4.2 Article

Selection of breeding habitat by the endangered Gouldian Finch (Erythrura gouldiae) at two spatial scales

Journal

EMU-AUSTRAL ORNITHOLOGY
Volume 111, Issue 4, Pages 304-311

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS AUSTRALIA
DOI: 10.1071/MU10064

Keywords

cavity nesting; conservation; habitat suitability; nest-site selection; resource limitation

Categories

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council (ARC)
  2. Macquarie University
  3. Save the Gouldian Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Gouldian Finch (Erythrura gouldiae) has experienced significant decline in population and the extent of its range over the past 40 years, which has generally been attributed to the availability of suitable foraging habitat. Less research, however, has investigated the suitability or availability of breeding habitat of the species. Gouldian Finches are obligate cavity nesters, and a recent study has shown that they select nest-sites non-randomly based on structural characteristics of the cavity. Here we investigated the relative effects of different environmental factors on the spatial distribution of Gouldian Finch nests at two different scales. At the broader, landscape scale (over similar to 60 km(2)), the strongest predictor of nesting density at a site was the abundance of suitable nest-sites. At the finer scale (similar to 1 km(2)), no single factor explained the variation in location of nest-sites. Gouldian Finches require areas of habitat characterised by high densities of suitable nest-sites (tree-cavities). Within these patches, individuals are potentially selecting nest-sites based on the morphometry of cavities rather than landscape features such as topography, vegetation or proximity to water. Our findings should be integrated with studies of feeding and habitat requirements in the non-breeding season, with the aim of constructing holistic and predictive habitat-suitability models for this endangered species.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available