DOCSLIB.ORG

YELLOW THROAT the Newsletter of Birdlife Tasmania: a Branch of Birdlife Australia Number 110, Winter 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
YELLOW THROAT the Newsletter of Birdlife Tasmania: a Branch of Birdlife Australia Number 110, Winter 2020 YELLOW THROAT The newsletter of BirdLife Tasmania: a branch of BirdLife Australia Number 110, Winter 2020 Welcome to all our new readers (supporters and new Contents members) to the Winter edition of Yellow Throat. Masked Lapwing—Is it breeding earlier this year…..2 Normally we would be letting you know when the Concern for Tasmania’s woodland birds………………...3 next BirdLife Tasmania General Meeting will be held and who will be speaking. Alas, we are still under More of the same—windfarms gaining approval through archaic assessment……………………………………..4 COVID-19 restrictions for now, and are unsure when the next meeting will take place, but it will not be be- Birdata is easy to use and helps our birdlife!...............7 fore September. Beneath the radar…………………………………………………….8 We will continue to provide updates in the e-bulletin What Happens to Out-of-Range Records in on the resumption of meetings, and also, of course, Birdata?.................................................................... .10 outings. At this stage, outings will hopefully resume in Any more oddities?....................................................11 August. In the meantime, enjoy the many interesting Bird - safe architecture…………………………………………. .12 articles we have in this issue of Yellow Throat; we South-east Tasmanian KBA report indicates climate - hope you are making the most of the birds in your related concern for some species………………………… ..14 local area. Birding in backyards initiative………………………………. ..17 In this issue of Yellow Throat, two programs are out- lined that allow the community to participate in bird Is your cat a killer?......................................................18 surveys. General Birdata surveys and Birds in Back- Cat management in Tasmania………………… .19 yards surveys are two different ways that people who Letter from the Raptor Refuge………………………………..20 love birds can record what they see. Just to ensure BirdLife Tasmania news and views there is no confusion – both use BirdLife Australia’s Convenors report……………………………………….. 21 Birdata portal, but are different ways to record data, and have different purposes and uses. Birding Walk—Arboretum…………………………….23 Dawn Chorus………………………………………………..23 General Birdata tracks changes in populations Book review throughout the country. It can alert researchers to Immy’s Endangered King Island Birds……….22 changes in a particular species’ population and the need for conservation measures. Links……………………………………………………………………….23 Birds in Backyards studies birds where people live, giving us a picture of the type of birds that are found in particular areas (see the link to the Ballarat data in Karen’s article). It is a good way for people to start out when they are new to recording bird surveys. So feel free to participate in one or both programs and read about Birdata surveys on pg. 7 and the Birds in Backyards program on pg. 17. If you have any concerns please email the Secretary: [email protected] Eds. 1 Masked Lapwing—Is it breeding earlier this year? BY MIKE NEWMAN Geoff Shannon observed newly-hatched Masked Lapwing chicks in the Forth area on 5th May. As Masked Lap- wing eggs are incubated for about 28 days this means that the clutch was laid early in April. In marked con- trast, during April some adults in south-east Tasmania were still in the process of persuading last year’s brood that it was time to leave their natal territories and join the flocks of non-breeders. Comparing notes with Geoff it appears there is a lag of about two months between breeding in the north and south of the state. While temperature is a possible reason for this difference, perhaps rainfall is equally or more important. Indeed, Geoff has noticed differences in timing between years over the last few breeding seasons, with this year being particularly early following good autumn rains. In the south-east the plovers are currently becoming more territorial and appear to be selecting nest sites, so early breeding may occur here as well. Between 1964 and 1967 an intensive study of the breeding behaviour of Masked Lapwings in south-east Tasmania by David Thomas (Emu 69, 81-102) found that the earliest clutches were laid in late June, but most pairs did not breed until the second half of July. The Masked Lapwing is a fascinating species. It almost invariably lays four eggs. Incubation does not com- mence in earnest until the clutch is nearly complete so that the eggs hatch within one or two days of each oth- er. Its eggs are laid in a scrape on the ground in a haphazard manner. In contrast, the Banded Lapwing is more fastidious and always organises its eggs symmetrically with pointed ends oriented inwards. The adults are calling to their young before the eggs hatch so that they recognise their voice and parental commands when they hatch. When the last egg hatches, the adults usually move the chicks some distance from the vicinity of the nest site. However, the family may return later during the six-week period from hatching to fledging. If you are lucky enough to live with breeding lapwings in your garden or nearby it is either a blessing or a curse – depending on whether you are a birder. While known as birds that dive-bomb the unwary to protect their nest or chicks, these birds, like magpies, can develop a mutually respectful relationship with resident birders. Masked Lapwing chick: Photo by Geoff Shannon 2 Concern for Tasmania’s woodland birds BY MIKE NEWMAN AND BARRY BAKER Ongoing evaluation of Tasmania’s Birdata indicates that many of Tasmania’s woodland birds are decreasing. This confirms what many of you suspected and is not surprising in view of the period of persistent low rainfall conditions which presently grip much of the state. However, there is increasing evidence that these decreases are also occurring in the wetter regions of the state, such as the NW coastal region between Penguin and Stanley and are not simply related to rainfall. Particularly hard hit are the Tasmania robins, as shown in the diagram below for north-west Tasmania, where Richard Ashby’s surveys give a perspective spanning two decades. The trends shown in the diagram are statis- tically significant. Equally compelling evidence is provided by data-sets from north-east Tasmania and the South Arm near Hobart, but these data-sets only cover the last ten years. Els and Bill Wakefield, in a study north of Hobart, indicated that numbers remained stable between 2009 and 2014, although whether there has been a decline in this region in the last six years is unknown. These results demonstrate the need for long-term monitoring to understand what is happening to our bird populations. The extent and persistence of these decreases are of extreme concern. We thank the many volunteers who have contributed to the Birdata survey effort. Scarlet robin: Photo by Barry Baker Dusky robin: Photo by Barry Baker 3 More of the same—windfarms gaining approval through archaic assessment BY NICK MOONEY It is disappointing to see that the next of many proposed windfarms, this time a 31-turbine job at Jim’s Plain SSW of Stanley, is another step closer to full approval based on some eagle assess- ments of unknown precision and arbitrary setting of minimum turbine-to-nest distances. Sadly, it appears that yet another chance has been lost to have accurate, modern assessment and monitoring methods applied. It also remains to be seen whether offsets that directly and de- monstrably benefit eagles are applied. Even if there was an epiphany by the regulator (essentially the EPA) and industry, it is actually too late now to apply those modern methods to anything other than seeing what happens at Jim’s Plain after commissioning. Still, as an engi- Source:https://epa.tas.gov.au/ Documents/Appendices%20A 20-20 B.pdf neer recently told me 'there will always be another windfarm'. The key assessments are an eagle nest search of areas within 1km of the site boundaries and an eagle utilisation survey of the site. Key management is having sufficient separation of nests and turbines, minimisation of disturbance to breeding during construction and reducing on-site hazards, including those other than turbines. Key monitoring issues are for mortalities and impacts on populations and then there are the yet-to-be detailed offsets. Eagle Nest Searches I was involved in the helicopter search of the area. Why 1km? It is a line-of site distance the EPA has cut and pasted from the distance I suggested thirty years ago to protect eagle nests from the disturbance of forestry operations. It was nothing to do with protecting them from lethal blades and for that purpose has no data basis. Therefore, it is arbitrary. The 1km distance is even more senseless now that turbines are reaching 250m in height, 50% more than the originals when the 1km distance was first set. Some turbines now loom over nests. We should have been studying the behaviour of eagles around nests and these sites by GPS tracking for years to give precise information on spatial intensity of activity to nominate protective distances. It is what other countries have been doing for quite a while. The nest search was good enough at the time but should be regarded as a temporary result. As with the dynamics introduced by forestry, it is likely nests come and go at a higher rate in these windfarm sites, disrupted as they are. Hence, forestry nest searches have a 2-year life span. Not so windfarms. Their searches years before commissioning are good for the regulator indefinitely. Some windfarm companies (eg Goldwind) at least make an effort to find and monitor nests much further afield, giving them the ability to realistically monitor impacts. Good for them.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Table 7: Species Changing IUCN Red List Status (2014-2015)
    IUCN Red List version 2015.4: Table 7 Last Updated: 19 November 2015 Table 7: Species changing IUCN Red List Status (2014-2015) Published listings of a species' status may change for a variety of reasons (genuine improvement or deterioration in status; new information being available that was not known at the time of the previous assessment; taxonomic changes; corrections to mistakes made in previous assessments, etc. To help Red List users interpret the changes between the Red List updates, a summary of species that have changed category between 2014 (IUCN Red List version 2014.3) and 2015 (IUCN Red List version 2015-4) and the reasons for these changes is provided in the table below. IUCN Red List Categories: EX - Extinct, EW - Extinct in the Wild, CR - Critically Endangered, EN - Endangered, VU - Vulnerable, LR/cd - Lower Risk/conservation dependent, NT - Near Threatened (includes LR/nt - Lower Risk/near threatened), DD - Data Deficient, LC - Least Concern (includes LR/lc - Lower Risk, least concern). Reasons for change: G - Genuine status change (genuine improvement or deterioration in the species' status); N - Non-genuine status change (i.e., status changes due to new information, improved knowledge of the criteria, incorrect data used previously, taxonomic revision, etc.); E - Previous listing was an Error. IUCN Red List IUCN Red Reason for Red List Scientific name Common name (2014) List (2015) change version Category Category MAMMALS Aonyx capensis African Clawless Otter LC NT N 2015-2 Ailurus fulgens Red Panda VU EN N 2015-4
    [Show full text]
  • Nordmann's Greenshank Population Analysis, at Pantai Cemara Jambi
    Final Report Nordmann’s Greenshank Population Analysis, at Pantai Cemara Jambi Cipto Dwi Handono1, Ragil Siti Rihadini1, Iwan Febrianto1 and Ahmad Zulfikar Abdullah1 1Yayasan Ekologi Satwa Alam Liar Indonesia (Yayasan EKSAI/EKSAI Foundation) Surabaya, Indonesia Background Many shorebirds species have declined along East Asian-Australasian Flyway which support the highest diversity of shorebirds in the world, including the globally endangered species, Nordmann’s Greenshank. Nordmann’s Greenshank listed as endangered in the IUCN Red list of Threatened Species because of its small and declining population (BirdLife International, 2016). It’s one of the world’s most threatened shorebirds, is confined to the East Asian–Australasian Flyway (Bamford et al. 2008, BirdLife International 2001, 2012). Its global population is estimated at 500–1,000, with an estimated 100 in Malaysia, 100–200 in Thailand, 100 in Myanmar, plus unknown but low numbers in NE India, Bangladesh and Sumatra (Wetlands International 2006). The population is suspected to be rapidly decreasing due to coastal wetland development throughout Asia for industry, infrastructure and aquaculture, and the degradation of its breeding habitat in Russia by grazing Reindeer Rangifer tarandus (BirdLife International 2012). Mostly Nordmann’s Greenshanks have been recorded in very small numbers throughout Southeast Asia, and there are few places where it has been reported regularly. In Myanmar, for example, it was rediscovered after a gap of almost 129 years. The total count recorded by the Asian Waterbird Census (AWC) in 2006 for Myanmar was 28 birds with 14 being the largest number at a single locality (Naing 2007). In 2011–2012, Nordmann’s Greenshank was found three times in Sumatera Utara province, N Sumatra.
    [Show full text]
  • The Systematic Position of the Surfbird, Aphriza Virgata
    THE SYSTEMATIC POSITION OF THE SURFBIRD, APHRIZA VIRGATA JOSEPH R. JEHL, JR. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 The taxonomic relationships of the Surfbird, ( 1884) elevated the tumstone-Surfbird unit Aphriza virgata, have long been one of the to family rank. But, although they stated (p. most controversial problems in shorebird clas- 126) that Aphrizu “agrees very closely” with sification. Although the species has been as- Arenaria, the only points of similarity men- signed to a monotypic family (Shufeldt 1888; tioned were “robust feet, without trace of web Ridgway 1919), most modern workers agree between toes, the well formed hind toe, and that it should be placed with the turnstones the strong claws; the toes with a lateral margin ( Arenaria spp. ) in the subfamily Arenariinae, forming a broad flat under surface.” These even though they have reached no consensuson differences are hardly sufficient to support the affinities of this subfamily. For example, familial differentiation, or even to suggest Lowe ( 1931), Peters ( 1934), Storer ( 1960), close generic relationship. and Wetmore (1965a) include the Arenariinae Coues (1884605) was uncertain about the in the Scolopacidae (sandpipers), whereas Surfbirds’ relationships. He called it “a re- Wetmore (1951) and the American Ornithol- markable isolated form, perhaps a plover and ogists ’ Union (1957) place it in the Charadri- connecting this family with the next [Haema- idae (plovers). The reasons for these diverg- topodidae] by close relationships with Strep- ent views have never been stated. However, it silas [Armaria], but with the hind toe as well seems that those assigning the Arenariinae to developed as usual in Sandpipers, and general the Charadriidae have relied heavily on their appearance rather sandpiper-like than plover- views of tumstone relationships, because schol- like.
    [Show full text]
  • Tasmanian Bird Report 38
    Tasmanian Bird Report 38 July 2017 BirdLife Tasmania, a branch of BirdLife Australia Editor, Wynne Webber TASMANIA The Tasmanian Bird Report is published by BirdLife Tasmania, a regional branch of BirdLife Australia Number 38 © 2017 BirdLife Tasmania, GPO Box 68, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia 7001 ISSN 0156-4935 This publication is copyright. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may, except for the purposes of study or research, be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing of BirdLife Tasmania or the respective paper’s author(s). Acknowledgments NRM South, through funding from the Australian Government’s National Landcare Programme, has provided financial assistance for the publication of this report. We thank them both for this contribution. Contents Editorial iv Wynne Webber State of Tasmania’s terrestrial birds 2014–15 1 Mike Newman, Nick Ramshaw, Sue Drake, Eric Woehler, Andrew Walter and Wynne Webber Risk of anticoagulant rodenticides to Tasmanian raptors 17 Nick Mooney Oddities of behaviour and occurrence 26 Compiler, Wynne Webber When is the best time to survey shorebirds? 31 Stephen Walsh A Eurasian Coot nests in Hobart 32 William E. Davis, Jr Changes in bird populations on Mt Wellington over a 40-year period 34 Mike Newman 2016 Summer and winter wader counts 44 (incorporating corrected tables for 2015 summer counts) Eric Woehler and Sue Drake Editorial In this Tasmanian Bird Report we institute what is hoped to be a useful and ongoing enterprise, which replaces the systematic lists of earlier years: a report on ‘The state of Tasmania’s birds’.
    [Show full text]
  • Pages 345–366850.31 KB
    Conservation Science W. Aust. 8 (3) : 345–366 (2013) Wader numbers and distribution on Eighty Mile Beach, north-west Australia: baseline counts for the period 1981–2003 CLIVE MINTON 1, MICHAEL CONNOR 2, DAVID PRICE 3, ROSALIND JESSOP 4, PETER COLLINS 5, HUMPHREY SITTERS 6, CHRIS HASSELL 7, GRANT PEARSON 8, DANNY ROGERS 9 1 165 Dalgetty Road Beaumaris, Victoria 3193 2 19 Pamela Grove Lower Templestowe, Victoria 3107 [email protected] 3 8 Scattor View Bridford, Exeter, Devon EX6 7JF, UK 4 Phillip Island Nature Park, PO Box 97 Cowes, Victoria 3922 5 214 Doveton Crescent Soldiers Hill, Ballarat, Victoria 3350 6 Higher Wyndcliffe Barline, Beer, Seaton, Devon EX12 3LP, UK 7 PO Box 3089 Broome, Western Australia 6725 8 Western Australian Department of Parks and Wildlife, PO Box 51 Wanneroo, Western Australia 6065 9 340 Ninks Road St Andrews, Victoria 3761 ABSTRACT This paper analyses ground counts and aerial surveys of high-tide wader roosts conducted over the 23-year period from 1981 to 2003, at Eighty Mile Beach, north-west Australia. It provides a baseline data set with which later count data can be compared. Over the study period, Eighty Mile Beach held a maximum of around 470,000 waders in any given year. This represented around 20% of the total number of migratory waders visiting Australia each year and around 6% of the total East Asian – Australasian Flyway migratory wader population. The most numerous species were great knot (169,000), bar-tailed godwit (110,000), greater sand plover (65,000) and oriental plover (58,000).
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Breeding Stopover Sites of Waders in the Estuaries of the Khairusovo, Belogolovaya and Moroshechnaya Rivers, Western Kamchatka Peninsula, Russia, 2010–2012
    Post-breeding stopover sites of waders in the estuaries of the Khairusovo, Belogolovaya and Moroshechnaya rivers, western Kamchatka Peninsula, Russia, 2010–2012 Dmitry S. Dorofeev1 & Fedor V. Kazansky2 1 All-Russian Research Institute for Nature Protection (ARRINP), Znamenskoe-Sadki, Moscow, 117628 Russia [email protected] 2 Kronotsky State Biosphere Reserve, Ryabikova St. 48, Elizovo, Kamchatskiy Kray, 68400 Russia. [email protected] Dorofeev, D.S. & Kazansky, F.V. 2013. Post-breeding stopover sites of waders in the estuaries of the Khairusovo, Belogolovaya and Moroshechnaya rivers, western Kamchatka Peninsula, Russia, 2010–2012. Wader Study Group Bull. 120(2): 119–123. Keywords: East Asian–Australasian Flyway, Kamchatka, waders, stopover site, resightings During the northern summer and autumn seasons of 2010–2012 we collected data on the numbers of waders that stop on the estuaries of the rivers Khairusovo, Belogolovaya and Moroshechnaya on the west-central coast of the Kamchatka Peninsula, Russia. Among known wader stopovers on the west coast of Kamchatka, this is the area that supports the largest numbers. We found that the most abundant species were Great Knot Calidris tenuirostris, Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica, Black-tailed Godwit L. limosa and Red-necked Stint C. ruficollis. Two globally-threatened species were also recorded: Eastern Curlew Numenius madagascarensis and Spoon-billed Sandpiper Eurynorhynchus pygmeus. At least 35 Great Knots colour-marked in NW Australia, one from South Australia and two from China were recorded in the area. We also observed several colour- marked Bar-tailed Godwits, Red-necked Stints and a Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres marked in different areas of Australia and in China.
    [Show full text]
  • EPBC Act Referral Is Complete, Current and Correct
    Submission #2895 - Robbins Island Renewable Energy Park, Robbins Island, Tasmania Title of Proposal - Robbins Island Renewable Energy Park, Robbins Island, Tasmania Section 1 - Summary of your proposed action Provide a summary of your proposed action, including any consultations undertaken. 1.1 Project Industry Type Energy Generation and Supply (renewable) 1.2 Provide a detailed description of the proposed action, including all proposed activities. Please see letter for detailed description of the proposed action, attached at 1.4. 1.3 What is the extent and location of your proposed action? Use the polygon tool on the map below to mark the location of your proposed action. Area Point Latitude Longitude Robbins Island 1 -40.674899476105 145.00381304524 Robbins Island 2 -40.678232305635 145.00655962727 Robbins Island 3 -40.68156496855 145.01397539038 Robbins Island 4 -40.684689176792 145.02660966353 Robbins Island 5 -40.68427259873 145.03155351957 Robbins Island 6 -40.68427259873 145.03484940962 Robbins Island 7 -40.682606387569 145.03924395764 Robbins Island 8 -40.682189796489 145.0417158647 Robbins Island 9 -40.680315231537 145.04528642972 Robbins Island 10 -40.680106929163 145.04858231978 Robbins Island 11 -40.680106929163 145.04968095678 Robbins Island 12 -40.682189796489 145.04775835774 Robbins Island 13 -40.68156496855 145.04611041271 Robbins Island 14 -40.683231205745 145.04446244673 Robbins Island 15 -40.684689176792 145.04501177571 Robbins Island 16 -40.685522261546 145.04720902876 Robbins Island 17 -40.686147084167 145.0447371217
    [Show full text]
  • SIS) – 2017 Version
    Information Sheet on EAA Flyway Network Sites Information Sheet on EAA Flyway Network Sites (SIS) – 2017 version Available for download from http://www.eaaflyway.net/about/the-flyway/flyway-site-network/ Categories approved by Second Meeting of the Partners of the East Asian-Australasian Flyway Partnership in Beijing, China 13-14 November 2007 - Report (Minutes) Agenda Item 3.13 Notes for compilers: 1. The management body intending to nominate a site for inclusion in the East Asian - Australasian Flyway Site Network is requested to complete a Site Information Sheet. The Site Information Sheet will provide the basic information of the site and detail how the site meets the criteria for inclusion in the Flyway Site Network. When there is a new nomination or an SIS update, the following sections with an asterisk (*), from Questions 1-14 and Question 30, must be filled or updated at least so that it can justify the international importance of the habitat for migratory waterbirds. 2. The Site Information Sheet is based on the Ramsar Information Sheet. If the site proposed for the Flyway Site Network is an existing Ramsar site then the documentation process can be simplified. 3. Once completed, the Site Information Sheet (and accompanying map(s)) should be submitted to the Flyway Partnership Secretariat. Compilers should provide an electronic (MS Word) copy of the Information Sheet and, where possible, digital versions (e.g. shapefile) of all maps. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of Tasmania's Offshore Islands and Their Role in Nature
    Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania, Volume 154, 2020 83 OVERVIEW OF TASMANIA’S OFFSHORE ISLANDS AND THEIR ROLE IN NATURE CONSERVATION by Sally L. Bryant and Stephen Harris (with one text-figure, two tables, eight plates and two appendices) Bryant, S.L. & Harris, S. 2020 (9:xii): Overview of Tasmania’s offshore islands and their role in nature conservation.Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 154: 83–106. https://doi.org/10.26749/rstpp.154.83 ISSN: 0080–4703. Tasmanian Land Conservancy, PO Box 2112, Lower Sandy Bay, Tasmania 7005, Australia (SLB*); Department of Archaeology and Natural History, College of Asia and the Pacific, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601 (SH). *Author for correspondence: Email: [email protected] Since the 1970s, knowledge of Tasmania’s offshore islands has expanded greatly due to an increase in systematic and regional surveys, the continuation of several long-term monitoring programs and the improved delivery of pest management and translocation programs. However, many islands remain data-poor especially for invertebrate fauna, and non-vascular flora, and information sources are dispersed across numerous platforms. While more than 90% of Tasmania’s offshore islands are statutory reserves, many are impacted by a range of disturbances, particularly invasive species with no decision-making framework in place to prioritise their management. This paper synthesises the significant contribution offshore islands make to Tasmania’s land-based natural assets and identifies gaps and deficiencies hampering their protection. A continuing focus on detailed gap-filling surveys aided by partnership restoration programs and collaborative national forums must be strengthened if we are to capitalise on the conservation benefits islands provide in the face of rapidly changing environmental conditions and pressure for future use.
    [Show full text]
  • Nowhere Else on Earth
    Nowhere Else on Earth: Tasmania’s Marine Natural Values Environment Tasmania is a not-for-profit conservation council dedicated to the protection, conservation and rehabilitation of Tasmania’s natural environment. Australia’s youngest conservation council, Environment Tasmania was established in 2006 and is a peak body representing over 20 Tasmanian environment groups. Prepared for Environment Tasmania by Dr Karen Parsons of Aquenal Pty Ltd. Report citation: Parsons, K. E. (2011) Nowhere Else on Earth: Tasmania’s Marine Natural Values. Report for Environment Tasmania. Aquenal, Tasmania. ISBN: 978-0-646-56647-4 Graphic Design: onetonnegraphic www.onetonnegraphic.com.au Online: Visit the Environment Tasmania website at: www.et.org.au or Ocean Planet online at www.oceanplanet.org.au Partners: With thanks to the The Wilderness Society Inc for their financial support through the WildCountry Small Grants Program, and to NRM North and NRM South. Front Cover: Gorgonian fan with diver (Photograph: © Geoff Rollins). 2 Waterfall Bay cave (Photograph: © Jon Bryan). Acknowledgements The following people are thanked for their assistance The majority of the photographs in the report were with the compilation of this report: Neville Barrett of the generously provided by Graham Edgar, while the following Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS) at the additional contributors are also acknowledged: Neville University of Tasmania for providing information on key Barrett, Jane Elek, Sue Wragge, Chris Black, Jon Bryan, features of Tasmania’s marine
    [Show full text]
  • Information Sheet on Flyway Network Sites (SIS)
    Roebuck Bay, EAAF SIS Information Sheet on Flyway Network Sites (SIS) Available for download from http://www.eaaflyway.net/information-sites-maps.php Categories approved by Second Meeting of the Partners Partnership for the East Asian- Australasian Flyway Beijing, China 13-14 November 2007 Report (Minutes) Agenda Item 3.13 Notes for compilers: 1. The management body intending to nominate a site for inclusion in the East Asian - Australasian Flyway Site Network is requested to complete a Site Information Sheet. The Site Information Sheet will provide the basic information of the site and detail how the site meets the criteria for inclusion in the Flyway Site Network. 2. The Site Information Sheet has been divided into two sections. Part 1 (Section 1-14) seeks basic information on the site and it is essential that it be completed. Part 2 seeks additional information and is optional. 3. The Site Information Sheet is based on the Ramsar Information Sheet. If the site proposed for the Flyway Site Network is an existing Ramsar site then the documentation process can be simplified. In this case the National Government Partner need only send a copy of the existing sheets with additional details on Question 1 and 10 of the Flyway Site Information Sheet. 4. Once completed, the Site Information Sheet (and accompanying map(s)) should be submitted to the Flyway Partnership Secretariat. Compilers should provide an electronic (MS Word) copy of the Information Sheet and, where possible, digital copies of all maps. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • Roost Selection of the Endangered Spotted Greenshank (Tringa Guttifer) in Critical Habitat in the Inner Gulf of Thailand Chenxing Yu1*, Dusit Ngoprasert1, Philip D
    Yu et al. Avian Res (2019) 10:9 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40657-019-0148-7 Avian Research RESEARCH Open Access Roost selection of the endangered Spotted Greenshank (Tringa guttifer) in critical habitat in the Inner Gulf of Thailand Chenxing Yu1*, Dusit Ngoprasert1, Philip D. Round2, Andrew J. Pierce1, Tommaso Savini1 and George A. Gale1 Abstract Background: Roost-site quality can signifcantly afect the individual ftness of shorebirds, but roost sites remain poorly described for many threatened species on the East Asian–Australasian Flyway. We studied roost-site selection of the globally endangered Spotted Greenshank (Tringa guttifer) in the Inner Gulf of Thailand, an area which supports approximately 24% of their global wintering population, during two non-breeding seasons (October 2014–May 2015 and December 2015–February 2016). Methods: We measured nine variables associated with roost site characteristics including water depth, indicators of disturbance/predation risk, and associations with other shorebird species. We predicted that roost ponds with shallow water in proximity to foraging sites would receive higher usage than those further away. Results: A total of 94 sites were measured of which 46 were used for roosts with 23 used repeatedly. All used sites were human-modifed ponds, of which 44 were used for salt farming and two used for aquaculture. Roosts were on average 1.10 0.78 (SE) km from foraging sites and 5.8 2.4 cm deep. The most supported model indicated that roost sites were negatively± associated with distance to foraging± sites and positively associated with the presence of Grey Plover (Pluvialis squatarola) and water depth.
    [Show full text]