Free Standard AU & NZ Shipping For All Book Orders Over $80!
Register      Login
Emu Emu Society
Journal of BirdLife Australia
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > MU > MU05006
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 106(1)

Nest concealment but not human visitation predicts predation of New Holland Honeyeater nests

Sarah Lambert A and Sonia Kleindorfer A B
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A School of Biological Sciences, Flinders University, Bedford Park, Adelaide, SA 5042, Australia.

B Corresponding author. Email: sonia.kleindorfer@flinders.edu.au

Emu 106(1) 63-68 https://doi.org/10.1071/MU05006
Submitted: 28 January 2005  Accepted: 10 January 2006   Published: 10 March 2006

Abstract

The vegetation characteristics surrounding 31 New Holland Honeyeater nest-sites were measured in two study sites in the Mount Lofty Ranges, South Australia, to determine if predation outcome (depredated or fledged) covaried with vegetation parameters. We controlled for the influence of human visitation level on nesting outcome through an experimental design, randomly allocating each encountered nest to low or high levels of visitation by the observer. We compared nest vegetation parameters for the two visitation level groups and found no significant differences across experimental treatments. There was also no effect of human visitation level on predation outcome. In contrast, nest-concealment variables (percentage cover above, below, at sides and canopy cover) were significantly related to levels of predation, as revealed using binary logistic regression. In particular, the variable nest concealment to the sides was important for predation outcome, with lower levels of predation at concealed nests. The identity of the nest predators remained unknown.


Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the Birds for Biodiversity Program of the Conservation Council of South Australia through an award to SK and was approved by the Animal Welfare Committee at Flinders University (E190). We thank Belinda Cale for sharing invaluable field knowledge and assistance with nest searches; Steffen Schultz for able nest monitoring; and for short-term assistance in the field, Greg Kerr and Alan Crabb. Our warmest thanks are extended to David Paton, Peter Cale, Belinda Cale and Steffen Schultz for stimulating discussion during the course of the project.


References

Barrett G., Silcocks A., Barry S., Cunningham R., and Poulter R. (2003). ‘The New Atlas of Australian Birds.’ (Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union: Melbourne.)

Bayly, K. L. , and Blumstein, D. T. (2001). Pied Currawongs and the decline of native birds. Emu 101, 199–204.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Garnett S. T., and Crowley G. (2000). ‘The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2000.’ (Environment Australia (Commonwealth of Australia): Canberra.)

Gottfried, B. M. , and Thompson, C. F. (1978). Experimental analysis of nest predation in an old-field habitat. Auk 95, 304–312.
Higgins P. J., Peter J. M., and Steele W. K. (Eds) (2001). ‘Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Volume 5: Tyrant-flycatchers to Chats.’ (Oxford University Press: Melbourne.)

Hoover, J. P. , and Brittingham, M. C. (1998). Nest-site selection and nesting success of Wood Thrushes. Wilson Bulletin 110, 375–383.
Martin T. E. (1992). Breeding productivity considerations: what are the appropriate habitat features for management? In ‘Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Land Birds’. (Eds J. M. Hagan and D. W. Johnston.) pp. 455–473. (Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, DC.)

Martin, T. E. (1993a). Nest predation among vegetation layers and habitat types: revising the dogmas. American Naturalist 141, 897–913.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Pallant J. ((2001). ).‘SPSS Survival Manual.’ (Allen and Unwin: Sydney.)

Pärt, T. (2001). Experimental evidence of environmental effects on age-specific reproductive success: the importance of resource quality. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences 268, 2267–2271.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Paton, D. C. (1985). Do New Holland Honeyeaters Phylidonyris novaehollandiae breed regularly in spring and autumn? Emu 85, 130–133.


Paton, D. C. , and Paton, J. B. (1980). The birds of Scott Conservation Park. South Australian Ornithologist 28, 120–126.


Recher, H. F. (1977). Ecology of co-existing White-cheeked and New Holland Honeyeaters. Emu 77, 136–142.


Remeš, V. (2005). Birds and rodents destroy different nests: a study of Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla using the removal of nest concealment. Ibis 147, 213–216.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Remeš, V. , and Martin, T. E. (2002). Environmental influences on the evolution of growth and developmental rates in passerines. Evolution 56, 2505–2518.
| PubMed |

Ricklefs, R. E. (1969). An analysis of nesting mortality in birds. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 9, 1–48.


Rix, C. E. (1976). The birds of Sandy Creek Conservation Park. Australian Bird Watcher 6, 209–222.


Rooke, I. J. (1976). A measurement for sexing New Holland Honeyeaters. Australian Bird Bander 14, 72.


Weidinger, K. (2002). Interactive effects of concealment, parental behaviour and predators on the survival of open passerine nests. Journal of Animal Ecology 71, 424–437.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |