Nest protection for threatened birds 99


impacts and return on investment of the other interventions (Williams et al., 2011). The modest improvements in recruitment rates under


realistic detection scenarios and best estimates for nest suc- cess prompted broader discussion amongst workshop participants about other ideas, including increased invest- ment and effort in the detection of birds, a wider explo- ration of audible and subaudible acoustic control to displace mammalian and (possibly) avian predators, and the use of chemical/acoustic misinformation techniques to deter predators. Additionally, fire, fuel and landscape management should form part of the overall strategy for the recovery of the species. During extreme weather events, removing nestlings (or


parents and nestlings) from the wild to avoid their death may be warranted. However, this type of intervention would have significant logistical implications (e.g. cost, and time to hand-rear birds) and the risk of potential behavioural modifications if nestlings were to be removed from their parents. However, this option may need to be considered if the species continues to exhibit poor nest success in the wild and/or if conditions deteriorate, and it may be appropriate to remove breeding pairs and then later translocate fledglings/adults within the release programme. Monitoring of the effectiveness and performance of any intervention will be required (Possingham et al., 2001). This would provide evidence for whether the intervention or action should continue. In the breeding season of 2023 and 2024, there was a range of nest protection measures implemented to monitor birds and predators. In addition, we are currently investigating the use of ultrasonic deter- rents to temporarily displace squirrel/sugar gliders from regent honeyeater nests, and research how mammalian predators use smell to find avian prey. Our findings from these actions will be published in due course. Conservation management of the regent honeyeater


over the next 5 years will be critical to the persistence of the species, and having a process for prioritizing actions when there is a high degree of both urgency and uncertainty is important. Nest protection is a crucial pathway for ar- resting decline in regent honeyeaters (Heinsohn et al., 2022). Our study suggests that, with parallel investment in improved nest detection, it is possible that nest protec- tion can provide a pathway for recovery of this species.


Acknowledgements We acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of the lands on which this research was conducted and recognize their care of and connection to Country. We thank R. Crates for his contribution to the discussion on regent honeyeaters and those who participated in the brainstorming, pre-elicitation, expert elicitation and future planning meetings. The decision-making workshops were supported by an Environmental Restoration Fund Grant issued by the Australian Government’s Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment and the Australian Government’s Environment


Restoration Fund. We also acknowledge funding from the Winifred Violet Scott Charitable Trust in support of this research.


Author contributions Project conception, data collection: JST, DI; decision analysis: TW; idea development, conclusions, writing: all authors.


Conflicts of interest None


Ethical standards As no animals were used in this research, no specific ethical approval or licencing were required, and we other- wise abided by the Oryx guidelines on ethical standards.


Data availability Data is available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.


References


BEDFORD,T.&COOKE, R.M. (2001) MathematicalTools for Probabilistic Risk Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.


BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2018) Anthochaera phrygia.In The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018. dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK. 2018-2.RLTS.T22704415A130992272.en.


BOLAM, F.C., GRAINGER, M.J., MENGERSEN, K.L., STEWART, G.B., SUTHERLAND,W.J., RUNGE, M.C. & MCGOWAN, P.J.K. (2019) Using the value of information to improve conservation decision making. Biological Reviews, 94, 629–647.


BURGMAN, M.A. (2016) Trusting Judgements: How to Get the Best Out of Experts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.


BURGMAN, M.A.,CARR, A.,GODDEN, L.,GREGORY, R.,MCBRIDE, M., FLANDER,L.&MAGUIRE,L. (2011) Redefining expertise and improving ecological judgment. Conservation Letters, 4, 81–87.


CANESSA, S., TAYLOR, G., CLARKE, R.H., INGWERSEN, D., VANDERSTEEN,J.&EWEN, J.G. (2020) Risk aversion and uncertainty create a conundrum for planning recovery of a Critically Endangered species. Conservation Science and Practice, 2,e138.


CAREY, J.M. & BURGMAN, M.A. (2008) Linguistic uncertainty in qualitative risk analysis and how to minimize it. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1128, 13–17.


COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (2014) Listing advice – Aggressive exclusion of birds from potential woodland and forest habitat by over-abundant noisy miners. environment.gov.au/biodiversity/ threatened/key-threatening-processes/overabundant-noisy-miners [accessed December 2024].


CONROY, M.J. & PETERSON, J.T. (2013) Decision Making in Natural Resource Management: A Structured, Adaptive Approach. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.


CRATES, R., MCDONALD, P.G., MELTON, C.B., MARON, M., INGWERSEN, D., MOWAT, E. et al. (2023) Towards effective management of an overabundant native bird: the noisy miner. Conservation Science and Practice, 5,e12875.


CRATES, R., OLAH, G., ADAMSKI, M., AITKEN, N., BANKS, S., INGWERSEN, D. et al. (2019a) Genomic impact of severe population decline in a nomadic songbird. PLOS One, 14,e0223953.


CRATES, R., RAYNER, L., STOJANOVIC, D., SCHEELE, B.C., ROFF, A., MACKENZIE,J. & HEINSOHN,R. (2022) Poor-quality monitoring data underestimate the impact of Australia’s megafires on a Critically Endangered songbird. Diversity and Distributions, 28, 506–514.


CRATES, R., RAYNER, L., STOJANOVIC, D.,WEBB, M., TERAUDS,A.& HEINSOHN,R. (2019b) Contemporary breeding biology of Critically Endangered regent honeyeaters: implications for conservation. Ibis, 161, 521–532.


Oryx, 2025, 59(1), 91–100 © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605324000942


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140