recovery outline macaroni penguin · handbook of australian, new zealand and antarctic birds....

45

RECOVERY OUTLINE Macaroni Penguin

1 Family Spheniscidae

2 Scientific name Eudyptes chrysolophus Brandt, 1837

3 Common name Macaroni Penguin

4 Conservation status Vulnerable: A1a, D2

5 Reasons for listingGlobally, this species is listed as Vulnerable (A1a)because its population size has decreased by at least20% over 36 years (3 generations). Although there ispresumed to be little genetic exchange betweencolonies, so the Australian status would normally bedetermined independently of global status (as perGärdenfors et al. 1999), there has been no monitoringof numbers on Heard or McDonald Is to knowwhether they have escaped the decline suffered bysome other populations. Therefore the Australianpopulation is given the same status as the species isglobally, but as there is only one Australian breedinglocation, it is also listed as Vulnerable: D2.

Australian breedingcolonies

Estimate Reliability

Extent of occurrence 5,000,000 km2 lowtrend stable high

Area of occupancy 20 km2 mediumtrend stable low

No. of breeding birds 4,000,000 lowtrend stable low

No. of sub-populations 2 highLargest sub-population 2,000,000 lowGeneration time 12 years mediumGlobal population share 20 % highLevel of genetic exchange low medium

6 Infraspecific taxaNone recognised, though once considered conspecificwith E. schlegeli (Marchant and Higgins, 1990).

7 Past range and abundanceHeard and McDonald Is, in Australian territory.Extralimitally, at 46 other sites, primarily on otherSouthern Ocean islands (Marchant and Higgins, 1990,Birdlife International, 2000).

8 Present range and abundanceAs above. About 1,000,000 pairs on each of Heard andMcDonald Is (Woehler, 1991). Substantial decreasesin number have been reported from Bird I., SouthGeorgia, Marion I. and Bouvet I., but the populationsat Kerguelen are stable or increasing (Ellis et al., 1998).

9 EcologyMacaroni Penguins nest in large colonies on flat,eroding rocky landscapes, sometimes well inland. They

feed on euphausiids, fish and cephalopods (Green etal., 1998).

10 ThreatsThis isolated population of Macaroni Penguins is likelyto have little resistance to introduced disease.Commercial fishing near the islands may affect thespecies. Some birds are undoubtedly killed at seathrough ingesting plastic debris. The most likely long-term threat is the effect of climate change on foodsupply (Ellis et al., 1998).

11 Information required11.1 Determine rates and direction of change in sea

temperature and other oceanographicvariables, and their effect on preydistributions.

12 Recovery objectives12.1 Maintenance of the existing population.

13 Actions completed or under way13.1 Estimates of population have been made, and

will be repeated in 2000/2001.

13.2 Diet has been studied.

14 Management actions requiredNone.

15 Organisations responsible forconservationAustralian Antarctic Division.

16 Other organisations involvedNone.

46

17 Staff and financial resources required for recovery to be carried outStaff resources required 2001-2005 0.1 Technical Officer (monitoring) 1

Financial resources required 2001-2005

Action Conservationagencies

Other fundingsources

Total

Monitoring breeding sub-populations 1 $6,100 $0 $6,100

Total $6,100 $0 $6,1001 Costs of Heard I. monitoring divided among 19 threatened taxa (studies of oceanographic change not costed)

18 BibliographyBirdlife International. 2000. Threatened Birds of theWorld. Birdlife International, Cambridge.

Ellis, S., Croxall, J. P. and Cooper, J. (eds) 1998.Penguin Conservation Assessment and Management Plan.IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group,Apple Valley.

Gärdenfors, U., Rodríguez, J.P., Hilton-Taylor, C.,Hyslop, C., Mace, G., Molur, S. and Poss, S. 1999.Draft guidelines for the Application of IUCN Red ListCriteria at National and Regional Levels. Species31-32:58-70.

Green, K., Williams, R. and Green, M. G. 1998.Foraging ecology and diving behaviour of MacaroniPenguins Eudyptes chrysolophus at Heard Island.Mar. Ornithol. 26:27-34.

Marchant, S. and Higgins, P. J. (eds) 1990. TheHandbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds.Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Woehler, E. J. 1991. The status and conservation ofthe seabirds of Heard Island and the McDonaldIslands. ICBP Tech. Publ. 11:263-277.

Comments received fromBarry Baker, Cindy Hull, Onno Huyser, Eric Woehler.

28

TAXON SUMMARY Magpie Goose

1 Family Anseranatideae

2 Scientific name Anseranas semipalmata Latham, 1798

3 Common name Magpie Goose

4 Conservation status Least Concern

5 Reasons for listingA range contraction to about a half of the species’historical extent could justify a listing of NearThreatened: a. However, movement of birds betweenAustralia and New Guinea is substantial, with theAustralian population probably the larger, so nationalstatus and global status are linked (as per Gärdenfors etal. 1999). Furthermore, despite significant threats,there is no evidence of a current decline, and so thespecies is Least Concern.

Australian population Estimate ReliabilityExtent of occurrence 2,500,000 km2 medium

trend stable highArea of occupancy 100,000 km2 low

trend stable mediumNo. of breeding birds 4,000,000 low

trend fluctuating mediumNo. of sub-populations 1 mediumGeneration time 5 years lowGlobal population share >80 % mediumLevel of genetic exchange medium high

6 Infraspecific taxaNone described

7 Past range and abundanceAcross northern Australia and throughout easternAustralia including parts of western New South Wales(Smith et al, 1995), southern and western Victoria(Emison et al., 1987) and south-east South Australia.Vagrant to south-west Australia and Tasmania(Marchant and Higgins, 1990). Also present insouthern New Guinea and regularly crosses TorresStrait (Draffan et al., 1983).

8 Present range and abundanceNatural populations extirpated from southernAustralia by about 1920. Now confined to northernAustralia, principally the Fitzroy R. and eastKimberley, W. A., northern Northern Territory,coastal Cape York Peninsula and patchily througheastern Queensland. Small numbers have returned tonorth-east New South Wales, and re-introducedsuccessfully to Victoria, where populations expandingin south-west and on the Gippsland Plain, and SouthAustralia (Marchant and Higgins, 1990, P. Menkhorst).Abundance in central eastern Queensland increased in

the last decade (Wilson, 1992, 1997). The largestpopulation, in the Northern Territory, fluctuatesgreatly, probably in response to rainfall patterns(Whitehead et al., 1992, Whitehead and Saalfeld, inpress), but there is no evidence of an underlyingdecline (P. Whitehead). At Kakadu, it reaches 500,000in dry season (Morton et al., 1990), and totalpopulation may sometimes exceed 4,000,000 (Baylissand Yeomans, 1990). Up to 3,000 near Rockhamptonin late 1980s (Wilson, 1992), but no other publishedcounts from Queensland. The Gulf of Carpentariamay separate the Queensland and Northern Territorypopulations, but there are anecdotal reports of birdsbanded in the Northern Territory being recovered onwestern Cape York Peninsula (P. Whitehead).

9 EcologyMagpie Geese live in shallow swamps and associatedgrassland, feeding on seeds or tubers and green grass(Frith and Davies, 1961, Whitehead and Tschirner,1992, Wilson, 1997). During the wet season, the geeseusually nest in extensive colonies. They movehundreds of kilometres to perennial swamps in the dryseason (Frith and Davies, 1961, Bayliss, 1989, Baylissand Yeomans, 1990).

10 ThreatsThe initial decline in Magpie Goose numbers wasprobably the result of swamp drainage and hunting(Marchant and Higgins, 1990). The main threat now isinvasion of breeding habitat by environmental weeds,principally Para Grass Brachiaria mutica and GiantSensitive Weed Mimosa pigra and introduced pondedpasture plants such as the now-declared weedHymenachne amplexicaulis (Marchant and Higgins, 1990,Wilson, 1997), which replace the principal food plants.

29

Hunting continues in the Northern Territory, on CapeYork Peninsula and, probably, the Kimberley.However, in the Northern Territory, where monitoringhas been undertaken, there is no evidence of a decline(Bayliss and Yeomans, 1990). Some Magpie Geesehave died after the ingestion of lead shot (Harper andHindmarsh, 1990, Whitehead and Tschirner, 1991).Breeding success on pastoral properties can beaffected by fencing, but the scale of this effect isunknown (Whitehead and Turner, 1998).

11 Recommended actions11.1 Monitor hunted populations to ensure

exploitation is sustainable.

11.2 Encourage adoption of ANZECC policy onuse of non-toxic shot for lead shot.

11.3 Support weed control programs in MagpieGoose habitat.

11.4 Examine the effect of pastoralism on MagpieGoose habitat, particularly in relation to weedabundance.

12 BibliographyBayliss, P. 1989. Population dynamics of magpie geesein relation to rainfall and density implications forharvest models in a fluctuating environment. J. Appl.Ecol. 26:913-920.

Bayliss, P. and Yeomans, K. M. 1990. Seasonaldistribution and abundance of magpie geese, Anseranassemipalmata Latham, in the Northern Territory, andtheir relationship to habitat, 1983-86. Aust. Wildl. Res.17:15-38.

Draffan, R. D. W., Garnett, S. T. and Malone, G. J.1983. Bird of the Torres Strait An annotated list andbiogeographic analysis. Emu 83:207-234.

Emison, W. B., Beardsell, C. M., Norman, F. I., Loyn,R. H. and Bennett, S. C. 1987. Atlas of Victorian Birds.Department of Conservation Forests and Lands andRAOU, Melbourne.

Frith, H. J. and Davies, S. J. J. F. 1961. Ecology of theMagpie Goose, Anseranas semipalmata Latham(Anatidae). CSIRO Wildl. Res. 69:1-141.

Gärdenfors, U., Rodríguez, J.P., Hilton-Taylor, C.,Hyslop, C., Mace, G., Molur, S. and Poss, S. 1999.Draft guidelines for the Application of IUCN Red ListCriteria at National and Regional Levels. Species31-32:58-70.

Harper, M. J. and Hindmarsh, M. 1990. Leadpoisoning in Magpie Geese. Anseranas semipalmata,from ingested lead pellet at Bool Lagoon Game

Reserve (South Australia). Aust. Wildl. Res.17:141-145.

Marchant, S. and Higgins, P. J. (eds) 1990. Handbook ofAustralian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Vol. 1.Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Morton, S. R., Brennan, K. G. and Armstrong, M. D.1990. Distribution and abundance of magpie geese,Anseranas semipalmata, in the Alligator Rivers Region,Northern Territory. Aust. J. Ecol. 15:307-320.

Smith, P. J., Smith, J. E , Pressey, R. L. and. Whish,G. L. 1995. Birds of Particular Conservation Concernin the Western Division of New South WalesDistributions, Habitats and Threats. National Parks andWildlife Service Occasional Paper 20. New South WalesNational Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville.

Whitehead, P. J. and Turner, S. 1998. Using thepresence and condition of eggshells to determine nestsuccess in the Magpie Goose, Anseranas semipalmata.Wildl. Res. 25:603-609.

Whitehead, P. J. and Saalfeld, K. in press. Nestingphenology of the Magpie Goose Anseranas semipalmatain monsoonal northern Australia responses toantecedent rainfall. J. Zool. in press

Whitehead, P. J. and Tschirner, K. 1991 Lead shotingestion and lead poisoning of Magpie GeeseAnseranas semipalmata foraging in a northern Australianhunting reserve. Biol. Conserv. 58:99-108.

Whitehead, P. J. and Tschirner, K. 1992. Sex and agerelated variation in foraging strategies of Magpie GeeseAnseranas semipalmata. Emu 92:28-36.

Whitehead, P. J., Wilson, B. A. and Saalfeld, K. 1992.Managing the Magpie Goose in the Northern Territoryapproaches to conservation of mobile fauna in apatchy environment. Pp. 90-104 in Conservation andDevelopment Issues in Northern Australia. I. Moffatt and A.Webb (eds). North Australian Research Unit,Australian National University, Darwin.

Wilson, R. F. 1992. Censuses and breeding records ofthe Magpie Goose Anseranas semipalmata, on the coastalwetlands of central Queensland. Corella 16:119-123.

Wilson, R. F. 1997. Temporal and spatial variation inthe distribution and abundance of the Magpie GooseAnseranas semipalmata, in the Rockhampton region ofthe Queensland coast. Wildl. Res. 24:347-358.

Comments received fromBarry Baker, John Blyth, Peter Menkhorst, Peter Whitehead,Robyn Wilson.

303

TAXON SUMMARY Major Mitchell’s Cockatoo (eastern)

1 Family Cacatuidae

2 Scientific name Cacatua leadbeateri leadbeateri (Vigors, 1831)

3 Common name Major Mitchell’s Cockatoo (eastern)

4 Conservation status Near Threatened: c

5 Reasons for listingAlthough the subspecies is still numerous in places,historical records suggest that it has declined in densityover at least half its former distribution (NearThreatened: c).

Estimate ReliabilityExtent of occurrence 750,000 km2 high


trend stable mediumNo. of breeding birds 50,000 low

trend stable mediumNo. of sub-populations 1 highLargest sub-population 50,000 lowGeneration time 5 years medium

6 Infraspecific taxaC. l. mollis (central and western arid zone andNullarbor, west of the Eyre basin and Port Augusta) isLeast Concern, as is the species’ status.

7 Past range and abundanceMurray-Darling, Eyre and Bulloo River basins as farnorth as Isisford and Roma in Queensland, throughwestern New South Wales to north-west Victoria andwest to Adelaide and Mt Mary Plains (Schodde andMason, 1997, Higgins, 1999).

8 Present range and abundanceDisappeared from the Adelaide and Mt Mary Plains bythe 1950s (Boehm, 1961) and density greatly reducedin north-west Victoria (Emison et al., 1987) andwestern New South Wales (Cooper and McAllan,1995).

9 EcologyThe eastern subspecies of Major Mitchell’s Cockatoois found in arid and semi-arid zone woodlandsdominated by Mulga Acacia aneura, mallee and boxeucalypts, cypress pine Callitris or Belah Casuarinacristata, where it feeds primarily on seeds, roots andfruits. The main requirements of the species are treeswith suitable nesting hollows and fresh surface water(Higgins, 1999). Breeding pairs of the westernsubspecies occupy nests that are at least 1 km apart,and have densities of about one pair per 30 km2

(Saunders et al. 1985, Rowley and Chapman, 1991).

10 ThreatsClearance of feeding and breeding habitat hassubstantially reduced the population size of MajorMitchell’s Cockatoo in the southern and eastern partsof the species’ range, and is continuing. Grazing andweed invasion are also impeding recruitment of treesthat will be used for breeding in the future (Emison etal. 1987, Ayers et al. 1996, Higgins, 1999). Nestrobbing and trapping for aviculture are thought tohave been a major cause of decline in South Australiaand may be a significant threat elsewhere in the range(Ayers et al., 1996, Higgins, 1999).

11 Recommended actions11.1 Monitoring of trends in population size,

possibly using car-based counts.

11.2 Monitoring of known nest sites to determinelevel of loss to bird trade.

11.3 Ensure, before approval of clearingapplications, that nesting and feeding habitatare secured in reserved areas of adequate size.

11.4 Improve husbandry techniques to ensureavicultural requirements met by captivebreeding and exploration of the feasibility ofDNA fingerprinting and micro-chipping thecaptive population.

12 BibliographyAyers, D., Nash, S. and Baggett, K. 1996. ThreatenedSpecies of Western New South Wales. N. S. W.National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney.

Boehm, E. F. 1961. Pink cockatoo in southern SouthAustralia. Emu 61:138-139.

304

Cooper, R. P. and I. A. W. McAllan. 1995. The Birds ofWestern New South Wales. A Preliminary Atlas. N. S. W.Bird Atlassers, Albury.

Emison, W. B., Beardsell, C. M., Norman, F. I., Loyn,R. H. and Bennett, S. C. 1987. Atlas of Victorian Birds.Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands andRAOU, Melbourne.

Higgins, P. J. (ed.) 1999. Handbook of Australian, NewZealand and Antarctic Birds. Vol. 4. Parrots to Dollarbird.Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Rowley, I. and Chapman, G. 1991. The breedingbiology, food, social organisation, demography andconservation of the Major Mitchell or Pink Cockatoo,Cacatua leadbeateri, on the margin of the WesternAustralian wheatbelt. Australian Journal of Zoology39:211-261.

Saunders, D. A., Rowley, I. and Smith, G. T. 1985.The effects of clearing for agriculture on thedistribution of cockatoos in the southwest of WesternAustralia. Pp. 309-321 in Birds of Eucalypt Forests andWoodlands: Ecology, Conservation, Management. A. Keast,H. F. Recher, H. Ford and D. Saunders (eds). RAOU,Melbourne and Surrey Beatty and Sons, ChippingNorton.

Schodde, R. and Mason, I. J. 1997. Aves (Columbidaeto Coraciidae). Zoological Catalogue of Australia. Vol.37.2. W. W. K. Houston and A. Wells (eds). CSIROPublishing, Melbourne.

Comments received fromGraham Carpenter, Peter Copley, Ian Rowley, Adrian Stokes.

423

RECOVERY OUTLINE Mallee Emu-wren

1 Family Maluridae

2 Scientific name Stipiturus mallee A. J. Campbell, 1908

3 Common name Mallee Emu-wren

4 Conservation status Vulnerable: B1+2abcde

5 Reasons for listingThe area of occupancy is probably less than 2,000 km2

and fragmented, even within extensive areas of mallee(Vulnerable: B1) and destructive fires have caused adecrease in the extent of occurrence (B2a), area ofoccupancy (B2b), quality of habitat (c), number of sub-populations (d) and the number of mature individuals(e). Although the population may contain fewer than 10,000 individuals and is likely to decline with furtherfires (C2), there are several sub-populations (so not b)and at least one probably contains more than 1,000individuals (so not a).

Estimate ReliabilityExtent of occurrence 20,000 km2 medium

trend decreasing mediumArea of occupancy 2,000 km2 low

trend decreasing mediumNo. of breeding birds 10,000 low

trend decreasing mediumNo. of sub-populations 7 lowLargest sub-population 4,000 lowGeneration time 3 years low

6 Infraspecific taxaNone described.

7 Past range and abundanceVictorian and South Australian mallee regions, southand east of the Murray R. (Schodde, 1982, Menkhorstand Bennett, 1990, Schodde and Mason, 1999)including Billiatt Conservation Park (Carpenter andMatthew, 1986).

8 Present range and abundanceAs above, although fragmented even within largeblocks of mallee. South Australia: between Nadda,Peebinga, Pinnaroo, Comet Bore, Coonalpyn andCoombe (Eckert, 1977, Carpenter and Matthew, 1992,Rowley and Russell, 1997). Victoria: Murray-SunsetNational Park east to Annuello Fauna Reserve, south-east of Hattah-Kulkyne National Park, and in the BigDesert east to Bronzewing Flora and Fauna Reserve(Emison et al., 1987, Rowley and Russell, 1997). Thespecies has not been recorded from BilliattConservation Park since large fires in 1989(G. Carpenter).

9 EcologyThe Mallee Emu-wren occupies habitats containingTriodia spinifex, in which it builds well-hidden domednests containing 2-3 eggs, usually within low woodlanddominated by mallee eucalypts and cypress pine. Italso occurs in heath containing banksias, casuarinasand grass-trees Xanthorrhoea (Schodde, 1982, Cheal etal., 1979, Emison et al., 1987, Rowley and Russell,1997). In Victoria, the species occurs at highestdensities a few years after fire and can apparentlymove long distances to find suitable habitat (Emisonet al., 1987). At Ngarkat Conservation Park, S. A., emu-wrens can disperse at least 6 km into vegetationrecovering from fire, 3-4 years after it has been burnt.They peak in abundance in vegetation 8-10 years postfire then decline in density after 30 years, although stillpresent in mallee 50 years old (D. Paton, L. Pedler).

10 ThreatsClearance of habitat has been the greatest threat to thespecies in the past. Though clearing has now stopped,the population has been fragmented (Emison et al.,1987). Isolated sub-populations are vulnerable toextensive fires that have the capacity to render largeareas unsuitable for the birds and, in 1989, appear tohave eliminated them altogether from one substantialarea of mallee (G. Carpenter). Although the emu-wrens have recovered from large fires at NgarkatConservation Park and other reserves, a series of suchfires could place the species in danger.

424

11 Information required11.1 Determine current range.

12 Recovery objectives12.1 To establish a fire management program that

will ensure the conservation of the specieswithin its existing range.

12.2 To re-establish the species in areas from whichit has been eliminated by fire.

13 Actions completed or under wayNone.

14 Management actions required14.1 Establish monitoring of known populations.

14.2 Minimise fire frequency in suitable habitat.

14.3 Determine the feasibility of reintroduction toBilliatt Conservation Park.

15 Organisations responsible forconservationSouth Australian Department of Environment andHeritage, Victorian Department of Natural Resourcesand Environment.

16 Other organisations involvedBird-watching societies, Parks Victoria, AdelaideUniversity.

17 Staff and financial resources required for recovery to be carried outStaff resources required 2001-2005 0.2 Project Officer

0.1 Technical OfficerFinancial resources required 2001-2005



Total

Survey current distribution 1 $5,000 $15,000 $20,000Initiate monitoring 1 $10,000 $0 $10,000Reduce frequency of destructive fires 2 $7,500 $0 $7,500Determine feasibility of translocation $23,000 $0 $23,000

Total $45,500 $15,000 $60,5001 Costs shared with Western Whipbird (eastern)2 In addition to routine fire management, costs shared with Western Whipbird (eastern)

18 BibliographyCarpenter, G. and Matthew, J. 1986. The birds ofBilliatt Conservation Park. S. Aust. Ornithol. 30:29-37.

Carpenter, G. and Matthew, J. 1992. Western recordsof the Mallee Emu-wren Stipiturus mallee. S. Aust.Ornithol. 31:125.

Cheal, P. D., Day, J. C. and Meredith, C. W. 1979. Firein the national parks of north-west Victoria. National ParksService, Dept of Conservation, Melbourne.

Eckert, J. 1977. The distribution of the emu-wrensStipiturus malachurus and S. ruficeps mallee in SouthAustralia. S. Aust. Ornithol. 27:186-187.

Emison, W. B., Beardsell, C. M., Norman, F. I., Loyn,R. H. and Bennett, S. C. 1987. Atlas of Victorian Birds.Department of Conservation Forests and Lands andRAOU, Melbourne.

Menkhorst, P. W. and Bennett, A. F. 1990. Vertebratefauna of mallee vegetation in southern Australia.Pp. 39-53 in The Mallee Lands: a Conservation Perspective.J. C. Noble, P. J. Joss and G. K. Jones (eds). CSIRO,Canberra.

Rowley, I. and Russell, E. 1997. Fairy-wrens andGrasswrens. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Schodde, R. 1982. The Fairy-Wrens. A Monograph of theMaluridae. Lansdowne Editions, Melbourne.

Schodde, R. and Mason, I. J. 1999. The Directory ofAustralian Birds: Passerines. CSIRO, Collingwood,Victoria.

Silveira, C. 1992. Mallee Emu-wren. Pp. 128-129 inThreatened and Extinct Birds of Australia. RAOU Report82. S.T. Garnett (ed.). Royal AustralasianOrnithologists Union, Melbourne, and AustralianNational Parks and Wildlife Service, Canberra.

Text adapted fromSilveira (1992).

Comments received fromGraham Carpenter, Peter Copley, Richard Loyn, Lynn Pedler,Ian Rowley, Eleanor Russell, Adrian Stokes.

23

RECOVERY OUTLINE Malleefowl

1 Family Megapodiidae

2 Scientific name Leipoa ocellata Gould, 1840

3 Common name Malleefowl

4 Conservation status Vulnerable: A1ce+2bce

5 Reasons for listingThough large, the population has probably decreasedin size by at least 20% over the last three generations(45 years; Vulnerable: A1), based on a decline in thearea of occupancy (c) and possibly the effects ofintroduced predators (e). The decline is likely tocontinue over the next three generations (A2) basedon an appropriate index of abundance (the density ofactive mounds; b) as well as the criteria listed above.


trend decreasing highArea of occupancy 40,000 km2 medium

trend decreasing highNo. of breeding birds: 100,000 low

trend decreasing highNo. of sub-populations 100 lowLargest sub-population 3,000 lowGeneration time 15 years low

6 Infraspecific taxaNone described.

7 Past range and abundanceMost of southern Australia, from west coast, north ofCarnarvon, extending north-east to southern TanamiDesert, N. T., then east to the western slopes of theGreat Dividing Ra., and south-east to within 60 km ofMelbourne (Blakers et al., 1984, Kimber, 1985,Johnstone and Storr, 1998, Benshemesh, 1999).Historically, recorded in 166 one-degree grid cellsacross Australia. Last definitely recorded from theBrisbane Ra. and Melton, Vic., in mid-1800s(Campbell, 1900, Mattingley, 1908), the NorthernTerritory in 1940s (Kimber, 1985), north-easternSouth Australia in 1960s (Robinson et al., 1990). Thereare no historical population estimates available.

8 Present range and abundanceSince 1981, Malleefowl recorded in 81 one-degree gridcells, a contraction in area of occupancy of over 50%on the historical range. Within current area ofoccupancy, occurrence now much-fragmented. Speciesnow found in scattered locations through semi-aridrangelands and dryland cropping zone in south-western and central New South Wales, north-westernVictoria, south-east and Eyre Peninsula, S. A., Great

Victoria Desert, southern arid and semi-aridrangelands and central and eastern wheatbelt ofWestern Australia (Emison et al., 1987, Brickhill, 1987,Cutten, 1997, Johnstone and Storr, 1998, Benshemesh,1999). Monitoring at sites across species’ current rangesuggests mean density of 1-2 pairs/km2.

9 EcologyThe Malleefowl is found principally in mallee eucalyptwoodland and scrub as well as dry forest dominated byother eucalypts, Mulga and other Acacia spp., whenthey feed on seeds and herbage (Benshemesh, 1999).To build mounds, the birds need a sandy substratewith leaf litter (Frith, 1962). Highest densities ofMalleefowl appear to occur on the better soils withhigher rainfall. Habitat that is long unburnt ispreferred. In the Victorian mallee, the optimal firefrequency is likely to be once every 60 years or evenlonger (Woinarski, 1989, Benshemesh, 1999). Thebirds do feed in recently burnt areas, but rely onunburnt refuges for breeding and shelter(Benshemesh, 1999), although a tight mosaic ofburning in some arid habitats may promote foodplants while preserving long unburnt cover(Benshemesh, 1999). Pairs occupy permanentterritories, incubating an average of about 16 eggs inmounds of sand and leaf litter (Benshemesh, 1999).Young are precocial, but most die from starvation orpredation in first few months (Priddel and Wheeler,1990).

10 ThreatsClearance for agriculture has eliminated andfragmented much of the Malleefowl’s habitat, resultingin localised extinction and fragmented populations.

24

The remaining isolated populations are now mostly insuboptimal habitat, since the mallee on the best soilhas been cleared, and are vulnerable to catastrophicevents such as bushfires. Fires cause local extinctions,and it may be 15 years before habitat is suitable and atleast 40 years before maximum population densitiesare attained (Benshemesh, 1999). In the arid zone,extinction appears to have followed cessation oftraditional burning practices, homogenisation of theonce fine scale burning mosaic and fires on anunprecedented scale (Benshemesh, 1999). Predation ofeggs, chicks and adults, particularly by foxes, aresignificant threats to small, isolated populations (Frith,1962, Priddel, 1990), although, unlike with somemarsupials, fox baiting has not resulted in rapidpopulation recovery (Benshemesh, 1999). Chicks thatsurvive predation often starve, particularly in habitatsupporting stock, goats or rabbits (Frith, 1962,Brickhill, 1987) or exceptional densities of kangaroos(Priddel and Wheeler, 1990). However, even whereherbivore numbers are low, starvation is probablyfrequent and recruitment episodic, depending onirregular pulses of high food abundance (Benshemesh,1999). Small populations are probably particularlyvulnerable to starvation, especially if surroundingpaddocks are simultaneously fallow. Other threatsinclude infertility, possibly from agricultural chemicals,and road-kills where Malleefowl feed on spilt roadsidegrain (Benshemesh, 1999).

11 Information required11.1 Quantify effect of fox control on Malleefowl

populations in a variety of circumstances.

11.2 Assess the distribution and size of thepopulation in settled areas of all States.

11.3 Assess distribution and size of remoteMalleefowl populations in S. A. and W. A.

11.4 Develop Malleefowl capture techniques andautomatic recorders to identify individualbirds.

11.5 Measure longevity and turnover of breedingMalleefowl.

11.6 Estimate rate of recruitment of young into thebreeding population.

11.7 Define critical components of Malleefowlhabitat.

11.8 Define appropriate genetic units forMalleefowl management.

11.9 Determine effectiveness of translocation,captive-rearing and breeding programs.

11.10 Assess extent of infertility in small reserves andpossible links to agricultural chemicals.

11.11 Refine thermal sensing scans for Malleefowl.

11.12 Model population dynamics in relation toclimatic fluctuations to determine likely impactof threats.

12 Recovery objectives12.1 Secure existing populations across the species’

range.

12.2 Maintain or increase breeding densities overthree generations.

12.3 Maintain or increase (by management orsurvey) the existing area of occupancy overthree generations.

13 Actions completed or under way13.1 Numerous reserves have been declared, often

with Malleefowl as their focus.

13.2 Habitat remnants have been fenced to excludestock, often with the object of Malleefowlconservation.

13.3 Revegetation for Malleefowl has beenundertaken in W. A. and Vic.

13.4 Feral goats have been greatly reduced on PeronPeninsula, W. A., north of the Murray in S. A.,and on reserves in N. S. W.

13.5 Fox baiting has been initiated in all states inwhich Malleefowl occur, often explicitly toreduce Malleefowl predation.

13.6 Monitoring of nest densities occurs at sites inall States where Malleefowl occur.

13.7 A monitoring manual has been produced.

13.8 Captive breeding for populationsupplementation is occurring at Adelaide andWestern Plains Zoo and at Peron Peninsula,W. A.

13.9 Population supplementation is occurring atYathong Nature Reserve.

13.10 Rapid survey techniques using infra-red air-borne scanners have been developed and arebeing refined (Benshemesh and Emison,1996).

13.11 Education programs on Malleefowl are in placein all States and the species is the focus ofactivities by numerous community groups.

13.12 A Recovery Plan has been written(Benshemesh, 1999) and a national RecoveryTeam is in place.

14 Management actions required14.1 Retain areas that support Malleefowl, and

those that support Malleefowl habitat, andprotect them from clearing.

25

14.2 Encourage land-holders to undertakeconservation covenants and similaragreements.

14.3 Support initiatives to reduce furthersalinisation.

14.4 Remove goats and sheep from conservationreserves, and keep them at low numbers.

14.5 Close or fence artificial sources of water inconservation reserves.

14.6 Erect stock exclusion fencing aroundMalleefowl habitat.

14.7 Reduce rabbits where species abundant in ornear Malleefowl habitat.

14.8 Work with graziers to reduce grazing bydomestic stock in Malleefowl habitat.

14.9 Reduce the incidence of large fires, andpromote fire patchiness, in reserves containingMalleefowl.

14.10 Provide means for protection from fire forsmall patches of remnant habitat.

14.11 Encourage the reinstatement of traditionalindigenous fire regimes in central Australia.

14.12 Discourage broad-scale burning for agriculturalpurposes in areas known to containMalleefowl.

14.13 Record and centralise details of fox controlthat is undertaken in where Malleefowlabundance being monitored.

14.14 Reduce fox and rabbit numbers in small andisolated habitat remnants.

14.15 Reduce fox numbers in areas where foxessuspected of causing declines.

14.16 Maintain or establish habitat corridors betweenpatches of habitat suitable for Malleefowl.

14.17 Work with farmers near Malleefowl habitatremnants to ensure some grain is grownannually.

14.18 Minimise the amount of grain spilt onroadsides through Malleefowl habitat anderect warning signs where Malleefowl roadfatalities are likely to occur.

14.19 Prepare regional conservation plans for theMalleefowl (west of Kalgoorlie; W. A.Goldfields, south-eastern W. A., western S. A.to N. T.; Murray Mallee; central N. S. W.).

14.20 Monitor trends in Malleefowl abundance.

14.21 Monitor Malleefowl breeding numbers.

14.22 Encourage Malleefowl volunteers and facilitatecommunication between groups.

14.23 Raise public awareness through education andpublicity.

14.24 Manage the recovery process.

15 Organisations responsible forconservationNew South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service,South Australian Department of Environment andHeritage, Victorian Department of Natural Resourcesand Environment, Parks Victoria, Western AustralianDepartment of Conservation and Land Management,Parks and Wildlife Commission of the NorthernTerritory.

16 Other organisations involvedBirds Australia, other bird-watching societies, ParksVictoria, South Australian Malleefowl PreservationSociety, Western Australian Malleefowl PreservationGroup, Anangu Pitjantjatjara Land Management,Nature Conservation Society of South Australia,Mantung-Maggea Land Management Group, CentralLands Council, Malleefowl Preservation Society,Friends of Wyperfeld National Park, OuyenMalleefowlers, Friends of the Malleefowl, AustralianTrust for Conservation Volunteers, Green Corps,Malleefowl Preservation Group, North CentralMalleefowl Preservation Group, Morawa LCDC,Kalgoorlie Goldfields Naturalists Club, Adelaide Zoo,Western Plains Zoo, Little Desert Lodge, AustralianRegional Association of Zoological Parks and Aquaria,Australian Non-passerine Taxon Advisory Group.

17 Staff and financial resources required for recovery to be carried out 1

Staff resources required 2001-2005 4.0 Mallee Extension Officer in each State 2

1.0 Project Officer2.0 Technical Officer

Financial resources required 2001-2005Action Conservation

agenciesOther funding

sourcesTotal

Prevent further clearing of habitat 2 $75,000 $0 $75,000Encourage conservation covenants 2 $75,000 $0 $75,000Support initiatives to reduce further salinisation 2 $75,000 $0 $75,000Close off artificial water sources in conservation reserves 2 $75,000 $0 $75,000

26

Reduce grazing in mallee habitat 2 $250,000 $100,000 $350,000Reduce frequency of destructive fires 2 $75,000 $0 $75,000Provide for access to habitat remnants 2 $75,000 $30,000 $105,000Encourage traditional burning 2 $250,000 $0 $250,000Discourage broad-scale burning 2 $75,000 $0 $75,000Record fox control details 2 $85,000 $0 $85,000Fox reduction in small or declining sub-populations 2 $85,000 $0 $85,000Habitat corridors 2 $175,000 $0 $175,000Encourage cooperation among neighbouring farmers 2 $75,000 $0 $75,000Minimise grain spilt 2 $75,000 $0 $75,000Regional conservation plans 2 $43,000 $0 $43,000Monitor trends in Malleefowl abundance $67,200 $0 $67,200Monitor Malleefowl breeding numbers $4,000 $186,700 $190,700Assess the benefits of fox control $108,000 $144,000 $252,000Standardise monitoring and prepare manual $6,000 $2,500 $8,500Settled area surveys $6,000 $71,500 $77,500Remote area surveys $95,400 $0 $95,400Test automatic recorders $14,500 $0 $14,500Determine survival of adults $10,300 $48,000 $58,300Determine recruitment of young $44,000 $24,000 $68,000Determine critical habitat components $70,500 $0 $70,500Genetic management requirements $16,300 $55,000 $71,300Review captive management programs $0 $20,000 $20,000Assess levels and causes of infertility $8,300 $0 $8,300Refine thermal sensing scans $5,500 $0 $5,500Increase volunteer involvement $35,000 $0 $35,000Raise public awareness $24,000 $8,000 $32,000Manage the recovery process $49,000 $0 $49,000

Total $2,127,000 $689,700 $2,816,7001 Costings largely derived from Benshemesh (1999)2 Benefits will accrue to all threatened mallee taxa

18 BibliographyBenshemesh, J. 1999. Draft National Recovery Planfor Malleefowl. Version 5. Environment Australia,Canberra.

Benshemesh, J. S. and Emison, W. B. 1996. SurveyingMalleefowl breeding densities using an airbornethermal scanner. Wildl. Res. 23:121-142.

Blakers, M., Davies, S. J. J. F., and Reilly, P. N. 1984.The Atlas of Australian Birds. RAOU and MelbourneUniversity Press, Melbourne.

Brickhill, J. G. 1987. The conservation status ofMalleefowl in New South Wales. RAOU Microfiche Ser.M36.

Campbell, A. J. 1900. Nests and Eggs of Australian Birds.The Author, Melbourne.

Cutten, J. L. 1997. Distribution and abundance ofMalleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) in the Murray Mallee andSouth East Regions of South Australia. (Draft).Nature Conservation Society of South Australia,Adelaide.

Emison, W. B., Beardsell, C. M., Norman, F. I., Loyn,R. H. and Bennett, S. C. 1987. Atlas of Victorian Birds.

Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands andRAOU, Melbourne.

Frith, H. J. 1962. The Mallee Fowl. Angus andRobertson, Sydney.

Johnstone, R. E. and Storr, G. M. 1998. Handbook ofWestern Australian Birds. Vol. 1. Non-passerines (Emu toDollarbird). W. A. Museum, Perth.

Kimber, R. G. 1985. The history of the Malleefowl inCentral Australia. RAOU Newsl. 64:6-8.

Mattingley, A. H. E. 1908. Thermometer bird orMallee fowl. Emu 8:114-121.

Priddel, D. 1990. Conservation of the Malleefowl inNew South Wales: an experimental managementstrategy. Pp. 71-83 in The Mallee Lands: a ConservationPerspective. J. C. Noble, P. J. Joss and G. K. Jones (eds).CSIRO, Canberra.

Priddel, D. and Wheeler, R. 1990. Survival ofMalleefowl chicks in the absence of ground-dwellingpredators. Emu 90:81-87.

27

Robinson, A. C., Casperson, K. D. and Copley, P. B.1990. Breeding records of the Malleefowl (Leipoaocellata) and Scarlet-chested Parrots (Neophemasplendida)within the Yellabinna Wilderness Area, SouthAustralia. S. Aust. Ornithol. 31:8-12.

Woinarski, J. C. Z. 1989. Broombush harvesting insouth-eastern Australia. Pp. 362-378 in MediterraneanLandscapes in Australia: Mallee Ecosystems and their

Management. J. C. Noble and R. A. Bradstock (eds).CSIRO, Melbourne.

Comments received fromGary Backhouse, Joe Benshemesh, John Blyth, AndrewBurbidge, Allan Burbidge, Peter Copley, Ken Johnson, KimLowe, Richard Loyn, Peter Mawson, Peter Menkhorst, LynnPedler, Adrian Stokes.

166

RECOVERY OUTLINE Masked Booby (eastern Indian Ocean)

1 Family Sulidae

2 Scientific name Sula dactylatra bedouti Mathews, 1913

3 Common name Masked Booby (eastern Indian Ocean)

4 Conservation statusAustralian breeding population Vulnerable: D2

5 Reasons for listingThe Australian population breeds at fewer than fivelocations (Vulnerable D2. Global status of thesubspecies is also probably Vulnerable (C2a) asextralimital breeding colonies are probably hunted forfood. Site fidelity is probably high, especially givenhigh rate of subspeciation in Masked Booby, so theimmigration rate is assumed to be low. The nationalstatus of breeding population is therefore determinedindependently of the global status (as per Gärdenforset al., is 1999).




Area of occupancy 10 km2 hightrend stable high

No. of breeding birds 1,600 mediumtrend stable high

No. of sub-populations 4 mediumLargest sub-population 800 mediumGeneration time 10 years lowGlobal population share 80 % lowLevel of genetic exchange low medium

6 Infraspecific taxaS. d. fullagari (Tasman Sea), is Vulnerable. S. d. personata(western Pacific Is), which nests on islands offQueensland and is sometimes considered to includeS. d. bedouti, is Least Concern. There are threeextralimital subspecies. Globally, the species is LeastConcern.

7 Past range and abundanceWestern Indian Ocean including North Keeling I.,Ashmore Reefs (West and Middle), Bedout and AdeleI. Extralimitally also breeding on islands in Indonesia(Marchant and Higgins, 1990).

8 Present range and abundanceAs above. As many as 270 pairs recorded Bedout I.and 400 on Adele I., 1-2 pairs recorded on two islandson Ashmore Reefs (Burbidge et al., 1987, Burbidge andFuller, 1996), and about 30 pairs on North Keeling I.(Stokes and Goh, 1987).

9 EcologyMasked Boobies raise their single young on rockyplatforms or other bare ground, and feed offshore forfish or squid (Marchant and Higgins, 1990).

10 ThreatsThe sub-population on Ashmore Reefs could beaffected by illegal hunting of the birds for food, butthere are no other likely threats.

11 Information required11.1 Assess impact of longline fishing.

12 Recovery objectives12.1 To implement bird-safe fishing practices in the

Cocos-Keeling Is. Exclusive Economic Zone(cost covered under albatrosses and giant-petrels, so not listed in table below).

12.2 To ensure persistence of the population.

13 Actions completed or under way13.1 All sub-populations monitored during irregular

visits.

14 Management actions required14.1 If necessary, implement management in

feeding habitat.

14.2 Through education and other means ensurestrict quarantine on North Keeling I.

14.3 Limit access to other breeding islands.

167

15 Organisations responsible forconservationEnvironment Australia, Western AustralianDepartment of Conservation and Land Management.

16 Other organisations involvedCocos-Keeling Island residents.

17 Staff and financial resources required for recovery to be carried outStaff resources required 2001-2005 0.05 Project Officer 1

1.0 Technical Officers (fisheries observers) 2




Total

Monitor North Keeling I. 1 $3,800 $0 $3,800Ensure quarantine for North Keeling I. 1 $5,000 $0 $5,000Monitoring other islands $8,000 $0 $8,000Locate and manage of feeding areas 2 $47,000 $0 $47,000Monitor longlining 2 $70,000 $0 $70,000

Total $133,800 $0,000 $133,8001 Costs shared among Round Island Petrel, Masked Booby, White-tailed Tropicbird and Buff-banded Rail.2 Annual costs may vary following the first year’s monitoring of the longline fishery; costs shared among Abbott’s Booby, Masked

Booby (eastern Indian Ocean) and Christmas Island Frigatebird.

18 BibliographyBurbidge, A. A. and Fuller, P. 1996. The WesternAustralian Department of Conservation and LandManagement seabird breeding islands database.Pp. 73-137 in G. J. B. Ross, K. Weaver and J. C. Greig(eds) The status of Australia’s seabirds Proceedings of theNational Seabird Workshop, Canberra, 1-2 November 1993.Biodiversity Group, Environment Australia, Canberra.

Burbidge, A. A., Fuller, P. J., Lane J. A. K. and Moore,S. A. 1987. Counts of nesting boobies and LesserFrigate-birds in Western Australia. Emu 87: 128-9.

Gärdenfors, U., Rodríguez, J.P., Hilton-Taylor, C.,Hyslop, C., Mace, G., Molur, S. and Poss, S. 1999.Draft guidelines for the Application of IUCN RedList Criteria at National and Regional Levels. Species31-32:58-70.

Marchant, S. and Higgins, P. J. (eds) 1990. TheHandbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds.Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Stokes, T. and Goh, P. 1987. Records of HeraldPetrels and the Christmas Frigatebird from NorthKeeling Island, Indian Ocean. Aust. Bird Watcher12:132-133.

Comments received fromAndrew Burbidge.

168

RECOVERY OUTLINE Masked Booby (Tasman Sea)

1 Family Sulidae

2 Scientific name Sula dactylatra fullagari O’Brien and Davies, 1990

3 Common name Masked Booby (Tasman Sea)

4 Conservation statusAustralian breeding population Vulnerable: D1+2

5 Reasons for listingThe Australian population is very small(Vulnerable: D1) and breeds at fewer than fivelocations (D2). The global status of the subspecies isalso Vulnerable, so any genetic interchange withextralimital populations does not affect local status (asper Gärdenfors et al., 1999).




Area of occupancy 10 km2 hightrend stable high

No. of breeding birds 1,000 mediumtrend stable high

No. of sub-populations 4 highLargest sub-population 500 mediumGeneration time 10 years lowGlobal population share 90 % mediumLevel of genetic exchange low low

6 Infraspecific taxaS. d. bedouti (eastern Indian Ocean), which nests onBedout and Adele Is, W. A., Ashmore Reefs andCocos-Keeling Is is Vulnerable. S. d. personata (westernPacific Is), which nests on islands off Queensland, andthree, extralimital subspecies are Least Concern, as isthe species. The Tasman Booby “S. tasmani” (van Tetset al., 1988) is now thought to have been individuals atthe upper size range of S. d. fullagari (R. Holdaway).

7 Past range and abundanceLord Howe I., Norfolk I. and its satellite islands,Phillip and Nepean Is, where it was once verynumerous (van Tets et al., 1988). Extralimitally, alsooccurs on the Kermadec Is. Birds banded on LordHowe I. recovered east coast of Australia and NewCaledonia (Marchant and Higgins, 1990).

8 Present range and abundanceAs above with 2-300 birds on Lord Howe I.(Priddel, 1996), 400 on Norfolk I. and associatedoffshore stacks (M. Christian, Owen Evans), 200 onNepean I. and 100 on Phillip I. On the KermadecIs. there are fewer than 200 (Marchant and Higgins,1990).

9 EcologyMasked Boobies raise their single young on rockyplatforms or other bare ground, feeding offshore forfish or squid (Marchant and Higgins, 1990).

10 ThreatsAlthough once numerous, Masked Boobies were allbut driven to extinction by hunting for food(Marchant and Higgins, 1990). They still breed onNorfolk and Lord Howe Is, despite the presence ofrats and cats. However, birds from one colony on thecliff tops at Norfolk I. were repeatedly disturbed bydogs and people, and many were shot (M. Christian).The largest numbers are now found on offshore islets(Schodde et al., 1983). These are relatively secure, buttourism to Phillip I. could be a threat in the future.The subspecies could be adversely affected at sea bylongline fishing. Although they have been seen matingwith Australasian Gannets Morus serrator (H. McCoy),no evidence of hybridisation has been reported.

11 Information required11.1 None.

12 Recovery objectives12.1 Ensure persistence of the population.

13 Actions completed or under wayNone.

14 Management actions required14.1 Census sub-population on Lord Howe I. at

least once every five years.

169

14.2 Census sub-population on Phillip, Nepean andNorfolk Is, including offshore stacks, everythree years.

14.3 Produce and implement protocols to reducethe impact of tourism on Phillip I.

15 Organisations responsible forconservationEnvironment Australia, New South Wales NationalParks and Wildlife Service, Norfolk IslandAdministration.

16 Other organisations involvedNorfolk Island Flora and Fauna Society.

17 Staff and financial resources required for recovery to be carried outStaff resources required 2001-2005 0.05 Project Officer 1

0.05 Technical Officer 2




Total

Monitoring Lord Howe I. 1 $8,000 $0 $8,000Monitoring Norfolk I. 2 $2,500 $500 $3,000

Total $10,500 $0,500 $11,0001. Cost divided among Providence Petrel, Kermadec Petrel, Little Shearwater, White-bellied Storm-Petrel, Masked Booby, Woodhen,

Grey Ternlet and Pied Currawong2. Cost divided among Providence Petrel, Kermadec Petrel, White-necked Petrel, Little Shearwater, Masked Booby and Grey Ternlet

18 BibliographyGärdenfors, U., Rodríguez, J.P., Hilton-Taylor, C.,Hyslop, C., Mace, G., Molur, S. and Poss, S. 1999.Draft guidelines for the Application of IUCN Red ListCriteria at National and Regional Levels. Species31-32:58-70.

Marchant, S. and Higgins, P.J. (eds) 1990. TheHandbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds.Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Priddel, D. 1996. The status of seabirds in New SouthWales. Pp. 201-208 in G. J. B. Ross, K. Weaver andJ. C. Greig (eds) The Status of Australia’s Seabirds:Proceedings of the National Seabird Workshop, Canberra, 1-2November 1993. Biodiversity Group, EnvironmentAustralia, Canberra.

van Tets, G. F., Meredith, C. W., Fullagar, P. J. andDavidson, P. M. 1988. Osteological differencesbetween Sula and Morus, and a description of anextinct new species of Sula from Lord Howe andNorfolk Islands. Notornis 35:35-57.

Comments received fromBarry Baker, Margaret Christian, Owen Evans, Honey McCoy,David Priddel.

371

TAXON SUMMARY Masked Owl (northern)

1 Family Tytonidae

2 Scientific name Tyto novaehollandiae kimberli Mathews, 1912

3 Common name Masked Owl (northern)

4 Conservation status Near Threatened: c

5 Reasons for listingThis subspecies is mysteriously scarce over most of itsvast range. However, there appear to have beenlocalised declines where it was once common,suggesting that the overall density could have declinedby more than 50% (Near Threatened: c).

Estimate ReliabilityExtent of occurrence 1,000,000 km2 medium

trend stable lowArea of occupancy 5,000 km2 low

trend decreasing lowNo. of breeding birds 12,000 low

trend decreasing lowNo. of sub-populations 1 mediumGeneration time 5 years low

6 Infraspecific taxaT. n. melvillensis (Tiwi Is) and T. n. castanops (Tasmania,introduced Lord Howe I.) are Endangered, andT. n. novaehollandiae (southern mainland Australia) isNear Threatened. Birds on Cape York Peninsula(sometimes separated as T. n. galei; Schodde andMason, 1997) and birds in north-east Queensland(formerly considered to be T. n. novaehollandiae;Schodde and Mason, 1997) are here included inT. n. kimberli (following Debus, 1993, Higgins, 1999).Four other subspecies occur in New Guinea andnearby islands. The species’ global status is LeastConcern.

7 Past range and abundanceKimberley Region, W. A. to north-east Queensland,including Cape York Peninsula (Higgins, 1999). Allrecords within 300 km of coast (Schodde and Mason,1997, Johnstone and Storr, 1998, Higgins, 1999).Apparently uncommon, except in Wet Tropics(Nielsen, 1996), and distribution possibly disjunct, witha gap south of Gulf of Carpentaria.

8 Present range and abundanceRange and abundance assumed to be unchanged,though subspecies rarely encountered, eitherincidentally or in avifaunal surveys. Away from north-east Queensland the density seems extremely low, andeven in the wet tropics appears to have declinedrecently (Nielsen, 1996). No recent records fromKimberley and few from widely separated sites in

Northern Territory (Higgins, 1999). Apparent recentdecline in wet tropics region (Nielsen, 1995).

9 EcologyIn northern Australia, the Masked Owl has beenrecorded from riverside forests, rainforest, open forest,paperbark Melaleuca swamps, and the edge ofmangroves, as well as along the margins of sugar canefields (Storr, 1977, 1980, Higgins, 1999, Nielsen, 1996).The birds usually nest in tree hollows, within patchesof closed forest and feed in open woodland on small-medium sized terrestrial mammals. They usually laytwo or three eggs (Higgins, 1999).

10 ThreatsThe reason for the low density of Masked Owls innorthern Australia is a mystery. It is possible thesubspecies has been affected by declines in potentialnatural prey, such as possums, rats and bandicoot(Braithwaite and Griffiths, 1994, J. Winter,J. Woinarski). Suggestions that Masked Owls competewith other large owls, presumably Rufous Owls Ninoxrufa rufa (Schodde and Mason, 1980), or that large treehollows are limiting, seem unlikely given the extent oftree cover and the scarcity of the Rufous Owl. In theWet Tropics itself, number of breeding birds in theIngham area and near Julatten have declined, possiblyas a result of use of the now-banned rodenticide Klerat(Nielsen, 1996, Young and De Lai, 1997), althoughthis link is unproven (P. Olsen).

11 Recommended actions11.1 Train people in techniques for searching for

Masked Owls.

372

11.2 Encourage searching for Masked Owls,particularly near sites where collectedpreviously, and record as much detail aspossible about each observation includingvegetation, fire history of site, food, behaviourand method of detection.

11.3 When found, determine dietary compositionand conservation status of principal prey.

11.4 Encourage the development and use of non-toxic controls of rodents in agriculture.

12 BibliographyBraithwaite, R. W. and Griffiths, A. D. 1994.Demographic variation and range contraction in theNorthern Quoll, Dasyurus hallucatus (Marsupialia:Dasyuridae). Wildl. Res. 21:203-218.

Debus, S. J. S. 1993. The mainland Masked Owl Tytonovaehollandiae: a review. Aust. Bird Watcher 15:168-191.



Nielsen, L. 1996. Birds of Queensland’s Wet Tropics andGreat Barrier Reef Australia. Gerard Industries, Bowden.

Storr, G. M. 1977. Birds of the Northern Territory.Spec. Publ. W. Aust. Mus. 7.

Storr, G. M. 1980. Birds of the Kimberley Division,Western Australia. Spec. Publ. W. Aust. Mus. 11.

Schodde, R. and Mason, I. J. 1980. Nocturnal Birds ofAustralia. Lansdowne, Melbourne.

Schodde, R. and Mason, I. J. 1997. Aves (Columbidaeto Coraciidae). Zoological Catalogue of Australia. Vol. 37.2.W. W. K. Houston and A. Wells (eds). CSIROPublishing, Melbourne.

Young, J. and De Lai, L. 1997. Population decline ofpredatory birds coincident with the introduction ofKlerat rodenticide in north Queensland. Aust. BirdWatcher 17:160-167.

Comments received fromStephen Debus, Penny Olsen, Mick Todd.

375

TAXON SUMMARY Masked Owl (southern Australia)

1 Family Tytonidae

2 Scientific name Tyto novaehollandiae novaehollandiae (Stephens, 1826)

3 Common name Masked Owl (southern Australia)

4 Conservation status Near Threatened: a

5 Reasons for listingThe area occupied by this subspecies is thought tohave declined by at least half, particularly in the semi-arid zone (Near Threatened: a).

Estimate ReliabilityExtent of occurrence 4,000,000 km2 high

trend stable mediumArea of occupancy 35,000 km2 low


trend stable mediumNo. of sub-populations 2 mediumLargest sub-population 6,500 lowGeneration time 5 years low

6 Infraspecific taxaT. n. castanops (Tasmania, introduced to Lord Howe I.)and T. n. melvillensis (Tiwi Is, N. T.) are Endangered,T. n. kimberli (northern mainland Australia, includingnorth-east Queensland; after Debus, 1993, Higgins,1999) is Near Threatened. There are four othersubspecies in New Guinea and nearby islands. Thespecies’ global status is Least Concern.

7 Past range and abundanceSparsely distributed through subcoastal mainlandAustralia from Fraser I, Qld, to Carnarvon, W. A.,including Nullarbor Plain. Also occurs inland of GreatDividing Ra. (Schodde and Mason, 1980, Higgins,1999). Generally found in sub-coastal habitats, butalso inland along watercourses (Schodde and Mason,1980, Debus, 1993). Fossil evidence of wider inlanddistribution during wetter climates (Rich et al., 1978).

8 Present range and abundanceNumbers reduced in inland New South Wales, SouthAustralia, and on the Nullarbor Plain (Schodde andMason, 1980, Smith et al., 1995, Higgins, 1999). InWestern Australia, restricted to south-west (Johnsonand Storr, 1998). Recently located at only 5 of 100sites surveyed in southern forests, all records from thesouthern coastal strip between Margaret R. andManjimup (R. Kavanagh), but also recorded furthernorth, including woodland areas, such as Dryandra(A. A. Burbidge). In Victoria, population estimated at300-400 pairs, mostly in East Gippsland (Peake et al.,1993). New South Wales: 1,500-2,000 pairs in north-

east (Higgins, 1999); 190 pairs in 3,200 km2 of StateForests and protected area in south-east (Kavanagh,1997).

9 EcologyThe southern subspecies of Masked Owl occupies ahome range of 5-10 km2 within a diverse range ofwooded habitats that provide large hollow-bearingtrees for roosting and nesting and nearby open areasfor foraging (Kavanagh and Murray, 1996, Higgins,1999). This can include forests, remnants withinagricultural land or almost treeless inland plains(Schodde and Mason, 1980, Peake et al., 1993, Debusand Rose, 1994, Higgins, 1999). Nests and roost sitesare usually in hollows of large trees, often in riparianforest. Clutch size is usually 3-4 (Schodde and Mason,1980, Kavanagh, 1996). Masked Owls also roost, andless commonly nest, in caves (Debus, 1993, Peake etal., 1993, Debus and Rose, 1994). Prey are principallyterrestrial mammals, including rodents and marsupials(Debus, 1993, Kavanagh, 1996), although possums,gliders, bats, birds, lizards and rabbits may be takenopportunistically (Schodde and Mason, 1980, Hollands1991, Debus, 1993, Debus and Rose, 1994, Kavanagh,1996, Higgins, 1999).

10 ThreatsClearance for agriculture has certainly affectedabundance in many parts of the species’ range,particularly Western Australia and South Australia(Higgins, 1999), and is the principal reason for listingthe subspecies. The reason for the low density ofMasked Owls, however, is unknown. Although fooddoes not appear to be limiting on the east coast(Kavanagh, 1996), the apparent decline in arid

376

Australia may be linked to that of mammals ofbetween 50 and 200 g (Burbidge and McKenzie,1989). However, Masked Owls may never have beencommon in dry areas (Debus, 1993). Within forests onthe east coast, the availability of nest trees could bedeclining (Peake et al., 1993, Kavanagh, 1996), but thescarcity of Masked Owls from logged forest in NewSouth Wales (Kavanagh and Bamkin, 1995, Kavanaghet al., 1995) is more likely to be because the vigorousregrowth after logging makes the habitat less suitablefor foraging (Kavanagh et al., 1995).

11 Recommended actions11.1 Undertake follow-up surveys in New South

Wales forests to determine trends inabundance and further baseline surveys inforests of south-western Western Australiaand south-east Queensland.

11.2 Undertake further modelling work in Victoriato assess habitat requirements and predictdistribution.

11.3 Maintain a diverse mosaic of fire ages withinforest habitats to keep patches of understoreyopen.

12 BibliographyBurbidge, A. A. and McKenzie, N. L. 1989. Patterns inthe modern decline of Western Australia’s vertebratefauna: Causes and conservation implications. Biol.Conserv. 50:143-198.

Debus, S. J. S. 1993. The mainland Masked Owl Tytonovaehollandiae: a review. Aust. Bird Watcher 15:168-191.

Debus, S. J. S. and Rose, A. B. 1994. The Masked OwlTyto novaehollandiae in New South Wales. Aust. Birds 28(Suppl.):S40-S64.


Hollands, D. 1991. Birds of the Night. A. H. and A. W.Reed, Sydney.


Kavanagh, R. P. 1996. The breeding biology and dietof the Masked Owl Tyto novaehollandiae near Eden, NewSouth Wales. Emu 96:158-165.

Kavanagh, R. P. 1997. Ecology and Management ofLarge Forest Owls in South-Eastern Australia. PhDthesis, University of Sydney, Sydney.

Kavanagh, R. P. and Bamkin, K. L. 1995. Distributionof nocturnal forest birds and mammals in relation tothe logging mosaic in south-eastern New South Wales.Biol. Conserv. 71:41-53.

Kavanagh, R. P. and Murray, M. 1996. Home range,habitat and behaviour of the Masked Owl Tytonovaehollandiae near Newcastle, New South Wales. Emu96:250-257

Kavanagh, R. P., Debus, S. J. S., Tweedie, T. andWebster, R. 1995. Distribution of nocturnal forestbirds and mammals in north-eastern New SouthWales: relationships with environmental variables andmanagement history. Wildl. Res. 22:359-377.

Peake, P., Conole, L. E., Debus, S. J. S., McIntyre, A.and Bramwell, M. 1993. The Masked Owl Tytonovaehollandiae in Victoria. Aust. Bird Watcher 15:125-136.

Rich, P. V., McEvey, A. R. and Walkley, R. 1978. Aprobable Masked Owl Tyto novaehollandiae fromPleistocene deposits of Cooper Creek, South Australia.Emu 78:88-90.


Smith, P. J., Smith, J. E , Pressey, R. L. and.Whish, G. L. 1995. Birds of Particular ConservationConcern in the Western Division of New SouthWales: Distributions, Habitats and Threats. NationalParks and Wildlife Service Occasional Paper 20. New SouthWales National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville.

Comments received fromAndrew Burbidge, Stephen Debus, Rod Kavanagh, RichardLoyn, Penny Olsen.

377

RECOVERY OUTLINE Masked Owl (Tasmanian)

1 Family Tytonidae

2 Scientific name Tyto novaehollandiae castanops (Gould, 1837)

3 Common name Masked Owl (Tasmanian)

4 Conservation status Endangered: C2b

5 Reasons for listingThere are about 1,300 mature individuals of thissubspecies in a single sub-population, which is likely tobe declining (Endangered: C2b).


trend stable highArea of occupancy 7,300 km2 high

trend decreasing mediumNo. of breeding birds 1,300 high

trend decreasing mediumNo. of sub-populations 1 highGeneration time 5 years low

6 Infraspecific taxaT. n. melvillensis (Tiwi Is) is Endangered.T. n. novaehollandiae (southern mainland Australia) andT. n. kimberli (northern mainland Australia) are NearThreatened. There are four other subspecies in NewGuinea and nearby islands. The species’ global statusis Least Concern.

7 Past range and abundanceEndemic to mainland Tasmania, where recorded fromall but the south-west. Highest densities are in thedrier, lowland regions of the central valleys and thenorth coast (Bell et al., 1997).

8 Present range and abundanceAs above. The population is estimated to contain1,330 breeding birds or 615 breeding pairs andprobably occurs at a higher density than any of themainland subspecies (Bell et al., 1997). Many cliffroosts are no longer used, which may indicate a largerpopulation in the past (N. Mooney). Has beensuccessfully introduced to Lord Howe I., where it isconsidered a threat to the Lord Howe WoodhenTricholimnas sylvestris and culled when possible (Higgins,1999).

9 EcologyIn Tasmania, most records of the Masked Owl arefrom lowland, dry sclerophyll forest, although it is alsofound occasionally in wet eucalypt forest, non-eucalyptdominated forest, scrub and urban environments.Most records are from close to the forest edge (naturalecotones or forest edge/cleared land) and where there

is a mosaic of understorey components, ranging fromopen to densely vegetated (Bell et al., 1997). Nests, inwhich 2-4 eggs are usually laid, are in large hollows ineucalypts, primarily White Gum Eucalyptus viminalisthat is more than 150 years old (Mooney, 1997). Themain foods taken in agricultural areas are introducedrabbits and Black Rats Rattus rattus. In less disturbedenvironments, marsupials and birds are taken (Hill,1955, Mooney, 1993).

10 ThreatsAlthough there appears to be no change in area ofoccupancy, habitat fragmentation has reduced hollowavailability to the point that some pairs have problemsbreeding (N. Mooney). Woodland clearance continuesapace in Tasmania, for both agriculture and pineplantations, and nest trees are often felled for ruralresidential development or firewood collection. Theremay be competition for remaining hollows with feralbees, introduced Laughing Kookaburras Dacelonovaeguineae and the increasing populations ofCommon Brushtail Possums Trichosurus vulpecula (Bellet al., 1997).

11 Information required11.1 Validate monitoring techniques.

11.2 Investigate effects of changes in preyabundance, habitat fragmentation and logging.

11.3 Assess home-range size and habitat utilisation.

12 Recovery objectives12.1 Maintain existing population of Masked Owl.

378

13 Actions completed or under way13.1 Known nests have been mapped and

management recommendations prepared.

14 Management actions required14.1 Undertake surveys throughout preferred

habitat including production forest (on privateand public lands) to identify distribution,density and nest sites

14.2 Erect nest boxes in territories that lackadequate hollows.

14.3 Protect adequate areas of current and potentialbreeding, feeding and roosting habitat fromclearing, particularly dense gully andstreamside vegetation, monitoring compliancebiennially.

14.4 Place all Masked Owl breeding areas that arepublic land under secure conservationmanagement, particularly those in timberreserves, transport corridors and localgovernment land.

14.5 Within the owl’s range manage at least 15% ofthe pre-European area of all woodlandcommunities on public or private land fornature conservation, using incentives wherenecessary.

14.6 Promote revegetation and land reclamationthat recreates woodland habitat with a fullcomplement of biodiversity, including theowl.

14.7 Control and reduce firewood collection fromareas occupied by Masked Owls, promotingwood-lot development close to markets.

14.8 Undertake a public information and educationprogram.

15 Organisations responsible forconservationTasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service.

16 Other organisations involvedForestry Tasmania, Australasian Raptor Association ofBirds Australia, timber extraction companies, privateland-holders.


0.5 Extension Officer 1




Total

Validate monitoring techniques $15,000 $20,000 $35,000Ecological studies of home range and effects of clearing $30,000 $45,000 $75,000Surveys $37,000 $41,000 $78,000Erect nest boxes $2,500 $18,000 $20,500Maintain a nest site register $9,000 $0 $9,000Protect habitat on private land $50,000 $20,000 $70,000Refine management guidelines for timber production 2 $18,000 $4,000 $22,000Manage and protect habitat in production forests $50,000 $20,000 $70,000Run public information and education program $20,000 $0 $20,000

Total $231,500 $168,000 $399,5001 Does not include costs of large-scale strategic actions2 Costs shared with Swift Parrot, Australian Owlet-nightjar and Forty-spotted Pardalote

18 BibliographyBell, P., Mooney, N. and Wiersma, J. 1997. Predictingessential habitat for forest owls in Tasmania.Australasian Raptor Association Report to theTasmanian RFA Environment and Heritage TechnicalCommittee, Hobart.


Hill, L. H. 1955. Notes on the habits and breeding ofthe Tasmanian Masked Owl. Emu 55:203-210.

Mooney, N. 1993. Diet of the Masked Owl inTasmania: past and present. Pp. 160-174 in AustralianRaptor Studies. P. Olsen (ed.). Australasian RaptorAssociation, RAOU, Melbourne.

Mooney, N. 1997. Habitat and seasonality of nestingMasked Owls in Tasmania. Australasian RaptorStudies Pp. 34-39 in Australian Raptor Studies II. G.Czechura and S. Debus (eds). Birds AustraliaMonograph 3. Birds Australia, Melbourne.

Comments received fromStephen Debus, Nick Mooney, Penny Olsen.

373

RECOVERY OUTLINE Masked Owl (Tiwi Islands)

1 Family Tytonidae

2 Scientific name Tyto novaehollandiae melvillensis Mathews, 1912

3 Common name Masked Owl (Tiwi Islands)


5 Reasons for listingThe subspecies is restricted to two islands, on whichthere are probably fewer than 2,500 matureindividuals, and is likely to decline in abundance as aresult of a new threat (Endangered: C2b).




trend decreasing lowNo. of sub-populations 1 highGeneration time 5 years low

6 Infraspecific taxaT. n. castanops (Tasmania, introduced Lord Howe I.) isEndangered, T. n. novaehollandiae (southern mainlandAustralia) and T. n. kimberli (northern mainlandAustralia) are Near Threatened. There are foursubspecies in New Guinea or nearby islands. Thespecies’ global status is Least Concern.

7 Past range and abundanceEndemic to Tiwi Is (Melville and Bathurst Is), N. T.,(Schodde and Mason, 1980), where said to be commonrelative to subspecies on the mainland (Zietz, 1914,Fensham and Woinarski, 1992, Mason and Schodde,1997).

8 Present range and abundanceAs above.

9 EcologyMasked Owls in the Tiwi Is occur primarily in tallopen eucalypt woodland, and occasionally inplantations of introduced Caribbean Pine Pinus elliotti(Mason and Schodde, 1997). They probably nest ineucalypts that grow into large trees with numeroushollows, and feed primarily on rats.

10 ThreatsExtensive clearing for a short-term rotation of Acaciamangium will remove nesting trees and probably reducerat populations. Trial plots of 6,000 ha have beenapproved with 30,000 ha planned and options for atleast 100,000 ha (J. Woinarski). The owls may also beadversely affected by changes in vegetation structure,as a result of a trend away from traditional burningpractices, and weed invasion (J. Woinarski, Fenshamand Cowie, 1998).

11 Information required11.1 Baseline data on population size, habitat use

and potential effects of clearing.

12 Recovery objectives12.1 Maintain a viable population on the Tiwi Is.

13 Actions completed or under way13.1 None.

14 Management actions required14.1 Before proceeding with further large-scale

clearing, assess likely effects on owls andadjust plans accordingly.

14.2 Work with land-owners to ensure managementis adequate to conserve Masked Owls on theTiwi Is.

15 Organisations responsible forconservationParks and Wildlife Commission of the NorthernTerritory.

16 Other organisations involvedTiwi Land Council.

374

17 Staff and financial resources required for recovery to be carried outStaff resources required 2001-2005 0.1 Project OfficerFinancial resources required 2001-2005



Total

Survey and assessment of clearing impacts 1 $15,000 $15,000 $30,000Collaborative land management $10,000 $15,000 $25,000

Total $25,000 $30,000 $55,0001 Costs shared with Tiwi Is subspecies of Hooded Robin

18 BibliographyFensham, R. J., and Cowie, I. D. (1998). Alien plantinvasions on the Tiwi Islands: extent, implications andpriorities for control. Biol. Conserv. 83:55-68.

Fensham, R. J. and Woinarski, J. C. Z. 1992.Yawalama: the ecology and conservation of monsoonforest on Tiwi Islands, Northern Territory. Report toDASET. Conservation Commission of the NorthernTerritory.

Mason, I. J. and Schodde, R. 1997. Bird survey of theTiwi Islands, October 1996. Report to Tiwi LandCouncil, Northern Territory.


Zietz, F. R. 1914. The avifauna of Melville island,Northern Territory. S. Aust. Ornithol. 1:11-18.

Comments received fromStephen Debus, Penny Olsen, John Woinarski.

301

RECOVERY OUTLINE Muir’s Corella (Western Corella: southern)

1 Family Cacatuidae

2 Scientific name Cacatua pastinator pastinator (Gould, 1841)

3 Common name Muir’s Corella


5 Reasons for listingThere are fewer than 2,500 mature birds of thissubspecies, in a single, declining sub-population(Endangered: C2b).


trend stable highArea of occupancy 500 km2 medium

trend stable mediumNo. of breeding birds 2,400 high

trend stable mediumNo. of sub-populations 1 highGeneration time 5 years low

6 Infraspecific taxaC. p. derbyi (northern wheatbelt of Western Australia) isLeast Concern, as is the species’ status.

7 Past range and abundanceMost of south-west Australia south of Perth fromSwan R. and Avon R. to Augusta and Broome Hill inthe east (Johnstone, 1997, Schodde and Mason, 1997).Range contracted by the 1920s to Lake Muir andsurrounding districts (Carter, 1923). Populationdeclined to about 100 birds in 1940s, but recovered to1,000 birds by 1978 (Smith, 1991, Saunders et al.,1985).

8 Present range and abundanceNow occurring from Boyup Brook and Qualeup Southsouth to the lower Perup River, Lake Muir andCambellup (Johnstone, 1997). Population sizeestimated to be 1,500 individuals in 1991 (Massam andLong, 1992), 3,000 individuals in 1997 (Johnstone,1997), and 2,360 individuals in 1999 (P. Mawson).

9 EcologyMuir’s Corella lives in woodland on the drier, easternside of the main forest block in south-westernAustralia. Though the subspecies mainly digs forcorms of native and introduced plants, its diet includesgrain from agricultural crops (Smith and Moore, 1991,Mawson and Johnstone, 1997). Nesting is in largehollows in eucalypts of an estimated minimum age of160 years (Mawson and Long, 1994). Clutch size of the

northern subspecies averages 2.3, with a range of 1 to4 (Higgins, 1999).

10 ThreatsBecause it eats grain, Muir’s Corella was considered anagricultural pest, and farmers shot and poisoned largenumbers during the first 20 years of the 20th century(Carter, 1912, Saunders et al., 1985). Prohibition ofpoisoning and shooting has allowed a recovery innumbers (Massam and Long, 1992, Johnstone, 1997).Nevertheless, some birds are still shot illegally,especially at sites where grain is fed to livestock.Furthermore the agricultural habitats most favoured bythe subspecies, the alluvial flats, are now beingconverted to hardwood plantations of Blue GumEucalyptus globulus and vegetable crops, both of whichare unsuitable for corellas. Eventually a lack of nesthollows may limit abundance (Smith, 1991, Mawsonand Long, 1994), nest trees being lost throughclearance for agriculture and plantations, damage bystock and by salinisation of the soil. In the long term,the subspecies may also be threatened by hybridisationwith the northern subspecies, C. p. derbyi, which isexpanding its range southwards, and Long-billedCorella C. tenuirostris, which has been introduced fromeastern Australia to Perth where its numbers areincreasing (P. Mawson).

11 Information required11.1 Develop a technique for excluding parrots

from grain being fed to livestock.

11.2 Determine area of feeding habitat required tosustain population.

302

11.3 Obtain a greater understanding of breedingbiology.

11.4 Clarify taxonomic status.

12 Recovery objectives12.1 Maintain or increase population size.

13 Actions completed or under way13.1 The population size is surveyed at two year

intervals.

13.2 Characterisation of nest sites is under way.

13.3 A Recovery Plan has been written and aRecovery Team established.

14 Management actions required14.1 Initiate management of breeding and feeding

habitat.

14.2 Increase community involvement.

14.3 Control feral eastern Long-billed Corella.

15 Organisations responsible forconservationWestern Australian Department of Conservation.

16 Other organisations involvedWestern Australian Department of Agriculture,Landcare groups.


0.2 Extension OfficerFinancial resources required 2001-2005



Total

Population monitoring $24,500 $3,000 $27,500Breeding biology research $0 $30,000 $30,000Breeding habitat management $25,000 $5,000 $30,000Feeding habitat management by the community $0 $3,000 $3,000Control of eastern Long-billed Corella $15,000 $7,500 $22,500Taxonomic research $0 $2,700 $2,700

Total $64,500 $51,200 $115,700

18 BibliographyCarter, T. 1912. Notes on Licmetus pastinator (Westernlong-billed Cockatoo). Ibis 6:627-634.

Carter, T. 1923. Birds of Broome Hill District. Emu23:223-235.

Johnstone, R. E. 1997. Current studies on threeendemic Western Australian Cockatoos. Eclectus3:34-35.

Massam, M. and Long, J. 1992. Long-billed Corellashave an uncertain status in the south-west of WesternAustralia. W. Aust. Nat. 19:30-34.

Mawson, P. and Johnstone, R. E. 1997. Conservationstatus of parrots and cockatoos in Western Australia.Eclectus 2:4-9.

Mawson, P. R. and Long, J. L. 1994. Size and ageparameters of nest trees used by four species of parrotand one species of cockatoo in south-west Australia.Emu 94:149-155.

Saunders, D. A., Rowley, I. and Smith, G. T. 1985.The effects of clearing for agriculture on thedistribution of cockatoos in the southwest of WesternAustralia. Pp. 309-321 in Birds of Eucalypt Forests andWoodlands: Ecology, Conservation, Management. A. Keast,H. F. Recher, H. Ford and D. Saunders (eds). RAOU,Melbourne and Surrey Beatty and Sons, ChippingNorton.

Schodde, R. and Mason, I. J. 1997. Aves (Columbidaeto Coraciidae). Zoological Catalogue of Australia. Vol. 37.2.W. W. K. Houston and A. Wells (eds). CSIROPublishing, Melbourne.

Smith, G. T. 1991. Breeding ecology of the WesternLong-billed Corella Cacatua pastinator pastinator. Aust.Wildl. Res. 18:91-110.

Smith, G. T. and Moore, L. A. 1991. Foods of CorellasCacatua pastinator in Western Australia. Emu 91:87-92.

Comments received fromJohn Blyth, Allan Burbidge, Andrew Burbidge, Ron Johnstone,Peter Mawson, Ian Rowley.

recovery outline macaroni penguin · handbook of australian, new zealand and antarctic birds....

Documents