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 > MU06040
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 107(2)

A study of the foraging ecology of the White-throated Treecreeper (Cormobates leucophaeus)

D. B. Lindenmayer A C , R. B. Cunningham A and A. Weekes B
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Centre for Resource & Environmental Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia.

B School for Resources, Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia.

C Corresponding author. Email: davidl@cres.anu.edu.au

Emu 107(2) 135-142 https://doi.org/10.1071/MU06040
Submitted: 31 August 2006  Accepted: 5 April 2007   Published: 15 June 2007

Abstract

We quantified the foraging ecology of the White-throated Treecreeper (Cormobates leucophaeus) in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), south-eastern Australia, where it is the sole species of treecreeper present, and where a rough-barked eucalypt (Red Stringybark (Eucalyptus macrorhyncha)) and a smooth-barked eucalypt (Inland Scribbly Gum (Eucalyptus rossii)) are the dominant tree species. We examined relationships among foraging observations and variables including tree species, tree size, part of tree (substrate), time of day and month. We also quantified the kinds of foraging techniques used by the White-throated Treecreeper on different type and sizes of trees and at different times of the year. The White-throated Treecreeper more commonly foraged on Red Stringybark than on Inland Scribbly Gum. On Red Stringybark, the birds foraged more frequently on the trunk (above 4 m) and large branches than on other substrates. This trend was less marked on Inland Scribbly Gum, where dead branches were most often used for foraging. Foraging techniques that allowed rapid searching of each tree were those employed most commonly. Of these techniques, gleaning was most common (>50% of foraging time), but peering also was common. Drilling was most commonly performed on dead substrates. Foraging techniques employed by the White-throated Treecreeper changed significantly from morning to afternoon, with an increase in peering in afternoons. An increase in peering was observed for both sexes in April, but the magnitude of the increase was greater for females. White-throated Treecreepers in the ACT foraged more commonly on rough-barked eucalypts and exhibited less intraspecific resource partitioning between sexes than reported from other regions. Some of these differences may be related to contrasts in bird assemblages, particularly the absence of other bark-foraging species which may, in turn, reduce levels of intraspecific (gender-based) competition and resource partitioning. They also may be associated with differences in habitat attributes and resource availability between study areas.


Acknowledgements

Rebecca Montague-Drake, Rachel Muntz, Steve Holliday and Clive Hilliker assisted with various aspects of this project and the preparation of the manuscript. Comments by two anonymous referees greatly improved earlier versions of this manuscript.


References

Aho, T. , Kuitunen, M. , Suhonen, J. , and Hakkari, T. (1997). Behavioural responses of Eurasian Treecreepers, Certhia familiaris, to competition with ants. Animal Behaviour 54, 1283–1290.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Begon M., Harper J. L., and Townsend C. R. (1996). ‘Ecology: Individuals, Populations and Communities.’ (Blackwell Science: Oxford, UK).

Bell, H. L. (1982). Sexual differences in the foraging behaviour of the Frill-necked Flycatcher Arses telescopthalmus in New Guinea. Australian Journal of Ecology 7, 137–147.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Bureau of Meteorology (2006). Climate averages – long term mean values of weather data. Available at http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_070282.shtml [Accessed 18 May 2007].

Cale, P. (1994). Temporal changes in the foraging behaviour of insectivorous birds in a sclerophyll forest in Tasmania. Emu 94, 116–126.
Caughley G. C., and Gunn A. (1996). ‘Conservation Biology in Theory and Practice.’ (Blackwell Science: Cambridge, MA.)

Coyne P. D. (1969). The Black Mountain Reserve, Canberra A.C.T. – description and suggestions for management. B.Sc.Honours Thesis, Department of Forestry, Australian National University, Canberra.

Crome, F. J. H. (1978). Foraging ecology of an assemblage of birds in lowland rainforest in northern Queensland. Australian Journal of Ecology 3, 195–212.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Elton C. S. (1927). ‘Animal Ecology.’ (Methuen: London.)

Emlen, J. M. (1966). The role of time and energy in food preference. American Naturalist 100, 611–617.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Gibbons P., and Lindenmayer D. B. (2002). ‘Tree Hollows and Wildlife Conservation in Australia.’ (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne.)

Gustafsson, L. (1988). Foraging behaviour of individual Coal Tits, Parus ater, in relation to their age, sex and morphology. Animal Behaviour 36, 696–704.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Higgins P. J., Peter J. M., and Steele W. K. (Eds) (2001). ‘Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Vol. 5. Tyrant-flycatchers to chats.’ (Oxford University Press: Melbourne.)

Lamm, D. W. , and Wilson, S. J. (1966). Seasonal fluctuations of birds in the Brindabella Range, Australian Capital Territory. Emu 65, 183–205.
McCullagh P., and Nelder J. A. (1988). ‘Generalised Linear Models.’ 2nd edn. (Chapman and Hall: New York.)

Majer, J. D. , Recher, H. F. , and Postle, A. C. (1994). Comparison of arthropod species richness in eastern and western Australian canopies: a contribution to the species number debate. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 36, 121–131.
Morrison M. L., Marcot B. G., and Mannan R. W. (1992). ‘Wildlife Habitat Relationships: Concepts and Applications.’ (University of Wisconsin Press: Madison, WI.)

Moysey, E. D. (1997). A study of resource partitioning within the Helmeted Honeyeater Lichenostomus melanops cassidix during the non-breeding season. Emu 97, 207–219.
Noske R. A. (1982). Comparative behaviour and ecology of some Australian bark foraging birds. Ph.D. Thesis, University of New England, Armidale, NSW.

Noske R. A. (1985). Habitat use by three bark-foragers of eucalypt forests. In ‘Birds of Eucalypt Forests and Woodlands: Ecology, Conservation, Management’. (Eds A. Keast, H. F. Recher, H. Ford and D. Saunders.) pp. 193–204. (Surrey Beatty: Sydney.)

Noske, R. A. (1986). Intersexual niche segregation among three bark-foraging birds of eucalypt forests. Australian Journal of Ecology 11, 255–267.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Schoener T. W. (1987). brief history of optimal foraging ecology. In ‘Foraging Behavior’. (Eds A. C. Kamil, J. R. Krebs and H. R. Pulliam.) pp. 34–51. (Plenum Press: New York.)

Stephens D. W., and Krebs J. R. (1986). ‘Foraging Theory.’ (Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.)

Tubelis, D. P. , Lindenmayer, D. B. , Saunders, D. A. , Cowling, A. , and Nix, H. A. (2004). Landscape supplementation provided by an exotic matrix: implications for bird conservation and forest management in a softwood plantation system in south-eastern Australia Oikos 107, 634–644.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Wiens J. A. (1989). ‘The Ecology of Bird Communities. Vol. 1: Foundations and Patterns.’(Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.)

Williams J. (1976). ‘Nature Guide. Black Mountain Reserve. Ainslie-Majura Reserve.’ (Department of Capital Territory, Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra.)

Woinarski, J. M. , and Cullen, J. C. (1984). Distribution of invertebrates on foliage in forests in south-eastern Australia. Australian Journal of Ecology 9, 207–232.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |