Impacts of bushfire on the Glossy Black-Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami and its single food source in eastern Victoria.

Abstract

The Glossy Black-Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami eats only unripened seeds extracted from green cones of Allocasuarina and Casuarina trees. This specialised feeding habit results in Glossy Black-Cockatoos leaving unique evidence of having fed in a tree (i.e. feeding sign). The frequency of feeding sign beneath Black Sheoak Allocasuarina littoralis trees in East Gippsland, Victoria, was used as an index of the presence of Glossy Black-Cockatoos before and after intense and widespread bushfires during the summer of 2019-2020. Species distribution models for the cockatoo and its major food tree in the region were used to define 175 survey points in forested parts of East Gippsland. Survey points were visited in mid 2019, to score the presence or absence of Black Sheoak and Glossy Black-Cockatoo feeding sign. Following the 2019-2020 bushfires, all sites where Black Sheoak was present pre-fire were revisited twice within the following 28 months to search for feeding sign and score the extent of regeneration of Black Sheoak. Across all sites, the frequency of sites with feeding sign effectively halved between the pre-fire survey and first post-fire survey, then halved again between the first and second post-fire surveys, an overall decline of 76%. After 25-28 months, regeneration of Black Sheoak, in the form of either basal sprouting of established trees or seed germination, was observed at 80.6% of burnt sites, with a tendency for highest rates of regeneration at lower-fire-severity sites and for suckering to be more common than seedlings at higher-fire-severity sites. These results highlight the vulnerability of the Glossy Black-Cockatoo to reductions in the availability of its specialised food. The greatest threat to food security stems from increased frequency and intensity of fire, as predicted for the region by climate change models.

Full text

Australian Field Ornithology 2024, 41, 48–55
http://dx.doi.org/10.20938/afo41048055
Impacts of bushre on the Glossy Black-Cockatoo
Calyptorhynchus lathami and its single food source in eastern
Victoria
Peter Menkhorst1, 2* , Martin Schulz3 and Kasey Stamation1
1Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action, P.O. Box 137,
Heidelberg VIC 3084, Australia
2Department of Ecology and Genetics, La Trobe University, Bundoora VIC 3083, Australia
32–8 Buttenshaw Drive, Coledale NSW 2515, Australia
*Corresponding author. Email: menkhorstp@gmail.com
Abstract. The Glossy Black-Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami eats only unripened seeds extracted from green cones of
Allocasuarina and Casuarina trees. This specialised feeding habit results in Glossy Black-Cockatoos leaving unique evidence
of having fed in a tree (i.e. feeding sign). The frequency of feeding sign beneath Black Sheoak Allocasuarina littoralis trees
in East Gippsland, Victoria, was used as an index of the presence of Glossy Black-Cockatoos before and after intense and
widespread bushres during the summer of 2019–2020. Species distribution models for the cockatoo and its major food tree in
the region were used to dene 175 survey points in forested parts of East Gippsland. Survey points were visited in mid 2019, to
score the presence or absence of Black Sheoak and Glossy Black-Cockatoo feeding sign. Following the 2019–2020 bushres,
all sites where Black Sheoak was present pre-re were revisited twice within the following 28 months to search for feeding sign
and score the extent of regeneration of Black Sheoak. Across all sites, the frequency of sites with feeding sign e󰀨ectively halved
between the pre-re survey and rst post-re survey, then halved again between the rst and second post-re surveys, an
overall decline of 76%. After 25–28 months, regeneration of Black Sheoak, in the form of either basal sprouting of established
trees or seed germination, was observed at 80.6% of burnt sites, with a tendency for highest rates of regeneration at lower-
re-severity sites and for suckering to be more common than seedlings at higher-re-severity sites. These results highlight the
vulnerability of the Glossy Black-Cockatoo to reductions in the availability of its specialised food. The greatest threat to food
security stems from increased frequency and intensity of re, as predicted for the region by climate change models.
Introduction
The Glossy Black-Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami has
an extremely restricted diet — unripened seeds extracted
from the closed, ‘green’ cones of small trees belonging
to the genus Allocasuarina (Family Casuarinaceae), with
only very occasional reports of feeding on the closely
related genus Casuarina (Chapman 2007; North et al.
2020). The species of Allocasuarina utilised by the Glossy
Black-Cockatoo vary geographically but usually one or two
species are preferred in any given area (Chapman 2007).
In Victoria, records of the Glossy Black-Cockatoo are
concentrated in East Gippsland, along the coast and in the
foothills and valleys, mostly east of Lake Tyers (Emison et
al. 1987). There, and in adjacent parts of New South Wales,
this species overwhelmingly prefers the seeds of the Black
Sheoak A. littoralis (Clout 1989; Forshaw & Cooper 2016;
PM, MS & KS pers obs.). Generally, Black Sheoak grows
on sites with low soil-nutrient status, including on near-
coastal sands or heavy clay soils, or among rocks (Walsh
& Entwisle 1996). It occurs in scattered small stands as
a subcanopy tree up to 10 m tall, among mixed eucalypt
forest. In East Gippsland, the only other widespread
Allocasuarina species is Scrub Sheoak A. paludosa, a
shrub that grows in heathlands (Walsh & Entwisle 1996).
There are no records of Glossy Black-Cockatoos feeding
on seeds of Scrub Sheoak. However, three individuals
were observed feeding on the closely related Green
Sheoak A. paradoxa in the south-eastern suburbs of
Melbourne from mid May 2020 until late July 2020, and two
birds were still being reported at the time of writing in June
2023. These are the rst Victorian records of the Glossy
Black-Cockatoo outside East Gippsland or north-eastern
Victoria for about a century. These individuals are likely to
have been displaced by the 2019–2020 bushres.
Glossy Black-Cockatoos extract seeds from Allocasuarina
cones using the massive bill, which is highly adapted for
this task (Forshaw & Cooper 2002) (Figure 1). The cone
is snipped from the tree using the bill and transferred to
one foot (almost always the left: Magrath 1994). Seed
extraction involves rotating the cone in an anti-clockwise
direction against the broad, curved blade formed by the
distal end of the lower mandible, slicing through the woody
cone allowing the seeds to be progressively extracted
using the nely pointed upper mandible in concert with
the eshy tongue (Figure 1). This process results in the
woody remnants of the cone being discarded, so that trees
in which Glossy Black-Cockatoos have been feeding can
be identied by the presence of cone fragments (hereafter
called feeding sign) on the ground beneath (Figure 2). No
other animal species is known to leave this feeding sign in
south-eastern Australia (Clout 1989; Lenz 2004a; North et
al. 2020; PM, MS & KS pers. obs.).
Given the highly specialised diet, which is also patchily
distributed in time and space, population density of the
Glossy Black-Cockatoo is typically very low, making them
di󰀩cult to monitor by traditional methods involving sighting
or hearing birds. Therefore, scoring presence or absence
of the unique feeding sign is considered a more e󰀩cient
means of monitoring presence of the species (Clout 1989;
this paper).
Reliance on the tiny seeds (Figure 3) of a single, patchily
distributed, small tree species represents an unparalleled
level of dietary specialisation among Australian birds
(Chapman 2007; North et al. 2020). Glossy Black-

Impacts of bushre on Glossy Black-Cockatoo, East Gippsland, Victoria 49
Cockatoos are also selective in their choice of individual
feed trees, with tree selection being driven by nutritional
protability and tree size (Chapman & Paton 2006; North et
al. 2020). Further, because the Black Sheoak is dioecious
(having separate male and female trees: Walsh & Entwisle
1996), roughly half the population of Black Sheoak trees
produce no food for the cockatoo.
The woody cones of Allocasuarina species mature over
a period of 6–9 months and remain palatable for Glossy
Black-Cockatoos for about a year (Cameron & Cunningham
2006). Thus, food is available for the cockatoos year-round,
although large home ranges are needed to provide enough
individual trees with green cones to guarantee supply. For
example, Lenz (2004b) estimated that a single Glossy
Black-Cockatoo requires 83–122 cones per day, equating
to 60,000–89,000 cones of the necessary age and dietary
quality per year for a pair of birds.
Drying and opening of the cones of Black Sheoaks,
and hence shedding of the seeds, is induced by hot, dry
conditions and by re. This process renders the seeds
inaccessible to the cockatoo, which has never been
reported to feed from the ground (Higgins 1999; Forshaw
& Cooper 2016). Some seeds are shed in late summer, but
many cones remain closed throughout the summer, unless
there is a re (Clout 1989). Fire removes the food of the
Glossy Black-Cockatoo by two processes: hot res burn
the cones and seeds, and cooler res cause mature cones
to open and shed their seeds.
In mid 2019, we commenced a study of the distribution
and feeding preferences of the Glossy Black-Cockatoo
in East Gippsland. The primary aim of this initial study
was to investigate the occupancy rate of feeding Glossy
Black-Cockatoos in Black Sheoak stands in the survey
area, as indicated by the presence of chewed cone ends.
In December 2019 and January 2020, intense bushres
burned 64% of the Glossy Black-Cockatoo’s modelled
habitat in Victoria, with 26% of that modelled habitat being
a󰀨ected by high-severity re (Anon. 2020). This created
an opportunity to investigate the impacts of the res on
the cockatoo. Two extra aims were added for the post-
re component: (1) to assess survivorship of the Black
Sheoak stands, and the availability of cones, following the
2019–2020 bushres; and (2) compare site occupancy
rates before and after the res in both burnt and unburnt
forest.
Figure 1. Glossy Black-Cockatoo extracting seeds from
an unripened cone of Green Sheoak, Frankston North,
Victoria, 23 June 2020. Photo: Peter Menkhorst
Figure 3. Seeds of Black Sheoak. The kernel (the nutritious
part) is contained within the black section; the pale section
is a membrane to promote wind dispersal. Photo: Peter
Menkhorst
Figure 2. Litter beneath a Black Sheoak tree in which a
Glossy Black-Cockatoo had recently fed. Naturally fallen
old cones (grey) that had shed their seed are intermixed
with the chewed remains (honey-coloured) of previously
unopened cones discarded by the cockatoo. Photo: Peter
Menkhorst

50 Australian Field Ornithology P. Menkhorst et al.
Methods
Selection of sample sites
Habitat distribution models for the Glossy Black-Cockatoo
and for Black Sheoak were prepared by colleagues at the
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research (part
of the Victorian Government’s Department of Energy,
Environment and Climate Action; see Lui et al. 2011 for
details of the modelling procedure). Within the modelled
area, 175 survey sites were allocated using a stratied
random sampling procedure based on (1) probability of
occurrence of both species and (2) selection of sites within
practical walking distance (~500 m) of a vehicle track, with
at least 300 m between sites.
Collection of data at sample sites
During May and November 2019, a hand-held GPS unit
was used to navigate to as many of the survey sites as
possible. Altogether, 174 stratied random sites were
sampled, and 112 of those had Black Sheoak present
(dened as at least one Black Sheoak stem within 50 m
of the GPS point). At those 112 sites where Black Sheoak
was present, a 30 x 30-m quadrat was centred on the
Black Sheoak tree nearest to the GPS point. Within each
quadrat the following data were collected:
1. The size class of each Black Sheoak stem, based on
diameter at breast height (dbh). Size classes were
2–5, 6–15, 16–50 and >50 cm.
2. The number of fresh honey-coloured cones (as distinct
from weathered grey cones) on each tree that carried
fully formed cones, scored using three categories:
0, 1–200, and >200.
3. The number of honey-coloured, chewed cone ends
(Figure 2) on the ground beneath each tree that had
fully formed cones, scored using four categories:
0, 1–20, 21–100, >100.
4. The number, sex and age class (adult, juvenile) of any
Glossy Black-Cockatoos present, along with any other
observations on the natural history of the cockatoos.
After the extensive 2019–2020 bushres in East
Gippsland, the 112 sites that had Black Sheoak present
pre-re were revisited to collect comparable data to assess
the impacts of the bushres on the frequency of Glossy
Black-Cockatoo feeding sign and on Black Sheoak survival
and cone availability. The locations of the 112 survey sites
relative to re intensity are shown in Figures 4–6 (for details
of the re intensity mapping and links to the data layers
see Anon. 2020, p. 5). Sample sites in unburnt forest to
the west of Orbost were resampled in March 2020, and
sites in burnt forest were resampled in June 2020. Many
tracks were closed or impassable to vehicles because
of fallen trees or burnt bridges, necessitating extensive
hiking on tracks and cross-country. Data collected during
the rst revisit, 2–7 months post-re, are hereafter called
‘short post-re’ samples. The sites were again visited in
March, May or June 2022, 25–28 months post-re, and the
same data were recorded – hereafter called ‘long post-re’
samples.
Figure 4. Location of survey sites in East Gippsland, Victoria, pre-res (visited in May and November 2019). Black
dots = chewed cones present beneath at least one Black Sheoak tree; black crosses = Black Sheoak present but no feeding
sign found; green = crown land.

Impacts of bushre on Glossy Black-Cockatoo, East Gippsland, Victoria 51
During the short post-re visit, each site was given a
re severity score based on the degree of burning of the
above-ground parts of Black Sheoak trees in the quadrat
(Figures 7–8):
1. Unburnt – no evidence of recent re
2. Fire severity score 1 – lightly burnt, <70% of Black
Sheoak foliage scorched or burnt
3. Fire severity score 2 – moderately burnt, >70% of
Black Sheoak foliage scorched or burnt
4. Fire severity score 3 – severely burnt, above-ground
parts of most Black Sheoak trees burnt.
This paper considers only data relating to presence of
feeding sign pre- and post-re and presence of Black
Sheoak regeneration post-re, relative to re severity.
Figure 5. Location of survey sites in East Gippsland visited short post-re (March and June 2020) overlain with modelled
re severity based on Sentinel 2 satellite imagery (Anon. 2020, p. 5; pale yellow = unburnt; pale blue = no data because of
cloud cover or smoke haze; pale green = <80% canopy scorch; pale red = >80% canopy scorch; dark red = >80% canopy
removal). Pink dots and crosses represent unburnt sites; black dots and crosses represent burnt sites. Dots = chewed cones
present beneath at least one Black Sheoak tree, crosses = Black Sheoak present but no feeding sign found.
Figure 6. Location of survey sites in East Gippsland visited long post-re (March, May or June 2022) overlain with modelled
re severity based on Sentinel 2 satellite imagery (Anon. 2020, p. 5; pale yellow = unburnt; pale blue = no data because of
cloud cover or smoke haze; pale green = <80% canopy scorch; pale red = >80% canopy scorch; dark red = >80% canopy
removal). Pink dots and crosses represent unburnt sites; black dots and crosses represent burnt sites. Dots = chewed cones
present beneath at least one Black Sheoak tree, crosses = Black Sheoak present but no feeding sign found.

52 Australian Field Ornithology P. Menkhorst et al.
Results
Presence of feeding sign before and after
bushre
Table 1 presents the frequency of the presence of chewed
cone ends at the 112 sites that had Black Sheoak present
in the pre-re assessment, and had been assessed three
times: pre-re, short post-re and long post-re.
Pre-re, chewed cone ends were found at 42 of the
112 sites (37.5%). Short post-re and within the re
footprint, the frequency of chewed cone ends was 3 out of
62 sites (4.8%). Short post-re and outside the re footprint
(mostly south of the Princes Highway between Lake Tyers
and Orbost), the presence of chewed cone ends was six
times higher than at burnt sites but also slightly lower than
the pre-re condition (38% vs 44%). By long post-re, the
frequency of chewed cone ends at burnt sites remained
very low (4.8%) but in the unburnt area it had declined to
roughly one quarter of the pre-re rate and one third of the
short post-re rate (Table 1).
Across burnt sites, the frequency of positive sites
(chewed cone ends present) declined by 85% between
the pre-re and short post-re samples, with no change
between short and long post-re. In the unburnt sites, the
decline was 13.6% by short post-re with a further 63.2%
decline to long post-re and a 68.2% overall decline.
Across all sites, the frequency of positive sites e󰀨ectively
halved between the pre-re survey and the short post-re
survey, then halved again between the short and long post-
re surveys, an overall decline of 76.2% (Table 1). Note
that between the short post-re and long post-re visits,
10 of the 50 unburnt sites had been burnt during planned
fuel-reduction res. In the long post-re visits, none of the
10 fuel-reduced sites showed feeding sign whereas 7 of
the 40 (17.5%) unburnt sites that were not subsequently
treated to a fuel-reduction burn had feeding sign.
Presence of regenerating Black Sheoak
post-re
During the short post-re survey, no regeneration of Black
Sheoak was observed, although we were not specically
looking for it at that time. However, by the long post-re
survey, 80.6% of burnt sites showed some regeneration
(Figures 9–10) – either suckering from the base of burnt
stems (72.6%), or seedling germination (48.4%), or both.
At unburnt sites, suckering was found at 8% of sites
and seedlings at 24% of sites (n = 50). Figure 11 shows
the relationship between the presence of suckering and
Figure 7. A stand of Black Sheoak burnt by an intense
re in January 2020 and photographed in June 2020. The
green epicormic growth is on Eucalyptus trees intermixed
with the Black Sheoaks. Photo: Martin Schulz
Figure 8. Black Sheoak in a less intensively burnt site with
scorched foliage c. 4 months post-re. The impact of
foliage scorch on the future production of cones and seed
is unknown. Photo: Martin Schulz
Burn status in
2019–2020 bushresf
Time relative to the bushres % decline, pre-re to
long post-re
Pre-re (May or November
2019) and subsequently
burnt/unburnt
Short post-re (March or
June 2020)
Long post-re
(March, May or June
2022)
Burnt, n = 62 20 (32.3%) 3 (4.8%) 3 (4.8%) 85.0
Unburnt, n = 50 22 (44.0%) 19 (38.0%) 7 (14.0%)* 68.2
All sites, n = 112 42 (37.5%) 22 (19.6%) 10 (8.9%) 76.2
Table 1. Number and proportion of 112 quadrats that had evidence of feeding (chewed cone ends) by Glossy Black-
Cockatoos in 2019–2020 bushres in East Gippsland, relative to time since re and burn status. * Becomes 17.5% if the
10 sites that were subjected to a fuel-reduction burn between the short and long post-re visits are excluded.

Impacts of bushre on Glossy Black-Cockatoo, East Gippsland, Victoria 53
seedlings, and re severity. At unburnt sites, suckering
was rare, seedlings less so. During the long post-re visits
(25–28 months post-re), both forms of regeneration were
commonly found at burnt sites, with a tendency for highest
rates at lower-re-intensity sites and for suckering to be
more commonly present than seedlings at higher-re-
intensity sites.
Efcacy of feeding sign as a monitoring tool
The relative e󰀩cacy of searching for feeding sign, rather
than relying on sighting or hearing birds, is indicated by the
rate at which Glossy Black-Cockatoos were seen or heard
at the survey sites during our data collection visits – they
were seen at 2 out of 112 sites (0.18%) during each of
the three data collection phases (pre-re, short post-re,
long post-re). This represents a 200-fold improvement
in detection rate based on a comparison of pre-re data
(0.18:37.5).
Incidental sightings away from the survey sites were also
rare – during 54 days in the eld (dawn to dusk), Glossy
Black-Cockatoos were encountered away from the survey
sites on 13 occasions. Most sightings were of two or three
birds, either a pair or a pair with a juvenile. There were
six instances of aggregations of up to 11 birds at dusk at
water points, either puddles on a track or at a re dam in
the forest. The three incidental sightings during the long
post-re surveys were all of single birds, something not
observed pre-re.
Discussion
This study highlights the extreme dietary specialisation
of the Glossy Black-Cockatoo, leading to heightened
vulnerability to re, including from relatively low intensity
re. It is essential that areas with high densities of Black
Sheoak are identied, mapped and accorded extra
protection during planned res and, if possible, during
Figure 9. Black Sheoak resprouting from the base
c. 28 months post-re. Photo: Martin Schulz
Figure 10. Black Sheoak seedlings c. 28 months post-re.
Photo: Martin Schulz
Figure 11. Proportion of sites at which regeneration of Black Sheoak was observed during long post-
re (25–28 months) visits by re severity score as assigned in the eld. Unburnt = no evidence of
recent re; 1 = lightly burnt, <70% of Black Sheoak foliage scorched or burnt; 2 = moderately burnt,
>70% of Black Sheoak foliage scorched or burnt; 3 = severely burnt, above-ground parts of most
Black Sheoak trees burnt.
Proportion of sites
Fire serversity score
seedlingssuckers

54 Australian Field Ornithology P. Menkhorst et al.
bushres. Burning of unburnt stands of Black Sheoak in
the decade following extensive res, when food availability
for the Glossy Black-Cockatoo will be at its lowest, is highly
undesirable.
Population monitoring, potentially using the successful
strategy adopted in this study, will be needed to determine
post-re population recovery rates. The continuing
population decline detected in the 48,000-ha area of
unburnt forest is particularly alarming and monitoring is
required to track future population trends. Reasons for this
continuing decline in the unburnt habitat may relate to that
area being insu󰀩cient to support the remaining Glossy
Black-Cockatoos, including immigrants from burnt country,
in the longer term.
Based on the frequency of chewed cone ends at the
112 sample sites monitored pre- and post-re, we estimate
that the Victorian population of the Glossy Black-Cockatoo
declined by ~75% following the 2019–2020 bushres.
Given the species’ low breeding capacity — only a single
egg is laid per breeding attempt (Forshaw & Cooper 2016)
— it is likely to take many decades for the population to
recover. Future widespread bushres during this population
recovery period will likely result in further population decline.
Climate-change models predict higher mean temperatures
and lower cool-season rainfall in East Gippsland (Clarke et
al. 2019), conditions likely to promote increased bushre
frequency and intensity (Di Virgilio et al. 2019; Dowdy et al.
2019). Thus, re regimes are likely to be a key driver of the
abundance of Black Sheoak in the future, and therefore
will also be central to the capacity of the Glossy Black-
Cockatoo to survive. Hot re is thought to frequently kill
Black Sheoak (Clout 1989; Morrison & Renwick 2000)
although the results presented here suggest a higher
survivorship. The age at which a resprouting Black Sheoak
tree, or a seedling, will begin producing viable seeds has
been estimated at 5–20 years (Morrison & Renwick 2000).
Independently of the research reported here, PM observed
seedlings in an area burnt at medium intensity near Genoa
Peak, in East Gippsland, to be owering in October 2022,
32 months post-re (Figure 12), suggesting that limited
cone production is possible within 4–5 years under ideal
conditions [in this case, three successive years (2020,
2021, 2022) of high rainfall]. However, the level of seed
production in sapling Allocasuarina is unknown, as is the
capacity and willingness of Glossy Black-Cockatoos to
feed in saplings.
A further on-going threat to the Glossy Black-Cockatoo
is a likely continuing reduction in the availability of suitable
nest hollows in mature Eucalyptus trees (Cameron
2006). Major causes of loss of hollow-bearing trees in
the forests of East Gippsland include re (planned and
unplanned), management aimed at enhancing capacity for
re suppression, including construction of roads and fuel
breaks and removal of trees considered to be hazardous,
and timber harvesting (Garnett et al. 2003; Blu󰀨 2016), but
note that commercial timber harvesting has now ceased in
native forests on public land in Victoria.
The South-eastern Glossy Black-Cockatoo (subspecies
lathami, the subspecies occurring from south-eastern
Queensland to East Gippsland) was recently classied
as Vulnerable under the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (DCCEEW 2023),
following the assessment of Cameron et al. (2021). Our
results and their management implications, if more widely
applicable within the distribution of the taxon, suggest that
a classication of vulnerable may underestimate the risk of
extinction of the taxon following the 2019–2020 bushres.
Our results also suggest a far worse prognosis than
estimated by an expert elicitation process (which included
PM) that was conducted after the 2019–2020 bushres
(Figure 6b in Legge et al. 2022).
Acknowledgements
The pre-re component of this project was funded by the Victorian
Government’s Bushre Biodiversity Response and Recovery
program. The post-re component was funded through a grant
from the Australian Government’s Regional Bushre Recovery
for Multiregional Species and Strategic Projects Program. Tim
O’Brien and Jenny Nelson (Arthur Rylah Institute) arranged
Victorian Government funding for the pre-re component of this
study and Lindy Lumsden was instrumental in gaining the post-
re funding from the Australian Government. All three provided
much-needed administrative support. Matt White (Arthur Rylah
Institute) provided the habitat distribution models for both the
Glossy Black-Cockatoo and Black Sheoak. Karleah Berris, James
Fitzsimons, Lindy Lumsden and Josephine MacHunter kindly
provided insightful comments on earlier drafts.
References
Anon. (2020). Victoria’s Bushre Emergency: Biodiversity
Response and Recovery. Version 2. Department of
Environment, Land, Water & Planning, Melbourne. Available
online: https://www.wildlife.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_
le/0030/484743/Victorias-bushre-emergency-Biodiversity-
response-and-recovery-Version-2-1.pdf
Figure 12. Seedling Black Sheoak in a burnt area near
Genoa Peak owering in October 2022, 32 months post-
re. Photo: Peter Menkhorst

Impacts of bushre on Glossy Black-Cockatoo, East Gippsland, Victoria 55
Blu󰀨, L. (2016). Reducing the Eect of Planned Burns on Hollow-
bearing Trees. Department of Environment, Land, Water &
Planning, Melbourne. Available online: https://nla.gov.au/nla.
obj-302704776/view
Cameron, M. (2006). Nesting habitat of the Glossy Black-
Cockatoo in central New South Wales. Biological Conservation
127, 402–410.
Cameron, M. & Cunningham, R.B. (2006). Habitat selection at
multiple spatial scales by foraging Glossy Black-cockatoos.
Austral Ecology 31, 597–607.
Cameron, M., Castley, G., Teixeira, D., Menkhorst, P.W. &
Garnett, S.T. (2021). South-eastern Glossy Black-Cockatoo
Calyptorhynchus lathami lathami. In: Garnett, S.T. &
Baker, G.B. (Eds). The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2020,
pp. 395–398. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.
Chapman, T.F. (2007). Foods of the Glossy Black-Cockatoo
Calyptorhynchus lathami. Australian Field Ornithology 24,
30–36.
Chapman, T.F. & Paton, D.C. (2006). Aspects of Drooping
Sheoaks (Allocasuarina verticillata) that inuence Glossy Black-
Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami halmaturina) feeding on
Kangaroo Island. Emu 106, 163–168.
Clarke, J.M., Grose, M., Thatcher, M., Round, V. & Heady, C.
(2019). Gippsland Climate Projections 2019. CSIRO,
Melbourne. Available online: https://www.climatechange.
vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0035/429875/Gippsland-
Climate-Projections-2019_20200219.pdf
Clout, M.N. (1989). Foraging behaviour of Glossy Black-
Cockatoos. Australian Wildlife Research 16, 467–473.
DCCEEW (2023). Calyptorhynchus lathami lathami – South-
eastern Glossy Black-Cockatoo. Species Prole and Threats
Database. Department of Climate Change, Energy, the
Environment & Water, Canberra. Available online: http://
www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.
pl?taxon_id=67036
Di Virgilio, G., Evans, J.P., Blake, S.A., Armstrong, M., Dowdy, A.J.,
Sharples, J. & McRae, R. (2019). Climate change increases the
potential for extreme wildres. Geophysical Research Letters
46, 8517–8526.
Dowdy, A.J., Ye, H., Pepler, A., Thatcher, M., Osbrough, S.L.,
Evans, J.P., Di Virgilio, G. & McCarthy, N. (2019). Future
changes in extreme weather and pyroconvection risk factors
for Australian wildres. Scientic Reports 9, 10073.
Emison, W.B., Beardsell, C.M., Norman, F.I. & Loyn, R.H. (1987).
Atlas of Victorian Birds. Department of Conservation, Forests &
Lands and Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union, Melbourne.
Forshaw, J.M. & Cooper, W.T. (2002). Australian Parrots. 3rd edn.
Alexander Editions, Robina, Qld.
Forshaw, J.M. & Cooper, W.T. (2016). A Natural History of
Australian Parrots. Nokomis Editions, Buxton, Vic.
Garnett, S.T., Loyn, R.H. & Lowe, K.W. (2003). Loss of Hollow-
bearing Trees from Victorian Native Forests and Woodlands.
Flora and Fauna Guarantee Action Statement 192. Department
of Sustainability & Environment, Melbourne.
Higgins, P.J. (Ed.) (1999). Handbook of Australian, New Zealand
& Antarctic Birds, Volume 4: Parrots to Dollarbird. Oxford
University Press, Melbourne.
Legge, S., Woinarski, J.C.Z., Garnett, S.T., Geyle, H., Lintermans,
M., Nimmo, D.G., Rump󰀨, L., Scheele, B.C., Southwell, D.G.,
Ward, M., Whiterod, N.S., Ahyong, S.T., Blackmore, C.J.,
Bower, D.S., Brizuela-Torres, D., Burbidge, A.H., Burns, P.A.,
Butler, G., Catullo, R., Dickman, C.R., Doyle, K., Ensbey, M.,
Ehmke, G., Ferris, J., Fisher, D., Gallagher, R., Gillespie, G.R.,
Greenlees, M.J., Hayward-Brown, B., Hohnen, R., Hoskin,
C.J., Hunter, D., Jolly, C., Kennard, M., King, A., Kuchinke, D.,
Law, B., Lawler, I., Lawler, S., Loyn, R., Lunney, D., Lyon, J.,
MacHunter, J., Mahony, M., Mahony, S., McCormack, R.B.,
Melville, J., Menkhorst, P., Michael, D., Mitchell, N., Mulder,
E., Newell, D., Pearce, L., Raadik, T.A., Rowley, J., Sitters, H.,
Spencer, R., Valavi, R., Ward, M., West, M., Wilkinson, D.P. &
Zukowski, S. (2022). The conservation impacts of ecological
disturbance: Time-bound estimates of population loss and
recovery for fauna a󰀨ected by the 2019–2020 Australian
megares. Global Ecology and Biogeography 31, 2085–2104.
Lenz, M. (2004a). Glossy Black-Cockatoo food scraps – pickings
for Crimson Rosellas. Canberra Bird Notes 29 (4), 141–142.
Lenz, M. (2004b). A pair of Glossy Black-Cockatoos needs 60-89
thousand Allocasuarina cones per year. Canberra Bird Notes
29 (4), 139–141.
Lui, C., White, M. & Newell, G. (2011). Measuring and comparing
the accuracy of species distribution models with presence–
absence data. Ecography 34, 232–243.
Magrath, D.I. (1994). Footedness in the Glossy Black-Cockatoo:
Some observations and a review of the literature with a note on
the husking of Allocasuarina cones by this species. Corella 18
(1), 21–24.
Morrison, D.A. & Renwick, J.A. (2000). E󰀨ects of variation in re
intensity on regeneration of co-occurring species of small trees
in the Sydney region. Australian Journal of Botany 48, 71–79.
North, H.M., Lamont, R.W., Ogbourne, S.M. & Conroy, G.C.
(2020). Feeding protability is associated with Glossy Black-
cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami ssp. lathami) feed tree
selection. Emu – Austral Ornithology 120, 295–303.
Walsh, N.G. & Entwisle, T.J. (1996). Flora of Victoria, Volume 3:
Winteraceae to Myrtaceae. Inkata Press, Melbourne.
Received 27 October 2023, accepted 21 March 2024,
published online 30 April 2024