Appendices for `Managing the Hooded Plover in Victoria` Report

Transcription

Appendix 1 Detailed summaries of latest research findings
Responses of Incubating Hooded Plovers (Thinornis rubricollis) to Disturbance
Weston and Elgar (2007) found the most common response to an approaching stimulus
involved leaving the nest for a period of time (an ‘‘absence’’): 90.9% of encounters that
caused a response (n = 580) resulted in an absence from the nest. Disturbance-initiated
absences were significantly more frequent (1.1 ± 1.1 per hour) than incubator-initiated
absences (i.e. when the birds take a break from the nest 0.5 ± 0.5 per hour).
Overall, nests encountered 3.0 ± 4.2 stimuli per hour (n = 49 observation days; 555
observation hours). The hourly rate of encounters with human stimuli was 2.4 ± 4.0 per
hour (maximum 24.2); the rate of encounters with natural stimuli was 0.7 ± 0.9 per
hour (maximum 3.5). Only one observation day involved no encounters with natural or
human stimuli (2.0% of observation days). This reveals that human encounters are
common for incubating Hooded Plovers.
Overall, 75.7% of all stimuli were due to humans or their companion animals, and
24.3% involved natural stimuli (n = 1821). Of all encounters, 73.3% involved humans
on foot. Within this category, walkers without dogs were the most frequently
encountered stimulus at nests, and they accounted for about half of all encounters.
Humans were responsible for more time off the nest (33.1%) than any other source, and
68.0% of time off nests was caused by external stimuli.
There was a lower than expected frequency of nest absences in response to walkers
without dogs and higher than expected absence frequencies in response to magpies and
ravens. Research around the world shows that habituation is promoted by stimuli that do
not represent any real threat to the birds. Walkers without dogs may be less threatening
than other stimuli because they are slow moving, do not persecute the birds, and occur
frequently. Ravens and magpies on the other hand have been found to be major
predators of Hooded Plover nests (see study by Renee Mead below using remote
cameras to detect nest fates).
The observed percentage of nest absences in response to encounters with leashed dogs
is lower than expected, but the observed percentage of nest absences in response to
encounters with unleashed dogs is higher than expected. The percentage of encounters
with leashed dogs that caused an absence from the nest was similar to the percentage of
202
encounters with walkers without dogs that caused an absence (ca. 21%). This suggests
that it is the behaviour of dogs rather than their presence that influences whether nest
absences occur. The particularly disturbing nature of unleashed dogs is probably
explained by their tendency to move up and down the beach perpendicular to the water’s
edge (see Burger 1986). Additionally, unleashed dogs directly pursued Hooded Plovers at
times.
About 17% of encounters with potential causes of disturbance occurred while birds were
already responding to other disturbance, and this prolonged the return to the nest.
Humans occurred predominantly in the midbeach: 71.7% of 2361 people who passed
nests were in the midbeach. This means that nests in different habitats (beach,
foredune, dunes) may be differentially affected by human disturbance. Weston and Elgar
(2007) found that encounters at beach and foredune nests were more likely to result in
incubator absences, and that the duration of absences at foredune nests was longer than
for dune or beach nests. The incubating birds on beach and foredune nests are not only
closer to the approaching ‘threat’ but have a clearer view of approaching threats, which
may explain the greater tendency of birds to respond to these approaching threats.
Disturbance to brood-rearing Hooded Plover Thinornis rubricollis: responses
and consequences
Weston and Elgar (2005a) examined the causes and consequences of disturbance to the
chicks of Hooded Plover.
Disturbance might cause thermal stress to chicks. Hooded Plover chicks are expected to
have difficulty maintaining their body temperature without parental assistance, and
disruption of brooding is likely to interfere with thermoregulation. Of 261 brooding bouts
recorded, 44.8% ended because of disturbance. Almost a third (31.0%) of all brooding
bouts observed were ended by an encounter with a human. Chicks found themselves unbrooded due to disturbance for up to 290 min, and in ambient temperatures of 10–46°C.
Disturbance might cause energetic stress to chicks. Encounters with humans usually
caused chick foraging to stop. Higher levels of disturbance were associated with less
chick foraging. There was a tendency for broods to forage in lower and potentially more
203
profitable levels of the habitat in less-disturbed conditions. However, the overall pattern
of habitat use was similar during disturbed and less-disturbed conditions.
Adult defence of broods could be compromised by disturbance. However, no brood
predation occurred in disturbed circumstances, and adults stayed close to their broods
even in disturbed conditions.
The main source of encounters with Hooded Plover broods were humans (81.1% of
encounters). The main response of chicks is to run to foredunes and dunes to hide. The
heavy reliance of Hooded Plover chicks on the dunes and foredunes as the main site of
concealment emphasizes the importance of dune systems in the habitat of this species.
This study can offer no unequivocal evidence linking levels of disturbance with reduced
chick survival in Hooded Plover. Nevertheless, the data reveal that disturbance reduces
feeding and disrupts brooding of chicks, influences that might reduce chick survival.
Reduced foraging and brooding due to disturbance are thought to be responsible for
decreased chick survival in the ecologically and behaviourally similar Piping Plover
Charadrius melodus.
Effectiveness of signed and fenced areas for reducing nest crushing and
disturbance to Hooded Plovers
Weston et al. (2012a) explored whether three types of nest protection scenarios referred
to as Temporary Beach Closures (TBC) (signage; signage and temporary fencing, and;
signage, temporary fencing and wardening) differed in their conferred benefit to Hooded
Plovers measured as (1) achieving compliance among beach visitors, and (2) reducing
egg-crushing rates.
Overall, 93.7% of beach visitors complied with TBC, resulting in a reduction in eggcrushing rates within (3.9% of eggs were crushed), as opposed to adjacent to, the
protected areas. Levels of compliance were high in all three TBCs (88.0–99.4%), and
similar levels of compliance were achieved within the three scenarios. Human compliance
was highest for females and when the density of beach-users was higher (particularly in
the middle of the day between 12pm and 2pm), while individuals aged <20 and >61
years were less likely to comply with nest protection scenarios. Despite an increased
204
probability of compliance on high density beaches, this did not translate into a reduction
in egg crushing rates on such beaches, because the overall number of non-compliant
individuals remained higher.
The finding that compliance was highest for nest protection efforts at beaches with
higher encounter rates and during busier times of the day (i.e. the middle of the day)
highlights the strong role of social norms in influencing compliance (Manfredo and Dayer
2004; Williams et al. 2009). It may also be in part to the dichotomy in user groups
visiting beaches (Maguire et al. 2011a), where visitors (non-local residents) are more
likely to visit the beach in the middle of the day, and in this study, perhaps be more
receptive and compliant with signage.
Weston et al. (2012a) concluded that nest protection efforts are meritorious, and that
their use on high and low-use recreational beaches will benefit breeding shorebirds by
reducing the rate of egg-crushing. Targeting demographics that display lower levels of
compliance, such as men, young people (i.e. <21), and older people (i.e. >60), may
further improve the effectiveness of nest protection efforts.
Nest Return Times in Response to Static Versus Mobile Human Disturbance
Weston et al. (2011) delivered standardized stimuli to incubating Hooded Plovers to
examine the influence of human movement on disruption of incubation classified as
mobile (activities moving past the area e.g. walking, jogging) or static (activities
stationed within the one area e.g., sunbathers, anglers, and picnickers).
Observations across 82 days during the breeding season revealed 7,217 humans on
breeding territories, of which 63.5% were classified as static. Results indicated that
static humans caused substantial disruption to incubation that almost always exceeded
60 min (19 of 20 pairs), regardless of nesting habitat. The probability of plovers
returning to nests within 60 min was higher in the treatment that mimicked mobile (e.g.,
walking) humans (85.7%) than in the treatment that mimicked static (e.g., sunbathing)
humans (9.5%; n = 20 pairs). Thus, temporary beach closures (i.e. nest protection
signage/fencing) that reduce or eliminate static but not mobile disturbances are likely to
be effective at reducing disruption to incubation caused by human disturbance.
205
Sign content and placement
Threatened species signage is frequently used to help protect species by limiting human
occurrence or alter damaging human behaviour, yet is rarely developed using a scientific
approach which involves collecting data from the key target audience in regard to their
preferences for signs and placement of signs. Rimmer et al. (2013) surveyed members
of the beach-going public (n = 684) to document their preferences for desirable features
and positioning of signage to protect threatened beach-nesting birds.
Respondents were ‘likely’ to read a sign that was positioned on or near the beach (4.39
± 0.03, where 1 and 5 were “definitely not” and “definitely” respectively; n = 516).
When asked where signs should be placed to be highly ‘noticeable’, 78.4% of 524
respondents believed signs should be placed at the beginning of an access path, 62.2%
in the carpark, 59.0% on the upper beach, 58.6% at the beach end of the access path,
36.1% on the dune, and 26.5% on the lower beach. (N.B. multiple options were
available, and 9.4% of respondents selected every option.)
When respondents ranked the effectiveness of features on signs, they regarded colourful
images, clear definitions of the issue and appropriate behaviour most effective, with
descriptions of fines and authoritative language least effective at helping Hooded
Plovers. Overall, respondents had clear preferences among the four candidate signs,
preferring the sign that “Personalised the bird so that I can relate more easily to its
plight” (1.51 ± 0.04 where 1 and 4 is “most” and “least” preferred respectively; n =
517) and the sign suggesting an alternative location for dog walking (2.24 ± 0.04); both
included images of Hooded Plovers. The least preferred signs detailed fines (3.05 ±
0.04) and were descriptive/prescriptive (3.19 ± 0.04) without images.
Respondents who rarely used the beach considered authoritative content more effective
at helping the plovers than respondents using the beach more frequently (F2, 504=
4.383, P = 0.013; factor scores 3.36 ± 0.09 vs. 3.20 ± 0.09). Frequency of use also
influenced the perceptions of dog walkers (F4, 504 = 4.338, P = 0.014; 38.9% of
respondents walked dogs). Dog walkers who use the beach at higher frequencies
indicated preference for emotive sign content (factor score, 4.32 ± 0.10) in contrast to
non-dog owners who prefer descriptive content (4.41 ± 0.15). Dog walkers using the
beach most frequently perceived authoritative signs as less effective (2.92 ± 0.16)
compared with non-dog owners (3.39 ± 0.11). Prior awareness of the Hooded Plover did
not influence the information content desired on signage (F2, 504 =0.254, P = 0.615).
206
Overall, respondents preferred descriptive signage, suggesting a preference for
education and persuasion over regulation among respondents, a view shared by many
managers and social marketers (McKenzie-Mohr and Smith 1999). Neither education nor
persuasion automatically confers behavioural change and signage is but one component
of effective social marketing (Orams 1997). Rimmer et al. (2013) concluded that
regulatory signage may be most effective at engendering sympathetic behaviour among
occasional, non-dog-walking beach visitors; authoritative signs might be less effective
for more frequent visitors. Stakeholders more directly or substantially involved in
conservation issues (e.g. frequent users of areas subject to conservation management)
prefer persuasion over enforcement, while stakeholders less closely connected are more
likely to advocate for enforcement (McKenzie-Mohr and Smith 1999). The different
preferences of dog owners to signs may be explained by the fact that compliance with
dog leashing regulations on beaches is low and off-leash activities are highly valued,
thus behavioural change sought by signs may have been particularly unwelcome among
dog walkers (Williams et al. 2009). The different perceptions of beach user groups
suggest that target audiences for signs should be specifically identified and prioritised.
Flight initiation distances and determining ecologically meaningful and socially
acceptable buffers
Buffers are often used to separate threatening stimuli, such as humans, from wildlife but
with few exceptions buffer widths are based on little empirical information. Glover et al.
(2011) carried out standardised approaches for 28 of Australia’s 36 regularly occurring
shorebirds to measure Flight Initiation Distance (FID) which is the distance at which the
birds respond to stimuli, i.e. are disturbed.
Species differed in their FID, with species with higher body masses having longer FIDs
(F1,26 = 36.830, p < 0.001; R2 = 0.586). Flight for heavier birds might be
comparatively more energetically costly, therefore fleeing earlier may enable birds to use
less costly escape options, such as walking or running (Fernández-Juricic et al., 2002).
Alternatively, smaller birds are less conspicuous than larger birds and may continue
foraging in the presence of an approaching threat (Holmes et al., 1993). Larger
shorebirds may have been preyed upon more substantially by humans, either historically
or in parts of the world where the practice still occurs (Geering et al., 2007), and thus
birds may have evolved or learned to be particularly wary of humans.
207
Mean FIDs for species were 18.6–126.1 m (n = 370 approaches by a walker). The mean
FID for Hooded Plover was 41.12 ± 6.06 m with a minimum distance of 17 m and a
maximum of 70 m recorded for the 8 pairs approached. A commonly used buffer width in
south-eastern Australia is 50 m, particularly for wetlands (DSE, 2005); in response to a
lone walker, 54% of the species we examined had FIDs in excess of 50 m on at least one
occasion, and mean FIDs of over 50 m were recorded for eight species. Thus, even with
complete compliance among humans, existing buffer widths are unlikely to eliminate
disturbance to shorebirds; the degree to which it is reduced remains unknown.
Glover et al. (2011) also surveyed 295 residents and users of shorebird habitat.
Respondents expressed an overall positive attitude towards bird conservation; 86%
(254) agreed that ‘land and water that provides critical habitat for birds should be
protected’ (n = 294). Respondents were largely supportive of most of 19 hypothetical
management techniques (such as, restrictions, regulations, pest control and improved
amenities); 69 ± 3% supported 18 active management techniques. An exception
appeared for ‘seasonal or permanent limitations on access for walkers, to avoid
disturbance of wildlife’ where only 39% (112) were supportive (n = 288). Results
revealed that beach users held the view that some width of buffer is required to protect
shorebirds from a range of recreational activities, however, this view was not consistent
across different activities. This may be because people perceive some recreational
activities (e.g., jet-skiing and boating) to disturb shorebirds at greater distances than
others (e.g., walking) and this perception aligns with our FID findings (e.g., greater FIDs
for joggers and dog walkers cf. walkers). Respondents were less supportive of buffers for
walkers, possibly out of self-interest given that walking was the commonest recreational
activity among respondents.
While there appears to be considerable community support for buffers, this could be
further enhanced through the use of participatory or social marketing processes
(McKenzie-Mohr and Smith, 1999; Walker et al., 2002), which can include information on
the FID of shorebirds in response to particular recreational activities. This information
could be used to support or refine the beliefs already held by coastal users about
shorebird disturbance and conservation.
208
A review of flight-initiation distances and their application to managing
disturbance to Australian birds
Weston et al. (2012b) reviewed the Flight Initiation Distances (FID) for 250 species of
Australian birds. The Hooded Plover had the highest positive residual value in a linear
regression of FID on mean body mass – this means that the Hooded Plover showed the
highest response to a human approach of any species in its size class, thus is most
sensitive to human disturbance. This study presented results on FID for the Hooded
Plover from three different sources:
54.4 ± 35.4 m (n=30)
41.12 ± 6.06 m (n=8)
26.3 ± 3.3 (n=4)
CHICK SURVIVAL
Artificial shelters: design, use and effectiveness at improving chick survival
Shelter is likely to provide refuge from predators and from approaching humans, and
shelter from extreme weather conditions (e.g. heat or rain). The proximity of shelter to
foraging areas may reduce the energy chicks have to expend running to and from cover,
and thus may improve their survival at heavily disturbed sites.
Shelter for Hooded Plover chicks may be a limited resource on beaches. Rocks,
driftwood, debris, seaweed and vegetation are all potential shelter for chicks, however,
these will vary in the protection they offer, in terms of protection from crushing,
insulation properties and detection by predators. An artificial chick shelter is a purposebuilt shelter with solid, closed walls, roof and at least one opening, which provides
concealment and protection from crushing and/or shade that chicks can use when
needed. Artificial shelter designs are likely to vary in their properties and thus benefits to
chicks. For tern species, wooden crates and teepees, and PVC and terracotta pipes have
been used as chick shelters, without an exploration of the measured benefits to chicks.
Maguire et al. (2011b) carried out a two part study of chick shelters, firstly comparing
three wooden shelter designs: their insulation properties, sand fill over time, detection
by predators and humans, and logistics of field installation. A simple tepee design had
209
most promise: it offered a 9° C thermal benefit on average, was least conspicuous to
humans, had no approaches by avian predators in 157 passes, and was the lightest to
carry in the field and easiest to stack for transportation.
In the initial study period, Maguire et al. (2011b) supplied 14 broods with artificial
shelter and observed the broods for one hour to determine use. Three broods used the
shelters within this short time frame (21% of broods). After this initial study period,
shelters were deployed more widely across breeding sites in Victoria and these were
available for use over the entire brood period (5 weeks). High rates of use have since
been reported (33-41% of broods).
Fledging rates for broods that we observed with access to artificial shelter versus those
that only had access to natural shelter varied significantly. Of 10 broods with access to
only natural shelter, 10.0% fledged, while of 11 broods with access to an artificial
shelter, 81.8% fledged successfully. Fledging success data from additional broods in the
2006/2007 and 2007/2008 breeding season, revealed that 22.4% that did not have
access to artificial shelter survived to fledge, while 65.2% that had access to artificial
shelters survived to fledge (n = 81; GLMM, Wald Statistic = 10.17, df = 1, P = 0.001).
When the number of chicks surviving within a brood is considered, the average number
surviving when they had access to artificial shelter was 0.87 ± 0.82 chicks versus 0.33 ±
0.71 for those with only natural shelter (n = 81 broods, 39 chicks; Mann Whitney U =
387.5, df = 1, P < 0.001).
Hooded Plover broods mostly forage in open beach areas with limited cover; and it is not
suggested that diminished cover is a threat to Hooded Plovers, rather, artificial cover
may mitigate the impacts of human disturbance and superabundant predator populations
by offering cover that is less prone to trampling, possibly more convenient and more
resistant to predators, compared with natural cover. Observations of Hooded Plover
chicks using shelters regularly and for prolonged periods during hot days and rain
supports the idea that shelters may be used by chicks under challenging thermal
conditions and this may be the primary way that artificial shelters improve survival of
chicks.
Chick shelters are now widely used at beaches post-hatching and there are strict
guidelines for their dimensions, installation and removal (see Maguire 2008, pp. 104-
107). We recommend using a minimum of three shelters distributed across the territory
and not to use shelters without some form of signage explaining the presence of chicks
210
(to reduce approaches by curious people). In many areas, local school children or men’s
sheds build these shelters and this improves community understanding of their purpose.
We also recommend installing these either a few days before hatching (when laying
dates are known) but more commonly post-hatching, as the nest location and the area
used by chicks can differ. Shelters must be buried partially in the sand to prevent
flipping in strong winds, and the openings must face the sea as chicks will typically run
vertically along a beach, from the water’s edge toward the dune.
Occasionally individuals unfamiliar with best practise management guidelines will install
shelters on the site during the incubation phase but sand movement over the month
before hatching means that by the time there are chicks, these shelters have become
inaccessible due to sand fill. There have also been cases of individuals wanting to put a
shelter over the nest to offer thermal comfort to the eggs and incubating bird. However,
this is not the purpose for the shelters and a shelter over the eggs would take away the
expansive view that the incubating bird selects for when it chooses its nest site. Hooded
Plovers are very selective of where they place their nests, ultimately trying to avoid
predator ambush and to maximise camouflage (see below for further studies about nest
habitat selection) .
12
COLOUR BANDING MOVEMENTS AND SPACE USE
Manage one beach or two? Movements and space-use of the threatened Hooded
Plover (Thinornis rubricollis) in south-eastern Australia
Weston et al. (2009) examined the movements of colour-banded Hooded Plovers in
southern central Victoria by analysing sightings of colour-banded birds (4897 sightings;
194 birds tracked for up to 9 years). Most movements were relatively short (5050 ± 305
m), with 61.4% <1 km and 95.3% <20 km; they lacked directional or sexual bias. The
maximum movement recorded was 330.8 km. The extent of coastline used by individual
birds was 47.8 ± 58.0 km.
12
Fundamental to managing nest and chick sites successfully is following best practise guidelines already
developed (Maguire 2008), and where individuals have ideas for improvement, running these past an expert
who is familiar with existing research and the ecological considerations of different management options.
211
Of the 194 colour-banded birds sighted, 96.2% of the observations were less than 100m
inland of the coastline; the furthest inland Hooded Plovers were observed was 1500m
inland at Lake Victoria, an inland brackish lake on the Bellarine Peninsula. Movements
indicated the species readily moved past stretches of unsuitable habitat (e.g. the rocky
coasts around Wilsons Promontory) and water (e.g. across the mouths of Port Phillip and
Westernport Bays). Some movements also spanned largely unoccupied areas such as
between Anglesea and Apollo Bay (~65 km). Regional differences in average distances
moved by adults were apparent. South Gippsland (Cape Liptrap to, and including,
Wilsons Promontory) and Bellarine regions had high movement rates during the non-
breeding season, compared with the Bass Coast and Mornington Peninsula. There was a
lot of variance in adult movement rates during the non-breeding season in the
Mornington Peninsula and Bass Coast regions. Regional variation may occur in the
movements of adult Hooded Plovers and this would have implications for the effect of
coastal development on the species. For example, in the Otway region, movement rates
were slightly lower than in other regions, so degradation of a series of ‘stepping stone’
beaches may be more deleterious to dispersal than in areas with higher movement rates
and a more continuous habitat. Fragmentation of the breeding population might occur
where habitat is rendered unsuitable for > ~50 km.
Breeding adults are relatively sedentary in comparison with non-breeding adults and
immatures, with the latter two categories of bird displaying similar movement rates. The
movement rates of immatures were considerably more variable than those of adults.
This is in line with most studies and theory around dispersal whereby young birds will
move greater distances than adults (Paradis et al. 1998).
Overall, for adults, movement rates (mean distance per day) were higher during the
non-breeding season than during the breeding season. The frequency of pair cohesion
(i.e. when the distance between partners was zero on a given day) was similar during
the breeding (69.6%) and non-breeding seasons (67.7%). Non-breeding adults generally
remained close to their partners (non-breeding, 456.3 ± 163.9 m; breeding, 148.2 ±
45.3 m). Largest flock sizes were recorded during the non-breeding period, and flocking
was not uniformly distributed along the coast but appeared to be concentrated in
particular locations. Despite comprehensive surveying effort, there are areas of coastline
that are apparently unoccupied during the non-breeding season. Substantial gaps were
apparent along the coast in places such as Venus Bay, the western half of Waratah Bay
(west of Shallow Inlet) and parts of the Mornington Peninsula. All of these areas
212
supported breeding Hooded Plovers, and thus are broadly suitable habitat. This indicates
that there may be unique habitat features of these flocking sites that support nonbreeding flocks.
Breeding territories (kernel analysis) were 36.7 ± 5.7 ha and overlapped from year to
year in all cases (23 pairwise comparisons; 47.9 ± 7.1% overlap). The breeding territory
is a critical unit of management for conservation efforts. The birds studied here spent
little time off their territories, lending strength to the contention that the territories
defined here are the core spatial unit of most ecological relevance for breeding Hooded
Plovers. The high fidelity and constancy of territories confirms they warrant ongoing
management investment, although the species relies on a matrix of breeding and nonbreeding sites. The latter appear to occur in specific parts of the coast and warrant
enhanced protection and more research attention.
A key finding of this study and of strong relevance to this report, was that birds spend
time in multiple coastal parks, and in areas managed by different agencies, which
suggests that some management would usefully be implemented at a scale above that of
individual coastal parks.
NEST PREDATORS, MICRO-HABITAT SELECTION AND PREDATOR CONTROL
Identifying nest predators through remote camera surveillance
Egg depredation is one of the most significant causes of reproductive failure among
ground-nesting birds, which use a variety of anti-predator adaptations such as placing
nests where predators are rare and/or detected early, and laying cryptic eggs. However,
studies of egg fate of shorebirds commonly use circumstantial evidence to infer fate.
In the breeding season of 2010/11, BirdLife Australia undertook a pilot study using
remote cameras (HCO ScoutGuard KG680V and SG550 infrared (IR) passive, day/night
digital camera units) on real Hooded Plover nests to detect whether they successfully
hatched and to identify reasons for nest failure. This enabled us to develop and refine
protocols for installing nest cameras to ensure that these posed no risk to the birds or
their nest fate (see Appendix 1 for a copy of these protocols). In 2011/12 an honours
student with Deakin University, Renee Mead, undertook a major study using remote
213
cameras on nests across the Victorian coastline from Eumeralla (Yambuk) Coastal
Reserve to Wilsons Promontory National Park (Mead 2012).
Eighty-one cameras were deployed on active nests. From these cameras, data from 64
(79.0%) were available for analysis. Loss of camera data was due to camera theft (5.9%
of failures), tidal inundation (5.9%), the memory card filling up (5.9%), a pair being
accidentally resampled within the breeding season (5.9%), deletion of images before
fate determined (5.9%), interference by a member of the public (17.6%) and the fate
not clearly assignable (47.1%).
Of the clutches monitored by cameras, 26 hatched (41%) and 38 failed to hatch (59%)
for the following reasons: depredation, tidal inundation, and crushing by human . Nests
13
were predominately depredated by foxes (26%, n=10), ravens (24%, n=9) and magpies
(16%, n=6). Failure of eggs to hatch due to abandonment, roll out during a storm
event, crushing by human, and depredation by swamp harrier, nankeen kestrel and
water rat each contributed to one clutch failure respectively (2.6%, n = 1).
Gulls were surprisingly not recorded as an egg predator. Crushing of eggs occurred only
once by a walker at an unfenced nest, and the rarity of crushing in this present study is
a stark contrast to the high rates in studies occurring in the late 1990s and early 2000s,
when management and education were limited.
Tides played another major role in nest failure (18%, n=7), particularly in far western
Victoria, and are a challenging threat for BNB, given the limitation of dune habitat
available for nesting related to weed infestations and to the selectivity shown by the
species for sparsely vegetated dunes (so as to avoid mammalian predators, see study by
Cribbin 2012 below).
Within beach habitats, 72.7% (24) of clutches failed to hatch. More nests failed on the
beach than in other habitat types (Figure 27). Dunes also had a higher percentage of
failed clutches (60.0%, 6 clutches) than those that hatched (40.0%, 4 clutches).
Foredune clutches had a higher percentage of hatching than those in other habitats, with
61.9% (13) hatching (Figure 27). Clutches within beach habitats experienced more fate
types (8) than foredune (4) and dune clutches (4); flooding by high tide, abandonment,
trampling by human and depredation by swamp harrier and water rat occurred only on
Although not investigated as part of this study, seven chicks were confirmed to have fledged from cameramonitored nests (12.1% of eggs that hatched, n = 58; 0 – 3 fledglings per clutch).
13
214
beaches. Roll out caused by storm events occurred only in the dune and depredation by
nankeen kestrel (Falco cenchroides) occurred in the foredune.
The higher rate of failure on beaches has implications for improving hatching success via
rehabilitation of foredune environments, i.e. weed removal and potentially replacement
with Hairy Spinifex at low densities.
Figure 27. Percentage of clutches which failed (black bars) and hatched (white bars) in
beach, foredune and dune habitats (n = 64 clutches).
215
ScoutGuard camera images of avian nest predators, clockwise, Swamp Harrier, Nankeen Kestrel, Little Raven
and Australian Magpie.
ScoutGuard camera images of mammalian nest predators, clockwise, Swamp Rat, Red Fox x 3 images.
216
ScoutGuard camera images of the tide engulfing the nest and bringing debris within inches of the eggs. This
nest successfully hatched later that day.
ScoutGuard camera images of tide engulfing a nest; the adult bird retrieves the eggs and rolls these back into
the nest. This is a common occurrence and often tidally inundated eggs which go on to hatch.
217
Does habitat structure influence the likelihood of nest depredation?
In a study focused on the efficacy of using conditioned aversion to train foxes to avoid
Hooded Plover eggs by Cribbin (2012), 62 artificial nests containing treated quail eggs
were established in dune systems across the Victorian coast between Nelson and Cape
Paterson.
The original purpose of this study proved to be ineffective because the target species to
be trained by conditioned aversion was foxes and these played such a minor role in
depredating these artificial nests (only 10% of nests, see further below). Instead, this
study revealed that in the primary dune, ravens (66% of nests) and rodents (15% of
nests) played a major role in predation of artificial nests. Because the study by Mead
(2012), above, on real nests only detected rodent predation in one instance and because
the rate of raven depredation was significantly higher for artificial nests than real nests,
we decided to explore the key habitat differences between these artificially placed nests
versus real Hooded Plover nests to see if the birds might be deliberately selecting habitat
features so as to minimise risks of depredation.
There were several differences. The likelihood of an artificial nest being depredated was
significantly influenced by two variables: distance to nearest dead object (e.g. stick,
seaweed) and the amount of grass cover. Real nests were more likely to be closer to
dead objects than those sites selected by a researcher. Real nests were more likely to
have less grass cover than those sites selected by a researcher. Furthermore, real
Hooded Plover nests were significantly closer to the foredune than artificial nests. It
therefore appears that Hooded Plovers are selecting very specific spots for their nests
and this is to reduce the likelihood of these being depredated.
Conditioned aversion to reduce the likelihood of egg depredation
Conditioned aversion (CA) is induced by an association of a food item with a negative
experience, such as illness, which causes animals to avoid subsequent consumption of
that particular food item. Inducing CA may help reduce depredation rates of threatened
fauna where predator population control is undesirable, impractical or unsuccessful.
218
Maguire et al. (2009) investigated whether CA could be induced among foxes (Vulpes
vulpes) to model eggs which mimicked those of the threatened Hooded Plover. Model
(quail) eggs treated with a potential CA-inducing chemical (sodium carbonate) and
control (quail) eggs free of the agent were exposed to fox depredation for 28 days to
simulate a Hooded Plover incubation period. To investigate whether CA would persist in
wild foxes, Maguire et al. (2009) implemented a part-time agent treatment (an initial 14
day exposure period of model eggs with the CA agent followed by a second 14 day
period when model eggs were free of the agent). The logic being, that once model eggs
free of the agent were supplied to foxes after a period of training that the foxes would
continue to avoid these.
Similar intervals to the first depredation event were found for all model eggs regardless
of treatment which indicated that predation pressure from foxes was equivalent across
sites. After the first depredation event by foxes, the rate and likelihood of fox
depredation was significantly lower in treated eggs than in control eggs. The likelihood or
rate of depredation across the three treatments did not differ between the first and
second periods. Maguire et al. (2009) found that during an exposure period of at least
28 days, CA could be induced in wild foxes to eggs on beaches. The results also
suggested that 14 days may be insufficient time for wild foxes to develop a lasting CA to
familiar food items such as eggs. From this study, it was concluded that treatment of
eggs with a CA-inducing chemical may present a viable alternative to traditional predator
control techniques for Hooded Plovers, as well as other ground-nesting birds, provided
that an extended exposure to the CA inducing agent occurs.
In the breeding season of 2011/12, Cribbin (2012) decided to repeat this study across a
broader geographic area and to trial two different delivery types, representative of two
options most likely to be implemented by land managers: 1) Treated eggs supplied for
a) 28 days and b) 42 days in one false nest containing three treated model eggs,
followed by a 14 day period where untreated eggs were supplied, and 2) the ‘Saturation
CA’ treatment consisted of six nests and 13 model eggs. A central nest contained three
untreated model eggs, and a circle (diameter 1 m) of five equally spaced nests, each
containing two treated model eggs, surrounded the central nest. The Saturation CA
treatment mimicked a potential deployment of treated nests around untreated eggs, as
may occur if a manager discovered a real nest and wished to create an aversion as soon
as possible.
219
On Victorian beaches, a low species-specificity of predators taking CA-treated eggs was
found (foxes took 9.7% of arrays, ravens and rodents took 80.0%; n = 145 ‘arrays’).
None of the CA strategies tested (one nest with 28 and 42 day training periods, and a six
nest ‘saturation’ array) produced a detectable aversion by avian or mammalian
predators, that is there was no difference in the take rate of nests between the training
and post-training period, i.e. depredation of false nests remained unaltered by exposure
to CA. A prerequisite of successful CA is the ability to target a specific species, or
individuals of a particular species whose predatory activities are problematic.
This was not able to occur in a broad scale application of CA training across the Victorian
coast.
It is unknown whether sodium carbonate induces sickness in birds. Several studies have
induced sickness in birds using lithium chloride, methicocarb and carbochal (Rogers
1974; Avery et al. 1995; Cox et al. 2004). Without knowing whether it is possible to
induce sickness in ravens with this substance, it cannot be said whether the correct dose
was used to achieve CA. No sickness among ravens was detected, suggesting the agent
may not have been an effective aversive agent. No CA was produced in rodents, again,
the effectiveness of sodium carbonate as an aversive agent for small mammalian species
such as rodents and members of the dasyrudidae family is unknown. If sodium
carbonate was an effective aversive agent in rodents, it is possible that the dose used,
being adequate for a fox sized mammals, may have proven lethal for rodents, and as
such resulted in no obvious training as different individuals may have been responsible
for each subsequent take.
CA may be more plausible when depredation is dominated by a single predator, and not
due to a suite of predators. Additionally in instances where a suite of predators are
responsible for depredation, aversive agents which are effective on the suite of major
predators should be implemented. Cribbin (2012) concluded that in order to target
conditioning events at foxes in subsequent studies, it may be beneficial to bury model
eggs, in a similar fashion to poisoned baits (Glen and Dickman 2003) as it may reduce
the likelihood of birds encountering them (Thomson and Kok 2002). This may then
require an additional stimulus such as enhanced scent, to attract foxes to the site, and
which might inadvertently create a repellency (i.e. the predator can detect the agent and
is repelled by it through association with a negative response).
220
WEEDS AND BROADSCALE HABITAT SELECTION
Weeds and Hooded Plover habitat
Nesting habitat selection and the impact of weeds
During the 2011/2012 breeding season as part of a study by Mead (2012), 76 Hooded
Plover nests were located across the Victorian coast (between Eumeralla (Yambuk)
Coastal Reserve to the West and Wilsons Promontory to the East) and the micro-habitat
around the nest scrape was systematically measured using four 1 x 1 m quadrats. This
data was used by Cousens et al. (2012) to explore the impact of weeds on nesting
habitat selection. In addition, the distance to the nearest weed and non-weed was
measured, and the height, growth form and species also recorded. Hooded Plover pairs
have multiple nests, but only one nest for a given pair was sampled during the season to
maintain independence of samples.
The four species of weeds recorded closest to Hooded Plover nests were:
Common name
Latin name
Marram Grass
Ammophila arenaria
grass
junceiforme
Sea WheatSea Spurge
Sea Rocket
Thinopyrum
Euphorbia paralias
Cakile maritime
# nests
near
31
23
11
10
Mean
distance to
nest (cm)
Mean
height (cm)
515.03
45.89
657.20
9.20
91.93
231.55
20.52
11.46
Hooded Plover nests were distanced between 1 cm (Sea Wheat-grass) and 5.6 m
(Marram Grass) from weed species, but on average were 1.95 m from a weed. There
was no significant difference in the distance Hooded Plover nests were from the four
different species of weed recorded (F=2.234, df=4, p=0.074).
The occurrence of weed species near the nest is undoubtedly impacted by prevalence of
these weeds at sites. On average, the two metre-square area around Hooded Plover
nests was dominated by 20.45 ± 4.26% (0.00 – 42.50%) weed cover versus 11.28 ±
3.71% (0.00 – 13.75%) native plant cover. Overall, vegetation cover was sparse around
nests (31.74 ± 5.52%; 0.00 – 42.50%; n = 64) with Hooded Plovers tending to select
areas with a high ratio of sand and low ratio of vegetation for nest placement.
221
Hooded Plover nests were located closer to weed species than non-weed species (mean
distance to weed species = 1.947 ± 0.090; mean distance to non-weed species = 2.213
± 0.083; t=2.627, df=75, p=0.010). This either relates to the prevalence of weed
versus non-weed species, or to a preference shown by Hooded Plovers for weed
vegetation. However it must be noted that Hooded Plovers are choosing to be distant
from vegetation.
Weeds closest to the nest were significantly taller than non-weed species (27.88 ± 3.11
versus 21.40 ± 1.69; t=-1.238, df=75, p=0.036). It is unlikely the birds would be
selecting for proximity to weeds if they are taller and pose a greater obstruction to
visibility while on the nest.
Geomorphology and weeds
In a study by Melbourne University (Cousens et al. 2012), laser surveying was
undertaken at 27 sites from Nelson to Cape Conran to quantify how the morphology of
incipient foredunes changes in response to differing levels of weed infestation. The
elevation of geomorphic and botanical features including the last high tide, relative
density of species present and evidence of past erosion events were recorded along each
profile. Aerial photographs between 1948 and today were georectified and analysed in
ArcGIS to map shoreline stability since the incursion by major weeds at 24 locations
along the Victorian coast. An additional 63 dune systems along the Victorian coastline
were visited to ground truth the aerial mapping, and to map the distribution of key weed
species.
The incipient foredunes of the Victorian coast are dominated by four species that have
the potential to modify dune morphology; marram grass (Ammophila arenaria), sea
wheat-grass (Thinopyrum junceiforme), sea spurge (Euphorbia paralias) and hairy
spinifex (Spinifex sericeus). Hairy spinifex is indigenous to the Victorian coast. Marram
grass, sea wheat-grass and sea spurge have all been introduced. These plants share
certain characteristics. All are perennial and have the ability to grow vertically in
response to burial by sand. Marram grass, sea wheat-grass and hairy spinifex produce
rhizome or stolons. Sea spurge does not, but does grow vertically by the production of
side branches when buried. The exotic sea rocket (Cakile spp.) is also important. This
species forms small incipient dunes on the back beach, between high tide and the toe of
222
the incipient foredune proper. Sea rocket is an annual, hence unless these dunes are
colonised by a perennial species they are unlikely to persist beyond a year of growth.
Sea rocket is unlikely to have much direct effect on dune morphology, although it may
have an indirect influence by facilitating the establishment of other less salt tolerant
species.
Exotic plants are prevalent on the incipient foredunes of the Victorian coast. Hairy
spinifex is widespread but marram grass, sea wheat-grass or sea spurge was present in
all dune systems visited. The foredunes of some coastal regions are dominated by
exotics. For example, marram grass is the dominant species between Port Fairy and
Warrnambool while sea wheat-grass dominates between Wonthaggi and Darby Beach.
Marram grass was present in almost all dunes visited, probably reflecting the widespread
planting of this species during the 1960’s and 1970’s for sand stabilisation purposes. Sea
wheat-grass and sea spurge were absent or very sparse in some coastal regions (e.g. 90
mile beach). These species have established on the Victorian Coast relatively recently
and probably do not occupy their full potential range.
Recent storm events (2010 and 2011) had resulted in the removal of the seaward
margins of the existing foredunes and formation of dune scarps along much of Victorian
coast. This has made establishing links between dune morphology and plant species
difficult. Nonetheless we have found that marram grass and sea wheat-grass have the
potential to alter dune morphology. The effect of sea spurge is not clear. It is associated
with relatively low (0.5 –2m high), flat foredune “terraces”. The alongshore morphology
is continuous, lacking substantial “hummocks”. Excavating individuals of sea spurge
shows that on some dunes these plants have grown vertically by up to 30 cm, indicating
that the upper 30 cm of these foredunes have developed in association with sea spurge;
however, it seems likely that much of the current foredune developed in association with
other species. The presence of sea spurge is probably the result of subsequent
colonisation once the foredune had formed.
Comparison of the surveyed dune profiles shows that marram grass forms foredunes
that are typically higher, steeper and narrower than that formed by either sea wheat-
grass or hairy spinifex. The height and steepness of the seaward face means that erosion
of marram grass dunes leads to higher dune scarps than that formed by sea wheat or
hairy spinifex. Scarps formed by marram grass may be less persistent than those formed
by sea wheat-grass or hairy spinifex. The rapid vertical growth of marram grass in
223
response to burial facilitates the rapid recovery of the seaward dune profile. In contrast
the more horizontal growth of sea wheat-grass and hairy spinifex tends to result in a
wider but lower foredune in front of the existing scarp. In both cases dune recovery post
erosion is dependent on a source of propagules at the base of the scarp and a sufficient
period free from disturbance by waves for plants to establish and begin trapping sand.
Sea wheat-grass and hairy spinifex form similar foredunes on the Victorian coast. Both
species are associated with low flat terraces on coasts with limited sediment supply or
low foredune ridges where sand deposition is abundant. Sea wheat-grass has replaced
hairy spinifex from the seaward face of the incipient foredune, and where present with
marram grass and sea spurge typically forms a dense band closest to the sea in what is
effectively a monoculture. Sea wheat-grass can rapidly form relatively wide, continuous
alongshore foredunes, which are probably are able to form at lower elevations than
those associated with any other foredune species present on the Victorian coast. This
may lead to a narrowing of the back beach and an increase in dune erosion and the
resulting formation of dune scarps.
Analysis of aerial photos has shown that there has been little change in the location of
the shoreline since the 1940’s along much of the Victorian coast, mostly in the order of
± 10 – 30 m. Such coasts can be expected to be frequently scarped; hence the potential
for dune development is limited. Site visits provide further supporting evidence that the
impact of exotic plants is limited by a lack of accommodation space for dune
development.
People and weeds
As part of the above weed project, University of Melbourne researchers carried out a
social survey to determine the perception of weeds on coasts (Cousens et al. 2012).
Human preferences for coasts dominated by different vegetation types revealed that the
lowest preference was for scenes characterised by a relatively strong distinction between
areas of sand and vegetation, and more frequent evidence of scarping often paired with
a flat rather than graded beach. These scenes were dominated by marram or sea wheatgrass, but where this was the case, the vegetation was relatively clumpy or messy.
224
When respondents were provided with scenes of mixed vegetation, Coastal scenes
dominated by marram grass were most preferred on average. Scenes dominated by
seaspurge were least preferred. Coastal managers were the only group for whom scenes
with Spinifex were on average the most preferred landscapes. Interestingly, residents
expressed higher preference for landscapes with both Sea wheat-grass and Seaspurge
than did other visitors. Possibly this reflects higher overall preference for coastal
landscapes rather than greater preference for these weeds. Seaspurge is the least
preferred category for each type of participant.
This sparked several questions for future research:
•
Why are scenes with Seaspurge least preferred? Why are scenes with marram
often most preferred? In particular, is it the plant itself, or aspects of the plant
and its interaction with dunes, wildlife etc?
•
Are the differences between residents and visitors preferences for scenes with
Sea wheat-grass and Seaspurge meaningful, or an artefact of overall preferences
for coastal landscapes?
•
Why do coastal carers make relatively little distinction between Marram, Spinifex
and Sea wheat-grass scenes?
Habitat modelling: what makes a beach suitable for Hooded Plovers?
Weston (2003) noted that a lack of a habitat model was a considerable knowledge gap
hampering determination of conservation priorities for the species. Rising sea levels,
inappropriate coastal armouring and erosion control, and invasive dune plants are
thought to limit suitable habitat and to present a barrier to species recovery.
Recently a habitat model exploring presence/absence data was developed by selecting
key ecological and landscape variables from the sub- and super-tidal zones of coasts.
Below is an excerpt of our results (Ehmke et al. in prep). Using 58 sites across the
Victorian coast, 28 where Hooded Plovers are present and 30 where they are absent, we
measured within a 500 metre radius, a series of variables likely to drive habitat
suitability. We derived these variables from high quality aerial imagery and lidar data.
Variables included:
•
•
distance to nearest access point;
distance to nearest river mouth;
225
•
•
•
•
•
distance to nearest pair;
distance to nearest headland;
rugosity of 12 habitat zones;
proportion and presence of 14 habitat zones, and;
beach slope.
Above illustrates how beach profile (slope) was measured at a presence site.
Above is an example of how distance to features was measured using aerial imagery, i.e. distance to nearest
river mouth (blue star), distance to nearest access (red human silhouette), and distance to nearest headland
(black triangle).
226
Above is an example of how proportion of habitat availability was measured within a 1km diameter quadrat
around the central presence or absence point.
The larger the number of variables included in a model, and the potential for these to be
related to one another can greatly reduce the reliability of the model produced. We
therefore reduced the above set of 45 variables to a set of 9 independent variables likely
to influence habitat suitability in terms of nesting habitat availability and food
availability. We ensured that the data points were not spatially auto-correlated.
We ran a logistic regression model (based on the binary presence/absence data) using
hierarchical partitioning and found that the factors driving the presence of Hooded
Plovers on the coast were:
•
•
•
•
•
Proportion reef habitat (0.98)
Proportion foredune habitat (0.92)
Presence of dune habitat (0.89)
Proportion rock habitat (0.62)
Rugosity of the beach (0.42)
227
The availability of reef habitat is likely to drive wave energy and presumably the amount
of beach cast seaweed available. This is likely to influence availability of food for Hooded
Plovers. We know dune and foredune habitat to be important for nesting, and exposed
rocks to be important as foraging areas, also offering protective shelter to chicks. Beach
rugosity (i.e. the variability in the topography of the beach) was bordering on being a
significant variable in this model, and this could be important for either food availability
or nesting habitat availability. These findings prompt us to further understand how these
habitat features relate to diet and food availability. A collaboration between Deakin
University, the Department of Sustainability and Environment, and BirdLife Australia will
explore this relationship via an honours project in 2013/2014.
Beaches are transitional zones between terrestrial and marine environments, and their
form and ecology is heavily influenced by landward and seaward processes (McLachlan
and Brown 2006). It is unsurprising then that obligate beach vertebrates select habitats
which are influenced by processes above the beach, and below the high tide mark. This
also potentially means that the risks to habitat are greater, because any threat operating
in either the marine or terrestrial environment may impact the quality or quantity of
habitat (Defeo et al. 2009).
While the model we have generated helps predict presence of plover territories, future
iterations could consider reproductive success of each territory (see Ozesmi and Mitsch
1997), given low reproductive success is considered a key conservation threat to the
species.
The foraging and diet of non-breeding Hooded Plovers Thinornis rubricollis in
relation to habitat type.
Weston (2007) studied the foraging behaviour and diet of Hooded Plovers in the non-
breeding season in 3 different habitats, a salt lake (Lake Gore in WA), a brackish nearcoastal lake (Lake Victoria) and on Victorian beaches. He found that birds foraging on
beaches probed more, had more successes, and foraged slower than birds on salt lakes
in WA. Foraging at the brackish lake was slowest of all. The diet of coastal birds was
dominated by crustaceans and insects whereas birds on salt lakes primarily, and almost
exclusively, consumed Coxiella spp., an endemic gastropod (snail). This study described
228
two additional prey items previously not detected in the species diet, including moths
and ants.
SOCIAL SCIENCE STUDIES
Use and attitudes toward beaches
Beaches are the most popular recreational destinations in Australia yet how they are
visited and valued by Australians is poorly known. Maguire et al. (2011a) surveyed 385
people (13.8% of 2800 coastal residents) from south-eastern Australia to examine their
use of beaches and the features that are important in their choice and enjoyment of a
beach destination. Most respondents (90.3%) nominated beaches as one of their top
three most valued natural recreational environments. Thirty-four recreational activities
occurred at the beach (8.6 ± 0.3 [mean ± SE] activities per respondent), mostly walking
(91.4%) and swimming (78.9%). There appears to be a distinct dichotomy in use of
‘local’ versus ‘non-local’ beaches, where local beaches are visited more frequently,
throughout more of the year, outside working hours and by smaller groups of people,
compared with ‘non-local’ beaches.
Overall, respondents valued clean, uncrowded beaches with opportunities to view wildlife
(n = 338) but also desired facilities (e.g. toilets, shade, life savers, food outlets; n =
331). Difficult access and intrusive recreation activities (e.g. vehicles on beaches)
detracted from people’s enjoyment. Coastal planners and managers not only face the
challenge of increasing visitation to beaches but also the need to manage for somewhat
conflicting values among beach-goers.
Stakeholder Perceptions of Threatened Species and Their Management on
Urban Beaches
Social support is critical to threatened species recovery efforts (Metrick and Weitzman
1996; Weston et al. 2003). Perceptions of the public with respect to threatened species
and their management are important to foster social and political support for
conservation programs (Cvetkovich and Winter 2003), and they play a role in
determining appropriate behaviour among people which promotes coexistence between
229
threatened species and humans (McKenzie-Mohr and Smith 1999; McCleery et al. 2006;
Meadow et al. 2005; Weston and Elgar 2007).
Many factors contribute to perceptions of threatened species management programs
(Kellert 1985; Ormsby and Forys 2010). Prominent personal factors which may influence
perceptions are inconvenience and awareness (Haarding et al. 2000). The ‘inconvenience
principle’ suggests that people are more likely to acknowledge threats and be
sympathetic towards management where compliance is convenient i.e. requires little
change to pre-existing behaviours (Haarding et al. 2000).
Maguire et al. (2013) surveyed 579 recreationists regarding management of the
threatened Hooded Plover. We postulated that: 1) lower awareness of the species and
higher ‘inconvenience’ of management would engender less favourable perceptions of
conservation and management; and 2) that frequency of beach use and dog ownership
may mediate perceptions and levels of awareness and inconvenience.
Overall, inconvenience was low (average ± SE factor scores, 4.49 ± 0.03, where 5 is
‘convenient’) while awareness (93.7%, n = 579) and support for plover conservation
were high (4.48 ± 0.04 where 5 is ‘strongly agree’). Education and awareness strategies
were perceived as less effective than regulations (F1,494 = 136.329, p < 0.001);
exclusion and regulations were considered less desirable than on-ground protective
measures (e.g. fencing around nests; F1,520 = 218.129, p < 0.001). Awareness,
frequency of beach use and dog walking did not influence the perceived effectiveness of
different managements. More frequent beach users had greater awareness of the species
and associated issues (Pearson χ2 = 8.715, df = 1, p = 0.013) however they perceived
greater inconvenience associated with management (F1, 521 = 6.724, p = 0.010).
Respondents with high awareness rated the severity of human-related threats higher
(F1, 494 = 20.837, p < 0.001) and low awareness was associated with more
inconvenience associated with on-ground protection (F1, 520 = 13.355, p < 0.001) and
exclusion and regulations (F1, 520 = 9.924, p = 0.002). Dog walkers reported more
inconvenience associated with exclusions and regulations than non-dog walkers (F2, 521
= 6.724, p = 0.010). Dog walkers who use the beach least frequently rate threats
significantly higher than those who use the beach frequently (F2, 494 = 4.175, p =
0.016); this pattern is not evident for non-dog walkers. Conservation and education
strategies for beach-nesting birds need to be tailored to beach users to accommodate
differences in level of use and pet ownership.
230
Barriers to dog leashing on beaches
Leashing of dogs can significantly improve conservation outcomes for Hooded Plovers,
but few dogs are leashed on beaches: (82% of 2,847 dogs on Victorian beaches, 1994–
2008; Weston and Maguire, 2008) and currently, compliance with dog regulations is the
exception rather than the rule. Williams et al. (2009) surveyed a total of 385 dog owners
across Victoria to explore their sense of obligation to leash dogs on beaches (86 face to
face interviews and 299 postal questionnaires).
Approximately 28% of participants indicated some level of disagreement that they felt
obliged to leash their dog on beaches. An additional 17% indicated a neutral position on
this statement, 22% reported weak agreement with the statement, whereas 33%
strongly agreed. It is likely that some participants feel an obligation to leash their dog on
beaches but do not actually put this into practice. Personal norms do not always
translate into consistent behaviour because external factors may prevent their
expression (Stern, 2000). Other possible explanations warrant consideration. For
example, it is possible that some participants exaggerated their support for leashing to
present themselves in a positive light, or that some participants interpreted the question
with regard to social norms for leashing rather than personal expectations of themselves.
Most dog owners see no conflict between off leash dog exercise and wildlife
conservation. When both are considered, they rate their dog’s need for off leash exercise
as of higher concern than wildlife protection. In general, respondents considered their
own dog to be much less of a threat to wildlife and humans than they considered dogs in
general. Strong emotional bonds with dogs (Salmon and Salmon, 1983) may prevent
dog owners from attributing negative behaviors to their own dogs. Cognitive dissonance
theory (Festinger, 1975) suggests people may create plausible but untrue
rationalizations for information that conflicts with a deeply held belief. This is illustrated
by comments made to the interviewer by several dog owners, who asserted that their
dog was different and “wouldn’t hurt a fly.”
When asked about a series of bird-dog interactions, the percentage of people who
considered the interaction to have a “lasting negative impact” decreased considerably
with the type of interaction. Most participants (84%) believed that when a “dog chases a
bird but does not catch it” there would be a lasting negative impact for the bird. Smaller
percentages of participants believed this would be true if a “dog barks at a bird” (63%)
or if a “dog is within 50 metres of a bird” (51%). Only 18% of respondents agreed there
231
would be lasting negative impacts for a bird if the dog was “within 200 metres of the
bird.” Even the least proximate interaction has lasting negative impacts on shorebirds
(Page et al. 1977; Rodgers and Smith, 1997; Yalden and Yalden, 1990), yet only 18% of
participants were conscious of this.
Dog owners were more likely to feel obliged to leash their dog when they believed other
people expected dogs to be leashed, and when they believed their dog was a threat to
wildlife or people. Dog owners were less likely to feel obliged to leash their dog if they
considered unleashed dog recreation to be important. Improved compliance may be
achieved through community-based approaches to foster social norms for dog control,
tailoring information products to emphasize the risk that all unleashed dogs may pose to
beach-nesting birds and raising awareness of designated off-leash exercise dog
recreation areas.
Williams et al. (2009) recommend ways to overcome poor leashing rates on beaches.
There is a need for greater innovation in communication to overcome emotional
resistance to recognising the threat one’s own dog poses. A key to this may be pointing
out the threat posed by behaviours that most people would consider to be acceptable
and typical of well-behaved dogs, such as a dog merely running along the upper beach
without visibly responding to birds. Similarly, building on social norm approaches,
communication should provide examples of “good dog owners” who leash their dog on
beaches or choose alternative locations for unleashed dog exercise. Wherever possible,
communication should be designed to appeal to the value dog owners place on
unleashed recreation for dogs (Schulz and Zelezny, 2003). The benefits of unleashed
recreation should be acknowledged, and alternative locations for recreation should be
provided and promoted.
Research on management of depreciative behaviour suggests that direct contact with
relevant agency personnel is a very effective means of influencing behavior (Knopf and
Andereck, 2004). Strengthening these controls, particularly by providing effective
enforcement, is also likely to be effective in encouraging leashing of dogs on beaches.
232
Appendix 2 Fledgling Production By Site
The number of years that pairs within Parks Victoria managed land were monitored
across five breeding seasons (2006/07 to 2010/11), and the ‘fledged outcome’ for each
pair where 0=not monitored (unknown), 1=monitored but no fledglings produced
(unsuccessful), and 2=monitored where fledglings have been successfully produced
(successful).
Name of park
Name of pair/territory
DISCOVERY BAY
COASTAL PARK
Bridgewater Bay East
Bridgewater Bay West
Swan Lake East 6
Swan Lake East 5
Swan Lake East 4
Swan Lake East 3
Swan Lake East 2
Swan Lake East 1
Swan Lake
SUTTON ROCKS
SUTTON ROCKS West 1
SUTTON ROCKS West 2
SUTTON ROCKS West 3
SUTTON ROCKS West 4
NOBLE ROCKS
McEacherns Rocks West
McEacherns Rocks East
Tyrendarra Fitzroy River Mouth West
5 unnamed sites (south of Tyrendarra Fitzroy
River)
River)
River)
River)
River)
Narrawong Surrey Estuary East
Narrawong Surrey Estuary west
Yambuk Estuary East
Yambuk Estuary West
NARRAWONG COASTAL
RESERVE
EUMERALLA (YAMBUK)
COASTAL RESERVE
Years
monitored
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fledged
outcome
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
4
1
2
2
2
233
Name of park
EUMERALLA (YAMBUK)
COASTAL RESERVE
Dean Marr 1
Dean Marr 2
Dean Marr 3
Dean Marr 4
Dean Marr 5
Dean Marr 6
Dean Marr 7
Dean Marr 8
Dean Marr 9
YAMBUK F.F.R. East
YAMBUK F.F.R. Mid
YAMBUK F.F.R. West
Killarney Basin Rusty Rocks 1
Killarney Basin Rusty Rocks 2 (point)
Killarney Boat Ramp 1 (west of point)
Killarney Boat Ramp 2 (east of point)
Killarney Camping Ground West
Killarney Main Beach (west)
Killarney Midway
Killarney Old Log Beach 1 (west end)
Killarney Old Log Beach 2 (East End)
Killarney Pelicans
Port Fairy Mills Reef East (Golf Course)
Port Fairy Mills Reef Far West
Port Fairy Mills Reef West
Tower Hill Gormans Rd West
Tower Hill Rutledge Cutting East 2 (Spinifex)
Tower Hill Rutledge Cutting East 1
EUMERALLA (YAMBUK)
COASTAL RESERVE
YAMBUK F.F.R.
BELFAST COASTAL
RESERVE
Tower Hill Rutledges Cutting (mouth)
BAY OF ISLANDS
COASTAL PARK
Tower Hill Rutledges Cutting West Pt
Tower Hill Towilla East (Seachange)
Seachange East Extra (2009)
Tower Hill Towilla West (Seachange)
Warrnambool Levys East 1
Warrnambool Levys West 1
Worm Bay
Crofts Bay
Terry's Beach East
Years
monitored
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
2
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
5
2
5
2
1
1
1
2
3
1
3
4
4
4
3
2
0
5
1
Fledged
outcome
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
0
2
2
234
Name of park
BAY OF ISLANDS
COASTAL PARK
Terry's Beach West
Burnies Beach East
Burnies Beach West
Dog Trap Bay
Sandy Cove
CLIFTON BEACH
Twelve Apostles
TWO MILE BAY
London Bridge
Peterborough Newfields
Point Addis
Point Roadknight 99W-101W
Hutt Gully/Guvvos
Point Franklin
Crayfish Bay
Station Beach East
Station Beach Mid
Station Beach West
Aire River Mouth
Glenaire Beach
Johanna Beach
Melanesia beach east end
Melanesia beach west end
Smythe's Creek Mouth
Aireys Inlet
PORT CAMPBELL
NATIONAL PARK
GREAT OTWAY
NATIONAL PARK
ELLIOT RIVER - ADDIS
BAY COASTAL RESERVE
EAGLE ROCK MARINE
SANCTUARY
LONSDALE LAKES W.R
PORT PHILLIP HEADS
MARINE NATIONAL
PARK
POINT NEPEAN
NATIONAL PARK
Years
monitored
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
Fledged
outcome
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
2
2
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
Lake Victoria
0
0
Point Lonsdale
Pt Nepean Observatory Pt
5
4
1
2
Monash Break
The Bend
Fort Pearce
Fort Pearce East
Cheviot Beach
Rifle Range - Monash Break
Sierra Nevada west
Sierra Nevada rocks/beach
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
2
0
2
0
0
2
1
0
1
235
Name of park
MORNINGTON
PENINSULA NATIONAL
PARK
Portsea London Bridge (MP)
Portsea Farnsworth/SLSC west
Portsea Franklin rd access (west edge)
Portsea Franklin rd East (Sphinx rocks end)
Sphinx Rocks (2006)
Portsea Franklin rd west
Portsea SLSC east
Koonya West
Koonya East
Montforts
Fowlers
Heyfield Pair 1 (west side) Rye
Heyfield Pair 2 (east side) Rye
Alison Ave next bay west Rye
Alison ave west Rye
Alison ave east Rye
Gunida Crt Rye
Rye Big Rock
Rye car park west
Rye car park east
Miami drive west
Miami drive east access
Moana crt access west
Moana crt access (east edge)
Moana crt east (St Andrews)
St. Andrews car park east
St Andrews Boags Rocks
Gunnamatta Pair 1
Gunnamatta Pair 2
Gunnamatta Pair 3
Gunnamatta Pair 4
Gunnamatta Pair 4.5
Gunnamatta Pair 5
Gunnamatta Pair 6
Bushranger's Bay
Flinders
Sandy Waterholes
Sandy Waterholes West Bay
PUNCHBOWL COASTAL
RESERVE
Years
monitored
5
2
3
5
1
4
1
5
5
3
1
5
3
0
5
5
0
3
2
3
3
5
2
5
2
5
4
5
5
5
5
1
4
3
0
0
1
1
Fledged
outcome
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
1
1
236
Name of park
KILCUNDA - HARMERS
HAVEN COASTAL
RESERVE
Far West 16
West 16
East 16
Far East 16
Powlett River Mouth West Bank
Powlett River Mouth East Bank
Desal Mid
Williamson's Beach West
Williamson's Beach
Baxters Beach West A19
Baxters Beach A19
Cutlers Beach A20 West
Cutlers Beach A20 East
Coal Point West
Waterfall Creek
Wreck Beach
Coal Creek Estuary Mouth
Wilsons Rd 3rd Bay West
Wilsons Rd 2nd Bay West
Wilsons Rd 1st Bay West
The Oaks
Twin Reefs
Flat Rocks
Point Smythe
Venus Bay 5 North
Venus Bay North 1
Venus Bay South 1
Venus Bay South 2
Venus Bay South 3
Venus Bay South 4
Venus Bay South 5
Venus Bay South 6
South of Six Mile Track
10 Mile Beach 1
10 Mile Beach 2
Morgan Beach North
Morgan Beach South
Grinder Point Far West
Grinder Point West
Waratah_Bay_1
Waratah_Bay_2
BUNURONG COASTAL
RESERVE
CAPE LIPTRAP COASTAL
PARK
Years
monitored
4
5
5
2
4
4
2
2
2
1
2
2
5
2
3
1
5
2
2
4
5
2
3
3
1
3
5
4
3
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fledged
outcome
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
237
Name of park
CAPE LIPTRAP COASTAL
PARK
SHALLOW INLET
MARINE & COASTAL
PARK
WILSONS
PROMONTORY
NATIONAL PARK
Waratah_Bay_3
NOORAMUNGA
MARINE & COASTAL
PARK
MCLOUGHLINS BEACH SEASPRAY COASTAL
RESERVE
GIPPSLAND LAKES
COASTAL PARK
LAKES ENTRANCE LAKE TYERS COASTAL
RESERVE
EWING MORASS W.R
Years
monitored
0
Fledged
outcome
0
Sandy Point South 2
0
0
COTTERS BEACH north
COTTERS BEACH mid
COTTERS BEACH south
DARBY BEACH north
DARBY BEACH river mouth
SQUEAKY BEACH
SQUEAKY BEACH South
OBERON BAY
Picnic bay
Five Mile beach south
Five Mile beach north
Clonmel Island West
Clonmel Island East 1
Clonmel Island East 2
Clonmel Island Kate Kearney Entrance
East of McLoughlins
McLoughlins Point 1
Fisheries
Woodside Beach North
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Coast of Rotamah Island east
Coast of Rotamah Island mid
Bunga Arm Egret
Bunga Arm Cormorant
Bunga Arm Dotterel
Bunga Arm Second Blowhole
Bunga East of Arm Second Blowhole
Barrier Landing
Lake Bunga/Red Bluff
Lake Tyers Beach
0
0
3
3
2
3
1
2
3
3
0
0
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
East of PETTMANS BEACH
0
0
238
Name of park
MARLO COASTAL
RESERVE
Snowy River Estuary Far West
Snowy River Estuary West
Snowy River Estuary East
inside east of estuary
East Entrance/Mots beach
Marlo Mot's Beach
Marlo Point Ricardo
Yeerung River Mouth
East of PEARL POINT
Sydenham Inlet
East of Tamboon South 1
East of Tamboon South 2
Thurra River
Mueller River
Wingan Inlet
Sandpatch Point
Red River
Benedore River
Shipwreck Creek Mouth
West of border 1
West of border 2
West of border 3
West of border 4
West of border 5
West of border 6
CAPE CONRAN
COASTAL PARK
CROAJINGOLONG
NATIONAL PARK
Years
monitored
0
2
3
1
2
2
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fledged
outcome
0
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
239
Appendix 3 Nesting histories over 5 breeding seasons for each
region
Hooded Plover Nesting Data from 2006 to 2010 – Narrawong Region
240
241
Hooded Plover Nesting Data from 2006 to 2010 – Port Fairy Region
242
243
244
Hooded Plover Nesting Data from 2006 to 2010 – Shipwreck Coast
245
246
Hooded Plover Nesting Data from 2006 to 2010 –
Surf Coast and Bellarine Peninsula
247
248
249
Mornington Peninsula
250
251
Bass Coast
252
253
254
Venus Bay
255
256
Hooded Plover Nesting Data from 2006 to 2010 – Wilsons Promontory
257
Gippsland Lakes
258
259
260
Hooded Plover Nesting Data from 2006 to 2010 – Far East Victoria
261
262
263
Appendix 4 Fledgling Production by Park
Park by park summary of the number of fledgling locations (successful) in at least one
season from 2006/07 to 2010/11, with the number of unsuccessful locations and
unmonitored sites also presented. Successful sites, as a percentage of total sites
monitored, is also presented.
Park name
BAY OF ISLANDS COASTAL PARK
BELFAST COASTAL RESERVE COASTAL
RESERVE
BUNURONG COASTAL RESERVE
CAPE CONRAN COASTAL PARK
CAPE LIPTRAP COASTAL PARK
CROAJINGOLONG NATIONAL PARK
DISCOVERY BAY COASTAL PARK
EAGLE ROCK MARINE SANCTUARY
ELLIOT RIVER - ADDIS BAY COASTAL RESERVE
EUMERALLA (YAMBUK) COASTAL RESERVE
EWING MORASS W.R
GIPPSLAND LAKES COASTAL PARK
GREAT OTWAY NATIONAL PARK
KILCUNDA - HARMERS HAVEN COASTAL
RESERVE
LAKES ENTRANCE - LAKE TYERS COASTAL
RESERVE
LONSDALE LAKES W.R
MARLO COASTAL RESERVE
MCLOUGHLINS BEACH - SEASPRAY COASTAL
RESERVE
MORNINGTON PENINSULA NATIONAL PARK
NARRAWONG COASTAL RESERVE
NOORAMUNGA MARINE & COASTAL PARK
POINT NEPEAN NATIONAL PARK
PORT CAMPBELL NATIONAL PARK
PORT PHILLIP HEADS MARINE NATIONAL
PARK
PUNCHBOWL COASTAL RESERVE
SHALLOW INLET MARINE & COASTAL PARK
WILSONS PROMONTORY NATIONAL PARK
YAMBUK F.F.R.
Grand Total
Unknown Unsuccessful Successful % successful/
monitored
5
3
100.0%
1
14
11
44.0%
1
2
66.7%
1
2
2
50.0%
9
8
2
20.0%
14
1
0.0%
17
1
1
8
3
100.0%
1
2
5
1
16.7%
3
10
0.0%
10
10
50.0%
2
0.0%
1
1
1
3
75.0%
2
4
6
6
4
2
1
8
3
101
16
1
16
1
50.0%
50.0%
2
1
1
3
2
60.0%
66.7%
2
0.0%
0.0%
3
0.0%
80
59
42.4%
264
Appendix 5 Fledgling success for each region of the Victorian
coast
Distribution of successful (fledging chicks in at least one season) and unsuccessful sites
(no fledglings over five seasons), including sites not monitored, across Parks Victoria
sites on the Victorian coast.
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
Appendix 6 Dog access status by park
Dog access status for each park where Hooded Plovers occur across the Victorian coast.
Park Name
Bay of Islands Coastal Park
Belfast C.R.
Bunurong Coastal Reserve
Dogs Access Status
Includes Regulated Zone Set Aside for
Dogs
Yes
Yes
Bunurong Marine Park
Dogs
Cape Conran Coastal Park
Dogs
Cape Liptrap Coastal Park
Dogs
Corner Inlet Marine &
Coastal Park
Croajingolong National Park
No
Extent
Bay of Martyrs car park and Sandy Bay and walking
tracks and beaches east of Bay of Martyrs.
Beaches of the Bunurong Marine Park between:
· At Cape Paterson between Wilson Road and western
boundary of the Marine National Park at Undertow Bay;
· At Inverloch between Wreck Creek and the headland
west of the Caves carpark
· At Harmers Haven between Coal Point and eastern
end of Wreck Beach as shown on figure 2 of the plan
and as designated by signs onsite.
All areas of the park except:
- the Conservation Zone as shown in Figure 2
- the area surrounding sites 1-55 of the Banksia Bluff
campground as shown in Figure 3
- the Cape Conran cabins precinct as shown in Figure 3
- The sydenham Inlet Special Protection Area
The beaches between:
· Walkerville North and Walkerville South;
· Venus Bay No.1 Beach and Venus Bay No.5 Beach;
· Waratah Bay township and Cooks Creek;
· Overlook walking track between Prom View estate
and Walkerville North as shown on figure 3 of the plan
and as designated by signs onsite.
No
272
Park Name
Dogs Access Status
Elliot River - Addis Bay
Coastal Reserve
Eumeralla (Yambuk) Coastal
Reserve
Ewing Morass W.R
Yes
Discovery Bay Coastal Park
Gippsland Lakes Coastal
Park
Great Otway National Park
Kilcunda - Harmers Haven
Coastal Reserve
Lake Tyers
Dogs
Extent
The Special Management Area- Recreation at
Bridgewater Bay Beach, as shown on figure 2 of the
plan, the Special Management Area – Recreation
including the Ocean Beach at Nelson in Discovery Bay
as shown on figure 4 of the plan, and on tracks leading
directly to these areas from nearby carparks (except
the access track at the Shelley Beach end of
Bridgewater Bay Beach).
Yes
Hunting Season
Yes
Dogs
Yes
Barrier Landing (300m east of jetty), Ocean Grange
(100m of residential zone), Paradise Beach, Loch Sport
Causeway, Flamingo Beach, The Honeysuckles, Golden
Beach (btw campsites 1 to 6), Nyerimilang Heritage
Park homestead precinct.
As listed in table 5 of the Plan.
Yes
Lakes Entrance - Lake Tyers
Coastal Reserve
McLoughlins Beach Seaspray Coastal Reserve
Mornington Peninsula
National Park
Yes
Narrawong Coastal Reserve
Yes
Yes
Dogs
Btw London Bridge and 330m SE of Gunnamatta Surf
Life Saving Clubhouse. Flinders section btw stockyard
creek and west head gunnery range, excluding 1.8km
section of beach 50m east of Portsea life saving club to
Sphinx Rock, Sorrento from 1st nov to 1st April
273
Park Name
Dogs Access Status
Nooramunga Marine &
Coastal Park
Peterborough Coastal
Reserve
Point Addis Marine National
Park
Point Nepean National Park
No
Ninety Mile Beach Marine
National Park
Dogs
Dogs
No
No
Punchbowl Coastal Reserve
Yes
Shallow Inlet Marine &
Coastal Park
Wilsons Promontory National
Park
Yambuk F.F.R.
Lonsdale Lakes W.R
Intertidal section of beach starting at the north east
boundary (Seaspray end) and extending for two (2)
kilometres along the beach in a south west direction as
shown on figure 2 of the plan as the ‘Dogs on Leash
Zone’.
Yes
Port Campbell Coastal
Reserve
Port Campbell National Park
Port Phillip Heads Marine
National Park
Extent
All beaches of Point Addis MNP as shown in the plan
Yes
Dogs
All sandy intertidal beach areas of Point Lonsdale,
including shallow water areas, and excluding the
intertidal reef areas as shown in figure 2a of the plan.
Yes
No
No
No
274
Appendix 7 Sites in order of highest to lowest threat
Two different threat indices are presented for sites across the Parks Victoria estate. The
first index is simply the sum of ranks assigned to each threat type (people – all
recreational activities combined, dogs on leash, dogs off leash, vehicles -illegal and legal
not distinguished, horses, foxes, ravens and magpies) as per Table 14. The second is a
weighted threat index where the rank assigned to each threat (representing its
frequency of occurrence at a site, Table 14) is multiplied by the impact rating of that
threat (taken from Table 8; e.g. horse impact = 4; magpie impact = 2). Sites appear in
order of weighted threat index, from the most threatened to the least threatened.
NAME OF PARK
SITE NAME
BELFAST COASTAL RESERVE
COASTAL RESERVE
COASTAL RESERVE
COASTAL RESERVE
COASTAL RESERVE
COASTAL RESERVE
COASTAL RESERVE
COASTAL RESERVE
COASTAL RESERVE
COASTAL RESERVE
LAKES ENTRANCE - LAKE TYERS
COASTAL RESERVE
COASTAL RESERVE
COASTAL RESERVE
COASTAL RESERVE
COASTAL RESERVE
Tower Hill Rutledges Cutting
(mouth)
SUM
THREAT
RANKS
WEIGHTED
THREAT
INDEX
21
81.5
21
79
Tower Hill Rutledge Cutting East 1
20
78
Killarney Pelicans
20
77
Killarney Basin Rusty Rocks 1
20
76
Tower Hill Towilla West
(Seachange)
Killarney Old Log Beach 2 (East
End)
Port Fairy Mills Reef West
19
75.5
19
74
18
69
Tower Hill Rutledges Cutting West
Pt
Lake Tyers Beach
17
69
18
66.5
17
65.5
Port Fairy Mills Reef Far West
16
63.5
Tower Hill Gormans Rd West
16
63.5
16
61
275
NAME OF PARK
SITE NAME
LAKES ENTRANCE - LAKE TYERS
COASTAL RESERVE
KILCUNDA - HARMERS HAVEN
COASTAL RESERVE
COASTAL RESERVE
PORT PHILLIP HEADS MARINE
NATIONAL PARK*
MORNINGTON PENINSULA
NATIONAL PARK
NARRAWONG COASTAL
RESERVE
COASTAL RESERVE
COASTAL RESERVE
NATIONAL PARK
NARRAWONG COASTAL
RESERVE
COASTAL RESERVE
COASTAL RESERVE
COASTAL RESERVE
EUMERALLA (YAMBUK)
COASTAL RESERVE
COASTAL RESERVE
COASTAL RESERVE
NATIONAL PARK
COASTAL RESERVE
NATIONAL PARK
Lake Bunga/Red Bluff
SUM
THREAT
RANKS
WEIGHTED
THREAT
INDEX
16
59.5
Venus Bay South 1
Cutlers Beach A20 East
16
16
58
57.5
Terry's Beach East
Killarney Boat Ramp 2 (east of
point)
Point Lonsdale
14
15
57.5
57
17
56
St. Andrews car park east
15
56
Narrawong Surrey Estuary west
14
54
Venus Bay South 2
Wilsons Rd 2nd Bay West
14
14
52.5
52
Killarney Old Log Beach 1 (west
end)
Koonya West
14
51.5
14
51
Narrawong Surrey Estuary East
13
51
Waterfall Creek
14
50.5
Port Fairy Mills Reef East (Golf
Course)
13
49.5
12
49
Yambuk Estuary East
13
48.5
South of Six Mile Track
Killarney Camping Ground West
14
13
48
48
Tower Hill Towilla East (Seachange)
12
48
Moana crt access (east edge)
13
47
Coal Creek Estuary Mouth
13
46.5
Portsea London Bridge (MP)
13
45.5
276
NAME OF PARK
SITE NAME
NATIONAL PARK
NATIONAL PARK
COASTAL RESERVE
NATIONAL PARK
NATIONAL PARK
COASTAL RESERVE
COASTAL RESERVE
NATIONAL PARK
NATIONAL PARK
NATIONAL PARK
NATIONAL PARK
PORT CAMPBELL NATIONAL
PARK
NATIONAL PARK
COASTAL RESERVE
GIPPSLAND LAKES COASTAL
PARK
NATIONAL PARK
COASTAL RESERVE
NATIONAL PARK
COASTAL RESERVE
NATIONAL PARK
NATIONAL PARK
St Andrews Boags Rocks
SUM
THREAT
RANKS
WEIGHTED
THREAT
INDEX
12
44.5
Koonya East
12
44
West 16
12
43.5
Portsea Franklin rd East (Sphinx
rocks end)
Miami drive west (extra 20062008)
Killarney Midway
12
42
12
42
11
42
East 16
11
41.5
Montforts
11
41.5
Heyfield Pair 1 (west side) Rye
12
41
Gunnamatta Pair 1
11
40
Snowy River Estuary East
Miami drive east access
11
11
39.5
39.5
CLIFTON BEACH
11
39
Gunnamatta Pair 2
10
37
Williamson's Beach West
10
36.5
Barrier Landing
10
35.5
Gunnamatta Pair 4
10
35
Killarney Boat Ramp 1 (west of
point)
Portsea SLSC east
9
34.5
10
34
Powlett River Mouth West Bank
9
33.5
10
33
9
33
Rye car park east
Alison ave east Rye
277
NAME OF PARK
SITE NAME
COASTAL RESERVE
NATIONAL PARK
NATIONAL PARK
NATIONAL PARK
NATIONAL PARK
COASTAL RESERVE
NATIONAL PARK
NATIONAL PARK
BUNURONG COASTAL RESERVE
NATIONAL PARK
POINT NEPEAN NATIONAL PARK
NATIONAL PARK
NATIONAL PARK
Powlett River Mouth East Bank
SUM
THREAT
RANKS
WEIGHTED
THREAT
INDEX
9
33
Moana crt east (St Andrews)
9
33
Gunnamatta Pair 3
9
32
Gunnamatta Pair 5
9
30.5
Rye Big Rock
9
29.5
Far West 16
8
29.5
Portsea Franklin rd access (west
edge)
Rye car park west
8
29
8
29
The Oaks
Crofts Bay
Gunnamatta Pair 6
8
7
7
28
27.5
22.5
Sierra Nevada rocks/beach
Portsea Franklin rd west
5
5
19
15.5
Marlo Mot's Beach
Alison ave west Rye
4
4
15.5
15.5
278
Appendix 8 Trends Comparison
Fledgling production within the Mornington
Peninsula and two threat profiles: dogs off leash
and fox frequency of occurrence
279
Appendix 9 Mapping of Formal and Informal Tracks
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
Appendix 10 Best Practise Guidelines for monitoring nesting success
of Hooded Plovers
What time of year should monitoring occur?
•
•
Pairs need to be monitored over the course of the breeding season: from the last
week in August or first week of September, right through to March or even April.
The birds may not show up on their territories until September (occasionally as late
as November) and may disappear or flock as early as late January or early February.
From late January onwards, once they begin to flock, visits for the season can end.
How frequently should monitoring occur?
•
•
•
•
•
The first objective of monitoring nesting success is to determine when the pair begins
to nest. The incubation period spans 28 days and so a visitation frequency of at least
every 27 days is suggested. Ideally, a pair should be visited fortnightly to detect
when they first show signs of nesting, especially considering that some nests can fail
within a short period.
Once a nest has been located, the next objective is to determine whether it hatches
successfully. If the nest wasn’t found during laying, then this date will be unknown
and thus a visit at least weekly or even every 4 days would be ideal. Chicks
commonly disappear within the first week after hatching, so the frequency of visits is
often increased just prior to and after the predicted hatching date, so that we can
determine whether the eggs actually hatch.
After hatching, the chicks are flightless for 35 days. It is best to visit the chicks most
frequently (every 3 days) during their first two weeks because mortality is much
higher during this time, and then at least once a week until fledging. A final visit at
37 days is a good idea to ensure the chick reached flying age (and possibly to see it
flying).
Evidence of nest failure, such as the carcass of a dead chick or fox prints in the sand
around a nest, disappears very quickly in a beach environment. Therefore, it is
important that a nest with eggs or a pair with chicks be visited as often as every 2-5
days if causes of nest failure are of interest. Alternatively, remote sensor cameras
can be used at the nest, or even multiple cameras across the territory to try and
capture chick/s and determine survival or suspected causes of disappearance.
If the interval between nest visits is kept frequent, then we can use a special formula
(Mayfield’s nesting success formula) based on this visitation rate to better estimate
the probability of nest success – with infrequent visits we are likely to detect only the
successful nests and to underestimate the true nesting effort of birds. The minimum
number of visits that are useful for analysis are at least 3 during the egg phase (1.
initial find, 2. visit, 3. hatching or failure) and a further 3 during the chick phase (1.
hatching; 2. visit; 3. fledging). This equates to approximately 3 visits per month to a
pair.
287
What is the best time of day for monitoring?
It is imperative that the safety of the eggs or chicks is not compromised when monitoring
nests.
•
•
Avoid times of high-tide - for your own safety and to reduce the chance of crushing a
nest when walking higher up on the beach.
Avoid the hottest part of the day (mid-afternoon), particularly on hot days when the
air temperature gets above 25ºC. Birds that are not nesting will often be resting
during this period and will therefore be harder to spot. Birds that are nesting should
not be disturbed during the hottest part of the day, as this increases the chances the
eggs will overheat and fail to hatch. If the temperature is going to be high, visit the
territory early in the morning, or late in the evening (although if light is fading,
please ensure the pair see you leave the territory before darkness falls).
What is the best weather for monitoring?
•
•
•
•
Mild conditions, such as a still day or only a light breeze, and a temperature of 2024ºC.
Avoid cold days with high wind chill.
Avoid windy conditions. If the birds are disturbed during very windy days, the nest
can rapidly fill with sand.
Avoid rain, and especially hail.
How long should a visit to the pair last?
•
•
In order to reduce the risk of causing disturbance to nesting adults, visits to the pair
should only last long enough to determine whether the pair are nesting, and even in
the mildest of weather conditions, should not exceed 35 minutes once the birds are
aware of your presence. Visits to the nest or brood should be much shorter – leave as
soon as you have the information you need.
If you have a spotting scope or a good view from a distance using binoculars, you
may be able to observe the pair for longer, providing they are not disturbed by your
presence, for example, adults continue to incubate eggs on the nest or chicks are
observed foraging or being brooded.
How should you search for Hooded Plovers?
•
•
Walk slowly along the firm sand near the water’s edge.
As you go along, scan the water’s edge and along the beach to the base of the dunes.
It is best to take it slowly and scan the whole 90 degrees ahead of you as you go (not
really useful to scan out to sea).
288
•
•
•
By using binoculars, you are more likely to detect Hooded Plovers from a distance
and to see their behaviour before it has been impacted by your presence. It is best to
scan with the naked eye and then stop every so often and search ahead with
binoculars.
Don’t be fooled – Hooded Plovers may be boldly marked but they can be very difficult
to find. If the day is windy, they will often shelter behind or next to clumps of
seaweed, flotsam or jetsam, or even sink down in depressions made by footprints,
vehicle ruts or horse prints. When their white breast and stomach is hidden from
view, they are very well camouflaged.
It is also a good idea to look closely at the sand for Hooded Plover footprints -their
prints are often a giveaway as to the location of the nest. When a dune face is
particularly bare, it can be very easy to see lines of Hooded Plover prints leading from
the beach up the face to a nest.
How do you recognise nesting?
Hooded Plovers (similar to most beach-nesting shorebirds) have distinctive behaviours that
will be a giveaway to the presence of a nest or chicks. Below is a description of behaviours
that you are likely to observe and what each of these indicate:
Diagnostic of nesting
•
•
•
Distraction display: One or both birds perform a broken wing distraction display,
typically feigning intense injury by crouching or lying on the ground, lowering or
fanning the tail, calling, and flapping one or both wings – this is usually performed
during the chick rather than egg phase. The bird might stay in the one place or
hobble along the ground dragging its wing and raising and flapping the other wing.
Incubating/shuffling: The adult has been observed incubating on the nest, or settling
onto a nest to incubate. The settling behaviour of an incubating bird is distinctive
from a bird that sits on the sand to rest or sun itself. The adult will shuffle and
wriggle from side to side as it settles on eggs.
Brooding: The bird has been observed sitting all puffed out on the sand, presumably
huddled over chicks, brooding them. Watch carefully to see if chicks emerge from
under the parent. When an adult goes to brood chicks, it will approach them and peck
gently at the ground in front of the chicks.
Indicative of nesting
•
•
•
Leading: One or both birds run ahead of you and try to lead you out of their territory.
This is generally along the beach parallel to the water’s edge and involves both birds.
They keep their tail and head down, and will pause if you pause, and wait for you to
catch up and follow. Occasionally they will stop to false-brood (see below) or peck at
the sand to pretend they are foraging, but they remain very aware of you, and
continue moving ahead of you.
False-brooding: if you are near to a nest, the adult might run over and falsely crouch
or sit on the sand, pretending it is on the nest.
Vigilance: One or both birds are spending most of their time being vigilant and not
feeding, and this might include them calling. This behaviour is typical of adults with
chicks.
289
•
•
Head-bobbing: a bird will run rapidly over to the nest and bob its head at its partner,
when it is time to change over at incubating the eggs. The departing bird will often
remove or rearrange nest material and will quietly leave the nest. Head-bobbing also
occurs when a nesting adult is alarmed.
You might only sight one of the pair, and therefore the other might be on a nest.
Where is the nest likely to be located?
•
•
•
•
•
•
A nest can be located anywhere above the high-tide mark - on the beach, at the base
of the foredune, on the slope of the foredune or dune, or in a dune blowout - and can
occur up to ~600m inland from the water. Occasionally, pairs may nest on pebbles or
rocky outcrops. Below is a selection of photographs of Hooded Plover nest locations.
Pairs prefer open areas where they have a wide field of view, usually away from
vegetation.
Some pairs have a tendency to situate their nest near a stick or driftwood, and to line
the nest with shells.
Nests often occur on a slightly more elevated section of ground on the beach, such as
that which occurs on the leeward side of seaweed.
Nests that occur on steep dune faces are often situated on small ledges stabilised by
sticks, tree roots or low growing vegetation.
Pairs generally re-nest near previous nesting sites, and specific pairs might be more
likely to be beach-nesters than dune-nesters, or vice versa. Local knowledge of
previous nest sites is invaluable information to have and this is known for many areas
within Victoria.
Hooded Plover nest scrape locations. Photos: Grainne Maguire.
290
Who should search for nests/chicks?
•
•
You should only search for the nest if you have previous experience at finding nests
or if you have been trained at locating nests. Without proper training or experience,
the risks of crushing the eggs or chicks, leading a predator to the nest, or disturbing
the adults are extremely high.
If you suspect the pair has a nest, you should direct the information to the land
manager or arrange for an experienced person to locate the nest.
How do I monitor the progress of a nest? (see Figure 28)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Once the nest has been located by a trained person, and the location has been shown
to you, regular visits need to be made to track the progress of this nesting attempt.
Volunteers need to wear an identification badge (and branded clothing if available)
when visiting a nesting site so that the public can recognise they have specific
training for this monitoring. It is not recommended that high-visibility vests be worn
when monitoring because this will lead to greater visibility by the birds and may
heighten levels of disturbance. The key is to observe the birds before they detect the
observer’s presence.
Adults will usually leave the nest when a person is within 50-100m of the nest, but
this can vary between pairs – some are more adapted to people than others. You will
learn to recognise the sensitivity of the pair/s you monitor.
Always keep in mind that the nest might have already hatched before you arrive and
so you should never confidently stride towards the nest assuming to find eggs. The
first task should always be to locate the adult birds. If you see them and they are not
sitting on the nest, the nest has either failed or hatched. If they are very relaxed and
do not lead or show distraction behaviours, you might assume that failure has been
the more likely outcome.
If you suspect chicks are present, it is best to walk past the adults and turn back and
look through binoculars to see if any hidden chicks emerge; you might only see them
when you walk past again when leaving the area. You may have to wait 10 minutes
or more from a distance before chicks emerge from hiding.
The best way to check a nest is from a distance of 15-50m using binoculars or a
spotting scope. The precise distance can vary depending on your view of the nest and
the reaction distance of the birds. It can be better to go closer (up to 15-20m) for a
brief period to get a good view, than to spend a long time trying to observe the nest
from 50m (which is still potentially disruptive).
Please ensure that there are no predators (e.g. ravens, magpies, gulls or birds of
prey) in the area when you approach the nest – you do not want to lead them to the
nest. Also, check that other people are not watching – they may follow you out of
curiosity.
When visiting a pair that has a known nest, you are simply trying to attain whether
the nest still has eggs. If you can see the adult sitting on the nest, then you can
leave under the assumption that it is still incubating eggs. If the adult is off the nest,
you can either walk away and once you are at a distance, turn to see whether a bird
returns, or you may want to approach the nest and check to see if the eggs are still
present and intact.
291
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Do not approach nests that are situated on steep dune faces, you may destabilise the
dune and cause the collapse of the nest site, or you may create a conspicuous trail of
footprints to the nest that a predator can follow or that will attract the curiosity of
people. You must ask yourself whether it is that important to record clutch size, and
if you think the nest has failed, you may have to confirm this over several visits
during which no bird is seen on the nest, or by climbing up a nearby section of dune
and looking with binoculars into the nest.
If the birds are nowhere in sight when you arrive, you might want to have a closer
look to see if the eggs have hatched or the nest has failed. Sometimes the parents
are absent because they are fighting with the neighbours or seeing a predator off –
their absence does not necessarily mean breeding has failed. You should only have to
approach to within 5-10m of the nest, it is best not to leave a trail of footprints any
closer. Move slowly and check for eggs that might have rolled out of the nest, or for
chicks, when you take each step. Young chicks often crouch on the sand or amongst
seaweed on the beach and are almost impossible to spot.
Only spend a few minutes in the immediate vicinity of the nest.
If it appears the nest has failed and you are reluctant to approach, it may be best to
come back later that day or the following day to confirm this. If the nest has failed,
the pair will attempt to re-nest – though not in the same nest scrape: they will
usually only re-use a nest scrape if it has successfully hatched in the past. Pairs can
nest again and again following failures, sometimes up to seven times a season, until
they are either successful or the breeding season ends.
Once the nest has been checked, walk away from the nest along the open beach in
full view of the adults, so that they know that the disturbance has ceased.
When you expect to see chicks on a territory, it is best to enter the territory
cautiously. Chicks are highly mobile, and can move up to 2km from the nesting site
with their parents. Remember that the parents don’t feed their young, but the chicks
need to forage on the beach and because they cannot fly, this makes them very
vulnerable. You won’t be able to predict where the chicks will be, so it is best to be
very careful and to walk slowly along the water’s edge, looking through your
binoculars for the adult birds. The adults will generally be close to their chicks. The
best way to sight chicks is from a distance, before the adults alert them to danger
and they either crouch on the spot, or run up the beach to cover.
If you don’t see chicks, this either means they are hidden or have died prior to your
visit. Walk slowly towards the parents along the water’s edge and see whether they
are acting protectively. Continue past and then turn back to see whether any chicks
emerge from hiding. You might want to sit at a distance that is not disruptive and
wait for the chicks to emerge. Do not spend more than 35 minutes in the area. You
may need to visit the site at another date to see whether the chicks have truly
disappeared.
If you do see chicks, it is best never to approach them as you run the risk of
accidentally stepping on them.
292
How do I locate the nest again on my next visit?
•
•
•
It is best to keep the location of the actual nest scrape as inconspicuous as possible,
to avoid curiosity from predators and beach goers. Fencing and signage occurs at a
large radius around the area to avoid making the nest conspicuous.
Perhaps establish a small wooden stake or piece of driftwood in the sand at least 10m
from the nest or tie a ribbon to a nearby shrub/grass tuft, as a marker by which you
can carry out regular nest checks using binoculars or a spotting scope. Ensure that
anything tied to the wood or shrub to make it visible will not flap in the wind. Count
the number of paces to the nest upon first locating it, and take note of the landmarks
around it (e.g. vegetation, clumps of seaweed), so that you can remember its
position. Write down this information and make a sketch (or take a photo) of the nest
in relation to landmarks.
If the nest is successful, then the presence of an incubating bird and Hooded Plover
footprints should enable you to locate the nest on most visits.
Risks to the birds and guidelines for avoiding/minimising these (see Figure 29)
•
•
•
•
•
There is a risk that you might accidentally crush eggs or chicks. To avoid this, keep to
the hard sand, near the water’s edge, when moving through the territory. If you
leave the water’s edge to search for or check a nest, move slowly and take care with
every step you take. Look at each bit of sand before taking a step!
If you suspect the pair has a nest and you have no experience or training in finding
nests, please do not take unnecessary risks. A lack of information is preferable to
causing harm to the birds. Search the list of contacts and report your suspicions.
Please do not touch or move eggs or chicks if you happen across them.
There is a risk that you might lead a predator or curious person to a nest. Do not
approach a nest if there are predators (e.g. ravens or gulls) or people in the area.
You may indirectly disturb the adults from incubating or brooding, or chicks from
feeding. The adults will go out of their way to pretend that they do not have a nest,
and therefore you might be convinced you are doing no harm. Please only spend
short periods of time (maximum 35 minutes) in the vicinity of the adults and/or nest.
293
Figure 28. Guidelines for checking on pairs that are known to have a nest.
From a distance of 50-100m from the nest site,
locate the adults using binoculars
An adult is on the nest incubating
There is no adult on the nest
There are no adults in sight
The adults are in sight
Approach the nest slowly and
cautiously, watching each step for eggs
or chicks
Walk past them along water’s edge,
turning around every 15m to see what
they’re doing – if they are leading,
continue walking until they return to
the nest area or where they were
sighted originally
The nest is empty
Record data and leave along the
water’s edge
294
Guidelines for searching for nests
Guidelines for locating nests are similar to the guidelines for pair monitoring and checking on
a nest. Figure 29 outlines the key points for minimising risks of crushing and disturbance
during nest searching.
The presence of the bird at the nest is the best cue to use for locating the scrape and it is
best to use the distance from natural landmarks (e.g. high-tide mark or base of dune,
notable dune vegetation, cuttlefish, driftwood or flotsam/jestsam on the beach, etc) to
remember where the bird was sitting as you approach. As you near the area where the bird
was sitting, the bird’s tracks will become very evident in the sand (unless it is a very windy
day) and these should lead to the nest, with lots of paths radiating from the scrape. Figure
30 goes into detail about how to look for the nest.
How should information be recorded and reported?
•
•
•
•
BirdLife Australia’s Beach-nesting Birds Program has data sheets for recording the
important details of individual visits to breeding pairs. It is important that data be
collected in a consistent way and so the data sheet and information fields be used for
this data collection.
It is valuable to fill these out even when the pair is not spotted on a given visit.
The data sheet assists volunteers and rangers in knowing the important bits of
information to look out for. Hard copy data sheets can be submitted to BirdLife
Australia, however, from September 2012, an online data portal was created for
submitting this information.
It is important to report sightings of new nests or chicks to the appropriate individual
or group that is the regional or local representative of BirdLife Australia’s monitoring
project. The data portal has a field for flagging a ‘management alert’, however, this
currently needs to be manually checked by the local/regional coordinator. It is useful
to determine a system for reporting new nests or chicks that will suit your local park.
295
Choose best available time and
conditions for searching
Mild, fine day - around 20-24°C
Low number of recreationists in vicinity
As you walk toward the nest, look for eggs or
chicks before taking each step
Minimise time near nest or brood - a maximum
of 35 minutes in good weather
296
Figure 30. Guidelines for locating nests or chicks.
Search for adults using the naked eye and by scanning ahead with binoculars
You may spot the adults from a distance and note that
one adult appears to be sitting on the upper beach,
settled on a nest or breast expanded, brooding.
You may not see the birds until they have sighted
you and have already retreated from the nest or
warned chicks into hiding.
If the birds lead, distract, call or appear alert and
vigilant as you approach – assume nesting.
If the birds are relaxed, do not move very far or
run away but don’t return to the area when you
have passed – assume not nesting.
Walk past along the water’s edge, turning around
every 15m to see what the birds are doing – if they are
leading, walk until they stop and continue until they
return to where you first sighted them– you may end
up 50-100m away.
You may need to wait out of sight for up to 40
minutes. Watch for the distinctive “nest shuffling
behaviour”, for an adult to disappear into the dunes
or for chicks to emerge from hiding.
If there are eggs, do not rush towards the nest
location. Take note of landmarks first, as you will lose
the location very quickly upon approach. Walk
diagonally towards nest and use natural landmarks to
judge the distance.
Walk carefully towards the area, watching each step
you take. As you get closer, you may note tracks of the
birds that all converge at the nest scrape.
If there are chicks, watch from a distance and
count how many there are – there is no need to
approach them.
If you do not locate the nest, retreat back to
lower beach.
Windy or
<20 or >25º C
20-25º C
Return another day
After 2 attempts
297
Appendix 11 MyHoodie data portal user guide with Administrative details
www.portal.myhoodie.com.au
Version 1 (beta release), September 2012
298
Technical stuff
The portal is viewable on any up-to-date internet browser. If you do see a “bug” (an error or something that looks
strange), please report any you experience using the feedback form (on the right of the page) or email us.
Browser comparability
The portal is built to W3 web standards - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_standards. These are the most current and
commonly used internet standards around. If you have the latest updates for your browser software you shouldn’t have
any problems viewing the portal. However because the net has changed so much in the last few years, if you have an old
version of a browser you may may have some issues.
We have tested all of the following browsers:
- Internet Explorer version 9.
- Mozilla Firefox version 14.
- GoogleChrome version 20.
- Safari version 5.
- Opera version 12.
If you don’t have a up to date version of one of these browsers you may need to update your software - they are all free of
course. The earlier versions of Internet Explorer (6, 7 and 8) are particularly problematic so please update your software if
you have one of these.
A screen resolution of 1024x768 or above is recommended, but it’s not essential (you might just have to scroll around a
bit on the forms with lower resolutions).
Mobile devices
The portal is not yet optimised for use on mobile devices (smart phones or tablets). It should work on Apple and Android
devices however it is might be a little less user friendly on these. We are hoping to develop a proper app for mobile
devices so you can walk onto a beach and fill in an update on your smart phone or tablet while standing on the sand!…
but we need to find some funding for that.
299
The pair summary section
This is where all the information entered into the portal is summarised and displayed. In this section you can:
- view all the surveys and updates you have entered for the year,
- keep track of the current nesting status of pairs in your region.
The pair summary page is broken up into four main sections.
1. region and pair selector
2. map
3. table
4. refine controls
Each of these sections works together (i.e. are all linked) to allow information to be filtered and displayed the way you
want it.
The best way to learn how the pair summary page works is to have a play around with it. However the following sections
pages outline the details of each section and how the functions work.
1. region and pair selector
2. Map
4. Refine
controls
3. Table
300
The region and pair selector
Each time you log into the portal the pair summary page will display a map of SE Australia. Use the region selector to
automatically zoom into your home region.
* Currently users can only view pair data from their home region (although you can enter data for any pair in any
region). We are working to allow access to pair summary data across regions and this will be a feature of the next
release.
To identify a pair, select it from the pair selector, or click on the table or click a marker on the map. Selecting a pair here
will display all the details for that pair in the details pop-up.
The map
Your home region will be displayed by default on the map and table when you log in. If not just select your region from
the region selector and the map will zoom to that region. The map shows all the known* pairs in your region.
This is a standard Google map that you can zoom into/pan around, display satellite or map views etc. (note switching to
satellite view gives you a much greater zoom resolution).
The map is also “live linked” to the table - i.e. as you zoom and pan around the map the table updates automatically to
show only the pairs visible in the map extents. You really need to play around in the site to see this, but basically, if you
want to view details just for a group of pairs on a particular beach you can zoom into that general area and the table will
show details for just those pairs in your map extent.
Clicking on pair icon brings their information in the details pop-up (see next page).
* pairs displayed are controlled by your regional coordinator. They have access to the administration section of the site
and can add, delete or modify pair details. If you find a new pair, please contact your regional coordinator. You can
enter surveys for pairs not listed her in the full update form.
The table
The table displays basic information about pair nesting status and (as mentioned above) is “live linked” to the map. The
table has a series of refine controls and sort options at the top - see the refine section for details on using those options.
This section outlines the table information.
Refine
controls
Table
information
The table information includes 6 fields + an image display button. These 6 fields are the main variables we will look at to
quickly tell what pairs nesting status is, what managements are in place (or not) as well as how long it’s been since pairs
were last checked and who has checked them.
301
The fields are pretty self-explanatory, see “Refine and table field definitions” for details.
Clicking on the image icon displays images uploaded in the forms for a given observation. These might be useful if a nest
is in a hard to find spot and someone has taken an image of the general area of beach where the nest is to help others find
it.
The details pop-up
Because only basic info is displayed in the table, a pop up is provided to list the full details associated with each
observation (threat details are not included). This pop-up is under construction so please bear with us.
Activate the pop-up by clicking on a pair marker on the map or by clicking on a pair entry in the table or by selecting a
pair in the “pair selector” at the top of the page.
302
Refine controls
The refine controls are where the power of the portal really lies. Using these options you can customise the information
displayed in a virtually limitless number of combinations. Again the best way to learn these controls is by playing around
in the site; the options are (hopefully) self-explanatory.
Remembering that the map and table are “live linked” and work together, so it is with the refinement options. There are 2
refine/sort areas on the pair summary page, one beside the map, and the other in the table headers. These 2 sets of refine
options work together - i.e. you can select a combination of refine options from both areas to control the data displayed in
the map and table.
For example selecting the “Pairs currently with nests” checkbox (in the top refine area) will limit results to pair with
nests. Then if you were to additionally select a “Current management” of say “none” (from the table refine options), the
results will be limited to pairs with nests and no managements.
As mentioned there are a many combinations that can be selected to refine data - it’s just a matter of experimenting and
finding the combination you need at the time.
The table can be sorted by clicking on the column headings.
See the following page for definitions of the refine fields.
303
Refine and table field definitions
Field
Function
Refine options above the map
My records
Displays records you have recorded.
Pairs currently with nests
Pairs with nests (eggs) at the time of observation.
Pairs currently with chicks
Pairs with nests (chicks) at the time of observation.
Management alerts
Displays records where the user has recorded a management alert. A management alert will always
have further information associated with it (it is a requirement in the form when selecting a
management alert). See the details window to view management alert notes.
Banded birds present
Displays observations in which banded birds were recorded - see details window to view band info.
Date range
Allows you to narrow displayed observations to a range of dates.
Table refine options
Pair
Displays a selected pair only. * use in combination with the “all or latest” options in the top refine
area to display all records for a pair or just the latest.
Last checked
The date of the observation - not actually when the pair was last checked.
Checked by
The observer for the record - this will be the user logged in when recording the observation.
Nest stage
The nesting stage at the time of observation.
Current management
Managements records for the observation (this can be several managements)
Nest no.
The number of nesting attempts the pair has had for the season - this is updated by regional
coordinators in the admin section of the site.
Further info
Clicking this icon displays photos uploaded by users for a given observation.
Sorting
click any of the table field headings will sort the table according to that field - click again to toggle
between ascending and descending sorts.
304
The export data option (admin only)
The export data option allows administrators (regional coordinators, land managers etc) to export info to a spreadsheet.
The option to export data will not show up for standard users.
There are 2 types of exports to choose from:
1. basic export will provide the main fields relating to pair status and management (does not include fields such as
number of eggs/chicks, number of adult/juvenile birds or nest coordinates).
2. a full export provides the full range of fields relating to nesting and management.
In addition you can choose to export all data for a region or just the observations shown in the table - i.e. after refinement.
The file created is a comma separated value (.csv) file that should open up in most standard spreadsheet applications (e.g.
Excel).
305
Updates (data entry)
When you click the update tab you will get 2 data entry form options.
The “Quick update” option gives you a single page form. This form is allow you to quickly update basic pair information
such as nesting status, and management information. This form only has basic details - it’s there to allow you to update a
pair status quickly when you don;t have time to enter a full survey. The full update form is the preferred option.
The “Full update” has the full set of information found on the Birdlife Australia “Pair monitoring forms”. This is the
preferred form.
Form structure
While the 2 forms differ in content, both have the same structure and functionality.
The quick update form is 1 single page, while the full update is broken up into 6 separate pages. Each page of the forms
should be viewable on your screen without having to scroll or pan around - this requires a screen resolution of 1024x768,
or higher.
There are 4 main sections on the forms:
1. main form area - where all the data is entered.
2. form navigation bar (full update form only) - shows progress through the full update form.
3. map - used to display the location of selected pairs, or to pick coordinates in the “new nest/chicks section” (see
below.
4. validation area - see below
The forms themselves are very intuitive (we hope!) and you should be able to use them very easily, however the “live
validation” and entering coordinates functions are explained below.
306
Live validation
Both forms feature “live validation”. What we mean by this is that there are certain fields that must be entered and also
combinations of data the system will not allow to be entered - e.g. entering a nesting stage of “chicks” and then entering a
number of eggs by mistake.
This is why some sections of the forms are “greyed out” - they only become active once a “parent” field has been filled
out - e.g. the nest habitat drop down only becomes active if a nesting stage of “nest (eggs) is selected.
Required fields are marked with as asterix - not entering data into these fields results in a validation error which displays
on the right hand validation message area.
Reporting a new nest - entering coordinates
To report actual coordinates for a nest you can either enter latitude and longitude directly or pick a location from the map.
Entering coordinates directly
Select new nest/chicks.
This activates the coordinates box.
Once active you can enter latitude and longitude in degrees
minutes and seconds or decimal degrees.
307
Picking coordinates from the map
Select new nest/chicks and zoom into the pair territory on the
map.
Switch to satellite view to get greater zoom resolution.
Grab the pair marker and drag and drop it to the desired
location.
The coordinates are automatically updated in the fields.
308
The administration section
Using the admin section
The admin section is available to regional coordinators and other selected users only. Standard users will not see the
option to enter the admin section at all.
The admin section is for:
- managing users
- managing pair details, and
- managing region details (this probably only needs to be used once to create new regional).
Once in the admin section, click on one of the operations to start viewing or modifying details.
Alternatively, you can navigate around the admin section using the “breadcrumbs” just under the main navigation menu.
309
Managing pairs
This operation controls the pairs displayed in the pair summary page and the pairs are available for selection in drop down
lists in the quick and full update forms.
You can also create new pairs, delete pairs or change pair details (e.g. location) from this section.
Please keep pair names consistent where possible and make all names unique. Remember users can add occasional
observations for pairs not in the list through the full update form, however if a territory is used consistently it is best to
add a pair to the list here.
Remember there are names for pairs from across South Australia, Victoria and NSW, so try to make pair names specific
to a site - e.g. “xxx Estuary West” as opposed to just “Estuary West”.
This is also the section of the portal where pair summary statistics are updated (see following pages).
Use the
region menu
to filter the
list of pairs to
a specific
region
Search for a pair
by typing the
name in this box
310
Updating pair name or location details
Once a pair is selected for modification, you can change a pairs name and location. This is also the screen you use to
update pairs overall nesting statistics for the year (e.g. the number of nesting attempts).
To change a pairs coordinates either enter their latitude/longitude directly, or drag the marker on the map (switching to
the satellite view will give you a better zoom level).
311
Updating pair summary statistics
To keep track of each pairs progress through the season, we need to enter four key parameters into the portal manually.
These parameters allow us to calculate the hatching success rates per pair, chick survival rate per pair and keep track of
how many eggs and chicks each pair has had overall for the season.
Knowing these statistics for each pair then allows us to calculate a huge number of critical statistics such as the average
hatching success or chick survival rates for each breeding pair. Also, because each pair is linked to a region we can
automatically calculate the average success rates per pair for the region as a whole and calculate total number of eggs
laid, chicks hatched and birds fledged in each region.
And what’s more, all these statistics can be calculated “live” as data is entered. There is no need to wait until the end of
the season to collate all the data.
By cross-referencing this data with management data we can also the success of managed versus non-managed nests or
compare success rates across different types of managements (to see which are working best).
312
Managing users
This is where you add new users and passwords and reset passwords in the event a user has forgotten
their details (although users can reset their own passwords through “forgotten password” feature on
the portal login page).
All users must have a “home region” assigned (although users can view and enter data for any
region). As in the pair operation, you can delete users (with the red ‘x’), create new users, or modify
existing users (green pencil). Filter users by region or searching for a particular user by using the text
box user the ‘user name’ field heading.
313
Managing regions
This operation controls the geographic extent (centroid and zoom factor) of regions displayed in the
pair summary page. Remember also, every pair and every user must belong to one of the regions
defined here. As in the pair operation, you can delete regions (with the red ‘x’), create new regions, or
modify existing region details (green pencil).
Change the name of the region in the name field or change the centre-point of the region using the
latitude/longitude fields, or drag the marker on the map.
314
* Remember to check the region display in the pair summary page after changing parameters here.
The display on the map here may not directly match the display on the pair summary map.
315

Appendices for `Managing the Hooded Plover in Victoria` Report

Transcription

Similar documents

The 7 th Annual Orchard Beach Car Show

Invitation

Operation Identification - Palm Beach County Sheriff`s Office

webtour-beachbucks - Web.com Tour Championship

Elk / Beaver Lake Regional Park

Sun Sentinel Albita

The nests of Dolichovespula norvegicoides

Coastal (09.13.13).cdr

here - Northeastern Wisconsin Audubon Society

Dec2014 - Willmore City Heritage Association