On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:53:57AM +1000, Carl Clifford wrote: > There is a piece in the Sydney Morning Herald’s web site regarding > a study on Common Myna and their effects on native bird species. > http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/pushy-myna-birds-a-major-nest-pest-20120812-242v2.html > The study was based partly on data collected by the Canberra > Ornithologist’s Group. Now that we know they are a pest, it would > be nice to come up with a control measure – that”s the rub.
As Philip suggests its worth reading the paper rather than the SMH piece: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0040622 The SMH article contains errors – Crimson Rosella & Sulphur-crested Cockatoo have increased, not decreased, in Canberra, the paper claims that their model shows mynahs have slowed this increase.
I haven’t read in detail Philip’s criticisms of their use of GBS data but even if you accept it I think this modelling tells you very little.
Their model is equivocal about mynah impact on cavity nesting birds showing positive effects for 3 species and negative effects for 4 species. The model outputs don’t appear to be convincing evidence of impact on cavity nesters collectively or any of the individual species. I’m not saying such impacts are non-existant or unimportant, just thisn’t good evidence.
Their model effectively assumes mynahs are the only bird species which can impact other bird species. This is a huge limitation.
For example the model effectively assumes the tripling of cockatoo density over the period has had no impact on other species even though cockatoo density is similar to mynah density and cockatoo biomass is significantly larger than mynah biomass.
The model does show a consistent negative impact on small birds. While this decline may correlate with mynah introduction, causation is a very different matter. Its easy to posit factors not included in their model, for example Noisy Miner density.
They also find consistent positive impacts on large birds (incidentally their categories overlap in body weight) – and again causation is hard to accept.
Interestingly Common Myna density is not used in the model, instead they use years since arrival – which of course steadily increases through the period. Canberra mynah density peaked just over a decade ago and has generally declined since in the last decade. Noisy Miner density is omitted from the paper entirely but I gather there has been a large increase over the last 15 years.
I’m betting the variable they use as a proxy for Common Myna impact will correlate better with Noisy Miner density than it does with Common Myna density. In other words if I’m right you could take the paper and cross out Common Myna and write in Noisy Miner. Given Noisy Miner impact has a high profile its a puzzle how the referees didn’t insist this was addressed.
Incidentally its easy to over-interpret models. For example, as I read their outputs, Grey Fantails & King-parrots benefit from increases in “modified-urban grassland” but Starling don’t benefit – maybe I’m missing something about veg categories but none of the 3 effects seems plausible.
Its also easy to critcise models – all models are wrong some are useful, but unfortunately this is not one of them.
Andrew ===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) to: birding-aus-request@vicnet.net.au
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
