Quest for the breeding K Parrot

["Philip Veerman" <>]

Martin has given us a good graph and some very good ideas. As I was the one doing the promotions for the GBS during those middle years I would support Martin's suggestion about the Leap Upward (LU1) in year 13 which may reflect the introduction of the DY category in that year and add that the Year 12 also sort of fits it in that the idea involved in the change was being promoted before the new design V3 of the GBS chart was issued. As The GBS Report explained Year 12 was in part transitional. So this is a likely factor but impossible to prove or separate out from other factors after the event. A look at other species will help. The issue has already been extensively addressed in Figure 22 a, b, c & d and adjoining text of The GBS Report, that looks at breeding data for all species combined over the years in an attempt to clarify major trends and biases in the data set.

 

I can't offer any ideas about years 14 to 16 for this species.

 

Martin made the assessment that The general shape of the chart remains the same if adjusted for number of sites operating in each year, so I decided to say with the simpler format. That is his choice and may be so but I believe it better to show relative to effort (number of charts). I would also suggest that in this case, the graph could show numbers of breeding records per year relative to number of records (not observations) of the species per year (i.e. the F value). Of course I could do that and provide a graph of that. Indeed I already have done that process for all species, as part of the analysis for doing the GBS Report. But I only have the first 21 years data.

 

Philip

 

-----Original Message-----
From: martin butterfield [
Sent: Friday, 4 February 2011 3:38 PM
To: Geoffrey Dabb
Cc:
Subject: Re: [canberrabirds] Quest for the breeding K Parrot

Geoffrey's post raises a number of
interesting thoughts.

I have compiled a chart (see attached) showing the
number of Garden Bird Survey observations of Dependent Young (DY) or - in the
earlier years of the GBS - Fledgling (F) Australian King Parrots by GBS
Year.  (The general shape of the chart remains the same if adjusted for
number of sites operating in each year, so i decided to say with the simpler
format.)
My first thought is
that if we ended up with no DY records for this species in the GBS it would be a
cause for concern.  To my mind that would indicate that wherever they breed
-whether in the Brindies in Canberra Nature park, or in hollows in old street
trees - the breeding season had been a major failure.

The graph shows
a  Leap Upward (LU1) in year 13 which may reflect the introduction of the
DY category in that year.  But if so, why did it drop(LD1) for the next
three years before a major, and sustained Leap Upward (LU2) in Year 17?  I
can offer no hypothesis about the cause for LU2.  The graph then shows a
second Leap Downward (LD2) in year 22.  This coincides with the loss due to
bushfires  - in December 2001 - of the pine forests alongside the
Tuggeranong Parkway.  Perhaps they formed a staging area for some of the
birds moving down from the mountains?  Perhaps the old remnant eucalypts in
those forests were the site of the breeding hollows?  The number of 
observations has - given operational constraints - stayed more or less constant
since year 22.

I have tried to get a handle on how far the King-parrots
(forgive me C&B) move.  I have had little success with this. 
HANZAB indicates there have only 15 recoveries of banded birds in the period
1953 - 96 which is a rather small sample.   However 73% of those
recoveries were within 10kms of the original banding site, suggesting that the
birds don't move far.  As an example of distances that could be involved
involved, according to GOOGLE Earth  from the Cotter dam to the centre of
Duffy is close to 9kms which would suggest that is close to normal operating
range for the King-parrots in the banding studies.  Perhaps he ACT bird are
more adventurous or perhaps the sort distances travelled is an artefact of the
research objectives of the banding studies.

As is often the case looking
more closely would seem to raise more questions than it
solves!

Martin

On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Geoffrey Dabb <> wrote:

So far as I know, there is still no rock-solid certified record of a completed A King Parrot breeding event in Canberra.  The birds tend to head off to the ranges in summer, with only the occasional pair seen hanging around hollows, sometimes entering them, in suburban reserves.  This year there was such a pair around a hollow in the old zoo area excised from the Callum Brae lease, and still outside the nature reserve of that name.  It does seem that the birds are quite shy around their nests, if that is what these suburban hollows are.

 

This morning I was attracted to begging noises rather akin to young galahs coming from one of the leafy birches.  It was a pair of king parrots with 2 noisy young.  The young were doing their insistent begging followed by the curious neck-twisting regurgitation by the adults.  The party then moved to near the feeder in the giant spreading Irish Strawberry where they continued the performance at close range.  The adult pair have been back around the feeder for the last two weeks, calling for a top-up with their distinctive whistle.

 

Whether all ‘DYs’ should go into the books as a breeding record is an issue aired from time to time in this forum  -  and others.  The point, of course, is that the nest might be some distance away from the relevant study area.  Begging Superb Parrots in Belconnen are unlikely to have come from Belconnen hollows.  The ‘CF’ notation raises a similar issue.  Dependant King Parrots like those of this morning could certainly have flown some distance.  It is possible they came from a hollow in one of the suburban reserves.  It is also possible that they did not.

 

 

  

-----

No virus found in this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3421 - Release Date: 02/03/11