Appendix 1 Detailed summaries of latest research findings

Responses of Incubating Hooded Plovers ( Thinornis rubricollis ) to Disturbance

Weston and Elgar (2007) found the most common response to an approaching stimulus involved leaving the nest for a period of time (an ‘‘absence’’): 90.9% of encounters that caused a response (n = 580) resulted in an absence from the nest. Disturbance-initiated absences were significantly more frequent (1.1 ± 1.1 per hour) than incubator-initiated absences (i.e. when the birds take a break from the nest 0.5 ± 0.5 per hour).

Overall, nests encountered 3.0 ± 4.2 stimuli per hour (n = 49 observation days; 555 observation hours). The hourly rate of encounters with human stimuli was 2.4 ± 4.0 per hour (maximum 24.2); the rate of encounters with natural stimuli was 0.7 ± 0.9 per hour (maximum 3.5). Only one observation day involved no encounters with natural or human stimuli (2.0% of observation days). This reveals that human encounters are common for incubating Hooded Plovers.

Overall, 75.7% of all stimuli were due to humans or their companion animals, and 24.3% involved natural stimuli (n = 1821). Of all encounters, 73.3% involved humans on foot. Within this category, walkers without dogs were the most frequently encountered stimulus at nests, and they accounted for about half of all encounters. Humans were responsible for more time off the nest (33.1%) than any other source, and 68.0% of time off nests was caused by external stimuli.

There was a lower than expected frequency of nest absences in response to walkers without dogs and higher than expected absence frequencies in response to magpies and ravens. Research around the world shows that habituation is promoted by stimuli that do not represent any real threat to the birds. Walkers without dogs may be less threatening than other stimuli because they are slow moving, do not persecute the birds, and occur frequently. Ravens and magpies on the other hand have been found to be major predators of Hooded Plover nests (see study by Renee Mead below using remote cameras to detect nest fates).

The observed percentage of nest absences in response to encounters with leashed dogs is lower than expected, but the observed percentage of nest absences in response to encounters with unleashed dogs is higher than expected. The percentage of encounters with leashed dogs that caused an absence from the nest was similar to the percentage of

202

encounters with walkers without dogs that caused an absence (ca. 21%). This suggests that it is the behaviour of dogs rather than their presence that influences whether nest absences occur. The particularly disturbing nature of unleashed dogs is probably explained by their tendency to move up and down the beach perpendicular to the water’s edge (see Burger 1986). Additionally, unleashed dogs directly pursued Hooded Plovers at times.

About 17% of encounters with potential causes of disturbance occurred while birds were already responding to other disturbance, and this prolonged the return to the nest.

Humans occurred predominantly in the midbeach: 71.7% of 2361 people who passed nests were in the midbeach. This means that nests in different habitats (beach, foredune, dunes) may be differentially affected by human disturbance. Weston and Elgar (2007) found that encounters at beach and foredune nests were more likely to result in incubator absences, and that the duration of absences at foredune nests was longer than for dune or beach nests. The incubating birds on beach and foredune nests are not only closer to the approaching ‘threat’ but have a clearer view of approaching threats, which may explain the greater tendency of birds to respond to these approaching threats.

Disturbance to brood-rearing Hooded Plover Thinornis rubricollis: responses and consequences

Weston and Elgar (2005a) examined the causes and consequences of disturbance to the chicks of Hooded Plover.

Disturbance might cause thermal stress to chicks. Hooded Plover chicks are expected to have difficulty maintaining their body temperature without parental assistance, and disruption of brooding is likely to interfere with thermoregulation. Of 261 brooding bouts recorded, 44.8% ended because of disturbance. Almost a third (31.0%) of all brooding bouts observed were ended by an encounter with a human. Chicks found themselves un- brooded due to disturbance for up to 290 min, and in ambient temperatures of 10–46°C.

Disturbance might cause energetic stress to chicks. Encounters with humans usually caused chick foraging to stop. Higher levels of disturbance were associated with less chick foraging. There was a tendency for broods to forage in lower and potentially more

203

profitable levels of the habitat in less-disturbed conditions. However, the overall pattern of habitat use was similar during disturbed and less-disturbed conditions.

Adult defence of broods could be compromised by disturbance. However, no brood predation occurred in disturbed circumstances, and adults stayed close to their broods even in disturbed conditions.

The main source of encounters with Hooded Plover broods were humans (81.1% of encounters). The main response of chicks is to run to foredunes and dunes to hide. The heavy reliance of Hooded Plover chicks on the dunes and foredunes as the main site of concealment emphasizes the importance of dune systems in the habitat of this species.

This study can offer no unequivocal evidence linking levels of disturbance with reduced chick survival in Hooded Plover. Nevertheless, the data reveal that disturbance reduces feeding and disrupts brooding of chicks, influences that might reduce chick survival. Reduced foraging and brooding due to disturbance are thought to be responsible for decreased chick survival in the ecologically and behaviourally similar Piping Plover Charadrius melodus .

Effectiveness of signed and fenced areas for reducing nest crushing and disturbance to Hooded Plovers

Weston et al. (2012a) explored whether three types of nest protection scenarios referred to as Temporary Beach Closures (TBC) (signage; signage and temporary fencing, and; signage, temporary fencing and wardening) differed in their conferred benefit to Hooded Plovers measured as (1) achieving compliance among beach visitors, and (2) reducing egg-crushing rates.

Overall, 93.7% of beach visitors complied with TBC, resulting in a reduction in egg- crushing rates within (3.9% of eggs were crushed), as opposed to adjacent to, the protected areas. Levels of compliance were high in all three TBCs (88.0–99.4%), and similar levels of compliance were achieved within the three scenarios. Human compliance was highest for females and when the density of beach-users was higher (particularly in the middle of the day between 12pm and 2pm), while individuals aged <20 and >61 years were less likely to comply with nest protection scenarios. Despite an increased

204

probability of compliance on high density beaches, this did not translate into a reduction in egg crushing rates on such beaches, because the overall number of non-compliant individuals remained higher.

The finding that compliance was highest for nest protection efforts at beaches with higher encounter rates and during busier times of the day (i.e. the middle of the day) highlights the strong role of social norms in influencing compliance (Manfredo and Dayer 2004; Williams et al. 2009). It may also be in part to the dichotomy in user groups visiting beaches (Maguire et al. 2011a), where visitors (non-local residents) are more likely to visit the beach in the middle of the day, and in this study, perhaps be more receptive and compliant with signage.

Weston et al. (2012a) concluded that nest protection efforts are meritorious, and that their use on high and low-use recreational beaches will benefit breeding shorebirds by reducing the rate of egg-crushing. Targeting demographics that display lower levels of compliance, such as men, young people (i.e. <21), and older people (i.e. >60), may further improve the effectiveness of nest protection efforts.

Nest Return Times in Response to Static Versus Mobile Human Disturbance

Weston et al. (2011) delivered standardized stimuli to incubating Hooded Plovers to examine the influence of human movement on disruption of incubation classified as mobile (activities moving past the area e.g. walking, jogging) or static (activities stationed within the one area e.g., sunbathers, anglers, and picnickers).

Observations across 82 days during the breeding season revealed 7,217 humans on breeding territories, of which 63.5% were classified as static. Results indicated that static humans caused substantial disruption to incubation that almost always exceeded 60 min (19 of 20 pairs), regardless of nesting habitat. The probability of plovers returning to nests within 60 min was higher in the treatment that mimicked mobile (e.g., walking) humans (85.7%) than in the treatment that mimicked static (e.g., sunbathing) humans (9.5%; n = 20 pairs). Thus, temporary beach closures (i.e. nest protection signage/fencing) that reduce or eliminate static but not mobile disturbances are likely to be effective at reducing disruption to incubation caused by human disturbance.

205

Sign content and placement

Threatened species signage is frequently used to help protect species by limiting human occurrence or alter damaging human behaviour, yet is rarely developed using a scientific approach which involves collecting data from the key target audience in regard to their preferences for signs and placement of signs. Rimmer et al. (2013) surveyed members of the beach-going public (n = 684) to document their preferences for desirable features and positioning of signage to protect threatened beach-nesting birds.

Respondents were ‘likely’ to read a sign that was positioned on or near the beach (4.39 ± 0.03, where 1 and 5 were “definitely not” and “definitely” respectively; n = 516). When asked where signs should be placed to be highly ‘noticeable’, 78.4% of 524 respondents believed signs should be placed at the beginning of an access path, 62.2% in the carpark, 59.0% on the upper beach, 58.6% at the beach end of the access path, 36.1% on the dune, and 26.5% on the lower beach. (N.B. multiple options were available, and 9.4% of respondents selected every option.)

When respondents ranked the effectiveness of features on signs, they regarded colourful images, clear definitions of the issue and appropriate behaviour most effective, with descriptions of fines and authoritative language least effective at helping Hooded Plovers. Overall, respondents had clear preferences among the four candidate signs, preferring the sign that “Personalised the bird so that I can relate more easily to its plight” (1.51 ± 0.04 where 1 and 4 is “most” and “least” preferred respectively; n = 517) and the sign suggesting an alternative location for dog walking (2.24 ± 0.04); both included images of Hooded Plovers. The least preferred signs detailed fines (3.05 ± 0.04) and were descriptive/prescriptive (3.19 ± 0.04) without images.

Respondents who rarely used the beach considered authoritative content more effective at helping the plovers than respondents using the beach more frequently (F2, 504= 4.383, P = 0.013; factor scores 3.36 ± 0.09 vs. 3.20 ± 0.09). Frequency of use also influenced the perceptions of dog walkers (F4, 504 = 4.338, P = 0.014; 38.9% of respondents walked dogs). Dog walkers who use the beach at higher frequencies indicated preference for emotive sign content (factor score, 4.32 ± 0.10) in contrast to non-dog owners who prefer descriptive content (4.41 ± 0.15). Dog walkers using the beach most frequently perceived authoritative signs as less effective (2.92 ± 0.16) compared with non-dog owners (3.39 ± 0.11). Prior awareness of the Hooded Plover did not influence the information content desired on signage (F2, 504 =0.254, P = 0.615).

206

Overall, respondents preferred descriptive signage, suggesting a preference for education and persuasion over regulation among respondents, a view shared by many managers and social marketers (McKenzie-Mohr and Smith 1999). Neither education nor persuasion automatically confers behavioural change and signage is but one component of effective social marketing (Orams 1997). Rimmer et al. (2013) concluded that regulatory signage may be most effective at engendering sympathetic behaviour among occasional, non-dog-walking beach visitors; authoritative signs might be less effective for more frequent visitors. Stakeholders more directly or substantially involved in conservation issues (e.g. frequent users of areas subject to conservation management) prefer persuasion over enforcement, while stakeholders less closely connected are more likely to advocate for enforcement (McKenzie-Mohr and Smith 1999). The different preferences of dog owners to signs may be explained by the fact that compliance with dog leashing regulations on beaches is low and off-leash activities are highly valued, thus behavioural change sought by signs may have been particularly unwelcome among dog walkers (Williams et al. 2009). The different perceptions of beach user groups suggest that target audiences for signs should be specifically identified and prioritised.

Flight initiation distances and determining ecologically meaningful and socially acceptable buffers

Buffers are often used to separate threatening stimuli, such as humans, from wildlife but with few exceptions buffer widths are based on little empirical information. Glover et al. (2011) carried out standardised approaches for 28 of Australia’s 36 regularly occurring shorebirds to measure Flight Initiation Distance (FID) which is the distance at which the birds respond to stimuli, i.e. are disturbed.

Species differed in their FID, with species with higher body masses having longer FIDs (F1,26 = 36.830, p < 0.001; R2 = 0.586). Flight for heavier birds might be comparatively more energetically costly, therefore fleeing earlier may enable birds to use less costly escape options, such as walking or running (Fernández-Juricic et al. , 2002). Alternatively, smaller birds are less conspicuous than larger birds and may continue foraging in the presence of an approaching threat (Holmes et al. , 1993). Larger shorebirds may have been preyed upon more substantially by humans, either historically or in parts of the world where the practice still occurs (Geering et al. , 2007), and thus birds may have evolved or learned to be particularly wary of humans.

207

Mean FIDs for species were 18.6–126.1 m (n = 370 approaches by a walker). The mean FID for Hooded Plover was 41.12 ± 6.06 m with a minimum distance of 17 m and a maximum of 70 m recorded for the 8 pairs approached. A commonly used buffer width in south-eastern Australia is 50 m, particularly for wetlands (DSE, 2005); in response to a lone walker, 54% of the species we examined had FIDs in excess of 50 m on at least one occasion, and mean FIDs of over 50 m were recorded for eight species. Thus, even with complete compliance among humans, existing buffer widths are unlikely to eliminate disturbance to shorebirds; the degree to which it is reduced remains unknown.

Glover et al. (2011) also surveyed 295 residents and users of shorebird habitat. Respondents expressed an overall positive attitude towards bird conservation; 86% (254) agreed that ‘land and water that provides critical habitat for birds should be protected’ (n = 294). Respondents were largely supportive of most of 19 hypothetical management techniques (such as, restrictions, regulations, pest control and improved amenities); 69 ± 3% supported 18 active management techniques. An exception appeared for ‘seasonal or permanent limitations on access for walkers, to avoid disturbance of wildlife’ where only 39% (112) were supportive (n = 288). Results revealed that beach users held the view that some width of buffer is required to protect shorebirds from a range of recreational activities, however, this view was not consistent across different activities. This may be because people perceive some recreational activities (e.g., jet-skiing and boating) to disturb shorebirds at greater distances than others (e.g., walking) and this perception aligns with our FID findings (e.g., greater FIDs for joggers and dog walkers cf. walkers). Respondents were less supportive of buffers for walkers, possibly out of self-interest given that walking was the commonest recreational activity among respondents.

While there appears to be considerable community support for buffers, this could be further enhanced through the use of participatory or social marketing processes (McKenzie-Mohr and Smith, 1999; Walker et al. , 2002), which can include information on the FID of shorebirds in response to particular recreational activities. This information could be used to support or refine the beliefs already held by coastal users about shorebird disturbance and conservation.

208

A review of flight-initiation distances and their application to managing disturbance to Australian birds

Weston et al. (2012b) reviewed the Flight Initiation Distances (FID) for 250 species of Australian birds. The Hooded Plover had the highest positive residual value in a linear regression of FID on mean body mass – this means that the Hooded Plover showed the highest response to a human approach of any species in its size class, thus is most sensitive to human disturbance. This study presented results on FID for the Hooded Plover from three different sources: 54.4 ± 35.4 m (n=30) 41.12 ± 6.06 m (n=8) 26.3 ± 3.3 (n=4)

CHICK SURVIVAL

Artificial shelters: design, use and effectiveness at improving chick survival

Shelter is likely to provide refuge from predators and from approaching humans, and shelter from extreme weather conditions (e.g. heat or rain). The proximity of shelter to foraging areas may reduce the energy chicks have to expend running to and from cover, and thus may improve their survival at heavily disturbed sites.

Shelter for Hooded Plover chicks may be a limited resource on beaches. Rocks, driftwood, debris, seaweed and vegetation are all potential shelter for chicks, however, these will vary in the protection they offer, in terms of protection from crushing, insulation properties and detection by predators. An artificial chick shelter is a purpose- built shelter with solid, closed walls, roof and at least one opening, which provides concealment and protection from crushing and/or shade that chicks can use when needed. Artificial shelter designs are likely to vary in their properties and thus benefits to chicks. For tern species, wooden crates and teepees, and PVC and terracotta pipes have been used as chick shelters, without an exploration of the measured benefits to chicks.

Maguire et al. (2011b) carried out a two part study of chick shelters, firstly comparing three wooden shelter designs: their insulation properties, sand fill over time, detection by predators and humans, and logistics of field installation. A simple tepee design had

209

most promise: it offered a 9° C thermal benefit on average, was least conspicuous to humans, had no approaches by avian predators in 157 passes, and was the lightest to carry in the field and easiest to stack for transportation.

In the initial study period, Maguire et al. (2011b) supplied 14 broods with artificial shelter and observed the broods for one hour to determine use. Three broods used the shelters within this short time frame (21% of broods). After this initial study period, shelters were deployed more widely across breeding sites in Victoria and these were available for use over the entire brood period (5 weeks). High rates of use have since been reported (33-41% of broods).

Fledging rates for broods that we observed with access to artificial shelter versus those that only had access to natural shelter varied significantly. Of 10 broods with access to only natural shelter, 10.0% fledged, while of 11 broods with access to an artificial shelter, 81.8% fledged successfully. Fledging success data from additional broods in the 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 breeding season, revealed that 22.4% that did not have access to artificial shelter survived to fledge, while 65.2% that had access to artificial shelters survived to fledge (n = 81; GLMM, Wald Statistic = 10.17, df = 1, P = 0.001). When the number of chicks surviving within a brood is considered, the average number surviving when they had access to artificial shelter was 0.87 ± 0.82 chicks versus 0.33 ± 0.71 for those with only natural shelter (n = 81 broods, 39 chicks; Mann Whitney U = 387.5, df = 1, P < 0.001).

Hooded Plover broods mostly forage in open beach areas with limited cover; and it is not suggested that diminished cover is a threat to Hooded Plovers, rather, artificial cover may mitigate the impacts of human disturbance and superabundant predator populations by offering cover that is less prone to trampling, possibly more convenient and more resistant to predators, compared with natural cover. Observations of Hooded Plover chicks using shelters regularly and for prolonged periods during hot days and rain supports the idea that shelters may be used by chicks under challenging thermal conditions and this may be the primary way that artificial shelters improve survival of chicks.

Chick shelters are now widely used at beaches post-hatching and there are strict guidelines for their dimensions, installation and removal (see Maguire 2008, pp. 104- 107). We recommend using a minimum of three shelters distributed across the territory and not to use shelters without some form of signage explaining the presence of chicks

210

(to reduce approaches by curious people). In many areas, local school children or men’s sheds build these shelters and this improves community understanding of their purpose. We also recommend installing these either a few days before hatching (when laying dates are known) but more commonly post-hatching, as the nest location and the area used by chicks can differ. Shelters must be buried partially in the sand to prevent flipping in strong winds, and the openings must face the sea as chicks will typically run vertically along a beach, from the water’s edge toward the dune.

Occasionally individuals unfamiliar with best practise management guidelines will install shelters on the site during the incubation phase but sand movement over the month before hatching means that by the time there are chicks, these shelters have become inaccessible due to sand fill. There have also been cases of individuals wanting to put a shelter over the nest to offer thermal comfort to the eggs and incubating bird. However, this is not the purpose for the shelters and a shelter over the eggs would take away the expansive view that the incubating bird selects for when it chooses its nest site. Hooded Plovers are very selective of where they place their nests, ultimately trying to avoid predator ambush and to maximise camouflage (see below for further studies about nest 12 habitat selection) .

COLOUR BANDING MOVEMENTS AND SPACE USE

Manage one beach or two? Movements and space-use of the threatened Hooded Plover (Thinornis rubricollis ) in south-eastern Australia

Weston et al. (2009) examined the movements of colour-banded Hooded Plovers in southern central Victoria by analysing sightings of colour-banded birds (4897 sightings; 194 birds tracked for up to 9 years). Most movements were relatively short (5050 ± 305 m), with 61.4% <1 km and 95.3% <20 km; they lacked directional or sexual bias. The maximum movement recorded was 330.8 km. The extent of coastline used by individual birds was 47.8 ± 58.0 km.

12 Fundamental to managing nest and chick sites successfully is following best practise guidelines already developed (Maguire 2008), and where individuals have ideas for improvement, running these past an expert who is familiar with existing research and the ecological considerations of different management options.

211

Of the 194 colour-banded birds sighted, 96.2% of the observations were less than 100m inland of the coastline; the furthest inland Hooded Plovers were observed was 1500m inland at Lake Victoria, an inland brackish lake on the Bellarine Peninsula. Movements indicated the species readily moved past stretches of unsuitable habitat (e.g. the rocky coasts around Wilsons Promontory) and water (e.g. across the mouths of Port Phillip and Westernport Bays). Some movements also spanned largely unoccupied areas such as between Anglesea and Apollo Bay (~65 km). Regional differences in average distances moved by adults were apparent. South Gippsland (Cape Liptrap to, and including, Wilsons Promontory) and Bellarine regions had high movement rates during the non- breeding season, compared with the Bass Coast and Mornington Peninsula. There was a lot of variance in adult movement rates during the non-breeding season in the Mornington Peninsula and Bass Coast regions. Regional variation may occur in the movements of adult Hooded Plovers and this would have implications for the effect of coastal development on the species. For example, in the Otway region, movement rates were slightly lower than in other regions, so degradation of a series of ‘stepping stone’ beaches may be more deleterious to dispersal than in areas with higher movement rates and a more continuous habitat. Fragmentation of the breeding population might occur where habitat is rendered unsuitable for > ~50 km.

Breeding adults are relatively sedentary in comparison with non-breeding adults and immatures, with the latter two categories of bird displaying similar movement rates. The movement rates of immatures were considerably more variable than those of adults. This is in line with most studies and theory around dispersal whereby young birds will move greater distances than adults (Paradis et al. 1998).

Overall, for adults, movement rates (mean distance per day) were higher during the non-breeding season than during the breeding season. The frequency of pair cohesion (i.e. when the distance between partners was zero on a given day) was similar during the breeding (69.6%) and non-breeding seasons (67.7%). Non-breeding adults generally remained close to their partners (non-breeding, 456.3 ± 163.9 m; breeding, 148.2 ± 45.3 m). Largest flock sizes were recorded during the non-breeding period, and flocking was not uniformly distributed along the coast but appeared to be concentrated in particular locations. Despite comprehensive surveying effort, there are areas of coastline that are apparently unoccupied during the non-breeding season. Substantial gaps were apparent along the coast in places such as Venus Bay, the western half of Waratah Bay (west of Shallow Inlet) and parts of the Mornington Peninsula. All of these areas

212

supported breeding Hooded Plovers, and thus are broadly suitable habitat. This indicates that there may be unique habitat features of these flocking sites that support non- breeding flocks.

Breeding territories (kernel analysis) were 36.7 ± 5.7 ha and overlapped from year to year in all cases (23 pairwise comparisons; 47.9 ± 7.1% overlap). The breeding territory is a critical unit of management for conservation efforts. The birds studied here spent little time off their territories, lending strength to the contention that the territories defined here are the core spatial unit of most ecological relevance for breeding Hooded Plovers. The high fidelity and constancy of territories confirms they warrant ongoing management investment, although the species relies on a matrix of breeding and non- breeding sites. The latter appear to occur in specific parts of the coast and warrant enhanced protection and more research attention.

A key finding of this study and of strong relevance to this report, was that birds spend time in multiple coastal parks, and in areas managed by different agencies, which suggests that some management would usefully be implemented at a scale above that of individual coastal parks.

NEST PREDATORS, MICRO-HABITAT SELECTION AND PREDATOR CONTROL

Identifying nest predators through remote camera surveillance

Egg depredation is one of the most significant causes of reproductive failure among ground-nesting birds, which use a variety of anti-predator adaptations such as placing nests where predators are rare and/or detected early, and laying cryptic eggs. However, studies of egg fate of shorebirds commonly use circumstantial evidence to infer fate.

In the breeding season of 2010/11, BirdLife Australia undertook a pilot study using remote cameras (HCO ScoutGuard KG680V and SG550 infrared (IR) passive, day/night digital camera units) on real Hooded Plover nests to detect whether they successfully hatched and to identify reasons for nest failure. This enabled us to develop and refine protocols for installing nest cameras to ensure that these posed no risk to the birds or their nest fate (see Appendix 1 for a copy of these protocols). In 2011/12 an honours student with Deakin University, Renee Mead, undertook a major study using remote

213

cameras on nests across the Victorian coastline from Eumeralla (Yambuk) Coastal Reserve to Wilsons Promontory National Park (Mead 2012).

Eighty-one cameras were deployed on active nests. From these cameras, data from 64 (79.0%) were available for analysis. Loss of camera data was due to camera theft (5.9% of failures), tidal inundation (5.9%), the memory card filling up (5.9%), a pair being accidentally resampled within the breeding season (5.9%), deletion of images before fate determined (5.9%), interference by a member of the public (17.6%) and the fate not clearly assignable (47.1%).

Of the clutches monitored by cameras, 26 hatched (41%) and 38 failed to hatch (59%) 13 for the following reasons: depredation, tidal inundation, and crushing by human . Nests were predominately depredated by foxes (26%, n=10), ravens (24%, n=9) and magpies (16%, n=6). Failure of eggs to hatch due to abandonment, roll out during a storm event, crushing by human, and depredation by swamp harrier, nankeen kestrel and water rat each contributed to one clutch failure respectively (2.6%, n = 1).

Gulls were surprisingly not recorded as an egg predator. Crushing of eggs occurred only once by a walker at an unfenced nest, and the rarity of crushing in this present study is a stark contrast to the high rates in studies occurring in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when management and education were limited.

Tides played another major role in nest failure (18%, n=7), particularly in far western Victoria, and are a challenging threat for BNB, given the limitation of dune habitat available for nesting related to weed infestations and to the selectivity shown by the species for sparsely vegetated dunes (so as to avoid mammalian predators, see study by Cribbin 2012 below).

Within beach habitats, 72.7% (24) of clutches failed to hatch. More nests failed on the beach than in other habitat types (Figure 27). Dunes also had a higher percentage of failed clutches (60.0%, 6 clutches) than those that hatched (40.0%, 4 clutches). Foredune clutches had a higher percentage of hatching than those in other habitats, with 61.9% (13) hatching (Figure 27). Clutches within beach habitats experienced more fate types (8) than foredune (4) and dune clutches (4); flooding by high tide, abandonment, trampling by human and depredation by swamp harrier and water rat occurred only on

13 Although not investigated as part of this study, seven chicks were confirmed to have fledged from camera- monitored nests (12.1% of eggs that hatched, n = 58; 0 – 3 fledglings per clutch).

214

beaches. Roll out caused by storm events occurred only in the dune and depredation by nankeen kestrel ( Falco cenchroides ) occurred in the foredune.

The higher rate of failure on beaches has implications for improving hatching success via rehabilitation of foredune environments, i.e. weed removal and potentially replacement with Hairy Spinifex at low densities.

Figure 27. Percentage of clutches which failed (black bars) and hatched (white bars) in beach, foredune and dune habitats (n = 64 clutches).

215

ScoutGuard camera images of avian nest predators, clockwise, Swamp Harrier, Nankeen Kestrel, Little Raven and Australian Magpie.

ScoutGuard camera images of mammalian nest predators, clockwise, Swamp Rat, Red Fox x 3 images.

216

ScoutGuard camera images of the tide engulfing the nest and bringing debris within inches of the eggs. This nest successfully hatched later that day.

ScoutGuard camera images of tide engulfing a nest; the adult bird retrieves the eggs and rolls these back into the nest. This is a common occurrence and often tidally inundated eggs which go on to hatch.

217

Does habitat structure influence the likelihood of nest depredation?

In a study focused on the efficacy of using conditioned aversion to train foxes to avoid Hooded Plover eggs by Cribbin (2012), 62 artificial nests containing treated quail eggs were established in dune systems across the Victorian coast between Nelson and Cape Paterson.

The original purpose of this study proved to be ineffective because the target species to be trained by conditioned aversion was foxes and these played such a minor role in depredating these artificial nests (only 10% of nests, see further below). Instead, this study revealed that in the primary dune, ravens (66% of nests) and rodents (15% of nests) played a major role in predation of artificial nests. Because the study by Mead (2012), above, on real nests only detected rodent predation in one instance and because the rate of raven depredation was significantly higher for artificial nests than real nests, we decided to explore the key habitat differences between these artificially placed nests versus real Hooded Plover nests to see if the birds might be deliberately selecting habitat features so as to minimise risks of depredation.

There were several differences. The likelihood of an artificial nest being depredated was significantly influenced by two variables: distance to nearest dead object (e.g. stick, seaweed) and the amount of grass cover. Real nests were more likely to be closer to dead objects than those sites selected by a researcher. Real nests were more likely to have less grass cover than those sites selected by a researcher. Furthermore, real Hooded Plover nests were significantly closer to the foredune than artificial nests. It therefore appears that Hooded Plovers are selecting very specific spots for their nests and this is to reduce the likelihood of these being depredated.

Conditioned aversion to reduce the likelihood of egg depredation

Conditioned aversion (CA) is induced by an association of a food item with a negative experience, such as illness, which causes animals to avoid subsequent consumption of that particular food item. Inducing CA may help reduce depredation rates of threatened fauna where predator population control is undesirable, impractical or unsuccessful.

218

Maguire et al. (2009) investigated whether CA could be induced among foxes (Vulpes vulpes ) to model eggs which mimicked those of the threatened Hooded Plover. Model (quail) eggs treated with a potential CA-inducing chemical (sodium carbonate) and control (quail) eggs free of the agent were exposed to fox depredation for 28 days to simulate a Hooded Plover incubation period. To investigate whether CA would persist in wild foxes, Maguire et al. (2009) implemented a part-time agent treatment (an initial 14 day exposure period of model eggs with the CA agent followed by a second 14 day period when model eggs were free of the agent). The logic being, that once model eggs free of the agent were supplied to foxes after a period of training that the foxes would continue to avoid these.

Similar intervals to the first depredation event were found for all model eggs regardless of treatment which indicated that predation pressure from foxes was equivalent across sites. After the first depredation event by foxes, the rate and likelihood of fox depredation was significantly lower in treated eggs than in control eggs. The likelihood or rate of depredation across the three treatments did not differ between the first and second periods. Maguire et al. (2009) found that during an exposure period of at least 28 days, CA could be induced in wild foxes to eggs on beaches. The results also suggested that 14 days may be insufficient time for wild foxes to develop a lasting CA to familiar food items such as eggs. From this study, it was concluded that treatment of eggs with a CA-inducing chemical may present a viable alternative to traditional predator control techniques for Hooded Plovers, as well as other ground-nesting birds, provided that an extended exposure to the CA inducing agent occurs.

In the breeding season of 2011/12, Cribbin (2012) decided to repeat this study across a broader geographic area and to trial two different delivery types, representative of two options most likely to be implemented by land managers: 1) Treated eggs supplied for a) 28 days and b) 42 days in one false nest containing three treated model eggs, followed by a 14 day period where untreated eggs were supplied, and 2) the ‘Saturation CA’ treatment consisted of six nests and 13 model eggs. A central nest contained three untreated model eggs, and a circle (diameter 1 m) of five equally spaced nests, each containing two treated model eggs, surrounded the central nest. The Saturation CA treatment mimicked a potential deployment of treated nests around untreated eggs, as may occur if a manager discovered a real nest and wished to create an aversion as soon as possible.

219

On Victorian beaches, a low species-specificity of predators taking CA-treated eggs was found (foxes took 9.7% of arrays, ravens and rodents took 80.0%; n = 145 ‘arrays’). None of the CA strategies tested (one nest with 28 and 42 day training periods, and a six nest ‘saturation’ array) produced a detectable aversion by avian or mammalian predators, that is there was no difference in the take rate of nests between the training and post-training period, i.e. depredation of false nests remained unaltered by exposure to CA. A prerequisite of successful CA is the ability to target a specific species, or individuals of a particular species whose predatory activities are problematic. This was not able to occur in a broad scale application of CA training across the Victorian coast.

It is unknown whether sodium carbonate induces sickness in birds. Several studies have induced sickness in birds using lithium chloride, methicocarb and carbochal (Rogers 1974; Avery et al. 1995; Cox et al. 2004). Without knowing whether it is possible to induce sickness in ravens with this substance, it cannot be said whether the correct dose was used to achieve CA. No sickness among ravens was detected, suggesting the agent may not have been an effective aversive agent. No CA was produced in rodents, again, the effectiveness of sodium carbonate as an aversive agent for small mammalian species such as rodents and members of the dasyrudidae family is unknown. If sodium carbonate was an effective aversive agent in rodents, it is possible that the dose used, being adequate for a fox sized mammals, may have proven lethal for rodents, and as such resulted in no obvious training as different individuals may have been responsible for each subsequent take.

CA may be more plausible when depredation is dominated by a single predator, and not due to a suite of predators. Additionally in instances where a suite of predators are responsible for depredation, aversive agents which are effective on the suite of major predators should be implemented. Cribbin (2012) concluded that in order to target conditioning events at foxes in subsequent studies, it may be beneficial to bury model eggs, in a similar fashion to poisoned baits (Glen and Dickman 2003) as it may reduce the likelihood of birds encountering them (Thomson and Kok 2002). This may then require an additional stimulus such as enhanced scent, to attract foxes to the site, and which might inadvertently create a repellency (i.e. the predator can detect the agent and is repelled by it through association with a negative response).

220

WEEDS AND BROADSCALE HABITAT SELECTION

Weeds and Hooded Plover habitat

Nesting habitat selection and the impact of weeds

During the 2011/2012 breeding season as part of a study by Mead (2012), 76 Hooded Plover nests were located across the Victorian coast (between Eumeralla (Yambuk) Coastal Reserve to the West and Wilsons Promontory to the East) and the micro-habitat around the nest scrape was systematically measured using four 1 x 1 m quadrats. This data was used by Cousens et al. (2012) to explore the impact of weeds on nesting habitat selection. In addition, the distance to the nearest weed and non-weed was measured, and the height, growth form and species also recorded. Hooded Plover pairs have multiple nests, but only one nest for a given pair was sampled during the season to maintain independence of samples.

The four species of weeds recorded closest to Hooded Plover nests were: Common name Latin name # nests Mean Mean near distance to height (cm) nest (cm) Marram Grass Ammophila arenaria 31 515.03 45.89 Sea Wheat- Thinopyrum 23 91.93 20.52 grass junceiforme Sea Spurge Euphorbia paralias 11 657.20 9.20 Sea Rocket Cakile maritime 10 231.55 11.46

Hooded Plover nests were distanced between 1 cm (Sea Wheat-grass) and 5.6 m (Marram Grass) from weed species, but on average were 1.95 m from a weed. There was no significant difference in the distance Hooded Plover nests were from the four different species of weed recorded (F=2.234, df=4, p=0.074).

The occurrence of weed species near the nest is undoubtedly impacted by prevalence of these weeds at sites. On average, the two metre-square area around Hooded Plover nests was dominated by 20.45 ± 4.26% (0.00 – 42.50%) weed cover versus 11.28 ± 3.71% (0.00 – 13.75%) native plant cover. Overall, vegetation cover was sparse around nests (31.74 ± 5.52%; 0.00 – 42.50%; n = 64) with Hooded Plovers tending to select areas with a high ratio of sand and low ratio of vegetation for nest placement.

221

Hooded Plover nests were located closer to weed species than non-weed species (mean distance to weed species = 1.947 ± 0.090; mean distance to non-weed species = 2.213 ± 0.083; t=2.627, df=75, p=0.010). This either relates to the prevalence of weed versus non-weed species, or to a preference shown by Hooded Plovers for weed vegetation. However it must be noted that Hooded Plovers are choosing to be distant from vegetation.

Weeds closest to the nest were significantly taller than non-weed species (27.88 ± 3.11 versus 21.40 ± 1.69; t=-1.238, df=75, p=0.036). It is unlikely the birds would be selecting for proximity to weeds if they are taller and pose a greater obstruction to visibility while on the nest.

Geomorphology and weeds

In a study by Melbourne University (Cousens et al. 2012), laser surveying was undertaken at 27 sites from Nelson to Cape Conran to quantify how the morphology of incipient foredunes changes in response to differing levels of weed infestation. The elevation of geomorphic and botanical features including the last high tide, relative density of species present and evidence of past erosion events were recorded along each profile. Aerial photographs between 1948 and today were georectified and analysed in ArcGIS to map shoreline stability since the incursion by major weeds at 24 locations along the Victorian coast. An additional 63 dune systems along the Victorian coastline were visited to ground truth the aerial mapping, and to map the distribution of key weed species.

The incipient foredunes of the Victorian coast are dominated by four species that have the potential to modify dune morphology; marram grass ( Ammophila arenaria ), sea wheat-grass (Thinopyrum junceiforme ), sea spurge ( Euphorbia paralias ) and hairy spinifex ( Spinifex sericeus ). Hairy spinifex is indigenous to the Victorian coast. Marram grass, sea wheat-grass and sea spurge have all been introduced. These plants share certain characteristics. All are perennial and have the ability to grow vertically in response to burial by sand. Marram grass, sea wheat-grass and hairy spinifex produce rhizome or stolons. Sea spurge does not, but does grow vertically by the production of side branches when buried. The exotic sea rocket ( Cakile spp.) is also important. This species forms small incipient dunes on the back beach, between high tide and the toe of

222

the incipient foredune proper. Sea rocket is an annual, hence unless these dunes are colonised by a perennial species they are unlikely to persist beyond a year of growth. Sea rocket is unlikely to have much direct effect on dune morphology, although it may have an indirect influence by facilitating the establishment of other less salt tolerant species.

Exotic plants are prevalent on the incipient foredunes of the Victorian coast. Hairy spinifex is widespread but marram grass, sea wheat-grass or sea spurge was present in all dune systems visited. The foredunes of some coastal regions are dominated by exotics. For example, marram grass is the dominant species between Port Fairy and Warrnambool while sea wheat-grass dominates between Wonthaggi and Darby Beach. Marram grass was present in almost all dunes visited, probably reflecting the widespread planting of this species during the 1960’s and 1970’s for sand stabilisation purposes. Sea wheat-grass and sea spurge were absent or very sparse in some coastal regions (e.g. 90 mile beach). These species have established on the Victorian Coast relatively recently and probably do not occupy their full potential range.

Recent storm events (2010 and 2011) had resulted in the removal of the seaward margins of the existing foredunes and formation of dune scarps along much of Victorian coast. This has made establishing links between dune morphology and plant species difficult. Nonetheless we have found that marram grass and sea wheat-grass have the potential to alter dune morphology. The effect of sea spurge is not clear. It is associated with relatively low (0.5 –2m high), flat foredune “terraces”. The alongshore morphology is continuous, lacking substantial “hummocks”. Excavating individuals of sea spurge shows that on some dunes these plants have grown vertically by up to 30 cm, indicating that the upper 30 cm of these foredunes have developed in association with sea spurge; however, it seems likely that much of the current foredune developed in association with other species. The presence of sea spurge is probably the result of subsequent colonisation once the foredune had formed.

Comparison of the surveyed dune profiles shows that marram grass forms foredunes that are typically higher, steeper and narrower than that formed by either sea wheat- grass or hairy spinifex. The height and steepness of the seaward face means that erosion of marram grass dunes leads to higher dune scarps than that formed by sea wheat or hairy spinifex. Scarps formed by marram grass may be less persistent than those formed by sea wheat-grass or hairy spinifex. The rapid vertical growth of marram grass in

223

response to burial facilitates the rapid recovery of the seaward dune profile. In contrast the more horizontal growth of sea wheat-grass and hairy spinifex tends to result in a wider but lower foredune in front of the existing scarp. In both cases dune recovery post erosion is dependent on a source of propagules at the base of the scarp and a sufficient period free from disturbance by waves for plants to establish and begin trapping sand.

Sea wheat-grass and hairy spinifex form similar foredunes on the Victorian coast. Both species are associated with low flat terraces on coasts with limited sediment supply or low foredune ridges where sand deposition is abundant. Sea wheat-grass has replaced hairy spinifex from the seaward face of the incipient foredune, and where present with marram grass and sea spurge typically forms a dense band closest to the sea in what is effectively a monoculture. Sea wheat-grass can rapidly form relatively wide, continuous alongshore foredunes, which are probably are able to form at lower elevations than those associated with any other foredune species present on the Victorian coast. This may lead to a narrowing of the back beach and an increase in dune erosion and the resulting formation of dune scarps.

Analysis of aerial photos has shown that there has been little change in the location of the shoreline since the 1940’s along much of the Victorian coast, mostly in the order of ± 10 – 30 m. Such coasts can be expected to be frequently scarped; hence the potential for dune development is limited. Site visits provide further supporting evidence that the impact of exotic plants is limited by a lack of accommodation space for dune development.

People and weeds

As part of the above weed project, University of Melbourne researchers carried out a social survey to determine the perception of weeds on coasts (Cousens et al. 2012). Human preferences for coasts dominated by different vegetation types revealed that the lowest preference was for scenes characterised by a relatively strong distinction between areas of sand and vegetation, and more frequent evidence of scarping often paired with a flat rather than graded beach. These scenes were dominated by marram or sea wheat- grass, but where this was the case, the vegetation was relatively clumpy or messy.

224

When respondents were provided with scenes of mixed vegetation, Coastal scenes dominated by marram grass were most preferred on average. Scenes dominated by seaspurge were least preferred. Coastal managers were the only group for whom scenes with Spinifex were on average the most preferred landscapes. Interestingly, residents expressed higher preference for landscapes with both Sea wheat-grass and Seaspurge than did other visitors. Possibly this reflects higher overall preference for coastal landscapes rather than greater preference for these weeds. Seaspurge is the least preferred category for each type of participant.

This sparked several questions for future research: • Why are scenes with Seaspurge least preferred? Why are scenes with marram often most preferred? In particular, is it the plant itself, or aspects of the plant and its interaction with dunes, wildlife etc? • Are the differences between residents and visitors preferences for scenes with Sea wheat-grass and Seaspurge meaningful, or an artefact of overall preferences for coastal landscapes? • Why do coastal carers make relatively little distinction between Marram, Spinifex and Sea wheat-grass scenes?

Habitat modelling: what makes a beach suitable for Hooded Plovers?

Weston (2003) noted that a lack of a habitat model was a considerable knowledge gap hampering determination of conservation priorities for the species. Rising sea levels, inappropriate coastal armouring and erosion control, and invasive dune plants are thought to limit suitable habitat and to present a barrier to species recovery.

Recently a habitat model exploring presence/absence data was developed by selecting key ecological and landscape variables from the sub- and super-tidal zones of coasts. Below is an excerpt of our results (Ehmke et al. in prep). Using 58 sites across the Victorian coast, 28 where Hooded Plovers are present and 30 where they are absent, we measured within a 500 metre radius, a series of variables likely to drive habitat suitability. We derived these variables from high quality aerial imagery and lidar data. Variables included: • distance to nearest access point; • distance to nearest river mouth;

225

• distance to nearest pair; • distance to nearest headland; • rugosity of 12 habitat zones; • proportion and presence of 14 habitat zones, and; • beach slope.

Above illustrates how beach profile (slope) was measured at a presence site.

Above is an example of how distance to features was measured using aerial imagery, i.e. distance to nearest river mouth (blue star), distance to nearest access (red human silhouette), and distance to nearest headland (black triangle).

226

Above is an example of how proportion of habitat availability was measured within a 1km diameter quadrat around the central presence or absence point.

The larger the number of variables included in a model, and the potential for these to be related to one another can greatly reduce the reliability of the model produced. We therefore reduced the above set of 45 variables to a set of 9 independent variables likely to influence habitat suitability in terms of nesting habitat availability and food availability. We ensured that the data points were not spatially auto-correlated.

We ran a logistic regression model (based on the binary presence/absence data) using hierarchical partitioning and found that the factors driving the presence of Hooded Plovers on the coast were:

• Proportion reef habitat (0.98) • Proportion foredune habitat (0.92) • Presence of dune habitat (0.89) • Proportion rock habitat (0.62) • Rugosity of the beach (0.42)

227

The availability of reef habitat is likely to drive wave energy and presumably the amount of beach cast seaweed available. This is likely to influence availability of food for Hooded Plovers. We know dune and foredune habitat to be important for nesting, and exposed rocks to be important as foraging areas, also offering protective shelter to chicks. Beach rugosity (i.e. the variability in the topography of the beach) was bordering on being a significant variable in this model, and this could be important for either food availability or nesting habitat availability. These findings prompt us to further understand how these habitat features relate to diet and food availability. A collaboration between Deakin University, the Department of Sustainability and Environment, and BirdLife Australia will explore this relationship via an honours project in 2013/2014.

Beaches are transitional zones between terrestrial and marine environments, and their form and ecology is heavily influenced by landward and seaward processes (McLachlan and Brown 2006). It is unsurprising then that obligate beach vertebrates select habitats which are influenced by processes above the beach, and below the high tide mark. This also potentially means that the risks to habitat are greater, because any threat operating in either the marine or terrestrial environment may impact the quality or quantity of habitat (Defeo et al. 2009).

While the model we have generated helps predict presence of plover territories, future iterations could consider reproductive success of each territory (see Ozesmi and Mitsch 1997), given low reproductive success is considered a key conservation threat to the species.

The foraging and diet of non-breeding Hooded Plovers Thinornis rubricollis in relation to habitat type.

Weston (2007) studied the foraging behaviour and diet of Hooded Plovers in the non- breeding season in 3 different habitats, a salt lake (Lake Gore in WA), a brackish near- coastal lake (Lake Victoria) and on Victorian beaches. He found that birds foraging on beaches probed more, had more successes, and foraged slower than birds on salt lakes in WA. Foraging at the brackish lake was slowest of all. The diet of coastal birds was dominated by crustaceans and insects whereas birds on salt lakes primarily, and almost exclusively, consumed Coxiella spp., an endemic gastropod (snail). This study described

228

two additional prey items previously not detected in the species diet, including moths and ants.

SOCIAL SCIENCE STUDIES

Use and attitudes toward beaches

Beaches are the most popular recreational destinations in Australia yet how they are visited and valued by Australians is poorly known. Maguire et al. (2011a) surveyed 385 people (13.8% of 2800 coastal residents) from south-eastern Australia to examine their use of beaches and the features that are important in their choice and enjoyment of a beach destination. Most respondents (90.3%) nominated beaches as one of their top three most valued natural recreational environments. Thirty-four recreational activities occurred at the beach (8.6 ± 0.3 [mean ± SE] activities per respondent), mostly walking (91.4%) and swimming (78.9%). There appears to be a distinct dichotomy in use of ‘local’ versus ‘non-local’ beaches, where local beaches are visited more frequently, throughout more of the year, outside working hours and by smaller groups of people, compared with ‘non-local’ beaches.

Overall, respondents valued clean, uncrowded beaches with opportunities to view wildlife (n = 338) but also desired facilities (e.g. toilets, shade, life savers, food outlets; n = 331). Difficult access and intrusive recreation activities (e.g. vehicles on beaches) detracted from people’s enjoyment. Coastal planners and managers not only face the challenge of increasing visitation to beaches but also the need to manage for somewhat conflicting values among beach-goers.

Stakeholder Perceptions of Threatened Species and Their Management on Urban Beaches

Social support is critical to threatened species recovery efforts (Metrick and Weitzman 1996; Weston et al. 2003). Perceptions of the public with respect to threatened species and their management are important to foster social and political support for conservation programs (Cvetkovich and Winter 2003), and they play a role in determining appropriate behaviour among people which promotes coexistence between

229

threatened species and humans (McKenzie-Mohr and Smith 1999; McCleery et al. 2006; Meadow et al. 2005; Weston and Elgar 2007).

Many factors contribute to perceptions of threatened species management programs (Kellert 1985; Ormsby and Forys 2010). Prominent personal factors which may influence perceptions are inconvenience and awareness (Haarding et al. 2000). The ‘inconvenience principle’ suggests that people are more likely to acknowledge threats and be sympathetic towards management where compliance is convenient i.e. requires little change to pre-existing behaviours (Haarding et al. 2000).

Maguire et al. (2013) surveyed 579 recreationists regarding management of the threatened Hooded Plover. We postulated that: 1) lower awareness of the species and higher ‘inconvenience’ of management would engender less favourable perceptions of conservation and management; and 2) that frequency of beach use and dog ownership may mediate perceptions and levels of awareness and inconvenience.

Overall, inconvenience was low (average ± SE factor scores, 4.49 ± 0.03, where 5 is ‘convenient’) while awareness (93.7%, n = 579) and support for plover conservation were high (4.48 ± 0.04 where 5 is ‘strongly agree’). Education and awareness strategies were perceived as less effective than regulations (F1,494 = 136.329, p < 0.001); exclusion and regulations were considered less desirable than on-ground protective measures (e.g. fencing around nests; F1,520 = 218.129, p < 0.001). Awareness, frequency of beach use and dog walking did not influence the perceived effectiveness of different managements. More frequent beach users had greater awareness of the species and associated issues (Pearson χ2 = 8.715, df = 1, p = 0.013) however they perceived greater inconvenience associated with management (F1, 521 = 6.724, p = 0.010). Respondents with high awareness rated the severity of human-related threats higher (F1, 494 = 20.837, p < 0.001) and low awareness was associated with more inconvenience associated with on-ground protection (F1, 520 = 13.355, p < 0.001) and exclusion and regulations (F1, 520 = 9.924, p = 0.002). Dog walkers reported more inconvenience associated with exclusions and regulations than non-dog walkers (F2, 521 = 6.724, p = 0.010). Dog walkers who use the beach least frequently rate threats significantly higher than those who use the beach frequently (F2, 494 = 4.175, p = 0.016); this pattern is not evident for non-dog walkers. Conservation and education strategies for beach-nesting birds need to be tailored to beach users to accommodate differences in level of use and pet ownership.

230

Barriers to dog leashing on beaches

Leashing of dogs can significantly improve conservation outcomes for Hooded Plovers, but few dogs are leashed on beaches: (82% of 2,847 dogs on Victorian beaches, 1994– 2008; Weston and Maguire, 2008) and currently, compliance with dog regulations is the exception rather than the rule. Williams et al. (2009) surveyed a total of 385 dog owners across Victoria to explore their sense of obligation to leash dogs on beaches (86 face to face interviews and 299 postal questionnaires).

Approximately 28% of participants indicated some level of disagreement that they felt obliged to leash their dog on beaches. An additional 17% indicated a neutral position on this statement, 22% reported weak agreement with the statement, whereas 33% strongly agreed. It is likely that some participants feel an obligation to leash their dog on beaches but do not actually put this into practice. Personal norms do not always translate into consistent behaviour because external factors may prevent their expression (Stern, 2000). Other possible explanations warrant consideration. For example, it is possible that some participants exaggerated their support for leashing to present themselves in a positive light, or that some participants interpreted the question with regard to social norms for leashing rather than personal expectations of themselves.

Most dog owners see no conflict between off leash dog exercise and wildlife conservation. When both are considered, they rate their dog’s need for off leash exercise as of higher concern than wildlife protection. In general, respondents considered their own dog to be much less of a threat to wildlife and humans than they considered dogs in general. Strong emotional bonds with dogs (Salmon and Salmon, 1983) may prevent dog owners from attributing negative behaviors to their own dogs. Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1975) suggests people may create plausible but untrue rationalizations for information that conflicts with a deeply held belief. This is illustrated by comments made to the interviewer by several dog owners, who asserted that their dog was different and “wouldn’t hurt a fly.”

When asked about a series of bird-dog interactions, the percentage of people who considered the interaction to have a “lasting negative impact” decreased considerably with the type of interaction. Most participants (84%) believed that when a “dog chases a bird but does not catch it” there would be a lasting negative impact for the bird. Smaller percentages of participants believed this would be true if a “dog barks at a bird” (63%) or if a “dog is within 50 metres of a bird” (51%). Only 18% of respondents agreed there

231

would be lasting negative impacts for a bird if the dog was “within 200 metres of the bird.” Even the least proximate interaction has lasting negative impacts on shorebirds (Page et al. 1977; Rodgers and Smith, 1997; Yalden and Yalden, 1990), yet only 18% of participants were conscious of this.

Dog owners were more likely to feel obliged to leash their dog when they believed other people expected dogs to be leashed, and when they believed their dog was a threat to wildlife or people. Dog owners were less likely to feel obliged to leash their dog if they considered unleashed dog recreation to be important. Improved compliance may be achieved through community-based approaches to foster social norms for dog control, tailoring information products to emphasize the risk that all unleashed dogs may pose to beach-nesting birds and raising awareness of designated off-leash exercise dog recreation areas.

Williams et al. (2009) recommend ways to overcome poor leashing rates on beaches. There is a need for greater innovation in communication to overcome emotional resistance to recognising the threat one’s own dog poses. A key to this may be pointing out the threat posed by behaviours that most people would consider to be acceptable and typical of well-behaved dogs, such as a dog merely running along the upper beach without visibly responding to birds. Similarly, building on social norm approaches, communication should provide examples of “good dog owners” who leash their dog on beaches or choose alternative locations for unleashed dog exercise. Wherever possible, communication should be designed to appeal to the value dog owners place on unleashed recreation for dogs (Schulz and Zelezny, 2003). The benefits of unleashed recreation should be acknowledged, and alternative locations for recreation should be provided and promoted.

Research on management of depreciative behaviour suggests that direct contact with relevant agency personnel is a very effective means of influencing behavior (Knopf and Andereck, 2004). Strengthening these controls, particularly by providing effective enforcement, is also likely to be effective in encouraging leashing of dogs on beaches.

232

Appendix 2 Fledgling Production By Site

The number of years that pairs within Parks Victoria managed land were monitored across five breeding seasons (2006/07 to 2010/11), and the ‘fledged outcome’ for each pair where 0=not monitored (unknown), 1=monitored but no fledglings produced (unsuccessful), and 2=monitored where fledglings have been successfully produced (successful).

Name of park Name of pair/territory Years Fledged monitored outcome DISCOVERY BAY Bridgewater Bay East 0 0

COASTAL PARK Bridgewater Bay West 0 0 Swan Lake East 6 0 0 Swan Lake East 5 0 0 Swan Lake East 4 0 0 Swan La ke East 3 0 0 Swan Lake East 2 0 0 Swan Lake East 1 0 0 Swan Lake 0 0 SUTTON ROCKS 0 0 SUTTON ROCKS West 1 0 0 SUTTON ROCKS West 2 0 0 SUTTON ROCKS West 3 0 0 SUTTON ROCKS West 4 0 0 NOBLE ROCKS 0 0 McEacherns Rocks West 0 0 McEacher ns Rocks East 0 0 NARRAWONG COASTAL Tyrendarra Fitzroy River Mouth West 0 0

RESERVE 5 unnamed sites (south of Tyrendarra Fitzroy 0 0 River) 6 unnamed sites (south of Tyrendarra Fitzroy 0 0 River) 7 unnamed sites (south of Tyrendarra Fitzroy 0 0 River) 8 unnamed sites (south of Tyrendarra Fitzroy 0 0 River) 9 unnamed sites (south of Tyrendarra Fitzroy 0 0 River) Narrawong Surrey Estuary East 5 1 Narrawong Surrey Estuary west 5 2 EUMERALLA (YAMBUK) Yambuk Estuary East 5 2

COASTAL RESERVE Yam buk Estuary West 4 2

233

Name of park Name of pair/territory Years Fledged monitored outcome EUMERALLA (YAMBUK) Dean Marr 1 2 2 COASTAL RESERVE Dean Marr 2 0 0 Dean Marr 3 0 0 Dean Marr 4 0 0 Dean Marr 5 0 0 Dean Marr 6 0 0 EUMERALLA (YAMBUK) Dean Marr 7 0 0

COASTAL RESERVE Dean Marr 8 0 0 Dean Marr 9 0 0 YAMBUK F.F.R. YAMBUK F.F.R. East 0 0 YAMBUK F.F.R. Mid 0 0 YAMBUK F.F.R. West 0 0 BELFAST COASTAL Killarney Basin Rusty Rocks 1 5 2

RESERVE Killarney Basin Rusty Rocks 2 (point) 0 0 Killarney Boat Ramp 1 (west of point) 2 2 Killarney Boat Ramp 2 (east of point) 4 2 Killarney Camping Ground West 1 1 Killarney Main Beach (west) 1 1 Killarney Midway 2 2 Killarney Old Log Beach 1 (west end) 2 2 Killarney Old Log Beach 2 (Ea st End) 3 2 Killarney Pelicans 3 2 Port Fairy Mills Reef East (Golf Course) 5 1 Port Fairy Mills Reef Far West 2 1 Port Fairy Mills Reef West 5 2 Tower Hill Gormans Rd West 2 1 Tower Hill Rutledge Cutting East 2 (Spinifex) 1 1 Tower Hill Rutl edge Cutting East 1 1 1 Tower Hill Rutledges Cutting (mouth) 1 1 Tower Hill Rutledges Cutting West Pt 2 1 Tower Hill Towilla East (Seachange) 3 1 Seachange East Extra (2009) 1 1 Tower Hill Towilla West (Seachange) 3 1 Warrnambool Levys East 1 4 2 Warrnambool Levys West 1 4 1 Warrnambool Levys West 2 4 2 Warrnambool Levys West 3 3 2 Warrnambool Levys West 4 2 1 BAY OF ISLANDS Worm Bay 0 0

COASTAL PARK Crofts Bay 5 2 Terry's Beach East 1 2

234

Name of park Name of pair/territory Years Fledged monitored outcome BAY OF ISLANDS Terry's Beach West 0 0

COASTAL PARK Burnies Beach East 0 0 Burnies Beach West 0 0 Dog Trap Bay 1 2 Sandy Cove 0 0 CLIFTON BEACH 2 1 PORT CAMPBELL Twelve Apostles 0 0

NATIONAL PARK TWO MILE BAY 0 0 Lo ndon Bridge 2 2 Peterborough Newfields 1 2 Point Addis 1 1 GREAT OTWAY Point Roadknight 99W -101W 1 1

NATIONAL PARK Hutt Gully/Guvvos 1 1 Point Franklin 1 1 Crayfish Bay 0 0 Station Beach East 1 1 Station Beach Mid 1 1 Station Beach West 1 1 Aire River Mouth 1 1 Glenaire Beach 0 0 Johanna Beach 0 0 Melanesia beach east end 1 1 Melanesia beach west end 1 1 Smythe's Creek Mouth 0 0 ELLIOT RIVER - ADDIS Aireys Inlet 0 0 BAY COASTAL RESERVE EAGLE ROCK MARINE Lake Victori a 0 0 SANCTUARY LONSDALE LAKES W.R Point Lonsdale 5 1 PORT PHILLIP HEADS Pt Nepean Observatory Pt 4 2 MARINE NATIONAL PARK POINT NEPEAN Monash Break 0 0

NATIONAL PARK The Bend 1 2 Fort Pearce 0 0 Fort Pearce East 0 0 Cheviot Beach 1 2 Rifle Range - Mona sh Break 1 1 Sierra Nevada west 0 0 Sierra Nevada rocks/beach 2 1

235

Name of park Name of pair/territory Years Fledged monitored outcome MORNINGTON Portsea London Bridge (MP) 5 2 PENINSULA NATIONAL Portsea Farnsworth/SLSC west 2 1

PARK Portsea Fran klin rd access (west edge) 3 2 Portsea Franklin rd East (Sphinx rocks end) 5 2 Sphinx Rocks (2006) 1 2 Portsea Franklin rd west 4 1 Portsea SLSC east 1 1 Koonya West 5 2 Koonya East 5 1 Montforts 3 1 Fowlers 1 1 Heyfield Pair 1 (west side ) Rye 5 2 Heyfield Pair 2 (east side) Rye 3 1 Alison Ave next bay west Rye 0 0 Alison ave west Rye 5 1 Alison ave east Rye 5 1 Gunida Crt Rye 0 0 Rye Big Rock 3 1 Rye car park west 2 1 Rye car park east 3 1 Miami drive west 3 1 Miami d rive east access 5 1 Moana crt access west 2 1 Moana crt access (east edge) 5 1 Moana crt east (St Andrews) 2 2 St. Andrews car park east 5 2 St Andrews Boags Rocks 4 2 Gunnamatta Pair 1 5 2 Gunnamatta Pair 2 5 2 Gunnamatta Pair 3 5 2 Gun namatta Pair 4 5 2 Gunnamatta Pair 4.5 1 2 Gunnamatta Pair 5 4 2 Gunnamatta Pair 6 3 2 Bushranger's Bay 0 0 Flinders 0 0 PUNCHBOWL COASTAL Sandy Waterholes 1 1

RESERVE Sandy Waterholes West Bay 1 1

236

Name of park Name of pair/territory Yea rs Fledged monitored outcome KILCUNDA - HARMERS Far West 16 4 2 HAVEN COASTAL West 16 5 1

RESERVE East 16 5 1 Far East 16 2 1 Powlett River Mouth West Bank 4 1 Powlett River Mouth East Bank 4 2 Desal Mid 2 1 Williamson's Beach West 2 2 Wil liamson's Beach 2 2 Baxters Beach West A19 1 1 Baxters Beach A19 2 1 Cutlers Beach A20 West 2 2 Cutlers Beach A20 East 5 2 Coal Point West 2 1 Waterfall Creek 3 1 Wreck Beach 1 1 Coal Creek Estuary Mouth 5 2 Wilsons Rd 3rd Bay West 2 2 Wilsons Rd 2nd Bay West 2 2 Wilsons Rd 1st Bay West 4 2 BUNURONG COASTAL The Oaks 5 2

RESERVE Twin Reefs 2 2 Flat Rocks 3 1 CAPE LIPTRAP COASTAL Point Smythe 3 1

PARK Venus Bay 5 North 1 1 Venus Bay North 1 3 1 Venus Bay South 1 5 2 Venus Bay South 2 4 1 Venus Bay South 3 3 1 Venus Bay South 4 2 2 Venus Bay South 5 1 1 Venus Bay South 6 1 1 South of Six Mile Track 1 1 10 Mile Beach 1 0 0 10 Mile Beach 2 0 0 Morgan Beach North 0 0 Morgan Beach South 0 0 Grinder Point Far West 0 0 Grinder Point West 0 0 Waratah_Bay_1 0 0 Waratah_Bay_2 0 0

237

Name of park Name of pair/territory Years Fledged monitored outcome CAPE LIPTRAP COASTAL Waratah_Bay_3 0 0 PARK SHALLOW INLET Sandy Point South 2 0 0 MARINE & COASTAL PARK WILSO NS COTTERS BEACH north 0 0 PROMONTORY COTTERS BEACH mid 0 0

NATIONAL PARK COTTERS BEACH south 0 0 DARBY BEACH north 0 0 DARBY BEACH river mouth 0 0 SQUEAKY BEACH 1 1 SQUEAKY BEACH South 1 1 OBERON BAY 0 0 Picnic bay 1 1 Five Mile beach so uth 0 0 Five Mile beach north 0 0 NOORAMUNGA Clonmel Island West 0 0 MARINE & COASTAL Clonmel Island East 1 0 0

PARK Clonmel Island East 2 0 0 Clonmel Island Kate Kearney Entrance 0 0 East of McLoughlins 0 0 McLoughlins Point 1 0 0 MCLOUGHLI NS BEACH - Fisheries 0 0 SEASPRAY COASTAL Woodside Beach North 0 0 RESERVE GIPPSLAND LAKES Coast of Rotamah Island east 0 0

COASTAL PARK Coast of Rotamah Island mid 0 0 Bunga Arm Egret 3 1 Bunga Arm Cormorant 3 1 Bunga Arm Dotterel 2 1 Bunga Arm Second Blowhole 3 2 Bunga East of Arm Second Blowhole 1 1 Barrier Landing 2 1 LAKES ENTRANCE - Lake Bunga/Red Bluff 3 1 LAKE TYERS COASTAL Lake Tyers Beach 3 1 RESERVE EWING MORASS W.R East of PETTMANS BEACH 0 0

238

Name of park Name of pair/ territory Years Fledged monitored outcome MARLO COASTAL Snowy River Estuary Far West 0 0

RESERVE Snowy River Estuary West 2 2 Snowy River Estuary East 3 2 inside east of estuary 1 1 East Entrance/Mots beach 2 2 CAPE CONRAN Marlo Mot' s Beach 2 2

COASTAL PARK Marlo Point Ricardo 2 2 Yeerung River Mouth 1 1 East of PEARL POINT 0 0 Sydenham Inlet 1 1 CROAJINGOLONG East of Tamboon South 1 0 0

NATIONAL PARK East of Tamboon South 2 0 0 Thurra River 0 0 Mueller River 0 0 Wingan Inlet 0 0 Sandpatch Point 0 0 Red River 0 0 Benedore River 0 0 Shipwreck Creek Mouth 1 1 West of border 1 0 0 West of border 2 0 0 West of border 3 0 0 West of border 4 0 0 West of border 5 0 0 West of border 6 0 0

239

Appendix 3 Nesting histories over 5 breeding seasons for each region

Hooded Plover Nesting Data from 2006 to 2010 – Narrawong Region

240

241

Hooded Plover Nesting Data from 2006 to 2010 – Port Fairy Region

242

243

244

Hooded Plover Nesting Data from 2006 to 2010 – Shipwreck Coast

245

246

Hooded Plover Nesting Data from 2006 to 2010 – Surf Coast and Bellarine Peninsula

247

248

249

Hooded Plover Nesting Data from 2006 to 2010 – Mornington Peninsula

250

251

Hooded Plover Nesting Data from 2006 to 2010 – Bass Coast

252

253

254

Hooded Plover Nesting Data from 2006 to 2010 – Venus Bay

255

256

Hooded Plover Nesting Data from 2006 to 2010 – Wilsons Promontory

257

Hooded Plover Nesting Data from 2006 to 2010 – Gippsland Lakes

258

259

260

Hooded Plover Nesting Data from 2006 to 2010 – Far East Victoria

261

262

263

Appendix 4 Fledgling Production by Park

Park by park summary of the number of fledgling locations (successful) in at least one season from 2006/07 to 2010/11, with the number of unsuccessful locations and unmonitored sites also presented. Successful sites, as a percentage of total sites monitored, is also presented. Park name Unknown Unsuccessful Successful % successful/ monitored BAY OF ISLANDS COASTAL PARK 5 3 100.0% BELFAST COASTAL RESERVE COASTAL 1 14 11 RESERVE 44.0% BUNURONG COASTAL RESERVE 1 2 66.7% CAPE CONRAN COASTAL PARK 1 2 2 50.0% CAPE LIPTRAP COASTAL PARK 9 8 2 20.0% CROAJINGOLONG NATIONAL PARK 14 1 0.0% DISCOVERY BAY COASTAL PARK 17 EAGLE ROCK MARINE SANCTUARY 1 ELLIOT RIVER - ADDIS BAY COASTAL RESERVE 1 EUMERALLA (YA MBUK) COASTAL RESERVE 8 3 100.0% EWING MORASS W.R 1 GIPPSLAND LAKES COASTAL PARK 2 5 1 16.7% GREAT OTWAY NATIONAL PARK 3 10 0.0% KILCUNDA - HARMERS HAVEN COASTAL 10 10 RESERVE 50.0% LAKES ENTRANCE - LAKE TYERS COASTAL 2 RESERVE 0.0% LONSDALE LAKES W.R 1 MARLO COASTAL RESERVE 1 1 3 75.0% MCLOUGHLINS BEACH - SEASPRAY COASTAL 2 RESERVE MORNINGTON PENINSULA NATIONAL PARK 4 16 16 50.0% NARRAWONG COASTAL RESERVE 6 1 1 50.0% NOORAMUNGA MARINE & COASTAL PARK 6 POINT NEPEAN NATIONAL PARK 4 2 3 60.0% PORT CAMPBELL NATIONAL PARK 2 1 2 66.7% PORT PHILLIP HEADS MARINE NATIONAL 1 PARK 0.0% PUNCHBOWL COASTAL RESERVE 2 0.0% SHALLOW INLET MARINE & COASTAL PARK 1 WILSONS PROMONTORY NATIONAL PARK 8 3 0.0% YAMBUK F.F.R. 3 Grand Tot al 101 80 59 42.4%

264

Appendix 5 Fledgling success for each region of the Victorian coast

Distribution of successful (fledging chicks in at least one season) and unsuccessful sites (no fledglings over five seasons), including sites not monitored, across Parks Victoria sites on the Victorian coast.

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

Appendix 6 Dog access status by park Dog access status for each park where Hooded Plovers occur across the Victorian coast.

Park Name Dogs Access Status Extent Bay of Islands Coastal Park Includes Regulated Zone Set Aside for Bay of Martyrs car park and Sandy Bay and walking Dogs tracks and beaches east of Bay of Martyrs. Belfast C.R. Yes Bunurong Coastal Reserve Yes Bunurong Marine Park Includes Regulated Zone Set Aside for Beaches of the Bunurong Marine Park between: Dogs · At Cape Paterson between Wilson Road and western boundary of the Marine National Park at Undertow Bay; · At Inverloch between Wreck Creek and the headland west of the Caves carpark · At Harmers Haven between Coal Point and eastern end of Wreck Beach as shown on figure 2 of the plan and as designated by signs onsite. Cape Conran Coastal Park Includes Regulated Zone Set Aside for All areas of the park except: Dogs - the Conservation Zone as shown in Figure 2 - the area surrounding sites 1-55 of the Banksia Bluff campground as shown in Figure 3 - the Cape Conran cabins precinct as shown in Figure 3 - The sydenham Inlet Special Protection Area Cape Liptrap Coastal Park Includes Regulated Zone Set Aside for The beaches between: Dogs · Walkerville North and Walkerville South; · Venus Bay No.1 Beach and Venus Bay No.5 Beach; · Waratah Bay township and Cooks Creek; · Overlook walking track between Prom View estate and Walkerville North as shown on figure 3 of the plan and as designated by signs onsite. Corner Inlet Marine & No Coastal Park Croajingolong National Park No

272

Park Name Dogs Access Status Extent Discovery Bay Coastal Park Includes Regulated Zone Set Aside for The Special Management Area- Recreation at Dogs Bridgewater Bay Beach, as shown on figure 2 of the plan, the Special Management Area – Recreation including the Ocean Beach at Nelson in Discovery Bay as shown on figure 4 of the plan, and on tracks leading directly to these areas from nearby carparks (except the access track at the Shelley Beach end of Bridgewater Bay Beach). Elliot River - Addis Bay Yes Coastal Reserve Eumeralla (Yambuk) Coastal Yes Reserve Ewing Morass W.R Hunting Season Gippsland Lakes Coastal Yes Barrier Landing (300m east of jetty), Ocean Grange Park (100m of residential zone), Paradise Beach, Loch Sport Causeway, Flamingo Beach, The Honeysuckles, Golden Beach (btw campsites 1 to 6), Nyerimilang Heritage Park homestead precinct. Great Otway National Park Includes Regulated Zone Set Aside for As listed in table 5 of the Plan. Dogs Kilcunda - Harmers Haven Yes Coastal Reserve Lake Tyers Yes Lakes Entrance - Lake Tyers Yes Coastal Reserve McLoughlins Beach - Yes Seaspray Coastal Reserve Mornington Peninsula Includes Regulated Zone Set Aside for Btw London Bridge and 330m SE of Gunnamatta Surf National Park Dogs Life Saving Clubhouse. Flinders section btw stockyard creek and west head gunnery range, excluding 1.8km section of beach 50m east of Portsea life saving club to Sphinx Rock, Sorrento from 1st nov to 1st April Narrawong Coastal Reserve Yes

273

Park Name Dogs Access Status Extent Ninety Mile Beach Marine Includes Regulated Zone Set Aside for Intertidal section of beach starting at the north east National Park Dogs boundary (Seaspray end) and extending for two (2) kilometres along the beach in a south west direction as shown on figure 2 of the plan as the ‘Dogs on Leash Zone’. Nooramunga Marine & No Coastal Park Peterborough Coastal Yes Reserve Point Addis Marine National Includes Regulated Zone Set Aside for All beaches of Point Addis MNP as shown in the plan Park Dogs Point Nepean National Park No Port Campbell Coastal Yes Reserve Port Campbell National Park No Port Phillip Heads Marine Includes Regulated Zone Set Aside for All sandy intertidal beach areas of Point Lonsdale, National Park Dogs including shallow water areas, and excluding the intertidal reef areas as shown in figure 2a of the plan. Punchbowl Coastal Reserve Yes Shallow Inlet Marine & Yes Coastal Park Wilsons Promontory National No Park Yambuk F.F.R. No Lonsdale Lakes W.R No

274

Appendix 7 Sites in order of highest to lowest threat

Two different threat indices are presented for sites across the Parks Victoria estate. The first index is simply the sum of ranks assigned to each threat type (people – all recreational activities combined, dogs on leash, dogs off leash, vehicles -illegal and legal not distinguished, horses, foxes, ravens and magpies) as per Table 14. The second is a weighted threat index where the rank assigned to each threat (representing its frequency of occurrence at a site, Table 14) is multiplied by the impact rating of that threat (taken from Table 8; e.g. horse impact = 4; magpie impact = 2). Sites appear in order of weighted threat index, from the most threatened to the least threatened. NAME OF PARK SITE NAME SUM WEIGHTED THREAT THREAT RANKS INDEX BELFAST COASTAL RESERVE Tower Hill Rutledges Cutting 21 81.5 COASTAL RESERVE (mouth) BELFAST COASTAL RESERVE Warrnambool Levys West 2 21 79 COASTAL RESERVE BELFAST COASTAL RESERVE Tower Hill Rutledge Cutting East 1 20 78 COASTAL RESERVE BELFAST COASTAL RESERVE Killarney Pelicans 20 77 COASTAL RESERVE BELFAST COASTAL RESERVE Killarney Basin Rusty Rocks 1 20 76 COASTAL RESERVE BELFAST COASTAL RESERVE Tower Hill Towilla West 19 75.5 COASTAL RESERVE (Seachange) BELFAST COASTAL RESERVE Killarney Old Log Beach 2 (East 19 74 COASTAL RESERVE End) BELFAST COASTAL RESERVE Port Fa iry Mills Reef West 18 69 COASTAL RESERVE BELFAST COASTAL RESERVE Tower Hill Rutledges Cutting West 17 69 COASTAL RESERVE Pt LAKES ENTRANCE - LAKE TYERS Lake Tyers Beach 18 66.5 COASTAL RESERVE BELFAST COASTAL RESERVE Warrnambool Levys West 1 17 65.5 COASTAL RESERVE BELFAST COASTAL RESERVE Port Fairy Mills Reef Far West 16 63.5 COASTAL RESERVE BELFAST COASTAL RESERVE Tower Hill Gormans Rd West 16 63.5 COASTAL RESERVE BELFAST COASTAL RESERVE Warrnambool Levys West 3 16 61 COASTAL RESERVE

275

NAME OF PARK SITE NAME SUM WEIGHTED THREAT THREAT RANKS INDEX LAKES ENTRANCE - LAKE TYERS Lake Bunga/Red Bluff 16 59.5 COASTAL RESERVE CAPE LIPTRAP COASTAL PARK Venus Bay South 1 16 58 KILCUNDA - HARMERS HAVEN Cutlers Beach A20 East 16 57.5 COASTAL RESERVE BAY OF ISLANDS CO ASTAL PARK Terry's Beach East 14 57.5 BELFAST COASTAL RESERVE Killarney Boat Ramp 2 (east of 15 57 COASTAL RESERVE point) PORT PHILLIP HEADS MARINE Point Lonsdale 17 56 NATIONAL PARK* MORNINGTON PENINSULA St. Andrews car park east 15 56 NATIONAL PARK NARRAWONG COASTAL Narrawong Surrey Estuary west 14 54 RESERVE CAPE LIPTRAP COASTAL PARK Venus Bay South 2 14 52.5 KILCUNDA - HARMERS HAVEN Wilsons Rd 2nd Bay West 14 52 COASTAL RESERVE BELFAST COASTAL RESERVE Killarney Old Log Beach 1 ( west 14 51.5 COASTAL RESERVE end) MORNINGTON PENINSULA Koonya West 14 51 NATIONAL PARK NARRAWONG COASTAL Narrawong Surrey Estuary East 13 51 RESERVE KILCUNDA - HARMERS HAVEN Waterfall Creek 14 50.5 COASTAL RESERVE BELFAST COASTAL RESERVE Port Fairy Mi lls Reef East (Golf 13 49.5 COASTAL RESERVE Course) BELFAST COASTAL RESERVE Warrnambool Levys West 4 12 49 COASTAL RESERVE EUMERALLA (YAMBUK) Yambuk Estuary East 13 48.5 COASTAL RESERVE CAPE LIPTRAP COASTAL PARK South of Six Mile Track 14 48 BELFAST COASTAL RESERVE Killarney Camping Ground West 13 48 COASTAL RESERVE BELFAST COASTAL RESERVE Tower Hill Towilla East (Seachange) 12 48 COASTAL RESERVE MORNINGTON PENINSULA Moana crt access (east edge) 13 47 NATIONAL PARK KILCUNDA - HARMERS HAVEN Coal Cr eek Estuary Mouth 13 46.5 COASTAL RESERVE MORNINGTON PENINSULA Portsea London Bridge (MP) 13 45.5 NATIONAL PARK

276

NAME OF PARK SITE NAME SUM WEIGHTED THREAT THREAT RANKS INDEX MORNINGTON PENINSULA St Andrews Boags Rocks 12 44.5 NATIONAL PARK MORNINGTON PENINSULA Koonya East 12 44 NATIONAL PARK KILCUNDA - HARMERS HAVEN West 16 12 43.5 COASTAL RESERVE MORNINGTON PENINSULA Portsea Franklin rd East (Sphinx 12 42 NATIONAL PARK rocks end) MORNINGTON PENINSULA Miami drive west (extra 2006 - 12 42 NATIONAL PARK 2008) BELFAST COASTAL RESERVE Killarney Midway 11 42 COASTAL RESERVE KILCUNDA - HARMERS HAVEN East 16 11 41.5 COASTAL RESERVE MORNINGTON PENINSULA Montforts 11 41.5 NATIONAL PARK MORNINGTON PENINSULA Heyfield Pair 1 (west side) Rye 12 41 NATIONAL PARK MORNINGTON P ENINSULA Gunnamatta Pair 1 11 40 NATIONAL PARK CAPE CONRAN COASTAL PARK Snowy River Estuary East 11 39.5 MORNINGTON PENINSULA Miami drive east access 11 39.5 NATIONAL PARK PORT CAMPBELL NATIONAL CLIFTON BEACH 11 39 PARK MORNINGTON PENINSULA Gunnamatta Pair 2 10 37 NATIONAL PARK KILCUNDA - HARMERS HAVEN Williamson's Beach West 10 36.5 COASTAL RESERVE GIPPSLAND LAKES COASTAL Barrier Landing 10 35.5 PARK MORNINGTON PENINSULA Gunnamatta Pair 4 10 35 NATIONAL PARK BELFAST COASTAL RESERVE Killarney Boat Ramp 1 (west of 9 34.5 COASTAL RESERVE point) MORNINGTON PENINSULA Portsea SLSC east 10 34 NATIONAL PARK KILCUNDA - HARMERS HAVEN Powlett River Mouth West Bank 9 33.5 COASTAL RESERVE MORNINGTON PENINSULA Rye car park east 10 33 NATIONAL PARK MORNING TON PENINSULA Alison ave east Rye 9 33 NATIONAL PARK

277

NAME OF PARK SITE NAME SUM WEIGHTED THREAT THREAT RANKS INDEX KILCUNDA - HARMERS HAVEN Powlett River Mouth East Bank 9 33 COASTAL RESERVE MORNINGTON PENINSULA Moana crt east (St Andrews ) 9 33 NATIONAL PARK MORNINGTON PENINSULA Gunnamatta Pair 3 9 32 NATIONAL PARK MORNINGTON PENINSULA Gunnamatta Pair 5 9 30.5 NATIONAL PARK MORNINGTON PENINSULA Rye Big Rock 9 29.5 NATIONAL PARK KILCUNDA - HARMERS HAVEN Far West 16 8 29.5 COASTAL RESERVE MORNINGTO N PENINSULA Portsea Franklin rd access (west 8 29 NATIONAL PARK edge) MORNINGTON PENINSULA Rye car park west 8 29 NATIONAL PARK BUNURONG COASTAL RESERVE The Oaks 8 28 BAY OF ISLANDS COASTAL PARK Crofts Bay 7 27.5 MORNINGTON PENINSULA Gun namatta Pair 6 7 22.5 NATIONAL PARK POINT NEPEAN NATIONAL PARK Sierra Nevada rocks/beach 5 19 MORNINGTON PENINSULA Portsea Franklin rd west 5 15.5 NATIONAL PARK CAPE CONRAN COASTAL PARK Marlo Mot's Beach 4 15.5 MORNINGTON PENINSULA Alison ave west Rye 4 15.5 NATIONAL PARK

278

Appendix 8 Trends Comparison

Fledgling production within the Mornington Peninsula and two threat profiles: dogs off leash and fox frequency of occurrence

279

Appendix 9 Mapping of Formal and Informal Tracks

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

Appendix 10 Best Practise Guidelines for monitoring nesting success of Hooded Plovers

What time of year should monitoring occur?

• Pairs need to be monitored over the course of the breeding season: from the last week in August or first week of September, right through to March or even April. • The birds may not show up on their territories until September (occasionally as late as November) and may disappear or flock as early as late January or early February. From late January onwards, once they begin to flock, visits for the season can end.

How frequently should monitoring occur?

• The first objective of monitoring nesting success is to determine when the pair begins to nest. The incubation period spans 28 days and so a visitation frequency of at least every 27 days is suggested. Ideally, a pair should be visited fortnightly to detect when they first show signs of nesting, especially considering that some nests can fail within a short period. • Once a nest has been located, the next objective is to determine whether it hatches successfully. If the nest wasn’t found during laying, then this date will be unknown and thus a visit at least weekly or even every 4 days would be ideal. Chicks commonly disappear within the first week after hatching, so the frequency of visits is often increased just prior to and after the predicted hatching date, so that we can determine whether the eggs actually hatch. • After hatching, the chicks are flightless for 35 days. It is best to visit the chicks most frequently (every 3 days) during their first two weeks because mortality is much higher during this time, and then at least once a week until fledging. A final visit at 37 days is a good idea to ensure the chick reached flying age (and possibly to see it flying). • Evidence of nest failure, such as the carcass of a dead chick or fox prints in the sand around a nest, disappears very quickly in a beach environment. Therefore, it is important that a nest with eggs or a pair with chicks be visited as often as every 2-5 days if causes of nest failure are of interest. Alternatively, remote sensor cameras can be used at the nest, or even multiple cameras across the territory to try and capture chick/s and determine survival or suspected causes of disappearance. • If the interval between nest visits is kept frequent, then we can use a special formula (Mayfield’s nesting success formula) based on this visitation rate to better estimate the probability of nest success – with infrequent visits we are likely to detect only the successful nests and to underestimate the true nesting effort of birds. The minimum number of visits that are useful for analysis are at least 3 during the egg phase (1. initial find, 2. visit, 3. hatching or failure) and a further 3 during the chick phase (1. hatching; 2. visit; 3. fledging). This equates to approximately 3 visits per month to a pair.

287

What is the best time of day for monitoring?

It is imperative that the safety of the eggs or chicks is not compromised when monitoring nests.

• Avoid times of high-tide - for your own safety and to reduce the chance of crushing a nest when walking higher up on the beach. • Avoid the hottest part of the day (mid-afternoon), particularly on hot days when the air temperature gets above 25ºC. Birds that are not nesting will often be resting during this period and will therefore be harder to spot. Birds that are nesting should not be disturbed during the hottest part of the day, as this increases the chances the eggs will overheat and fail to hatch. If the temperature is going to be high, visit the territory early in the morning, or late in the evening (although if light is fading, please ensure the pair see you leave the territory before darkness falls).

What is the best weather for monitoring?

• Mild conditions, such as a still day or only a light breeze, and a temperature of 20- 24ºC. • Avoid cold days with high wind chill. • Avoid windy conditions. If the birds are disturbed during very windy days, the nest can rapidly fill with sand. • Avoid rain, and especially hail.

How long should a visit to the pair last?

• In order to reduce the risk of causing disturbance to nesting adults, visits to the pair should only last long enough to determine whether the pair are nesting, and even in the mildest of weather conditions, should not exceed 35 minutes once the birds are aware of your presence. Visits to the nest or brood should be much shorter – leave as soon as you have the information you need. • If you have a spotting scope or a good view from a distance using binoculars, you may be able to observe the pair for longer, providing they are not disturbed by your presence, for example, adults continue to incubate eggs on the nest or chicks are observed foraging or being brooded.

How should you search for Hooded Plovers?

• Walk slowly along the firm sand near the water’s edge. • As you go along, scan the water’s edge and along the beach to the base of the dunes. It is best to take it slowly and scan the whole 90 degrees ahead of you as you go (not really useful to scan out to sea).

288

• By using binoculars, you are more likely to detect Hooded Plovers from a distance and to see their behaviour before it has been impacted by your presence. It is best to scan with the naked eye and then stop every so often and search ahead with binoculars. • Don’t be fooled – Hooded Plovers may be boldly marked but they can be very difficult to find. If the day is windy, they will often shelter behind or next to clumps of seaweed, flotsam or jetsam, or even sink down in depressions made by footprints, vehicle ruts or horse prints. When their white breast and stomach is hidden from view, they are very well camouflaged. • It is also a good idea to look closely at the sand for Hooded Plover footprints -their prints are often a giveaway as to the location of the nest. When a dune face is particularly bare, it can be very easy to see lines of Hooded Plover prints leading from the beach up the face to a nest.

How do you recognise nesting?

Hooded Plovers (similar to most beach-nesting shorebirds) have distinctive behaviours that will be a giveaway to the presence of a nest or chicks. Below is a description of behaviours that you are likely to observe and what each of these indicate:

Diagnostic of nesting

• Distraction display: One or both birds perform a broken wing distraction display, typically feigning intense injury by crouching or lying on the ground, lowering or fanning the tail, calling, and flapping one or both wings – this is usually performed during the chick rather than egg phase. The bird might stay in the one place or hobble along the ground dragging its wing and raising and flapping the other wing. • Incubating/shuffling: The adult has been observed incubating on the nest, or settling onto a nest to incubate. The settling behaviour of an incubating bird is distinctive from a bird that sits on the sand to rest or sun itself. The adult will shuffle and wriggle from side to side as it settles on eggs. • Brooding: The bird has been observed sitting all puffed out on the sand, presumably huddled over chicks, brooding them. Watch carefully to see if chicks emerge from under the parent. When an adult goes to brood chicks, it will approach them and peck gently at the ground in front of the chicks.

Indicative of nesting

• Leading: One or both birds run ahead of you and try to lead you out of their territory. This is generally along the beach parallel to the water’s edge and involves both birds. They keep their tail and head down, and will pause if you pause, and wait for you to catch up and follow. Occasionally they will stop to false-brood (see below) or peck at the sand to pretend they are foraging, but they remain very aware of you, and continue moving ahead of you. • False-brooding: if you are near to a nest, the adult might run over and falsely crouch or sit on the sand, pretending it is on the nest. • Vigilance: One or both birds are spending most of their time being vigilant and not feeding, and this might include them calling. This behaviour is typical of adults with chicks.

289

• Head-bobbing: a bird will run rapidly over to the nest and bob its head at its partner, when it is time to change over at incubating the eggs. The departing bird will often remove or rearrange nest material and will quietly leave the nest. Head-bobbing also occurs when a nesting adult is alarmed. • You might only sight one of the pair, and therefore the other might be on a nest.

Where is the nest likely to be located?

• A nest can be located anywhere above the high-tide mark - on the beach, at the base of the foredune, on the slope of the foredune or dune, or in a dune blowout - and can occur up to ~600m inland from the water. Occasionally, pairs may nest on pebbles or rocky outcrops. Below is a selection of photographs of Hooded Plover nest locations. • Pairs prefer open areas where they have a wide field of view, usually away from vegetation. • Some pairs have a tendency to situate their nest near a stick or driftwood, and to line the nest with shells. • Nests often occur on a slightly more elevated section of ground on the beach, such as that which occurs on the leeward side of seaweed. • Nests that occur on steep dune faces are often situated on small ledges stabilised by sticks, tree roots or low growing vegetation. • Pairs generally re-nest near previous nesting sites, and specific pairs might be more likely to be beach-nesters than dune-nesters, or vice versa. Local knowledge of previous nest sites is invaluable information to have and this is known for many areas within Victoria.

Hooded Plover nest scrape locations. Photos: Grainne Maguire.

290

Who should search for nests/chicks?

• You should only search for the nest if you have previous experience at finding nests or if you have been trained at locating nests. Without proper training or experience, the risks of crushing the eggs or chicks, leading a predator to the nest, or disturbing the adults are extremely high. • If you suspect the pair has a nest, you should direct the information to the land manager or arrange for an experienced person to locate the nest.

How do I monitor the progress of a nest? (see Figure 28)

• Once the nest has been located by a trained person, and the location has been shown to you, regular visits need to be made to track the progress of this nesting attempt. Volunteers need to wear an identification badge (and branded clothing if available) when visiting a nesting site so that the public can recognise they have specific training for this monitoring. It is not recommended that high-visibility vests be worn when monitoring because this will lead to greater visibility by the birds and may heighten levels of disturbance. The key is to observe the birds before they detect the observer’s presence. • Adults will usually leave the nest when a person is within 50-100m of the nest, but this can vary between pairs – some are more adapted to people than others. You will learn to recognise the sensitivity of the pair/s you monitor. • Always keep in mind that the nest might have already hatched before you arrive and so you should never confidently stride towards the nest assuming to find eggs. The first task should always be to locate the adult birds. If you see them and they are not sitting on the nest, the nest has either failed or hatched. If they are very relaxed and do not lead or show distraction behaviours, you might assume that failure has been the more likely outcome. • If you suspect chicks are present, it is best to walk past the adults and turn back and look through binoculars to see if any hidden chicks emerge; you might only see them when you walk past again when leaving the area. You may have to wait 10 minutes or more from a distance before chicks emerge from hiding. • The best way to check a nest is from a distance of 15-50m using binoculars or a spotting scope. The precise distance can vary depending on your view of the nest and the reaction distance of the birds. It can be better to go closer (up to 15-20m) for a brief period to get a good view, than to spend a long time trying to observe the nest from 50m (which is still potentially disruptive). • Please ensure that there are no predators (e.g. ravens, magpies, gulls or birds of prey) in the area when you approach the nest – you do not want to lead them to the nest. Also, check that other people are not watching – they may follow you out of curiosity. • When visiting a pair that has a known nest, you are simply trying to attain whether the nest still has eggs. If you can see the adult sitting on the nest, then you can leave under the assumption that it is still incubating eggs. If the adult is off the nest, you can either walk away and once you are at a distance, turn to see whether a bird returns, or you may want to approach the nest and check to see if the eggs are still present and intact.

291

• Do not approach nests that are situated on steep dune faces, you may destabilise the dune and cause the collapse of the nest site, or you may create a conspicuous trail of footprints to the nest that a predator can follow or that will attract the curiosity of people. You must ask yourself whether it is that important to record clutch size, and if you think the nest has failed, you may have to confirm this over several visits during which no bird is seen on the nest, or by climbing up a nearby section of dune and looking with binoculars into the nest. • If the birds are nowhere in sight when you arrive, you might want to have a closer look to see if the eggs have hatched or the nest has failed. Sometimes the parents are absent because they are fighting with the neighbours or seeing a predator off – their absence does not necessarily mean breeding has failed. You should only have to approach to within 5-10m of the nest, it is best not to leave a trail of footprints any closer. Move slowly and check for eggs that might have rolled out of the nest, or for chicks, when you take each step. Young chicks often crouch on the sand or amongst seaweed on the beach and are almost impossible to spot. • Only spend a few minutes in the immediate vicinity of the nest. • If it appears the nest has failed and you are reluctant to approach, it may be best to come back later that day or the following day to confirm this. If the nest has failed, the pair will attempt to re-nest – though not in the same nest scrape: they will usually only re-use a nest scrape if it has successfully hatched in the past. Pairs can nest again and again following failures, sometimes up to seven times a season, until they are either successful or the breeding season ends. • Once the nest has been checked, walk away from the nest along the open beach in full view of the adults, so that they know that the disturbance has ceased. • When you expect to see chicks on a territory, it is best to enter the territory cautiously. Chicks are highly mobile, and can move up to 2km from the nesting site with their parents. Remember that the parents don’t feed their young, but the chicks need to forage on the beach and because they cannot fly, this makes them very vulnerable. You won’t be able to predict where the chicks will be, so it is best to be very careful and to walk slowly along the water’s edge, looking through your binoculars for the adult birds. The adults will generally be close to their chicks. The best way to sight chicks is from a distance, before the adults alert them to danger and they either crouch on the spot, or run up the beach to cover. • If you don’t see chicks, this either means they are hidden or have died prior to your visit. Walk slowly towards the parents along the water’s edge and see whether they are acting protectively. Continue past and then turn back to see whether any chicks emerge from hiding. You might want to sit at a distance that is not disruptive and wait for the chicks to emerge. Do not spend more than 35 minutes in the area. You may need to visit the site at another date to see whether the chicks have truly disappeared. • If you do see chicks, it is best never to approach them as you run the risk of accidentally stepping on them.

292

How do I locate the nest again on my next visit?

• It is best to keep the location of the actual nest scrape as inconspicuous as possible, to avoid curiosity from predators and beach goers. Fencing and signage occurs at a large radius around the area to avoid making the nest conspicuous. • Perhaps establish a small wooden stake or piece of driftwood in the sand at least 10m from the nest or tie a ribbon to a nearby shrub/grass tuft, as a marker by which you can carry out regular nest checks using binoculars or a spotting scope. Ensure that anything tied to the wood or shrub to make it visible will not flap in the wind. Count the number of paces to the nest upon first locating it, and take note of the landmarks around it (e.g. vegetation, clumps of seaweed), so that you can remember its position. Write down this information and make a sketch (or take a photo) of the nest in relation to landmarks. • If the nest is successful, then the presence of an incubating bird and Hooded Plover footprints should enable you to locate the nest on most visits.

Risks to the birds and guidelines for avoiding/minimising these (see Figure 29)

• There is a risk that you might accidentally crush eggs or chicks. To avoid this, keep to the hard sand, near the water’s edge, when moving through the territory. If you leave the water’s edge to search for or check a nest, move slowly and take care with every step you take. Look at each bit of sand before taking a step! • If you suspect the pair has a nest and you have no experience or training in finding nests, please do not take unnecessary risks. A lack of information is preferable to causing harm to the birds. Search the list of contacts and report your suspicions. • Please do not touch or move eggs or chicks if you happen across them. • There is a risk that you might lead a predator or curious person to a nest. Do not approach a nest if there are predators (e.g. ravens or gulls) or people in the area. • You may indirectly disturb the adults from incubating or brooding, or chicks from feeding. The adults will go out of their way to pretend that they do not have a nest, and therefore you might be convinced you are doing no harm. Please only spend short periods of time (maximum 35 minutes) in the vicinity of the adults and/or nest.

293

Figure 28. Guidelines for checking on pairs that are known to have a nest.

From a distance of 50-100m from the nest site, locate the adults using binoculars

An adult is on the nest incubating There is no adult on the nest

There are no adults in sight The adults are in sight

Approach the nest slowly and Walk past them along water’s edge, cautiously, watching each step for eggs turning around every 15m to see what or chicks they’re doing – if they are leading, continue walking until they return to the nest area or where they were The nest is empty sighted originally

Record data and leave along the water’s edge

294

Guidelines for searching for nests

Guidelines for locating nests are similar to the guidelines for pair monitoring and checking on a nest. Figure 29 outlines the key points for minimising risks of crushing and disturbance during nest searching.

The presence of the bird at the nest is the best cue to use for locating the scrape and it is best to use the distance from natural landmarks (e.g. high-tide mark or base of dune, notable dune vegetation, cuttlefish, driftwood or flotsam/jestsam on the beach, etc) to remember where the bird was sitting as you approach. As you near the area where the bird was sitting, the bird’s tracks will become very evident in the sand (unless it is a very windy day) and these should lead to the nest, with lots of paths radiating from the scrape. Figure 30 goes into detail about how to look for the nest.

How should information be recorded and reported?

• BirdLife Australia’s Beach-nesting Birds Program has data sheets for recording the important details of individual visits to breeding pairs. It is important that data be collected in a consistent way and so the data sheet and information fields be used for this data collection. • It is valuable to fill these out even when the pair is not spotted on a given visit. • The data sheet assists volunteers and rangers in knowing the important bits of information to look out for. Hard copy data sheets can be submitted to BirdLife Australia, however, from September 2012, an online data portal was created for submitting this information. • It is important to report sightings of new nests or chicks to the appropriate individual or group that is the regional or local representative of BirdLife Australia’s monitoring project. The data portal has a field for flagging a ‘management alert’, however, this currently needs to be manually checked by the local/regional coordinator. It is useful to determine a system for reporting new nests or chicks that will suit your local park.

295

Mild, fine day - around 20-24°C Choose best available time and conditions for searching Low number of recreationists in vicinity

As you walk toward the nest, look for eggs or chicks before taking each step

Minimise time near nest or brood - a maximum of 35 minutes in good weather

296

Figure 30 . Guidelines for locating nests or chicks.

Search for adults using the naked eye and by scanning ahead with binoculars

You may spot the adults from a distance and note that You may not see the birds until they have sighted one adult appears to be sitting on the upper beach, you and have already retreated from the nest or settled on a nest or breast expanded, brooding. warned chicks into hiding.

If the birds lead, distract, call or appear alert and If the birds are relaxed, do not move very far or vigilant as you approach – assume nesting. run away but don’t return to the area when you have passed – assume not nesting.

Walk past along the water’s edge, turning around every 15m to see what the birds are doing – if they are leading, walk until they stop and continue until they return to where you first sighted them– you may end up 50-100m away.

You may need to wait out of sight for up to 40 minutes. Watch for the distinctive “nest shuffling behaviour”, for an adult to disappear into the dunes or for chicks to emerge from hiding.

If there are eggs, do not rush towards the nest If there are chicks, watch from a distance and location. Take note of landmarks first, as you will lose count how many there are – there is no need to the location very quickly upon approach. Walk approach them. diagonally towards nest and use natural landmarks to judge the distance.

Walk carefully towards the area, watching each step If you do not locate the nest, retreat back to you take. As you get closer, you may note tracks of the lower beach. birds that all converge at the nest scrape.

Windy or 20 -25º C <20 or >25º C

Return another day After 2 attempts

297

Appendix 11 MyHoodie data portal user guide with Administrative details

www.portal.myhoodie.com.au Version 1 (beta release), September 2012

298

Technical stuff

The portal is viewable on any up-to-date internet browser. If you do see a “bug” (an error or something that looks strange), please report any you experience using the feedback form (on the right of the page) or email us.

Browser comparability

The portal is built to W3 web standards - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_standards . These are the most current and commonly used internet standards around. If you have the latest updates for your browser software you shouldn’t have any problems viewing the portal. However because the net has changed so much in the last few years, if you have an old version of a browser you may may have some issues.

We have tested all of the following browsers:

- Internet Explorer version 9. - Mozilla Firefox version 14. - GoogleChrome version 20. - Safari version 5. - Opera version 12.

If you don’t have a up to date version of one of these browsers you may need to update your software - they are all free of course. The earlier versions of Internet Explorer (6, 7 and 8) are particularly problematic so please update your software if you have one of these.

A screen resolution of 1024x768 or above is recommended, but it’s not essential (you might just have to scroll around a bit on the forms with lower resolutions).

Mobile devices

The portal is not yet optimised for use on mobile devices (smart phones or tablets). It should work on Apple and Android devices however it is might be a little less user friendly on these. We are hoping to develop a proper app for mobile devices so you can walk onto a beach and fill in an update on your smart phone or tablet while standing on the sand!… but we need to find some funding for that.

299

The pair summary section

This is where all the information entered into the portal is summarised and displayed. In this section you can:

- view all the surveys and updates you have entered for the year, - keep track of the current nesting status of pairs in your region.

The pair summary page is broken up into four main sections.

1. region and pair selector 2. map 3. table 4. refine controls

Each of these sections works together (i.e. are all linked) to allow information to be filtered and displayed the way you want it.

The best way to learn how the pair summary page works is to have a play around with it. However the following sections pages outline the details of each section and how the functions work.

1. region and pair selector

2. Map

4. Refine controls

3. Table

300

The region and pair selector

Each time you log into the portal the pair summary page will display a map of SE Australia. Use the region selector to automatically zoom into your home region.

* Currently users can only view pair data from their home region (although you can enter data for any pair in any region). We are working to allow access to pair summary data across regions and this will be a feature of the next release.

To identify a pair, select it from the pair selector, or click on the table or click a marker on the map. Selecting a pair here will display all the details for that pair in the details pop-up .

The map

Your home region will be displayed by default on the map and table when you log in. If not just select your region from the region selector and the map will zoom to that region . The map shows all the known* pairs in your region.

This is a standard Google map that you can zoom into/pan around, display satellite or map views etc. (note switching to satellite view gives you a much greater zoom resolution).

The map is also “live linked” to the table - i.e. as you zoom and pan around the map the table updates automatically to show only the pairs visible in the map extents. You really need to play around in the site to see this, but basically, if you want to view details just for a group of pairs on a particular beach you can zoom into that general area and the table will show details for just those pairs in your map extent.

Clicking on pair icon brings their information in the details pop-up (see next page).

* pairs displayed are controlled by your regional coordinator. They have access to the administration section of the site and can add, delete or modify pair details. If you find a new pair, please contact your regional coordinator. You can enter surveys for pairs not listed her in the full update form.

The table

The table displays basic information about pair nesting status and (as mentioned above) is “live linked” to the map. The table has a series of refine controls and sort options at the top - see the refine section for details on using those options. This section outlines the table information. Refine controls

Table information

The table information includes 6 fields + an image display button. These 6 fields are the main variables we will look at to quickly tell what pairs nesting status is, what managements are in place (or not) as well as how long it’s been since pairs were last checked and who has checked them.

301

The fields are pretty self-explanatory, see “ Refine and table field definitions ” for details.

Clicking on the image icon displays images uploaded in the forms for a given observation. These might be useful if a nest is in a hard to find spot and someone has taken an image of the general area of beach where the nest is to help others find it.

The details pop-up

Because only basic info is displayed in the table, a pop up is provided to list the full details associated with each observation (threat details are not included). This pop-up is under construction so please bear with us.

Activate the pop-up by clicking on a pair marker on the map or by clicking on a pair entry in the table or by selecting a pair in the “pair selector” at the top of the page.

302

Refine controls

The refine controls are where the power of the portal really lies. Using these options you can customise the information displayed in a virtually limitless number of combinations. Again the best way to learn these controls is by playing around in the site; the options are (hopefully) self-explanatory.

Remembering that the map and table are “live linked” and work together, so it is with the refinement options. There are 2 refine/sort areas on the pair summary page, one beside the map, and the other in the table headers. These 2 sets of refine options work together - i.e. you can select a combination of refine options from both areas to control the data displayed in the map and table.

For example selecting the “Pairs currently with nests” checkbox (in the top refine area) will limit results to pair with nests. Then if you were to additionally select a “Current management” of say “none” (from the table refine options), the results will be limited to pairs with nests and no managements.

As mentioned there are a many combinations that can be selected to refine data - it’s just a matter of experimenting and finding the combination you need at the time.

The table can be sorted by clicking on the column headings.

See the following page for definitions of the refine fields.

303

Refine and table field definitions

Field Function Refine options above the map My records Displays records you have recorded. Pairs currently with nests Pairs with nests (eggs) at the time of observation. Pairs currently with chicks Pairs with nests (chicks) at the time of observation. Management alerts Displays records where the user has recorded a management alert. A management alert will always have further information associated with it (it is a requirement in the form when selecting a management alert). See the details window to view management alert notes. Banded birds present Displays observations in which banded birds were recorded - see details window to view band info. Date range Allows you to narrow displayed observations to a range of dates. Table refine options Pair Displays a selected pair only. * use in combination with the “all or latest” options in the top refine area to display all records for a pair or just the latest. Last checked The date of the observation - not actually when the pair was last checked.

Checked by The observer for the record - this will be the user logged in when recording the observation. Nest stage The nesting stage at the time of observation. Current management Managements records for the observation (this can be several managements) Nest no. The number of nesting attempts the pair has had for the season - this is updated by regional coordinators in the admin section of the site. Further info Clicking this icon displays photos uploaded by users for a given observation.

Sorting click any of the table field headings will sort the table according to that field - click again to toggle between ascending and descending sorts.

304

The export data option (admin only)

The export data option allows administrators (regional coordinators, land managers etc) to export info to a spreadsheet. The option to export data will not show up for standard users.

There are 2 types of exports to choose from:

1. basic export will provide the main fields relating to pair status and management (does not include fields such as number of eggs/chicks, number of adult/juvenile birds or nest coordinates). 2. a full export provides the full range of fields relating to nesting and management.

In addition you can choose to export all data for a region or just the observations shown in the table - i.e. after refinement.

The file created is a comma separated value (.csv) file that should open up in most standard spreadsheet applications (e.g. Excel).

305

Updates (data entry)

When you click the update tab you will get 2 data entry form options.

The “Quick update” option gives you a single page form. This form is allow you to quickly update basic pair information such as nesting status, and management information. This form only has basic details - it’s there to allow you to update a pair status quickly when you don;t have time to enter a full survey. The full update form is the preferred option.

The “Full update” has the full set of information found on the Birdlife Australia “Pair monitoring forms”. This is the preferred form.

Form structure

While the 2 forms differ in content, both have the same structure and functionality.

The quick update form is 1 single page, while the full update is broken up into 6 separate pages. Each page of the forms should be viewable on your screen without having to scroll or pan around - this requires a screen resolution of 1024x768, or higher.

There are 4 main sections on the forms:

1. main form area - where all the data is entered. 2. form navigation bar (full update form only) - shows progress through the full update form. 3. map - used to display the location of selected pairs, or to pick coordinates in the “new nest/chicks section” (see below. 4. validation area - see below

The forms themselves are very intuitive (we hope!) and you should be able to use them very easily, however the “live validation” and entering coordinates functions are explained below.

306

Live validation

Both forms feature “live validation”. What we mean by this is that there are certain fields that must be entered and also combinations of data the system will not allow to be entered - e.g. entering a nesting stage of “chicks” and then entering a number of eggs by mistake.

This is why some sections of the forms are “greyed out” - they only become active once a “parent” field has been filled out - e.g. the nest habitat drop down only becomes active if a nesting stage of “nest (eggs) is selected.

Required fields are marked with as asterix - not entering data into these fields results in a validation error which displays on the right hand validation message area.

Reporting a new nest - entering coordinates

To report actual coordinates for a nest you can either enter latitude and longitude directly or pick a location from the map.

Entering coordinates directly

Select new nest/chicks. This activates the coordinates box.

Once active you can enter latitude and longitude in degrees minutes and seconds or decimal degrees.

307

Picking coordinates from the map

Select new nest/chicks and zoom into the pair territory on the Switch to satellite view to get greater zoom resolution. map.

Grab the pair marker and drag and drop it to the desired The coordinates are automatically updated in the fields. location.

308

The administration section

Using the admin section

The admin section is available to regional coordinators and other selected users only. Standard users will not see the option to enter the admin section at all.

The admin section is for: - managing users - managing pair details, and - managing region details (this probably only needs to be used once to create new regional).

Once in the admin section, click on one of the operations to start viewing or modifying details.

Alternatively, you can navigate around the admin section using the “breadcrumbs” just under the main navigation menu.

309

Managing pairs

This operation controls the pairs displayed in the pair summary page and the pairs are available for selection in drop down lists in the quick and full update forms.

You can also create new pairs, delete pairs or change pair details (e.g. location) from this section.

Please keep pair names consistent where possible and make all names unique. Remember users can add occasional observations for pairs not in the list through the full update form, however if a territory is used consistently it is best to add a pair to the list here.

Remember there are names for pairs from across South Australia, Victoria and NSW, so try to make pair names specific to a site - e.g. “xxx Estuary West” as opposed to just “Estuary West”.

This is also the section of the portal where pair summary statistics are updated (see following pages).

Use the region menu to filter the list of pairs to a specific region

Search for a pair by typing the name in this box

310

Updating pair name or location details

Once a pair is selected for modification, you can change a pairs name and location. This is also the screen you use to update pairs overall nesting statistics for the year (e.g. the number of nesting attempts).

To change a pairs coordinates either enter their latitude/longitude directly, or drag the marker on the map (switching to the satellite view will give you a better zoom level).

311

Updating pair summary statistics

To keep track of each pairs progress through the season, we need to enter four key parameters into the portal manually. These parameters allow us to calculate the hatching success rates per pair, chick survival rate per pair and keep track of how many eggs and chicks each pair has had overall for the season.

Knowing these statistics for each pair then allows us to calculate a huge number of critical statistics such as the average hatching success or chick survival rates for each breeding pair. Also, because each pair is linked to a region we can automatically calculate the average success rates per pair for the region as a whole and calculate total number of eggs laid, chicks hatched and birds fledged in each region.

And what’s more, all these statistics can be calculated “live” as data is entered. There is no need to wait until the end of the season to collate all the data.

By cross-referencing this data with management data we can also the success of managed versus non-managed nests or compare success rates across different types of managements (to see which are working best).

312

Managing users

This is where you add new users and passwords and reset passwords in the event a user has forgotten their details (although users can reset their own passwords through “forgotten password” feature on the portal login page).

All users must have a “home region” assigned (although users can view and enter data for any region). As in the pair operation, you can delete users (with the red ‘x’), create new users, or modify existing users (green pencil). Filter users by region or searching for a particular user by using the text box user the ‘user name’ field heading.

313

Managing regions

This operation controls the geographic extent (centroid and zoom factor) of regions displayed in the pair summary page. Remember also, every pair and every user must belong to one of the regions defined here. As in the pair operation, you can delete regions (with the red ‘x’), create new regions, or modify existing region details (green pencil).

Change the name of the region in the name field or change the centre-point of the region using the latitude/longitude fields, or drag the marker on the map.

314

* Remember to check the region display in the pair summary page after changing parameters here. The display on the map here may not directly match the display on the pair summary map.

315