birding-aus

Fruit Pidgeon range expansion ( a bit long and rambling)

To: "Bill Moorhead" <>
Subject: Fruit Pidgeon range expansion ( a bit long and rambling)
From: "J G KROHN" <>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:11:20 +1100
Bill and others,
 
I'm sure there are complex mixes of factors that find _expression_ in observed range changes.  In the short term, individuals displaced from destroyed habitat will turn up in apparently unsuitable, or at least less suitable habitat within their dispersal capability.  If they are not capable of dispersal, they will probably die very quickly after their habitat is lost.  Dispersal presumably is fundamentally a response to unsuitable habitat.  Juveniles (of sedentary species at least) wouldn't disperse from their natal territories if the habitat didn't become unsuitable, the habitat in this instance including the presence of adult birds which transform from caring parents to hostile and superior competitors as the breeding urges for the next season swing into effect.  I guess the dispersing birds go as far as they have to in order to find somewhere at least temporarily suitable, or they go as far as their physical endurance allows, and stop somewhere unsuitable because they haven't the strength to keep going.
 
I suspect the resurgence (or colonisation?) of Rainbow and, to a lesser but increasing extent, Musk Lorikeets in the suburbs of Melbourne at least partly reflects significant changes in the suburban habitat over the past thirty or so years.  I have a copy of the Goul League's "Birds of Victoria: Urban Areas", a slim volume published in 1969 which was given me when it had just been released (it was followed by six further volumes dealing with other habitats over the next 14 years).  It lists the Rainbow Lorikeet as "Accidental" in the Melbourne metropolitan area, which accords well with my recollections from those days.  I remember my father mentioning very occasional sightings around Parkville (Melbourne University campus during the 1970s, and recall my own excitement when I saw a flock of three birds fly over Hawthorn (an inner eastern suburb of Melbourne) in about 1980.  I also remember seeing Musk Lorikeets in the grounds of the primary school I attended in Glen Iris (not far from Hawthorn) around the mid-late 1960s (what a giveaway!).  They're well and truly back now, but they were completely absent throughout the 70s and early 80s.  Now Rainbow and Musk Lorikeets are both among the most numerous native bird species in the eastern suburbs.  Why?
 
There have probably been theses and papers published on this phenomenon, which to my recollection now (nearly 10:30 on a Tuesday evening, not my best time) I haven't read.  If the following thoughts have been published by someone else, maybe it's my sub-conscious at work - please point it out to me and I'll happily go back and read the proper source.  However, for what it's worth, I think the suburban habitat is much more Lorikeet friendly substantially because it became fashionable around the late 60s/ early 70s to plant native trees and shrubs in suburban gardens.  This was probably a product of growing environmental awareness in a general sense, along with, more specifically, growing awareness of native plants' drought tolerance in the wake of a couple of good solid droughts around that time.  The survivors of those "fashionable" plantings, including also street-trees planted by local Councils (such as Red Ironbarks, Spotted Gums, Hymenosperums (none locally indigenous, but still "native"), Callistemons, Melaleucas, etc have matured over the past twenty years, providing palatable and profuse nectar flows for which the Lorikeets are able to compete successfully.  Other factors probably have also contributed, for instance the number of suburban residents who find the colourful, active and noisy Lorikeets sufficiently attractive (and have perhaps been to the Gold Coast on holidays?) to put out supplementary feed.
 
The birds must be finding somewhere to nest, too - maybe using artificial structures like hollow metal utility structures, or taking advantage of hollows in mature exotic trees (at what age do hollows form in things like elms and oaks, compared to native hardwoods like eucalypts?) or planted (or remnant?) natives.  Are there really fewer Starlings and Sparrows around the eastern suburbs of Melbourne compared to twenty years ago, as it seems to me there are (with absolutely no objective data to go on)?  If so, does that suggest that native hollow-nesters like Lorikeets and Rosellas (or, on a less optimistic note, "flying rats", ie Mynas) are learning to out-compete Starlings for nest-sites?  Or is it more a reflection of less ready availability of house cavities in predominently brick veneer structures compared to the more common weatherboard buildings of the not so distant past?
 
The fruit-bats - a vexed question down here at the moment.  Thanks to human intervention (purely coincidental - I don't think anyone set out to create a flying foxes' paradise) that is what we have made.  Mature Moreton Bay figs are spread through inner suburban public parks and gardens.  Many inner and middle suburban gardens contain fruit-trees - apples and pears (which the Lorikeets also relish, on my father's highly annoyed authority) as well as soft fruits.  Some of those trees are relics of the wave of orchards which advanced outwards ahead of the residential tide, only to be overtaken with each surge of population.  I live in Cherry Street, just round the corner from Orchard Street - and I have seen flying foxes fly over my home, 20 km+ ESE from their base in the Botanic Gardens.  It may have been an accident of dispersal that brought the original colonists to Melbourne (but surely other dispersing individuals had arrived here before, over the decades or centuries, they just hadn't found conditions congenial enough to allow them to settle), but given a tolerable climate, with allowance apparently made by some animals developing migratory habits, a suitable roosting/ nursery site thoughtfully provided by the other recent colonists, and a larder of fruits, both familiar (at least to the species) and exotic but tasty - that "accident" has led to establishment of a population which, without further human intervention, would presumably remain "permanent" until the habitat, from a flying fox's point of view, declines to become unsuitable.  As to why those individuals dispersed in the first place - there could be many reasons, natural or anthropogenic.  Sadly, habitat clearance could well have been a factor.  But it seems to me that at a taxon level, not necessarily an individual animal's level, dispersal is a critical long-term survival strategy.
 
Sorry for rambling so much, and for all the brackets - it's late!  I'd be grateful if anyone is able to point me in the direction of any published references dealing with this issue.
 
Regards,
 
    Jack
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the birding-aus mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU