Stilt 50 ( 2006 ): 215-223 Are we neglecting non-migratory shorebirds?

ARE WE NEGLECTING THE NON-MIGRATORY SHOREBIRDS OF THE EAST ASIAN– AUSTRALASIAN FLYWAY?

MICHAEL A WESTON

Birds Australia National Office, 415 Riversdale Rd, Hawthorn East, 3123, Australia (from February 2007: Green Building, 60 Leicester St, Carlton 3053, Australia)

A recurrent debate within the Australasian Study Group (AWSG) is whether resident (non-migratory) shorebirds are being neglected in favour of migratory species in terms of research and conservation efforts. This paper examines whether migrants have attracted a disproportionate research and conservation effort from the AWSG, by using articles published in Stilt as an index of effort. More articles (223 cf. 110) and more pages (912 cf. 267) have been dedicated specifically to migrants. Articles on migrants (4.3 ± 2.2 [mean ± standard deviation] pages) were longer than those on residents (2.5 ± 1.8 pages). These differences might reflect the fact that there are more migrants in the East Asian–Australasian Flyway since the ratio of migrant to resident species is 1.4:1 or 2:1 depending on which species are considered to use the flyway. Even when corrections are applied for this imbalance (for the 1.4:1 ratio only), a disproportionate number of pages and articles have still been devoted to migrants. Overall, it appears that there is a bias towards research and conservation effort on migratory species, with the cumulative magnitude of the bias to date equating to the number of pages in 3.8 average-length editions of Stilt . I speculate on some of the causes of the apparent bias.

INTRODUCTION If residents are not receiving research attention, then this is of particular concern because resident shorebirds appear to The Australasian Wader Studies Group (AWSG) has be more threatened in terms of international conservation stimulated a good deal of research and conservation on many status. While 19 species that regularly use the East Asian– species of shorebirds in eastern Asia and Australasia. Both Australasian Flyway (EAAF) are considered Globally migratory and resident (non-migratory) shorebirds fall within Threatened, only four of these species are migratory (Milton the scope of the AWSG’s mission and have attracted et al. 2005). It is also possible that resident shorebirds may research and conservation attention from the group. While be more effective as bioindicators in Australia, because they State-based wader study groups also exist, some of which are possibly occupy a wider range of habitats and a greater very active and productive, the AWSG is the pre-eminent th geographical range. national Australian shorebird study group. This 50 edition This paper examines the question as to whether there has of Stilt stands testament to the success of the AWSG. been a bias in effort toward migratory species of shorebirds At various meetings of the AWSG over the last five or so by the AWSG. It is hoped that this paper will either put the years, there has been a lively debate about the differing matter to rest, or flag a group of shorebirds that might amounts of research and conservation effort directed at deserve more attention in the next 25 years. In doing so, it is resident and migratory species of shorebird. Specifically, it hoped this paper can flag research opportunities, whether it has been suggested that resident species are being neglected be for the AWSG or for other workers. in favour of migratory species. There is some evidence for this view. Piersma et al. (1997) reviewed the state of METHODS knowledge of and of the world, and noted that species with restricted distributions were poorly known The general approach I have used is to: in many areas. If only regular Australian species are considered (after Priest et al. 2002), then all resident species 1. determine the ratio of migratory to resident species within the EAAF by: (i) defining the EAAF, (ii) were classified by Piersma et al. (1997) as ‘not or poorly determining which shorebirds occur within the EAAF, studied’, ‘little studied’ or they had received ‘some study’. and (iii) assigning a movement status to those species; While most regular Australian migrants (68.6%) also fell 2. quantify the research and conservation effort which has into the same categories, the remaining 31.4% were regarded as ‘well’, ‘very well’ or ‘extensively’ studied (Figure 1). been directed towards resident and migratory shorebirds Clearly, migrants have broad distributions which overlap by: (i) examining published articles in Stilt and (ii) where possible classifying them with respect to their with more investigators, and many of the studies reviewed subject matter; and by Piersma et al. (1997) were not conducted in Australia, or 3. compare the actual representation of resident versus indeed, on populations which visit Australia. Nevertheless, the overall global state of knowledge at the species level migratory shorebirds in EAAF (Step 1) with the effort seems somewhat higher for Australian migrants over directed at them (Step 2). Such a comparison should reveal whether any bias exists (either towards residents residents, albeit in the context that most species were or migrants). understudied.

215 Stilt 50 ( 2006 ): 215–223 Are we neglecting non-migratory shorebirds?

Figure 1 . The percentage of and species that regularly occur in Australia (after Priest et al. 2002) classified according to how well studied they are (after Piersma et al. 1997). Migrants are shown as black bars ( n=35) and residents ( n=7) as open bars.

The approach used is described in more detail below, and The ratio of resident to migratory species within the relies on a series of assumptions, which are also documented EAAF below. Defining the East Asian–Australasian Flyway Flyways are relatively arbitrary with respect to their Assumptions boundaries, both because of poor knowledge of actual My analysis and approach is based on a number of migration routes and because it appears that flyways overlap assumptions. It assumes: with one another. Here, I use the definition of EAAF provided in Howes and Bakewell (1989), although I also • That the pre-1981 (i.e. pre-AWSG) state of knowledge include Alaska which is in their written description but not on residents and migrants was equivalent and poor. their diagram. This definition contains countries east of c. • That there has been no significant enhancement in the 85°E, and west of the Pacific rim ( c. 140–160°E). I define knowledge of residents or migrants, published the flyway according to Table 1, although several countries elsewhere, which may have influenced the opportunity which I have excluded (New Caledonia and eastern ) or perceived need to publish on either residents or are close to the margins of the flyway and may in some migrants. instances be included in the flyway by other workers. • That residents and migrants require similar research and conservation effort per species. It is possible that Determining which shorebirds occur within the East Asian– species with more complex life cycles or ecologies may Australasian Flyway legitimately require more research effort to reach an I derived the list of shorebirds in the EAAF, and used the adequate state of knowledge. However, it cannot be distributional maps, , taxonomic order and argued that migrants necessarily have a more complex nomenclature, of Hayman et al. (1986). I exclude the hybrid, life cycle compared with residents, many of which are Cox’s Sandpiper paramelanotos and other nomadic and some of which exploit the most Chardriiformes which are generally not considered unpredictable and ephemeral of habitats. shorebirds by Hayman et al. (sheathbills, gulls and terns). I • That the activities of the AWSG are independent of treated the Plains Wanderer Pedionomus torquatus as a other shorebird study groups (unlikely) or at least that shorebird and have added it to Hayman et al. ’s list (after the activities of those groups are either 1) not overly Christidis and Boles 1994), and I have accepted the influential on AWSG activities or 2) are themselves not Australian Painted Rostratula australis as a full biased between migrants and residents. An analysis of species (after Lane and Rogers 2000). State wader study group bulletins would be interesting, but is beyond the scope of this paper.

216 Stilt 50 ( 2006 ): 215–223 Are we neglecting non-migratory shorebirds?

1 Table 1. Countries regarded as being within the East page check (volumes 1 and 46 ). Thus, classification of Asian - Australasian Flyway (after Howes and articles was based on titles. Articles, regardless of their type Bakewell 1989). Countries are listed roughly in order (Report, Short Communication, Paper etc.), were classified from north to south. as either 1) focussing on migratory species, 2) focussing on Country Qualifier resident species or 3) focussing on a combination of USA (Alaska) Western part migratory and resident species. Book reviews were excluded, Russia East of c. 120°E as were articles specifically dealing with species which I had Mongolia All not defined as shorebirds e.g. terns. I also excluded one * All article from volume 12 because it focused on the hybrid Japan All Cox’s Sandpiper, and one from volume 25 because its North Korea All subject matter was outside EAAF. The number of articles, South Korea All and the number of pages upon which the articles were Burma All printed, were summed for each volume. Some subjectivity All All was required because articles were not always clearly All bounded (i.e. were not clearly separated one from the other), Philippines All especially in earlier volumes. Obscure titles also caused Cambodia All some difficulty with assigning some articles to the Malaysia All categories. Indonesia All While the vast majority of AWSG research outcomes are Papua New Guinea All published in Stilt , there are some exceptions, most notably Timor Leste All proceedings of conferences (e.g. Straw 2005). Additionally, I Australia All acknowledge that Stilt does not exclusively publish the New Zealand All * Including Taiwan and Hong Kong results of AWSG activities, rather it is available to authors from throughout EAAF, whether they are AWSG members or not. Finally, I am unaware of any deliberate editorial Assigning a movement status to shorebirds in the East policy which may have biased the results of this Asian–Australasian Flyway investigation, certainly none have been evident among the The categorisation of species into movement patterns is not editors I consulted (K. Rogers, D. Milton and J. Campbell precise. There are great variations within the traditional pers. comms and pers. obs.) and no particular policy is categories of ‘sedentary’, ‘resident’, ‘nomadic’, and evident in the instructions to authors. While it is possible that ‘migratory’ (see, for example, Marchant and Higgins 1993). the use of the word “Flyway” on the cover of the bulletin, ‘Resident’ is defined as breeding more or less throughout the and in the instructions to authors, has encouraged material on range, and rarely moving regularly between countries. migrants, I doubt the effect of such word use is significant. ‘Migratory’ is defined as more or less regular movements involving distinct breeding and non-breeding parts of the range. Another common element to the definition of RESULTS ‘migratory’ is that movements are relatively long-distance, Table 2 lists those species that clearly occur within the and I have arbitrarily defined migratory movements as being EAAF. Species close to the margins but which I excluded international. Although this is a common concept it is are: Indian Courser Cursorius coromandelicus, Yellow- problematic given that countries are different sizes, and that wattled Lapwing Vanellus malabaricus, Killdeer Charadrius political boundaries are irrelevant to movements. Thus, vociferous and Greater Yellowlegs melanoleuca . Anarhynchus frontalis are considered ‘resident’ even My analysis of shorebirds in the EAAF was based on though they are migrants within New Zealand. Nevertheless, normal geographical distributions of species as mapped in my application of the terms ‘resident’ and ‘migratory’ reflect Hayman et al. (1986), and so excludes vagrants. The number their generally accepted use, and closely follow the of shorebirds in the Hayman et al. (1986) list, and adding the definitions of Marchant and Higgins (1993). Plains Wanderer and Australian Painted Snipe, totals 216 species. Of these, 118 (55%) occur within the EAAF; 78 are Quantifying research and conservation effort migratory and 40 are resident. Thus, there are about two Stilt is the biannual bulletin of the AWSG, and its cover migratory species for every resident species. However, this carries the line “The bulletin of the East Asian–Australasian includes a suite of migrants that breed in Alaska and do not Flyway”. It is the main publication produced by the group, migrate within EAAF. If only those migrants which move or the only other regular publication being the newsletter reside within the flyway are considered (97 species), then the Tattler . Thus, I assume that Stilt is reflective of AWSG ratio of migrants to residents is about 1.4 to 1 (Table 3). This activities, and it was used as the primary information source is the most appropriate ratio of migrants to residents to use for this paper (49 volumes were available for analysis). for EAAF. However, Stilt is dominated by Australian Each volume of Stilt , 1–49, was assessed for its content using the index (volumes 2–45, and 47–49) or a page by

1 The printing of the index on the back page of Stilt 46 failed but a correctly printed loose-leaf contents page was distributed (K. Rogers pers. comm.).

217 Stilt 50 ( 2006 ): 215–223 Are we neglecting non-migratory shorebirds?

Table 2 . The movement status of shorebirds which occur in the East Asian - Australasian Flyway. Taxonomy, nomenclature and order follow Hayman et al. (1986), although Plains Wanderer has been added (after Christidis and Boles 1994) and Australian Painted Snipe has been treated as a full species (after Lane and Rogers 2000). Species Movement Status Migratory within EAAF? Plains Wanderer Pedionomus torquatus Resident Pheasant-tailed Jacana Hydrophasianus chirurgus Migratory Yes Bronze-winged Jacana Metopidius indicus Resident Comb-crested Jacana Irediparra gallinacean Resident Painted Snipe Rostratula benghalensis Resident Australian Painted Snipe Rostratula australis Resident Eurasian Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus Migratory Yes American Black Oystercatcher Haematopus bachmani Resident Variable Oystercatcher Haematopus unicolour Resident Chatham Island Oystercatcher Haematopus chathamensis Resident Pied Oystercatcher Haematopus longirostris Resident Sooty Oystercatcher Haematopus fuliginosus Resident Crab Plover Dromas ardeola Resident Ibisbill Ibidorhyncha struthersii Resident Black-winged Stilt Himatopus himantopus Resident Black Stilt Himantopus novaezelandiae Resident Banded Stilt Cladorhynchus leucopcephalus Resident Red-necked Avocet Recurvirostra Americana Resident Stone- Burhinus oedicnemus Migratory No Bush Thick-knee Burhinus magnirostris Resident Great Thick-knee Esacus recurvirostris Resident Beach Thick-knee Esacus magnirostris Resident Australian Pratincole Stiltia Isabella Migratory Yes Oriental Pratincole Glareola maldivarum Migratory Yes Little Pratincole Glareola lactea Resident Northern Lapwing Vanellus vanellus Migratory Yes Grey-headed Lapwing Vanellus cinereus Migratory Yes River Lapwing Vanellus duvaucelii Resident Red-wattled Lapwing Vanellus indicus Resident Javanese Wattled Lapwing Vanellus macropterus Resident Banded Lapwing Vanellus tricolour Resident Masked Lapwing Vanellus miles Resident Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola Migratory Yes Pacific Golden Plover Pluvialis fulva Migratory Yes American Golden Plover Pluvialis dominica Migratory No Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula Migratory No Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus Migratory No Long-billed Plover Charadrius placidus Migratory Yes Little-ringed Plover Charadrius dubious Migratory Yes Malaysian Plover Charadrius peronii Resident Kentish Plover Charadrius alexandrinus Migratory Yes Lesser Sandplover Charadrius mongolus Migratory Yes Greater Sandplover Charadrius leschenaultia Migratory Yes Charadrius veredus Migratory Yes Eudromias morinellus Migratory No Red-capped Plover Charadrius ruficapillus Resident Double-banded Plover Charadrius bicinctus Migratory Yes Black-fronted Plover Charadrius melanops Resident Red-kneed Dotterel Charadrius cinctus Resident Hooded Plover Charadrius rubricollis Resident Inland Dotterel Peltohyas Australia Resident New Zealand Dotterel Charadrius obscurus Resident Shore Plover Thinornis novaeseelandiae Resident Wrybill Anarhynchus frontalis Resident Black-tailed Limosa limosa Migratory Yes Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica Migratory No Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica Migratory Yes Asiatic Limnodromus semipalmatus Migratory Yes Little Curlew Numenius minutes Migratory Yes Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus Migratory Yes Bristle-thighed Curlew Numenius tahitiensis Migratory No Eurasian Curlew Numenius arquata Migratory Yes Far Eastern Curlew Numenius madagascariensis Migratory Yes Continued …

218 Stilt 50 ( 2006 ): 215–223 Are we neglecting non-migratory shorebirds?

Table 2 (Continued) . The movement status of shorebirds which occur in the East Asian - Australasian Flyway. Taxonomy, nomenclature and order follow Hayman et al. (1986), although Plains Wanderer has been added (after Christidis and Boles 1994) and Australian Painted Snipe has been treated as a full species (after Lane and Rogers 2000). Species Movement Status Migratory within EAAF? Spotted Redshank Tringa erythropus Migratory Yes Redshank Tringa totanus Migratory Yes Greenshank Tringa nebularia Migratory Yes Marsh Sandpiper Tringa stagnatilis Migratory Yes Spotted Greenshank Tringa guttifer Migratory Yes Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Migratory No Green Sandpiper Tringa ochropus Migratory Yes Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria Migratory No Wood Sandpiper Tringa glareola Migratory Yes Terek Sandpiper Xenus cinereus Migratory Yes Common Sandpiper hypoleucos Migratory Yes Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia Migratory No Wandering Tattler Heteroscelus incanus Migratory Yes (?) Grey-tailed tattler Heteroscelus brevipes Migratory Yes Ruddy Arenaria interpres Migratory Yes Black Turnstone Arenaria melanocephala Migratory No Surfbird Aphriza virgata Migratory No Red-necked Phalaropus lobatus Migratory Yes Grey Phalarope Phalaropus fulicarius Migratory No Eurasian Scolopax rusticola Migratory Yes Amami Woodcock Scolopax mira Resident Dusky Woodcock Scolopax saturate Resident Celebes Woodcock Scolopax celebensis Resident Obi Woodcock Scolopax rochussenii Resident New Zealand Snipe Coenocorypha aucklandica Resident Chatham Islands Snipe Coenocorypha pusilla Resident Wood Snipe nemoricola Migratory Yes Pintail Snipe Gallinago stenura Migratory Yes Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago Migratory Yes Jack Snipe Lymnocryptes minimus Migratory Yes Solitary Snipe Gallinago solitaria Migratory (?) Yes Japanese Snipe Gallinago hardwickii Migratory Yes Swinhoe’s Snipe Gallinago megala Migratory Yes Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus Migratory No Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus Migratory No Red Knot Calidris canutus Migratory Yes Great Knot Calidris tenuirostris Migratory Yes Sanderling Calidris alba Migratory Yes Spoon-billed Sandpiper Eurynorhynchus pygmaeus Migratory Yes Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri Migratory No Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla Migratory No Red-necked Stint Calidris ruficollis Migratory Yes Little Stint Calidris minuta Migratory No Temminck’s Stint Calidris temminckii Migratory Yes Broad-billed Sandpiper Limnicola falcinellus Migratory Yes Long-toed Stint Calidris subminuta Migratory Yes Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla Migratory No Baird’s Sandpiper Calidris bairdii Migratory No Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos Migratory Yes Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Calidris acuminata Migratory Yes Rock Sandpiper Calidris ptilocnemis Migratory Yes Dunlin Calidris alpina Migratory Yes Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea Migratory Yes Buff-breasted Sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis Migratory No Ruff Philomachus pugnax Migratory Yes

Table 3 . The number of migratory and resident shorebirds in EAAF, and those that occur regularly in Australia. Data Number of migratory Number of resident Ratio of migrants to species species resident EAAF 78 40 1.950:1 EAAF excluding Alaska 57 40 1.425:1 Australia* 36 18 2.000:1 * After Priest et al. (2002).

219 Stilt 50 ( 2006 ): 215–223 Are we neglecting non-migratory shorebirds? content, and the ratio of regular migrants to residents in articles and 83.7% of volumes carried more pages on Australia is also close to 2 to 1 (see Table 3). Thus, for the migrants (12.2% and 8.2% of volumes had the same number purposes of analysis I used both ratios (1.4:1 and 2:1). of articles and pages respectively, on migrants and The categorisation of articles in Stilt located 333 articles residents). Thus, only 18.4% of volumes had more articles, which could be assigned specifically to either migratory or and 8.2% had more pages, on residents. resident shorebirds. Of these 67.0% and 33.0% dealt with It is possible that these patterns may have varied over migratory and resident shorebirds respectively. A total of time. Figure 2A shows the percentage of all articles which 1179 pages (42.0% of 2805 pages) held material specific to are specific to migrants or residents in each volume. Articles either migrants or residents; of these 77.4% held material on migrants have dominated apart from the period from the specific to migrants and 22.6% held material specific to late 1980s to the mid-1990s. Figure 2B shows the percentage residents. Overall, 69.4% of volumes of Stilt carried more of pages in each volume that contained specific material on

Figure 2 . For those article which were specific to migrants or residents, (A) the percentage of articles, and (B) the percentage of all pages containing material specific to migratory and resident shorebirds published in Stilt , 1981-2006.

220 Stilt 50 ( 2006 ): 215–223 Are we neglecting non-migratory shorebirds? migrants and residents. A similar pattern is evident, with the that we need more research and conservation effort on all percentage of pages on residents and migrants being roughly shorebirds, including migrants. This paper is intended to aid similar in the period from the late 1980s to the mid-1990s, planning for future efforts, and to highlight research while the percentage of pages devoted to migrants was opportunities to other workers who may wish to study generally higher than that devoted to residents during other shorebirds in Australia, by identifying apparent biases in the times. research and reporting of studies between migrant and On average, volumes contained more articles and pages, resident shorebird species. and articles were longer, for migrants compared with residents (Table 4). It should be noted that the measures Has there been a bias? analysed were not independent. For migrants, for example, Spearman rank correlation coefficients (r) were: 0.573 Stilt has devoted more pages and articles to migrants than to residents. Whether or not this represents bias depends on the between the number of pages and the average length of ratio of migratory to resident shorebird species used. The articles; and 0.704 between the number of articles and the 1.4:1 ratio is arguably the most appropriate given that Stilt is number of pages. the bulletin of EAAF, and that a number of Alaskan While it is clear that migrants have been the subject of more articles, which occupied more pages, and were on shorebirds do not really use EAAF but occur within a small average longer than those articles on residents, the question part of it (a part of the flyway typically excluded from many flyway maps). On this basis, there is a bias in the number of as to whether there is a bias requires further investigation articles published such that more articles are published per because there are simply more migrants than there are migrant than per resident species. The result with respect to residents in EAAF (see Table 3) and this could explain the the number of pages devoted to migrants and residents is differences. Table 5 compares the numbers of articles and pages that would be expected if there were no bias, with the even clearer; there is a bias towards more pages being actual number of articles which have been published. There devoted specifically to migratory species, regardless of the ratio of migrants to residents assumed. is a clear bias towards the number of pages devoted to One surprising result was that articles on migrants tended migrants regardless of the ratio of migrants to residents used. to be longer than those on residents. It is not clear why this is For the number of articles, there is a statistically significant bias towards migrants for the 1.4:1 ratio of migrants to the case, though with a relatively small pool of authors, some residents, but not for the 2:1 ratio. Thus, indications of bias of whom effectively specialise in either migrants or residents, the difference could simply reflect different towards migrants are evident when the imbalance in the writing styles among a small number of authors. number of species has been accounted for statistically. How large is the bias? DISCUSSION Residents have had up to 27 fewer articles and 219 fewer The AWSG has a long and prominent history of contributing pages devoted to them than expected under the scenario that to the knowledge of all shorebird species, both migrants and no bias existed (at the 1.4:1 ratio of migrants to residents). residents, in the East Asian–Australasian Flyway. In view of At the average numbers of pages in an edition of Stilt to date the limited knowledge we have of shorebird biology and (57.2 ± 15.7 pages; 24–92), this equates to 3.8 editions. given the threats that many of these species face, it is clear

Table 4. Comparisons of the number of articles, number of pages, and length of articles on migratory and resident shorebirds published in Stilt . Measure Migrants Residents Statistical comparison Number of articles 4.6 ± 2.2 (1-9) 2.2 ± 1.6 (0-6) Wilcoxon Z = -4.563, p < 0.001 Number of pages 18.6 ± 10.7 (1-40) 5.4 ± 5.2 (0-20) Wilcoxon Z = -5.240, p < 0.001 Length of article 4.3 ± 2.2 (1-11) 2.5 ± 1.8 (0.5-8) Wilcoxon Z = -3.629, p < 0.001 (number of pages)

Table 5 . The expected number of articles and pages under the scenario that there is no bias versus the actual number published on migrants and residents, for the ratios of 1.4:1 and 2:1 migrants to residents (M:R). Chi-squared tests involve one degree of freedom. N.B. Expected values are calculated using the exact ratios from Table 3. For convenience, these are referred to throughout the text as the rounded values 1.4:1 and 2:1. Item Number Expected Observed Chi-square Probability M:R ratio M:R ratio Articles 333 1.4:1 2.027:1 9.25 <0.01 Pages 1179 1.4:1 3.416:1 168.16 <0.01

Articles 333 2:1 2.027:1 0.01 0.91 Pages 1179 2:1 3.416:1 60.60 <0.01

221 Stilt 50 ( 2006 ): 215–223 Are we neglecting non-migratory shorebirds?

Thus, 80.1% of expected articles and 54.9% of expected A pages on residents have actually been published, respectively. Even if it is assumed there are two migrants for every resident species in EAAF, only 67.9% of expected pages dedicated to residents have actually been published. Thus, for the number of pages, the bias seems to be substantial. The above calculations do not account for changes in layout or font size that could affect the number of words, or the amount of tabulated information, per page. The font size has not remained constant, and a relatively recent change has seen roughly 20% more words per page (K. Rogers in litt.). There was also a change from one column (volumes 1–9) to two columns of text (volumes 10 onwards). It is not thought that adjustment for these effects would lead to substantial change in the estimates given above.

Why is there a bias? B The way in which research and conservation efforts are allocated across taxa is poorly understood in general. Allocations could be made on the basis of needs (e.g. perceptions of threat) or opportunities (e.g. gaps in research knowledge or suitable, accessible study sites). Rarely are needs or opportunities critically assessed (but see Milton et al. 2005), rather they are based on perceptions, which generally reflect expert opinion and the best available information. Additionally, human motivational factors are likely to play a major role, particularly where volunteers make the major contribution (see Weston et al. 2003, Weston et al . 2006). This study does not directly address the causes of the bias it has uncovered, but possible causes include:

• The extensive movements of migrants mean they occur Figure 3 . The percentage of all New Atlas of Australian in more countries and are accessible to more researchers Bird records (1998 to present) which were (A) migratory than residents. It seems likely that there are more shorebirds (October to February) and (B) resident species of migrants than residents in most or all shorebirds. The areas shown are IBRA (Interim countries within EAAF. Biogeographic Regionalisation of Australia) regions. • The migrations undertaken by trans-equatorial, long- Reporting rates are the percentage of surveys that report shorebirds. Data were provided by Australia. distance migratory shorebirds inspire many novices and researchers, apparently more than the fascinating breeding strategies of residents. • It is possible that research on resident species lends • On average, migrants may aggregate more frequently, itself to more individualistic investigators, while and in higher numbers, making them easier to study. migrants more frequently require the human resources • Migrants appear to be less geographically widespread in that the AWSG can offer. For example, nest watches Australia than residents (Figure 3). Many require very different human resources, and skills, to concentrations of migrants occur in coastal Australia those required for cannon-netting teams! where the bulk of the human population occurs (Yapp • The Australian Government, which has responsibility 1986). Exceptions include species which concentrate in for migratory shorebirds (e.g. under national legislation the north. Migrants may also more often use habitat that [the Environment Protection and Biodiversity is accessible to counters and researchers, though again Conservation Act], international agreements [e.g. the there are exceptions, such as the Little Curlew which Japan and China Migratory Bird Agreements]), and has occurs in extensive tracts of remote grassland. been a major supporter and funder of the AWSG (for • The AWSG is a relatively small group, with about 300 example, through the Natural Heritage Trust). The State members. A proportion of the membership is active, Governments, which have additional responsibilities for and only a fraction has assumed responsibility for resident shorebirds (though the Australian Government running activities and engaging in the strategic direction plays a leading role for threatened residents, such as of the group. The interests of a small number of people Australian Painted Snipe), have not been as prominent therefore have the potential to influence the activities of as a source of funding. There are exceptions (e.g. the the group. South Australian Department of Environment and

222 Stilt 50 ( 2006 ): 215–223 Are we neglecting non-migratory shorebirds?

Heritage which has supported the Coorong Project). REFERENCES This may be partly because States have tended to Christidis, L. & W. Boles. 1994. The taxonomy and species of support the state wader study groups instead of the birds of Australia and its territories. Birds Australia Monograph national group, and that there is effectively a 2. demarcation between regional groups which focus on Hayman, P., J. Marchant & T. Prater. 1986. Shorebirds: an residents and the national group which focuses on identification guide to the of the world. Croom Helm, migrants. It could be regional groups are less inclined to London. publish in Stilt . Howes, J. & D. Bakewell. 1989. Shorebird studies manual. Asian Wetland Bureau, Malaysia. The AWSG has attempted to initiate specific projects on Lane, B.A. & D.I. Rogers. 2000. The Australian Painted Snipe resident waders (Thomas 1988), and has enthusiastically Rostratula (benghalensis) australis : an endangered species? maintained ongoing projects on resident species, such as the Stilt 36: 26–34. Hooded Plover and Pied Oystercatcher counts. Thus, I Marchant, S. & P. Higgins. (Eds). 1993. The handbook of suggest any such bias has been deliberately minimised by the Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic birds. Volume 2. leadership of the AWSG. In many ways, the causes of bias Oxford University Press and Birds Australia, Melbourne. are irrelevant as we look to the future. Whether the bias is Milton, D., C. Minton & K. Gosbell. 2005. Are populations of migratory shorebirds in the East Asian Australasian Flyway at ‘corrected’ or not, the next 50 editions of Stilt will see a risk of decline? International Wader Studies 17: 153–157. wealth of study on both resident and migratory shorebirds. Piersma, T., P. Wiersma & J. Van Gils. 1997. The many An analysis similar to the one presented here, but involving unknowns about plovers and sandpipers of the world: 100 editions of Stilt , will be an interesting exercise for future introduction to a wealth of research opportunities highly authors. relevant to shorebird conservation. International Wader Study Group Bulletin 82: 23–33. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Priest, B., P. Straw & M.A. Weston. 2002. Shorebird conservation in Australia. Wingspan 12(4): 1–16. I wrote this paper as part of the project “Promoting Straw, P. 2005. Status and conservation of shorebirds in the East coexistence between beach-nesting birds and recreationists”, Asian–Australasian Flyway. International Wader Studies 17. hosted by Birds Australia and funded by the Australian Thomas, D. 1988. AWSG resident wader study. Stilt 13: 12. Government’s Natural Heritage Trust via the Port Phillip and Weston, M.A., M. Fendley, R. Jewell, M. Satchell & C.L. Westernport Catchment Management Authority. This paper Tzaros. 2003. Volunteers in bird conservation: insights from the Australian Threatened Bird Network. Ecological is intended to contribute constructively to shorebird study in Management and Restoration 4: 205–211. Australia, and I thank all AWSG members and supporters. I Weston, M.A., A. Silcocks, C.L. Tzaros & D. Ingwersen. 2006. thank Ken Gosbell, Ken Rogers and Grainne Maguire for A survey of contributors to an Australian bird atlassing project: useful comments on a draft manuscript. Andrew Silcocks demography, skills and motivation. Australian Journal on and Glenn Ehmke kindly generated the Atlas of Australian Volunteering 11: 51–58. Birds maps. Yapp, G.A. 1986. Aspects of population, recreation, and management of the Australian coastal zone. Coastal Zone Management Journal 14: 47–66.

223