Thanks Night Parrot for giving us a link to this article. I agree with most of the findings, but I still think loss of native habitat and not enough revegetation has the largest , devastating impact on all our native animals. I see this every day just around my area. Cutting, slashing , burning, and no planting. I don't have any mynas, although just 3 Km down the road in town, there are hundreds.
Yes interesting, but the media release that came out on this (that places like Nat Geo have picked up) is actually a little different to the findings of the actual paper (i have a copy of the paper if anyone wants to read it - just email me). I am actually a bit annoyed that it hasn't accurately represented the findings but has instead perpetuated the 'mynas are the cause of our biodiversity problems' myth. There is an interesting article here from the PhD student who did the research.
I agree M-L - this hasn't considered habitat change and also was based on Canberra - a location with a very different ecology to coastal Australia.
Yes, that's an interesting finding. Having just skimmed the paper about it, it would seem that they negatively affect some cavity nesting birds and small birds, but the real question is whether the impact is as a result of us creating habitat that suits them, rather than blaming the birds.
Much the same situation occurs with the native Noisy Miner, and it's abundance (e.g. it makes up apparently about 25% of all birds in the Brisbane metro area), as with most urban birds, is due to us providing a habitat that suits them - large trees, flowering shrubs, open parkland spaces, and a lack of undergrowth.
If we really want to impact this, we need to look at the spaces we are creating, not blame the birds for moving in.
I guess my biggest issue is that the release is claiming that the myna is causing the decline - but the study didn't measure that, it just looked at the trends in population growth for the mynas against other species - with the type of research that was done they cannot conclude that the mynas were CAUSING the decline (or slow down in growth) - but that there was an association between the mynas and other species.
I did similar research in Sydney some years ago that found that Noisy Miners were negatively associated with 7 small bird species. So gardens with Noisy Miners were less likely to have any of those birds in them. I couldn't say that the NM's were causing the decline. Interestingly, gardens with Common Mynas were more likely to have willie wagtails and superb fairy-wrens! (all species that feed in open space). Research in Victorian woodlands were able to say that Noisy Miners were impacting on other birds - they did surveys, removed the noisy miners and surveyed again - they found that when the noisy miners were removed, all the small birds came back.
When I lived in Emerald I saw Indian Mynas evict Crimson Rosellas from the only hollow on the property and vigorously defend it from galahs, that is good enough evidence for me that native birds are effected by the presence of the IMs as at least two species were effected in only that one situation.
However, it depends on the size of the sampling, the period of the research (the Nat. Geo. supposedly covered 29 years) and what the research is trying to achieve as to what conclusions can be drawn. I would be interested in reading that paper Holly - I'll pm you.
ETA: I agree that loss of habitat is a significant factor here however when I was at uni eons ago I remember there was some evidence that the greatest impact introduced birds would have was when they were able to extend their range beyond the boundaries of urban human habitations into the bush and Indian Myna was said to be capable of doing that.
Alison
~~~~~~
"the earth is not only for humans, but for all animals and living things."
When I lived in Emerald I saw Indian Mynas evict Crimson Rosellas from the only hollow on the property and vigorously defend it from galahs, that is good enough evidence for me that native birds are effected by the presence of the IMs as at least two species were effected in only that one situation.
However, it depends on the size of the sampling, the period of the research (the Nat. Geo. supposedly covered 29 years) and what the research is trying to achieve as to what conclusions can be drawn. I would be interested in reading that paper Holly - I'll pm you.
ETA: I agree that loss of habitat is a significant factor here however when I was at uni eons ago I remember there was some evidence that the greatest impact introduced birds would have was when they were able to extend their range beyond the boundaries of urban human habitations into the bush and Indian Myna was said to be capable of doing that.
Yep undoubtedly they do interact with other species negatively (by evicting hollow nesters in particular) - people do see them doing and there is no argument from me as to that happening. They are certainly not the only species to do that. In Canberra they have been recorded in remnant habitat where they occupy hollows. Along the east coast that doesn't seem to be the case. They basically stick to urban/suburban and don't go into larger remnants. I know a phd student who has monitored every bushland patch in Sydney for hollow nesters. Mynas occupied 1 hollow.
The biggest issue I have is that the answer that is promoted is simply to eradicate them and the other birds will come back - but if the habitat that other birds need is not there for them to come back to - then we are only fixing half the problem.
When I lived in Emerald I saw Indian Mynas evict Crimson Rosellas from the only hollow on the property and vigorously defend it from galahs, that is good enough evidence for me that native birds are effected by the presence of the IMs as at least two species were effected in only that one situation.
What Alison has noticed, proves exactly what I said. The key here is: "the only hollow on the property", if there is not enough choice of breeding spaces available,( just like humans will have to in future, if we don't look after the environment), fights have to be faught over the few hollows that are left. If the destruction of habitat will outweigh the revegetation, we will all have to pay the consequences one day soon.
Yes the fight for the few hollows that are left. Just recently I saw some parrots checking out a tree in advance of the nesting season and the site they were inspecting was just a small indent in the wood resulting from a broken branch. It was clearly unsuitable for their purposes and I thought it very sad that they were so desperate as to even consider it a potential nest site. At the rate old trees are vanishing in the suburbs and countryside, it seems nest boxes are our only alternative to waiting a number of decades until the trees we plant now are suitable for nesting. The provision of nest boxes should be an automatic consideration in any plans for a new tree planting program. Councils, associations and local groups could help here.
Thanks, Tim. Holly had sent it to me before I saw your post.
Holly wrote:
The biggest issue I have is that the answer that is promoted is simply to eradicate them and the other birds will come back - but if the habitat that other birds need is not there for them to come back to - then we are only fixing half the problem.
That is true, however, if they are gone then there is one less species competing for what habitat does remain which I think is a good thing. Honestly, I don't like the thought of killing anything but sometimes hard decisions need to be made for the good of the still existing population of native animals before it is too late. There are a lot really good people striving to make a difference but they can't do it by themselves and the lack of interest (or active thwarting of those activities) by a large portion of society is very sad and disheartening.
Alison
~~~~~~
"the earth is not only for humans, but for all animals and living things."
By all means, rid Australia of mynas. But, as Holly & Araminta indicate, at the same time protect & restore natural environments if we really want to make a difference to native bird populations.
Did you know that the word ‘mynah’ has been derived from the word ‘madana’, which draws its inspiration from the English word ‘bubbles’, indicating happiness? Thus, the word ‘mynah’ means ‘brimming with happiness or joy’.Wow!Nice name.
Be aware that the above links lead (including the Sanskrit one) to pet sites which could be spamming sites - I'm not game to find out!
The myna bird does not include the "h" in its spelling and in fact from wikipedea "In Sanskrit literature, the Common Myna has a number of names, most are descriptive of the appearance or behaviour of the bird. In addition to saarika, the names for the Common Myna include kalahapriya, which means "one who is fond of arguments" referring to the quarrelsome nature of this bird; chitranetra, meaning "picturesque eyes"; peetanetra (one with yellow eyes) and peetapaad (one with yellow legs)."
Alison
~~~~~~
"the earth is not only for humans, but for all animals and living things."
I have grave concerns about the regrowth in my area. After the recent large bush fires, Councils and DSE have taken to "slash and burn", I drive past those once treed areas around Gembrook, some of them get the "let's scrape everything that grows around trees" treatment. Can't they see the devastating consequences this will have on the bush??? It makes me cry to see this, there are NO young trees given a chance to grow and replace the old ones. When you stop and listen, you notice the quiet, no animals, no birds. Sad, sad, sad....
I have grave concerns about the regrowth in my area. After the recent large bush fires, Councils and DSE have taken to "slash and burn", I drive past those once treed areas around Gembrook, some of them get the "let's scrape everything that grows around trees" treatment. Can't they see the devastating consequences this will have on the bush??? It makes me cry to see this, there are NO young trees given a chance to grow and replace the old ones. When you stop and listen, you notice the silence, no animals, no birds. Sad, sad, sad....
, and it keeps 3 council workers in work, two to hold the Stop & Slow signs, and one to drive the dozer. And then 5 DSE guys have to come and do a " burn off", and 10 guys from the CFA to put the fire out, because those things get out of control .
Araminta, one of the problems created in removing regrowth is that increased light reaches the ground which aids the growth of annual weeds which are a prime factor in bushfires! Yet again we have an example of a society which loves the beauty & serenity of the bush for its beauty & but then destroys it to reduce the risk of bush fires. After over 200 years of settlement we still think we're living in Europe. The logical extension of this vandalism is to concrete the bushland. I suggest you buy a parcel of shares in Boral, Araminta. The indications are you'll make a killing.
‘‘Apart from one or two people, this bird is detested by everybody in the community because of what they perceive as its social nuisance: its raucous calls, its dirty habits..."
I do hope this doesn't mean that any native bird which people don't like because of "raucous calls" & "dirty habits" will be lined up for eradication. When I lived in Adelaide my Anglophilic neighbour detested the red wattle birds attracted to my garden because of their "raucous calls" & would gladly have rid the neighbourhood of this species.
Also, I wonder if the pollution Homo sapiens has foisted on Earth might mean our own "dirty habits" have us ear-marked for extermination too.
Thanks Night Parrot for giving us a link to this article. I agree with most of the findings, but I still think loss of native habitat and not enough revegetation has the largest , devastating impact on all our native animals. I see this every day just around my area. Cutting, slashing , burning, and no planting. I don't have any mynas, although just 3 Km down the road in town, there are hundreds.
M-L
Yes interesting, but the media release that came out on this (that places like Nat Geo have picked up) is actually a little different to the findings of the actual paper (i have a copy of the paper if anyone wants to read it - just email me). I am actually a bit annoyed that it hasn't accurately represented the findings but has instead perpetuated the 'mynas are the cause of our biodiversity problems' myth. There is an interesting article here from the PhD student who did the research.
I agree M-L - this hasn't considered habitat change and also was based on Canberra - a location with a very different ecology to coastal Australia.
Yes, that's an interesting finding. Having just skimmed the paper about it, it would seem that they negatively affect some cavity nesting birds and small birds, but the real question is whether the impact is as a result of us creating habitat that suits them, rather than blaming the birds.
Much the same situation occurs with the native Noisy Miner, and it's abundance (e.g. it makes up apparently about 25% of all birds in the Brisbane metro area), as with most urban birds, is due to us providing a habitat that suits them - large trees, flowering shrubs, open parkland spaces, and a lack of undergrowth.
If we really want to impact this, we need to look at the spaces we are creating, not blame the birds for moving in.
Cheers
Tim
Brisbane
I guess my biggest issue is that the release is claiming that the myna is causing the decline - but the study didn't measure that, it just looked at the trends in population growth for the mynas against other species - with the type of research that was done they cannot conclude that the mynas were CAUSING the decline (or slow down in growth) - but that there was an association between the mynas and other species.
I did similar research in Sydney some years ago that found that Noisy Miners were negatively associated with 7 small bird species. So gardens with Noisy Miners were less likely to have any of those birds in them. I couldn't say that the NM's were causing the decline. Interestingly, gardens with Common Mynas were more likely to have willie wagtails and superb fairy-wrens! (all species that feed in open space). Research in Victorian woodlands were able to say that Noisy Miners were impacting on other birds - they did surveys, removed the noisy miners and surveyed again - they found that when the noisy miners were removed, all the small birds came back.
When I lived in Emerald I saw Indian Mynas evict Crimson Rosellas from the only hollow on the property and vigorously defend it from galahs, that is good enough evidence for me that native birds are effected by the presence of the IMs as at least two species were effected in only that one situation.
However, it depends on the size of the sampling, the period of the research (the Nat. Geo. supposedly covered 29 years) and what the research is trying to achieve as to what conclusions can be drawn. I would be interested in reading that paper Holly - I'll pm you.
ETA: I agree that loss of habitat is a significant factor here however when I was at uni eons ago I remember there was some evidence that the greatest impact introduced birds would have was when they were able to extend their range beyond the boundaries of urban human habitations into the bush and Indian Myna was said to be capable of doing that.
Alison
~~~~~~
"the earth is not only for humans, but for all animals and living things."
The paper is freely available online, Alison, if that's easier.
At http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0040622?imageURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0040622.t001
Cheers
Tim
Brisbane
Oh thanks Tim - I had it emailed to me so didn't realise it was available online.
Yep undoubtedly they do interact with other species negatively (by evicting hollow nesters in particular) - people do see them doing and there is no argument from me as to that happening. They are certainly not the only species to do that. In Canberra they have been recorded in remnant habitat where they occupy hollows. Along the east coast that doesn't seem to be the case. They basically stick to urban/suburban and don't go into larger remnants. I know a phd student who has monitored every bushland patch in Sydney for hollow nesters. Mynas occupied 1 hollow.
The biggest issue I have is that the answer that is promoted is simply to eradicate them and the other birds will come back - but if the habitat that other birds need is not there for them to come back to - then we are only fixing half the problem.
What Alison has noticed, proves exactly what I said. The key here is: "the only hollow on the property", if there is not enough choice of breeding spaces available,( just like humans will have to in future, if we don't look after the environment), fights have to be faught over the few hollows that are left. If the destruction of habitat will outweigh the revegetation, we will all have to pay the consequences one day soon.
M-L
Yes the fight for the few hollows that are left. Just recently I saw some parrots checking out a tree in advance of the nesting season and the site they were inspecting was just a small indent in the wood resulting from a broken branch. It was clearly unsuitable for their purposes and I thought it very sad that they were so desperate as to even consider it a potential nest site. At the rate old trees are vanishing in the suburbs and countryside, it seems nest boxes are our only alternative to waiting a number of decades until the trees we plant now are suitable for nesting. The provision of nest boxes should be an automatic consideration in any plans for a new tree planting program. Councils, associations and local groups could help here.
Thanks, Tim.
Holly had sent it to me before I saw your post.
That is true, however, if they are gone then there is one less species competing for what habitat does remain which I think is a good thing. Honestly, I don't like the thought of killing anything but sometimes hard decisions need to be made for the good of the still existing population of native animals before it is too late. There are a lot really good people striving to make a difference but they can't do it by themselves and the lack of interest (or active thwarting of those activities) by a large portion of society is very sad and disheartening.
Alison
~~~~~~
"the earth is not only for humans, but for all animals and living things."
By all means, rid Australia of mynas. But, as Holly & Araminta indicate, at the same time protect & restore natural environments if we really want to make a difference to native bird populations.
Hello Guys,
Did you know that the word ‘mynah’ has been derived from the word ‘madana’, which draws its inspiration from the English word ‘bubbles’, indicating happiness? Thus, the word ‘mynah’ means ‘brimming with happiness or joy’.Wow!Nice name.
edit to remove links
Be aware that the above links lead (including the Sanskrit one) to pet sites which could be spamming sites - I'm not game to find out!
The myna bird does not include the "h" in its spelling and in fact from wikipedea "In Sanskrit literature, the Common Myna has a number of names, most are descriptive of the appearance or behaviour of the bird. In addition to saarika, the names for the Common Myna include kalahapriya, which means "one who is fond of arguments" referring to the quarrelsome nature of this bird; chitranetra, meaning "picturesque eyes"; peetanetra (one with yellow eyes) and peetapaad (one with yellow legs)."
Alison
~~~~~~
"the earth is not only for humans, but for all animals and living things."
Thanks for your views.
Sophia I have already removed advertising links from your posts previously. If you post advertising again I will be banning you from the site.
this is one of the reasons i am very greatful that the only noticable introduced birds i have around my area Rainbow Lorikeets and Feral Pidgeons
I have grave concerns about the regrowth in my area. After the recent large bush fires, Councils and DSE have taken to "slash and burn", I drive past those once treed areas around Gembrook, some of them get the "let's scrape everything that grows around trees" treatment. Can't they see the devastating consequences this will have on the bush??? It makes me cry to see this, there are NO young trees given a chance to grow and replace the old ones. When you stop and listen, you notice the quiet, no animals, no birds. Sad, sad, sad....
M-L
I have grave concerns about the regrowth in my area. After the recent large bush fires, Councils and DSE have taken to "slash and burn", I drive past those once treed areas around Gembrook, some of them get the "let's scrape everything that grows around trees" treatment. Can't they see the devastating consequences this will have on the bush??? It makes me cry to see this, there are NO young trees given a chance to grow and replace the old ones. When you stop and listen, you notice the silence, no animals, no birds. Sad, sad, sad....
M-L
But no doubt you can now better hear the traffic and the noise of progress Araminta.
M-L
Araminta, one of the problems created in removing regrowth is that increased light reaches the ground which aids the growth of annual weeds which are a prime factor in bushfires! Yet again we have an example of a society which loves the beauty & serenity of the bush for its beauty & but then destroys it to reduce the risk of bush fires. After over 200 years of settlement we still think we're living in Europe. The logical extension of this vandalism is to concrete the bushland. I suggest you buy a parcel of shares in Boral, Araminta. The indications are you'll make a killing.
Join the club Woko, you are almost as cynical as I am. I find it very hard to detect the last bit of intelligence in people at times.
M-L
Never cynical, Araminta. Always realistic. A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist - Sir Humphree Applebee.
‘‘Apart from one or two people, this bird is detested by everybody in the community because of what they perceive as its social nuisance: its raucous calls, its dirty habits..."
I do hope this doesn't mean that any native bird which people don't like because of "raucous calls" & "dirty habits" will be lined up for eradication. When I lived in Adelaide my Anglophilic neighbour detested the red wattle birds attracted to my garden because of their "raucous calls" & would gladly have rid the neighbourhood of this species.
Also, I wonder if the pollution Homo sapiens has foisted on Earth might mean our own "dirty habits" have us ear-marked for extermination too.
Ah, the strange thoughts I have!