3.8 Article

Foraging behaviour and resource selection of the regent honeyeater Xanthomyza phrygia in northern New South Wales

Journal

EMU
Volume 100, Issue -, Pages 12-30

Publisher

ROYAL AUSTRALASIAN ORNITHOLOGISTS UNION
DOI: 10.1071/MU9837

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Foraging observations of the endangered Regent Honeyeater show that it has: a more generalised diet, and is less nectar-dependent, than previously suggested. On average, birds spent 60% of their foraging rime feeding on nectar from the flowers of Mugga Ironbark Eucalyptus sideroxylon, other eucalypts and three mistletoe species. Gleaning for lerp and hawking for insects comprised 35% and 5% of their foraging time. respectively. When nectar was scarce, however, Regent Honeyeaters spent up to 90%; of their foraging time feeding on lerp, honeydew and insects. A variety of different foods were collected from a broad range of tree and mistletoe species. Mugga Ironbarks were the most important foraging plants, with 31 other species also used for food. Regent Honeyeaters, typically, feed in the tallest trees in their environment: hence, adequate protection should he given to mature trees. Regent Honeyeaters showed significant variation in their foraging patterns between years, and at different times of the day. Breeding birds spent a greater proportion of their foraging time collecting nectar in 1996 than 1995. due to a higher eucalypt nectar availability in 1996. In both years nectar-feeding was highest in the morning and late afternoon and lowest in the middle of the day, when insect and lerp consumption peaked. The degree of flexibility in the foraging repertoire of the Regent Honeyeater is not unusual among Australian honeyeaters. although it indicates that different type of food and a broad range of plants, particularly mature, eucalypts, have to be protected and properly managed to save this declining woodland birds.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available