parakeet nesting success report DOC 5641292.pdf

1
PARAKEET NESTING SUCCESS WITH AND WITHOUT PREDATOR
CONTROL IN THE HURUNUI VALLEY, NORTH CANTERBURY
Marion Rhodes
Graeme Elliott
Josh Kemp
23 July 2008
INTRODUCTION
The orange fronted parakeet (Cyanoramphus malherbi) is one of New Zealand’s rarest forest
birds,  with  numbers  on  the  mainland  estimated  to  be  less  than  200  (van  Hal  and  Duncan
2004).   Apart from  two recently established island populations  they are known  from  only  3
inland  Canterbury  valleys,  the  South  Branch  of  the  Hurunui,  the  Hawdon  and  the  Poulter,
where intensive predator control is undertaken to protect them.  The predator control regimes
involve  the  poisoning  and  trapping  of  rats,  stoats  and  possums  but  their  effectiveness  at
protecting  orange-fronted  parakeets  has  yet  to  be  tested:  this  test  is  the  primary  aim  of  this
research.
Parakeet  abundance  is  difficult  to  monitor  using  counting  techniques  (Elliott  1998),  and
counting can only be used to assess the effectiveness of predator control over long periods of
Under The
time.  In  this  study  we  monitor  parakeet  nesting  success  to  give  a  quicker  indication  of  the
effect  of  predator  control.  Parakeets  are  particularly  vulnerable  to  predators  while  nesting
because they nest in holes in tree trunks. This habit prevents them seeing and escaping from
approaching predators (O'Donnell 1996). Parakeet nesting success is high only when predator
numbers  are  low  either  because  they  were  naturally  low  or  because    predator  control  was
been effective.
Because  of  the  scarcity  of  orange-fronted  parakeets,  any  nests  found  are  protected  with
Released
aluminium around the nest tree trunk (to prevent predators climbing) and extra traps around
the tree to  further  reduce  the risk of predation.  The success  rates of these protected orange-
fronted  parakeet  nests  give  no  indication  of  the  success  of  unprotected  nests.  We  therefore
Official Information Act
monitor  the  nesting  success  of  yellow-crowned  parakeets  (Cyanoramphus  auriceps)  as  a
surrogate.  Yellow-crowned  parakeets  are  more  abundant  in  the  study  area  and  their  nesting
habits  are  similar  to  those  of  orange-fronted  parakeets  (Kearvell,  2002).  It  is  not  clear  why
yellow-crowned parakeets are more abundant than orange-fronted parakeets but it is probably
due to their higher productivity rather than differences in their nesting sites.
In beech forests the effect of predators on parakeets varies with the stage in the beech mast
cycle.  Rats  reach  peak  densities  6-8  months  after  the  beech  seed  falls  in  March,  and  they
usually  decline  to  low  levels  within  another  6  months.  Stoats  reach  peak  densities  in  the
summer  following  a  beech  seedfall  and  their  abundance  declines  over  the  following  two
years.  Although  parakeets  suffer  high  rates  of  predation  when  stoats  are  abundant  this  is
offset by their prolific breeding during the beech seedfall (Elliott  et al. 1996a). Elliott et al.
(1996a)  concluded  that  predation  when  stoats  were  not  at  peak  densities  might  have  just  as
great an effect on parakeets as predation at peak  stoat densities. Because of this variation in

2
predator abundance the effectiveness of predator control in beech forests has to be assessed at
every stage in the beech mast cycle.

This report covers 3 seasons of yellow-crowned parakeet nest monitoring in the Hurunui:

January – April 2006 in the South Branch
A beech (Nothofagus spp.) flowering in the November 2005  had yet to cause increases in the
abundance  of  rats  and  stoats,  and  stoat  and  rat  trapping  and  poisoning  was  keeping  their
numbers low.

September 2006 – January 2007 in the South Branch
Rat  and  stoat  numbers  were  rising  during  this  period  due  to  the  beech  seeding  but  were
controlled in the South Branch by ongoing ground-based poisoning and trapping and an aerial
1080  drop  in  October.  Outside  the  predator  controlled  area  rat  numbers  rose  to  moderate
levels, and stoats to high levels.

November 2007 – April 2008 in both North and South branches.
Stoat numbers were low in the South Branch because of the trapping and poisoning, while in
the North  Branch,  stoats had risen to  high densities during the summer of 2006/07  and had
The
remained  high  thereafter.  Rat  numbers  in  both  valleys  had  declined  to  low  or  undetectable
levels following high abundance in the summer of 2006-07.
Act

The nest monitoring aimed to answer three questions

1.
Was predator control effective during and after a beech mast in the South  Branch of
Under
the Hurunui.

2.
Was stoat control necessary in the summer following peak stoat abundance caused by
a beech mast when stoat numbers are still elevated.

Information
3.
Were any parakeets poisoned during the 1080 drop in October 2006.

Released
METHODS

Study areas  Official
The South  and North  Branches  of the Hurunui  are steep-sided  glaciated  valleys  east  of the
main  divide  and  about  100km  north-west  of  Christchurch.  Both  valleys  are  clothed  with
mosaics of forests dominated by red beech (Nothofagus fusca) on the valley floors and lower
slopes and silver (N. menziesii) and mountain beech (N. solandri var. cliffortiodes) elsewhere.
The  lower  reaches  of  both  valleys  are  at  about  700m  above  sea  level.  The  North  Branch  is
closer to the main divide than the South Branch and this results in higher rainfall and some
minor vegetation differences.

Bird  species  assemblages  are  similar  in  the  two  valleys,  although  mohua  (Mohoua
ocrocephala)  have  not  been  recorded  in  the  North  Branch  since  2002,  and  orange  fronted
parakeet sightings are rare.

Stoats and possums have been trapped and poisoned in the South Branch since 1995 and rats
since 2003, but no predator control has been undertaken in the North Branch.

3

Finding and monitoring parakeet nests
We  found  nests  by  watching  adult  parakeets  for  “suspicious  behaviour”  –  birds  entering  or
exiting  holes,  soft  chattering  below  the  canopy  or  near  holes,    and  males  feeding  females.
When a suspect nest was located, the tree was climbed using rope and ascenders to see if eggs
or chicks were present.  The monitoring period was from the first check where the cavity was
confirmed to be in use for nesting purposes (i.e. tree climbed and eggs or chicks seen), until
the nest failed or the brood reached an estimated age of 32 days.  Brood age was estimated
once  nestlings  had  hatched,  using  a  set  of  reference  photos  of  captive  parakeet  chicks  of
known age. Where a brood had a large age disparity (for example an apparent age difference
of 8 to 10 days between the oldest and youngest chick in a large brood was not uncommon)
the 32-day cut-off point was when the midrange of the brood reached 32 days (for example
an estimated brood age of 28-36 days). After a nest was confirmed to be in use by climbing, it
was  sometimes  checked  by  observation  from  the  ground  and  if  no  activity  was  observed
during  a  ground  check,  the  tree  was  subsequently  climbed.  Nests  were  checked  at  least
fortnightly,  until  they  fledged  or  failed,  with  a  check  just  before  the  32-day  cut-off.  We
climbed all the nests again  as  soon  as possible  after their  expected  fledge date  to check  for
any obvious predation events outside of the monitoring period, and to measure  and record a
The
description of the nest.

Act
We did not include data from nests more than 32 days after hatching in our analysis. This is
because it is difficult to interpret the fate of mature broods.  We could be confident that nests
found empty before 32 days had failed, but after 32 days nests found empty could either have
fledged or failed, since predators do not always leave sign (Brown et al, 1998), and recently
Under
fledged chicks often leave the vicinity of the nest (Elliott et al. 1996a).

When a nest was confirmed active a fur snag was placed around the trunk of the nest tree and
any adjacent trees that might provide easy alternative access to the nest cavity. The fur snag
consisted  of  100mm  galvanised  nails  placed  at  intervals  around  the  trunk,  with  string  or
Information
rubber bands encircling the tree attached to the heads of the nails.  The string and nails were
then  painted  with  a  thin  coat  of  a  rat  and  mice  trapping  glue  (Trapper®,  made  by  Bell
Laboratories).    We  recoated  the  glue  as  necessary  to  maintain  stickiness.  These  “sticky
Released
bands” were checked for predator hairs at every nest check.  Any hairs found were collected
for identification.  Possum fur is easily recognised by its frizzy, wool-like appearance; other
hairs were sent for DNA testing at the Landcare Research lab in East Tamaki.  Sticky bands
Official
were removed at each nest’s final nest check of the season.

Monitoring periods
Nests were monitored in what was probably the second half of the breeding season in early
2006.  There had been a beech mast in the autumn of 2005 and parakeets had probably been
breeding through the winter and spring of 2005 as well between January and April of 2006.
There was another beech mast  in  autumn 2006  and birds nested in  the winter and spring of
2006  and  we  monitored  nests  from  mid  August  2006  until  the  end  of  the  year,  after  which
nesting all but stopped. In our most recent season  (Nov 2007 – March 2008) we looked for
nests in  late November  and through December,  with  very little success  – the few we found
were either close to  fledging, or at  the pre-lay stage and didn’t become active until January
2008. The nesting period monitored was therefore over the first 3 months of 2008.

4
Estimating nest survival

We  estimated  nest  survival  using  the  methods  of  Dinsmore  et.al.  (2002)  implemented  in
program Mark (White & Burnham, 1999). This method removes bias caused by the fact that
failed nests are invariably under-represented in nest survival studies because many nests fail
before they are found. It estimates daily nest survival (essentially the number of failure events
divided by the number of days over which nests were monitored) and nest survival rates are
then  estimated  as  the  daily  nest  survival  raised  to  the  power  of  the  number  of  days  from
laying to fledging, which is about 60.

When  estimating  nest  survival  we  did  not  differentiate  between  nests  that  failed  due  to
predation and nests that failed for other reasons.  Often when there is no sign of predation at a
failed nest we assume it has simply been abandoned by the parents for some reason, however
it is possible that one or both of the parents have been caught by predators while away from
the nest.

Initially we simply estimated nesting success at the five combinations of site and season for
which  we  had  data,  but  we  also  examined  the  possible  effect  of  two  covariates  on  nesting
success:
The

1.
Stage in season(Number of days since the start of the nesting season).  Act
During beech mast years seed runs out during the season and this might affect nesting
success.

2.
Nest age (Number of days since first egg was laid).
Under

As nests age they become smellier and nestlings become noisier, possibly increasing
the likelihood of predation.

We  compared  models  with  and  without  combinations  of  the  above  covariates  and  used
corrected  AIC values (Burnham & Anderson, 2002) to choose the model best supported by
Information
the data.

We compared nest survival estimates from this study with those from the Eglinton Valley in
Released
the early 1990s, when there were very few rats and stoats in the forest and estimated nesting
success  was  71%.    Survival  estimates  similar  to,  or  greater  than  those  in  the  Eglinton  we
regard as being "good" and estimates lower than in the Eglinton indicating that the predator
Official
control was probably unsuccessful.

Mortality during the 1080 drop

Any parakeet nests found before the 1080 was dropped in the South Branch of the Hurunui in
October 2006 were checked immediately before the 1080 was dropped and 2 or three times in
the  2  weeks  following  the  drop.  We  assumed  that  both  adults  were  still  alive  at  nests  that
were  still  being  incubated  or  still  had  live  chicks  two  weeks  after  the  1080  drop.  We  spent
extra time watching any nests that failed during the period of the 1080 drop in an attempt to
determine  whether  any  of  the  adults  were  still  alive.  The  contents  of  any  nests  that  failed
were assayed for 1080.

5
Predator monitoring and control

The predator control carried out in the South Branch of the Hurunui during the 3 seasons we
monitored parakeets is shown in Table 1. The main difference between the first and second
seasons was the advent of the 1080 drop early in the second season.  The 07/08 season had
reduced  predator  control  as  there  had  been  no  beech  mast  and  predator  numbers  were
expected to be low.

The 2006 aerial 1080 drop in the South Branch of the Hurunui comprised a 2kg per ha drop
of non toxic, 6g, pre-feed baits lured with cinnamon which was undertaken on 14 September
2006, followed by a 5kg per ha drop of 6g baits containing 0.15% 1080, lured with cinnamon.

Table 1. Predator control in South Branch Hurunui during parakeet monitoring periods.

Trapping
Poisoning
Jan-Mar 2006  27km of stoat trap lines along the valley  55km  of  rodent  bait  stations

floor  bush  edge  with  alternating  double  (yellow
subs)
containing
The
and  single  set  Fenn  traps  at  50m  brodifacoum.    50m  intervals
Act
intervals baited with pricked eggs. A 50  between  stations  with  stations
×  150m  grid of rat  traps  covering about  placed midway between stoat and
470 ha in the central part of the valley.
rat traps.

Under
Aug 2006 -
As  above,  but  all  traps  baited  with  As  above,  with  1080  aerially
Jan 2007
chocolate buttons and pricked eggs.
sown  over  2515ha  in  early
October.

Nov 2007 -
27km stoat trap line and 12.8km rat trap  55km
rodent
bait
stations
Information
April 2008
lines  run  (upper  lines  only,  300m  from  containing  brodifacoum.    Poison
the  stoat  line).    All  traps  baited  with  removed from stations in January
pricked  eggs  only;  traps  checked
Released
monthly.

The North Branch of the Hurunui has had neither rat nor stoat control but has had occasional
Official
localised  possum  control.    Possum  control  was  last  undertaken  at  the  end  of  2006  when
Feratox (cyanide) capsules were placed in bait stations at 100m spacing along the bush edge
on both sides of the valley.

Predator  monitoring  is  usually  carried  out  quarterly,  with  tracking  tunnels  run  in  February,
May, August and September.  Fifteen lines of 10 tunnels in both the North and South Branch
are baited overnight with peanut butter to track rodents, and then  alternate tunnels on ten of
these lines in each valley are baited for 3 nights with rabbit meat to track mustelids. However
since  the  start  of  2008,  mustelid  monitoring  is  run  in  January,  February,  August  and
November, to coincide more closely with the expected population peaks, and the number of
rat  monitoring  lines  in  the  South  Branch  treatment  area  has  increased  to  twenty.    From
August 2006 to March 2007 rat surveys were carried out monthly in the South Branch.

RESULTS

6

Nesting success

Nesting  successes  and  the  causes  of  nest  failure  are  summarised  in  Table  2  and  detailed  in
Appendices 1-4.

Table 2.
Nesting  success  and  the  causes  of  nest  failure  in  the  North  (NB)  and  South
Branches  (SB)  of  the  Hurunui  between  2006  and  2008.  Apparent  nesting  success  is  the
number of nests successful divided by the number of nests observed and is a biased estimate
of  actual  nesting  success.  Estimated  nesting  success  is  an  unbiased  estimate  of  nesting
success calculated using the methods of Dinsmore et.al. (2002).  *2006.5 refers to nests in the
second half of 2006.

)

(%

(%)

tor
cess
ed
cess
eda

rv
suc
al (%)
d
suc
tur

nt
(%)

The
n
re

obse
re
mate
ed unknown
(%)
he
he
sts
ys
ed na
Act
sti
ail
il
t (%)
W
W
Ne
Da
E
Appa
F
fa
unknown pr
stoat
ra
possum
2006
SB
18  619
0.90  0.94

1 (6)
2006.5*  SB
29  806
0.70  0.83  1 (3.4)
2 (7)
1 (3)
1 (3)

Under
2008
SB
22  954
0.76  0.68
1 (5)
2 (9)
2 (9)  1 (5)
1 (5)
2008
NB
10  234
0.18  0.40
2 (20)
1 (10)  3 (30)
1 (10)

Of the fourteen nests that we know were depredated over the three seasons, the predator was
able to  be identified from  fur on the sticky bands on  eight  occasions.  Of the remaining six
Information
predation  events  possum  DNA  was  identified  from  swabs  taken  from  the  freshly  dead
carcasses  at  one  nest;  both  possum  and  stoat  fur were  found  on  the  sticky  bands  at  another
nest found empty at least 12 days before it should have fledged; three nests were found empty
Released
before they should have  fledged but  no predation sign  was found,  and we found  a  headless
female parakeet and broken eggshells but were not able to identify the predator at one nest.
In 62 percent of cases where sticky bands were in use, they helped us identify the predator.
Official

We also collected hair off the fur snags of a number of nests that were still in use; some of
these  were  subsequently  eaten,  others  were  successful.  Appendix  5  shows  all  nests  where
hairs  were  collected  during  the  2008  season  (this  information  is  not  available  from  the
previous seasons).  It is interesting to note that the two nests that were still going after stoat
hair was collected from the sticky bands (S313 and N113) were subsequently eaten by stoats.

Also of interest is the difference in synchronicity between the North and South Hurunui last
season.  In  the  South  Branch  nesting  activity  was  highly  synchronous;  all  except  one  of  the
twenty-five  nests  found  there  this  season  had  their  first  egg  laid  during  a  nineteen  day
window, between 14 Jan and 2 Feb (Appendix 3). In contrast, only six of the fourteen nests
found in the North Branch were laid during a twelve day period, from 3 to 15 January, with
the  remaining  eight  nests  were  laid  between  late  September  2007  and  mid  Feb  2008
(Appendix 4).

7

Figure 1 shows the nesting success rates recorded in this study and compares them with those
recorded in the Eglinton in the 1990s.  The best model of nesting success  (Table 3) grouped
the nesting successes from the South Branch of the Hurunui with those from the Eglinton.

1.0
0.91
0.8
0.71
0.72
0.73
l
va 0.6
0.4
Nest survi
0.20
0.2
The
0.0
Act
Eglinton
South Branch
South Branch
South Branch
North Branch
2006
late 2006
2008
2008

Figure 1.
Nesting success of yellow-crowned parakeets in the North and South Branches
Under
of the Hurunui Valley between 2006 and 2008 and in the Eglinton in the 1990s. Error bars are
95% confidence intervals.

Table 3.
Corrected AIC values for 4 different models of parakeet nesting success.

Information
Model
AICc
Number of parameters
Deviance
Eglinton and South Branch the same - North Branch
Released
different
122.36
2
118.35
All places and seasons different
126.41
5
116.40
All places and seasons the same
130.01
1
128.01
Official
South Branch and North Branch the same –
Eglinton different
132.001
2
127.997

Mortality during the 1080 drop

Fifteen parakeet  nests were monitored during the 1080 operation, and all but  one continued
successfully after the poison drop on 6 October 2007. Dead chicks from the failed nest were
found to have traces of 1080 in their tissues and the female was not seen after the nest failed,
though  the  male  was.  This  suggests  a  mortality  rate  of  parakeets  of  3.3%  with  95%
confidence intervals from 0.1-17%.

At  about  the  same  time  seven  yellow-crowned  parakeets  nests  were  monitored  during  a
similar 1080 drop in the Dart Valley in west Otago. The Dart operation differed only in that
3kg  per  ha  of  pre-feed  and  3kg  per  ha  of  toxic  bait  was  applied.  Two  yellow-crowned

8
parakeets  were  found  dead  with  1080  in  their  tissues  just  after  the  1080  drop  in  the  Dart
Valley,  but  all  monitored  nests  were  successful.  The  combined  estimate  of  mortality  of
nesting parakeets from both 1080 drops was 2.27% (95% confidence interval 0.1 - 12%).

Predator Numbers

Figures 2 and  3 show predator  indices in the  North and  South  Branch  during  the 3 seasons
nests  were  monitored.    Numbers  of  both  rats  and  stoats  were  low  throughout  in  the  South
Branch. In the North Branch no rats were tracked during the season that we monitored nests,
but stoats were tracked at 100%.

18
16
14
12
The
%)
(
Act
10
king
rac
8
t
South Branch
Rat
North Branch
Under
6
4
2
Information
0
Jan-06
Apr-06
Jul-06
Oct-06 Feb-07 May-07 Aug-07 Dec-07 Mar-08 Jun-08 Sep-08
Released
Figure 2.
Rat tracking rates in the North and South Branches of the Hurunui.

Official

9
120
100
North branch
South branch
80
60
40
20
0
The
Jan-06
Apr-06
Jul-06
Oct-06
Feb-07
May-07
Aug-07
Dec-07
Mar-08
Jun-08
Act

Figure 3.
Stoat tracking rates in the North and South Branches of the Hurunui.

Under
Effects of stage in season and age

The best model of nesting success included terms for both stage in season and age, and both
had a negative effect on nesting success, i.e., nests late in the season were less successful than
nests early in the season, and old nests (nests with near fledging chicks) were less successful
Information
than nests with eggs or small chicks.

DISCUSSION
Released

The  best  model  of  parakeet  nesting  success  suggests  that  we  might  reasonably  regard  the
nesting successes that we observed in the five combinations of site and season as falling into
Official
two groups; "high" and "low". Since two of the high nesting successes occurred when rat and
stoat  numbers  were  very  low,  it  is  also  reasonable  to  assume  that  "high"  nesting  success  is
sufficient to support a healthy parakeet population.

Nesting success was high in the Eglinton and the South Branch of the Hurunui in early 2006
when stoat and rat numbers were naturally low and when there was rat poison in bait stations
in the South Branch. This implies either that the rat and stoat control was successful or that it
was unnecessary.

Nesting success was also high in the South Branch in late 2006 when rat and stoat numbers
were  high  in  untreated  areas  but  low  in  the  South  Branch.  This  suggests  that  the  predator
control (traps  for stoats,  poison in bait stations in combination with aerial 1080 for rats and
stoats) was necessary and reduced stoat and rat densities to acceptable levels. Nesting success
in the South Branch was also high in 2008 while it was very low in the North Branch. Stoat

10
numbers  were  very  high  in  the  North  Branch  in  2008  and  would  presumably  have  been
similarly high in the South Branch if it had not been for the predator control. This suggests
that  the  stoat  control  was  necessary  in  the  South  Branch  in  2008  and  that  it  reduced  stoat
density to an acceptable level. This control was achieved using traps as well as poison (laid
primarily for rats but which also kills stoats through secondary poisoning).

Although  nesting  success  rates  in  predator  controlled  areas  appear  acceptable,  the  predator
control was not perfect. Stoat, rat and possum predation was detected at nests in every season,
even  in  those  when  nesting  success  was  high  (Table  2).  For  critically  endangered  species,
such as the orange-fronted parakeet, such predation is undesirable, but this study provides no
guide as to whether any increase in predator control effort would be cost-effective.

Some  parakeets  are  killed  by  aerial  1080  poison  of  the  type  used  in  the  Dart  and  Hurunui
Valleys, but  given the rate of nest predation observed when no predator control was carried
out  in  the  North  Branch  of  the  Hurunui,  the  net  effect  of  a  predator  control  regime  that
includes aerial 1080 is undoubtedly positive.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The

Thanks  to  Robyn  Blyth,  Jason  van  de  Wetering,  Maddie  Charlton,  Joris  Tinnemans,  and
Act
Kirsty  Moran  who  helped  with  the  nest  monitoring,  and  staff  from  the  Waimakariri  Area
office  who  undertook  the  predator  control  and  monitoring  and  shared  their  huts  and  good
times.

Under

REFERENCES

Brown,  K.,  Moller,  H.,  Innes,  J.  &  Jansen,  P.  1998.  Identifying  predators  at  nests  of  small
birds in a New Zealand forest. Ibis 140:274-279.
Information

Burnham, K.P.; Anderson, D.R. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical
information-theoretic approach. Springer Verlag, New York.
Released

Dinsmore, S.J.; Knopf, F.; White, G.C. 2002. Advanced techniques for modeling avian nest
survival. Ecology 83:3 476-3488.
Official

Elliott,  G.  1998.  Monitoring  yellow-crowned  parakeets.  Science  for  Conservation:  75.
Department of Conservation, Wellington.

Elliott,  G.,  Dilks,  P.  &  O’Donnell,  C.  1996a.  The  ecology  of  yellow-crowned  parakeets
(Cyanoramphus  auriceps)  in  Nothofagus  forest  in  Fiordland,  New  Zealand.  New  Zealand
Journal of Zoology 23: 249-265.

Elliott,  G.,  Dilks,  P.  &  O’Donnell,  C.  1996b.  Nest  site  selection  by  mohua  and  yellow-
crowned  parakeets  in  beech  forest  in  Fiordland,  New  Zealand.  New  Zealand  Journal  of
Zoology 23: 267-278.

Kearvell,  J.  2002.  Nest  sites  of  sympatric  orange-fronted  (Cyanoramphus  malherbi)  and
yellow-crowned parakeets (C. auriceps). Notornis 49: 261-263.

11

O'Donnell,  C.F.J.  1996.  Predators  and  the  decline  of  New  Zealand  forest  birds:  an
introduction  to  the  hole-nesting  bird  and  predator  programme.  New  Zealand  Journal  of
Zoology 23: 213-219.

van  Hal,  J.  and  Duncan,  P.  2004.  Orange-fronted  Parakeet  (Cyanoramphus  malherbi)  Field
Report 2003-2004. Internal report for the Department of Conservation CHCCO-65159.

White, G.C.; Burnham, K.P. 1999. Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of
marked animals. Bird Study 46 Supplement:120-138.

The

Act

Under
Information
Released
Official

12
APPENDIX 1: Nests found in South Branch Hurunui Jan-Feb 2006

Nest
Date
Stage found
Lay date 1st
Outcome
# days
I.D.
found
egg (approx)
exposure
58
05/01/06
Prelay
10/01/06
Assume success
58
101
06/01/06
Eggs
03/01/06
Assume success
43
102
07/01/06
Eggs
05/01/06
Assume success
41
103
07/01/06
Prelay
16/01/06
Assume success
32
104
07/01/06
Eggs
02/01/06
Assume success
40
64
09/01/06
Prelay
16/01/06
Assume success
25
105
09/01/06
Eggs
01/01/06
Assume success
45
106
10/01/06
Prelay
19/01/06
Assume success
48
107
11/01/06
Prelay
?
Unknown, too deep to see
0
108
22/01/06
Eggs
Pre14/01/06
Eaten, possum
36
110
02/02/06
Eggs
11/01/06
Assume success
36
111
02/02/06
Prelay
07/02/06
Unknown (last visit 26days)
48
113
16/02/06
10 day chicks
17/01/06
Assume success
20
114
16/02/06
Prelay
03/03/06
Unknown (last visit eggs)
19
The
115
16/02/06
Prelay
21/02/06
Unknown (last visit12days)
32
Act
116
17/02/06
Prelay
21/02/06
Unknown (last visit12days)
32
117
18/02/06
Eggs
12/02/06
Unknown (last visit19days)
37
119
21/02/06
Prelay
21/01/06
Assume success
0
120
21/02/06
16 day chicks
14/01/06
Assume success
12
Under
121
21/02/06
Eggs
15/02/06
Unknown, too deep to see
0
122
23/02/06
16 day chicks
18/01/06
Assume success
15
123
23/02/06
26 day chicks
08/01/06
Assume success
0

Information
Released
Official

13

APPENDIX 2: Nests found in South Branch Hurunui Aug 2006-Jan 2007 (2006.5)

Nest
Date
Stage found
Laydate 1st
Outcome
# days
I.D.
found
egg (approx)
exposure
201
18/08/06  Eggs
16/08/06
Assume success
48
202
19/08/06  Prelay
29/08/06
Assume success
30
203
24/08/06  12 day chicks  20/07/06
Assume success
25
204
24/08/06  18 day chicks  14/07/06
Assume success
0
123.2
07/09/06  25 day chicks  19/07/06
Assume success
7
205
07/09/06  20 day chicks  25/07/06
Assume success
11
36a
08/09/06  Eggs
30/08/06
Success
32
216
08/09/06  14 day chicks  01/08/06
Assume success
9
206
09/09/06  Eggs
03/09/06
Eaten,unidentified predator
42
207
10/09/06  Eggs
31/08/06
Assume success
29
208
17/09/06  Laying
17/08/06
Assume success
47
209
20/09/06  Laying
19/09/06
Assume success
36
210
20/09/06  Chicks
15/08/06
Assume success
16
The
211
13/09/06  Prelay
29/09/06
Assume success
48
Act
212
20/09/06  Eggs
12/09/06
Success
41
213
21/09/06  Eggs
05/09/06
Failed, non-predation
5
217
23/09/06  unknown
?
Survived 1080
0
218
12/09/06  Laying
11/09/06
Assume success
48
117.2
20/09/06  Prelay
?
Uncertain
0
Under
49.2
25/09/06  Eggs
11/09/06
Assume success
33
215
02/10/06  Eggs
18/09/06
Assume success
41
220
07/10/06  13 day chicks  15/09/06
Assume success
0
58.3
11/10/06  Eggs
07/10/06
Failed, non-predation
37
221
11/10/06  Prelay
16/10/06
Assume success
36
Information
222
31/10/06  Eggs
08/11/06
Assume success
19
223
31/10/06  Eggs
26/10/06
Failed, non-predation
10
224
03/11/06  Laying
01/11/06
Assume success
36
Released
226
05/11/06  Prelay
08/11/06
Assume success
15
227
11/11/06  Eggs
08/11/06
Assume success
27
228
23/11/06  2 day chicks
27/10/06
Assume success
17
Official
229
27/11/06  Eggs
22/11/06
Assume success
29
230
21/11/06  Eggs
01/11/06
Assume success
0
233
05/01/07  Eggs
16/12/06
Failed,cause unknown
25
234
08/01/07  14 day chicks  03/12/06
Eaten, stoat?
7

14

APPENDIX 3: Nests found in South Branch Hurunui Dec 2007 – Feb 2008

Nest
Date
Stage found
Lay date 1st
Outcome
# days
I.D.
found
egg (approx)
exposure
S301
09/12/07  10 day chicks
04/11/07
Failed, non-predation
0
S302
19/12/07  Prelay
17/01/08
Assume success
57
S58
19/12/07  Prelay
14/01/08
Assume success
58
S303
05/01/08  Prelay
21/01/08
Assume success
60
S301.2  09/01/08  Prelay
21/01/08
Eaten, unidentified predator
0
S305
10/01/08  Prelay
29/01/08
Failed, non-predation
0
S307
20/01/08  Laying
18/01/08
Eaten, stoat (post-obs)
56
S308
20/01/08  Laying
17/01/08
Assume success
53
S309
20/01/08  Laying
19/01/08
Eaten, ship rat
11
S310
21/01/08  Laying
20/01/08
Assume success
65
S311
21/01/08  Prelay
02/02/08
Assume success
57
S312
21/01/08  Laying
17/01/08
Success
56
S313
23/01/08  Laying
22/01/08
Eaten, stoat (post-obs)
57
The
S314
23/01/08  Laying
17/01/08
Assume success
54
Act
S315
24/01/08  Laying
19/01/08
Assume success
54
S316
30/01/08  Incubating
23/01/08
Eaten, unidentified predator
38
S317
31/01/08  Laying
29/01/08
Failed, non-predation
26
S318
01/02/08  Laying
30/01/08
Assume success
54
S105
05/02/08  Incubating
17/01/08
Eaten, possum
27
Under
S319
05/02/08  Incubating
25/01/08
Outcome unknown
42
S320
19/02/08  4 day chicks
20/01/08
Outcome unknown
23
S321
19/02/08  3 day chicks
21/01/08
Assume success
27
S322
19/02/08  1 day chicks
23/01/08
Assume success
28
S324
20/02/08  1 day chicks
22/01/08
Assume success
35
Information
S325
29/02/08  10 day chicks
26/01/08
Failed, don't know why
16

Released

Official

15

APPENDIX 4: Nests found in the North branch of the Hurunui Nov 07-Feb 08

Nest
Date
Stage found
Lay date 1st
Outcome
# days
I.D.
found
egg (approx)
exposure
N101
25/11/07
35 day chicks
29/09/07
Assume success
0
N102
28/11/07
40 day chicks
27/09/07
Assume success
0
N103
18/01/08
36 day chicks
20/10/07
Assume success
0
N104
19/01/08
13 day chicks
14/12/07
Assume success
17
N105
20/01/08
Incubating
?
Failed, non-predation
6
N106
21/01/08
Incubating
10/01/08
Assume success
45
N107
24/01/08
Incubating
06/01/08
Eaten, stoat
30
N108
01/02/08
Laying
28/01/08
Assume success
48
N109
03/02/08
1 day chicks
08/01/08
Assume success
32
N110
02/02/08
Prelay
13/02/08
Failed, non-predation
0
N111
07/02/08
1 day chicks
15/01/08
Eaten, possum or stoat
19
N112
15/02/08
Laying
13/02/08
Eaten, unidentified predator
26
N113
19/02/08
18 day chicks
11/01/08
Eaten, stoat
7
N114
21/02/08
25 day chicks
03/01/08
Eaten, stoat
4
The Act

Under

Information

Released

Official

16

APPENDIX 5: Predator hairs collected from nest trees 2008, and final nest outcome.

Nest
Final
Nest  contents  at  final  Hairs
found
on  Comments.
I.D.
check
check
stickies
date
S307
01/04/08
Broken  eggshells  and  lots  Stoat hair 01/04/08
Eaten  (post cutoff)
of feathers
S309
17/02/08
Feathers
and
broken  Ship rat 17/02/08
Eaten
eggshells
S313
31/03/08
Lots
of
feathers
and  Possum  fur  01/02/08;  Nest  still  going  03/03/08.  Eaten
possible carcass
Stoat  hair  03/03/08;  31/03/08 (post cutoff)
Stoat hair 31/03/08
S314
31/03/08
Nest empty
Possum fur 01/02/08
Success assumed
S317
04/03/08
2  intact  eggs  &  3  intact  Possum fur 14/02/08
Still  going  when  possum  fur
chicks  of  varying  age  and
found.
Assumed  abandoned
state of decay
04/03/08.
S319
01/04/08
Nest empty
Stoat hair 01/04/08
Success  at  32d.    Final  fate
uncertain
(last
check
after
expected fledge date)
S320
01/04/08
Could
not
climb.
No  Stoat hair 01/04/08
Success  at  32d.    Final  fate
activity at nest in 80min
unknown.  Should have fledged by
The
01/04/08.
S324
02/04/08
Nest empty
Possum fur 02/04/08
Hole  deemed  “not  possumable”
Act
(too deep).  Assume success
S325
26/03/08
A few feathers
Unidentified
hair  Success  at  32  days.    Final  fate
26/03/08.    No  DNA  uncertain.  Chicks  should  have
retrieved  at testing
been 36-40d on 26/03/08.
N104  17/02/08
Nest empty
Stoat  fur  &  parakeet  2  of  3  chicks  seen  on  the  ground
Under
feathers 17/02/08
on  07/02/08,  one  heard  still  on
nest.    The  two  on  the  ground
looked about 34 days  – very  early
fledge.
N107  29/02/08
Adult  parakeet  body  and  Stoat hair 29/02/08
Eaten
head, dead chicks
Information
N108  19/03/08
1  chick  c.30  days  and  7  Possum fur 15/02/08
Success  to  cutoff  (19/03/08);  not
eggs
monitored past this date.
N110  19/02/08
4 cold eggs
Possum fur 19/02/08
Abandoned
Released
N111  02/03/08
Nest empty
Possum  fur  and  stoat  Eaten;  chicks  should  have  been
hair 02/03/08
23days at this check
N113  29/02/08
Nest empty
Stoat  hair  21/02/08;  Nest  still  going  21/02/08.  Eaten
stoat hair 29/02/08
29/02/08; chicks should have been
Official
28  days  at  this  check.    Stoat  seen
by cavity 29/02/08
N114  28/02/08
Nest empty
Stoat hair 28/02/08
Eaten;  chicks  should  have  been

31-33 days at this check.