Improving population estimates of Glossy Black-Cockatoos (Calyptorhynchus lathami) using photo-identification
Elizabeth R. Williams A B and Bruce Thomson A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A Centre for Mined Land Rehabilitation, Sustainable Minerals Institute, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia.
B Corresponding author. Email: drelizabethrwilliams@gmail.com
Emu 115(4) 360-367 https://doi.org/10.1071/MU15041
Submitted: 22 May 2015 Accepted: 27 June 2015 Published: 11 August 2015
Abstract
Site-based population estimates of the threatened Glossy Black-Cockatoo (‘GBC’; Calyptorhynchus lathami) are often calculated based on age and sex details from transect counts. However, these estimates do not distinguish individual birds, which may result in over- or under-estimation of the population. Two methods were used to estimate GBC populations in Mugii Murum-ban State Conservation Area, New South Wales: (1) the traditional transect method, and (2) a photographic method, which used plumage patterns (primarily the yellow facial feathers of females) and other supporting features to discriminate between foraging GBC family units. The second method has been used previously on Kangaroo Island, South Australia. A catalogue with a matrix of discriminating features was established based on the photographic method; this resulted in a higher population estimate than the transect method in two seasons (winter and spring), as well as providing an annual population estimate, and information on breeding dynamics and local movement of individual family units between foraging habitat. Recommendations for the application of the photographic method are provided. The method provides benefits at both the local scale (with more accurate site population estimates and information on population dynamics) and, with widespread adoption and national cataloguing, valuable knowledge on regional movement patterns and distribution.
References
Anderson, C. J., Roth, J. D., and Waterman, J. M. (2007). Can whisker spot patterns be used to identify individual polar bears? Journal of Zoology 273, 333–339.| Can whisker spot patterns be used to identify individual polar bears?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Arnett, A. E., and Pepper, J. W. (1997). Evidence of mate guarding in the Glossy Black-cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami. Emu 97, 177–180.
| Evidence of mate guarding in the Glossy Black-cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bolger, D. T., Morrison, T. A., Vance, B., Lee, D., and Farid, H. (2012). A computer-assisted system for photographic mark-recapture analysis. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3, 813–822.
| A computer-assisted system for photographic mark-recapture analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bradfield, K. S. (2004). ‘Photographic Identification of Individual Archey’s Frogs, Leiopelma archeyi, from Natural Markings.’ DOC Science Internal Series 191. (Department of Conservation: Wellington, NZ.)
Bretagnolle, V., Thibault, J.-C., and Dominici, J.-M. (1994). Field identification of individual ospreys using head marking pattern. The Journal of Wildlife Management 58, 175–178.
| Field identification of individual ospreys using head marking pattern.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Brodkorb, P. (1951). The number of feathers in some birds. Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy of Sciences 12, 241–245.
Carlos Senar, J., Carillo-Ortiz, J., and Arroyo, L. (2012). Numbered neck collars for long-distance identification of parakeets. Journal of Field Ornithology 83, 180–185.
| Numbered neck collars for long-distance identification of parakeets.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Courtney, J. (1986). Plumage development and breeding biology of the Glossy Black-Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami. Australian Bird Watcher 11, 261–273.
Davies, T. K., Stevens, G., Meekan, M. G., Struve, J., and Rowcliffe, J. M. (2012). Can citizen science monitor whale-shark aggregations? Investigating bias in mark-recapture modelling using identification photographs sources from the public. Wildlife Research 39, 696–704.
| Can citizen science monitor whale-shark aggregations? Investigating bias in mark-recapture modelling using identification photographs sources from the public.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts (2014). Targeted species survey guidelines: Glossy black-cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami. Queensland Government Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts, Brisbane, Qld.
Emery, L., and Wydoski, R. (1987). ‘Marking and Tagging of Aquatic Animals: An Indexed Bibliography’. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Washington, DC.)
Forshaw, J. M., and Cooper, W. T. (2002). ‘Australian Parrots’. (Alexander Editions: Robina, Qld.)
Garnett, S. T., Pedler, L. P., and Crowley, G. M. (1999). The breeding biology of the Glossy Black-Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami on Kangaroo Island, South Australia. Emu 99, 262–279.
| The breeding biology of the Glossy Black-Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami on Kangaroo Island, South Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Garnett, S., Szabo, J., and Dutson, G. (2010). ‘The Action Plan for Australian Birds’. (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne, Vic.)
Gilkinson, A. K., Pearson, H. C., Weltz, F., and Davis, R. W. (2007). Photo-identification of sea otters using nose scars. The Journal of Wildlife Management 71, 2045–2051.
| Photo-identification of sea otters using nose scars.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Glossy Black Conservancy (2010). Glossy Black-Cockatoo conservation guidelines for south-eastern Queensland and far north-eastern New South Wales. Glossy Black Conservancy, Capalaba, Qld.)
Glossy Black Conservancy (ND). Living with Glossy Blacks: Glossy Black-Cockatoo identification. Glossy Black Fact Sheet No. 4. Available at http://www.glossyblack.org.au/pdf/Glossy%20Black%20Fact%20Sheet%204.pdf [Verified 10 November 2013].
Guzman, H. M., Condit, R., Pérez-Ortega, B., Capella, J. J., and Stevick, P. T. (2015). Population size and migratory connectivity of humpback whales wintering in Las Perlas Archipelago, Panama. Marine Mammal Science 31, 90–105.
| Population size and migratory connectivity of humpback whales wintering in Las Perlas Archipelago, Panama.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hammond, P. S., Mizroch, S. A. and Donovan, G. P. (1990). Report of the workshop on individual recognition and the estimation of cetacean population parameters. In ‘Individual recognition of cetaceans: use of photo‐identification and other techniques to estimate population parameters’. (Eds P. S. Hammond, S. A. Mizroch and G. P. Donovan.) pp. 3–40. (International Whaling Commission: Cambridge, UK.)
Heilbrun, R. D., Silvy, J. J., Tewes, M. E., and Peterson, M. J. (2003). Using automatically triggered cameras to individually identify bobcats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31, 748–755.
Higgins, P. J. (Ed.) (1999). ‘Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds: Parrots to Dollarbird. Vol. 4.’ (Oxford University Press: Melbourne, VIC.)
Janes, S. W. (1984). Influences of territory composition and interspecific competition on red-tailed hawk reproduction success. Ecology 65, 862–870.
| Influences of territory composition and interspecific competition on red-tailed hawk reproduction success.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Jiménez-Franco, M. V., Martínez, J. E., Pagán, I., and Calvo, J. F. (2013). Factors determining territory fidelity in a migratory forest raptor, the Booted Eagle Hieraaetus pennatus. Journal für Ornithologie 154, 311–318.
| Factors determining territory fidelity in a migratory forest raptor, the Booted Eagle Hieraaetus pennatus.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Jolly, G. M. (1965). Explicit estimates from capture-recapture data with both death and immigration – Stochastic mode. Biometrika 52, 225–248.
| Explicit estimates from capture-recapture data with both death and immigration – Stochastic mode.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaF2M7ks1WktQ%3D%3D&md5=ed354a58f7f0e00c5bc47212903e6fd8CAS | 14341276PubMed |
Joseph, L. (1984). Some notes on the plumage phases of the Glossy Black-Cockatoo. Corella 8, 16–18.
Krüger, O. (2002). Interactions between common buzzard Buteo buteo and goshawk Accipiter gentilis: trade-offs revealed by a field experiment. Oikos 96, 441–452.
| Interactions between common buzzard Buteo buteo and goshawk Accipiter gentilis: trade-offs revealed by a field experiment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Low, T. (2014). ‘Where Song Began’. (Penguin Random House: Melbourne, Vic.)
Marshall, A. D., and Pierce, S. J. (2012). The use and abuse of photographic identification in sharks and rays. Journal of Fish Biology 80, 1361–1379.
| The use and abuse of photographic identification in sharks and rays.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC38rksVOrug%3D%3D&md5=031db364a9efecd9ce56ac16e5194535CAS | 22497388PubMed |
Nichols, J. D., Kendall, W. L., and Runge, M. C. (2004). Estimating survival and movement. In ‘Bird Ecology and Conservation: A Handbook of Techniques’. (Eds W.J. Sutherland, I. Newton & R.E. Green) pp. 119–139. (Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.)
Patton, F. J., and Campbell, P. E. (2011). Using eye and profile wrinkles to identify individual white rhinos. Pachyderm 50, 84–86.
Pennycuick, C. J. (1978). Identification using natural markings. In ‘Animal Marking: Recognition Markings of Animals in Research’. (Ed. B. Stonehouse) pp. 147–159. (MacMillan Press Ltd: London, UK.)
Pennycuick, C. J., and Rudnai, J. (1970). A method of identifying individual lions, Panthera leo, with an analysis of the reliability of the identification. Journal of Zoology 160, 497–508.
| A method of identifying individual lions, Panthera leo, with an analysis of the reliability of the identification.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pepper, J. W. (1996). The behavioural ecology of the Glossy Black-Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami halmaturinus. PhD thesis, University of Michigan, MI.
Romero, L. M., and Romero, R. C. (2002). Corticosterone responses in wild birds: The importance of rapid initial sampling. The Condor 104, 129–135.
| Corticosterone responses in wild birds: The importance of rapid initial sampling.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sacchi, R., Scali, S., Pelitteri-Rosa, D., Pupin, F., Gentilli, A., Tettamanti, S., Cavigioli, L., Racina, L., Maiocchi, V., Galeotti, P., and Fasola, M. (2010). Photographic identification in reptiles: a matter of scales. Amphibia-Reptilia 31, 489–502.
| Photographic identification in reptiles: a matter of scales.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Seber, G. A. F. (1965). A note on the multiple-recapture census. Biometrika 52, 249–260.
| A note on the multiple-recapture census.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaF2M7ks1Wkug%3D%3D&md5=faf1af5efdad095afb509cafcc20c3f1CAS |
Sherley, R. B., Burghardt, T., Barham, P. J., Campbell, N., and Cuthill, I. C. (2010). Spotting the difference: towards fully-automated population monitoring of African penguins Spheniscus demersus. Endangered Species Research 11, 101–111.
| Spotting the difference: towards fully-automated population monitoring of African penguins Spheniscus demersus.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Silvy, N. J., Lopez, R. R., and Peterson, M. J. (2005). Wildlife marking techniques. In ‘Techniques for Wildlife Investigations and Management’. (Ed. C.E. Braun) pp. 339–376. (The Wildlife Society: Bethesda, MD.)
Wetmore, A. (1936). The number of contour feathers in Passeriform and related birds. The Auk 53, 159–169.
| The number of contour feathers in Passeriform and related birds.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Würsig, B., and Jefferson, T. A. (1990). Methods of photo-identification for small cetaceans. Report of the International Whaling Commission. Special Issue 12, 43–55.