The Australian Bird Feeding and Watering Study

Transcription

1 The Australian Bird Feeding and Watering Study Winter report 2016 Dr Gráinne Cleary

2 Executive summary Providing food and water to birds is a beloved Australian pastime, but many well-meaning bird-lovers may fear they re doing Australian species more harm than good. While many are concerned that birds will become reliant on humans, it s possible we need not worry about this at all. Australian birds are different from others around the world, living longer and often having larger brains than those in Europe. The fickle booms and busts of the Australian environment mean that many birds are used to dealing with unreliable food sources. This means that many species are locally mobile, semi-nomadic, fully nomadic or seasonally migratory, and require the ability to switch food type and source when needed. This diet switching makes Australian species very resourceful, innovative and adaptable. Of course Australia has highly diet-specialised species as well, and these birds are usually most threatened by food shortages. This study concentrates solely on birds that are adapting to urban areas like our gardens. There is currently little research exploring the effects of providing food for Australian birds. As a consequence there are no established guidelines about how to feed and provide water to Australian birdlife. To help fill this knowledge gap we ran the Australian Bird Feeding and Watering Study ( org.au) in which nearly 3,000 participants across the country monitored bird usage of their feeding areas and birdbaths. We analysed this data and broke it down into four scenarios: 1. A birdbath was used in a backyard where food was never provided. 2. Only the birdbath was used even though both food and a birdbath were provided. 3. Only food was consumed even though both a birdbath and food were provided. 4. Food was consumed in a backyard with no birdbath. Dates for the 2017 summer stage of the Australian Bird Feeding and Watering Study Week 1: Monday 30 January to Sunday 5 February Week 2: Monday 6 February to Sunday 12 February Week 3: Monday 13 February to Sunday 19 February Week 4: Monday 20 February to Sunday 26 February Visit for more information or to register to take part in the summer survey. Our results were very surprising in that we found a high species richness where food was provided with birdbaths present! We found that granivores, carnivores and large nectarivore birds had a higher mean richness at feeding areas where just water was provided or where just food was provided. In contrast, small nectarivore birds had a higher richness where only birdbaths were provided and a lower richness when food was provided. We investigate the top 6 bird species in each feeding niche that may be contributing to these differences. Our results imply that birds are most likely to visit gardens where food is provided, especially when birdbaths are also present. Birds turning up at feeding areas and birdbaths are species that are adapting or have adapted to urban areas in particular gardens. A worry of many people is that birds will become reliant on us to provide food for them. In this report I argue that this might not be as big a concern as first thought. Australian birds show great flexibility in their behaviour and cognitive abilities which means they can learn new skills and adapt to new situations, including new food sources. The unreliable and irregular booms and busts of the environment is one explanation for this as they often lead to unreliable food sources. It may pay to be able to switch your food type and not become too specialised on one food type. These are early results from the winter stage of the Australian Bird Feeding and Watering Study. But one thing is for sure: we have many magnificent birds that have adapted or are adapting to live alongside us and we need to celebrate and look after these birds. The plan is to develop guidelines with recommendations about providing food and water for birds in a way that has the highest conservation value for our feathered friends. But before we can do that I need more data from you! So please take part in the summer stage of the study and spread the word to others who may wish to be involved. Our results can only be as good as the data you give us.

3 Introduction Firstly I would like to thank everyone who contributed to the 2016 winter stage of the Australian Bird Feeding and Watering Study. I have put together this report based on early results from the winter stage of the study. In this report I will investigate the bird feeding niches and species which had the highest occurrence at birdbaths and/or feeding areas. I will do this by looking at the richness of feeding niches. What is a feeding niche? A cornerstone of ecology is that each species has a unique niche which encompasses its habitat and use of resources (food) while competing with other species. A primary characteristic of a niche involves exploitation of food (aka feeding niche). Food is vital and finding new sources of food is always on a bird s mind. As you will see in this report, the ability to learn how to outcompete others in the search for food is important. This is because it allows for quick adaption to environmental changes, be they natural or influenced by humans. Juvenile birds may learn from their parents early in life to avoid overlapping the foraging niches of competing species. Exploring feeding niches of the birds visiting feeding areas/ birdbaths will help us understand patterns of competition for these resources. Feeding niche breakdown I have grouped the birds into the following broad feeding niches: Large nectarivores (nectar-eating birds weighing more than 20 grams). Insectivores (insect-eating birds). Carnivores (meat-eating birds). Granivores (seed-eating birds). Omnivores (eats nearly everything!). Small nectarivores (small nectar-eating birds weighing less than 20 grams). Frugivores (fruit-eating birds). Folivores (leaf-eating birds). This is a very common way of classifying birds but is also a very European way of doing things; does it work for Australia? What is certain is that birds here are very different to their European counterparts. They have had to adapt to the Australian flora and fickle climate (which can be unreliable and very irregular), making life tough for birds. For these reasons many species are locally mobile, semi-nomadic, fully nomadic or seasonally migratory. These are require the ability to switch food type and source when needed. As a result many Australian birds are very resourceful, innovative and adaptable. Rainbow lorikeets courtesy of Marion

4 What is species richness? Species richness is the number of different species (e.g. laughing kookaburra, satin bowerbird, rainbow lorikeet etc.) present in a feeding niche. The more species present at birdbaths or feeding areas, the richer it is. Species richness as a measure on its own takes no account of the number of individuals of each species present. In this study we could not count individuals of each species as we were often unsure if it was the same bird making multiple visits or a new individual. This is just a limitation of the study we need to live with. About our data For this report I have analysed your data to see whether there is a difference in the richness of species feeding niches visiting our birdbaths and feeding areas. Species richness is a measure of the number of different species present. In this report species richness has been broken down into 4 categories for each feeding niche: 1. Birdbath only: Where a birdbath was used (and food was never provided). This category received 13,991 surveys. 2. Birdbath where food was provided: Where a bird only used a birdbath though both food and a birdbath were provided. This category received 14,768 surveys. 3. Food when birdbath was provided: Where a bird only consumed food though both a birdbath and food were provided. This category received 32,969 surveys. 4. Food only: Food was consumed (and no birdbath was present). This category received 2,399 surveys. Which category did my data contribute to? If you monitored a birdbath and a feeding area, your data is included in categories 2 and 3. If you only monitored a birdbath or a feeding area but you told us that you also provided food/water, your data is also included in 2 and 3. If you monitored a birdbath/feeder and did not tell us that you also provided food/water as well then your data is in categories 1 or 4 respectively. As you can see we had a lot of surveys submitted from people providing both food and water. This category received a higher number of surveys than the other 3. For this reason we must look at the mean species richness of our feeding groups in each of our 4 categories. Galahs courtesy of Janette and Ron

5 Why are we looking at mean species richness of feeding groups? As stated earlier, species richness is the number of species counted in a particular group, with our groups being divided by feeding niche (i.e. carnivore, granivore, insectivore etc.). To understand our data, we need to examine it using the mean species richness. The mean is used to derive the average of the data. We get the mean by adding all the data points in a population and then dividing the total by the number of points. It allows us to see more clearly what our data is telling us. Grey fantail courtesy of Wanda With reference to graph 1, our species are grouped into 8 feeding niches and I calculated the mean richness of each category for the following scenarios: 1. Birdbath only (no food provided). 2. Birdbath where food was also provided. 3. Food where birdbath was also provided. 4. Food only (no birdbath provided). Graph 1 Mean species richness of feeding niche by survey type: birdbath (FF) birdbath where food was also provided, birdbaths only (no food provided), feeding area (BB) feeding area where birdbath was also provided and food only (no water provided).

6 Key findings from graph 1 Right away we notice a spike in the occurrence of granivores (seed-eating birds) at feeding areas where birdbaths were provided and at food-only sites. Granivores had a much lower presence at birdbaths where food was provided, and at birdbath-only locations. This implies that granivores are visiting us seeking food. The majority of food available to feed wild birds is seed-based which may help explain the large number of granivores visiting our backyards. Small nectarivores (nectar-eating birds weighing less than 20 grams) had a higher presence at birdbaths and at birdbaths where food was provided compared to the other 2 categories. In contrast, large nectarivores (nectar-eating birds weighing more than 20 grams) occurred frequently at feeding areas and at feeding areas where birdbaths were provided. Insectivores (insect-eating birds) occurred where food only was provided followed by where only birdbaths were provided compared to where food and water was provided. Pale-headed rosella courtesy of Linda Further analysis of graph 1 I will now examine graph 1 in more detail by studying our 8 feeding niches in separate graphs. We will examine species richness and 6 frequently recorded birds in our 4 categories: 1. Birdbath only. 2. Birdbath was used where both birdbath and food was provided. 3. Food was consumed where both birdbath and food was provided. 4. Food only. Eastern rosella and satin bowerbirds courtesy of Chris

7 Granivores (seed eaters) Graph 2 Mean granivore species richness at each category. Graph 3 Mean richness of 6 commonly recorded granivore birds: 2 introduced (house sparrows and spotted doves) and 4 native species.

8 Granivores (seed eaters) Key statistics Total species richness recorded: 62 species. Highest mean species richness: Food where birdbath was provided. Lowest mean species richness: Birdbath only. Key findings Crested pigeons, sulphur-crested cockatoos, crimson rosellas and galahs had a high mean richness where food was provided with a birdbath followed by where food only was provided. Introduced spotted doves had a slightly higher mean richness where food only was provided while house sparrows had a higher mean richness where food was provided with a birdbath. Mean species richness suggests granivore birds are exploiting food and seem to prefer backyards where food is provided regardless of the availability of a birdbath. Sulphur-crested cockatoo courtesy of Lynette

9 Large nectarivores (nectar eaters >20 grams) Graph 4 Mean large nectarivore species richness at each category. Graph 5 Mean richness of 6 commonly recorded large nectarivore birds.

10 Large nectarivores (nectar eaters >20 grams) Key statistics Total species richness recorded: 24 species. Highest mean species richness: Food only. Lowest mean species richness: Birdbath only. Key findings Rainbow lorikeets had a high mean richness at food when a birdbath was provided followed by when only food was provided. Scaly-breasted lorikeets had a slightly higher mean richness at birdbaths where food was provided. Red wattlebirds had a higher mean richness at food when a birdbath was provided while little wattlebirds had a more even distribution. Blue-faced honeyeaters had a slightly higher mean richness where food and water was provided and where only food was provided compared to the other 2 categories. Rainbow lorikeet courtesy of Christiane

11 Insectivores (insect eaters) Graph 6 Mean insectivore species richness at each category. Graph 7 Mean richness of 6 commonly recorded insectivore birds. We have a mixture of different size birds, from brushturkeys to superb fairy-wrens.

12 Insectivores (insect eaters) Key statistics Total species richness recorded: 91 species the highest of all the groups! Highest mean species richness: Food where birdbath was provided. Lowest mean species richness: Food only. Key findings Right away we can see superb fairy-wrens had a high mean richness where only food was provided followed by where food and water was provided. Australian magpies and magpie larks had a high mean richness where food and water was provided. Grey fantails, willie wagtails and brush-turkeys had a high mean richness where water only was provided. Grey fantails were absent where only food was provided. Brush-turkey courtesy of Graham

13 Small nectarivores (nectar eaters <20 grams) Graph 8 Mean small nectarivore species richness at each category. Graph 9 Mean richness of 6 commonly recorded small nectarivore birds.

14 Small nectarivores (nectar eaters <20 grams) Key statistics Total species richness recorded: 30 species. Highest mean species richness: Birdbath only. Lowest mean species richness: Food where birdbath was provided. Key findings All of the species in graph 9 had the highest mean richness where birdbaths only were provided. Eastern spinebills had a high mean richness where only food was provided. New Holland honeyeaters, Lewin s honeyeaters, brown honeyeaters and yellow-faced honeyeaters had a high mean richness at birdbaths where food was provided. Eastern spinebill courtesy of Wanda

15 Carnivores (meat eaters) Graph 10 Mean carnivore species richness at each category. Graph 11 Mean richness of 6 commonly recorded carnivore species.

16 Carnivores (meat eaters) Key statistics Total species richness recorded: 25 species. Highest mean species richness: Food where birdbath was provided. Lowest mean species richness: Birdbath only. Key findings High mean richness of two butcherbird species where food and water was provided. Pied currawong had a slightly higher mean richness where food and birdbaths were provided while black currawongs had a higher occurrence where food only was provided. Laughing kookaburras and Australian ravens had higher mean richness where food only was provided and where food with water was provided. Laughing kookaburra courtesy of Brad

17 Folivores (leaf eaters) Graph 12 Mean folivore species richness at each category. Graph 13 Mean richness of 6 commonly recorded folivore species with 1 introduced duck, the northern mallard.

18 Folivores (leaf eaters) Key statistics Total species richness recorded: 8 species our lowest species richness group. Highest mean species richness: Food where birdbath was provided. Lowest mean species richness: Food only. Key findings Pacific black ducks and wandering whistling ducks had a high mean richness at food and where birdbaths were provided, followed by birdbaths where food was provided. Surprisingly, both ducks had a lower occurrence at birdbaths only. Wood ducks had a high mean richness at the three categories where folivores were recorded while dusky moorhens had a very low richness across all three categories. The introduced northern mallards and wood teals had a high occurrence at feeding areas where birdbaths were provided. Dusky moorhens courtesy of Hannah

19 Frugivores (fruit eaters) Graph 14 Mean frugivore species richness at each category. Graph 15 Mean richness of 6 commonly recorded frugivore birds.

20 Frugivores (fruit eaters) Key statistics Total species richness recorded: 23 species. Highest mean species richness: Food where birdbath was provided. Lowest mean species richness: Food only. Key findings Right away we see that silvereyes had a very high mean richness where only food was provided that is a surprise! The rest of the birds in this group had a high mean richness at food where a birdbath was provided. In contrast to other species, wonga pigeons had a very low mean richness where food only was provided. Silvereyes courtesy of Penny

21 Omnivores (seed eaters) Graph 16 Mean omnivore species richness at each category. Graph 17 Mean richness of 6 commonly recorded omnivore birds including 3 introduced species: common blackbirds, common mynas and common starlings.

22 Omnivores (seed eaters) Key statistics Total species richness recorded: 10 species. Highest mean species richness: Food where birdbath was provided. Lowest mean species richness: Food only. Key findings Three introduced species (blackbirds, mynas and starlings) had a high mean richness when food where a birdbath was provided. This was followed by a high richness at birdbaths where food was provided. Grey shrike-thrushes and purple swamphens had a high mean richness where food and birdbaths were provided. Surprisingly purple swamphens were not recorded where only birdbaths were provided. Australian white ibis courtesy of Pauli

23 What does it all mean? Well one thing our data appears to show is that birds will consume food that we provide for them! Not only this but there appears to be a higher mean species richness where food was provided with water, when compared to where only water or only food was provided (graph 1)! This is a very important finding and I am seriously excited about our data and what we can learn! However, as they say, don t count your chickens before they hatch These are very early trends and we need to see if they hold during the 2017 summer study. Of course it would be beneficial to include the type of food being provided to discover whether particular food types attract particular birds. But one step at a time The data is very complex and we really need to understand it before drawing conclusive conclusions. Red wattlebird and crested pigeon courtesy of Brad Do birds depend on food we provide? In Australia we are told that a significant reason for not feeding birds is that they may become dependent on the food we provide. I am not convinced that this is the major issue that many people think it is. As mentioned earlier, Australian birds are very different from other birds in the world. The fickle, unreliable and irregular booms and busts of the Australian environment can lead to an unreliability of food sources, and many Australian birds need to learn where to find new food sources. It has been argued that some Australian birds have evolved a larger brain size to allow for an increased behavioural flexibility (i.e. an ability to learn new behaviour). This allows birds to cope with and respond to novel challenges and helps them colonise new areas, including urban environments. Satin bowerbird and rainbow lorikeet courtesy of Jen Of course Australia also has species which have highly specialised diets; these birds are usually most threatened or have a restricted range. However this study concentrates solely on birds that are adapting to urban areas (urban adaptors) and turning up at birdbaths and feeding areas in gardens.

24 Large and small nectarivore birds It is no surprise to see rainbow lorikeets and noisy miners in high occurrence at birdbaths (graph 5). What is more surprising is their high occurrence at feeding areas. These species are often classified as feeding exclusively on nectar, but the data we have collected in this survey questions this. Having a broad feeding niche seems a very important adaptation to living in Australia. Honeyeaters such as Lewin s honeyeaters, blue-faced honeyeaters and noisy miners will forage on nectar but research has shown they also consume invertebrates and switch from one to the other and even defend it vigorously! This ability to recognise, use and switch to unusual food sources is a remarkable adaptation to a difficult environment in which whole classes of food may disappear. Honeyeaters and lorikeets may visit feeding areas to look for a source of protein and research has found that they will readily take meat. In contrast some smaller species (such as eastern spinebills and new Holland honeyeaters, graph 9) can coexist with the larger species. This is because they require less food or adapt to different food and can conceal themselves among available foliage. What is interesting about small nectar-eating birds is (with reference to graph 9) their high occurrence at birdbaths compared to our other groups. New Holland honeyeater courtesy of Wanda Rainbow lorikeet courtesy of Brad Eastern spinebills and new Holland honeyeaters are two species that seem to have adapted well to urban environments and this is because each has a unique characteristic that gives it an edge over its rivals. One of the adaptions of eastern spinebills is that they have the ability to hover over a flower like a hummingbird. New Holland honeyeaters can be aggressive birds that will form bands of 10 or more birds to protect nectar trees by using noisy displays. They are often at war with red wattlebirds and will squabble over particular flowers or trees. It is important to remember that nectar production, and therefore availability, is directly influenced by rainfall, with periods of high rainfall resulting in increased nectar. However, as already discussed, this is a land of unpredictable boom and bust conditions, including high or low rainfall periods respectively. Research has found that new Holland honeyeaters will switch to insects under conditions of reduced nectar availability. They can even be seen chasing a butterfly or moth another example of diet switching!

25 Granivore birds We had a high occurrence of the following parrots where food was provided: crimson rosellas, galahs and sulphur-crested cockatoos. These three species are examples of parrots that are doing well in urban areas. However this is only a recent adaption as in previous years fewer people observed cockatoos, galahs and rosellas in parks and gardens. Interestingly the increase in parrots seems to parallel an increase in larger honeyeaters (e.g. red wattlebirds) and an apparent decrease in the prevalence of smaller honeyeaters. While we are still unsure why this is, a possible reason could be competition from larger and/or more aggressive parrots. Parrots in general are greatly influenced by urbanisation with major changes in population dynamics of some species. For example, galahs were native to desert, mallee and woodland regions throughout Australia. Today galahs have adapted well to human settlement and increased their populations in recent decades. They are sometimes even viewed as a pest in agricultural regions. One of the reasons galahs, rosellas and sulphur-crested cockatoos are doing so well is their ability to find and exploit new food resources. A bird-owner s insight I have the pleasure of owning a cockatiel called Link. Before she is ready to lay eggs, she will go mad for tuna which I feed my two indoor cats. Link will waddle over to where the cats are feeding and, as bold as brass, will rob a beak full of tuna before waddling off. She is hilarious and will only look for tuna just before she lays her eggs once she has laid, she has no further interest in the cats food! The pet-trade tells us to feed captive parrots, and therefore wild parrots, a seed-based diet but how correct is this advice? Galah courtesy of Marlene

26 Folivore birds The most commonly recorded native ducks in the study were the pacific black duck and wood duck both of which are doing well in urban environments such as community parks. One of the reasons they have high survival rates in urban areas is because the chicks are independent from birth. In addition, ducks will make nests nearly anywhere, including gardens if water is found nearby. Pacific black ducks have a wide distribution and are found throughout Australia except for central deserts. Pacific black duck courtesy of Sue The northern mallard, one of the world s most widespread ducks, occurred frequently where food was provided with a birdbath (graph 13). Mallards are able to interbreed with many other duck species and pose a threat to the pacific black duck because of this hybridisation. The abundance and movements of waterbird populations are driven primarily by weather principally rainfall. Aussie waterbirds differ from those elsewhere in the world due to the highly variable climate and river flooding patterns of the continent which strongly influence the ecology of local waterbirds. Frugivore birds Frugivore birds had a higher occurrence at feeding areas where water was also provided. This is an interesting finding as many of these birds are thought to be restricted to rainforest where they feed on fruit and seeds. However, as our data shows, some of these birds have adapted to exploit highly disturbed environments such as gardens where they will visit feeders. Birds such as brown cuckoo-doves and satin bowerbirds have switched from native fruits to introduced species such as lantana, privet and tobacco plants. With reference to graph 15, we had a high mean occurrence of silvereyes where food is provided. Silvereyes are classed as frugivorous and while fruit is important (especially figs) they are known to take insects as well. Research has shown that adults will take larger insects than the juveniles who learn how to forage more efficiently for larger insects as they get older. So what we are finding is birds will break out of the feeding niche we have traditionally classed them in. Silvereyes courtesy of June

27 Carnivore birds In the last couple of decades carnivorous birds have become a major component of urban bird fauna. With reference to graph 11, we see that these birds have a high richness where only food, or food with water, was provided. While these birds are known to exist on human refuse and dead animals, our study shows that they are also using food and water that we provide. The birds in this group are intelligent and known to be fast learners. For example currawongs have been known to watch wrens as they forage in gardens. When the wrens return to their nests, the currawongs follow and kill and eat the chicks. In this way currawongs have contributed to the decline of many small urban birds. Adapt and thrive Kookaburras have adapted well to human habitation and use posts and wires as places to perch to look for their natural food. People who feed them regularly have told me how tame they can become and how they will take food straight from the hand. Kookaburras are in the kingfisher family but rarely catch fish! Instead they prefer eating insects, mice and other small rodents, lizards, young birds and even snakes. Kookaburras will show diet switching as in times of grasshopper or mouse plagues in which their diet will consist almost entirely of these animals. Laughing kookaburra courtesy of Brad

28 Insectivore birds When we look at our data we find the highest richness in the insectivore niche with 91 species visiting birdbaths and feeding areas. Australian magpies and indeed magpie larks were two popular birds occurring frequently where food and water was provided (graph 7). There species are ground insectivores often seen together and doing well with humans and in exploiting cleared areas. Adults need to teach their young how to forage for food. Have you ever watched a magpie teaching its young how to hunt? Magpies extract larvae from underground and as they cannot see the food, they listen for it. Larvae of the scarab beetle make minute gnawing sounds and vibratory movements under the soil that magpies can hear. The fledgling has to learn how to hunt for food from adults. They will do so by walking closely behind the adult and watching as the beak is powerfully jabbed into the soil. Australian magpies courtesy of John Good morning Mr Magpie. How are your wife and kids? Australian magpies are well known for their complex cognitive ability and behaviours. Adult magpies can learn where novel food sources appear and will teach their young that you can get food from particular people. Many of you have told me about magpies turning up at your kitchen door with young. The adults seem to be introducing the young to you but they have another agenda and that is teaching their young that you are a way to get food! Small insectivores that turned up in our study included grey fantails, superb fairy-wrens and willie wagtails, occurring frequently at birdbaths and birdbaths where food was supplied. While they are classed as insectivores they will take seeds, flowers and fruit. These birds can be inquisitive and will show aggression. For example, rival willie wagtails will flare their distinctive white eyebrow the equivalent of staring each other down until one withdraws! Willie wagtails will attack cats and dogs and even wedge-tailed eagles when defending their territory! They can become very tolerant and tame around humans, often feeding and nesting close to houses and human activity. Superb fairy-wren courtesy of Wanda It is the gregarious aggressive and/or cooperative breeding behaviour of these small birds that may help give them a competitive advantage and allow them to persist in gardens. For example, superb fairy-wrens will occupy a variety of habitats as long as dense undergrowth is available for shelter.

29 Introduced birds House sparrows were introduced into Victoria between 1863 and 1870 as pets and were either deliberately or accidentally released. Later, sparrows were released into Sydney, Brisbane and Hobart. We have classed house sparrows as granivore species but they will take insects, spiders, berries and flower buds this broad diet has allowed this species to increase rapidly. House sparrows, like many introduced birds, were already used to living with humans and this has helped them become better invaders. Blackbirds and starlings were also introduced in the mid-1900s and these birds have done well and House sparrows courtesy of Marlene expanded their range. Blackbirds are highly flexible and have progressively invaded urban areas. The species has successfully established itself in half of the countries to which it has been introduced and is one of the few species that has invaded pristine habitats. Innovation has been recorded in introduced populations with blackbirds preying on skinks and lizards as well as hawking for insects in the evening in cities. European birds may be doing well because many Australians have typically English gardens with the open lawns favoured by these introduced birds. It is not easy to discourage these birds but having fewer non-native plants (particularly trees), smaller areas of lawn, more ground cover and mulch are some ways to do so. Brush-turkey courtesy of Kim Birds expanding their range into urban areas Brush-turkeys had a slightly higher mean at birdbaths and at stations where food was provided with a birdbath. Traditionally these birds were found in wet sclerophyll forests on the east coast of Australia. However during recent years brush-turkeys have started to invade urban areas and are increasingly seen in backyards. In Brisbane and now in parts of Sydney brush-turkeys can cause human-wildlife conflict due to their mound building and taking pet food (both dry and wet!). Brush-turkeys exhibit little fear and will boldly attempt to steal food whenever they can. They will nest in gardens and will remove enormous amounts of mulch from neighbouring gardens. Graph 3 shows that a very recent urban coloniser, the crested pigeon, is visiting gardens where food is provided. Crested pigeons are another example of a species that has shifted its range. The species used to only occur in semi-arid environments and it is only in recent years that it has expanded its range into urban areas. Researchers have found that crested pigeons show behaviour flexibility which has helped them to colonise urban environments. They have adapted to feed on lawn seeds in ovals and parks and on flowers and garden plants. The presence of crested pigeons appears to be affecting the introduced spotted dove which they may be outcompeting. This is despite spotted doves being resident in urban environments probably for around 150 years. Research has shown that crested pigeons are more tolerant of disturbance by humans then spotted doves.

30 So what is next? I need more data of course! This is only half of the story and I need to find out if the above trends hold during the summer study. I need to relate the food that is provided by you to the species of bird eating it. I hope to do this for the summer report but the data is very complex so bear with me! The study also needs to bring in the effect of bioregion and degree of urbanisation on our birds. I am looking at bioregion instead of state as birds show no respect for state boundaries and are more impacted by the biogeography of a region. I also need to explore the reasons why people feed birds and the value they get out of it. My experience from running this study is that people feed birds because they enjoy it and get great pleasure out of it. People want to help birds and feel that providing water and food is way to do this. Alongside industry partners I plan to develop guidelines around providing food and water for birds in a way that reaps the highest conservation value. I plan to work with the bird feeding industry to develop a food product that people can feed to carnivorous and insectivorous birds without damaging their health. Crested pigeon courtesy of Brad Well that is all for now folks! I look forward to working with you in the summer study. Please spread the word to those who might also like to participate. The more people giving us data, the better outcomes we can have for our birds - it is all about making a home for nature in your garden! Acknowledgements I am very grateful to all of you who have sent me photos. Your wonderful images have really added to this report! In particular I would like to thank Wanda Optland and Brad Walker. Thank you to Hannah Tribe for editing, typesetting and layout. Dates for the 2017 summer stage of the Australian Bird Feeding and Watering Study Week 1: Monday 30 January to Sunday 5 February Week 2: Monday 6 February to Sunday 12 February Week 3: Monday 13 February to Sunday 19 February Week 4: Monday 20 February to Sunday 26 February Visit for more information or to register to take part in the summer survey.