Northern Goshawk Habitat: an Intersection of Science,Management, and Conservation

Abstract: We responded to the claim by Greenwald et al. (2005) that the management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the Southwestern United States (MRNG; Reynolds et al. 1992), a food web-based conservation plan that incorporated both northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) and multiple prey habitats, may be inadequate to protect goshawks. Greenwald et al. (2005) based this claim on their review of 12 telemetry studies of goshawk habitat selection and 5 nontelemetry studies of the effects of vegetation structure at the home range scale on goshawk nest occupancy and reproduction that appeared after the 1992 publication of the MRNG. Greenwald et al. (2005) summarized their review as showing that 1) goshawks were habitat specialists limited to forests with mature and old-growth structures including large trees, high canopy cover, multiple canopy layering, and abundant woody debris; 2) habitats were not selected on the basis of prey abundance and, therefore, managing for prey habitats diluted goshawk habitats; and 3) selection for openings, edges, and habitat diversity was inconclusive. Our review found that when the studies' respective authors pooled their radiotagged goshawks there were weak to strong selections for old forest structures. However, the studies also documented extensive variation in use of vegetation types and structures by individual goshawks; some avoided openings, edges, young forests, and old forests, whereas others selected for these characteristics. Additionally, by virtue of their wide geographic distribution, the studies showed that the focal populations themselves occurred in a variety of forest types, some with large structural differences. We found no evidence in Greenwald's et al. (2005) review that the MRNG are inadequate to protect goshawks. Rather, the studies reviewed by Greenwald et al. (2005), as well as many studies they missed, supported the MRNG. The suggestion of inadequacy by Greenwald et al. (2005) appeared rooted in misunderstandings of goshawk habitats described in the MRNG, a discounting of the extent of variation in vegetation structural and seral stages used by goshawks, a limited understanding of the extent to which prey limits goshawks, a failure to recognize the dynamic nature of forests, and an incomplete review of the literature. We believe the MRNG are adequate because they maximize the sustainable amount of mature and old forests in goshawk home ranges and specify the kinds and intermixtures of prey habitats within home ranges. Implementation of MRNG should reduce the likelihood that the availability of vegetation structures suited to goshawk nesting and foraging, as well as abundance and availability of prey, will limit goshawk nest occupancy and reproduction.     

Activity patterns of Queensland fruit flies (Bactrocera tryoni) are affected by both mass‐rearing and sterilization

Mass‐reared sterile tephritid flies released in sterile insect technique (SIT) programmes exhibit behaviour, physiology and longevity that often differ from their wild counterparts. In the present study, video recordings of flies in laboratory cages are used to determine whether the sequential processes of mass‐rearing and sterilization (using gamma radiation) that are integral to SIT affect general activity patterns of male and female Queensland fruit flies Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (Diptera: Tephritidae) (‘Q‐flies'). Compared with wild flies, mass‐reared flies exhibit a marked reduction in overall activity, and further reduction is found after sterilization. In terms of the frequency of activities, both fertile and sterile mass‐reared Q‐flies fly less often and exhibit more bouts of inactivity and grooming than wild Q‐flies. In addition, in terms of the duration of activities, fertile and sterile mass‐reared Q‐flies spend less time flying and more time walking, grooming and being inactive than wild Q‐flies. Although fertile and sterile mass‐reared flies are similar in other regards, sterile mass‐reared flies spend more time being inactive than fertile mass‐reared flies. These findings raise new questions about how changes in behaviour and activity levels may influence the performance of mass‐reared sterile Q‐flies in the field, as well as the physiological and metabolic processes that are involved. The frequency and duration of inactivity could provide a simple but powerful and biologically relevant test for quality in mass‐rearing and SIT programs.     

AGONISTIC AND SPACING BEHAVIOUR OF THE NOISY MINER MANORINA MELANOCEPHALA, A COMMUNALLY BREEDING HONEYEATER

The Noisy Miner is a communally breeding Australian honeyeater in which several males feed the offspring of a single female. They reside year-round in colonies, which may number several hundred birds. Miners within colonies unite to mob predators and are successful in defending their colony area against all other species of birds. The species is also highly aggressive intraspecifically. Individuals in a colony in southeastern Queensland were present most of the time in small activity spaces. Most resident males showed extensive overlap of activity space from one season to the next. Males did not defend their activity spaces, so that coalitions of birds occurred whose membership changed with place and time. Certain assemblages of males, termed coteries, were of a more permanent nature. Coterie members showed aggression towards outsiders at border regions. Females' activity spaces were much smaller and less variable than those of males. They showed almost no overlap and were probably maintained by mutual avoidance. Females tended to nest within the activity space they occupied shortly before the breeding period. Thus the spacing of males and females within a colony was quite different. Interactions, often agonistic, were frequent between individuals, between an individual and a group, and between groups. Encounters involving two males in which participants normally lived farther apart were more often agonistic than when participants lived more closely, and more aggression was seen within coteries than between them. When larger groups of birds had agonistic encounters, they more frequently involved birds from different coteries. Very little male-female aggression was seen. Interactions between males and females of different coteries were usually sexual, sometimes involving attempted copulation. Colony sizes are probably too large to permit individual recognition of fellow members, but this could be more likely in coteries. Many males in coteries are doubtless closely related, but outsiders frequently infiltrate them. Coteries are not reproductive units.