the noisy native: a miner menace? - birdlife
TRANSCRIPT
The noisy native: a
miner menace?
Noisy miner habitat preferences
and influence on woodland bird
species richness
Sarah Chubb
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Bachelor of Science with Honours
in the Fenner School of Environment and Society,
Australian National University
November 2011
ii
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Candidate's Declaration
This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree
or diploma in any university. To the best of the author’s knowledge, it contains no material
previously published or written by another person, except where due reference is made in the
text.
Sarah Constance Chubb
Date
iii
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Acknowledgements
This project has let me immerse myself in a topic that I have been passionate about – and I
have come out of it thoroughly inspired. My inspiration has largely come from the people who
have supported and nurtured my learning experiences, without whom this project would not
have been possible!
To my supervisors, Chris McElhinny and Julian Reid, many thanks for all of your
guidance and support over the past 9 months. You have helped me to shape my research, and
thesis, and have provided me with the encouragement and enthusiasm that helped me to sustain
my interest (and energy) throughout the year. Thank-you Chris, for being such a wonderful
teacher over the past 3 years. You are an inspiration to me.
Without the support and funding of the Cowra Woodland Birds Program, this project could
not have happened. John and Madeline Rankin, Neale and Janeen Coutanche, Malcolm Fyfe,
Maret Vesk and Rosemary Stapleton have been so encouraging and made me feel so welcome
in Cowra. The success of this Program is owed to the efforts of the survey volunteers and the
willingness of the landholders to let the CWBP survey on their property.
The ANU has generously provided funding through the Action Trust scholarship.
To my fieldwork partner, Isabela ‘old man’ Burgher, for the picturesque picnics, your love
of driving and your singing. You have made many a long day in the field fun and enjoyable.
Sam and Clair Johnson and Catherine Bennett have been enormously generous, providing us
with not only a bed, but a home while Isabela and I were in the field.
The Fenner School staff, particularly Matt Brookhouse, Field Services, the IT gurus and
administration, has been tremendously supportive. Assistance from family and friends,
especially my dad, in improving my thesis through hours of proof reading and discussions has
been astounding. I am very grateful to mum, an amazing cook and enough of a sucker to get
coerced into helping out with fieldwork.
To my honours cohort, for the love, laughs, smiles, ciders, cakes and tea breaks. I couldn’t
have chosen a better group of people to spend this year with. Thanks to the mothers of the
honours room for the amazing food, and to those who kept it ‘manly’. Mark, thanks for your
love and support over the past year, I’m looking forward to seeing you a bit more now!
iv
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Abstract
Through its aggressive, competitive behaviour, the noisy miner (Manorina melanocephala)
may be excluding woodland birds from remnant vegetation. This process exacerbates declines
in bird populations already threatened by landscape modification. The aims of this study were to
understand how the noisy miner affects woodland bird species, and to quantify its habitat
preferences to inform effective management strategies. These aims were addressed using the
following research questions:
1. Does noisy miner presence and/or abundance affect bird species richness?
- Which bird species are more susceptible to the effects of noisy miner invasion?
- Is there a density threshold where their effect is more pronounced?
2. Is noisy miner abundance affected by landscape and/or patch-scale variables?
- Which variables are the most powerful in explaining noisy miner abundance?
This research was conducted in 2011 at 33 temperate box-gum woodland sites in the
Cowra Shire of New South Wales, in conjunction with the Cowra Woodland Birds Program,
which has collected bird data since 2002. These data were augmented by detailed landscape and
patch scale habitat data as part of the current project.
Noisy miner impacts on five different categories of bird species richness (Total birds,
Woodland birds, Small woodland birds, Threatened and declining birds and Non-woodland
birds) were analysed using correlation and analysis of variance with categorical values of noisy
miner abundance. This was followed by a more detailed generalised linear model with a Poisson
distribution and a log link function, using continuous values of noisy miner abundance. Habitat
preferences of the noisy miner were identified using correlation analysis and analysis of
variance, followed by a more detailed multivariate least squares regression model in which
average noisy miner abundance, a continuous dependent variable, was modeled in terms of
multiple habitat parameters.
Results of this analysis suggest that noisy miners had a highly significant (p<0.0005)
negative affect on all bird categories except non-woodland birds. Small woodland birds showed
the most significant effects (p<0.0001), with highest species richness in sites where noisy
miners were never present, moderate richness in low and moderate noisy miner sites and very
low richness in high noisy miner sites. Generalised linear modelling indicated that the presence
of just one noisy miner reduced small woodland bird species richness by 40%. In the Cowra
region, it appears that persistent noisy miner presence at a site, even at very low levels, is a
strong predictor of the richness of small woodland birds that will be present at that site.
Noisy miner abundance responded negatively to both landscape and patch scale habitat
variables. A multivariate least squares regression indicated that 50% of variance in noisy miner
abundance could be explained using the parameters of patch area, Callitris regeneration and the
density of hollow trees, all of which reduced noisy miner abundance. Individually, the
v
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
landscape variables of patch area and vegetation cover were the strongest predictors of noisy
miner abundance. Patches greater than 30 ha in size or with more than 20% vegetation cover in
the surrounding regions had lowest noisy miner abundance.
Many of the findings in this study, are comparable with other studies in temperate
woodlands of south eastern Australia, and can be used to inform management practices. These
include:
- Maintaining or increasing woody vegetation surrounding patches because low
vegetation cover is associated with high noisy miner abundance.
- Protecting sites with an intact understorey from modification and degradation.
- Revegetation and restoration efforts in sites with naturally low Eucalyptus
occurrence should avoid increasing eucalypt species density, as this may attract the
noisy miner. Rather, species used in revegetation should be selected on a site-
specific basis.
- Directing revegetation and restoration activities at habitat features that deter patch
utilisation by noisy miners, such as a dense understorey of Callitris or Eucalyptus
regeneration.
Many of these outcomes can be achieved through tree planting or appropriate grazing and
fire regimes, indicating astute management at patch and landscape levels could assist in
reversing further declines in the woodland bird communities of south eastern Australia;
particularly those due to the aggressive behaviour of the noisy miner.
vi
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Table of Contents
Candidate's Declaration ..................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iii
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iv
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... vi
List of Figures ................................................................................................................ viii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................. viii
Chapter 1: Introduction ..................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Native invasive species ........................................................................................... 4
1.2 Woodland bird declines in south eastern Australia ................................................. 5
1.3 Research Aims ........................................................................................................ 5
1.4 Thesis Structure ....................................................................................................... 6
Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................ 8
2.1 Invasive species: the Australian perspective ........................................................... 8
2.2 The noisy miner ....................................................................................................... 9
2.3 How does the noisy miner affect woodland birds? ............................................... 10
2.3.1 Which birds are most at risk? ........................................................................ 12
2.4 Noisy miner habitat preferences ............................................................................ 12
2.5 Conclusions and current knowledge gaps ............................................................. 15
Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 16
Chapter 3: Methods .......................................................................................................... 18
3.1 The Study Area ..................................................................................................... 19
3.1.1 Cowra Woodland Birds Program .................................................................. 19
3.1.2 Climate ........................................................................................................... 20
3.1.3 Landform ........................................................................................................ 20
3.1.4 Land use and vegetation ................................................................................ 21
3.2 Study Sites ............................................................................................................. 22
3.2.1 Site selection .................................................................................................. 24
3.3 Field Survey and Data Collection ......................................................................... 25
3.3.1 Bird surveys ................................................................................................... 25
3.3.2 Patch scale habitat data: stand floristics and structure ................................ 26
3.3.3 Landscape scale habitat data ......................................................................... 29
3.4 Statistical Analysis ................................................................................................ 33
3.4.1 Bird response to noisy miner abundance ....................................................... 33
3.4.2 Noisy miner habitat preferences .................................................................... 34
vii
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Chapter 4: Results ............................................................................................................ 37
4.1 Overview of the data ............................................................................................. 37
4.1.1 Bird data ........................................................................................................ 37
4.1.2 Habitat data ................................................................................................... 39
4.2 Bird responses to noisy miner abundance ............................................................. 40
4.2.1 Correlation analysis ....................................................................................... 40
4.2.2 Analysis of Variance ...................................................................................... 40
4.2.3 Generalised linear modelling ........................................................................ 42
4.3 Noisy miner habitat preferences ............................................................................ 44
4.3.1 Correlation analysis ....................................................................................... 44
4.3.2 Bivariate least squares regression ................................................................. 47
4.3.3 Analysis of Variance ...................................................................................... 48
4.3.4 Multivariate Least Squares Regression analysis ........................................... 50
Chapter 5: Discussion ....................................................................................................... 54
5.1 Bird response to noisy miner abundance ............................................................... 54
5.1.1 The biggest ‘losers’ ........................................................................................ 55
5.1.2 Noisy miner density thresholds ...................................................................... 56
5.2 Noisy miner habitat preferences ............................................................................ 57
5.2.1 Landscape scale habitat variables ................................................................. 57
5.2.2 Patch scale habitat variables ......................................................................... 58
5.3 Noisy miner multivariate habitat model ................................................................ 61
5.4 Management implications ..................................................................................... 62
5.5 Study limitations and future research questions .................................................... 64
Chapter 6: Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 67
References .......................................................................................................................... 69
Appendix 1: Data collection forms .................................................................................. 76
Appendix 2: Bird species identified in the 33 sites by bird category ............................ 78
Woodland bird species .................................................................................................... 78
Non-woodland bird species ............................................................................................. 79
Exotic species .................................................................................................................. 80
Appendix 3: Raw data ...................................................................................................... 81
Appendix 4: Graphical representation of ANOVA output for bird response to noisy
miner abundance ....................................................................................................................... 82
viii
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 The agriculturally productive ‘wheat-sheep’ belt of south eastern Australia. ............................. 2 Figure 2.1: Conceptual diagram describing the relationship between landscape modification, noisy miner
dominance and woodland bird declines in temperate Australia. .................................................... 8 Figure 2.2: Distribution of the noisy miner (Manorina melanocephala). ..................................................... 9 Figure 2.3: Where noisy miner habitat and woodland bird habitat intersect, noisy miners can have
significant negative impacts on woodland birds. ......................................................................... 11 Figure 3.1: The study region ...................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 3.2: Long term climate data of Cowra (1966 – 2011) ..................................................................... 20 Figure 3.3: Schematic transect showing the typical change in woodland association with topographic
position and aspect in the Cowra region. Adapted from Wilson (2003) ...................................... 21 Figure 3.4: Map of the Cowra region, displaying the 33 site (yellow)s surveyed for this study. ............... 22 Figure 3.5: Schematic diagram of a typical survey site. ............................................................................. 27 Figure 3.6: Vegetation ‘patches’ derived from a hypothetical landscape (lower left) depend on gap and
spur thresholds definitions. .......................................................................................................... 30 Figure 3.7: The extent of woody vegetation was determined by creating polygons of vegetation using
PatchMorph .................................................................................................................................. 31 Figure 3.8: Circular buffers around survey sites were used to determine the extent of vegetation in the
adjacent region. ............................................................................................................................ 32 Figure 3.9: Schematic summary of the steps used in the statistical analysis for this study. ....................... 35 Figure 4.1: Relative non-woodland bird species richness (BSR) increases with noisy miner abundance. . 41 Figure 4.2: The noisy miner has a negative effect on total bird species richness and species richness of
woodland-dependent birds. .......................................................................................................... 43 Figure 4.3: Graphical representations of the analysis of variance models between noisy miner abundance
and categorical habitat variables. ................................................................................................. 49 Figure 4.4: Graphical representation of the multivariate habitat model presented in Table 4.12. .............. 51
List of Tables Table 3.1: The study sites, and their site selection information. ................................................................ 23 Table 3.2: Definition of noisy miner abundance categories ....................................................................... 24 Table 3.3: Detailed description of the data collected for the patch scale variables. ................................... 28 Table 3.4: Description of the landscape scale habitat data collected.......................................................... 29 Table 4.1: Overview of the bird species richness (BSR) distribution of the different bird categories. ...... 37 Table 4.2: List of the threatened and declining species found in the Cowra region. .................................. 38 Table 4.3: Summary statistics of the continuous patch scale habitat variables. ......................................... 39 Table 4.4: Summary statistics of the landscape scale habitat variables. Both variables displayed
considerable range and were positively (right) skewed. ............................................................... 39 Table 4.5: Correlation between bird response categories and average noisy miner abundance. ................ 40 Table 4.6: All of the bird groups were significantly influenced by average noisy miner abundance
categories. .................................................................................................................................... 41 Table 4.7: The log of noisy miner (lnNM) abundance significantly influences all of the bird response
categories except non-woodland birds. ........................................................................................ 42 Table 4.8: Percent of the potential bird species richness of a site, under different noisy miner abundance
values. .......................................................................................................................................... 43 Table 4.9: Correlation between patch and landscape variables and average noisy miner abundance. ....... 45 Table 4.10: Correlations between continuous explanatory variables for the 33 study sites. ...................... 46 Table 4.11: The effects of continuous individual patch and landscape scale variables on noisy miner
abundance (y). .............................................................................................................................. 47 Table 4.12: Least squares regression analysis identified patch area, the amount of Callitris regeneration
and the number of hollow bearing trees as the best predictors of ln(noisy miner abundance). .... 50
1
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Chapter 1
Introduction
The noisy miner (Manorina melanocephala)
2
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Chapter 1: Introduction
Biodiversity loss is a global environmental problem (Sala et al. 2000, Butchart et al. 2010).
The conversion of natural ecosystems for agricultural and urban purposes is considered a key
driver of changes in biodiversity (Sala et al. 2000, Ford et al. 2001), primarily due to habitat
loss and fragmentation (Major et al. 2001, Fischer and Lindenmayer 2007). All taxa have been
affected by landscape modification in some way including plants, birds, mammals, reptiles and
fish (Shine and Fitzgerald 1996, Reid 1999, Yates et al. 2000, Mac Nally and Brown 2001,
Benton et al. 2003, Jenkins 2003, Brown et al. 2008, Pereira 2010). Australia is no stranger to
biodiversity loss with large declines in much of its fauna resulting from the ways in which the
landscape and its constituents have been managed and changed (Reid 1999, Ford et al. 2001,
Radford et al. 2005, Bennett et al. 2006).
Landscape modification in the productive wheat-sheep belt of southern and eastern
Australia (Figure 1.1) has been particularly severe. This belt was once an almost continuous
band of temperate box-gum (eucalypt) woodland stretching from western Victoria north east
through inland New South Wales and south eastern Queensland (Mac Nally et al. 2000b). This
woodland community provides habitat for a rich and unique array of woodland dependent flora
and fauna (Lunt and Bennett 1999, McElhinny et al. 2006b). In many areas, woodlands are now
restricted to fragmented remnant woodland ‘patches’ (a unit of homogeneous area that differs
from its surroundings) which vary in size, quality and isolation (Yates and Hobbs 1997).
Figure 1.1 The agriculturally productive ‘wheat-sheep’ belt of south eastern Australia. This region (shaded in dark grey) has experienced some of the heaviest modification practices in Australia, such as clearing, grazing and changed fire regimes. Adapted from Sherren (2011).
3
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
More than 80% of native temperate woodland in the wheat-sheep belt has been cleared in
the past 200 years (Robinson and Traill 1996, Major et al. 2001, Chan 2004). In some areas,
more than 95% has been cleared, and what remains has been substantially altered (Robinson and
Traill 1996) through human activities such as grazing and altered fire regimes (Prober and
Thiele 1995, Yates and Hobbs 1997, Yates et al. 2000, Briggs et al. 2008, Howes and Maron
2009). These activities change the way habitat within the landscape is configured.
Changes to landscape configuration can have profound impacts on flora and fauna
assemblages by shaping the distribution and abundance of species (Lindenmayer and Fischer
2006). Some species have benefited from these changes, like the galah (Cacatua roseicapilla)
and the crested pigeon (Ocyphaps lophotes) (Reid 1999). For many species these changes have
had negative effects through habitat loss, degradation and isolation. Landscape modification has
direct impacts on species by reducing the amount of habitat available, the quality of that habitat
or the ability for species to move between remnants. These impacts may result in local or
regional declines of species and communities or even extinctions (Lindenmayer and Fischer
2006). Increases in the time and energy spent foraging, finding a mate and nesting place affect
the success and persistence of species (Zanette et al. 2000, Brooker and Brooker 2002, Fischer
and Lindenmayer 2007). These direct impacts of landscape modification on fauna are
commonly the focus in research (e.g. see Zanette et al. 2000, Manning et al. 2004a, Fischer et
al. 2005), with the indirect effects on many species largely ignored.
Landscape modification also indirectly affects many species. By modifying their habitat,
the way in which species behave and interact may change (Lindenmayer and Fischer 2006).
Species interact in a variety of ways, amongst others habitat enrichment, mutualism, parasitism,
predation and competition are important and common interactions (Soulé et al. 2005). Altered
dynamics of species interactions can become a dominant process within the ecosystem, creating
potentially significant environmental problems.
Processes like predation or competition on native flora and fauna are some examples of the
pervasive impacts of exotic species. In Australia the introduction of the fox (Vulpes vulpes) has
reduced native fauna populations through predation upon many vertebrate species and by
competing with the native spotted-tailed quolls (Dasyurus maculatus) for food and dens. In
addition, the fox has introduced a range of parasites to native marsupials (Saunders et al. 2010).
Less commonly discussed are native species which have become invasive as a result of
changes to their habitat. Native or exotic invasive species that are able to thrive in human-
modified landscapes (often referred to as ‘winners’) can negatively affect species less suited to
that change (‘losers’) through changes in the ways in which the species interact (McKinney and
Lockwood 1999, Low 2002). For example increased herbivory by the introduced rabbit
(Oryctolagus cuniculus) at Cabbage Tree Island in New South Wales has largely removed
shrubby understorey vegetation. Consequent reduction of the structural complexity of the
breeding habitat of the endangered Gould’s petrel (Pterodroma leucoptera leucoptera) leaves
4
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
nesting petrels and their fledglings exposed to increased levels of predation by the pied
currawong (Strepera graculina) (Priddel et al. 2000). By introducing the rabbit humans have
indirectly modified natural habitat which has changed the way in which these birds would
naturally interact with each other. In this example the pied currawong is a ‘winner’ as a result of
the ways in which human actions have driven modification of the landscape.
1.1 Native invasive species
While the effects of exotic species are important and interesting, my research focuses on an
invasive native species which negatively affect other native species. Invasive native species are
influential in terms of their impacts on other native species, but such studies are under-
represented in mainstream invasive species research.
An invasive species is a species that occurs, “as a result of human activities, beyond its
accepted normal distribution and which threatens valued environmental, agricultural or other
social resources by the damage it causes” (Department of Sustainability Environment Water
Population and Communities 2011). Invasive species can have damaging effects on ecosystem
function. For example, in parts of the north west United States, elk (Cervus elaphus) have
become overabundant as a result of reduced predation by the heavily hunted wolf (Canis lupus).
This has resulted in increased grazing of native plants and long term low recruitment of native
vegetation (Ripple and Larsen 2000). Other North American examples include reduced coyote
(Canis latrans) populations which has released predation pressure on meso-predators (e.g.
house cats, Felis catus), which in turn suppressed populations of small native birds (Soulé et al.
2005).
A relevant avian example of the impact of an invasive native species is the brown-headed
cowbird (Molothrus ater), an edge-favouring nest parasite (Lindenmayer and Fischer 2006).
Prior to the 1800s, the species was found primarily in the central plains and prairies of the
United States (Brittingham and Temple 1983). It was largely absent from the areas of
contiguous forest in eastern North America. As these forests were cleared, more open habitat
was created which allowed for the eastward expansion of the cowbird (Robinson et al. 1995).
With an increase in range and abundance the cowbird has been implicated in reduced
reproductive success of songbirds (Brittingham and Temple 1983, Robinson et al. 1995, Payne
and Payne 1997, Zanette et al. 2005).
Woodland birds are those that rely on woodlands to live and breed (Robinson and Traill
1996). Temperate woodland bird assemblages in south eastern Australia suffer from population
declines as a result of the direct (habitat loss) and indirect (changed species interactions) effects
of landscape modification.
5
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
1.2 Woodland bird declines in south eastern Australia
Habitat fragmentation can directly affect birds in a variety of ways. Cameron (2006)
describes the importance of tree hollow availability, a declining resource, as a required breeding
habitat attribute for the threatened glossy black cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami). Another
example is the eastern yellow robin (Eopsaltria australis), which is suffering from problems
associated with smaller patch size. In small remnants, the females left their nests more
frequently to find food, had a shorter breeding season, and laid lighter eggs than their
counterparts in larger remnants (Zanette et al. 2000). Zanette et al. attribute these findings to
the scarcity of available food resources per capita in small patches. Changes to the availability
and distribution of resources in the woodlands of south eastern Australia has placed an
additional stress on woodland birds through altering the way that bird species are interacting.
The survival of woodland birds is put further at risk because of the expansion of the
overabundant noisy miner (Manorina melanocephala), a native honeyeater, within its
geographical distribution. Landscape modification has benefitted the noisy miner, allowing it to
interact with bird communities differently. The noisy miner has had significant deleterious
effects on woodland birds throughout temperate woodland remnants as a result of its
competitive behaviour which effectively excludes other birds from woodland remnants (Major
et al. 2001, Piper and Catterall 2003, Maron et al. 2011). In this context, the noisy miner has
become an overabundant invasive native species, and a ‘winner’ in highly modified landscapes.
To moderate the decline of the woodland bird populations of south eastern Australia, the
direct and indirect problems of human activities must be addressed. The major and underlying
threatening process for woodland birds is landscape modification. Addressing this process
requires solutions such as revegetation that are expensive to implement and may take years
before benefits are realised. In the interim, it is important that other causes of declines are
addressed to minimise additional stresses such as those that the noisy miner inflict. To reduce
the effects of the noisy miner on woodland birds we must recognise which features within a
remnant woodland patch attract noisy miner colonies. This can help to focus mitigating efforts
such as habitat restoration or revegetation.
1.3 Research Aims
The overall aims of this study are to provide information on how the noisy miner affects
woodland birds and to quantify noisy miner habitat preferences. The noisy miner presents a
widespread problem across south eastern Australia and my research supplements a growing
body of noisy miner scientific literature. I aim to provide information of value to land and
biodiversity management groups. The ultimate intention of this research is to enable effective,
well-informed management of remnant woodlands for improved bird community conservation
outcomes.
6
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
1.4 Thesis Structure
This thesis contains a review of current understanding of noisy miner ecology, and
describes my own field study in noisy miner dynamics. I start by reviewing relevant literature in
Chapter 2 to outline the current knowledge of how the noisy miner interacts with resident
woodland bird species, and the habitat preferences of the noisy miner. Chapter 3 describes the
methods that I use in my experimental design, field data collection and statistical analysis
techniques. The results of my data analysis are presented in Chapter 4. This is followed in
chapter 5 by a discussion of the findings of this study and their management implications.
Chapter 6 summarises my key findings and provides recommendations for further research.
7
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Chapter 2
Literature Review
An example of a modified landscape. This picture was taken near
‘Liscombe’, in the north east of the Cowra Shire.
8
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The purpose of this chapter is to identify key knowledge gaps in the understanding of noisy
miner ecology for further research. These knowledge gaps will guide the definition of specific
research questions which will be addressed in this thesis. I review literature concerning the
various ways in which the noisy miner affects woodland bird communities and the habitat
preferences of the species. I discuss the noisy miner as an invasive native species, and as a
‘winner’ in the highly modified landscape of south eastern Australia. Finally, I discuss some of
the effects that noisy miner domination has on bird communities and also the habitat
preferences of the noisy miner.
2.1 Invasive species: the Australian perspective
Changing the distribution and availability of habitat and associated resources can have
profound effects on competition for resources. The negative effects of the noisy miner on
woodland birds provide a striking example of how changes to inter specific interactions can
become a dominant process within an ecosystem. Its competitive behavior is widely considered
to be a contributing factor in the decline of native woodland birds in southern and eastern
Australia (Major et al. 2001, Piper and Catterall 2003, Maron et al. 2011). Within its
geographical range, its population may have increased in distribution and abundance over the
past two decades (Barrett et al. 2003, Clarke and Grey 2010) because the species appears to
benefit from the ways in which the landscape has been modified (Catterall 2004, Hastings and
Beattie 2006). The aggressive and competitive behaviour of the species is thought to exacerbate
the decline of already struggling bird populations in these woodlands (Figure 2.1).
Woodland bird
declines
Landscape modification
Noisy miner
dominance
Leads to
Exacerbates
Facilitates
Figure 2.1: Conceptual diagram describing the relationship between landscape modification, noisy miner dominance and woodland bird declines in temperate Australia. In this case, landscape modification encapsulates both habitat fragmentation and degradation.
9
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
2.2 The noisy miner
The noisy miner is widely considered to be one of the contributing factors in native bird
declines in southern and eastern Australia due to its competitive behaviour. It is a large
(60-90 g, 25-28 cm), native honeyeater that occupies woodland remnants in eastern and
southeastern Australia from northern Queensland to Tasmania (Dow 1976). They are hyper-
aggressive, sedentary birds which operate in communal breeding groups of six to 30 birds (Dow
1976), although colonies of up to several hundred birds have been reported (Dow 1979). Like
many honeyeaters, the noisy miner is a generalist forager, feeding predominantly on
invertebrates, lerps and nectar both in the canopy and on the ground (Dow 1976, Paton 1979,
Hastings and Beattie 2006, Ashley et al. 2009, Maron 2009, Clarke and Grey 2010).
The species is becoming overabundant in its geographical range. The most recent Atlas of
Australian Birds suggests that the reporting rate of the noisy miner has increased by 15% over
the past two decades in NSW, but no significant increase nationally (Barrett et al. 2003, Barrett
et al. 2007, Clarke and Grey 2010). Anecdotal evidence has reached the same conclusions (Low
2002). The increase in abundance of the noisy miner within its geographical range may be
because it benefits from landscape modification. Noisy miners appear to utilise small patches,
edge habitats and degraded sites (discussed in more detail in section 2.5), which are
symptomatic of highly fragmented landscapes.
Figure 2.2: Distribution of the noisy miner (Manorina melanocephala). The species is widely distributed throughout the temperate woodland belt of southern and eastern Australia. While their geographical distribution has not increased, the species is becoming more common within their range. Image sourced from the Birds Australia Atlas (Cited in Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences 2009)
10
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Noisy miners are territorial with distinct home ranges from which they actively exclude
small woodland birds (Dow 1976, Piper and Catterall 2003). Colonies occupy discrete areas,
and most of their activity occurs within this area (Dow 1979). The activity space of an adult is
thought to be between 50 and 200 m in diameter (Dow 1979). Individuals in the colony use loud
repetitive calls, swooping and bill clattering to alarm other species (Arnold 2000). Reasons for
this behavior are not fully understood. They have been observed mobbing potential predators
and competitors (Dow 1979, Arnold 2000), ultimately killing small birds that try to persist in
their territory. Aggressive behavior of the noisy miner is not limited to predators and
competitors, but extends to mobbing water birds, reptiles, mammals and even inanimate objects
(Dow 1979, Arnold 2000). Indeed, they frustrated John Gould when they followed him
“through the entire forest, leaping and flying from branch to branch, they become very tiresome
and annoying” (p. 575 Gould 1865). This aggressive, competitive behaviour is thought to
exacerbate the decline of already struggling bird populations in these woodlands.
2.3 How does the noisy miner affect woodland birds?
Where disturbance-tolerant species are able to thrive in human-modified landscapes, they
can replace more sensitive, specialist species (Noss 1990, Garrott et al. 1993). This can cause
major shifts in population assemblages, often with unique species replaced by widespread
species, known as ‘biotic homogenisation’ (McKinney and Lockwood 1999, Olden et al. 2004),
where landscapes become less species diverse over space and time. The noisy miner behaves as
a biotic homogenisation agent in the temperate woodlands of southeastern Australia. It has been
the recipient of much negative name-calling, from bully bird or snakebird through to soldier
bird or, more extremely, a terrorist. The species appears to be a ‘reverse keystone species’
(Piper and Catterall 2003) throughout much of its geographical range; that is, the noisy miner
needs to be absent or at low densities for a typical assemblage of birds to be present in an area.
There is an extensive body of correlational and experimental evidence that indicates noisy
miner presence reduces the presence and abundance of other birds. Decreased woodland bird
abundance and community diversity are consistently observed when noisy miners are present
(Dow 1979, Major et al. 2001, Mac Nally and Horrocks 2002, Chan 2004, Hastings and Beattie
2006, Clarke and Oldland 2007, Hannah et al. 2007, Clarke and Grey 2010, Hanspach et al.
2011), to the extent that they can become the sole occupants of a patch (Dow 1976). More
frequently though, they are found with a suite of ‘open-country’ birds, generally large birds that
are also expanding in range, such as the eastern rosella (Platycercus eximius), red-rumped parrot
(Psephotus haematonotus), magpie (Cracticus tibicen), galah (Cacatua roseicapilla) and the
pied currawong (Strepera graculina) (Dow 1976, Reid 1999, Major et al. 2001, Piper and
Catterall 2003, Parsons et al. 2006, Clarke and Oldland 2007). These birds appear to endure
noisy miner mobbing and are eventually tolerated by the miner, and in the case of the pied
currawong, even engage in noisy miner mobbing behaviour of common adversaries.
11
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
While such correlational evidence is a strong indicator of the negative effects of the miner
on woodland birds, it cannot preclude the potential for other factors to be the underlying cause
of such trends. High noisy miner abundance at a site with low bird species richness does not
necessarily imply causation. If noisy miner habitat requirements are different from the
requirements of other birds then low bird species richness in a noisy miner dominated site may
be a result of unsuitable habitat, rather than noisy miner aggression. It is only where noisy miner
habitat and the habitat of other woodland bird species intersect (Figure 2.3) that noisy miner
aggression becomes a problem.
Grey et al. (1997, 1998) addressed this debate by carrying out experimental noisy miner
removal trials in the ironbark-stringybark woodlands. When noisy miners were removed, there
was an influx of small birds, including many threatened species (Grey et al. 1997, Grey et al.
1998). Noisy miner habitat was useful for other birds. This was even the case in small degraded
woodland remnants, which could suddenly support a diverse range of small insectivores and
honeyeaters. Another removal trial in box-gum woodlands in the New England region of New
South Wales had similar results (Debus 2008).
Figure 2.3: Where noisy miner habitat and woodland bird habitat intersect, noisy miners can have significant negative impacts on woodland birds. The challenge is in identifying whether the noisy miner and woodland birds occupy the same habitat, and hence noisy miners are a problem. If the species occupy different habitats, then woodland bird declines cannot be attributed to noisy miner occupation.
Noisy miners have become one of the most important predictors of woodland bird
assemblages throughout a vast area of eastern Australia. What might be ‘suitable’ habitat for
birds is actually not available for use, because noisy miners are excluding them. Noisy miner
colonies have very serious effects on bird assemblages and are a potential problem for bird
conservation efforts. It is important to know which birds are more susceptible to noisy miner
exclusion to get a better understanding of the processes involved in their exclusion.
Noisy miner
habitat
Woodland
bird habitat
Woodland bird
and noisy
miner habitat
12
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
2.3.1 Which birds are most at risk?
Noisy miner colonies indiscriminately mob animals and objects invading their territory;
some birds are particularly vulnerable to their aggressive behaviour. Affected species tend to be
smaller, and so are more easily excluded by larger aggressive miners (Grey et al. 1997, Piper
and Catterall 2003, Mac Nally et al. 2011). Miner tolerance is strongly associated with size and
diet (Piper and Catterall 2003). The noisy miner shares its dietary preferences with smaller
birds, predominantly feeding on foliage and bark dwelling invertebrates (Dow 1976, Piper and
Catterall 2003, Maron 2009). Piper and Catterall (2003) noted that the noisy miner shared the
same dietary requirements with 75% of smaller species, compared with only 7% of larger
species. Non-discriminatory aggressive behaviour displayed by the noisy miner is an effective
interference competition strategy (Birch 1957, Case and Gilpin 1974), whereby the species
directly interact, interfering with the ability for other species to utilise a common resource.
Because it has a relatively large body size for a diet shared with smaller species (Piper and
Catterall 2003), the noisy miner is able to monopolise food resources with some ease.
2.4 Noisy miner habitat preferences
The increase in noisy miner abundance begs an important question; what makes the species
such a successful ‘winner’? While its behavior obviously allows them to monopolise important
food and habitat resources in the productive woodlands, certain factors must have historically
limited their population. Local limitations to noisy miner abundance and movements would
have let smaller woodland birds persist in those environments.
Early observations indicate that the noisy miner was primarily seen in thinly timbered
forests of the plains and low hills (Gould 1865). Historically, most of the wheat-sheep belt was
covered with woodland and forest. Large scale clearing and modification of the vegetation has
resulted in habitat fragmentation and degradation since European settlement of Australia,
benefiting the noisy miner. Inadvertent provision of preferred habitat may have led to increased
domination of landscapes within its range and an increase in abundance of the noisy miner
(Catterall 2004, Hastings and Beattie 2006).
Recent studies have identified particular habitat features that correlate with noisy miner
abundance and occupation. Their tendency to occupy small remnant patches (< 20 ha), the
edges of large remnants, and those with simplified understories, (Major et al. 2001, Mac Nally
and Horrocks 2002, Martin et al. 2006, Taylor et al. 2008, Oldland et al. 2009) supports the
hypothesis that the noisy miner has benefited from the ways in which humans have modified the
landscape. In the agricultural landscapes where noisy miner colonies persist and dominate,
modification has primarily been caused by land clearing, changed fire regimes and grazing.
These practices have resulted in smaller patches of remnant vegetation scattered throughout the
region and simplified vegetation structure with heavily modified understories (Briggs et al.
2008, Howes and Maron 2009, Fischer et al. 2010).
13
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Small remnants and narrow corridors are preferentially occupied by noisy miner colonies
(Mac Nally et al. 2000a, Major et al. 2001, Mac Nally and Horrocks 2002, MacDonald and
Kirkpatrick 2003, Hastings and Beattie 2006). Although these studies used different definitions
for ‘small’ patch area, ranging between 20 ha and 100 ha, a few authors reported patch area
between 30 and 50 ha as being a significant threshold for noisy miner presence (Mac Nally et
al. 2000a, MacDonald and Kirkpatrick 2003). The size of this area threshold may decrease with
increasing site productivity, with noisy miner colonies in drier, less productive sites requiring
larger patches (MacDonald and Kirkpatrick 2003). In preferencing small patches, noisy miner
colonies may be responding to a high edge to area ratio. It is possible that a small patch is more
easily defended against other birds because they can more easily monitor the perimeter of their
territory, letting them monopolise the patch.
Noisy miner domination does occur in large remnants but is usually confined to the edges
(Green and Catterall 1998, Piper and Catterall 2003, Martin et al. 2006, Clarke and Oldland
2007). Since the diameter of the activity space of an adult noisy miner is between 50 – 200 m
(Dow 1979), colonies could be assumed to exist within 200 m of a remnant edge. For this
reason, Piper and Catterall (2003) suggest that remnants between 5 and 10 ha (120 – 180 m
radius) will be entirely dominated by noisy miner colonies. Clarke and Oldland (2007) found
that noisy miner colonies could penetrate between 150 m to more than 300 m into a large
remnant, depending on the habitat type. If the miner can penetrate 300 m into a remnant, a patch
needs to be at least 36 ha before it can have an interior core that is useful for noisy miner
susceptible birds (Clarke and Oldland 2007). Similarly, corridors need to be more than 600 m
wide to contain any noisy miner-free habitat. Noisy miner colonies may use edges because they
provide both open grassland and forest habitat, which enables easy foraging and defence
(Howes and Maron 2009).
The shape of these large remnants can also make a difference, with noisy miner colonies
commonly found in projections of vegetation into the matrix (i.e. corners, corridors or
peninsulas projecting into a paddock), and small clumps of trees within 100 m of the remnant
edge (Taylor et al. 2008). A projection of a patch into a paddock increases the edge to area ratio,
which benefits an edge specialist, like the noisy miner. Larger patches with a geometry that
increases the amount of edge habitat available allows the noisy miner to defend its territory with
ease (Taylor et al. 2008)
Various studies have attempted to identify habitat characteristics that define suitable noisy
miner habitat at the patch scale. Important habitat attributes for noisy miner occupation have
been found in different studies; these vary between study regions and individual studies. Some
of the reported habitat variables include the preference for low understory/woody shrub cover,
certain site floristics (botanical composition), high site productivity and various management
histories.
14
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Vegetation with a simple, open structure and low understory cover is probably the most
frequently identified habitat variable associated with the noisy miner. This is thought to be
important in allowing the noisy miner to dominate the site. Where the structure is simple, other
birds are unable to hide or get protection from the aggressive behavior of the noisy miner. Low
shrub density appears to be a very important factor in determining suitability of a site to noisy
miner dominance (Grey et al. 1998, Mac Nally et al. 2000a, MacDonald and Kirkpatrick 2003,
Hastings and Beattie 2006, Kath et al. 2009). There are two possible explanations for their
preference for less dense habitat. Firstly, noisy miners occasionally forage on the ground
(Clarke and Grey 2010), so low structural complexity may provide easier access to the ground.
Secondly, structurally simple patches enable noisy miner colonies to see their predators and
competitors more easily (Maron 2009) and may also prevent competitors from using the shrubs
as a refuge from aggression (MacDonald and Kirkpatrick 2003, Hastings and Beattie 2006).
Some studies found that noisy miner occurrence was not associated with low understorey cover
(Taylor et al. 2008, Oldland et al. 2009). This difference may be a result of prolonged drought
conditions (Oldland et al. 2009) in the study area or it may relate to the vegetation surrounding
the site (Taylor et al. 2008).
Noisy miner abundance is higher in a woodland patch within a pasture or cropping matrix
(the dominant land cover type), than in an uncleared matrix (Martin et al. 2006). The sites of
Taylor et al. (2008) were all adjacent to crops or pastures which may account for the lack of
association between noisy miner occurrence and understorey cover. Perhaps low vegetation
cover in the surrounding landscape offers similar structural features to a low understorey site
thus enabling noisy miner colonies to see their predators and competitors approaching more
easily (Maron 2009). This means that they are better able to defend their territory from
predation and competition thereby reducing the energy required for them to maintain dominance
over the patch.
Stem density is a component of structural complexity but it appears to affect the
occurrence of noisy miner populations inconsistently. Catterall (2004) found that noisy miners
show increased densities in response to thinning of the canopy and creation of sparse eucalypt
cover. This finding supports the hypothesis that simple vegetation structure is advantageous for
noisy miner colonies. Conversely Howes and Maron (2009) found that sites occupied by noisy
miners typically had higher stem density, possibly because this results in lower understorey
cover.
Management history of a woodland remnant may also influence noisy miner site
occupancy. Several studies in contiguous eucalypt forest in the Brigalow Belt bioregion of south
central Queensland have produced different results to those in southeastern Australia (Eyre et al.
2009). Like their southern counterparts, noisy miners exerted a similarly strong negative effect
on abundance of small birds (Eyre et al. 2009). However, noisy miners were found with similar
densities at both edge and interior sites of relatively intact, contiguous forests (Maron and
15
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Kennedy 2007). This contrasts with southern woodlands, where the noisy miner was only found
in small remnants or at edge sites of large remnants. Researchers suggest that noisy miner
colonies may be able to dominate interior sites of this forest type because of past management
practices. Burning and grazing have both been used extensively in the Brigalow Belt: the open
habitat promoted by these management practices may enable the noisy miner to exert its
dominance in interior parts of these woodlands. Furthermore noisy miners positively responded
to higher grazing pressure (Martin and McIntyre 2007, Howes and Maron 2009) which is likely
to result from their foraging behavior (Grey et al. 1998). The noisy miner frequently forages on
the ground and preferentially exploits sites with short grass (< 5 cm) (Grey et al. 1998, Clarke
and Grey 2010), making grazed sites with short grass and low shrub cover more valuable as
noisy miner habitat.
Preference for certain site floristics and productivity may also drive variations in noisy
miner abundance (Catterall 2004, Maron 2007, Taylor et al. 2008, Oldland et al. 2009).
Catterall (2004) observed that noisy miners were “encouraged by scattered tall eucalypts… and
nectar rich cultivars of Australian plant species”. In the buloke (Allocasuarina luehmannii)
woodlands of the Wimmera plains in Victoria, noisy miners were more likely to be present
when there were at least 5 eucalypts present per hectare (Maron 2007). In central Victoria, the
most powerful predictors of high noisy miner presence were deep, productive soils and a high
proportion of yellow gum (Eucalyptus leucoxylon) as the dominant overstorey species (Oldland
et al. 2009). Yellow gum is a reliable and prolific nectar producer (Oldland et al. 2009) and is
an attractive site selection feature for a sedentary honeyeater such as the noisy miner. Box-gum
woodland systems at low altitudes, a proxy for productivity, tend to have deeper soils than
higher altitude systems (Taylor et al. 2008). Low altitude was a good predictor of noisy miner
presence (Taylor et al. 2008). This supports the findings of Oldland et al. (2009) that noisy
miners prefer deeper soils. It is unlikely that altitude was related to different climatic extremes
because the altitudinal range was small (142 – 263 m).
2.5 Conclusions and current knowledge gaps
To mitigate woodland bird declines in Australia it is clear that we need to focus on both
landscape modification and its unintended consequences, such as those that the noisy miner
imposes. The literature recognises the effects noisy miner aggression has had on woodland birds
in the temperate agricultural zone of south eastern Australia and it identifies the key habitat
attributes to which the noisy miner appears to respond. Site occupation by a noisy miner colony
has deleterious effects on woodland birds, exacerbating the undesirable impacts of landscape
modification. Understanding what features within a remnant woodland patch a noisy miner
colony is attracted to can help to focus efforts to discourage noisy miner invasions through
habitat modification or other noisy miner controlling measures.
16
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
The literature suggests that the noisy miner negatively affects bird species richness (Grey
et al. 1997, Major et al. 2001, Piper and Catterall 2003) but this has not been thoroughly studied
in the south west slopes of New South Wales. Hanspach et al. (2011) reported some preliminary
observations on the negative effects of noisy miners on total bird species richness in the region
but did not detail which birds were most affected. There is little if any information regarding a
noisy miner density threshold whereby the effects of noisy miner density are more pronounced.
Identifying an upper-level density threshold of noisy miner individuals would be useful for
future management practices.
There remains insufficient knowledge of noisy miner habitat preferences and how they
vary regionally. Noisy miners may have been successful as a result of favourable habitat being
inadvertently provided by landscape modification. Many studies show that noisy miners
respond to variation in habitat structure, floristics and patch geometry, and these responses vary
geographically. These studies combine to give us a general picture of where noisy miners thrive.
Further research is needed in other landscapes to give us an understanding of their habitat
preferences.
Finally, landscape-level variables have had a limited place in noisy miner ecological
research. The species has been observed to be attracted to a more intensively managed matrix,
such as high-input cropping, because of the low structural complexity associated with such
systems. Complexity is thought to be associated with ease of foraging and defence for the noisy
miner, but this remains to be seen using a spatial geographical analysis.
These knowledge gaps have guided the formulation of specific research questions which
will be addressed in this thesis.
The next chapter will detail the methods and will describe the location and characteristics
of the study region used to address these questions.
Research Questions
1. Does noisy miner presence and/or abundance affect bird species richness?
- Which bird species are more susceptible to the effects of noisy miner invasion?
- Is there a density threshold where their effect is more pronounced?
2. Is noisy miner abundance affected by landscape and/or patch-scale variables?
- Which variables are the most powerful in explaining noisy miner
abundance?
17
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Chapter 3
Methods
‘TSR Golden Valley’, a white box/grey box woodland. This site is an
example of a high noisy miner abundance site.
18
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Chapter 3: Methods
To answer the research questions, a landscape was required in which temperate woodlands
were the dominant ecosystem because these are the systems where noisy miners occur. This
study landscape needed a distribution of woodland remnants that varied in both size and in the
intensity of land use surrounding the remnants to ascertain how these factors influence the noisy
miner. Furthermore, the noisy miner needed to be present across the landscape at varying
densities.
The Cowra region of New South Wales (NSW) met this suite of requirements. Cowra
Shire is in the south west slopes bioregion, a region which has seen minimal noisy miner related
research. It is home to the Cowra Woodland Birds Program (CWBP), a group which has been
collecting extensive bird data for almost ten years (Reid 2010). I collected detailed habitat data
to use in conjunction with present and historical bird data in the analysis. The CWBP data were
used to gain an insight into the effects of the noisy miner on woodland birds of the Cowra
region. Patch scale and landscape scale habitat data were then collected from the CWBP survey
sites and geographical information system maps respectively, to understand how the noisy
miner responded to different habitat variables.
This chapter details the methods used in this study to investigate the impacts of the noisy
miner on woodland birds and the habitat preferences of the species. I begin with an overview
providing relevant background to the vegetation, landforms and management history of the
study region. This is followed by data sampling and collection procedures. The final section of
this chapter describes the statistical methods used to analyse the bird and habitat data.
19
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
3.1 The Study Area
Study sites were situated in the Cowra Shire within the Lachlan River catchment (Figure
3.1) of NSW. Cowra (33o50’, 148
o41’) is in the north-east of the NSW South West Slopes
bioregion, about 200 km north of Canberra and 300 km west of Sydney. The region was first
settled by Europeans in the 1830s for grazing and agriculture (Cowra Shire Council). As a result
of the agricultural history of the shire, most of the native vegetation has been cleared for
livestock production and intensive agriculture.
Figure 3.1: The study region Cowra shire (shaded black) in situated to the far west of the Lachlan River catchment (pale grey), on the east of the wheat-sheep belt (dark grey, main) in New South Wales, south eastern Australia. The South Western Slopes Bioregion covers the area within the dashed circle Adapted from Sherren (2011).
3.1.1 Cowra Woodland Birds Program
This study was undertaken as part of the Cowra Woodlands Bird Program (CWBP), an
initiative of Birds Australia. The program was launched in 2001 with the intention of
monitoring and reversing the decline of woodland birds in the Cowra district. Since the program
was launched, scientists and the community have worked together carrying out quarterly bird
surveys and implementing conservation strategies to improve the prospects for local woodland
birds. However noisy miners have become an increasing problem in the region, making bird
monitoring efforts both difficult and unrewarding because they reduce bird diversity which is a
key attraction for volunteer based data collection.
South West Slopes Bioregion
Australian Capital Territory
South eastern temperate grazing region:
The Wheat-sheep belt’ Study location
20
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
3.1.2 Climate
Cowra has a relatively dry, continental climate with an average annual rainfall of about
600 mm, falling evenly throughout the year (Figure 3.2). The region experiences warm to hot
summers and cool winters. Average temperatures range from 16oC to 32
oC in the summer and
2oC to 14
oC in winter, but extreme temperatures as high as 47
oC and as low as -8
oC have been
recorded in the region (Bureau of Meteorology 2011).
Cowra, along with much of southeastern Australia has experienced a decade of below
average rainfall until 2010. Vegetation structural data was collected in 2011, after a year of
above average rainfall throughout south eastern Australia
Figure 3.2: Long term climate data of Cowra (1966 – 2011) The Cowra region experiences warm to hot summers and cool winters, and about 600 mm of annual rainfall falling evenly throughout the year. Data from the Bureau of Meteorology (2011), taken from the Cowra Airport Comparison site.
3.1.3 Landform
The NSW South West Slopes Bioregion forms the western limit of the Great Dividing
Range. The Cowra Shire is set around the Lachlan River which flows from the south-east to the
north-west of Cowra.
The central parts of the Cowra region are dominated by plains and alluvial valleys (Figure
3.3, 3.4), while hilly areas and isolated ranges predominate in the west (Conimbla National
Park), south west (Koorawatha Nature Reserve) and east (Copperhannia Nature Reserve).
The landscape is geologically diverse, but is typified by granites in the basins and
sedimentary rocks in the hills, with areas of alluvium, sandstone, shale and basalt (Krynen and
Moffitt 1997). Soil patterns in the Cowra region range from shallow, stony soils on the tops of
ridges and hills to strongly textured soils derived from underlying parent material downslope
(Sahukar et al. 2003).
21
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
3.1.4 Land use and vegetation
The majority of the Cowra Shire is managed as private freehold and leasehold land with
some nature conservation reserves (Conimbla National Park, Koorawatha Nature Reserve), state
forest and remnants of travelling stock reserves (TSRs) (Geoscience Australia 2004). Most of
the nature conservation reserves, state forests and TSRs support native woody vegetation with
large contiguous areas of woodland and forest habitat. In contrast, private land tends to be
sparsely vegetated although remnants of the original vegetation in variable condition are
scattered throughout the region (N.S.W. National Parks and Wildlife Service 2001).
Pressey (2000) estimated that sixteen per cent of original native vegetation remians in the
southwest slopes bioregion in NSW. Within the bioregion the amount of native vegetation
varies between local government areas. Cowra is fairly well vegetated with native vegetation
occurring in 22% of the shire (N.S.W. National Parks and Wildlife Service 2001). There is a
bias towards clearing on the flatter parts of the landscape as these tend to be more fertile and
more suitable for agricultural uses (N.S.W. National Parks and Wildlife Service 2001, Fischer et
al. 2010). For this reason, woodlands of the lower slope country which are dominated by white
box (Eucalyptus albens), grey box (Eucalyptus microcarpa) and yellow box (Eucalyptus
melliodora), have been intensively cleared. These communities are now very scarce with less
than one per cent of intact woodland remaining (Robinson and Traill 1996). In contrast, less
productive woodlands growing on rocky hills or upper slopes were cleared much later and much
larger areas of intact woodland remain. These upper slope communities are dominated by red
stringybark (Eucalyptus macrorhyncha) and red ironbark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon) with black
cypress pine (Callitris endlicheri), kurrajong (Brachychiton spp.) and red box (Eucalyptus
polyanthemos). Figure 3.3 depicts the typical change in vegetation community with topographic
position.
Figure 3.3: Schematic transect showing the typical change in woodland association with topographic position and aspect in the Cowra region. Adapted from Wilson (2003)
22
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
3.2 Study Sites
Thirty-three study sites (Table 3.1) were selected from the CWBP’s survey database of
over 100 survey locations. Sites were distributed throughout the Cowra Shire with a few just
outside the shire boundary. The study sites were 2 ha bird survey areas that sit within a larger
patch of remnant vegetation. Remnant patch sizes varied from about 3 ha to over 400 ha. The
remnants represent a variety of vegetation types found in the region, from sparse open
Eucalyptus dominated woodlands in the valleys and on rocky hilltops, to dense mixed cypress
pine (Callitris spp.) and Eucalyptus forest along ridge lines. Approximately one third of the
sites were situated on public land in TSRs and nature conservation reserves, while the rest were
on private land. Woodland remnant quality on private land ranged from relatively intact to
highly degraded due to livestock grazing and intensive agriculture. Most woodland sites had a
distinctly grassy understorey as little shrubby woodland exists in the agricultural landscapes of
the region.
Figure 3.4: Map of the Cowra region, displaying the 33 site (yellow)s surveyed for this study. The central parts of the Shire are dominated by plains and alluvial valleys, and have been more intensively cleared for agriculture. Towards the east (Rosenberg State Forest), west (Conimbla National Park) and south west (Koorawatha Nature Reserve) of the shire, well vegetated (indicated in green), hilly areas predominate. Map courtesy Isabela Burgher.
23
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Table 3.1: The study sites, and their site selection information. Thirty-three sites were sampled in this study, from 8 different strata. Strata were defined using patch area and noisy miner abundance (NMAbn) levels.
Noisy miner data
(abundance) Patch Area (ha) Strata
Site name Average Max. Min. Min. Max. (NMAbn/ patch area)
Bydawhile 6.57 17 1 400 >400 High NMAbn/
Altonvale - 1 10.86 25 0 31 100 Large patch
TSR - Golden Valley 7.57 20 0 31 100
Wandella - 2 (control) 11.71 23 4 11 30
Waugoola 11.14 20 3 11 30
TSR - Clements 8.57 20 4 11 30 High NMAbn/
Westville 7.86 13 4 11 30 Small patch
Rosedale 9.29 17 5 3 10
TSR - Applewood 7.86 15 0 3 10
Warrawong - Reserve 4.71 10 1 31 100
Pine Hill 3.86 10 0 31 100 Mod NMAbn/
TSR - Back Creek 3.29 20 0 31 100 Large patch
Penny Royal - Unfenced 3.14 9 1 31 100
Woodstock Cemetery 6.00 12 0 11 30
Morongla Cemetery 3.14 13 0 11 30 Mod NMAbn/
TSR - Bonnie Doone 5.57 10 1 3 10 Small patch
Cucum Creek 5.57 12 0 3 10
Warripendi - Paddock 2.71 4 0 101 400
TSR - Seed Orchard 2.71 6 0 31 100 Low NMAbn/
Penny Royal - Fenced 2.00 7 0 31 100 Large patch
TSR - Wattamondara West 1.71 5 0 31 100
Warrawong - Creek 1.29 2 0 11 30
TSR - Badgery 1.43 3 0 3 10 Low NMAbn/
The Common - 3 (control) 1.29 4 0 3 10 Small patch
Nichols 3.00 5 0 <3 3
Conimbla NP - Wallaby Track 0 0 0 400 >400
Koorawatha NR - 1 0 0 0 400 >400 Never NM/
Wyangala Dam 0 0 0 400 >400 Large patch
McInerneys - Hut 0 0 0 101 400
Bumbaldry Cemetary 0 0 0 11 30
Never NM/
Small patch
Kentucky Mac 0 0 0 11 30
Cucum Hill 0 0 0 3 10
Pine View 0 0 0 3 10
24
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
3.2.1 Site selection
Noisy miner sites were defined as having an average of more than one noisy miner present
at the site over seven randomly selected spring or summer surveys. Not all CWBP sites were
able to be included in this study due to inconsistencies in survey frequency (ranging from 1 to
16 surveys) and the years in which surveys were conducted. To ensure all sites had equal bird
survey effort, only sites with at least seven bird surveys were considered. A preliminary analysis
indicated that seven surveys captured 85% of bird species richness accumulated over the total
survey period on sites which had been surveyed every season. Seven spring or summer surveys
left a sufficient number of potential sites from which to choose a stratified sample. Where sites
had more than seven spring or summer surveys, seven surveys were selected using a random
number generator to prevent temporal variability biasing the data.
In total there were 37 sites where noisy miners were present. A stratified sample of 33
study sites was selected. Eight strata were used, defined using four levels of noisy miner
abundance and two levels of patch area. Stratification by noisy miner sites used the average
number of noisy miners over the seven survey periods. Sites where the noisy miner was present
were divided into three even groups of high, moderate and low abundance (
Table 3.2). The eight noisy miner free sites had no recorded noisy miners during the seven
surveys. Two levels of patch area were used, defined as ‘large’ or ‘small’. Small patches were
any remnant patch recorded as smaller than 30 ha in the CWBP database. This threshold was
used because the noisy miner appears to respond to patch area thresholds of this size (Mac Nally
et al. 2000a, MacDonald and Kirkpatrick 2003), and also because the patch area records initially
provided by the CWBP had six area classes and 30 ha was the threshold dividing the large
patches from the small patches (as per Birds Australia Atlas habitat forms).
Table 3.2: Definition of noisy miner abundance categories Thresholds between noisy miner categories were defined using the 33.3 and 66.6 percentiles of average noisy miner abundance to evenly divide the sites between three noisy miner abundance categories.
Noisy miner strata Average number of noisy miners
Noisy miner free 0 (never recorded)
Low noisy miner abundance 1 – 3 individuals
Moderate noisy miner abundance > 3 – 6.5 individuals
High noisy miner abundance > 6.5 individuals
I aimed to have four replicates in each stratum. As noisy miner abundance was a key
variable, it was important to ensure that there was a sufficient range of high noisy miner sites
for effective modelling. For this reason, one extra high noisy miner abundance site was
included, giving a total of 33 sites (Table 3.1). Where there were more than four potential sites
25
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
in a stratum, it was divided into four equal-sized abundance classes and one site was randomly
chosen from each class where possible. One stratum only had 3 sites that fitted the criteria
because of limited high noisy miner/large sites (see Table 3.1). In this case, an extra site in the
same noisy miner (high) class, but with small patch size was added.
3.3 Field Survey and Data Collection
3.3.1 Bird surveys
Bird data have been collected quarterly by the CWBP volunteers since 2002 using a
variation of the ‘active timed area search’ method which is the standard survey method used by
Birds Australia (Barrett et al. 2003). Rather than just recorded species presence, the volunteers
also count the number of individuals. This method was used by the CWBP because it is simple
and time-efficient (see Wilson 2003), a valuable trait for volunteer driven data collection. The
method is also effective in terms of detecting species and individuals (Loyn 1986). Each survey
was conducted in a two hectare site within a patch of vegetation (Figure 3.3), carried out over a
20 minute period between 0700 hrs and 1100 hrs. Species and abundance data have been
recorded by CWBP volunteers in each of the four seasons between 2002 and 2010.
Most sites were 100 m x 200 m quadrats, surveyed either in a zigzag or in two parallel 200
m line transects which were 50 m apart. A few sites were irregularly shaped due to the
configuration of the patch. Birds were recorded as present and counted if they were seen or
heard utilising the plot.
Reducing variability and potential source of bias
Only spring and summer surveys were used in this study to reduce the amount of seasonal
variability over the seven surveys, while still providing sufficient site choice. These seasons
were used because they include both sedentary species in the region and those that only use the
region seasonally such as the Superb Parrot (Polytelis swainsonii) which migrates south to the
Cowra region during its breeding period in spring and summer.
The CWBP conducts bird survey weekends where volunteers congregate and survey all of
the sites over a two day period. All bird surveys are completed before 1100 hrs because birds
are most active in the morning. Conducting the surveys in the same time frame reduced
variability in weather and bird activity.
The potential for observer bias was reduced by pairing experienced with inexperienced
surveyors, and rotating survey groups between sites so that individual sites were not always
surveyed by the same people.
Abundance data in bird surveys always have the potential to be biased as a result of double
counts or different counting methods among individuals. For this reason, this project mainly
26
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
uses species richness and noisy miner average abundance to minimise the effects observer
variability may have on bird abundance information.
3.3.2 Patch scale habitat data: stand floristics and structure
Patch scale habitat attribute data were collected in the autumn of 2011, guided by
McElhinny et al. (2006a) structural habitat index method. In addition to the 13 attributes used in
this index, I collected data for a further nine variables (Table 3.3).
Vegetation sampling procedure
To ensure vegetation sampling within a bird survey area was unbiased and representative
of the survey site, three vegetation survey plots were laid methodically within the bird survey
area. Vegetation survey plots were 50 m long and 20 m wide. These plots were evenly spaced
throughout the bird survey area (Figure 3.5). Within each vegetation survey plot one 20 m x 20
m subplot was established, depending on the slope of the site, giving a 400 m2 subplot for more
detailed data collection. Each attribute was estimated as the mean of the three different plot
estimates. The 50 m x 20 m plot was used to measure stem density, the size and hollow-bearing
status of overstorey trees species, the amount of coarse woody debris, and the dry weight of
litter. The 20 m x 20 m subplot was used for more detailed data collection such as the number of
lifeforms, plant species richness, and percent ground cover and midstorey cover. For a more
detailed explanation of the variables, refer to Table 3.3 or the methodology of McElhinny et al.
(2006a).
The overstorey species at each plot were also recorded and later categorised into three
main vegetation associations:
- Yellow box / Red gum woodland (YBRG), which were characterised by yellow box
(E. melliodora) and Blakley’s red gum (E. blakleyi) trees in the low lying,
productive areas and valleys. River red gum (E. camaldulensis) communities were
included in this category.
- White box / Grey box woodlands (WBGB) were characterised by the drier footslope
communities dominated by white box (E. albens) and grey box (E. microcarpa) trees.
Other species associated with this vegetation type were the occasional Callitris and
yellow box trees.
- Non-box/gum woodland vegetation (referred to as ‘Hill’ subsequently) was
characterised by the denser iron-bark forests and also hill-top communities.
Predominant species were red ironbark (E. sideroxylon), red stringybark (E.
macrorhyncha), brittle gum (E. mannifera), long-leaved box (E. goniocalyx) and
Callitris species. Hill communities also often included kurrajong (Brachychiton spp.)
trees.
27
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Figure 3.5: Schematic diagram of a typical survey site. Each 2 ha site (light blue) had 3 vegetation survey plots (white) within which habitat data collection took place. Insert: A close up of a vegetation survey plot. The hatched area is where the detailed vegetation data (species richness, lifeform count, cover) was collected. Small black squares represent litter collection points.
28
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Table 3.3: Detailed description of the data collected for the patch scale variables. ‘Size of plot’ indicates where in the survey plot the data was collected (refer to Figure 3.5).
Patch scale habitat variables
Data collected in each plot Size of plot Unit of measurement
Number of lifeforms Number of plant lifeforms (Appendix 1). 20x20 m Lifeforms/400 m
2
Perennial species richness
Number of native perennial species present
20x20 m Species richness/400 m
2
Ground cover Estimated horizontal ground cover of all vegetation under 0.5 m high. The % cover is the average of the estimates.
4 x (10x10 m2) % ground
cover
Midstorey cover Estimated horizontal ground cover of all vegetation 0.5-6 m high. The % cover is the average of the estimates.
4 x (10x10 m2) % midstorey
cover
Live stem density Number of stems in the plot 20x50 m Stems/ha
Stand basal area Basal area of the stand at breast height of all overstorey individuals ≥ 5 cm dbh
20x50 m m2/ha
Callitris basal area Basal area at breast height of Callitris individuals ≥ 5 cm dbh.
20x50 m m2/ha
Eucalyptus basal area
Basal area at breast height of Eucalyptus individuals ≥ 5 cm dbh.
20x50 m m2/ha
Stand quadratic mean diameter
Quadratic mean diameter of all overstorey individuals in the stand ≥ 5 cm dbh.
20x50 m cm
Callitris quadratic mean diameter
Quadratic mean diameter of all Callitris individuals in the stand ≥ 5 cm dbh.
20x50 m cm
Eucalyptus quadratic mean diameter
Quadratic mean diameter of all Eucalyptus individuals in the stand ≥ 5 cm dbh.
20x50 m cm
Trees > 40 cm Number of tree stems ≥ 40 cm dbh. 20x50 m Stems/ha
Hollow trees Number of hollow bearing stems. Dead and live trees are included.
20x50 m Stems/ha
Total overstory regeneration
Number of regenerating stems (< 5 cm dbh) of all species.
20x50 m Stems/ha
Callitris regeneration Number of regenerating stems (< 5 cm dbh) of Callitris species.
20x50 m Stems/ha
Eucalyptus regeneration
Number of regenerating stems (< 5 cm dbh) of Eucalyptus species.
20x50 m Stems/ha
Dead trees Number of dead stems 20x50 m Stems/ha
Total log length Total length of all coarse woody debris with diameter ≥ 10 cm.
20x50 m m/ha
Large log length Total length of all coarse woody debris with diameter ≥ 30 cm.
20x50 m m/ha
Dry litter weight All dead organic matter less than 10 cm in diameter was collected. Plot litter weight was the sum of the 5 samples
5 x (0.5 x 0.5 m) samples
t/ha
29
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
3.3.3 Landscape scale habitat data
Landscape scale variables used in this study to identify optimal noisy miner habitat were
measures of patch area and isolation of the patch (Table 3.4). These variables were calculated
using the ArcMap 9.3 add-on ‘PatchMorph’ (Girvetz and Greco 2007) on a SPOT5 layer
covering the study region. This SPOT layer was classified into two categories, woody
vegetation or non-woody vegetation, and was derived using remotely sensed imagery of the
study region from 2004 and 2005.
Table 3.4: Description of the landscape scale habitat data collected.
Identification of a patch is complicated by the fact that species perceive their own
landscapes according to their own criteria; their ‘Umwelt’ (Manning et al. 2004b). PatchMorph
uses a delineation algorithm based on user-specified inputs in order to delineate functional
patches using species-specific parameters. There are three species-specific parameters by which
a patch can be defined (Girvetz and Greco 2007). These parameters are land cover density
threshold, habitat gap maximum thickness (gap threshold) and habitat maximum thickness (spur
threshold). Land cover density threshold is the minimum amount of woody vegetation cover
that defines a given area as ‘patch’, rather than ‘non-patch’. The gap threshold is defined so that
small gaps between habitat cover, which are easily crossed by animals, can be included as part
of the same patch (Figure 3.6). The spur threshold can be defined to exclude very thin corridors
or projections that may not be useful for species dispersal but increase the size of the patch
disproportionately to their value.
Patch Area
Patch area was delineated using settings of 20% for land cover density with a 50 m gap
threshold and a 30 m spur threshold. A woody vegetation cover density threshold of 20%
(equivalent to 10% projected foliage cover) was used as this reflects the minimum woody
vegetation cover required for that patch to be classified as woodland (Yates and Hobbs 1997,
Montreal Process Implementation Group for Australia 2008). Fifty meters was used as the
maximum gap size as patches of woody vegetation within this gap distance were considered to
be part of the same patch. The use of 30 m as a spur threshold ensured that smaller patches of
vegetation were not disproportionately reduced, but that patches joined by corridors less than 30
m wide were considered as distinct patches.
Landscape variable Variable quantified
Patch area Area (ha)
Patch isolation Extent of vegetation cover surrounding the patch within 2 km radius (ha)
30
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Increasing Gap
Threshold
Increasing Spur Threshold
Figure 3.6: Vegetation ‘patches’ derived from a hypothetical landscape (lower left) depend on gap and spur thresholds definitions. Vegetation cover is specified in green. The higher the thresholds, the more coarse the delineation of the patch is. Increasing gap threshold (y-axis) incorporates larger gaps into the ‘patch’. Increasing spur threshold (x-axis) means that increasingly large spurs (or peninsulas) will be removed from the ‘patch’. Adapted from Givertz and Greco (2007).
31
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Extent of Woody Vegetation Cover
The extent of vegetation cover in the surrounding landscape was determined by creating
polygons of vegetation using PatchMorph settings of 20% land cover density at, a 50 m gap
threshold and the default 3m spur threshold (which is effectively 0 m using a pixel size of 5 m).
Thus, all woody vegetation in the landscape showed up, including scattered trees (Figure 3.7).
Circular buffers comprising a radius of 2 km, using the bird survey plot as the midpoint, were
then extracted from this polygon layer (Figure 3.8). The extent of vegetation was calculated by
summing the total area of woody vegetation contained within the buffer. In their study of
woodland bird responses to landscape scale metrics, Westphal et al. (2003) found that responses
of many species were best explained by vegetation characteristics within a 2 km radius, rather
than 5 km or 10 km.
The GIS analysis was carried out by Isabela Burgher as a component of her honours
project at the ANU (2011).
Figure 3.7: The extent of woody vegetation was determined by creating polygons of vegetation using PatchMorph a) Original binary SPOT layer and, b) the subsequent representation of vegetation in the landscape. Map courtesy Isabela Burgher.
32
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Figure 3.8: Circular buffers around survey sites were used to determine the extent of vegetation in the adjacent region. Circular buffers with a 2 km radius were placed around each bird survey plot. Vegetation extent was calculated by summing the total area of vegetation within the buffer. Map courtesy Isabela Burgher.
33
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
3.4 Statistical Analysis
Statistical analyses were carried out using a two part process (Figure 3.9), guided by the
research questions.
3.4.1 Bird response to noisy miner abundance
After collating a general overview of the bird and habitat data distributions initial analysis
of noisy miner effects on bird species richness (research question 1) were carried out on five
bird categories, using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and correlation. The five bird categories
were:
- Total bird species richness, all of the land bird species found across the 33 sites,
excluding the waterbirds, raptors and nocturnal birds;
- Non-woodland bird species richness, a subset of Total birds.
- Woodland bird species richness, a subset of Total birds.
- Small woodland bird species richness, a subset of Woodland birds, woodland-
dependent birds that weigh less than the noisy miner (65 g), because these birds
are likely to be more susceptible to noisy miner exclusion than larger birds
(Piper and Catterall 2003, Mac Nally et al. 2011).
- Threatened and declining bird species richness, a subset of Woodland birds.
Woodland, small woodland and non-woodland bird categories were determined under
expert advice (Julian Reid, written communication, 03/08/ 2011b; Appendix 2). Threatened and
declining woodland birds in the Cowra region were identified using Reid (1999) and the NSW
threatened species list (Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 2005).
This was followed with a more detailed analysis of noisy miner effects using a generalised
linear model, with a Poisson distribution and a log link function, because the dependent
variables (the five bird categories) were in the form of count data.
Given that small woodland birds and the threatened and declining birds are different
subsets of the woodland birds, I will refer to the three categories as the ‘woodland-dependent’
groups. These classes also include migratory woodland birds. For a full species list of the
woodland-dependent species, refer to Appendix 2. The bird categories were used to focus on the
effects of the noisy miner on these groups, so the noisy miner was excluded from these
categories. Avifaunal species richness counts presented here are cumulative species richness
over the seven survey periods. Average noisy miner abundance refers to the average number of
noisy miners recorded at a survey over the same seven surveys.
34
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
3.4.2 Noisy miner habitat preferences
Research question two, concerning noisy miner habitat preferences, was initially explored
using ANOVA and correlation analysis. This was followed by more detailed least squares
regression modeling in which average noisy miner abundance, a continuous dependent variable,
was modelled in terms of multiple habitat parameters. The natural log (ln) of average noisy
miner abundance was used to normalise their left-skewed distribution. This was an important
step because many statistical models assume a normal distribution; skewed distributions violate
such assumptions. Similarly, many of the habitat attributes distributions were skewed and so
were transformed to a natural log scale. Noisy miner habitat models were developed using a
guided forward step-wise approach. The most parsimonious models were selected as final noisy
miner habitat models. These were models with fewest parameters, best R2 (coefficient of
determination) values, lowest corrected Akaike information criterion (AICc) (a measure of the
goodness of fit) and all parameters in the model were significant.
Analyses were carried out in JMP version 9.0.1. Levels of significance for all analyses
were set at 95% (p ≤ 0.05). Waterbirds, raptors and nocturnal birds were excluded because they
have different resource requirements and operate on different time and space scales than the
noisy miner and woodland birds and may add noise to the data (Julian Reid, written
communication, 30/03/ 2011a). Exotic birds were also excluded because of their urban-biased
distribution (Parsons et al 2003) which may affect species richness counts between sites
differently.
35
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Overview of the bird
and habitat data
Initial analysis of noisy miner
effects on bird species richness
using ANOVA and correlation
Initial noisy miner habitat
data analysis using ANOVA
and correlation
Detailed analysis of noisy miner
effects on bird species richness
using generalised linear modelling
Detailed noisy miner habitat
data analysis using least
squares regression
Data management and
preparation for analysis
Research question 1 Research question 2
The next chapter will present the results from this methodological approach. It will give an
overview of the data collected, followed by the results from the statistical analysis of noisy
miner impacts on bird species richness, and their habitat preferences.
Figure 3.9: Schematic summary of the steps used in the statistical analysis for this study.
36
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Chapter 4
Results
‘Waugoola’, a highly simplified yellow box / red gum woodland. This site
was a high noisy miner abundance site.
37
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Chapter 4: Results
In this chapter, I present analysis of bird species richness against noisy miner abundance in
order to assess the effect of the noisy miner on bird communities. Following this I present the
results of modelling the abundance of noisy miners as a function of landscape and/or patch scale
variables. I begin with an overview of the bird, the patch scale and the landscape scale data
collected for analysis. I then present the results from analysis of noisy miner effects on different
categories of bird species richness. Finally, I show the findings of noisy miner habitat
preferences.
4.1 Overview of the data
4.1.1 Bird data
Across seven surveys at the 33 sites, 104 native bird species were recorded (Appendix 2).
Of the 104 native species, 69 species of woodland birds were recorded and the remaining 35
species were non-woodland or ‘open country’ species. Of the woodland bird species, 59 were
small woodland bird species, and 22 were threatened and declining bird species. Site cumulative
total bird species richness ranged between 12 and 46 species (Table 4.1). Site cumulative
woodland bird species richness ranged between 2 and 31 species. Introduced species and a suite
of water birds, nocturnal birds and raptors were excluded from the original data.
Noisy miner abundance ranged from 0 to 25 individuals. Average noisy miner abundance
over the seven surveys per site ranged from zero (noisy miners were never recorded), up to 11.7
individuals per site. In some cases the noisy miner was analysed as a factor variable, with sites
where the noisy miner was never present, or were present at low, moderate or high levels. These
categories were derived from the original stratification process (Table 3.1).
Table 4.1: Overview of the bird species richness (BSR) distribution of the different bird categories.
Bird species category BSR range Mean BSR Median BSR
Noisy miner abundance Average 0 – 11.7 4.0 3.14
Total bird species Cumulative 12 – 46 26.4 27
Woodland bird species Cumulative 2 – 31 13.6 14
Small woodland birds Cumulative 0 – 27 9.0 9
Non-woodland bird species Cumulative 8 – 21 12.8 12
Threatened and declining bird species
Cumulative 1 – 13 4.3 5
38
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Twenty two threatened and/or declining species were observed. Twelve of these were
NSW listed threatened birds, 17 were species of declining birds (Table 4.2). Many of these were
infrequently recorded, with 12 species only observed at 15% or fewer sites. No individuals were
ever recorded at 85% of sites over seven surveys. Of the threatened and declining species, only
the superb parrot and rufous whistler were recorded at more than half of the sites.
Table 4.2: List of the threatened and declining species found in the Cowra region. While the superb parrot and rufous whistler were present at more than half of the sites, half of the threatened and declining species were only present at fewer than 15% of sites over seven surveys.
Species Conservation status Number of
sites present
% of sites present
Black-chinned honeyeater Vulnerable 3 9
Brown treecreeper Declining 15 46
Chestnut-rumped thornbill Vulnerable, Declining 1 3
Crested shrike-tit Declining 9 27
Diamond firetail Vulnerable, Declining 4 12
Dusky woodswallow Declining 14 42
Eastern yellow robin Declining 7 21
Gilbert's whistler Vulnerable 1 3
Grey-crowned babbler Vulnerable, Declining 8 24
Hooded robin Vulnerable, Declining 1 3
Jacky winter Declining 7 21
Little lorikeet Vulnerable 1 3
Red-capped robin Declining 3 9
Restless flycatcher Declining 7 21
Rufous whistler Declining 17 52
Speckled warbler Vulnerable, Declining 5 15
Superb parrot Vulnerable 22 67
Swift parrot Endangered, Declining 1 3
Turquoise parrot Vulnerable 1 3
Varied sittella Vulnerable, Declining 3 9
White-browed babbler Declining 5 15
White-browed woodswallow Declining 7 21
39
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
4.1.2 Habitat data
Patch scale variables
The patch scale variables had sufficient range in their distribution to be used for modelling.
Variables that were not normally distributed were transformed using the natural log of the
original value. Table 4.3 provides a summary of the distribution of these habitat variables (see
Appendix 3 for the raw data).
Table 4.3: Summary statistics of the continuous patch scale habitat variables.
Patch scale habitat variable Range Mean Median
No. Lifeforms (/400 m^2) 2.0 - 8.3 5.2 4.7
Perennial sp. richness (/400 m^2) 2.3 - 33.6 11.3 10
Ground cover (%) 9.8 - 99.2 63.0 65.8
Midstorey cover (%) 0 - 36.25 5.7 1.6
Live stem density (/ha) 16.7 - 1096.7 329.7 223.3
Stand basal area (m2/ha ) 3.7 - 56.4 19.3 18.0
Callitris basal area (m2/ha) 0 - 13.3 2.0 0
Eucalyptus basal area (m2/ha) 0.9 - 56.4 17.1 17.6
Mean tree basal area (m2) 0 - 0.4 0.1 0.1
Stand quadratic mean diameter (cm) 14.3 - 75.3 35.4 28.3
Callitris quadratic mean diameter (cm) 0 - 32.6 6.2 0
Eucalyptus quadratic mean diameter (cm) 10.9 - 89.7 38.7 33.7
Trees > 40 cm (stems/ha) 0 - 83.3 33.9 33.3
Hollow trees (stems/ha) 0 - 33.3 10 10
Total overstorey regeneration (stems/ha) 0 - 5066.7 400.7 33. 3
Callitris regeneration (stems/ha) 0 - 5023.3 322.0 0
Eucalypt regeneration (stems/ha) 0 - 426.7 45.5 13.3
Number of dead trees (stems/ha) 0 - 406.7 75.1 43.3
Total log length (m/ha) 27.2 - 1039.8 331.6 234.0
Large log length (m/ha) 0 - 103.6 24.6 17.7
Litter weight (t/ha) 1.4 - 13.7 6.5 6.5
Landscape scale variables
The landscape scale variables showed a large level of variability (Table 4.4). Patch area
ranged between 1.5 and 37000 ha, while the extent of vegetation surrounding a site ranged
between about 40 and 1140 ha (equivalent to 3% and 90% vegetation cover within the circular
buffer). Both patch area and extent of woody vegetation were heavily skewed with a small
number of very high values. Both variables were transformed to the natural log and this
transformation was used in subsequent analysis.
Table 4.4: Summary statistics of the landscape scale habitat variables. Both variables displayed considerable range and were positively (right) skewed.
Landscape scale habitat variable Range Mean Median
Patch area (ha) 1.5 - 37000 3918.9 28
Vegetation extent (ha) 40 - 1138
(3 – 90% cover)
314.2 256.6
40
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
The landscape variables were also converted into factor variables to analyse the variance in
noisy miner abundance according to thresholds of landscape variables. The patch area cut off
was set at 30 ha with patches smaller than 30 ha considered ‘small’ and those larger than 30 ha
were ‘large’ (Mac Nally et al. 2000a, MacDonald and Kirkpatrick 2003). The threshold
determining the extent of vegetation surrounding the site was defined as 20% (or about 250 ha),
with more or less vegetated area considered to have “high” or “low” vegetation extent
respectively.
4.2 Bird responses to noisy miner abundance
4.2.1 Correlation analysis
Simple bivariate relationships between average noisy miner abundance and different bird
response categories were identified using pairwise correlations within a scatterplot matrix
(Table 4.5). The noisy miner appears to negatively affect all bird categories significantly except
for non-woodland birds.
Table 4.5: Correlation between bird response categories and average noisy miner abundance. All of the bird species richness (BSR) categories were negatively correlated with the natural log (ln) of average noisy miner abundance (lnAvgNMAbn), except for non-woodland BSR. 95% confidence intervals (CI) and significance values (p-value) are reported.
Response variable Explanatory variable
Correlation coefficient
Upper 95% CI
Lower 95% CI
p-value
Small woodland bird species richness
lnAvgNMAbn -0.767 -0.879 -0.575 <.0001
Woodland bird species richness
lnAvgNMAbn -0.714 -0.849 -0.491 <.0001
Threatened and declining bird species richness
lnAvgNMAbn -0.620 -0.794 -0.352 0.0001
Total bird species richness lnAvgNMAbn -0.604 -0.785 -0.329 0.0002
Non-woodland bird species richness
lnAvgNMAbn 0.040 -0.308 0.378 0.8274
4.2.2 Analysis of Variance
All bird categories showed significant response to noisy miner abundance as a categorical
explanatory variable (Table 4.6). Species richness of all of the woodland-dependent groups was
significantly lower in high noisy miner abundance levels than any other abundance level.
Small woodland birds showed the most significant effects, with highest species richness in
sites where noisy miners were never present, moderate richness in low and moderate noisy
miner sites and very low richness in high noisy miner sites (P < 0.0001; R2 = 0.57). Woodland
birds, and threatened and declining species show a similar trend but with less distinct changes
41
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
between noisy miner free and low noisy miner sites (p = 0.0001 and 0.0005 respectively). Total
bird species richness was significantly lower in high noisy miner abundance sites than at any
other site (p = 0.0006).
Non-woodland birds showed a very different trend with lowest species richness in noisy
miner free sites and high noisy miner sites, while low and moderate levels of noisy miner
abundance was associated with higher species richness.
Table 4.6: All of the bird groups were significantly influenced by average noisy miner abundance categories. Different symbols indicate significantly different means. Small woodland birds appear to show the strongest declining trends. This table presents the significance of the result (p-value) and the amount of variance explained by the analysis (R
2). For graphical ANOVA output, with
standard error margins, refer to Appendix 4.
Response variable: Bird species richness (BSR)
Noisy miner abundance p-value R2
Never Low Mod High
Small woodland bird species richness
17.3 * 11.0 ^ 7.3 ^ 0.3 # <.0001 0.57
Woodland bird species richness
21.1 * 16.4 *^ 12.4 ^ 5.6 # 0.0001 0.51
Threatened and declining bird species richness
6.4 * 5.5 *^ 4.1 ^ 1.6 # 0.0005 0.45
Total bird species richness 32.0 * 30.8 * 27.5 * 16.6 ^ 0.0006 0.45
Non-woodland bird species richness
10.9 ^ 14.4 * 15.1 * 10.9 ^ 0.0012 0.41
Figure 4.1: Relative non-woodland bird species richness (BSR) increases with noisy miner abundance. As noisy miner abundance increased, all bird species richness decreased. The relative richness of non-woodland bird species (red) became important at high noisy miner abundance levels, contributing to over 65% of all bird species richness. Woodland birds (green) contribute most at low and noisy miner free sites. Data from Table 4.6.
42
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
4.2.3 Generalised linear modelling
Generalised linear models were used to examine how the abundance of noisy miners affect
bird species richness and to see if threshold effects were apparent.
All of the bird categories except non-woodland birds showed significant responses to noisy
miner abundance as a continuous explanatory variable (Table 4.7; Figure 4.2). All of the
woodland-dependent birds were negatively affected by noisy miner abundance with the
strongest effects in small woodland birds (p < 0.0001 for all groups). These effects were
pronounced at low noisy miner abundance levels (Figure 4.2). Woodland-dependent bird
species richness was reduced by at least 25% and up to 40%, when an average of one noisy
miner was present and by about 50% when noisy miner average abundance reached 3.5
individuals (Table 4.8; Figure 4.2). These effects were the most prominent in the small
woodland bird group, with a reduction of more than 50% of their potential species richness
when just two noisy miner individuals were present.
Table 4.7: The log of noisy miner (lnNM) abundance significantly influences all of the bird response categories except non-woodland birds. This table presents the formula derived from generalised linear models, which are graphically represented in Figure 4.1. Significance is indicated by p ≤0.05. Models are of the form y = e
b+mx,
where b is the intercept, m is a constant and x is the natural log of noisy miner abundance.
Response variable: Bird Species Richness (BSR
Model formula
Y = eb+(m)x
Standard error of b (intercept)
Standard error of m (gradient)
p-value
Woodland bird species richness
Exp( 3.137+(-0.473)*lnNM) 0.069 0.054 <0.0001
Total bird species richness
Exp( 3.561+(-0.240)*lnNM) 0.054 0.038 <0.0001
Threatened and declining bird species richness
Exp( 1.960+(-0.447)*lnNM) 0.123 0.096 <0.0001
Small woodland bird species richness
Exp( 2.952+(-0.758)*lnNM) 0.080 0.070
<0.0001
Non-woodland bird species richness
Exp( 2.532+ (0.011)*lnNM) 0.089 0.056 0.8476
43
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Figure 4.2: The noisy miner has a negative effect on total bird species richness and species richness of woodland-dependent birds. These were modelled using generalised linear models. All of the models were significant (p < 0.0001) for all groups except the non-woodland birds, which showed no trend or significance. Dotted line ‘a’ (1 noisy miner) represents at least s 25% reduction any (and all) of the woodland-dependent bird species richness categories. ‘b’ (3.5 noisy miners) represents a 50% reduction in the same groups. It is worth nothing that small woodland birds are reduced by 40% and 68% (Table 4.8).
Table 4.8: Percent of the potential bird species richness of a site, under different noisy miner abundance values. Increasing noisy miner abundance reduces the species richness of all bird categories. Small woodland birds showed the largest reductions in species richness. These figures were determined using the formula from generalised linear models (Table 4.7). Bolded rows refer to the dotted lines in Figure 4.2.
Avg. noisy miner abundance
Percent (%) potential species richness
Total birds Woodland birds Threatened and declining birds
Small woodland birds
0 100 100 100 100
1 84.7 72.0 73.3 59.1
2 76.8 59.5 61.2 43.5
3 71.7 51.9 53.8 35.0
3.5 69.8 49.1 51.1 32.1
4 67.9 46.7 48.7 29.5
6 62.7 39.8 41.9 22.9
8 59.0 35.4 37.4 18.9
10 56.2 32.2 34.2 16.2
12 54.0 29.7 31.7 14.3
44
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
4.3 Noisy miner habitat preferences
4.3.1 Correlation analysis
Simple bivariate relationships between the continuous explanatory variables at the patch
and landscape scale, and the response variable of average noisy miner abundance were
identified using pairwise correlations within a scatterplot matrix (Table 4.9). All of the
statistically significant correlations negatively affected noisy miner abundance. Noisy miner
abundance was highly significantly (p ≤ 0.005) related to the extent of vegetation in the
surrounding 2 km buffer, patch size, total overstorey regeneration, and Callitris basal area.
Noisy miners were also significantly (p ≤ 0.05) related to the number of lifeforms present, the
amount of Callitris regeneration, perennial plant species richness and Callitris quadratic mean
diameter.
Potential correlations between explanatory variables were also identified using the same
method (Table 4.10) in order to ensure that variables correlated with each other were not
included in the final model together. Variables with correlation coefficients ≥ ±0.9 were not
combined in multivariate regression analysis.
45
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Table 4.9: Correlation between patch and landscape variables and average noisy miner abundance. Eight variables were significantly correlated with noisy miner abundance. All variables with coefficients ±0.35 and above were significant, at p ≤ 0.05.
Patch and landscape explanatory variables
Correlation coefficient
Significance level
ln (Vegetation extent) -0.55
p ≤ 0.005; highly
significant
ln (Patch area) -0.54
ln (Total overstorey regeneration) -0.50
ln (Callitris basal area) -0.47
Number of lifeforms -0.40
p ≤ 0.05;
significant
ln (Callitris regeneration) -0.40
ln (Perennial species richness) -0.39
ln (Callitris quadratic mean diameter) -0.37
Ground cover (%) 0.33
p > 0.05;
insignificant
ln (Hollow bearing trees) -0.32
ln (Dead trees) -0.30
ln (Eucalyptus regeneration) -0.29
ln (Stem density) -0.29
ln (Midstorey cover) -0.29
ln (Eucalyptus quadratic mean diameter) 0.25
ln (Stand quadratic mean diameter) 0.23
ln (Large log length) -0.22
ln (Total log length) -0.18
Stand basal area -0.18
ln (Eucalyptus basal area) 0.16
Number of trees > 40 cm 0.15
Litter weight (t/ha) -0.11
Mean tree basal area 0.073
46
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Table 4.10: Correlations between continuous explanatory variables for the 33 study sites. All variables with coefficients ±0.35 (in bold) and above were significant, at p ≤ 0.05. Coefficients ±0.9 (grey) were deemed to be too closely correlated and were not used together in subsequent analyses. Average noisy miner abundance was correlated with eight variables (shaded).
Number of lifeforms 1
Ln (Perennial species richness) 0.77 1
Ground cover (%) -0.35 -0.29 1
ln (Midstorey cover) 0.68 0.37 -0.34 1
ln (Stem density) 0.49 0.45 -0.50 0.55 1
Stand basal area -0.17 -0.23 -0.12 0.08 0.24 1
ln (Callitris basal area) 0.60 0.43 -0.55 0.64 0.59 -0.07 1
ln (Eucalyptus basal area) -0.42 -0.28 0.10 -0.31 -0.01 0.75 -0.50 1
Mean tree basal area -0.50 -0.51 0.26 -0.43 -0.80 0.24 -0.45 0.34 1
ln (Stand QMD) -0.62 -0.56 0.40 -0.56 -0.84 0.27 -0.63 0.48 0.92 1
ln (Callitris QMD) 0.72 0.50 -0.43 0.72 0.44 -0.22 0.85 -0.56 -0.47 -0.58 1
ln (Eucalyptus QMD) -0.61 -0.59 0.26 -0.45 -0.70 0.29 -0.54 0.54 0.87 0.90 -0.55 1
Number of trees > 40 cm -0.41 -0.37 0.19 -0.18 -0.07 0.72 -0.40 0.78 0.29 0.49 -0.45 0.51 1
ln (Hollow bearing trees) -0.16 -0.11 -0.16 -0.16 -0.08 0.55 -0.17 0.60 0.43 0.42 -0.32 0.40 0.47 1
ln (Total overstorey regeneration) 0.74 0.62 -0.34 0.68 0.62 -0.33 0.72 -0.63 -0.64 -0.82 0.69 -0.70 -0.56 -0.33 1
ln (Callitris regeneration) 0.64 0.38 -0.48 0.71 0.52 -0.22 0.93 -0.65 -0.46 -0.66 0.89 -0.56 -0.48 -0.32 0.78 1
ln (Eucalyptus regeneration) 0.57 0.64 -0.09 0.39 0.57 -0.16 0.28 -0.18 -0.59 -0.68 0.23 -0.59 -0.34 -0.14 0.72 0.27 1
ln (Dead trees) 0.19 0.36 -0.17 0.06 0.61 0.08 0.25 0.03 -0.66 -0.54 0.20 -0.60 0.04 -0.06 0.28 0.13 0.32 1
Litter weight (t/ha) 0.17 0.27 -0.38 0.07 0.35 0.36 0.18 0.42 -0.13 -0.08 0.10 -0.04 0.27 0.43 -0.04 -0.04 0.08 0.24 1
ln (Patch area) 0.54 0.53 -0.25 0.32 0.54 0.12 0.56 -0.19 -0.43 -0.52 0.47 -0.66 -0.24 0.01 0.52 0.49 0.51 0.43 0.25 1
ln (Vegetation extent) 0.41 0.56 0.09 0.17 0.28 0.14 0.27 -0.06 -0.14 -0.24 0.21 -0.36 -0.16 0.09 0.40 0.23 0.46 0.36 0.00 0.72 1
ln (Average noisy miner abundance) -0.40 -0.39 0.33 -0.29 -0.29 -0.18 -0.47 0.16 0.07 0.23 -0.37 0.25 0.15 -0.32 -0.50 -0.40 -0.29 -0.30 -0.11 -0.54 -0.55 1
Nu
mber o
f lifeform
s
Ln
(Peren
nial sp
ecies
richn
ess)
Gro
un
d co
ver (%
)
ln (M
idsto
rey co
ver)
ln (S
tem d
ensity
)
Stan
d b
asal area
ln (C
allitris b
asal area)
ln (E
uca
lyptu
s basal
area)
Mean
tree basal area
ln (S
tand q
uad
ratic
mean
diam
eter)
ln (C
allitris q
uad
ratic
mean
diam
eter)
ln (E
uca
lyptu
s qu
adratic
mean
diam
eter)
Nu
mber o
f trees > 4
0
cm
ln (H
ollo
w b
earing
trees)
ln (T
otal o
versto
rey
regen
eration
)
ln (C
allitris
regen
eration
)
ln (E
uca
lyptu
s
regen
eration
)
ln (D
ead trees)
Litter w
eight (t/h
a)
ln (P
atch area)
ln (V
egetatio
n ex
tent)
ln (A
verag
e noisy
min
er
abu
nd
ance)
47
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
4.3.2 Bivariate least squares regression
The impact of the habitat variables on noisy miner abundance was determined by
modelling each significant variable obtained from correlation analysis using least squares
regression. The landscape variables of vegetation extent and patch area had the greatest impact
on noisy miner abundance (Table 4.11): each variable explained about 30% of noisy miner
distribution. These were followed respectively by the patch scale variables of total overstorey
regeneration, Callitris basal area, the number of lifeforms, Callitris regeneration, perennial
species richness and Callitris quadratic mean diameter (in order of significance and explanatory
power).
Table 4.11: The effects of continuous individual patch and landscape scale variables on noisy miner abundance (y). These effects were modelled using least squares regression. The model formula, significance (p-value) and the amount of variation (R
2) explained are presented here. Models are of the form
y = b+mx, where b is the intercept, m is a constant and x is the explanatory variable, in the first column.
Patch and landscape
explanatory variables (x)
Model formula
y = b + m(x)
Standard error of b (intercept)
Standard error of m (gradient)
p-value R2
ln(Vegetation extent) 4.182 - 0.536 * x 0.802 0.147 0.0009 0.30
ln(Patch area) 2.017 - 0.172 * x 0.241 0.048 0.001 0.29
ln(Total regeneration) 1.867 - 0.168 * x 0.226 0.053 0.003 0.25
ln(Callitris basal area) 1.545 - 0.453 * x 0.161 0.151 0.005 0.23
Number of lifeforms 2.268 - 0.188 * x 0.428 0.078 0.02 0.16
ln(Callitris regeneration) 1.512 - 0.125 * x 0.170 0.052 0.02 0.16
ln(Perennial species richness)
2.611 - 0.583 * x 0.572 0.245 0.02 0.15
ln(Callitris quadratic mean diameter)
1.513 - 0.228 * x 0.177 0.104 0.04 0.13
48
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
4.3.3 Analysis of Variance
One way analysis of variance was used to see how the noisy miner responds to the
categorical habitat variables of vegetation association, patch size and the extent of vegetation
within a 2 km radius of the site. This analysis was conducted using the log of average noisy
miner abundance. Numerical values presented here, the ‘actual means’, refer to natural log
values (as depicted in Figure 4.3) that have been back transformed (expln(mean)
- 1) for tangible
bird numbers.
Average noisy miner abundance was significantly affected by vegetation association
(p=0.0001; R2=0.46), with more individuals occurring at the woodland sites than at the hill sites
(Figure 4.3a). Yellow box/Red gum woodlands had the highest noisy miner abundance (actual
mean=5.1), followed by White box/Grey box woodlands (actual mean=3.8). However, the hill
sites had significantly lower noisy miner abundance (actual mean=0.7). Noisy miner abundance
did not significantly differ between the woodland sites.
Average noisy miner abundance was significantly higher in small patches (less than 30 ha)
than large patches (p = 0.01; R2 = 0.19; Figure 4.2b), with actual mean miner abundance of 4.3
and 1.4 birds respectively.
Average noisy miner abundance was significantly higher when the extent of vegetation
surrounding the site was low (less than 20% cover) than when the extent of cover was high
(p = 0.04; R2 = 0.13; Figure 4.3c), with actual mean noisy miner abundance of 4.0 and 1.7 birds
respectively.
49
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
(>20%)
a)
c)
b)
Hill
*
*
Figure 4.3: Graphical representations of the analysis of variance models between noisy miner abundance and categorical habitat variables. (a) The box/gum woodland sites both had significantly higher (p=0.0001) noisy miner abundance than the hill sites. YBRG and WBGB refer to yellow box/red gum woodland and white box/grey box woodland communities respectively. Hill sites are non-woodland communities (see section 3.3.2). (b) The noisy miner was more abundant in small (<30 ha) vegetation patches (p=0.01). (c) Sites with low extent of vegetation cover had higher noisy miner abundance (p=0.04). Error bars indicate standard error. Different letters indicate that means are significantly different.
(< 20%)
a
b b
a
a
b
b
50
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
4.3.4 Multivariate Least Squares Regression analysis
A multivariate least squares regression analysis was used to model the combined effects of
multiple variables on average noisy miner abundance. The most parsimonious model was
selected as the final noisy miner habitat model (Table 4.12), that is, the model with fewest
parameters, best R2 values, lowest corrected Akaike information criterion (AICc), with only
significant parameters in the model.
Noisy miners generally inhabit woodland rather than forest habitats. Because this study
aimed to find which patch and landscape scale habitat variables affect noisy miner abundance
rather than vegetation preferences, the model was developed without using the strong
explanatory power of vegetation association.
Patch area, hollow bearing trees and Callitris regeneration were able to successfully
predict noisy miner abundance (Table 4.12). All of the parameters used in the multivariate
habitat model were significant with p-values of 0.017, 0.0016 and 0.0023 respectively. All of
the variables negatively affected noisy miner abundance. This model was highly significant (p =
0.0002, Table 4.12) and explains about half of the variance in noisy miner distribution (R2 =
0.50, Table 4.12). Small patches with low levels of Callitris regeneration and few hollow
bearing trees had considerably higher noisy miner abundance as shown graphically in Figure
4.4.
Table 4.12: Least squares regression analysis identified patch area, the amount of Callitris regeneration and the number of hollow bearing trees as the best predictors of ln(noisy miner abundance). More noisy miners are present in small patches with low regeneration and few hollow bearing trees. This table presents the model, significance value (p-value) and the amount of variance explained (R
2) by that model. For a graphical representation, using actual average noisy miner
abundance) refer to Figure 4.4.
Response Multivariate habitat model p-value R2
Ln (Average noisy miner abundance)
2.21+Area [S=0.298/L=-0.298] +(-0.15*ln(Callitris Regeneration)) +(- 0.35*ln(Hollow bearing trees))
0.0002 0.50
Actual average noisy miner abundance
e (ln (Average noisy miner abundance))
- 1
51
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Figure 4.4: Graphical representation of the multivariate habitat model presented in Table 4.12. All of the variables negatively affected noisy miner abundance. Small patches (<30 ha) tended to have a higher abundance of noisy miners than large patches (> 30 ha).
a) Low hollow bearing tree scenario. Low levels of tree hollows (HT) were set at 0 hollows/ha, 10
th percentile of collected data.
b) High hollow bearing tree scenario. High levels of tree hollows were defined as 22 hollows/ha, 90
th percentile of collected data.
b)
a)
52
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
This chapter has outlined the data collected and presented the results from statistical
analysis of noisy miner impacts on bird species richness, and their habitat preferences. Chapter
five will discuss these results in the context of the posed research questions in chapter two, and
of the outcomes from other research.
53
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Chapter 5
Discussion
‘Warripendi – Paddock’, a ‘hill’ site with high structural complexity. This site
was a low noisy miner site.
54
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Chapter 5: Discussion
In this chapter I discuss the two research questions proposed in Chapter 2, and the
relevance of my data analyses in evaluating the collective knowledge of noisy miners. The
responses of woodland birds to noisy miner abundance are evaluated first. This is followed with
a discussion of the bird categories that are most susceptible to noisy miner aggression and the
density threshold of noisy miner abundance where their effect is more pronounced. The habitat
preferences of the noisy miner are then considered at both the patch and landscape scale. Finally
I draw on important findings of my research to identify key management implications and then
discuss some of the limitations of this project and the scope for further research.
5.1 Bird response to noisy miner abundance
Research question 1: Does noisy miner presence and/or abundance affect bird species
richness?
Total bird species richness only responded to high noisy miner abundance. Mean total bird
species richness in noisy miner free, low and moderate sites ranged between 32 and 27.5 species
(Table 4.6). These means were not significantly different from each other but were significantly
higher than at high noisy miner abundance sites, with a mean of 16.6 species. This result is
attributable to the high richness of non-woodland bird species (a subset of total bird species
richness) in the low and moderate noisy miner sites (Figure 4.1). Non-woodland birds accounted
for less than one third of total bird species richness in the noisy miner free site, but about one
half of the species in the low and moderate noisy miner abundance sites (Table 4.6). The
proportion of non-woodland birds to woodland birds increased with increasing noisy miner
abundance (Figure 4.1). More than 65% of the bird species richness at high noisy miner sites
was contributed by non-woodland bird species (c.f. 35% in noisy miner free sites). All of the
bird categories including non-woodland birds had significantly lower bird species richness
under high noisy miner abundance.
Generalised linear modelling presents a different picture (Figure 4.2). An average of just
one noisy miner reduced total bird species richness by 15%, and two individuals reduced total
bird species richness by almost 25% (Table 4.8). Once an average of three noisy miners were
present (equivalent to the cut off between low and moderate noisy miner abundance in this
study), total bird species richness was reduced by 30% and more than half of the species present
were non-woodland birds (Figure 4.2). Non-woodland birds were not affected (Figure 4.2), and
could be buffering the effects of low and moderate noisy miner abundance on total bird species
richness. This suggests we should take a closer look at which suites of birds are the noisy miner
‘losers’ being the birds that are most susceptible to and are being most affected by noisy miner
aggression.
55
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
5.1.1 The biggest ‘losers’
Research question 1a: Which birds are more susceptible to the effects of noisy miner
invasion and dominance?
The aim of this question was to identify which birds were noisy miner ‘losers’, the birds
that are more vulnerable to the effects of the aggressive behaviour exhibited by the noisy miner.
In this study, all of the bird categories except non-woodland birds were significantly negatively
affected by average noisy miner abundance (Table 4.5, Table 4.8, Figure 4.2). Small woodland
birds appear to be the biggest ‘losers’ with 40% fewer small bird species present when an
average of just one noisy miner is present over time (Table 4.8), and less than half are present
when there are two miner birds. When there was an average of three noisy miner individuals
present, only 35% of the potential small woodland species present were found.
Small woodland birds respond strongly to noisy miner invasion, with substantial
reductions in bird species richness even at very low levels of noisy miner abundance. Small
woodland birds have been identified as those most affected by noisy miner aggression in several
other studies from different regions in south eastern Australia (Grey et al. 1998, Major et al.
2001, Catterall 2004, Hastings and Beattie 2006, Maron et al. 2011). Many of these smaller
birds have similar dietary requirements to the noisy miner, supporting the idea that noisy miners
exclude species that compete for similar resources. Because the noisy miner has a relatively
large body size for its diet and is territorially aggressive (Piper and Catterall 2003), it is able to
exclude competitors with ease and monopolise food resources. This is a classic example of
interference competition.
The threatened and declining birds and woodland birds were also negatively affected
(Table 4.5; Table 4.8; Figure 4.2). Their response was not as strong as in the small woodland
bird category, with 25% fewer species present when an average of one noisy miner was present
and 49% fewer species when an average of 3.5 noisy miner individuals were present (c.f. 40%
and 68% fewer species of small woodland birds) Of the 22 species of threatened and declining
birds, 20 species were also small woodland birds, which may account for the similarities in
responses of the two groups. The superb parrot (Polytelis swainsonii) and the grey-crowned
babbler (Pomatostomus temporalis), the two ‘large’ threatened and declining birds, did not
show any response to noisy miner presence or abundance. These results may account for the
weaker effects of noisy miner abundance on the threatened and declining birds than the small
woodland birds. Many of the birds in the woodland bird category are smaller than the noisy
miner (Appendix 2); this relative sizing may also account for the negative effects of the noisy
miner on this category.
56
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
5.1.2 Noisy miner density thresholds
Research question 1b: Is there a density threshold where their effect is more
pronounced?
This question aimed to identify a noisy miner density threshold where their effects become
more pronounced. This question was addressed visually by comparing the generalised linear
models of how noisy miner abundance affects bird species richness. In all of the woodland-
dependent groups, the most pronounced negative effects occur between zero and one noisy
miner (Table 4.8, Figure 4.2). This effect tapers off with increasing noisy miner abundance.
Bird species richness continues to decline throughout the noisy miner abundance range.
Analysis of variance of mean small woodland birds species richness also indicates that low
noisy miner abundance (1 – 3 individuals) results in significantly lower small bird species
richness (Table 4.6).
Noisy miner presence has commonly been cited as among the most important predictors of
bird assemblage structure in many eastern Australian landscape (Maron et al. 2011) but very
few studies comment on how many noisy miner individuals can exist in a patch before their
effects become noticeable. This study suggests that an average of just one noisy miner
individual present over time in a two ha patch is enough to have deleterious effects on small
woodland birds, a suite of birds that are exhibiting substantial declines.
Since the noisy miner is a communal, conspicuous bird, finding just one noisy miner at a
site every season is unlikely. An average of one individual may be indicative of either a small
colony present in the patch (only one bird of the colony seen every season), or of transient
miner colony occupation of the patch (7 birds seen in one season, but none in other seasons). In
the first hypothesis, that so few noisy miners need to be present before having deleterious
effects on woodland birds indicates that noisy miner presence rather than density plays a more
important role in determining influence over bird communities. In the second hypothesis, a
larger colony present in only one of the seven surveys, but still negatively affects species over
time is quite different and may indicate some sort of site avoidance memory by the birds. In this
study at all sites where noisy miners were present, they were observed in at least three surveys
and at most sites they were observed in six or seven surveys indicating permanent or semi-
permanent occupation of sites. This indicates that the second hypothesis is unlikely in this
study. Removal experiments in other studies indicate that bird species richness almost
immediately increases after the noisy miner colony is removed from a site (Grey et al. 1997,
Grey et al. 1998, Debus 2008). This suggests that birds do not necessarily remember which sites
to avoid but are deterred when noisy miners are present.
In the Cowra region, it appears that persistent noisy miner presence at a site, even at very
low levels, is a strong inverse predictor of the diversity of small woodland birds that will be
present at that site.
57
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
5.2 Noisy miner habitat preferences
Research question 2: Is noisy miner abundance affected by landscape and/or patch-
scale variables?
This research question aimed to determine which landscape scale and patch scale variables
could explain noisy miner abundance. Noisy miner abundance was significantly influenced by
nine habitat variables. I begin with the landscape scale variables because these were the most
influential in explaining noisy miner abundance in bivariate models, followed by the patch scale
variables. Finally I will examine the more complex multivariate habitat model.
5.2.1 Landscape scale habitat variables
At the landscape scale the extent of vegetation surrounding the patch and the patch area
both significantly influenced noisy miner abundance. Given that these variables were correlated
with each other and that both are likely to influence the ability for noisy miners to dominate that
patch of woodland, these findings were expected.
Extent of vegetation in adjacent area
The extent of vegetation surrounding the patch could explain 30% of the distribution of
noisy miner abundance (Table 4.11) with higher noisy miner abundance when the extent of
vegetation was low (p < 0.001). Noisy miner abundance was significantly more likely to be high
when the extent of vegetation surrounding a patch was less than 20% (Figure 4.3). This finding
was expected for two reasons.
Firstly, noisy miners have commonly been associated with highly modified landscapes.
The extent of vegetation surrounding a patch is indicative of the intensity of land use and the
level of modification (Radford et al. 2005). For example in a given region a more intensively
managed cropping production system has fewer trees than a native pasture grazing system
which has less woody vegetation than a reserve or national park. In this study noisy miners were
more abundant in the sites with low extent of vegetation cover, which tend to be the more
heavily modified systems, than they were at sites with high vegetation cover like reserves and
national parks.
Secondly, noisy miner behaviour lends them to defending open areas more easily (Martin
et al. 2006, Taylor et al. 2008). Where the extent of vegetation is lower - in human altered or
natural systems - noisy miner colonies can see potential predators and competitors more easily
(Maron 2009). They are thus better able to exclude other birds when there is low woody
vegetation cover in the areas adjacent to their home range. More intensive land use with
scattered remnant vegetation is likely to encourage noisy miner invasions.
58
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Patch area
Similarly, noisy miner abundance was significantly higher in small patches (< 30 ha) than
in larger patches (p = 0.001; Figure 4.3). Patch size could explain 29% of variation in their
abundance distribution (Table 4.11). This supports an extensive body of literature that suggests
noisy miner colonies tend to dominate in small patches (Mac Nally et al. 2000a, Major et al.
2001, Mac Nally and Horrocks 2002, MacDonald and Kirkpatrick 2003, Hastings and Beattie
2006). Like the extent of vegetation in the surrounding area, patch area relates to the ability of
the noisy miner to defend its territory. With a high edge to area ratio, a small patch is more
easily defended against other birds because noisy miners can monitor the perimeter of their
territory. This allows them to see potential predators and competitors more easily thereby
helping them to monopolise the patch resources. Furthermore, small patches with low
vegetation cover in the area are more prone to edge effects which facilitate processes like weed
invasion and further degrade the site (Hobbs 2001), another factor that appears to attract the
noisy miner (section 5.2.2).
5.2.2 Patch scale habitat variables
At the patch scale, eight habitat variables had significant influence over noisy miner
abundance distribution (Table 4.11). Vegetation association, total overstorey regeneration and
Callitris basal area were highly significant (p < 0.005). The number of lifeforms, Callitris
regeneration, perennial species richness and Callitris quadratic mean diameter were also
significant (p < 0.05). Measures of ground cover, midstorey cover, stem density, Eucalyptus
size and density, logs and litter did not influence noisy miner abundance distributions in this
study.
The seven significant explanatory variables were split into three key sections, because
some of these variables are likely to have broadly similar effects on noisy miner ability to utilise
the site. The first of these, vegetation association, includes both a discussion on the overall
vegetation type, including Callitris measures of basal area and quadratic mean diameter, as
these are constituents of the vegetation association. Secondly, total overstorey regeneration and
Callitris regeneration are included together, as overstorey regeneration, because they are both
midstorey structural features. Finally, I discuss how the number of lifeforms and perennial
species richness may be an indicator of overall site disturbance and ‘health’ thus influencing
noisy miner abundance.
Vegetation association
The strongest patch scale variable influencing noisy miner abundance was habitat
association with yellow box/red gum woodlands and white box/grey box woodlands sustaining
significantly higher levels of noisy miners than hill sites (Figure 4.3). This may be a
manifestation of woodlands tending to be smaller in area. In this study, however, the definition
59
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
of small patch size (< 30 ha) meant that there was even representation of large woodlands, with
seven large woodland sites and nine large hill sites. This indicates that vegetation association
was important, irrespective of patch size.
One of the key differences between the woodland and hill sites is topographic position,
which has many influences on the types of vegetation that will grow at that site. The woodlands
occur in the more productive, lower lying parts of the landscape, a factor that has been found to
be important for noisy miner presence (Catterall 2004, Taylor et al. 2008, Oldland et al. 2009).
Woodlands are also generally higher in Eucalyptus density which is a valuable and prolific food
resource for the noisy miner (Maron 2007). These sites hold many more of the structural habitat
features generally associated with noisy miner site preferences such as low stem density, low
understorey cover, and lower extent of vegetation cover. Conversely, hill sites were either
densely forested, (e.g. Conimbla National Park), or were sparsely treed grasslands on rocky
hilltops rather than woodland. Both of these formations offer vastly different resources from
typical woodland in terms of structure and resource availability, attributes that appear to define
noisy miner site occupation. The more open hill sites (treed grasslands) would be structurally
easy to defend, but they probably do not have sufficient canopy cover and food resources
available to sustain a whole noisy miner colony.
Influence of Callitris
The basal area and quadratic mean diameter of Callitris trees within the stand both
significantly negatively influenced noisy miner abundance (p = 0.004, 0.04 respectively). These
are quantitative measures of the amount of Callitris and the average diameter of the Callitris
trees at the site. In both cases noisy miner abundance decreased with increasing measures of
Callitris. When a site has more Callitris trees and larger Callitris trees, it becomes less desirable
to noisy miner colonies.
The noisy miner colonies did not use dense Callitris woodlands and forests. There are two
key reasons that the noisy miner may be avoiding these sites. Firstly, their requirements for
carbohydrate rich dietary resources (like lerps) make any Callitris dominated woodland less
suitable for noisy miner occupation. This is similar to Maron’s (2007) finding in the buloke
woodland of the Wimmera Plains in western Victoria, where at least five eucalypts per hectare
were required for a 50% chance of a noisy miner colony being present. Secondly, the hill sites
of the Cowra region, where Callitris generally occurs, are structurally very different to eucalypt
woodlands with a high stem density and high extent of vegetation in the surrounding regions.
These characteristics are not ideal for noisy miner occupation because colonies are not able to
defend the site as easily and the food resource is much lower than in the woodlands.
In the Cowra region, it is possible that both the vegetation structure and low productivity
that are associated with Callitris dominated vegetation associations may deter the noisy miner
from inhabiting the hill sites.
60
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Overstorey regeneration
Overstorey regeneration encompasses ‘total overstorey regeneration’ and Callitris
regeneration, and refers to any stem less than 5 cm in diameter. Total overstorey regeneration
includes any species that has the potential to become an overstorey species, that is, any species
of Eucalyptus, Callitris, Brachychiton, and some Acacia and Casuarina species. The most
common regenerating species were Eucalyptus, Callitris and Brachychiton. Callitris
regeneration is a subset of total regeneration relating only to Callitris individuals. Total
overstorey regeneration and Callitris regeneration were both significantly negatively related to
noisy miner abundance (p = 0.003, 0.02 respectively). I include total regeneration and Callitris
regeneration together in this section because they both add a level of structural complexity in
the midstorey level of a site. Midstorey cover per se was not a significant variable in this study,
but this may be because there was a small range in midstorey cover distribution and it was
heavily skewed towards lower midstorey cover (Table 4.3). Furthermore, regeneration may be
more objectively measured because it was count data rather than taken from site percentage
estimates.
Noisy miner colonies can more easily dominate simple sites which may explain their
avoidance of sites with high regeneration. Where the understorey vegetation at a site is complex
as it is with high levels of regeneration, other birds are able to take refuge when noisy miner
colonies try to mob them (Grey et al. 1998, Mac Nally et al. 2000a, MacDonald and Kirkpatrick
2003, Hastings and Beattie 2006, Kath et al. 2009). It is thought that complex structures at a site
make it harder for the noisy miner to see and mob its competitors. Furthermore, simple site
structure may enable the noisy miner to gain easier access to the ground, an important feeding
substrate (Clarke and Grey 2010). Structurally simple sites are more cost-effective to dominate
and provide easier access to an important foraging substrate, and thus may be more attractive to
noisy miner colonies.
Site quality
The final patch scale variables that influence noisy miner abundance are the number of
lifeforms at the site (Appendix 1) and the species richness of the perennial woody plants at the
site (p = 0.02, 0.04 respectively). Both of these variables impact noisy miners negatively with
higher lifeform richness and higher species richness resulting in lower noisy miner abundance.
Lifeform richness and perennial species richness are both indicative of broader site quality, from
a bird conservation perspective. These variables are indicative of the level of weediness
(McElhinny et al. 2006a), the structural complexity of the site, disturbance history and overall
site health (Prober and Thiele 1995).
Lifeform richness ranged between two lifeforms (i.e. tree and non-tussock grass), to more
than eight lifeforms (which may include shrubs, tussock grass, regeneration and mistletoe,
among others). This variable is both a measurement of complexity (discussed above), and the
61
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
level of site disturbance. For example, a healthy woodland which is regenerating properly and
still has an intact midstorey and grassy layer may, have a lifeform richness of as high as six to
eight lifeforms. Many of the high noisy miner sites had only two lifeforms, which were treed
sites with a tussock grass understorey. These sites are easy for noisy miner colonies to
dominate.
Native perennial plant species richness tends to be higher in good quality woodland
remnants, that is, those with a history of light grazing and no cultivation or fertiliser application
with fewer native perennial species present as the history of use becomes more intensive (Yates
and Hobbs 1997, Rawlings et al. 2010). Furthermore higher native perennial species richness is
also indicative of lower exotic plant cover (McElhinny et al. 2006a) which is another indicator
of overall site health. The fact that noisy miner colonies are negatively associated with higher
plant species richness is perhaps another manifestation of the preference of the species to more
modified and hence less intact landscapes.
These bivariate relationships have important implications for understanding noisy miner
habitat preferences within the Cowra landscape but none was individually able to explain more
than 30% of variation in noisy miner abundance. I used a multivariate model to see how the
combined explanatory power of some of these variables could predict noisy miner abundance.
5.3 Noisy miner multivariate habitat model
Patch area, hollow bearing trees and Callitris regeneration were able to successfully
predict noisy miner abundance (refer to the multivariate habitat model, Table 4.12; Figure 4.4a,
Figure 4.4b). The multivariate habitat model was highly significant and explained about 50% of
the variance in noisy miner distribution. Small patches with low levels of Callitris regeneration
and few hollow bearing trees had considerably higher noisy miner abundance (Figure 4.4a). All
three habitat variables negatively affect noisy miner abundance. This means that a large patch
with many hollow bearing trees and high Callitris regeneration is less likely to be occupied by a
noisy miner colony.
This model predicts that a small patch (< 30 ha) with low levels of hollow bearing trees (1
hollow) and low regeneration (1 stem) will have about twice as many noisy miners as a large
patch (> 30 ha) with the same patch scale variables (refer to low hollow scenario, Figure 4.4a).
The same small patch will have 10 times more noisy miners than a large patch with high levels
of hollow trees (e.g. 20 hollows) and low regeneration (high hollow scenario, Figure 4.4b). If
we were to also increase regeneration in that large patch (150 stems); noisy miner abundance
would approach zero while the small patch would have an average of over 11 (high abundance)
individuals present.
Patch size and Callitris regeneration, discussed above as bivariate relationships, have clear
effects on noisy miner ability to monopolise food and space resources within a site. Hollow
bearing trees did not have a significant influence on noisy miner occupation on their own (Table
62
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
4.9). However hollow bearing trees may be indicative of the broader management history and
quality of the site. Removal of big hollow bearing trees for timber has long lasting effects on
present day tree demography (Martin and McIntyre 2007). Past substantial clearing results in
fewer hollow bearing trees in the present. In addition, ongoing loss of hollow-bearing trees from
agricultural landscapes as a result of tree clearing, die-back and lack of hollow tree recruitment,
are a manifestation of degradation at those sites (Manning et al. 2004a). Sites with lower levels
of hollow bearing trees are probably those that are the most heavily modified and most suitable
for noisy miner colonies thereby most likely to be dominated by noisy miners.
5.4 Management implications
This study demonstrates that noisy miner abundance has a strong negative influence on
woodland bird species richness. Small woodland birds are at risk from noisy miner expansion
through domination of remaining woodland patches in temperate Australia. While it is
recognised that the underlying cause of woodland bird declines in Australia are related to the
direct effects of habitat modification, the indirect changes that occur between species are also
important to consider. Landscape modification has facilitated noisy miner colonisation of many
woodland remnants in the wheat sheep belt of Australia and has exacerbated woodland bird
declines in the region. The amount of available habitat for noisy miner invasion should be
minimised to discourage further domination of the noisy miner.
This study has identified habitat variables that can affect noisy miner abundance in
woodland patches in temperate Australia; noisy miner colonies avoid large patches of vegetation
with lots of surrounding vegetation, high levels of structural complexity, high Callitris presence
and sites that are in good condition. Noisy miners attain their highest abundance in small,
productive, low-lying Eucalyptus dominated woodlands that are in poor condition.
It follows that to reduce the favourability of remnant woodland patches for noisy miners,
revegetation efforts should aim to maximise the habitat attributes that are unattractive to the
species. Increasing the area of small remnants to a minimum of 30 ha should effectively reduce
the likelihood of noisy miner domination, because the species preferentially occupies small
remnants. Furthermore, larger patches should have a greater core area unoccupied by the
species, which will enable small woodland birds to persist in that space. Using revegetation
methods that enhance regeneration within the site, such as through tree planting or more
appropriate grazing and fire regimes, will further improve results by increasing structural
complexity.
The most parsimonious multivariate habitat model (Table 4.12; Figure 4.4a, Figure 4.4b)
used Callitris regeneration over other measures of regeneration in discouraging noisy miner
occupation. However, noisy miner colonies also responded to total overstorey regeneration
individually (explaining 25% of the regression variation, Table 4.11), which is significantly
correlated with the regeneration of Eucalyptus species (Table 4.10). This suggests that
63
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
encouraging regeneration of either Callitris or Eucalyptus would have the desired effect of
deterring noisy miner occupation, but should be implemented on a site-specific basis. Sites
should not be revegetated with species that do not naturally occur there. For example,
Eucalyptus woodland, with no Callitris present should be revegetated with Eucalyptus species.
Inadvertent creation of more noisy miner habitat should be avoided. Sites that naturally
have low eucalypt presence and are dominated by species of Callitris, Acacia, Brachychiton and
Casuarina, such as the hill sites in this study, should be maintained in this state because they
provide excellent habitat for many woodland bird species. Eucalypt plantings at sites that do not
naturally have high eucalypt densities may just encourage site utilisation by noisy miner
colonies, negating any potential benefits from increased food resources provided by the
eucalypts. The extent of vegetation within a 2 km radius around a patch is negatively associated
with noisy miner abundance - clearing of woody vegetation within 2 km of patches in good
condition should be avoided. Similarly sites with an intact understorey should be protected from
modification. Grazing, fertilizer input and fire can significantly alter the understorey where not
applied properly and such management practices should be very carefully implemented. Low
input rotational grazing systems appear to improve plant species richness and vegetation
structural complexity, both of which deter noisy miners (Dorrough and Scroggie 2008, Fischer
et al. 2009). Fire regimes based around 8-15 year frequency intervals during spring or autumn,
can improve plant species richness, promote shrub and native grass growth and aid in weed
management (Prober et al. 2005, Rawlings et al. 2010) which may deter noisy miners from
occupying the site.
Revegetation efforts should be ramped up at landscape scale and regional scales as a
potential long term solution to reduce the domination of noisy miner colonies in the Cowra
region. Since many woodland bird species in temperate Australia are experiencing significant
declines at present, more localised direct mitigation strategies may be a viable, immediate way
to benefit these birds. Removal trials in Victoria have demonstrated the value of small, degraded
woodland patches for small woodland birds after noisy miners have been translocated (Grey et
al. 1997, Grey et al. 1998, Debus 2008). Small scale, targeted removal of noisy miners from
sites may be a cost effective method which immediately frees up important and declining habitat
for vulnerable woodland birds. Culling noisy miners where their colonies are excluding a
threatened species from a critical resource is being promoted as an effective solution to these
problems (Clarke and Grey 2010). For example, noisy miners have been implicated in the
decline of the endangered regent honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia) by excluding them from
woodland remnants (Grey et al. 1997, Menkhorst et al. 1999). Oliver (2000) reported that red
ironbark was the most important foraging species for regent honeyeaters. Removal of noisy
miners from small patches (<10 ha) of ironbark woodland that the regent honeyeater uses
greatly benefitted the regent honeyeater (Grey et al. 1997). Furthermore, because the noisy
miner appears to prefer the low lying, productive woodlands, and these are the vegetation types
64
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
preferentially cleared for agriculture, these systems are less likely to be available for other birds
that may preferentially select these productive sites. Localised removal in areas close to a source
patch (such as a larger remnant) would improve the potential for that productive site to be used
by other species (Grey et al. 1997).
The implications of not acting may result in further domination of the noisy miner in
temperate woodlands resulting in lower species diversity in the woodland bird communities of
southern and eastern Australia (Noss 1990, Garrott et al. 1993).
5.5 Study limitations and future research questions
As in any volunteer data collection research project, there are limitations that come with
the many positive aspects of the Cowra Woodland Birds Program dataset. The experience of the
bird observers, timing of data collection and irregularity of site visits are a few of the limitations
that this method of data collection may have had on this project. These variations have been
minimised by the Cowra Woodland Birds Program organisers and scientists, but detection of
small inconspicuous birds may have been inconsistent. Furthermore some sites that were
surveyed in the initial stages of the program (2002/2003) were not deemed ‘important’ because
they had low bird species richness and had low conservation value and so were omitted in later
survey years. Coincidentally and perhaps tellingly, these sites were also dominated by the noisy
miner and would have been a valuable addition to this study.
Most of the bird data were collected during heavy drought years, while the patch scale
habitat data were collected following a reasonably wet season. This may have influenced the
way in which we view what constitutes a noisy miner or non-noisy miner site. Habitat variables
were carefully selected such that it was unlikely that they were influenced by short-term
moisture variations. Tree diameter, numbers of tree hollows, lifeform richness and perennial
species richness are stable attributes and will not change after one wet season. Attributes used in
other survey methods like canopy cover are more susceptible to short term moisture variation
and were not used in this study. Ground cover may potentially be affected, but I estimated the
cover of perennial species (as opposed to all species) which are present over multiple seasons.
The variables that the noisy miner responded to were not attributes that would be significantly
altered following an abnormally wet season.
In investigating the influence of average noisy miner abundance on the species richness of
woodland birds over seven seasons, this study may have missed some of the subtleties of
individual species that may or may not respond to noisy miner dominance. Individual bird
species that are vulnerable to the impacts of the noisy miner and many that are not disturbed by
noisy miners have been identified in various studies. This study takes a different perspective,
indicating that the persistence of noisy miner colonies, even small colonies, at a site reduces
woodland bird species richness. By implication, individual bird species will also be affected.
The Cowra Woodland Bird Program dataset could be used examine this issue further by
65
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
comparing surveys within a site over time to investigate how short-term movements or
fluctuations in abundance of noisy miners may influence the presence and abundance of other
bird species.
Large threatened and declining bird species in this study, such as the grey-crowned
babbler, did not show any response to noisy miner presence or abundance in this study. This
does not mean that they are not being affected. It is likely that the babbler would have to expend
energy in interacting with the noisy miner, and further research into how this may affect other
life cycle aspects of the babbler should be explored. For example, does increased time spent in
avoidance of the noisy miner result in less time spent foraging, or decreased breeding success?
In terms of landscape scale variables, this study only looked at the influence of patch size
and the extent of vegetation cover in surrounding areas. Other aspects of landscape scale
research remain a significant gap in the collective knowledge of noisy miners and how they are
distributed across fragmented landscapes. Further information is now needed on habitat
connectivity, and whether greater connectivity may buffer the effects of the noisy miner on
woodland birds. For example, this study suggests that noisy miner colonies are deterred by high
levels of vegetation cover around a patch. Does this have a two-fold benefit for woodland birds
by increasing the amount of habitat available to them and by reducing the dominance of noisy
miner colonies? It may be difficult to disentangle these two mechanisms, but noisy miner
removal experiments would shed some light on this issue.
66
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Chapter 6
Conclusion
Conimbla National Park, to the west of the Cowra Shire. This site is an
example of a noisy miner free site. It has high perennial species richness,
lifeform richness, regeneration and structural complexity.
67
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Chapter 6: Conclusion
Noisy miner abundance has a significant and deleterious impact on bird species richness in
the Cowra region. Woodland birds, and in particular small woodland birds, showed the
strongest negative response to noisy miner abundance. Persistent noisy miner presence, even at
very low levels, is a very strong predictor of the richness of small woodland birds that will be
present at a site. This study has identified landscape and patch scale attributes which are
influential in determining the presence and size of noisy miner colonies and their ability to
monopolise a site. These attributes can directly inform management practices in two ways.
Firstly, an understanding of noisy miner habitat preferences allows landholders and land
management agencies to avoid inadvertently creating noisy miner habitat in the Cowra region.
Remnants that are not currently utilised by noisy miner colonies should be kept in a state that
does not encourage infestation. Clearing of woody vegetation surrounding a good condition
patch should be avoided, because low vegetation cover surrounding a patch is associated with
high noisy miner abundance. Similarly, sites with an intact understorey should be protected
from modification, such as inappropriate grazing or fire regimes. High input, intensive grazing,
and very frequent fire regimes reduce understorey structure, lifeform richness, perennial species
richness and promote weed invasion, all characteristics associated with high noisy miner
abundance.
Secondly, management practices should focus on incorporating and promoting habitat
attributes that make sites and landscapes unattractive to noisy miner colonies. This may
discourage the species from utilising and monopolising currently unoccupied areas and may
help to reduce their abundance at occupied sites. Revegetation methods should be used on a
landscape scale to reduce the domination of noisy miner colonies in entire landscapes.
Increasing the area of the patch and the amount of woody vegetation surrounding the patch with
revegetation methods that enhance Callitris or Eucalyptus regeneration within the site, such as
through tree planting or more appropriate grazing and fire regimes, reduces the likelihood of
noisy miner colonies using that remnant. Low input, rotational grazing systems and cool burns
every 8-15 years (site-specific), may perpetuate good structural complexity and perennial
species richness of understorey species, in doing so limiting the noisy miners inclination to
colonise the site. Revegetation and restoration efforts in sites with naturally high Callitris
presence should avoid increasing eucalypt species density, as this may attract the noisy miner.
Revegetation is a very long-term landscape transformation strategy with no guarantees of
success. Many woodland bird species in temperate Australia are currently experiencing
significant declines. Localised direct mitigation strategies may be a viable, immediate way to
benefit these woodland birds. Culling of noisy miners in targeted areas may represent a cost
effective, immediate and humane way to reduce their impacts. Because the noisy miner
preferences the heavily cleared, low lying productive woodlands, these vegetation types are less
68
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
likely to be available for woodland birds across large parts of the landscape, making them a
candidate for effective removal activities. Grey et al. (1997) propose that removing the noisy
miner in circumstances where they are excluding a species which is already threatened due to
loss of habitat, such as the regent honeyeater, in targeted areas may be one way to sustain
populations that are susceptible to noisy miner aggression. Removal of the noisy miner in small
red ironbark woodlands could free up an important food resource for the regent honeyeater.
Many of the findings in this study, both in terms of noisy miner effects on woodland birds,
and their habitat preferences, are comparable with those found generally in temperate
woodlands of south eastern Australia. While individual habitat attributes may vary between
study locations and methods, broader themes and consistent patterns are emerging from studies
of noisy miner habitat preferences. Importantly, patch size, amount of vegetation cover
surrounding the patch, vegetation association, structural complexity, and general site quality are
characteristics that appear to influence noisy miner abundance. These are all characteristics that
can be managed, in a variety of ways, to mitigate some of the impacts of noisy miners on
woodland birds. The implications of not acting, both in the short and long term will probably
permit the continuing and increasing domination of the noisy miner in temperate woodlands,
likely resulting in further declines of the woodland bird communities of southern and eastern
Australia.
69
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
References
Arnold, K. E. 2000. Group Mobbing Behaviour and Nest Defence in a Cooperatively Breeding
Australian Bird. Ethology, 106, 385-393.
Ashley, L. C., Major, R. E. & Taylor, C. E. 2009. Does the Presence of Grevilleas and
Eucalypts in Urban Gardens Influence the Distribution and Foraging Ecology of Noisy
Miners? Emu, 109, 135-142.
Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences. 2009. Noisy Miner
(Manorina Melanocephala) [Online]. Commonwealth of Australia. Available:
http://www.daff.gov.au/abare-
brs/aparp/managing_bird_damage_to_fruit_and_other_horticultural_crops/noisy_miner
_manorina_melanocephala [Accessed 7/10 2011].
Barrett, G., Silcocks, A., Barry, S., Cunningham, R. & Poulter, R. 2003. The New Atlas of
Australian Birds, Hawthorn East, Victoria, Royal Australian Ornithologists Union.
Barrett, G. W., Silcocks, A. F., Cunningham, R., Oliver, D. L., Weston, M. A. & Baker, J. 2007.
Comparison of Atlas Data to Determine the Conservation Status of Bird Species in New
South Wales, with an Emphasis on Woodland-Dependent Species. Australian Zoologist,
34, 37-77.
Bennett, A. F., Radford, J. Q. & Haslem, A. 2006. Properties of Land Mosaics: Implications for
Nature Conservation in Agricultural Environments. Biological Conservation, 133, 250-
264.
Benton, T. G., Vickery, J. A. & Wilson, J. D. 2003. Farmland Biodiversity: Is Habitat
Heterogeneity the Key? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18, 182-188.
Birch, L. C. 1957. The Meanings of Competition. The American Naturalist, 91, 5-18.
Briggs, S., Taws, N., Seddon, J. & Vanzella, B. 2008. Condition of Fenced and Unfenced
Remnant Vegetation in Inland Catchments in South-Eastern Australia. Australian
Journal of Botany, 56, 590-599.
Brittingham, M. C. & Temple, S. A. 1983. Have Cowbirds Caused Forest Songbirds to Decline?
BioScience, 33, 31-35.
Brooker, L. C. & Brooker, M. G. 2002. Dispersal and Population Dynamics of the Blue-
Breasted Fairy-Wren, Malurus Pulcherrimus, in Fragmented Habitat in the Western
Australian Wheatbelt. Wildlife Research, 29, 225-233.
Brown, G. W., Bennett, A. F. & Potts, J. M. 2008. Regional Faunal Decline - Reptile
Occurrence in Fragmented Rural Landscapes of South-Eastern Australia. Wildlife
Research, 35, 8-18.
Bureau of Meteorology. 2011. Climate Statistics for Australian Locations: Monthly Climate
Statistics, Cowra Airport Comparison [Online]. Available:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_065091_All.shtml [Accessed 02/02
2011].
Burgher, I. 2011. Woodland Birds and Connectivity: Quantifying the Effects of Scattered Trees
on Resource Availability (in Progress). Bachelor of Art/Science Honours, Australian
National University.
70
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Butchart, S. H. M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., Van Strien, A., Scharlemann, J. P. W., Almond, R.
E. A., Baillie, J. E. M., Bomhard, B., Brown, C., Bruno, J., Carpenter, K. E., Carr, G.
M., Chanson, J., Chenery, A. M., Csirke, J., Davidson, N. C., Dentener, F., Foster, M.,
Galli, A., Galloway, J. N., Genovesi, P., Gregory, R. D., Hockings, M., Kapos, V.,
Lamarque, J.-F., Leverington, F., Loh, J., Mcgeoch, M. A., Mcrae, L., Minasyan, A.,
Morcillo, M. H., Oldfield, T. E. E., Pauly, D., Quader, S., Revenga, C., Sauer, J. R.,
Skolnik, B., Spear, D., Stanwell-Smith, D., Stuart, S. N., Symes, A., Tierney, M.,
Tyrrell, T. D., Vié, J.-C. & Watson, R. 2010. Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent
Declines. Science, 328, 1164-1168.
Cameron, M. 2006. Nesting Habitat of the Glossy Black-Cockatoo in Central New South Wales.
Biological Conservation, 127, 402-410.
Case, T., J. & Gilpin, M., E. 1974. Interference Competition and Niche Theory. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 71, 3073-3077.
Catterall, C. P. 2004. Birds, Garden Plants and Suburban Bushlots: Where Good Intentions
Meet Unexpected Outcomes. In: Lunney, D. & Burgin, S. (eds.) Urban Wildlife: More
Than Meets the Eye. Mosman, NSW: Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales.
Chan, K. 2004. Effect of Patch Size and Bird Agression on Bird Species Richness: A
Community-Based Project in Tropical/Subtropical Eucalypt Woodland. Proceedings of
the Royal Society of Queensland, 111, 1-11.
Clarke, M. F. & Grey, M. J. 2010. Managing an over-Abundant Native Bird: The Noisy Miner
(Manorina Melanocephala). In: Lindenmayer, D. B., Bennett, A. F. & Hobbs, R. J.
(eds.) Temperate Woodland Conservation and Management. Collingwood, Australia:
CSIRO Publishing.
Clarke, M. F. & Oldland, J. M. 2007. Penetration of Remnant Edges by Noisy Miners
(Manorina Melanocephala) and Implications for Habitat Restoration. Wildlife
Research, 34, 253-261.
Cowra Shire Council. About Cowra [Online]. Available:
http://www.cowraregion.com.au/home/?id=2290 [Accessed 20/08 2011].
Debus, S. J. S. 2008. The Effect of Noisy Miners on Small Bush Birds: An Unofficial Cull and
Its Outcome. Pacific Conservation Biology, 14, 185-190.
Department of Environment and Conservation (Nsw). 2005. Threatened Species: Species,
Populations and Ecological Communities of Nsw [Online]. Available:
http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/speciestype_list.aspx?t
ype=Birds [Accessed 03/09 2011].
Department of Sustainability Environment Water Population and Communities. 2011. Invasive
Species [Online]. Available:
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/index.html [Accessed 29/09
2011].
Dorrough, J. & Scroggie, M. P. 2008. Plant Responses to Agricultural Intensification. Journal
of Applied Ecology, 45, 1274-1283.
Dow, D. D. 1976. Indiscriminate Interspecific Aggression Leading to Almost Sole Occupancy
of Space by a Single Species of Bird. Emu, 77, 115-121.
Dow, D. D. 1979. Agonistic and Spacing Behaviour of the Noisy Miner (Manorina
Melanocephala) a Communally Breeding Honeyeater. Ibis, 121, 423-436.
Eyre, T. J., Maron, M., Mathieson, M. T. & Haseler, M. 2009. Impacts of Grazing, Selective
Logging and Hyper-Aggressors on Diurnal Bird Fauna in Intact Forest Landscapes of
the Brigalow Belt, Queensland. Austral Ecology, 34, 705-716.
Fischer, J. & Lindenmayer, D. B. 2007. Landscape Modification and Habitat Fragmentation: A
Synthesis. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 16, 265-280.
71
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Fischer, J., Lindenmayer, D. B., Barry, S. & Flowers, E. 2005. Lizard Distribution Patterns in
the Tumut Fragmentation "Natural Experiment" in South-Eastern Australia. Biological
Conservation, 123, 301-315.
Fischer, J., Sherren, K., Stott, J., Zerger, A., Warren, G. & Stein, J. 2010. Toward Landscape-
Wide Conservation Outcomes in Australia's Temperate Grazing Region. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment, 8, 69-74.
Fischer, J., Stott, J., Zerger, A., Warren, G., Sherren, K. & Forrester, R. I. 2009. Reversing a
Tree Regeneration Crisis in an Endangered Ecoregion. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 10386-10391.
Ford, H. A., Barrett, G. W., Saunders, D. A. & Recher, H. F. 2001. Why Have Birds in the
Woodlands of Southern Australia Declined? Biological Conservation, 97, 71-88.
Garrott, R. A., White, P. J. & White, C. a. V. 1993. Overabundance: An Issue for Conservation
Biologists? Conservation Biology, 7, 946-949.
Geoscience Australia. 2004. Public Lands of Australia 2002: Land Reserved or Owned for
Public Purposes. Commonwealth of Australia.
Girvetz, E. H. & Greco, S. E. 2007. How to Define a Patch: A Spatial Model for Hierarchically
Delineating Organism-Specific Habitat Patches. Landscape Ecology, 22, 1131-1142.
Gould, J. 1865. Handbook to the Birds of Australia, Melbourne, Lansdowne Press.
Green, R. J. & Catterall, C. P. 1998. The Effects of Forest Clearing and Regeneration on the
Fauna of Wivenhoe Park, South-East Queensland. Wildlife Research, 25, 677-677-690.
Grey, M. J., Clarke, M. F. & Loyn, R. H. 1997. Initial Changes in the Avian Communities of
Remnant Eucalypt Woodlands Following a Reduction in the Abundance of Noisy
Miners, Manorina Melanocephala. Wildlife Research, 24, 631-648.
Grey, M. J., Clarke, M. F. & Loyn, R. H. 1998. Influence of the Noisy Miner Manorina
Melanocephala on Avian Diversity and Abundance in Remnant Grey Box Woodland.
Pacific Conservation Biology, 4, 55-69.
Hannah, D., Woinarski, J. C. Z., Catterall, C. P., Mccosker, J. C., Thurgate, N. Y. & Fensham,
R. J. 2007. Impacts of Clearing, Fragmentation and Disturbance on the Bird Fauna of
Eucalypt Savanna Woodlands in Central Queensland, Australia. Austral Ecology, 32,
261-276.
Hanspach, J., Fischer, J., Stott, J. & Stagoll, K. 2011. Conservation Management of Eastern
Australian Farmland Birds in Relation to Landscape Gradients. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 1-9.
Hastings, R. A. & Beattie, A. J. 2006. Stop the Bullying in the Corridors: Can Including Shrubs
Make Your Revegetation More Noisy Miner Free? Ecological Management and
Restoration 7, 105-112.
Hobbs, R. J. 2001. Synergisms among Habitat Fragmentation, Livestock Grazing, and Biotic
Invasions in Southwestern Australia. Conservation Biology, 15, 1522-1528.
Howes, A. & Maron, M. 2009. Maximising Woodland Bird Diversity in Brigalow Belt Forests.
Canberra: Land and Water Australia.
Jenkins, M. 2003. Prospects for Biodiversity. Science, 302, 1175-1177.
Kath, J., Maron, M. & Dunn, P. K. 2009. Interspecific Competition and Small Bird Diversity in
an Urbanizing Landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 92, 72-79.
Krynen, J. P. & Moffitt, R. S. 1997. Cowra: First Edition (1:100 000 Geological Map 8630).
New South Wales Department of Mineral Resources/Australian Geological Survey
Organisation, Canberra.
Lindenmayer, D. B. & Fischer, J. 2006. Habitat Fragmentation and Landscape Change: An
Ecological and Conservation Synthesis, Collingwood, Australia, CSIRO Publishing.
72
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Low, T. 2002. The New Nature: Winners and Losers in Wild Australia, Camberwell, Victoria,
Penguin Group.
Loyn, R. H. 1986. The 20 Minute Search - a Simple Method for Counting Forest Birds. Corella,
10, 58-60.
Lunt, I. & Bennett, A. 1999. Temperate Woodlands in Victoria: Distribution, Composition and
Conservation. In: Hobbs, R. J. & Yates, C. J. (eds.) Temperate Eucalypt Woodlands in
Australia: Biology, Conservation, Management and Restoration. Chipping Norton:
Surrey Beatty & Sons.
Mac Nally, R., Bennett, A. F. & Horrocks, G. 2000a. Forecasting the Impacts of Habitat
Fragmentation. Evaluation of Species-Specific Predictions of the Impact of Habitat
Fragmentation on Birds in the Box-Ironbark Forests of Central Victoria, Australia.
Biological Conservation, 95, 7-29.
Mac Nally, R., Bowen, M. E., Howes, A. L., Mcalpine, C. A. & Maron, M. 2011. Despotic,
High-Impact Species and the Sub-Continental Scale Control of Avian Assemblage
Structure. Ecology.
Mac Nally, R. & Brown, G. W. 2001. Reptiles and Habitat Fragmentation in the Box-Ironbark
Forests of Central Victoria, Australia: Predictions, Compositional Change and Faunal
Nestedness. Oecologia, 128, 116-125.
Mac Nally, R. & Horrocks, G. 2002. Relative Influences of Patch, Landscape and Historical
Factors on Birds in an Australian Fragmented Landscape. Journal of Biogeography, 29,
395-410.
Mac Nally, R., Soderquist, T. R. & Tzaros, C. 2000b. The Conservation Value of Mesic Gullies
in Dry Forest Landscapes: Avian Assemblages in the Box-Ironbark Ecosystem of
Southern Australia. Biological Conservation, 93, 293-302.
Macdonald, M. A. & Kirkpatrick, J. B. 2003. Explaining Bird Species Composition and
Richness in Eucalypt-Dominated Remnants in Subhumid Tasmania. Journal of
Biogeography, 30, 1415-1426.
Major, R. E., Christie, F. J. & Gowing, G. 2001. Influence of Remnant and Landscape
Attributes on Australian Woodland Bird Communities. Biological Conservation, 102,
47-66.
Manning, A. D., Lindenmayer, D. B. & Barry, S. C. 2004a. The Conservation Implications of
Bird Reproduction in the Agricultural "Matrix": A Case Study of the Vulnerable Superb
Parrot of South-Eastern Australia. Biological Conservation, 120, 363-374.
Manning, A. D., Lindenmayer, D. B. & Nix, H. A. 2004b. Continua and Umwelt: Novel
Perspectives on Viewing Landscapes. Oikos, 104, 621-628.
Maron, M. 2007. Threshold Effect of Eucalypt Density on an Aggressive Avian Competitor.
Biological Conservation, 136, 100-107.
Maron, M. 2009. Nesting, Foraging and Aggression of Noisy Miners Relative to Road Edges in
an Extensive Queensland Forest. Emu, 109, 75-81.
Maron, M. & Kennedy, S. 2007. Roads, Fire and Aggressive Competitors: Determinants of Bird
Distribution in Subtropical Production Forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 240,
24-31.
Maron, M., Main, A., Bowen, M., Howes, A., Kath, J., Pillette, C. & C.A., M. 2011. Relative
Influence of Habitat Modification and Interspecific Competition on Woodland Bird
Assemblages in Eastern Australia. Emu, 111, 40-51.
Martin, T. G. & Mcintyre, S. 2007. Impacts of Livestock Grazing and Tree Clearing on Birds of
Woodland and Riparian Habitats. Conservation Biology, 21, 504-514.
73
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Martin, T. G., Mcintyre, S., Catterall, C. P. & Possingham, H. P. 2006. Is Landscape Context
Important for Riparian Conservation? Birds in Grassy Woodland. Biological
Conservation, 127, 201-214.
McElhinny, C., Gibbons, P. & Brack, C. 2006a. An Objective and Quantitative Methodology
for Constructing an Index of Stand Structural Complexity. Forest Ecology and
Management, 235, 54-71.
McElhinny, C., Gibbons, P., Brack, C. & Bauhus, J. 2006b. Fauna-Habitat Relationships: A
Basis for Identifying Key Stand Structural Attributes in Temperate Australian Eucalypt
Forests and Woodlands. Pacific Conservation Biology, 12, 89-110.
McKinney, M., L. & Lockwood, J. L. 1999. Biotic Homogenization: A Few Winners Replacing
Many Losers in the Next Mass Extinction. Tree, 14, 450-453.
Menkhorst, P., Schedvin, N. & Geering, D. 1999. Regent Honeyeater (Xanthomyza Phrygia)
Recovery Plan 1999-2003. In: Environment, D. O. N. R. A. (ed.). East Melbourne,
Victoria: Natural Heritage Trust.
Montreal Process Implementation Group for Australia 2008. Australia's State of the Forests
Report 2008. In: Sciences, B. O. R. (ed.). Canberra.: Commonwealth of Australia.
N.S.W. National Parks and Wildlife Service 2001. New South Wales South West Slopes
Bioregion Scoping Study: Draft Report. NSW Biodiversity Strategy. Hurstville: NSW
National Parks and Wildlife Service,.
Noss, R. F. 1990. Can We Maintain Biological and Ecological Integrity? Conservation Biology,
4, 241-243.
Olden, J. D., Leroy Poff, N., Douglas, M. R., Douglas, M. E. & Fausch, K. D. 2004. Ecological
and Evolutionary Consequences of Biotic Homogenization. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution, 19, 18-24.
Oldland, J. M., Taylor, R. S. & Clarke, M. F. 2009. Habitat Preferences of the Noisy Miner
(Manorina Melanocephala) – a Propensity for Prime Real Estate? Austral Ecology, 34,
306-316.
Oliver, D. L. 2000. Foraging Behaviour and Resource Selection of the Regent Honeyeater
Xanthomyza Phrygia in Northern New South Wales. Emu, 100, 12-30.
Parsons, H., Major, R. E. & French, K. 2006. Species Interactions and Habitat Associations of
Birds Inhabiting Urban Areas of Sydney, Australia. Austral Ecology, 31, 217-227.
Paton, D. 1979. The Importance of Manna, Honeydew and Lerp Inthe Diets of Honeyeaters.
Emu, 80, 213-226.
Payne, R. B. & Payne, L. L. 1997. Brood Parasitism by Cowbirds: Risks and Effects on
Reproductive Success and Survival in Indigo Buntings. Behavioural Ecology, 9, 64-73.
Pereira, H. M. 2010. Scenarios for Global Biodiversity in the 21st Century. Science, 330, 1496-
1501.
Piper, S. D. & Catterall, C. P. 2003. A Particular Case and a General Pattern: Hyperaggressive
Behaviour by One Species May Mediate Avifaunal Decreases in Fragmented Australian
Forests. Oikos, 101, 602-614.
Pressey, R. L., Hager, T. C., Ryan, K. M., Schwarz, J., Wall, S., Ferrier, S. & Creaser, P. M.
2000. Using Abiotic Data for Conservation Assessments over Extensive Regions:
Quantitative Methods Applied across New South Wales, Australia. Biological
Conservation, 96, 55-82.
Priddel, D., Carlile, N. & Wheeler, R. 2000. Eradication of European Rabbits (Oryctolagus
Cuniculus) from Cabbage Tree Island, Nsw, Australia, to Protect the Breeding Habitat
of Gould's Petrel (Pterodroma Leucoptera Leucoptera). Biological Conservation, 94,
115-125.
74
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Prober, S. M. & Thiele, K. R. 1995. Conservation of the Grassy Whitebox Woodlands: Relative
Contribution of Size and Disturbance to Floristic Composition and Diversity of
Remnants. Australian Journal of Botany, 43, 349-366.
Prober, S. M., Thiele, K. R., Lunt, I. D. & Koen, T. B. 2005. Restoring Ecological Function in
Temperate Grassy Woodlands: Manipulating Soil Nutrients, Exotic Annuals and Native
Perennial Grasses through Carbon Supplements and Spring Burns. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 42, 1073-1085.
Radford, J. Q., Bennett, A. F. & Cheers, G. J. 2005. Landscape-Level Thresholds of Habitat
Cover for Woodland-Dependent Birds. Biological Conservation, 124, 317-337.
Rawlings, K., Freudenberger, D. & Carr, D. 2010. A Guide to Managing Box Gum Grassy
Woodlands. In: Caring for Our Country & Greening Australia (eds.). Barton, A.C.T.:
Commonwealth of Australia.
Reid, J. 2010. The Cowra Woodland Birds Program - Nine Years On. Wingspan, 20, 40-43.
Reid, J. 30/03 2011a. Written Communication: Exclusion of Waterbirds, Raptors and Nocturnal
Birds. Email to Chubb, S.
Reid, J. 03/08 2011b. Written Communication: How to Determine Woodland Birds. Email to
Chubb, S.
Reid, J. R. W. 1999. Threatened and Declining Birds in the New South Wales Sheep-Wheat
Belt: I. Diagnosis, Characteristics and Management. Consultancy Report to NSW
National Parks and Wildlife Service. Canberra: CSIRO Wildlife and Ecology.
Ripple, W. J. & Larsen, E. J. 2000. Historic Aspen Recruitment, Elk, and Wolves in Northern
Yellowstone National Park, USA. Biological Conservation, 95, 361-370.
Robinson, D. & Traill, B. J. 1996. Conserving Woodland Birds in the Wheat and Sheep Belts of
Southern Australia. Raou Conservation Statement No. 10. Supplement to Wingspan, 6,
1-16.
Robinson, S. K., Thompson, F. R., Donovan, T. M., Whitehead, D. R. & Faaborg, J. 1995.
Regional Forest Fragmentation Andthe Nesting Success of Migratory Birds. Science,
267, 1987-1990.
Sahukar, R., Gallery, C., Smart, J. & Mitchell, P. 2003. The South Western Slopes Bioregion.
In: Dunn, I. (ed.) The Bioregions of New South Wales: Their Biodiversity, Conservation
and History. Hurstville: NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service.
Sala, O. E., Stuart Chapin , F., Iii, Armesto, J. J., Berlow, E., Bloomfield, J., Dirzo, R., Huber-
Sanwald, E., Huenneke, L. F., Jackson, R. B., Kinzig, A., Leemans, R., Lodge, D. M.,
Mooney, H. A., Oesterheld, M. N., Poff, N. L., Sykes, M. T., Walker, B. H., Walker, M.
& Wall, D. H. 2000. Global Biodiversity Scenarios for the Year 2100. Science, 287,
1770-1774.
Saunders, G. R., Gentle, M. N. & Dickman, C. R. 2010. The Impacts and Management of Foxes
Vulpes Vulpes in Australia. Mammal Review, 40, 181-211.
Sherren, K. 2011. Wheat Sheep Belt Map [Online]. Available: http://fennerschool-
research.anu.edu.au/sustfarms/deliverables/STAGE%206/4.%20Wheat%20Sheep%20B
elt%20Map.JPG [Accessed 21/09 2011].
Shine, R. & Fitzgerald, M. 1996. Large Snakes in a Mosaic Rural Landscape: The Ecology of
Carpet Pythons Morelia Spilota (Serpentes: Pythonidae) in Coastal Eastern Australia.
Biological Conservation, 76, 113-122.
Soulé, M. E., Estes, J. A., Miller, B. & Honnold, D. L. 2005. Strongly Interacting Species:
Conservation Policy, Management, and Ethics. BioScience, 55, 168-176.
Taylor, R., Oldland, J. & Clarke, M. 2008. Edge Geometry Influences Patch-Level Habitat Use
by an Edge Specialist in South-Eastern Australia. Landscape Ecology, 23, 377-389.
75
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Westphal, M. I., Field, S. A., Tyre, A. J., Paton, D. & Possingham, H. P. 2003. Effects of
Landscape Pattern on Bird Species Distribution in the Mt. Lofty Ranges, South
Australia. Landscape Ecology, 18, 413-426.
Wilson, C. 2003. Remnant Woodland Condition and Its Influence on Woodland Bird Species
and Community Composition. Bachelor of Science (Resource and Environmental
Management) Honours thesis, Australian National University.
Yates, C. J. & Hobbs, R. J. 1997. Temperate Eucalypt Woodlands: A Review of Their Status,
Processes Threatening Their Persistence and Techniques for Restoration. Australian
Journal of Botany, 45, 949-973.
Yates, C. J., Norton, D. A. & Hobbs, R. J. 2000. Grazing Effects on Plant Cover, Soil and
Microclimate in Fragmented Woodlands in South-Western Australia: Implications for
Restoration. Austral Ecology, 25, 36-47.
Zanette, L., Doyle, P. & Tremont, S. M. 2000. Food Shortage in Small Fragments: Evidence
from an Area-Sensitive Passerine. Ecology, 81, 1654-1666.
Zanette, L., Macdougall-Shakleton, E., Clinchy, M. & Smith, J. N. M. 2005. Brown-Headed
Cowbirds Skew Host Offspring Sex Ratios. Ecology, 86, 815-820.
76
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
PLOT 1 1. NUMBER OF LIFEFORMS
(In a 20mx20m subplot if a lifeform is present enter 1 next to its category. Leave blank if absent)
tussock grass non-tussock grass low shrub 0-0.5m tall shrub >0.5m sedges / rushes ferns
vines xanthorrhoea mistletoe regeneration < 2m regeneration > 2m tree
2. NUMBER OF PERENNIAL SPECIES
(Enter the total number of perennial species in a 20mx20m subplot)
Tally TOTAL
3. VEGETATION COVER < 0.5M
(Enter % cover for each 10mx10m subplot)
subplot 1 subplot 2 subplot 3 subplot 4
4. VEGETATION COVER 0.5-6M (Enter % cover for each 10mx10m subplot)
subplot 1 subplot 2 subplot 3 subplot 4
7. NUMBER OF TREES > 40CM DIAMETER (Enter total number of large trees in a 50mx20m plot)
Tally TOTAL
8. NUMBER OF HOLLOW BEARING TREES (Enter total number of hollow trees in a 50mx20m plot)
Tally TOTAL
9. OVERSTOREY REGENERATION
(Enter total number of regenerating stems in a 50mx20m plot)
Callitris Eucalyptus Kurrajong Acacia Casuarina
10. NUMBER OF DEAD TREES
(Enter total number of dead standing trees in a 50mx20m plot)
Tally TOTAL
11. LENGTH OF ALL LOGS > 10CM DIAMETER – INCLUDING LARGE LOGS
(Enter total length of all logs in a 50mx20m plot, including large logs)
Tally TOTAL
12. LENGTH OF LARGE LOGS > 30CM DIAMETER
(Enter total length of large logs in a 50mx20m plot)
Tally TOTAL
13. LITTER DRY WEIGHT
(Enter litter dry weight for each sample)
Sample 1
Appendix 1: Data collection forms
77
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
PLOT 1 5. BASAL AREA
6. QUADRATIC MEAN DIAMETER
(Enter the total number of live stems in each diameter class)
Diameter class Callitris Eucalyptus Kurrajong Acacia Casuarina Other TOTAL
5 - 20
20 - 30
30 - 40
40 - 50
50 - 60
60 - 70
70 - 80
80 - 90
90 - 100
100 - 110
110 - 120
120 - 130
130 - 140
140 - 150
150 - 160
160 - 170
170 - 180
180 - 190
190 - 200
200 - 210
210 - 220
220 - 230
78
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Appendix 2: Bird species identified in the 33 sites by bird category
A2.1: Full list of the bird species identified at the 33 sites, over seven Cowra Woodland Bird Program bird surveys. Mass, as advised by (Julian Reid, written communication, 03/08/ 2011b). Bird categories were T, Total bird species (not to be confused with ‘threatened’); W, woodland bird species; SWB, small woodland bird species; T&DWB, threatened and declining woodland bird species; and non-W, non-woodland bird species. Note that all species fall within Total bird species, and are wither woodland or non-woodland birds.
Woodland bird species
Common name Scientific name Mass (g) Bird category
Apostlebird Struthidea cinerea 122 T, W
Black-chinned Honeyeater Melithreptus gularis 19 T,W, SWB, T&DWB
Brown Thornbill Acanthiza pusilla 7 T,W, SWB
Brown Treecreeper Climacteris picumnus 32 T,W, SWB, T&DWB
Brown-headed Honeyeater Melithreptus brevirostris 15 T,W, SWB
Buff-rumped Thornbill Acanthiza reguloides 8 T,W, SWB
Chestnut-rumped Thornbill Acanthiza uropygialis 6 T,W, SWB, T&DWB
Cicadabird Coracina tenuirostris 69 T, W
Common Bronzewing Phaps chalcoptera 615 T, W
Crested Shrike-tit Falcunculus frontatus 28 T,W, SWB, T&DWB
Crimson Rosella Platycercus elegans 132 T, W
Diamond Firetail Stagonopleura guttata 18 T,W, SWB, T&DWB
Dollarbird Eurystomus orientalis 130 T, W
Double-barred Finch Taeniopygia bichenovii 9 T,W, SWB
Dusky Woodswallow Artamus cyanopterus 35 T,W, SWB, T&DWB
Eastern Spinebill Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris 11 T,W, SWB
Eastern Yellow Robin Eopsaltria australis 20 T,W, SWB, T&DWB
Fan-tailed Cuckoo Cacomantis flabelliformis 48 T,W, SWB
Fuscous Honeyeater Lichenostomus fuscus 18 T,W, SWB
Gilbert's Whistler Pachycephala inornata 32 T,W, SWB, T&DWB
Golden Whistler Pachycephala pectoralis 26 T,W, SWB
Grey Butcherbird Cracticus torquatus 96 T, W
Grey Fantail Rhipidura albiscapa 8 T,W, SWB
Grey Shrike-thrush Colluricincla harmonica 64 T,W, SWB
Grey-crowned Babbler Pomatostomus temporalis 75 T,W, T&DWB
Hooded Robin Melanodryas cucullata 22 T,W, SWB, T&DWB
Horsfield's Bronze-Cuckoo Chalcites basalis 22 T,W, SWB
Jacky Winter Microeca fascinans 15 T,W, SWB, T&DWB
Laughing Kookaburra Dacelo novaeguineae 334 T, W
Leaden Flycatcher Myiagra rubecula 12 T,W, SWB
Little Friarbird Philemon citreogularis 64 T,W, SWB
Little Lorikeet Glossopsitta pusilla 39 T,W, SWB, T&DWB
Masked Woodswallow Artamus personatus 36 T,W, SWB
Noisy Friarbird Philemon corniculatus 104 T, W
Olive-backed Oriole Oriolus sagittatus 95 T, W
Peaceful Dove Geopelia striata 50 T,W, SWB
Red-browed Finch Neochmia temporalis 10 T,W, SWB
Red-capped Robin Petroica goodenovii 9 T,W, SWB, T&DWB
Restless Flycatcher Myiagra inquieta 20 T,W, SWB, T&DWB
Sacred Kingfisher Pachycephala rufiventris 24 T,W, SWB, T&DWB
79
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Common name Scientific name Mass (g) Bird category
Shining Bronze-Cuckoo Todiramphus sanctus 44 T,W, SWB
Silvereye Chalcites lucidus 24 T,W, SWB
Speckled Warbler Zosterops lateralis 11 T,W, SWB
Spotted Pardalote Chthonicola sagittata 14 T,W, SWB, T&DWB
Striated Thornbill Pardalotus punctatus 9 T,W, SWB
Striped Honeyeater Acanthiza lineata 7 T,W, SWB
Superb Fairy-wren Plectorhyncha lanceolata 39 T,W, SWB
Superb Parrot Malurus cyaneus 10 T,W, SWB
Swift Parrot Polytelis swainsonii 154 T,W, T&DWB
Tree Martin Lathamus discolor 65 T,W, SWB, T&DWB
Turquoise Parrot Petrochelidon nigricans 14 T,W, SWB
Varied Sittella Neophema pulchella 41 T,W, SWB, T&DWB
Variegated Fairy-wren Daphoenositta chrysoptera 13 T,W, SWB, T&DWB
Weebill Malurus lamberti 8 T,W, SWB
Western Gerygone Smicrornis brevirostris 6 T,W, SWB
White-bellied Cuckoo-shrike Gerygone fusca 6 T,W, SWB
White-browed Babbler Coracina papuensis 64 T,W, SWB
White-browed Scrubwren Pomatostomus superciliosus 41 T,W, SWB, T&DWB
White-browed Woodswallow Sericornis frontalis 14 T,W, SWB
White-eared Honeyeater Artamus superciliosus 35 T,W, SWB, T&DWB
White-naped Honeyeater Lichenostomus leucotis 22 T,W, SWB
White-throated Gerygone Melithreptus lunatus 14 T,W, SWB
White-throated Treecreeper Gerygone albogularis 7 T,W, SWB
White-winged Chough Cormobates leucophaeus 21 T,W, SWB
White-winged Triller Corcorax melanorhamphos 355 T, W
Yellow Thornbill Lalage sueurii 25 T,W, SWB
Yellow-faced Honeyeater Acanthiza nana 6 T,W, SWB
Yellow-tufted Honeyeater Lichenostomus chrysops 17 T,W, SWB
Lichenostomus melanops 25 T,W, SWB
Non-woodland bird species
Common name Scientific name Mass (g) Bird category
Australasian Pipit Anthus novaeseelandiae 24 T, non-W
Australian Magpie Cracticus tibicen 299 T, non-W
Australian Raven Corvus coronoides 592 T, non-w
Australian Reed-Warbler Acrocephalus australis 17 T, non-w
Black Honeyeater Sugamel niger 10 T, non-w
Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike Coracina novaehollandiae 124 T, non-w
Black-faced Woodswallow Artamus cinereus 35 T, non-w
Blue-faced Honeyeater Entomyzon cyanotis 100 T, non-w
Brown Quail Coturnix ypsilophora 91 T, non-w
Brown Songlark Cincloramphus cruralis 47 T, non-w
Cockatiel Nymphicus hollandicus 93 T, non-w
Crested Pigeon Ocyphaps lophotes 207 T, non-w
Diamond Dove Geopelia cuneata 31 T, non-w
Eastern Rosella Platycercus eximius 104 T, non-w
Galah Eolophus roseicapillus 334 T, non-w
Little Corella Cacatua sanguinea 462 T, non-w
Little Raven Corvus mellori 544 T, non-w
Magpie-lark Grallina cyanoleuca 88 T, non-w
Mistletoebird Dicaeum hirundinaceum 9 T, non-w
Noisy Miner Manorina melanocephala 65 T, non-w
Pallid Cuckoo Cacomantis pallidus 89 T, non-w
Pied Butcherbird Cracticus nigrogularis 132 T, non-w
80
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Pied Currawong Strepera graculina 301 T, non-w
Rainbow Bee-eater Merops ornatus 27 T, non-w
Red Wattlebird Anthochaera carunculata 116 T, non-w
Red-rumped Parrot Psephotus haematonotus 65 T, non-w
Rufous Songlark Cincloramphus mathewsi 30 T, non-w
Spiny-cheeked Honeyeater Acanthagenys rufogularis 45 T, non-w
Striated Pardalote Pardalotus striatus 11 T, non-w
Stubble Quail Coturnix pectoralis 101 T, non-w
Sulphur-crested Cockatoo Cacatua galerita 520 T, non-w
Welcome Swallow Hirundo neoxena 15 T, non-w
White-plumed Honeyeater Lichenostomus penicillatus 18 T, non-w
Willie Wagtail Rhipidura leucophrys 19 T, non-w
Yellow-rumped Thornbill Acanthiza chrysorrhoa 9 T, non-w
Exotic species
Common Name Scientific Name Mass (g)
Common Blackbird * Turdus merula 95
Common Starling * Sturnus vulgaris 73
European Goldfinch * Carduelis carduelis 15
House Sparrow * Passer domesticus 27
81
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Appendix 3: Raw data
Refer to the c.d. at the back of this thesis.
82
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
Appendix 4: Graphical representation of ANOVA output for bird response to
noisy miner abundance
A3.1: Graphical output of an analysis of variance, showing noisy miner effects on bird species richness. Different letters indicate that means are significantly different. Bird species richness numerical means are shown in Table 4.6.
a b
a
b
c
a
b
b
c
83
Sarah Chubb The noisy native: a miner menace?
a
a b
b
c
a a
a
b
b b
a a