bridge bridge bridge bridge Glade Glade Common name Scienfic name Corner Corner 2 km 2 km RR(%) RR(%) RR(%) RR(%) RR(%) RR(%) 2014/15 2015/16 2014/15 2014/16 2014/15 2014/16 Spoed Dove Streptopelia chinensis 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Brush Bronzewing Phaps elegans 66.7 33.0 18.2 16.7 41.7 27.3

Shining Bronze-Cuckoo Chalcites lucidus 8.3 0.0 18.2 16.7 8.3 9.1

Fan-tailed Cuckoo Cacomans flabeliformis 16.7 0.0 27.3 8.3 33.3 9.1

Laughing Kookaburra Dacelo novaeguineae 50.0 8.3 0.0 8.3 16.7 0.0

Yellow-tailed Black-Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus funereus 8.3 0.0 8.3 0.0 16.7 18.2

Sulphur-crested Cockatoo Cacatua galerita 33.3 33.3 27.3 16.7 8.3 0.0

Green Rosella Platycercus caledonicus 16.7 41.7 54.5 41.7 58.3 72.7

Superb Fairy-wren Malurus cyaneus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Crescent Honeyeater Phylidonyris pyrrhopterus 16.7 16.7 36.4 41.7 75.0 72.7

Yellow-throated Honeyeater Nesoplos flavicollis 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 75.0 81.8

Strong-billed Honeyeater Melithreptus validirostris 0.0 0.0 18.2 16.7 33.3 18.2

Black-headed Honeyeater Melithreptus affinis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0

Eastern Spinebill Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris 8.3 0.0 45.5 33.3 58.3 54.5

Yellow Walebird Anthochaera paradoxa 0.0 8.3 27.3 0.0 33.3 9.1

Spoed Pardalote Pardalotus punctatus 50.0 33.3 54.5 41.7 58.3 54.5

Striated Pardalote Pardalotus striatus 16.7 25.0 45.5 50.0 41.7 27.3

Tasmanian Scrub-wren Sericornis humilis 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Scrubt Acanthornis magnus 8.3 16.7 27.3 33.3 8.3 9.1

Tasmanian Thornbill Acanthiza ewingii 91.7 91.7 90.9 100.0 83.3 81.8

Brown Thornbill Acanthiza pusilla 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0

Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike Coracina novaehollandiae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1

Olive Whistler Pachycephala olivacea 8.3 0.0 27.3 25.0 50.0 0.0

Golden Whistler Pachycephala pectoralis 58.3 8.3 63.6 58.3 33.3 81.8

Grey Shrike-thrush Colluricincla harmonica 50.0 33.0 90.9 50.0 75.0 63.6

Black Currawong Strepera fuliginosa 66.7 25.0 45.5 50.0 66.7 63.6

Grey Currawong Strepera versicolor 8.3 41.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Grey Fantail Rhipidura albiscapa 58.3 75.0 81.8 50.0 75.0 45.5

Forest Raven Corvus tasmanicus 83.3 91.7 81.8 83.3 82.6 81.8

Pink Robin Petroica rodinogaster 50.0 41.7 27.3 8.3 75.0 63.6

Flame Robin Petroica phoenicea 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 8.3 36.4

Dusky Robin Melanodryas viata 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 8.3 0.0

Beauful Firetail Stagonopleura bella 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Silvereye Zosterops lateralis 33.3 16.7 18.2 25.0 25.2 9.1

Bassian Thrush Zoothera lunulata 25.0 16.7 0.0 33.3 41.7 9.1

Common Blackbird Turdus merula 33.3 25.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 9.1

37 Table 3: Changes in the bird populations at Ferntree Glade and Shoobridge Corner survey sites between 1976–78 and 2014–16.

1976/78 overall 2014/16 overall Change in RRs 2 Probability Species Scienfic name X (1df with RR(%) RR(%) (%) (1) Yates correcon) p Spoed Dove Streptopelia chinensis 0.0 2.1 Brush Bronzewing (2) Phaps elegans 0.0 36.2 Increase 53.64 <0.001 Shining Bronze-Cuckoo Chalcites lucidus 34.1 10.7 –68.6 6.38 0.014 Fan-tailed Cuckoo Cacomans flabeliformis 41.5 12.8 –69.2 7.81 0.003 Wedge-tailed Eagle (4) Aquila audax 0.5 0.0 Collared Sparrowhawk (4) Accipiter cirrocephalus 0.5 0.0 Tasmanian Boobook (4) Ninox leucopsis 1.0 0.0 Laughing Kookaburra (4) Dacelo novaeguineae 0.0 17.0 Increase Brown Falcon (4) Falco berigora 2.5 0.0 Yellow-tailed Black-Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus funereus 25.0 14.9 –40.4 1.26 0.269 Sulphur-crested Cockatoo Cacatua galerita 0.0 27.6 Increase Green Rosella (2) Platycercus caledonicus 78.9 38.3 –51.5 8.58 0.005 Swi Parrot (3) Lathamus discolor 17.0 0.0 –100.0 6.77 0.010 Superb Fairy-wren (4) Malurus cyaneus 1.5 0.0 Crescent Honeyeater (3) Phylidonyris pyrrhopterus 71.8 27.7 –61.4 11.0 0.020 New Holland Honeyeater (4) Phylidonyris novaehollandiae 0.5 0.0 Yellow-throated Honeyeater (2) Nesoplos flavicollis 71.2 21.3 –70.1 14.57 <0.001 Strong-billed Honeyeater (2) Melthreptus validirostris 77.4 8.5 –89.0 27.20 <0.001 Black-headed Honeyeater (2) Melthreptus affinis 32.4 0.0 –100.0 14.20 <0.001 Eastern Spinebill Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris 30.3 21.3 –29.7 0.85 0.368 Yellow Walebird (4) Anthochaera paradoxa 0.0 8.5 Increase Spoed Pardalote Pardalotus punctatus 67.4 44.7 –33.7 2.79 0.102 Striated Pardalote Pardalotus striatus 43.9 34.0 –22.6 0.64 0.431 Tasmanian Scrub-wren Sericornis humilis 99.5 97.9 –1.6 0.01 1.000 Scrubt Acanthornis magnus 34.0 21.3 –37.4 1.50 0.229 Tasmanian Thornbill Acanthiza ewingii 88.1 83.0 –5.8 0.08 0.806 Brown Thornbill (2) Acanthiza pusilla 22.8 0.0 –100.0 9.43 0.002 Olive Whistler (2) Pachycephala olivacea 51.0 14.9 –70.8 10.51 0.001 Golden Whistler Pachycephala pectoralis 57.6 46.8 –18.8 0.62 0.450 Grey Shrike-thrush (3) Corruricincla harmonica 85.5 55.4 –35.2 4.00 0.049 Black Currawong Strepera fuliginosa 30.7 51.0 66.1 3.66 0.053 Grey Currawong Strepera versicolor 4.5 12.8 184.4 5.48? 0.091 Grey Fantail Rhipidura albiscapa 88.1 66.0 –25.1 1.99 0.169 San Flycatcher (4) Myiagra cyanoleuca 4.0 0.0 Pink Robin (2) Petroica rodinogaster 85.5 31.9 –62.7 13.81 <0.001 Flame Robin (4) Petroica phoenicea 1.0 2.1 Dusky Robin Melanodryas viata 11.4 2.1 –81.6 2.41 0.126 Beauful Firetail (4) Stagonopleura bella 3.5 2.1 House Sparrow (4) Passer domescus 0.5 0.0 European Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis 10.6 0.0 –100.0 3.83 0.052 Tree Marn (4) Petrochelidon nigricans 4.0 0.0 Silvereye Zosterops lateralis 40.8 23.4 –42.6 2.56 0.115 Bassian Thrush Zoothera lunulata 6.1 8.5 39.3 0.69 0.399 Common Blackbird (2) Turdus merula 60.3 21.3 –64.7 10.08 0.002

38 Notes for table 3 (page 38) difficulties. The situation was further exacerbated by the (1) Difference calculated as a percentage of the 1976–78 RR. increased height of the canopy formed by the large trees (2) Species for which decrease or increase was stascally that penetrate the sub-canopy. However, although highly significant (p <0.01). decreased detectability clearly affected the 2014–16 (3) Species for which decrease was stascally significant survey results, the effect is not considered sufficient to (p<0.05). negate the observed changes in species composition and (4) Insufficient observaons for stascal test. diversity. It would have impacted more on the numbers of birds seen, and this analysis is primarily based on Discussion presence or absence data. Comparison with 1976–78 baseline results Another change witnessed at both survey sites was a The 2014–16 surveys indicated that the RRs of 14 greatly diminished water flow in the creeks, particularly (33%) of the 43 species recorded at Ferntree Glade and in 2015–16. This may reflect changes in rainfall patterns Shoobridge Corner were statistically significantly involving both long-term trends and the prevalent different (p<0.05) from the 1976–78 baseline levels. It is conditions at the time of the two survey campaigns. an implicit expectation that decreased RRs imply a Changes driven by climatic conditions such as annual decreased abundance of birds. Changes also occurred and seasonal rainfall would be expected to result in in the composition of the bird populations, with 13 regional changes in bird populations. species recorded only in 1976–78 and four species being The following discussion, which focuses on the relative first recorded in 2014–16. None of the RRs of species extent to which different species and guilds of species present in 1976–78 increased to a statistically significant have changed in terms of their preferred habitat extent, although the Black Currawong, Strepera fuliginosa requirements, attempts to explain and de-couple the (66% increase), was close (p = 0.053). contributions of local (e.g. fire-induced changes in In seeking explanations of the observed population habitat) and regional (e.g. rainfall) factors. Habitat changes it is important to consider whether the changes (Ridpath and Moreau 1965) and foraging preferences were driven by local (e.g. changes in vegetation at the (Davis 2013A–E) of Tasmanian woodland birds are survey sites) or regional factors (e.g. rainfall). relatively well-known and provide a basis for As described in the results section, vegetation structure determining whether the observed changes in bird at both Ferntree Glade and Shoobridge Corner was diversity are consistent with changes in vegetation type dominated in 2014–16 by a shrub layer forming a dense and structure (i.e., have some species decreased because canopy, which resulted in the absence of ground cover habitat at the survey sites is no longer suitable?). and the floristically diverse shrub layer that characterise The 2014–16 Shoobridge 2 km survey data, which is wet sclerophyll forest (Ridpath and Moreau 1965). less affected by the formation of a dense understorey Unfortunately, the survey site habitat was not charac- canopy, was used to provide insights into the impact of terised in 1976–78, but my recollection is of abundant the vegetation changes at Ferntree Glade and understorey vegetation with a more open sub-canopy, Shoobridge Corner. However, the expectation that the particularly around the creeks. The vegetation was then bird populations at Shoobridge 2 km might resemble at a relatively early stage of recovery from the 1967 those found at the other sites in 1976–78 must take into bushfires. It is suggested that one understorey species, account the limited amount of wet sclerophyll forest at Bedfordia salicina, subsequently dominated to form a that site. Similarly, comparisons between the 2014–15 dense sub-canopy, which suppressed ground-cover and the 2015–16 survey results provide indications of growth and decreased the diversity of the shrub layer. In the impact of rainfall (2015–16 was abnormally dry). 2014–16 bands of this dense, closed sub-canopy vege- tation remained, which, it is tentatively suggested, had Decreasing species formed in areas where the 1967 bushfire was most This section focuses on the 13 species that decreased to severe. Consequently, all the Bedfordia salicina in these a statistically significant extent (p<0.01). zones is of similar age and currently appears to be dying, which will result in ongoing changes in vegetation Two cuckoo species structure and diversity. The Fan-tailed Cuckoo, Cacomantis flabeliformis (63% In assessing the impact of these vegetation changes on decrease: p=0.003), and the Shining Bronze-Cuckoo, the bird populations of the survey sites it is necessary to Chalcites lucidus (69% decrease: p=0.014), both forage at consider the extent to which the detection of birds lower levels in the vegetation (author’s observation). during surveys may have been affected. In combination, Hence, their decrease is an expected consequence of decreased light and inability to see through the sub- reduced foraging opportunities following the vegetation canopy made visual detection of birds difficult, which changes. However, the cuckoos may also have been placed increased reliance on bird calls during the 2014– affected by decreases in the abundance of their host 16 surveys. That the observer has also suffered a loss of species. The results in table 2 suggest that the Fan-tailed high-frequency hearing also contributed to detection Cuckoo may have been adversely affected by the drier 39 conditions in 2015–16, possibly as a consequence of (Ridpath and Moreau 1965). It is concluded that the limited breeding activity by host species. dense sub-canopy removes both trunk and foliage Green Rosella, Platycercus caledonicus foraging opportunities for these three species. (52% decrease: p=0.005) Crescent Honeyeaters, Phylidonyris pyrrhopterus (61% Despite a 52% decrease in occurrence, Green Rosellas decrease; p=0.02) predominantly feed on nectar and continued to occur at both Ferntree Glade and spread their foraging effort across all vegetation levels Shoobridge Corner in 2014–16. It was most frequently (Davis 2013E), with only 32.4% of their effort in the recorded at Shoobridge 2 km and least frequently at sub-canopy layer (5.1–10 m). This decreased reliance on Ferntree Glade, as found for the Crescent Honeyeater, the sub-canopy layer may explain why they continued to which suggests that it was adversely affected by the occur occasionally at Ferntree Glade and Shoobridge presence of the dense sub-canopy. Because the Green Corner in 2014–16 (table 2). Nonetheless, the increasing Rosella predominantly forages on the ground and in the RR sequence in 2014–16 at Ferntree Glade (17%RR), foliage of the shrub and sub-canopy layers (Davis Shoobridge Corner (53%RR) and Shoobridge 2 km 2013E), the observed changes in status are consistent (74%RR) correlates inversely with the extent of dense with reduced foraging opportunities, particularly at Bedfordia salicina dominated sub-canopy vegetation at the Ferntree Glade. Interestingly, the Green Rosella three sites, which indicates a negative impact from this increased at both Ferntree Glade and Shoobridge 2 km vegetation type. The RRs were similar in both years at in drier conditions during 2015–16, contrary to the all three sites, which suggests that Crescent Honeyeaters trend observed for most other species. were less affected by the dry conditions in 2015–16 than the other three honeyeater species. Swift Parrot, Lathamus discolor (100% decrease: p=0.01) Brown Thornbill (100% decrease: p=0.002) The Swift Parrot, a migratory species, occurred regu- The issues associated with the identification of Brown larly at both survey sites in 1976–1977, but was not Thornbills have been discussed in the methods section. recorded in 1977–78 or during the 2014–16 surveys. They favour dry sclerophyll woodland (Ridpath and Swift Parrots, which feed on nectar and lerps, forage at Moreau 1965). In Tasmania they forage below 10 m on higher levels than do Green Rosellas, spending 53% of the bark and foliage of trees and shrubs (Davis 2013A their time in the canopy above 10 m (Davis 2013D). and 2013B). It is suggested that, in 1976–78 during the Consequently, they would have been less adversely early stages of forest regeneration, the vegetation struc- affected by the dense sub-canopy than were the rosellas, ture was sufficiently open to provide foraging for this and the observed decrease may be a consequence of the species. However, by 2014–15, foraging opportunities rapidly diminishing numbers of this critically were restricted to the foliage of the dense Bedfordia endangered species (Porfiro et al. 2016) and a lack of salicina dominated sub-canopy, which as discussed in flowering eucalypts in the vicinity of the survey sites. ‘Stable and increasing species’ (page 41), appears to be the exclusive niche of the Tasmanian Thornbill. There Four honeyeater species was one tentative Brown Thornbill record at the more Four species of honeyeater decreased significantly open Shoobridge 2 km site during 2015–16. between the two survey campaigns. The Strong-billed Olive Whistler (71% decrease: p<0.001) Honeyeater, Melithreptus validirostris (89% decrease: p<0.001) and the Yellow-throated Honeyeater, Nesop- Wet sclerophyll forest is the preferred habitat of the tilotis flavicollis (70% decrease: p<0.01) occur in both wet Olive Whistler, which also occurs less frequently in and dry sclerophyll forest, with the latter species more temperate rainforest and dry sclerophyll woodland prevalent in dry woodlands (Ridpath and Moreau (Ridpath and Moreau 1965). Olive Whistlers, like Pink 1965). Both forage primarily by probing bark, including Robins, decreased at Ferntree Glade and Shoobridge loose-hanging bark and sticky excretions at branch Corner. While more frequently recorded at Shoobridge scars. They mainly forage (>90%) in shrub and sub- 2 km in 2014–15 (table 2), there were no records at that canopy vegetation at heights in the range 1–10 m (Davis site in 2015–16. Davis suggests that Olive Whistlers 2013A). In 2014–15 both species occurred more predominantly forage either on the ground or in the regularly at Shoobridge 2 km, but the Strong-billed foliage of the shrub layer between 2 and 6 m (Davis; Honeyeater was less frequent in 2015–16, suggesting the unpublished results). It was concluded that the Yellow-throated Honeyeater is better adapted to dry decreased occurrence in 2014–16 was caused by the loss conditions. Black-headed Honeyeaters, Melithreptus affinis of diverse understorey vegetation. The decreased (100% decrease: p<0.001) were absent in 2014–16, but occurrence in 2015–16 suggests that Olive Whistlers are occurred occasionally at the additional Shoobridge adversely affected by dry conditions. 2 km site in 2014–15 (table 2). They primarily forage in Grey Shrike-thrush, Colluricincla harmonica foliage at a similar height and often in association with (35% decrease: p=0.049) Strong-billed Honeyeaters (Davis 2013B) and are more The Grey Shrike-thrush is well represented in both dry frequently recorded in dry than wet sclerophyll forests and wet woodland habitat (Ridpath and Moreau 1965). 40 It predominantly forages on the trunks of trees, probing surprising, as it is a ground foraging species and might under the bark (Davis 2013A). The observed decrease be expected to benefit from decreased ground cover suggests that the thin, smooth-barked trunks of sub- vegetation. canopy species like Bedfordia salicina are of limited A number of other species decreased (e.g. Golden suitability for trunk foraging species. Whistler Pachycephala pectoralis and Grey Fantail Rhipidura Pink Robin (63% decrease: p<0.001) albiscapa), but not to a statistically significant extent. The extent of these changes in status could be explained in The Pink Robin is found exclusively in wetter forest terms of their habitat and foraging preferences using habitats, primarily in temperate rainforest, less fre- the approach described above. quently in wet sclerophyll forest (Ridpath and Moreau 1965). In the 1976–78 surveys, Pink Robins were Stable and increasing species common along the Ferntree Glade track with 6 pairs Species that had sustained or increased RRs during the breeding. They were less common at Shoobridge 2014–16 surveys relative to the 1976–78 baseline levels Corner, being primarily associated with the areas where were mostly amongst those that foraged on the ground creeks crossed the survey transect, which indicated a and may have benefited from the vegetation changes marked preference for gullies in which to nest, where that decreased the amount of ground cover. they made extensive use of materials from creekside The Brush Bronzewing, Phaps elegans, was recorded vegetation for nest construction (Newman and Bratt often at all three survey sites in 2014–16 (table 2), but 1976). Superficially, the 2014–16 vegetation might have was not reported in 1976–78. This increase, which was been expected to have been beneficial (e.g. resembling statistically significant (p<0.001), appears to be a con- rainforest near the gullies). However, during all of the sequence of the absence of ground cover below the 2014–16 period, although individual birds were periodi- dense Bedfordia sub-canopy. Davis’ limited observations cally observed at Ferntree Glade and Shoobridge involved bronzewings pecking on the ground (Davis Corner, there was no evidence of successful breeding, or 2013C). In 2014–15 most records at Ferntree Glade even of persistent territory advertisement by calling involved multiple birds, but, in the drier conditions of males. Pink Robin RRs were higher at Shoobridge 2 km 2015–16, Brush Bronzewings were observed less often and in 2014–2015 two territories were persistently (table 2) and in lower numbers. advertised with dependent fledged young observed in The Laughing Kookaburra, Dacelo novaeguineae, was one territory. Both these territories were in gully another species that was only recorded in 2014–16; it vegetation at the edges of zones dominated by dense occurred at all three surveys sites, but most frequently at Bedfordia salicina. At all three survey sites Pink Robin Ferntree Glade in 2014–15. As for the previous species, RRs were lower in 2015–16 than in 2014–15, and in the it was less frequently recorded in 2015–16. Similarly, the drier 2015–16 season the breeding territories used in Sulphur-crested Cockatoo, Cacatua galerita, was first 2014–15 appeared to have been abandoned. Davis recorded in 2014–16 when it occurred at all three sites, (2013C) places the other three robin species occurring in but most frequently at Ferntree Glade (table 2). Tasmania, including two from the genus Petroica, in the The Tasmanian Scrubwren, Sericornis humilis, the most air-foraging and ground-pouncing guilds. His more frequently recorded species in both survey campaigns, limited data for the Pink Robin suggest that they may principally feeds on or very close to the ground (Davis have similarly diverse foraging modes, feeding both at 2013C). Similarly the Bassian Thrush, Zoothera lunulata ground level and in understorey vegetation (Davis; (39% increase: p=0.399), forages exclusively on the unpublished results), which is consistent with the ground (Davis 2013C). The increase in Bassian Thrush author’s qualitative experience. On this basis it is not records was not statistically significant. surprising that Pink Robins have decreased in areas like The Scrubtit, Acanthornis magnus (37.4% decrease: along the Ferntree Glade track where creekside vege- p=0.229), a relatively scarce species, continued to be tation lacks the diversity necessary to support their recorded at all sites in 2014–16, although most foraging and, perhaps more importantly, nest site frequently at Shoobridge Corner (table 2). The modest requirements, as decreased understorey vegetation decrease in RR compared with 1976–78 was not would have benefitted this species’ exploitation of the statistically significant. Ridpath and Moreau (1965) ground-foraging niche (Davis, pers. com.). There is suggest that the Scrubtit favours rainforest, but also probably a need to refine Ridpath and Moreau’s (1965) occurs in wet sclerophyll and sub-alpine forests. habitat assignments for the Pink Robin to a preference Unfortunately, Davis (2013A–E) does not provide infor- for diverse creekside vegetation within temperate rain- mation on the Scrubtit’s foraging preferences, but the forest and wet sclerophyll forest. author’s casual observations suggest a combination of Common Blackbird, Turdus merula (60% bark probing and foliage gleaning is involved. decrease: p=0.002) Tasmanian Thornbills, Acanthiza ewingii (6% decrease: The introduced Common Blackbird was another species p=0.806), were commonly recorded at both locations in which decreased significantly. This result is perhaps both survey campaigns. They favour wetter habitat than 41 the Brown Thornbill (Ridpath and Moreau 1965) Changes in vegetation type and structure between the although both species may be found in close proximity two survey campaigns provided a plausible explanation because of the mosaic of habitat types in mountainous of the variations in occurrence of individual species in areas of eastern Tasmanian, particularly where gullies terms of their foraging opportunities. Decreased ground protrude into dry woodland. Tasmanian Thornbills cover has increased the opportunities for birds that predominantly forage in the foliage (Davis 2013A and forage on the ground (e.g. the Tasmanian Scrubwren). B). Consequently the vegetation changes post 1976–78 However, in terms of avian diversity, this was offset by would have benefited them relative to the Brown the loss of understorey vegetation that removed foraging Thornbill (see previous discussion). opportunities for many of the decreasing species (e.g. Another three species that increased, Forest Raven, Pink Robin). Corvus tasmanicus (9.1% increase: p=0.78), Black The overriding conclusion is that the present Currawong, Strepera fuliginosa (66.1% increase: p=0.053), composition of bird populations at the two survey sites and Grey Currawong, Strepera versicolor (184.4% is a legacy of the bushfires that devastated the area in increase), were also ground feeders (Davis 2013C). The 1967, and changes may be ongoing. However, in similar Grey Currawong was only recorded at Ferntree Glade studies in the Blue Mountains of NSW, bird populations in the 2014–16 surveys, predominantly in 2015–16 recovered in much shorter timeframes, but rainforest when it was observed building a nest. This was vegetation decreased the number of birds present, surprising because the Grey Currawong is normally which is consistent with the present results (Smith and associated with dry sclerophyll forest and the wetter, Smith: in press). There are signs that the understorey higher altitude habitats are the province of the Black dominated by Bedfordia salicina is dying and the dense Currawong (Ridpath and Moreau 1965). sub-canopy is being opened up by falling trees. This warrants continued long-term monitoring at the sites. Local versus regional factors However, the expectation that the area might ultimately The changes that have occurred, both in plant types and return to a condition supporting the baseline levels vegetation structure, provide a plausible explanation in observed in 1976–78 is probably unrealistic since those terms of changed foraging opportunities for the years may have been part of a particularly favourable differences that have occurred in the bird populations. situation during the early stages of recovery from the Individual species have sustained or increased their 1967 fires. Indeed, one well-described pattern involves a status where new or improved opportunities have been peak and decline relationship: species occur at low created. Conversely, for many species the decreased numbers soon after a fire, increase over an intermediate diversity of the habitat removed opportunities (e.g. for period and then decline in abundance at increasing time low-level foliage and trunk foraging) rendering the since fire (Kavanagh et al. 2004, Bluff 2016). locations unsuitable. However, there is increasing There were also indications that some species evidence that many species have experienced broad- characteristic of wet montane habitat, like the Pink scale population changes (Ehmke et al. 2015). Many of Robin and Olive Whistler, were adversely affected by these broad-scale changes have involved long-term the dry conditions of 2015–16. This is of concern in decreases as evidenced by the alarming increase in the relation to climate forecasts that suggest a warmer and number of species listed as threatened under the EPBC drier future. This requires further investigation at Act. Consequently, the observed population changes locations where the local impact of the Mt Wellington may be a consequence of a combination of local (e.g. fires is absent. vegetation change) and regional (e.g. climate change) impacts. Only one of the species for which there was a Acknowledgments statistically significant decrease in status in this study is I wish to thank Bruce Champion for his assistance in listed as threatened. This species, the highly endangered identifying the vegetation of the survey sites and our Swift Parrot, is a Tasmanian breeding endemic that attempt to understand the chronology of events that winters on mainland Australia, and provides an example resulted in its present structure. Nick Ramshaw of how local population changes may be a consequence accompanied me on several field trips. I thank them of external factors (Porfirio et al. 2016). both for providing an interactive audience as I progressively evolved an understanding of the changes Conclusions that had occurred in the bird populations. However, A comparison of the results of survey campaigns during their lot was not onerous; the Shoobridge trail is a 1976–78 and 2014–16 has demonstrated some dramatic magic place, even when the birds are scarce, and there is changes in bird populations at Ferntree Glade and always a surprise like finding an Eastern Spinebill near Shoobridge Corner. Statistically significant changes in the snow line in winter. I thank Ted Davis for sharing frequency of occurrence were found for 14 species, his unpublished results on the foraging modes of several involving 13 instances of decrease and only one of species. Peter Smith and Ted Davis provided valuable increase. comment on draft versions of this paper. 42 References Fowler, J. and Cohen, L. 1986. Statistics for Ornithologists. BTO Bluff, L.A. 2016. ‘Ground Parrots and fire in east Gippsland, Guide 22, British Trust for Ornithology, Tring, UK. Victoria: habitat occupancy modelling from automated Kavanagh, R. P., Loyn, R. H., Smith, G. C., Taylor R. J., and sound recordings’. Emu. 116: 402–10. Catling, P.C. 2004. ‘Which species should be monitored to Davis, W.E. Jnr. 2013A. ‘Foraging behaviour of Tasmanian indicate ecological sustainability in Australian forest land birds, Part 1: the bark-foraging guild and Tasmanian management?’ Conservation of Australia’s Forest Fauna. 2nd ed. Thornbill’. Tasmanian Bird Report 35: 7–10. Ed. D. Lumney. Royal Zoological Society of New South Davis, W.E. Jnr. 2013B. ‘Foraging behaviour of Tasmanian Wales: Sydney. pp. 959–87. land birds, Part 2: the foliage-gleaning and snatching Newman, O.M.G., and Bratt, G.C. 1976. ‘The Pink Robin — guilds’. Tasmanian Bird Report 35: 11–13. an avian lichen buff ’. Search 7, 487–88. Davis, W.E. Jnr. 2013C. ‘Foraging behaviour of Tasmanian Newman, M. 2014. ‘Comparison of Bird Populations at two land birds, Part 3: the ground-foraging guild’. Tasmanian sites near Fern Tree, Mt Wellington, 1976–78. Tasmanian Bird Report 35: 15–17. Bird Report. 36: 8–13. Davis, W.E. Jnr. 2013D. ‘Foraging behaviour of Tasmanian Porfirio, L. L., Harris, R. M. B., Stojanovic, D., Webb, M.H., land birds, Part 4: the air-foraging and ground-pouncing and Mackey, B. 2016. ‘Projected direct and indirect effects guilds’. Tasmanian Bird Report 35: 18–20. of climate change on the Swift Parrot, an endangered Davis, W.E. Jnr. 2013E. ‘Foraging behaviour of Tasmanian migratory species’. Emu, 273–83. land birds, Part 5: the nectar- and vegetable-eating guilds’. Ridpath, M.G., and Moreau, R.E. 1965. ‘The birds of Tasmanian Bird Report 35: 21–24. Tasmania: ecology and evolution’. Ibis, 108: 348–93. Ehmke, G., Cunningham, R., O’Connor, J., Garnett, S., Lau, Smith, P., and Smith, J. In press. ‘Influence of fire regime and J., and Herman, K. 2015. The State of Australia’s Birds 2015: other habitat factors on a eucalypt forest bird community in Headline Trends for Terrestrial Birds. BirdLife Australia: south-eastern Australia in the 1980s. Australian Journal of Carlton, Vic. Zoology.

43 2016 Summer and winter wader counts (incorporating corrected tables for 2015 summer counts)

Eric J. Woehler and Sue Drake, BirdLife Tasmania, GPO Box 68 Hobart 7001

Background analyses generated new estimates for the flyway. The Monitoring of migratory shorebirds at roosts in south- report was recently released by the Federal Govern- east Tasmania began with David Thomas’ efforts in the ment’s Department of the Environment and Energy years 1964–68. These counts served to establish a (Hansen et al. 2016) and is available at: valuable and remarkably early baseline for all sub- http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/ sequent efforts, which now span more than 50 years. publications/revision-east-asian-australasian-flyway- Counts in the south-east resumed in 1973 (summer) and population-2016. 1980 (winter) and have continued since then. Counts in The 2016 tables are on pages 45–50, while the cor- the north-east were begun in 1975 (summer) and 1976 rected tables for the 2015 Summer wader count appear (winter) by Ralph Cooper and have continued since on pages 51–53. then. Counts in the north-west began in 1996 (summer and Acknowledgments winter) and large teams of counters have continued We thank the ongoing efforts of regional coordinators: since then under the coordination of Hazel Britton and Hazel Britton and Richard Ashby (north-west), Ralph Richard Ashby. These sites comprise the Tasmanian Cooper (north and north-east), Liz Znidersic (east) and ‘core’ sites for the current national Shorebirds 2020 Sue Drake and Eric Woehler (south-east). Their efforts, program organised by BirdLife Australia. over many years, to organise volunteers twice a year to A number of other sites around the state are also undertake these counts have resulted in the long-term surveyed, sometimes in summer and in winter, some- datasets that are available from around Tasmania. We times opportunistically as logistics and capacity allow. also thank the numerous counters who have contributed These data are recorded as ‘non-core’ sites and are to these counts. In some cases, individuals have published in separate tables here. This distinction participated for more than 30 years. We thank them all between core and non-core sites simply identifies the for their efforts. Our apologies if anyone involved in any long-term sites from more recent sites added during the count is not listed in the data tables that follow. Shorebirds 2020 project and following; the data from Reference non-core sites are equal in value and contribution to Hansen, B.D., Fuller, R.A., Watkins, D., Rogers, D.I., those data from core sites. Clemens, R.S., Newman, M., Woehler, E.J., and Weller, All survey data from Tasmania were included in the D.R. 2016. Revision of the East Asian–Australasian Flyway 2016 revision of 37 species of migratory shorebirds’ Population Estimates for 37 listed Migratory Shorebird Species. populations in the East Asian–Australasian Flyway Unpublished report for the Department of the Environ- (EAAF). A series of workshops and extensive data ment. BirdLife Australia: Melbourne. 90 pp.

44 Totals forsites>> 143 Red-cappedPlover 136 Grey Plover Unidentifiedsmallwaders 133 MaskedLapwing 135 BandedLapwing 138 HoodedPlover 144 Black-fronted Dotterel 141 Greater Sandplover 139 LesserSandPlover 140 Double-bandedPlover 137 PacificGoldenPlover 147 BandedStilt 162 Red-neckedStint 166 Sanderling 164 RedKnot 165 Great Knot 129 RuddyTurnstone 155 Grey-tailed Tattler 160 Terek Sandpiper 158 CommonGreenshank Curlew 149 Eastern 150 Whimbrel 153 Bar-tailed Godwit 168 Latham'sSnipe 131 SootyOystercatcher 130 PiedOystercatcher 161 CurlewSandpiper 163 Sharp-tailedSandpiper 978 PectoralSandpiper Weather>>> Observer>> Observers: Dates >> EJW DA CH AW AD A+JR BirdLife Tasmania Shorebird StudyGroup. Summer2016wadercount 385 197 48 Low wind, bright 20/2/16 MN 46 85 Lauderdale 8 1 Eric Woehler Dennis Abbott Christine Harris Andrew Walter Andrew Darby Alastair +JeanRichardson Fine, partly cloudy, light 20/2/16 CH Clear Lagoon

breeze 0 Core Shorebirds 2020(AWSG) Areas 10 29 Fine, initially low wind 20/2/16 MN 19 Mortimer Bay 447 174 Fine, partly cloudy, light 147 18 91 20/2/16 CH 17 Pipeclay Lagoon breeze

Fine, partly cloudy, light 4 20/2/16 CH Calverts Lagoon

breeze 4 NR MN ML MH HK EW 280 479 169 13 Calm, sunny 20/2/16 SD, AW, PH + NR 10 South Arm Neck 3 2 2 Nick Ramshaw Mike Newman Mona Loofs-Samorzewski Mark Holdworth Heidi Krajewsky Els Wakefield 301 171 16 54 16 Fine, sunny, fresh NW wind 20/2/16 A+JR 37 Barilla Bay 1 5 1 45 431 DA, AD, P+CM, MH, 109 12 12 16 74 55 46 13 - 20°C, wind NNW-WNW 20/2/16 99 Orielton Lagoon / Sorell 2 NS, SL 6 296 HK, ML, 125 90 26 Sunny, cool, windy: 15kn+ W HK, ML, EW, SA 50 Iron Ck - Carlton

EW, SA 4 1 2 DA, AD, P+CM, MH, 20 13 - 20°C, wind NNW-WNW 20/2/16 24 Five Mile Beach - Milford

NS, SL 4 SL SD SA PH P+CM NS

NOT COUNTED Seven Mile Beach Stuart Lester Sue Drake Stephen Anstee Pamela Hinsby Peter +Clare Marmion Nicole Sommer 2398 110 111 496 732 744 12 59 32 84 TOTAL DERWENT 0 2 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4

Sunny, humid. Near calm, 355 winds increased to 10-15kn 20/2/16 EJW 122 153 Marion Bay + Little Boomer 13 21 41

NW by 0745 5 2753 110 496 100 866 885 124 11 25 12 32 84 TOTAL SOUTHEAST 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Totals forsites>> 162 Red-neckedStint 166 Sanderling 164 RedKnot 165 Great Knot 129 RuddyTurnstone 155 Grey-tailed Tattler 160 Terek Sandpiper 131 SootyOystercatcher 130 PiedOystercatcher 161 CurlewSandpiper 163 Sharp-tailedSandpiper 978 PectoralSandpiper 158 CommonGreenshank Curlew 149 Eastern 150 Whimbrel 153 Bar-tailed Godwit 168 Latham'sSnipe 137 PacificGoldenPlover 147 BandedStilt Unidentifiedsmallwaders 133 MaskedLapwing 135 BandedLapwing 138 HoodedPlover 144 Black-fronted Dotterel 141 Greater Sandplover 139 LesserSandPlover 140 Double-bandedPlover 143 Red-cappedPlover 136 Grey Plover Weather>>> Observer>> Observers: Dates >> EW AD FW AP GS HB CM A+JR

100% cloud cover, cool, light 141 42 14 73 22/1/16 FW, LW, LH 12 Montagu I SW wind BirdLife Tasmania Shorebird StudyGroup. Summer2016wadercount Els Wakefield Andrew Darby Frank Wilson Alison Parks Geoff Shannon Hazel Britton Col Meyers Alastair +JeanRichardson 1500 2330 250 310 46 51 66 10 Overcast, slight W/NW breeze 22/1/16 MB, TB, PM, RM, AD 96 Kangaroo I 1 2700 3834 413 A+JR, CM, JuR, GS, 437 71 85 26 34 Light SSE wind,Overcast. 22/1/16 49 Shipwreck Pt, Perkins I 8 2 1 MH, RC, RH 6 2

Warm, overcast, light variable Core Shorebirds 2020(AWSG) Areas 18 13 16 22/1/16 JT, ST, HB, EW 70 23 Wallaby I breeze. JS JH JT JoH KT LH JR LW Light W wind, Overcast,some 22/1/16 PB, ML Anthony Beach West 8 5 1 smoke haze 2 Julie Serafin Jim Hunter John Tongue John Hunter Kimberley Tongue Liz Hortle June Risdon Lennice Wilson 130 156 Light NW breeze, overcast 477 130 16 22/1/16 AP, TB 11 34 Anthony Beach East 99% cloud 564 Overcast, ,warm, mod. SW 661 34 22/1/16 RA, KT 47 "Bird Pt" 5 4 2 wind 5 46

Overcast, light SSW breeze. 22/1/16 PH 3 Mosquito Inlet 6 3 PB MH PM ML PT RA PA MB

Warm, overcast, light WSW 124 60 32 22/1/16 JoH, PT 30 "5 Islets"

breeze. 2 Paul Brooks Michael Hyland Peter Marmion Mona Loofs-Samorzewski Peter Tongue Richard Ashby Peter Atkinson Mike Brakey 125 Warm, overcast, light WSW 324 28 20 34 45 14 22/1/16 JH, PA 10 40 "Knot Point" 2 4 breeze. 2 4908 7975 272 862 143 720 299 181 175 108 35 73 49 66 40 37 TOTAL NORTHWEST 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 11 49 3/2/16 Rco 69 Tamar / George Town 7 2 RM RC ST TB TBu RH Rco 1071 1257 28 16 13 41 22 26/2/16 Rco 26 Cape Portland, Little Musselroe 8 8 1 2 7 5 9 Rob Hamilton Ralph Cooper Robyn Marmion Rees Campbell Shirley Tongue Tony Britz Tom Burke 138 335 191 735 33 6/2/16 Rco 31 Kelso 7 1406 2061 190 248 16 13 57 28 40 26 15 TOTAL NORTH/NORTHEAST 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 7 7 0 5 0 0 0 0 12789 7199 1776 878 105 229 456 319 919 272 274 35 73 18 40 26 77 14 64 TOTAL TASMANIA 0 1 0 0 0 3 7 2 0 2 0 Totals forsites>> Unidentifiedsmallwaders 133 MaskedLapwing 135 BandedLapwing 138 HoodedPlover 144 Black-fronted Dotterel 141 Greater Sandplover 139 LesserSandPlover 140 Double-bandedPlover 143 Red-cappedPlover 136 Grey Plover 137 PacificGoldenPlover 147 BandedStilt 131 SootyOystercatcher 130 PiedOystercatcher 161 CurlewSandpiper 163 Sharp-tailedSandpiper 978 PectoralSandpiper 162 Red-neckedStint 166 Sanderling 164 RedKnot 165 Great Knot 129 RuddyTurnstone 155 Grey-tailed Tattler 160 Terek Sandpiper 158 CommonGreenshank Curlew 149 Eastern 150 Whimbrel 153 Bar-tailed Godwit 168 Latham'sSnipe Weather>>> Observer>> Observers: Dates >> HB CDL AG JS AA JK AF 105 78 Overcast,light NW wind. 24/1/16 JS, MS 25 Moorland Pt, Devonport 2 Hazel Britton Cath deLittle Allan Gordon Julie Serafin Adrian Astley Jo King Anthea Fergusson 145 95% cloud, warm, light NE 167

27/1/16 HB, JS, PE 12 Narawntapu NP (NE Arm)

wind 2 3 5 Wind West 10km/hr. coming 60 3/2/16 AA, PB 64 Georges Bay, Horseshoe Sands off high tide outgoing 4

Wind West 10km/hr. coming BirdLife Tasmania Shorebird StudyGroup. Summer2016wadercount AA, PB Georges Bay, Medeas Cove 4 off high tide outgoing 3/2/16 4 132 Wind West 10km/hr. coming 281 22 84 LZ, AG 39 Georges Bay, Sewage mudflats off high tide outgoing 3/2/16 2 2 NA MS ML PB LZ NW MF

Wind West 10km/hr. coming 111 15 85

LZ Georges Bay, Barway S side Pelican Pt Non-Core Shorebirds 2020/AWSG areas off high tide outgoing 3/2/16 6 5 Nick Amse Michael Serafin Mona Loofs-Samorzewski Pam Bretz Nat Walter Margaret Fairhall Liz Znidersic Wind West 10km/hr. coming NW, SP, AG 21 Beerbarrel Beach 8 off high tide outgoing 3/2/16 2 6 5 Wind West 10km/hr. coming 11 50 LZ 82 Maurouard Beach N 8 4 off high tide outgoing 3/2/16 9 Wind West 10km/hr. coming 14 LZ 26 Maurouard Beach S 5 3 4 47 off high tide outgoing 3/2/16 248 150 589 32 22 16 84 24 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Total Georges Bay

Wind West 10km/hr. coming 70 TT, JK 81 Scamander Spit / Barway 5 2 off high tide outgoing 3/2/16 4 TT SW SP SF PE Wind West 10km/hr. coming 15 TT, JK 21 Dianas Basin 2 2 off high tide outgoing 3/2/16 2 Stephen Walsh Syb Pike Shirley Fish Ted Thornley Wind West 10km/hr. coming NW, SP, AG Blanche Beach 1 3 off high tide outgoing 3/2/16 4 Wind West 10km/hr. coming 14 TT, JK 19 Falmouth 1 1 off high tide outgoing 3/2/16 3 Wind West 10km/hr. coming NA Binalong Bay 0 0 off high tide outgoing 3/2/16 0 Wind West 10km/hr. coming NA Jeanneret Beach 2 2 off high tide outgoing 3/2/16 4 Fine, sunny with some cloud 20/2/16 CDL, MF 15 Southport Lagoon NW 4 cover, westerly wind 6 4 1 8 1 Sunny, light wind 20/2/16 SW 5 2 Roaring Beach - Narrows, Southport NOT COUNTED Southport Bluff Beach 1 2 Sunny Light wind 20/2/16 SW 3 Hastings Bay (Lune River ) 110 110 Sunny and calm 6/3/16 SF Lake Dulverton 548 103 Light W wind, Overcast,some 407 18 22/1/16 PB, ML 15 Kingston Pt Perkins I 1 smoke haze 4 143 14 81 32 1 2 Slight W breeze, overcast 22-Jan AF, JS 6 7 East Inlet, Stanley

NOT COUNTED Howie I 168 Latham'sSnipe 150 Whimbrel 153 Bar-tailed Godwit 158 CommonGreenshank Curlew 149 Eastern 160 Terek Sandpiper 155 Grey-tailed Tattler 129 RuddyTurnstone 165 Great Knot 164 RedKnot 166 Sanderling 162 Red-neckedStint 978 PectoralSandpiper 163 Sharp-tailedSandpiper 137 PacificGoldenPlover 999 BandedStilt 161 CurlewSandpiper 136 Grey Plover 131 SootyOystercatcher 130 PiedOystercatcher 139 LesserSandPlover 140 Double-bandedPlover 143 Red-cappedPlover 141 Greater Sandplover 135 BandedLapwing 138 HoodedPlover 144 Black-fronted Dotterel Unidentifiedsmallwaders 133 MaskedLapwing Totals forsites>> Weather>>> Observer>> Observers: Dates >> BirdLife Tasmania Shorebird StudyGroup. Winter2016wader count GR EJW DA CM CH BL AW AD 161 242 21 22 Moderate wind. 25/6/16 MN 34 Lauderdale 4 G Rakers E Woehler D Abbott C Marmion C Harris B Longmore A Walter A Darby

25/6/16 MN Clear Lagoon 2 2 Core Shorebirds 2020(AWSG) Areas 40 25/6/16 MN 40 Mortimer Bay SD SA RM PM PH NR MN HK 121 140 392 55 45 25/6/16 CH 29 Pipeclay Lagoon 2 S Drake S Anstee R Marmion P Marmion P Hinsby N Ramshaw M Newman H Krajewsky 35 25/6/16 CH 37 Calverts Lagoon 2 162 303 28 35 39 AW + PH, NR 39 South Arm Neck

48 Sunny, calm at first then 177 324 44 82 fresh NW wind; cool, 25/6/16 AD, PM, CM + RM; SD+BM 21 Barilla Bay some cloud. 117 9-10°C, wind 13-19km/h 196 18 23 25/6/16 DA+GR 36 Orielton Lagoon / Sorell 1 NW/NNW 1 202 48 33 52 Sunny, cool, wind <10kn 25/6/16 HK + SA 62 Iron Ck - Carlton 6 1

9-10°C, wind 13-19km/h 43 23 25/6/16 DA+GR 73 Five Mile Beach - Milford 4 NW/NNW 3

NOT COUNTED Seven Mile Beach 1811 125 639 141 179 625 23 35 21 21 TOTAL DERWENT 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

1/8 cloud cover, sunny, 106 100 321 40 22 10 cold (6°C), W/NW wind 10- 25/6/16 EJW 30 Marion Bay + Little Boomer 4 12kn, increasing to 20kn 9 2132 147 745 151 279 655 27 75 21 10 21 TOTAL SOUTHEAST 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 153 Bar-tailed Godwit 168 Latham'sSnipe 150 Whimbrel 129 RuddyTurnstone 155 Grey-tailed Tattler 160 Terek Sandpiper 158 CommonGreenshank Curlew 149 Eastern 165 Great Knot 999 BandedStilt 130 PiedOystercatcher 161 CurlewSandpiper 163 Sharp-tailedSandpiper 978 PectoralSandpiper 162 Red-neckedStint 166 Sanderling 164 RedKnot 137 PacificGoldenPlover 131 SootyOystercatcher 143 Red-cappedPlover 136 Grey Plover 139 LesserSandPlover 140 Double-bandedPlover Unidentifiedsmallwaders 133 MaskedLapwing 135 BandedLapwing 138 HoodedPlover 144 Black-fronted Dotterel 141 Greater Sandplover Totals forsites>> Weather>>> Observer>> Observers: Dates >> JS JR JB HB DC AR AP AD W wind 15kt gusting 20kt. BirdLife Tasmania Shorebird StudyGroup. Winter2016wader count 58 40% cloud turning to 3/7/16 RA 41 Montagu I 8 1 6 1 100% with a shower. 1 J Serafin J Richardson J Bowden H Britton D Crosswell A Richardson A Parks A Dugand 121 22 27 Fine, 20-30kt westerly 3/7/16 MB, TB,DC 72 Kangaroo I winds

Mainly sunny with variable 1227 116 139 109 769 51 cloud and W wind 3/7/16 AR, JR, AD 34 Shipwreck Pt, Perkins I 2 1 becoming stronger later. 6 Core Shorebirds 2020(AWSG) Areas TBr TB SJ RC RA MH MB NOT COUNTED Wallaby I

T Britz T Burke S Jennings R Cooper R Ashby M Hyland M Brakey Mainly sunny with variable

cloud and W wind 3/7/16 SJ, JB 15 Anthony Beach West 6 becoming stronger later. 9 Mostly sunny with variable 178 235 495 12 44 cloud. W wind picked up 3/7/16 AP, TBr 24 Anthony Beach East after mid day. 2 49 NOT COUNTED "Bird Pt"

NOT COUNTED Mosquito Inlet

NOT COUNTED "5 Islets"

NOT COUNTED "Knot Point" 1916 109 185 356 235 124 814 25 35 24 TOTAL NORTHWEST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 103 20 21 16/6/16 RC 62 Tamar / George Town

NOT COUNTED Cape Portland, Little Musselroe 158 555 356

28 Kelso 7 6 179 658 418 27 28 TOTAL NORTH/NORTHEAST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1280 1099 4706 1075 359 184 124 414 27 25 21 27 35 34 TOTAL TASMANIA 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 138 HoodedPlover 144 Black-fronted Dotterel 141 Greater Sandplover 139 LesserSandPlover 140 Double-bandedPlover 143 Red-cappedPlover 136 Grey Plover 137 PacificGoldenPlover 999 BandedStilt 131 SootyOystercatcher 130 PiedOystercatcher 161 CurlewSandpiper 163 Sharp-tailedSandpiper 978 PectoralSandpiper 162 Red-neckedStint 166 Sanderling 164 RedKnot 165 Great Knot 129 RuddyTurnstone 155 Grey-tailed Tattler 160 Terek Sandpiper 158 CommonGreenshank Curlew 149 Eastern 150 Whimbrel 153 Bar-tailed Godwit 168 Latham'sSnipe Unidentifiedsmallwaders 133 MaskedLapwing 135 BandedLapwing Totals forsites>> Weather>>> Observer>> Observers: Dates >> AA AP BR DW EZ FL HB JS 54 30 Fine. Cold , moderate SE 7/7/16 HB, JS 94 Moorland Pt, Devonport 1 2 2 2 wind. 3 A Astley A Parks B Read D Wingfield E Znidersic F Lemayer H Britton J Serafin 156 225

Very cold 25 kt SE Wind. 6/7/16 AP,TB,BR 59 Narawntapu NP (NE Arm) 1 2 Overcast. 7 Wind WNW 10km/h, 4/7/16 AA + FL Georges Bay, Horseshoe Sands 5 2 incoming tide 7 KJ NW SP SW TBr SJ JB Wind WNW 10km/h, 4/7/16 AA + FL Georges Bay, Medeas Cove 2 2

incoming tide BirdLife Tasmania Shorebird StudyGroup. Winter2016wadercount K Jones N Walker S Pike S Walsh T Britz S Jennings J Bowden Wind WNW 10km/h, 18 4/7/16 EZ 24 Georges Bay, Sewage mudflats

incoming tide 6

Wind WNW 10km/h,

4/7/16 DW 32 Georges Bay, Barway S side Pelican Pt 2 8 6 4 3 incoming tide 9

Wind WNW 10km/h, Non-Core Shorebirds 2020/AWSG areas 15 4/7/16 NW + KJ 34 Beerbarrel Beach

incoming tide 1 8 1 9

Wind WNW 10km/h, 4/7/16 NW + KJ Maurouard Beach N 2 incoming tide 2

Wind WNW 10km/h, 12 4/7/16 EZ 23 Maurouard Beach S

incoming tide 8 3

Wind WNW 10km/h,

4/7/16 SP 15 Scamander Spit / Barway 50 6 incoming tide 7 2

Wind WNW 10km/h, 4/7/16 SP Dianas Basin

incoming tide 0

Wind WNW 10km/h, 4/7/16 DW Blanche Beach

incoming tide 0

Wind WNW 10km/h, 4/7/16 SP Falmouth 1 1 incoming tide 2

Wind WNW 10km/h, 4/7/16 EZ Binalong Bay 2 1 incoming tide 3

Wind WNW 10km/h, 4/7/16 EZ Jeanneret Beach 2 incoming tide 2

NOT COUNTED Southport Lagoon NW 111 31 Chilly, sunny, light wind. 28/6/16 SW 75 Roaring Beach - Narrows, Southport 5

NOT COUNTED Southport Bluff Beach

NOT COUNTED Hastings Bay (Lune River )

NOT COUNTED Lake Dulverton

Mainly sunny with variable 478 260 3/7/16 SJ, JB 909 Kingston Pt Perkins I 38 45 cloud and W wind 80 becoming stronger later. 8 Mainly sunny with variable cloud and W wind 3/7/16 HB, JS East Inlet, Stanley 150 300 547 25 14 becoming stronger later. 49 3 2 2 One short shower. 2

NOT COUNTED Howie I Totals forsites>> 149 Eastern Curlew 149 Eastern 150 Whimbrel 153 Bar-tailed Godwit 168 Latham'sSnipe Unidentifiedsmallwaders 133 MaskedLapwing 135 BandedLapwing 138 HoodedPlover 144 Black-fronted Dotterel 141 Greater Sandplover 139 LesserSandPlover 140 Double-bandedPlover 143 Red-cappedPlover 136 Grey Plover 137 PacificGoldenPlover 131 SootyOystercatcher 130 PiedOystercatcher 161 CurlewSandpiper 163 Sharp-tailedSandpiper 978 PectoralSandpiper 162 Red-neckedStint 166 Sanderling 164 RedKnot 165 Great Knot 129 RuddyTurnstone 155 Grey-tailed Tattler 160 Terek Sandpiper 158 CommonGreenshank Weather>>> Observer>> Observers: Dates >> BirdLife Tasmania Shorebird StudyGroup. Summer2015wadercount DA CH BL AR AD EJW DK 222 190 540

Sunny, calm 21/2/15 MN, NR 86 35 Lauderdale 1 5 1 D Abbott C Harris B Longmore A Richardson A Darby E Woehler D Knowler Fine, scattered cloud, light- 21/2/15 CH Clear Lagoon

moderate wind, 27° 0 Core Shorebirds 2020(AWSG) Areas 138 105

Sunny, calm 25° 21/2/15 MN, NR 32 Mortimer Bay 1 JG IF GR GM GD KW JR 117 122 451 Fine, scattered cloud, light- 159

21/2/15 CH 22 31 Pipeclay Lagoon moderate wind, 27° J Graham I Fletcher G Rakers G Masoero G Davis K Westwood J Richardon Fine, scattered cloud, light- 21/2/15 CH Calverts Lagoon

moderate wind, 27° 0 208 578 335 16 falling tide, sunny 24deg C 21/2/15 SD, BL, IF 13 South Arm Neck 6 PM NS NR MN MH SD 51

Clear, sunny, light NE 224 10 60 66 19 21/2/15 AR, JR 69 Barilla Bay breeze P Michael N Sommer N Ramshaw M Newman M Hills S Drake 126 Hot 27C, wind NE 20- DA, GR, GD, AD, PM, KW, 433 74 55 82 13 21/2/15 79 Orielton Lagoon / Sorell

30km JG, NS, MH 4 110 51 37 Fine, sunny 26° 21/2/15 DK 22 Iron Ck - Carlton 18 18 Five Mile Beach - Milford

NOT COUNTED Seven Mile Beach 2492 515 795 870 19 75 77 55 13 68 TOTAL DERWENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 380 171 691 20 24 Sunny, humid, 27° 20/2/15 EJW, GM 12 80 Marion Bay + Little Boomer 4 1175 1041 3183 535 101 148 19 75 55 13 12 TOTAL SOUTHEAST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals forsites>> 149 Eastern Curlew 149 Eastern 150 Whimbrel 153 Bar-tailed Godwit 168 Latham'sSnipe Unidentifiedsmallwaders 133 MaskedLapwing 135 BandedLapwing 138 HoodedPlover 144 Black-fronted Dotterel 141 Greater Sandplover 139 LesserSandPlover 140 Double-bandedPlover 143 Red-cappedPlover 136 Grey Plover 137 PacificGoldenPlover 131 SootyOystercatcher 130 PiedOystercatcher 161 CurlewSandpiper 163 Sharp-tailedSandpiper 978 PectoralSandpiper 162 Red-neckedStint 166 Sanderling 164 RedKnot 165 Great Knot 129 RuddyTurnstone 155 Grey-tailed Tattler 160 Terek Sandpiper 158 CommonGreenshank Weather>>> Observer>> Observers: Dates >> AD HB GW FW EW CM AR AP AF BirdLife Tasmania Shorebird StudyGroup. Summer2015wadercount

Light SE wind, warm and 129 28 18 44 1/2/15 FW, LW 39 Montagu I sunny Andrew Darby Hazel Britton Garry Watts Frank Wilson Els Wakefield Col Meyers Alastair Richardson Alison Parks Anthea Fergusson 1000 1526 105 Warm and 210 72 67 1/2/15 MB, PM, PW, RM, RW, Tbu 67 Kangaroo I 1 Sunny,E.wind<20knts 4 1511 2077 218 Warn and sunny, E.wind< 183 17 15 20 35 1/2/15 AR, JR, CM, RR, MH 70 Shipwreck Pt, Perkins I

11 knts 3 4 1 Core Shorebirds 2020(AWSG) Areas Fine, Sunny . Wind SW 15- 26 1/2/15 AF, SJ 35 Wallaby I 7 20 kph. 2 JH PB PA MH MB LW JS JR JoH S.wind<20 knts. Clear and 1/2/15 PB, EW Anthony Beach West 1 4 sunny. 5 Jim Hunter Paul Brooks Peter Atkinson Michael Hyland Mike Brakey Lennice Wilson Julie Serafin Jean Richardson John Hunter 155 210 455 28 Fine, sunny, SE breeze 1/2/15 AP, TB 30 30 Anthony Beach East 2 52 246 Fine, sunny, S wind <11 303

1/2/15 AD, RA 37 "Bird Pt" 1 2 4 1 3 knts. 9

NOT COUNTED Mosquito Inlet PM Tbu TB SJ SG RW RR RM RA 345 270 Fine, sunny, S wind <11 837 38 30 72 1/2/15 JoH, GW 77 "5 Islets"

knts. 5 Peter Marmion Tom Burke Tony Britz Sue Jennings Simon Gates Rodger Willows Robert Read Robyn Marmion Richard Ashby 2000 2323

Fine, sunny, S wind <11 180 82 10 1/2/15 JH, PA 37 "Knot Point" 2 2 3 knts. 7 5312 7690 553 149 280 280 337 454 48 72 47 59 37 44 TOTAL NORTHWEST 1 0 0 3 9 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 13 15 19/1/15 RC 41 Tamar / George Town 3 1 9 RC 503 339 41 23 15 12 16 1/3/15 RC 39 Cape Portland, Little Musselroe 6 6 4 2 Ralph Cooper 144 251 630 86 51 57 15/1/15 RC 36 Kelso 5 1174 140 198 590 77 73 12 20 36 TOTAL NORTH/NORTHEAST 0 6 9 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 12047 7077 1734 155 781 505 100 233 341 341 454 76 25 79 37 36 13 44 TOTAL TASMANIA 1 0 3 9 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 Totals forsites>> Unidentifiedsmallwaders 133 MaskedLapwing 135 BandedLapwing 138 HoodedPlover 144 Black-fronted Dotterel 141 Greater Sandplover 139 LesserSandPlover 140 Double-bandedPlover 143 Red-cappedPlover 136 Grey Plover 137 PacificGoldenPlover 131 SootyOystercatcher 130 PiedOystercatcher 161 CurlewSandpiper 163 Sharp-tailedSandpiper 978 PectoralSandpiper 162 Red-neckedStint 166 Sanderling 164 RedKnot 165 Great Knot 129 RuddyTurnstone 155 Grey-tailed Tattler 160 Terek Sandpiper 158 CommonGreenshank Curlew 149 Eastern 150 Whimbrel 153 Bar-tailed Godwit 168 Latham'sSnipe Weather>>> Observer>> Observers: Dates >> AA EZ DW CdL C+G BH BH AP 107 Fine 25/1/15 JH, JoH 112 Moorland Pt, Devonport 2 3 A Astley E Znidersic D Wingfield C deLittle CG Gunson B Hansberry B Hansberry A Parks 162 Warm and Sunny. SE 171 6/2/15 AP, HB, PE, JH, SL, RN Narawntapu NP (NE Arm) Wind <10kts. 2 7

ESE wind 15km/h, 57 12 12/2/15 BH, AA 69 Georges Bay, Horseshoe Sands overcast HB PE NW LB Jo JK JH IM BirdLife Tasmania Shorebird StudyGroup. Summer2015wadercount

ESE wind 15km/h, 104

12/2/15 IM 98 Georges Bay, Medeas Cove 5 overcast 1 H Britton Pat Ellison N Walter L Biggs H JHunter J King J Hunter I May

ESE wind 15km/h, 184 68 20 12/2/15 EZ 94 Georges Bay, Sewage mudflats

overcast 2 352 ESE wind 15km/h, 457 57 14 12/2/15 DW 29 Georges Bay, Barway S side Pelican Pt 5 overcast Non-Core Shorebirds 2020/AWSG areas PB EW TT SW SP SL SF RN ESE wind 15km/h, 12/2/15 NW, SB Beerbarrel Beach 3 1 5 overcast 9 P Brooks E Wakefield T Thornley S Walsh S Pike S Lloyd S Fish R Nagorka ESE wind 15km/h, 13 12/2/15 EZ 15 Maurouard Beach N

overcast 2

ESE wind 15km/h, 12/2/15 EZ Maurouard Beach S 1 3 overcast 4 JS 53 ESE wind 15km/h, 20 30 12/2/15 TT, JK 58 Scamander Spit / Barway 1 overcast 7 J Serafin ESE wind 15km/h, 12/2/15 TT, JK Dianas Basin

overcast 0

ESE wind 15km/h, 12/2/15 NW, SB Blanche Beach 1 2 overcast 3

ESE wind 15km/h, 12/2/15 LB, C+CG Falmouth 2 2 2 overcast 6

ESE wind 15km/h, 12/2/15 DW Binalong Bay 1 overcast 1

ESE wind 15km/h, 12/2/15 DW Jeanneret Beach 2 2 overcast 4

Very hot, cloudless, calm 21/2/15 CdL 24 Southport Lagoon NW 4 2 3 6 9

Fine, warm, light breeze 21/2/15 SW 16 Roaring Beach - Narrows, Southport 6 2 6 2

Very hot, cloudless, calm 21/2/15 CdL Southport Bluff Beach 4 4

Fine, warm, light breeze 21/2/15 SW Hastings Bay (Lune River ) 2 2 400 15/2/15 SF 403 Lake Dulverton 3 476 254 S.wind<20 knts. Clear and 911 63 51 16 27 1/2/15 PB, EW 19 Kingston Pt Perkins I 2 sunny. 3 150 200 423 32 Sunny, warm 1/2/15 HB, JS 16 East Inlet, Stanley 7 4 2 5 2 5 Notes

54 Notes

55 Notes

56