Threatened Species Strategy Year 3 Scorecard – Regent Honeyeater

Threatened Species Strategy – Year 3 Priority Species Scorecard (2018)

Key Findings

Regent Honeyeaters once ranged abundantly from Adelaide to south- east Queensland, however much of the species’ habitat was cleared for agriculture and the severely declined population of Regent Honeyeaters now moves between widely spaced patches of remnant habitat. Recovery actions including habitat protection, restoration and revegetation at key habitat sites and the release of captive bred birds have helped slow the rate of decline, however numbers continue to fall. Photo: Dean Ingwersen

Significant trajectory change from 2005-15 to 2015-18? Yes, decline ongoing but at a slower rate.

Priority future actions

• Continue captive releases • Active nest protection from predators and competitors at multiple sites • Augment food at critical times during breeding cycle • Protect all known breeding habitat Full assessment information Background information 2018 population trajectory assessment

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

The primary purpose of this scorecard is to assess progress against the year three targets outlined in the Australian Government’s Threatened Species Strategy, including estimating the change in population trajectory of 20 bird species. It has been prepared by experts from the National Environmental Science Program’s Threatened Species Recovery Hub, with input from a number of taxon experts, a range of stakeholders and staff from the Office of the Threatened Species Commissioner, for the information of the Australian Government and is non-statutory. It has been informed by statutory planning documents that guide recovery of the species, such as Recovery Plans and/or Conservation Advices (see Section 11). The descriptive information in this scorecard is drawn from Commonwealth of Australia (2016), unless otherwise noted by additional citations.

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

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

1. Conservation status and taxonomy

Conservation status 2018 Taxonomy: IUCN Critically Endangered Monotypic: no infraspecific taxa described.

EPBC Critically Endangered

ACT Endangered

NSW Critically Endangered

QLD Endangered

SA Endangered

VIC Threatened

2. Conservation history and prospects The Regent Honeyeater is endemic to mainland south-east Australia. Formerly abundant and ranging from Adelaide to south-east Queensland, the species now has a patchy distribution which extends from south east Queensland, through New South Wales (NSW) and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), to central Victoria. It is highly mobile, occurring only irregularly in most sites, and in variable numbers. Commonly associated with box ironbark eucalypt woodland and dry sclerophyll forest, it also inhabits riparian vegetation and lowland coastal forest and a range of other habitats. The species has declined rapidly since the 1960s (Franklin et al. 1989). While extensive clearing of its preferred box–gum– ironbark woodland habitats were a major driver of declines, contemporary reasons for its decline are poorly understood (Clarke et al. 2003, Crates et al. 2017). Recent research suggests that high nest failure rates are unsustainable in both wild (Crates et al. 2018) and captive released birds (Taylor et al. 2018).

3. Past and current trends The Regent Honeyeater was formerly distributed throughout the temperate woodlands and forests in south-eastern Australia, from the Adelaide region, South Australia (SA), to 100km north of Brisbane, Qld. Today it rarely visits the Gore-Karara region south of Brisbane and no longer occurs in SA. The species’ distribution is now extremely patchy with a small number of known breeding sites. In 1995 nearly 1500 were recorded and 1,350 in 1997 but numbers dropped precipitously after that – highest totals were 659 in 2000, 631 in 2002 and 449 in 2005 (D. Ingwersen pers. comm.). By 2010 the total population size was estimated at 350-400 mature individuals (Kvistad et al. 2015). Low breeding success and a male-biased sex ratio suggest this number may be lower (Crates et al. 2018a).

The average number of birds seen per year over the last decade is 136 (D. Ingwersen pers. comm.) (see below for a breakdown of the raw yearly counts). While the wild population has been augmented by substantial releases of captive bred birds, their nesting success is about half that of wild-raised birds (Taylor et al. 2018).

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

Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Count 117 100 124 271 110 69 137 141 201 85

Monitoring (existing programs): Volunteer surveys have been conducted twice a year, in May and August, since 1995, involving hundreds of volunteers and community groups. Detailed studies are also undertaken with respect to recently released birds, and the Australian National University has recently monitored about a quarter of the population during the nesting season (Crates et al. 2017). Population trends: Tables 1 and 2 summarise the overall trend and status of the Regent Honeyeater. The information provided in these tables is derived from the recovery plan and conservation advices with some amendments made by contributing experts based on new information. Table 1. Summary of the available information on Regent Honeyeater distribution and population size, and (where possible) trend estimates between 2015 and 2018 for each parameter. Confidence in Population parameters Published baseline 2015 estimate 2018 estimate estimates

WILD

Extent of Occurrence 600,000 km2 600,000 km2 600,000 km2 High

Area of Occupancy 300 km2 300 km2 300 km2 High

Dates of records and As per Bird Action Plan methods used

No. mature individuals 350 350 350 Medium

Any other measure of n/a n/a n/a n/a relative abundance

No. of subpopulations 1 1 1 High

No. of locations >10 >10 >10 High High: based on recent global Generation time 3.4 n/a n/a modelling by BirdLife International CAPTIVE BREEDING No. mature individuals 50 50 50 High No. locations 2 6 6*# High *From http://www.geckodan.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Regent-Honeyeater-.pdf # New breeding facilities being constructed at Western Plains Zoo (Dubbo) to increase captive population and mitigate risk.

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

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

Est. % of Confidence in Confidence in 2005-2015 2015-2018 Sub-population total pop’n 2005-2015 2015-2018 Details trend trend (pre-2015) trend trend

Numbers in the wild may Whole be sustained by birds 100 Medium N/a population ? released from captivity but not yet known.

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

? Low Trend suspected but evidence indirect or equivocal

4. Key threats The threats listed here are derived from the Commonwealth of Australia (2016) with some amendments from contributing experts based on new information. Note that this is not a list of all plausible threats, but a subset of the threats that are likely to have the largest impact on populations.

Habitat loss and degradation Ongoing clearing of woodland and forest containing the key eucalypt species preferred by Regent Honeyeaters exacerbates extensive historical clearance, reducing the available nesting and foraging habitat to small remnants of what previously existed. These remnants are continuing to decline in area through residential, agricultural and industrial developments and face ongoing degradation and loss of quality through loss of mature trees (which occurs through senescence), eucalypt dieback, harvesting for fence posts or firewood, and/or drought induced stress.

Noisy Miner (Manorina melanocephala) Noisy Miners are favoured by landscape fragmentation and aggressively exclude other species. They are also now known to be an important predator of Regent Honeyeater nests (Collins, in Higgins et al. 2001; Crates et al. 2018).

Drought Extended dry weather reduces the number of sites where high quality food may be found in the landscape by suppressing flowering events in key Eucalypt species.

Nest predation Recent reports of predation of Regent Honeyeater nests by Brush-tail Possums (Trichosurus vulpecula), Sugar (Petaurus brevipes) and Squirrel Gliders (Petaurus norfolcensis), Pied Currawongs (Strepera graculina), Australian Ravens (Corvus coronoides) and Pied Butcherbirds suggests nest predation by a range of species is more important to honeyeater demography than previously appreciated (Crates et al. 2018, Taylor et al. 2018).

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

Small population size The small population is spread across such a large area of south-eastern Australia that the inherent issues related to small population size may be exerting pressure on recovery of the Regent Honeyeater. Breeding birds of this mobile species may be unable to find each other, and smaller flocks may be more prone to displacement by larger honeyeater species from key breeding and foraging sites (Crates et al. 2017a, 2018).

The impacts of the major threats are summarised in Table 3. Table 3. The major threats facing the Regent Honeyeater and their associated impact scores. CURRENT THREAT IMPACT (five greatest threats) Threat Timing Extent Severity 1. Habitat loss and degradation Continuing/ongoing 50-90% of range 30-49%

2. Noisy Miner Continuing/ongoing 50-90% of range 50-100%

3. Drought Near future >90% of range 50-100%

4. Nest predation Continuing/ongoing 50-90% of range 20-29%

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

5. Past and current management Recent and current management actions thought to be contributing to the conservation of the Regent Honeyeater are summarised in Table 4. This information is a collation of material provided by experts. Table 4. Management actions thought to be contributing to the conservation of the Regent Honeyeater. Est. % Action Location Timing Contributors and partners pop’n

Taronga Conservation Society Australia, 2008, Melbourne, Adelaide Zoos, the Australian 2010, Chiltern, Reptile Park, BirdLife Australia, Captive breeding and release 2013, 30 Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water 2015, and Planning and Parks Victoria, Office of 2017 Environment and Heritage (NSW)

BirdLife Australia, Australian National Capertee Noisy Miner control 2016-18 30 University, NSW Local Land Services, Valley Office of Environment and Heritage (NSW)

“Restoring the Regent Honeyeater”: monitoring, habitat restoration, pest Victoria 2017-19 30 BirdLife Australia, Australian Government control and satellite tracking

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

2008 - Latrobe University, Australian National Nesting research All sites 100 ongoing University, Federal environmental offsets

Conduct surveys, colour-band and BirdLife Australia, Australian National release birds into the wild and control All NSW 2015 - University, NSW OEH (as part of the 80 native pests that are implicated in the sites ongoing Saving our Species Program), Federal Regent Honeyeater’s decline environmental offsets

Taronga Zoo, NSW OEH (as part of the Extend Regent Honeyeater breeding Taronga 2015 - n/a Saving our Species program), offset program Zoo ongoing programs

Bundarra -Barraba, Secure conservation agreements for 2009 - Hunter Nature Conservation Trust, NSW OEH (as properties with vital Regent 13, 2015 20 Valley, part of the Saving our Species Program) Honeyeater habitats - ongoing Capertee Valley

NSW Local Land Services, Victorian Restore important woodland nesting Capertee 1997 - 30 Catchment Management groups, Landcare areas Valley ongoing Australia

Engage farming community in restoring remnant box-ironbark Regent Honeyeater project (further Lurg Hills habitat – propagation and planting details, including collaborators and and days are organised each year for 1998 - funding can be found at surround <5 thousands of students, hundreds of ongoing http://regenthoneyeater.org.au/), s (north- volunteers and environment groups. Goulburn-Broken CMA east Vic) More than 1600ha of habitat has been restored

Lurg Hills Regent Honeyeater project (further and 1998- details, including collaborators and Nest box placement and monitoring surround <5 ongoing funding can be found at s (north- http://regenthoneyeater.org.au/) east Vic)

6. Actions undertaken or supported by the Australian Government resulting from inclusion in the Threatened Species Strategy Through the Australian Government’s Threatened Species Recovery Fund, BirdLife Australia was supported to use a mix of cutting edge science, such as satellite tracking, along with tried and tested conservation practices to help Regent Honeyeaters in Victoria and NSW. Conservation actions included habitat planting, restoration and fencing to protect and restore the best parts of the landscape for the species. Noisy Miners were removed from two key regions to improve access to foraging and breeding areas for Regent Honeyeaters. Through the Green Army and 20 Million Trees programs, the Australian Government directed significant funding toward habitat restoration and revegetation in Regent Honeyeater habitat in southern Queensland, NSW and Victoria. Twelve different revegetation projects identify the Regent Honeyeater as the primary species of benefit and have received over $2 million since 2015. About 20 more projects list the species as a secondary beneficiary.

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

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

PROGRESS IN MANAGING THREATS (five greatest threats)

Threat Year Understanding of how to manage threat Extent to which threat being managed 4. Trial management under way but not yet clear 1. Habitat 2015 1. Management limited to trials evidence that it can deliver objectives loss and 4. Trial management under way but not yet clear degradation 2018 1. Management limited to trials evidence that it can deliver objectives 2. Research has provided strong direction on how 2. Solutions have been adopted but too 2015 to manage threat early to demonstrate success 2. Noisy 3. Solutions are enabling achievement but Miner 2. Research has provided strong direction on how 2018 only with continued conservation to manage threat intervention 1. Research being undertaken or completed but 2015 0. No management limited understanding on how to manage threat 3. Drought 1. Research being undertaken or completed but 2018 0. No management limited understanding on how to manage threat 2015 0. No knowledge and no research 0. No management 4. Nest 2. Work has been initiated to roll out 3. Solutions being trialled but work only initiated predation 2018 solutions where threat applies across the recently taxon’s range 5. Small 2015 0. No management 0. No management population 1. Research being undertaken or completed but 2018 1. Management limited to trials size limited understanding on how to manage threat > Green shading indicates an improvement in our understanding or management of threats between years 2015 and 2018, while red shading indicates deterioration in our understanding or management of threats.

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

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

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

• No captive breeding or release • No further rehabilitation • Clearance controls lifted for private land • No management of public forests • No Noisy Miner control Under this scenario, with no captive releases or control of Noisy Miners, it is likely that fewer wild birds would survive or breed because some birds would be unable to find mates and foraging efficiency is likely to be lower in smaller flocks. Management Scenario 2 (blue line): continuation of existing conservation management (i.e. actions undertaken before implementation of the Threatened Species Strategy or independent of the Threatened Species Strategy).

• Intensive captive releases • Localised control of Noisy Miners • Research into reducing breeding failure • Active revegetation of multiple sites Under this scenario habitat suitable for the honeyeaters is restored at multiple sites and breeding success is increased through predator and competitor control and release of captive birds. Management Scenario 3 (green line): continuation of existing management, augmented by support mobilised by the Australian Government under the Threatened Species Strategy.

• Greatly expanded revegetation of suitable breeding habitat This scenario resembles Scenario 2 but with the potential for more habitat to be available in the future than would otherwise have been the case. Overall estimated population trajectories subject to management scenarios considered The Regent Honeyeater is currently being managed under Scenario 3 (green line).

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

Figure 1. Estimated relative percentage change in population under each of the management scenarios described above. Data derived from 7 expert assessments of Regent Honeyeater expected response to management, using four-step elicitation and the IDEA protocol (Hemming et al. 2017), where experts are asked to provide best estimates, lowest and highest plausible estimates, and an associated level of confidence. The dashed line represents the baseline value (i.e. as at 2015, standardised to 100). Values above this line indicate a relative increase in population size, while values below this line indicate a relative decrease in population size. Shading indicates confidence bounds (i.e. the lowest and highest plausible estimates).

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

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

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

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

Post-TSS Year 3 Pre-TSS trend Significant concordance among trend target (2005-2015) elicitors? (2015-2018) met?

Annual Although the trajectory post 2015 is still percentage declining, the decline is much less marked. -5.33 -0.91 population  Concordance among elicitors was change significant.

Additional actions that could improve trajectory The potential impact of carrying out specific additional conservation measures on the population trajectory of the Regent Honeyeater was also evaluated through expert elicitation. Current management includes intensive captive releases; localised control of Noisy Miners; research into reducing breeding failure; active revegetation of multiple sites; and greatly expanded revegetation of suitable breeding habitat. Additional actions that could further improve the population trajectory include:

• Continuing captive releases • Active nest protection from predators and competitors at multiple sites • Food augmented at critical times during breeding cycle • All breeding known habitat protected

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

9. Immediate priorities from 2019 The priorities listed here are derived from Commonwealth of Australia (2016), with amendments made by contributing experts based on new information. Identification of these priorities in this document is for information and is non-statutory. For statutory conservation planning documents, such as Recovery Plans or Conservation Advices, please see Section 11. Data collection: • Increase understanding of the size, structure, trajectory and viability of the wild population • Conduct population viability analyses based on contemporary empirical data to determine likely population sizes under different management scenarios and associated management requirements • Continue, expand and/or refine monitoring efforts • Investigate key drivers of nectar supply, including tree size, hydrology, landscape variables and effects of competitors, notably feral and domestic bees (as well as other honeyeaters) Management actions: • Improve the extent and quality of regent honeyeater habitat • Bolster the wild population with captive-bred birds until the wild population becomes self- sustaining • Increase understanding of the size, structure, trajectory and viability of the wild population • Manage predation and competition around nesting aggregations to improve recruitment into the wild • Maintain and increase community awareness, understanding and involvement in the recovery program • Protect mature trees and manage competition in high nectar-producing parts of the landscape

10. Contributors Dean Ingwersen, Ross Crates, Stephen Garnett, Robert Heinsohn, Sarah Legge, Jennifer Smits, John Woinarski, Hayley Geyle, Guy Dutson, Richard Loyn, Peter Menkhorst, Nicholas MacGregor.

11. Legislative documents SPRAT profile: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi- bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=82338 Department of the Environment (2015). Conservation Advice Anthochaera phrygia regent honeyeater. Canberra: Department of the Environment. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/82338-conservation- advice.pdf. In effect under the EPBC Act from 08-Jul-2015.

Department of the Environment (2016). National Recovery Plan for the Regent Honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia). Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/recovery-plans/national-recovery-plan- regent-honeyeater-anthochaera-phrygia-2016. In effect under the EPBC Act from 04-May-2016 as Anthochaera phrygia.

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

12. References Clarke, R.H., Oliver, D.L., Boulton, R.L., Cassey, M. & Clarke, M.F. (2003). Assessing programs for monitoring threatened species – A tale of three honeyeaters (Meliphagidae). Wildlife Restoration. 30, 427–435. Commonwealth of Australia. (2016). National Recovery Plan for the Regent Honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia), Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Crates, R., Rayner, L., Stojanovic, D., Webb, M. & Heinsohn, R. 2017a. Undetected Allee effects in Australia's threatened birds: implications for conservation. Emu 117, 207–221 Crates, R., Rayner, L., Stojanovic, D., Webb, M., Terauds, A. and Heinsohn, R. (2018). Contemporary breeding biology of critically endangered Regent Honeyeaters: implications for conservation. Ibis. Crates, R., Terauds, A., Rayner, L., Stojanovic, D., Heinsohn, R., Ingwersen, D. & Webb, M. (2017b). An occupancy approach to monitoring regent honeyeaters. Journal of Wildlife Management 81, 669–677. Franklin, D.C., Menkhorst, P.W. & Robinson, J. (1989). Ecology of the Regent Honeyeater Xanthomyza phrygia. Emu 89, 140–154. Garnett, S.T., Butchart, S.H.M., Baker, G.B., Bayraktarov, E., Buchanan, K.L., Burbidge, A.A., Chauvenet, A.L.M., Christidis, L., Ehmke, G., Grace, M., Hoccom, D.G., Legge, S.M., Leiper, I., Lindenmayer, D.B., Loyn, R.H., Maron, M., McDonald, P., Menkhorst, P., Possingham, H.P., Radford, J., Reside, A.E., Watson, D.M., Watson, J.E.M., Wintle, B., Woinarski, J.C.Z., and Geyle, H.M. (2018) Metrics of progress in the understanding and management of threats to Australian Birds. Conservation Biology https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13220. Hemming, V., Burgman, M.A., Hanea, A.M., McBride, M.F., and Wintle B.C. (2017) A practical guide to structured expert elicitation using the IDEA protocol. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 169- 180. Higgins, P.J., Peter, J.M., and Steele, W.K. (2001). Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Volume 5: Tyrant-flycatchers to Chats, 573-598. Kvistad, L., Ingwersen, D., Pavlova, A., Bull, J.K. & Sunnucks, P. (2015). Very low population structure in a highly mobile and wide‐ranging endangered bird species. PLoS ONE 10: e0143746. Taylor, G., Ewen, J.G., Clarke, R.H., Blackburn, T., Johnson, G. & Ingwersen, D. (2018). Video monitoring reveals novel threat to critically endangered captive‐bred and released Regent Honeyeaters. Emu 118, 304–310.

13. Citation Please cite this document as:

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

12 Information current to December 2018