Re: [canberrabirds] “Do Common Mynas significantly compete with native birds in urban environments?” new paper

["Jack & Andrea Holland" <>]

Members will have the opportunity to hear what Kate has found in her studies when she gives a presentation to COG early in 2012.  Currently she’s pencilled in for the February meeting.

 

Jack Holland

 

From:

Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 2:13 PM

To:

Cc: ; m("canberrabirds.org.au","canberrabirds");">Canberra Birds

Subject: Re: [canberrabirds] “Do Common Mynas significantly compete with native birds in urban environments?” new paper

 

I'll be interested to see whether Kate Grarock's findings support or contradict this study.
If the Common Mynas really "have little competitive impact", then surely that's good news?

John Brannan (who's not likely to stop trapping them anytime soon)

On 18/09/11 1:19 PM, martin butterfield wrote:

Alas.  If we only had a spare Euro34.95 we might know whether these folk are serious or not.

Martin

On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Robin Hide <> wrote:

A controversial new paper?
Robin Hide

Lowe, K. A., C. E. Taylor and R. E. Major (2011). “Do Common Mynas significantly compete with native birds in urban environments?” Journal of Ornithology 152(4): 909-921.

Keywords: Common Myna -  Acridotheres tristis  - Competition - Aggression - Urban.
Abstract: In Australia, the introduced Common Myna (Acridotheres tristis) is commonly believed to aggressively displace native birds and outcompete them for food and nest resources. However, the current paucity of scientific evidence makes it difficult to devise appropriate management strategies for protection of urban bird populations. This study investigates the way in which the Common Myna uses the urban environment and interacts with other species while foraging and nesting in Sydney, Australia. The bird community varied between habitat types along an urbanisation gradient, and the abundance of the Common Myna increased significantly with the degree of habitat modification. Surveys of the frequency of interspecific interactions revealed that the Common Myna did not initiate a significantly greater number of aggressive encounters than did other species. Focal observations of two potential native competitors showed that despite foraging in close proximity, the Common Myna rarely interfered with feeding activity. Assessment of natural tree hollow occupancy found that Common Mynas used significantly fewer tree hollows than did native species. Analysis of nest site selection indicated that Common Mynas chose to nest in more highly modified habitats, and in artificial structures rather than in vegetation. These findings suggest that, in this study area, Common Mynas have little competitive impact on resource use by native bird species in the urban matrix. The logical conclusion of these results is that the substantial efforts currently directed towards culling of Common Mynas in heavily urbanised environments is misdirected, and resources would be better directed to improvement of natural habitat quality in these areas if the purpose of control is to enhance urban bird diversity.

*******************************************************************************************************