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 Wader 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 plovers and sandpipers 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 plover and sandpiper 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 India) 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, taxonomy, 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 Calidris 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 Snipe 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 China* 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 Vietnam All Laos All was required because articles were not always clearly Thailand 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.